NY Legislators Introduce Medical Marijuana Bill, Bitcoin Enjoying Increased Popularity Amid Crisis in Cyprus, New Zealand May Introduce Press Regulator: P.M. Links

|

Credit: Coaster420/wikicommons
  • New York legislators have introduced a medical marijuana bill despite the fact that Gov. Cuomo has said that he is not in favor of such legislation. 
  • Bitcoin is becoming increasingly popular in Europe as more people seek ways to keep governments away from their money. 
  • Gay couples could face higher taxes if the Supreme Court rules that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. 
  • A prohibition-era law is still on the books in Pennsylvania that forbids alcohol bought outside its borders from being brought in. 

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter!

Follow Reason on Twitter too, and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here.

Have a news tip? Send it to us!

The updated Reason app for Apple and Android now includes Reason 24/7!

Advertisement

NEXT: Scientists Developing Cloaking Technology

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. For the second year running Californian regulations have prevented the sale of kosher Coca-Cola.

    Anti-Semites.

    1. I was wondering why there was no yellow top coke at the grocery store yesterday. I usually buy enough to last a few months…

      1. Didn’t know the cap colors signified anything.

        1. Kosher for passover Coke (containing sugar instead of HFCS) has the yellow cap on the 2 Liter bottles. Same with Pepsi. As soon as non-Jews figured out what it meant, they started selling out weeks before Passover…

          1. You know who else fucked over the Jews?

            1. Republican country clubs in early Hollywood?

        2. The red caps signify that the coke contains the blood of gentile children.

          1. good thing I wasn’t drinking any coke when I read this.

    2. That sucks, passover coke is way better than regular coke.

      1. And cheaper than the Mexican imports. The glass bottles are something like $1.79 per 12oz at Ralph’s right now….

        1. Exactly. Jew holidays are a boon for soda drinkers of good taste. Pepsi Throwback was a decent attempt but never overcame it being Pepsi.

          1. It was way better than regular Pepsi, but the best of all was Dr. Pepper Heritage. My favorite of all colas.

            1. Dr. Pepper is not a cola. A former CEO of the company even said so.

              1. It’s a fantasia with no cola flavor (originally from the Kola nut), so not a cola.

                1. Dr. Pepper is the friendly pepper-upper.

              2. Dr. Pepper is not a cola. Rather, it is an abomination.

            2. I don’t think I ever had Dr. Pepper Heritage. Is it still around? The last couple of times I had Dr. Pepper it was so syrupy I couldn’t finish it, but I used to love the stuff.

              1. Not that I have seen in a year or so. I usually find all sodas too syrupy and stick with iced tea, but I usually like the sugar versions, especially DP.

            3. Is Heritage Dr. Pepper the same as Dublin Dr. Pepper?

              1. Very similar in my recollection, but I didn’t do side-by-sides of the taste profiles. I think it was a limited edition and don’t think it was made by the Dublin factory.

              2. Didn’t they end Dublin Dr. Pepper? The bottling company that was doing it lost their license or something.

                1. Yes, Dr Pepper Snapple Group went on a jihad against Dublin Dr Pepper, much to the consternation of many fans such as myself.

                  I think I still have a six-pack of Dublin Dr Pepper, purchased at my local hardware store, which I will save for posterity. (Probably becomes undrinkable after a few years.)

                2. They still make Dublin Dr. Pepper, it just isn’t called Dublin Dr. Pepper.

                  See: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/…..solved.php

              3. Apparently, Dublin was/is cane sugar, while Heritage might be beet sugar?

        2. Buy the cases at the big box stores or at Home Depot. Brings the price down to about $0.75 each.

      2. Is passover coke the Manischewitz of soda?

        1. …. Manischewitz. And some people think it is the only kosher wine around. It’s like drinking damned syrup, and I do like sweet wines.

          But the Kosher for Passover Manischewitz is more tolerable than the regular, but not by much.

      3. The lamb blood version is my personal favorite.

    3. Do the coca leaves have to be plucked by some rabbi?

      1. Corn is not considered Kosher For Passover for Ashkenazi Jews who follow that strict tradition. It is not biblical, but a rabbinical injunction. All things considered kitniyot (beans, corn, soy, rice) are lumped in with chametz (wheat, barely, rye, oats) during Passover, which means no consumption unless it has specifically been labeled as Kosher for Passover.

        I don’t follow the prohibition against kitniyot.

        1. That’s good, we don’t like prohibitionists ’round here.

        2. But corn hadn’t been invented yet (at least not as far as the Eastern Hemisphere types knew), and they’re applying a retroactive ban!

