Elizabeth Warren Attacks Republican for Being Soft on Pot

Scenes from the drug war in Massachusetts.


Liberal darling Elizabeth Warren takes aim at a potential GOP senator:

And if you think both beer and cars should be legal, you're probably in favor of drunk driving.

At a St. Patrick's Day breakfast in South Boston this past weekend, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) took a jab at pro-legalization Republican State Representative Dan Winslow (R-Norfolk), who is currently vying for the Republican nomination for Senate in Massachusetts's upcoming special election.

Addressing the crowd, Senator Warren said, "I advise everyone to pay very close attention to Dan Winslow's platform. He has a 100 percent ranking from the gun lobby and he's for the legalization of marijuana. He wants us armed and stoned."

Let the record show that on Planet Warren, the only conceivable reason to support legal pot is to want everyone to get high.

Addendum: If you want to see Warren opposing legalization with a direct "no" rather than wrapping the sentiment in a St. Patrick's Day breakfast joke, go here.

NEXT: The $1 Million Dollar Bus Stop of Arlington, Virginia

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Here’s some shiny beads, no go smokum your peace pipe sqaw.

    1. Racist and sexist in the same sentence? Awesome.

      1. We does what’s we cans. We does what’s we cans.

        1. Would you say she’s trying to add Winslow’s scalp to her belt?

          1. Only when she hits the firewater

            1. Now you understand why she is so frightened of guns. Put a little firewater in her and she will be out shooting up the Capitol.

              1. Put a little firewater in her and she will be out shooting up the Capitol.

                I’d pitch in for a 1/5th for her.

    2. This is why there are no fake indian libertarians.

      1. Winner.

    3. Top Ten Elizabeth Warren Indian Names

      10. Little Pantsonfire

      9. Woman Who Loves Eater of Dogs

      8. Lie-a-watha

      7. Hoarder of Feathers Who Hates Feather Hoarders

      6. Sitting Bullshit

      5. Hunts at Whole Foods

      4. Running Joke

      3. Taxagawea

      2. Dances With Occupiers

      And the number one Elizabeth Warren Indian name:

      1. Fauxcahontas

      1. Sackashitwea

        1. Stands with Head up Ass

  2. She is amazingly vile, like a strawman come to life.

    1. She really is. Is there a single issue where her views are not completely vile? Even the worst liberals can often get issues like Pot or freedom of expression right sometimes. But Warren seems to always take the worst possible position on every issue.

      1. She’s a consummate statist – her ideal is a country full of people who obey in exchange for small economic transfers.

        Smoking pot, maintaining tools for personal defense, speaking out against government – these things are not the blind obedience people like her demand.

        1. They took the whole Cherokee Nation
          And put us on this reservation
          Took away our ways of life
          The tomahawk and the bow and knife

          The guns and dope too

            1. I knew that was coming! Beat me to it in fact.

      2. She’s pure TEAM BLUE; she says whatever she thinks will win a news cycle against TEAM RED. No principles, only principals.

        Vile, yes.

        1. She is 100% anti-freedom. Guns, healthcare, pot, you name it – she is against you having any freedom.

          1. And she also thinks you’re too goddamned stupid to understand how a mortgage works.

        2. I actually disagree with this. I don’t think she is a pure team player, I think she actually really believes this shit

          1. She’s a pure communitarian, and she knows what’s best for the community.


    2. You said it best. The aging Subaru Forrester covered in bumper stickers slowly backing into her parking space every morning.

      1. Endless this war!

        1. NPR Mind in a Fox News World

          1. Haven’t seen that one before. Road rage rising! And I’m not even in my car…

            1. It might even be more annoying than the COEXIST ones.

              1. Nothing is more annoying than the COEXIST one.

                Though I did see an honest-to-Zog “Airforce / Schools / Bakesale” (one of the originals!) just the other day and I laughed my ass off.

                1. The bake sale ones are so ridiculous and have been so ridiculed, he might have had it on there ironically. I can’t imagine seeing one and not laughing my ass off.

                2. What about the COEXIST one made entirely of firearm company logos?

              2. I had to do some deep breathing when I saw:

                “Capitalism will never fail because socialism will always be there to bail it out” –Ralph Nader

                1. It’s gonna be hard to top that one. I’m dumber just for having read it.

                2. It ought to read:

                  “Capitalism will never fail because socialism will always be there for comparison”

                3. sadly, it’s true in very much the way that nader himself perpetuates.

                  1. it’s true, though, with slight amendations:

                    (crony) capitalism will never fail because “socialists” will always be there to bail out the rich.