        3. Ever consider changing your name to “Cliff Clavin Matrix”?

        4. Corn came from the Americas so it can’t be “biblical”.

    4. Just out of curiosity, what is it about the normal Coca-Cola product that makes it non-kosher?

      1. The Corn. Matrix explains it just above.

        1. Ok, did not read down far enough before I posted.

  2. Gay couples could face higher taxes if the Supreme Court rules that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

    No forty acres and a mule?

    1. They are almost all two income. They are going to take it up the ass.

      1. Isn’t that how they like it though? NTTAWWT.

      2. Winner.

      3. What you did there, I see it. True about the taxes, though. If they are both making decent amounts, two Single returns is almost always 1 MFJ. It is less worse now that the AMT patch is permanent, though, and they get things like unlimited spousal gifts, estate tax exemption, etc. On balance it probably makes financial sense for some couples and not for others.

      4. Why would having the option to file as married, instead of filing both single, cause higher taxes?

        If you have a couple with one high earner, and one unemployed or low income, then filing married lowers taxes.

        1. Shorter: no one would be forcing any gays to get married. If the costs of getting married exceed the benefits (financial or emotional), then don’t do it.

          1. or we could push for eliminating either cost benefits or losses for making personal decisions. Like getting married. Or having kids. Or owning a house, for that matter. But since the tax code will never change, emotion will again trump reason.

            1. The only fair way is just to eliminate taxes for everyone.

      5. “They are almost all two income. They are going to take it up the ass.”

        In order for 2 gay men to both take it up the ass at the same time, they need to enlist the aid of a 3rd party.

        Enter the Guvmint.

        1. Gay women, on the other hand…..

    1. I guess the protection tradeoff with condoms is worth it.

      1. No it’s not.

        Dennis: How do you not know how this works? You’ve been in a hospital before.

        Charlie: I?I guess I must have slipped through the cracks. I do always give a fake name ’cause I like to stay off the grid. You know what I mean?

        Mac: Yeah, they usually just give me a bunch of antibiotics, the sores go away, and I walk out.

        1. That particular cost/benefit analysis has everything to do with the filthiness of the people you bang. Given the extreme skankiness of the crackwhores that you bang, you should probably think about sealing your junk in some sort of sterile chamber. You’re too far gone for normal human condoms.

          1. Right, which is why I’ve carefully tailored the various diseases I have to fight each other and essentially make me immune. The things I do for cheap skank sex.

            1. Some of these cheap skanks can be extremely enthralling, so I understand.

              1. Especially the ones with brand new disease strains. Then he has to find a corresponding other diseased skank with a counterstrain.

                I assume this is what Epi does whenever he’s not posting on H&R. I mean, it seems time-consuming.

                1. He could just be some kind of venereal disease savant though.

                2. He’s a connoisseur of artisinal VD’s.

                  1. All of you are entirely correct, except nicole, because she is the worst. She does not realize the efficiency to which I have honed my skank pursuit. Two words: craigslist and OkCupid.

                  2. BP, awesome. That reminds me, I have been keeping an eye out for the most egregious abuses of “artisanal”, and while I already have amassed an artisanal arsenal that would damn near kill sloopy, my most recent find was a flyer for “artisanal healthcare.” I kid you not.

                    1. a flyer for “artisanal healthcare.”

                      Hm. Does this mean they’d saw my leg off with an antique bonesaw? Or maybe they’d give me some laudanum?

                    2. I’m going to bet it means crystals, meditating, and lots and lots of psychosomatic and placebo effects.

                    3. I suggest keeping the leg and tacking the laudanum.

                    4. “artisanal healthcare.”

                      I thought that’s what Obamacare is.

                3. Epi is a pioneer for science, going boldly where many men have gone before.

    2. stimulus!!!

    3. You trying to tell me that people enjoy sex more than school?

      1. Fewer books, study groups more fun?

    4. syphilis is almost not worth tracking.

    5. Pubic hair removal may increase risk of certain STIs
      http://metronews.ca/health/610…..tain-stis/

      1. But it has almost entirely eliminated crabs.

        1. Win some, lose some.

        2. Clearly the solution is to wear a merkin during sex.

  3. Gay couples could face higher taxes if the Supreme Court rules that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

    Ha! Take that, reason crusade.

    1. Sometimes you have to wonder if they have thought this cunning plan through.

  4. You know guys, I learned something today:

    John does not support gay marriage.

    1. John is solidly in the Santorum wing of the GOP.

      1. And Shreeeek is solidly balls deep in Obama’s ass.

        1. I thought Shreeek! had Obama’s balls on his chin? Or does he alternate days?

          1. I thought Shreeek! had Obama’s balls on his chin?
            chin, ass…they are in the vicinity of one another for some people.