      2. I have a Forrester, and I love it. It gets around great in 6 inches of snow, has lots of room for people and gear, and still gets 25 mpg.

        ut is has a “green” reputation (encouraged by Subaru) that drives me nuts.

        1. I drive a Legacy for the AWD in New England winters. I always catch flak for the same reasons.

          1. Both myself and my wife drive Subarus. Love the AWD. Never caught any flak for it.

          2. Get the WRX and you won’t catch any flak

            1. I’d love to, but those are a bit harder on the wallet.

        2. There is nothing wrong with Subarus as cars. Their marketing however is vomit inducing.

          1. We bought a new Subaru in 2009, and Subaru started mailing us literature 6 to 8 times a year. They have done cool stuff at the production facility to reduce waste and pollution (good business practice that also is green, like Walmart putting APUs on refrigerator trucks). But their marketing is directly to flighty, wholesome, hispter, green, jackasses.

            1. Nothing says “green” like a bunch of unsolicited junk mail.

              1. Glossy, full-color, multi-page booklets. At least quarterly.

        3. Zero landfill factories and all that…

        4. what a bunch of women… get a truck!

          1. I have a truck, and a sports car, and a forrester. Different tools for different jobs. The forrester is for commuting 20 miles each way to work, year round, in any kind of weather.

          2. Not everyone needs to compensate for certain shortcomings.

        5. Subaru’s are great cars. But you will just have to live with the “birkenstock wearing granola girl stereotype” that comes with them. They are on-par with a Volvo station wagon.

        6. Austin is turning out to be the equivalent of Boulder….a cancer.

          Fuck t.u.

      3. Look. I will say only one thing, and I’m not nitpicking because I have a Subaru. She doesn’t back into the space.

        1. LOL. Why not? She looks like a backer to me, if for no other reason that it is the more annoying option and with Warren it is always the most annoying option.

          1. Because backing is often the intelligent and also more difficult option.

            1. I never got this. How is backing into a space the more intelligent option? It takes longer and it doesn’t do anything for you.

              1. You put the car away right, and it’s faster to get out later.

                1. I would wager it takes *less* time to back out of the space than to back into it.

                  1. Well, quick getaways matter more in some situations. Has there been a string of bank robberies in Chi-town?

                2. The time it takes to back in probably negates the time you save leaving.

                  1. I drive a Ford F150 4×4 and I can assure you, in many a parking lot, it is best for me to back in. It can be difficult seeing pedestrians while backing out than it is backing in.

                    True story.

                  2. But I’d rather waste time on the way into work than on the way out.

                3. I’ll often back in if I know there’s poor visibility in a parking lot. People get hit while backing out of their parking spaces at my work fairly frequently.

              2. Yeah, backing = intelligent might be one of the dumbest things I’ve seen.

                1. derpity derp

              3. You can cut a tighter corner going backwards. So in tight urban parking lots it is easier to park.

                I was on business trip to London many years ago, and we had a “mid-sized” sedan because there were four of us. None of us could figure out how to park the fucking car at the customer parking lot because it was so tight.

                One of the engineers we were there to meet just happened to walk by and helped us by parking the car in backward. He said it was the only way to get a car into a small space.

                1. You can cut a tighter corner going backwards. So in tight urban parking lots it is easier to park.

                  This. It’s a major factor for me. I park in a tight-ass, often icy, alley.

                  1. I would wager that you don’t need to back into 90% of the spaces you encounter on a daily basis.

                    1. No, I have to parallel park in 90% of them, and back into the rest 😉 Oh and parallel parking is also backing.

                      Cities, how do they work?

                2. “”You can cut a tighter corner going backwards.”


                  I get it though, you think one thing that’s wrong so you are stuck with the next wrong, but logical, step in the chain.

            2. I nearly always back into spaces, if I can’t just pull through.

              The Deanmobile (an FJ Cruiser) has terrible rear visibility, so its much safer to pull out than to back out. Near as I can tell, the net amount of time involved is the same either way: you’re always backing up at some point, and its easier to back into a space than to back into traffic.

              Naturally, YMMV.

              1. This is the other major argument for backing in. Backing out into traffic from a parking spot is riskier than backing into a parking space.

                1. Yeah. And I see Warren much more as someone who just blindly backs out into traffic.

                  1. It’s called ‘combat parking’ and it doesn’t take you any extra time when backing in, because the driver is parking the car after dropping you at the door, anyway.

                    But it allows you to leave a lot faster.

                    1. Combat parking?

                      Time to ban military-style assault parking. No one needs to park their car in a military fashion.

                      Parking tactics of war have no place on our city streets, in shopping malls, churches, schools, or other places.

                      It’s time for congress to act to protect all of our children and close the parking lot loophole. It’s time to act now to ban the parking method of gangsters, bank robbers, thieves, kidnappers, and other criminals.

          2. That’s it. She uses everyone else time in the morning to save herself a few seconds in the afternoon.

            1. You know better than me. But when I see Warren, I really think of the typical lefty Librarian.

              1. Who do you think I see backing into parking spaces every morning?

              2. When I think of librarians I think of Sexy ex-Librarian Maggie McNeil

        2. They come with the NPR stickers, right? I wonder if there is a rivalry between the NPR Prius and NPR Subaru wings.

    3. People actually voted for her. It’s like if Andy Kaufman and Salvador Dali got together to build the most surreally stupid political robot imaginable.

      1. I would probably vote for a Kaufman/Dali ticket. No need to smear their reputations by associating them with Warren.

        1. It wouldn’t be a smear if she were actually and literally a joke and not a real-life sitting senator actually voted into office on purpose by Americans.

          1. She really is a caricature of everything I hate about the Left. She looks and acts like an anti-fun, anti-freedom Nanny.

            1. She probably can name all of the freedoms she thinks people should be permitted to have on one hand, and even those freedoms are mere sub-sub-sets of larger freedoms.

              1. Freedom from Worry. Freedom from Responsibility. Freedom from Consequences.

                What more freedom could you want? You have the freedom to relax, comfortable in the knowledge that your betters with the government are looking out for you, solving your problems for you. You need never make a choice, you need never strive or struggle, you need never think. You are Free.

              2. She is one of those puritanical zealots. Like religious puritan who will only have sex for procreation, Warren will only allow you to have free speech so that you can praise the state. Any other use of freedom is a mortal sin.

          2. Technically massholes.

            1. True, but they are, in turn, technically U.S. citizens. It’s true, look it up.

              1. When I think about it, it occurs to me that the same voters who elected her were the same ones that kept Teddy Kennedy in office for forty-odd years and it all becomes clear.

    4. Who wins in a vile-wrong-off though?

      Her or Schumer? Schumer has much more of a track record to go on. She is going to have to put in at least a couple of more years of consistent evil wrongness before she is a serious contender. But she is off to a good start.

      1. There are always two, a student and a master.

  3. That sounds like a good platform.
    What’s her problem?

    1. too much personal freedom, not enough govt control. You knew that. Plus, Winslow is a Repub; therefore, he is evil regardless of his stance on anything.

    2. Her problem is that the Democrats aren’t hurting their own party enough with just the gun issue, so she has to add some anti-drug fuel to the fire.

    3. Smoking Pot and owning guns are something you do for your own personal enjoyment/protection, they have no societal value and in Warrens world we all exist to serve society.

      For lack of a better word she is essentially a Fascist

      That said at some point someone really needs to coin a new term for these modern progressives like Warren because technically Fascism requires a strong nationalist component which the progs lack.

      So what word would you use to describe a Fascist minus the nationalism?

      1. She’s a Regressive. She wants to pretend that the 20th century never happened, and take us back to the glory days when faith in government was unbounded, when we turned to the temperance movement and eugenics in the hope that our betters could build a better population and eliminate poverty and crime by the sheer force of their intentions.

    4. So, is Hollywood going to forsook drugs now? They put that mangy cur bitch in office they should have to pay some sort of price.

  4. Where’s the downside just to kicking Massachusetts the fuck out as an example to others like them?

    1. Somebody else might end up with the fucking Red Sox.

      1. Kicking Massachusetts out is going to necessitate some violence. I would start with shelling The Green Monster.

        1. Can I be the one to shoot that moronic mascot?

          1. John, Massachusetts is a TRE, so you can shoot whoever you want. There’s plenty for the rest of us.

          2. Your just jealous that the Yankees don’t have a mascot. Oh wait, yes they do…it’s Alex Rodriguez.

            1. Just be glad that your mascot isn’t obviously using steroids, unlike my team’s mascot.

              1. I don’t believe for a moment A-Rod is using steroids. No one on steroids could suck as badly as he has the last three years.

    2. You really can just shave off the bit that juts out along the coast and all would be well. Just line I95 with explosives and blow the coast out into the ocean. Go with I495 if you want a safer bet.

    3. Massachusetts is a large part of the reason we aren’t still a British colony. Apparently they’re treasonous fucks no matter what country they’re attached to. Kicking them out on their own would mean some peace and quiet for everyone for a change.

  5. She’s vying with Gil Kerlikowske to be the most evil, stupid person in the U.S. government.

  6. She must have done some Peyote to help her channel Teddy K.

  7. Between this and the $22 minimum wage, is there no part of authoritarianism she doesn’t like? It’s a good thing she never fucked Michael Bloomberg. The offspring would be Peak Tyrant with those genes.

    1. And a Jew with enough Indian blood to run a casino!

      1. is that combination Peak Racist? Because it is impressive. And is buffalo kosher –

        1. buffalo is kosher.

          1. But water buffalo isn’t.

    2. Is she seriously for a $22 minimum wage? That’s worse than what those OWS idiots were painting on their signs. Can you imagine getting $22 an hour for working a Wendy’s in Podunk, West Virginia? You’d live like a king. (Or you’d be laid off. One of the two.)

      1. No you wouldn’t, because a Burger at that same Wendys would cost over $15, Fries and a Coke would be an Extra $5, $7 if you wanted them large sized.

        Jumping the minimum wage that high would just result in overnight hyperinflation

        1. I know, hence my comment about being laid off. West Virginia would shut down under a $22/hr minimum wage. Everyone except the politicians would be out of work.

    3. Peak Tyrant. Ha.
      But like Peak Derp, just when you think you’ve reached it…

  8. That which is not prohibited is mandated.

  9. “He wants us armed and stoned.”

    and she only wants you disarmed, jailed, and your dog murdered.

    1. She also wants us all to be married to gay people, obviously.

      1. Fine with me as long as I get the Hot Bisexual lesbians

  10. You know who else always took the most statist position possible on every issue?

    1. Nixon?

      1. I mean, sure he’s a Masshole, but I don’t think he takes the statist position on everything.

    2. Chief Illiniwek

  11. Everybody must get stoned.

  12. Cue Riggs and Gillespie to say Warren is “to the right” of the GOP on marijuana. I’m waiting…

  13. She always reminds me of the woman in Waking Ned Divine who was in the electric wheel chair.

    1. I just rewatched that movie a few months back.

      It’s a really good film.

      1. It really is. I saw that on the first date I ever had with my wife. Beyond sentimental reasons, it is just a great movie.

        1. Yeah. One of the few movies I own, and it’s still funny when I rewatch it every few years.

  14. She wants to be the Maxine Waters of Massachusetts and she’s off to a good start.

  15. support of 2A means everyone MUST own an Uzi. Support of pot legalization means everyone MUST get high. It’s like liberals don’t see alternatives beyond prohibition and alcoholism.

    1. They have zero self control, and project that lack onto everyone.

      1. Ding ding ding! Every liberal I know projects their emotion onto everyone. They don’t trust themselves with a gun so you can’t have one. They know how they are with certain substances and no one should feel that way. They are guilty of thinking minorities are lesser people so they need to correct the system to appease their guilty consciences. In other words, pay offs…and get the rich to do it because they know they, the liberals themselves, don’t need that much money so no one should have that much. It’s really a despicable existence.

        1. Also, they would never give money to charity, so everyone else must be forced to.

    2. Their default mindset is “that which is not required is prohibited”. If it is not prohibited, it must be required. See? Logic.

      1. Liberty minded people believe that that you are free to do anything that is not prohibited. “Who said I can’t do this?”

        Collectivist minded people feel that you should only be able to do that which is explicitly allowed. “Who said you could do that?”

    3. She’s from Massachusetts, what do you expect? They never lost their Puritanism, it just became more secular.

      1. She represents Mass, but she’s from Oklahoma. Not only is she a fake Indian, she’s a fake Masshole as well.

        1. She’s from Oklahoma? My home state produced that… whatever the hell she is?

          *sigh* I feel ashamed.

          1. Woodrow Wilson was born in Virginia.

      2. the State has become god

    4. Everything with them is like that-a series of simple binary choices.

      It make their 10 second soundbites so much easier when every issue is all-or-nothing/black-and-white.

      Muskets or nuclear weapons, comprehensive universal healthcare or stripping the poor for parts, prohibition or grotesque excess.

      1. Not only that, but they are almost always false choices.

        They judge ideas based more on who than content. Ad hominem.

        They continually switch the burden of proof by insisting that liberty be justified, when the burden of proof is on those who would restrict.

        They rail against positions that no one holds. Straw man.

        When someone does get the best of them they move the goal posts.

        They embrace logical fallacies because winning is more important than being right.

  16. I wish I was the publisher of the Boston Herald. There would never be a single headline about that woman that didn’t include an Indian joke.

  17. Does a tough-on-pot stance get traction in Mass? I would imagine there’s a decent protect-my-children-at-all-costs streak in certain circles there, but I don’t know.

    1. Puritanism seems to be somewhat hereditary.

      OTOH, Massachusetts is stuffed with college students.

      My guess? On net, its a winnah for her! The TEAM BLUE partisans won’t be put off by her stance, because BLUE. Some TEAM REDders will be put off by legalization.

      1. A lot of those college kids probably don’t vote or at least don’t vote in her state. She doesn’t care a bit about them when she’s not on their campus getting free publicity.

    2. Mass decriminalized pot some time ago.

      I’d hesitate to say that legalization is around the corner, but many seem to be leaning in that direction.

    3. Until the day she dies she will be the senior Senator from MA. Nothing she says or does will jeopardize that.

      1. She was junior senator for less than a month.

      2. Well, within reason. I mean, if she was caught with a dead hooker in her car … oh, wait. This is Massachusetts. Damnit, she will be there for the rest of her life. May it be short.

  18. “At a St. Patrick’s Day breakfast in South Boston…”

    Warren said that it is time to renew our commitment to abstain from all mind-altering substances.

    1. “Later, after consuming alcohol, or ‘fire water’ as her people know it, Warren is reported as having called the crowd, ‘Seriously retahded’ and ‘wicked queer’ for electing Scott Brown to replace the departed Senator Ted Kennedy 3 years ago.”

      1. No it is Wickid Queeah, don’t you even watch Southie?

  19. She always looks so earnest. Her glasses, her sensible shoes and hair cut. She really is a walking strawman of the earnest liberal do gooder.

    1. She literally churns my stomach. Especially when in the comments to every article about her in a mainstream publication includes the blind partisan cheerleading for her “you go girl! get them bankers!!”

  20. She just says whatever she thinks will work in combating the OTHER TEAM. That is all. She is very clearly one of those politicians who has no ideological foundation whatsoever, like the Clintons, only FAR FAR more stupid.

    1. That’s a generous read. If she were a Team Hack, she’d be easy to dispatch. Her evil is far deeper than mere Blue-ism.

      1. You think so? I tend to agree with Califoernian here. If you look at her career as a whole, it has been nothing but opportunism. Pretending to be an Indian, becoming an “expert” in a field, consumer law, that allows her to spout the maximum PC bullshit necessary to get ahead as an academic all point to her just being a craven opportunist.

        1. She hasn’t contradicted herself though.

          People with no principles like BO and Romney, etc, tend to contradict themselves over time.

    2. You mean someone who pretended to be an Indian to get a career as a law professor has no ideological foundation? Shocked I tell you.

  21. ” He wants us armed and stoned ”

    Winslow call for the Senator’s lapidation sets a dangerous precedent, as irate foreigners lobbing Heinz ketchup bottles at the Secretary of State might invitel Lt. Kerry USNR , no stranger to the AR-15 to retaliate in violation of pending UN sanctions against the arms trade.

  22. Doonesbury’s been riffing on the cartoon character who supposedly works for Fuaxcahontas; wonder if the twit will have strip on this comment?

  23. He wants us armed and stoned.

    Well, he’s got my vote.

  24. I actually had some flaming Lib on a Reason YouTube Rand Paul thread state that he pictured Libertarians as the perfect liberals (in the classical sense this would be true)and that we had so much in common. I responded that I believed that progressives were the most vile statists on the planet. He actually held this woman and Kucinich up as beacons of what good progressives are and that was proof they had integrity. *wretch*

    1. Kucinich, at least, would not have made this statement. He’s a borderline commie on economics, but good on most civil liberties and war.

      1. I can respect Kucinich on a few levels as far as civil liberties go. He like to push the redistributive social justice bullshit though so that erases all credibility with me.

        1. Kucinich labors under the delusion that we can have civil liberties without economic liberty as well. Warren knows that is not possible and is pure anti-freedom.

          1. That’s it right there. You cannot separate civil liberty from economic liberty. They are both for liberty and are one and the same. You cannot separate one from the other. Two sides of the same coin.


      There it is. Holy fuck there are some brain dead fucks on there. First page of posts is a prime example of someone praising this cunning stunt. Says Warren and Grijalva are the Ds he would vote for.

      1. The progs love Warren. They lover her more than Obama who they have kind of given up on. Warren is going to run in 2016. The hard left retard voter is hers for the taking.

        1. The South Carolina primary is where that hard left candidate goes to die, though.

      2. Please replace “cunning stunt” with “stunning cunt”.

        Thank you.

        1. That’s the joke. It reminds me of when I was at FSU. “What’s the difference between the FSU Flying Circus (yes, it exists) and the FSU sorority system? The first consists of lots of cunning stunts…”

          1. Then there’s the difference between a band of pygmies and a women’s track team.

  25. OT, Zero Hedge has a good article on banking: US Deposits In Perspective: $25 Billion In Insurance, $9,283 Billion In Deposits; $297,514 Billion In Derivatives. Good thing there are no moral hazards to bailouts.

    1. No one who was responsible paid any price whatsoever for the 08 collapse. So what reason would they possibly have to avoid another one? I will never forget Mrs. Sudderman whining support of TARP about how “everyone involved in these banks has already lost most of what they have”. She really said that. No one but the taxpayer lost shit.

    2. 25/9283 = 0.3%

      But dont worry, the FDIC has access to $500B from the Treasury if needed, so

      525/9283 = 5.7%

      So, in case of total collapse, the FDIC can cover nearly 6% of deposits!

      1. It looks like they exaggerated (or mistakenly typed) the value of the derivatives, but even $227 trillion is insane. That’s 15 years worth of US GDP. What the fuck values could they possibly derive from?

        1. Experts tell me that derivatives improve liquidity. The big 2008 flush to the sewer proves this to my entire satisfaction.

        2. That has to be notional value, not, like, value value.

      2. As of January 2013, [the FDIC] provides deposit insurance guaranteeing the safety of a depositor’s accounts in member banks up to $250,000 for each deposit ownership category in each insured bank.

        Still probably can’t cover it, but I’m curious to know how much of that $9.28T is eligible to be covered. Chances are we’d just get QE-12 deposited directly onto an EBT card.

        1. That’s the big question. Let’s face it, smart people liquid for 250K don’t let it sit in FDIC depository accounts. People with not much money are going to be okay. Anybody who has over 250K in paper(digital, really) money is probably going be screwed anyway. The value of your non-physical assets (bonds, stocks, etc) is going to go to shit in a systemic collapse.

          Schmucks like me will have our worthless fiat currency, for all the good it will do us, since inflation will come in like a mofo at that point.

      3. I think it was Harry Browne who pointed out that if you ran a private insurance company the way the FDIC is run, you’d be put in prison for fraud. Also that the FDIC’s weakness is a large part of why they are so energetic about rushing to save any small banks that fail – they have to put out a small fire, because if they didn’t, it might grow into a larger fire they couldn’t contain.

  26. Interestingly, Cody Wilson, who had setup his site for
    “Things like access, medical devices, drugs, goods, guns.”

    Mentioned this in an old NPR interview:…..rint-home/

    BOB GARFIELD: Do you worry about the irony of the universe leading you to be shot by a plastic gun?

    CODY WILSON: I don’t worry about it, but I think it’s a strong possibility. Nick Bilton at the New York Times asked me the very same thing, aren’t you worried that someone’s gonna, you know, print one of these out and shoot you to make some point? Well, yeah, it’s probably gonna happen, right? But it’ll be some progressive, some frustrated progressive who thinks that I ruined the world by, you know, disabling his nanny state. So, well fine, perhaps I have to suffer a death, but it only makes their cause a little bit more futile.

    .. and the commenters go beserk, lol

    1. this one may be my favorite comment ever:

      Greg Slater


      What about a printable thermonuclear device? We must allow people to disintermediate their access to nuclear weapons. I think we can all agree that no one should be a consequentialist when it comes to personal WMDs.

      He said there was a good chance ‘some frustrated progressive’ will shoot him.
      When was the last time a Progressive shot anyone? All the murderous crazies are on the right. carrying their guns around like prosthetic p—–s. Far more likely he’ll get killed in a drunken argument with another right wing nut, or by a member of his plastic gun-toting family, perhaps one of his children. There’s about billion billion cool things you can make with a 3-d printer, and the only thing that this poor schnook can think of is to make a gun… pitiful little creature…

      Anyway… excuse me but I’ve got to go shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater to disintermediate myself from insanity…

      1. idiot… He got that right, except it should have started with “I am an”

      2. the plutonium printer cartridges are how they get you.

      3. When was the last time a progressive shot anyone? Wasn’t it that crazed environmentalist in Bethesda MD?

        1. Then there was the guy who shot up the Family Research Council last year.

          1. No that can’t be right… only conservatives engage in violence.

            Like that Republican that shot up Gabby!!!

        2. Pim Fortuyn, the Dutch politician/parliamentarian was shot by Volkert van der Graaf, an animal rights and environmental activist. I’ve got at least a couple of Hungarian ‘progressives’ (although they wouldn’t admit to be such) up in arms just by mentioning this political murder.

      4. Personal WMD?

        Who the hell needs anything so crass and expensive as a nuke. You have all the gear you need to make WMD in an average High School Chemistry lab

      5. Here you go:

        Mike M from Pittsburgh, PA
        I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but I’m pretty sure that, as far as Supreme Court rulings are concerned, there are no absolute rights guaranteed by the constitution, including the rights to free speech and to bear arms. And with good reason.

        I’m sure there are many more sophisticated ways of supporting and expressing the arguments against his position, but I think they all more or less boil down to “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.” Mr. Wilson seems to lack this basic understanding, so ultimately seems silly but unfortunately not inconsequential.

        Kudos to Mr. Garfield for letting Mr. Wilson hang himself with his own rope.

    2. Good god there’s some high grade stupid in those comments.

      The best:
      “”I wish that this guy would drop the libertarian BS and just admit he’s an anarchist.

      Also, the 2nd Amendment gives the right to bear arms. It does not give the right to manufacture arms. If the Founding Fathers had wanted that, they would have put it in the amendment.

      What a creep.””

      1. Even more amusing given the jurisprudence that says you actually do have the right to manufacture weapons and the fed can’t do much about it.

        1. I like the thought process though.

          You have a right to bear them, but there’s not right to manufacture them.

          It’s like saying we can possess books, but have no right to write or publish.

      2. this kind of reasoning is the most idiotic of all progtard arguments.

        The idea that even though you have a right they can make it illegal to provide a service or product related to that right.

        It’s the same idiotic mentality behind decriminalizing possession of drugs but you still can’t sell them Wtf.

  27. Is Warren in cahoots with Patrick Kennedy and his little band of drugwar profiteers?

    It would not surprise me in the least.

    1. I think she loves the idea of a national militarized police force that the Drug War justifies.

  28. Her “So you built a business. Good for you! But, how will your workers get there without ROADS!? We need TAXES to pay for ROADS!!!” speech is hailed as a consummate expression of the modern American progressive’s economic philosophy.

    She’s like the janitor at Microsoft, demanding a huge kickback because – how would you have built this company if there was trash lying around everywhere? Yes, I was paid at the time, but that was before you became RICH! Now that you are rich, you have to pay me $100/hour, retroactively, for picking up your trash while you built this business.

    1. Scruffy believes in this company!

      1. Scruffy’s gonna die like he lived. *flips page*

  29. I never thought I’d see the day where a ultra-liberal politician attacked a conservative politician for being pro-legalization.

    1. No Liberals only Proglodytes now.

  30. Those who did not vote for Brown who could have could have stopped this thing.

    1. Very, uh, insightful. Technically, everyone in MA could have voted for Brown but didn’t.

    2. Because we already know one person’s vote makes all the difference between the two.

    3. How refreshingly hypocritical after you gave me grief for my Romney urges.

  31. Senator Warren said, “I advise everyone to pay very close attention to Dan Winslow’s platform. He has a 100 percent ranking from the gun lobby and he’s for the legalization of marijuana. He wants us armed and stoned.”

    Ok, where’s Joe (a.k.a. The Derider) to protect her darling Liz?

    Huh? Joe? Hello? Helloooooo???

    1. Oh come on now, you can be as gay as you want, or you can have as many abortions as you want. What else is there to freedom, really?

      1. The freedom to ride your bike on any number of alternate routes.

        1. The freedom to ride your bike on any number of alternate routes. with a complete disregard for traffic and pedestrians.

  32. This is a liberal, is that right?

    Can someone please remind me of why these people refer to themselves as liberals?

    Because they are liberal with other peoples money? Because they are liberal in their pursuit of oppressing others?

    1. American left-wingers appropriated the term “liberal” when “progressive” fell out of fashion after Woodrow Wilson. (“Socialist” never had a lot of traction with the general public.) By the ’70s and ’80s “liberal” had acquired a stench, so it was back to “progressive” for a while. Perhaps the stench of “liberal” has worn off a bit, so again that term has become more common for self-identification.

      1. Whatever. In the mean time I will call them leftists, which is what they are.

    2. liberal (?l?b?r?l, ?l?br?l) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

      ? adj
      1. relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform
      2. relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom
      3. giving and generous in temperament or behaviour
      4. tolerant of other people
      5. abundant; lavish: a liberal helping of cream
      6. not strict; free: a liberal translation
      7. of or relating to an education that aims to develop general cultural interests and intellectual ability

      Well this is the crux; Liberal used to refer to definitions 2 and 4. Now if refers to definitions 1 and 5. 1 as in progress= we (government) know what is best for you and 5 meaning a generous helping of definition 1.
      Hope that helps.

  33. I would not cry a trail of tears if Fauxcahontas had an unfortunate accident while sharpening her collection of tomahawks.

    1. A cunning runt.

    2. this cannot be reiterated enough

  34. “He wants us armed and stoned”



  35. To be fair, it was the St Patrick’s day breakfast in South Boston, a
    comedy roast with a long tradition. A little more context would be good.

    Given that, she still used her time to attempt to denegrate a political
    opponent even if she could say she was “just funnin’ him.” Which puts her squarely in the camp of the “same old-same old” political hacks that came before her.

  36. In related “Full Retard” news….

    Neiman Marcus settles charges it sold real fur labeled ‘faux’

    That’s right = luxury goods retailer sued for falsely selling *real fur* which was labeled as ‘fake’. Which is what customers want, apparently. Facepalm.

    1. I don’t see this as a facepalm moment. Fraud is fraud. The customer has a right to know what he’s purchasing.

      The people who are probably most pissed off about this are people who don’t buy real fur for ethical reasons, and were fraudulently tricked into violating their ethics. You may laugh at them, but they have the same right to fraud-free transactions as anyone else.

      1. The people who are probably most pissed off about this are people who don’t buy real fur for “ethical” reasons….

        Yeah, they’re so fucking ethical they WEAR FUR but demand it be the “moral” variety…. they want to flaunt their fucking Nieman Marcus overpriced snotty shit, but get the addeed bonus of feeling like they’re also “ethically” superior people on top of being rich, vain douchebags…

        …and then they feel their “morals” have been raped when they dicover their ‘faux mink’ is in fact The Real McCoy…?


        in related news, I put pureed chinchilla in Vegan dishes. Just for personal pleasure.

        Yes, I can laugh, and yes, I am pleased, and my concern about their right to ‘get what they pay for’ is more than compensated by schadenfreude. Rich, tasty schadenfreude

  37. She might oppose ‘too big to fail’ but this indicates that she probably doesn’t have the capacity for reason to even know why.

  38. Warren is one of very few Dem politicians who go after the cozy relationship between big banks, Wall Street, and their Obama administration so-called regulators. That’s about the only positive thing I can say.

  39. “In contrast, I, Elizabeth Warren, want you disarmed and unable to decide what to smoke or not.

    After all, you’re incompetent to make a decision about such things.


  40. Senator Warren has rejected full legalization in the past, but she’s an open-minded enough person to listen to logic. Maybe you should all try to talk to her about the benefits of legalization, instead of resorting to ridiculous, childish name-calling and weird, blatant sexism.

    Let the record reflect that she was telling a lame joke, and that she has shown that she is willing to change her political positions when confronted with evidence. Grow up, all of you. Try to do some good — don’t be dicks.

    1. That’s freaking ridiculous.

    2. “but she’s an open-minded enough person to listen to logic.”

      Yeah, you’re full of shit.

      “Let the record reflect that she was telling a lame joke, and that she has shown that she is willing to change her political positions when confronted with evidence.

      . . . like, REALLY full of shit.

  41. Wait a minute. Is she rejecting her Indian heritage. I thought she liked to dance around and chew on peyote buttons and such and then take a toke later.

  42. But I thought the Democrats were going to legalize all of it? That’s what all the progressive I know said about Obama. According to their predictions marijuana was going to be 100% legal by this time right now in the Obama admin. What happened guys? Wasn’t Mr Cool going to fix it? He did blow and smoked weed in college. He doesn’t even seem to care! How many black people have been arrested? How many kids who look like Obama’s son (if he had one) have been arrested for marijuana possession since January 2009 and March 2013? Have all those cases been thrown out of court? I thought he was going to make it all better. Is that how cool people act? The reality is that Obama and Warren are bigger squares than I am. And that’s saying a lot.

  43. Jake. you think Brian`s rep0rt is nice, yesterday I picked up a gorgeous Renault 4 since getting a check for $8065 this last 4 weeks and a little over 10 grand this past munth. this is really the easiest-job I’ve ever had. I actually started four months/ago and practically straight away startad bringin in over $77 per hour. I work through this website,,

  44. If there’s a bigger piece of shit in politics than Elizabeth Warren, I don’t want to know.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.