            1. With Obama, the same thing comes out of either.

        2. It’s cute how you Republicans defend each other.

          1. Yeah, look below dipshit!

      2. I’m pretty sure he’s not Catholic.

        1. I would be pretty sure you are correct. And I am in my personal life about the least socially conservative person on earth. But I will still defend people who are, even though I find them to be highly annoying in most cases.

          1. Would you make illegal the morning after pill? An abortofacient?

            1. No fuckhead I wouldn’t.

    2. John, is a LAOR.

      1. I don’t know what LOAR stands for but I’m pretty sure sarcasmic would be upset if you didn’t add FC to the end of that.

        1. Law and order republican.

          As opposed to Tulpa who’s a LAOL. Which stands for law and order republican.

          1. Ah….thanks.

          2. I am a real law and order guy. That is why I am always so quick to defend cops. Go fuck yourself you moron.

            1. Oh, lighten up.

              I agree with you 85% of the time. Just because you are completely fucking out to lunch on this issue doesn’t mean I hate you.

              Like I do Shreeeek.

      2. John, is a LAOR.

        Oh I disagree, I think John is just a contrarian who likes to argue for sport.

    3. No. I don’t support constitutionally mandated gay marriage. There is a difference. I also support religious liberty.

      Personally, I have no problem with gays doing whatever they want to do and think people who object to that are wrong. But amazingly enough, I even think people I don’t like and think are wrong, have a right to be that way. It is a shocking and subversive concept I know.

      1. No. I don’t support constitutionally mandated gay marriage.

        So you’re against something that isn’t remotely possible.

        1. Really? If the SCOTUS strikes down Prop 8, that is constitutionally mandated gay marriage. I wish I could be as optimistic as you are.

          1. You keep using that word ‘mandated’. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

            1. I think it does. If states have to recognize it, that is “mandated”. That means you have to recognize said marriage or face the barrel of a gun.

              1. Strictly speaking, it just demands equality. Maybe we libertarians could finally rally religious conservatives to eliminate state marriage altogether in favor of civil unions or nothing.

          2. John|3.27.13 @ 4:52PM|#

            Really? If the SCOTUS strikes down Prop 8, that is constitutionally mandated gay marriage.

            WHA HA?? Look i support equal protection etc, but i suffer from Homophobia… I DON WANNA MARRY NO GUY!! I mean, i hate house music, and i’m terrified of ever going to a proctologist.. It really wont work! Are we gonna have subsidies for Gay Divorce?!? I need to call my lawyer right now…

            1. Which gilmore are you again? I need to know so I can figure out if this is sarcasm.

              1. This is the one that doesn’t have a black pointy beard.

              2. The Real GILMORE ™

                that other guy was quite genuinely gay. not like in the good way.

      2. I don’t support constitutionally mandated gay marriage
        —————

        and you see nothing discriminatory about govt sanctioning one group’s ability to marry but not another?

        1. Sure it is. But so what? The government discriminates on everything it does. They discriminate against people who want to marry their sisters and polygamists too.

          1. There’s some arbitrary nonsense here, so we must have it everywhere because otherwise it would be…discriminatory.

            1. No. The nonsense is the idea that just because something is “discriminatory” is it bad? And of course the answer is that it depends.

              My concern is infringing on people’s religious liberty. I am all for civil unions that would solve all of the inequities in government benefits but avoid forcing people to act against their consciences.

              It is amazing to me how people can’t get the idea that I could defend the rights of people I don’t agree with. They seem to honestly believe that I take that position because I personally have some issue with homosexuals. No. I just am willing to defend the rights of people who do, no matter how wrong they may be.

              1. “No. The nonsense is the idea that just because something is “discriminatory” is it bad? And of course the answer is that it depends.”

                Discrimination by government based on what consenting adults choose to do is bad.

                “Those people” are the ones initiating the problem by insisting on government recognizing their marriages. If government is going to give out marriage licenses to evangelical straight Christians, they should also do it for gay couples.

          2. But so what?
            —————
            doesn’t mean it has to be tolerated. And I am under no illusions that the polygamists would be next. If anything, SSM proponents should be in league with them out of intellectual consistency.

            1. SSM proponents should be in league with them out of intellectual consistency.

              Then you dont understand SSM proponents.

            2. If anything, SSM proponents should be in league with them out of intellectual consistency.

              Except that rarely happens. Ask your average Folsom Street Fair party-goer if he or she thinks that polygamists should have a right to have their marraiges recognized, too, and you’ll likely get some catty remark about Mormons, MUH PATRIARCHY, or some other type of nonsense.

              Increasing support of gay marraige by the public right now is leaning more towards SWPL status-signaling than an actual devotion to the principle of personal liberty.

              1. The last people who believe in personal liberty are the gay rights movement. They want their pony.

              2. Ask your average Folsom Street Fair party-goer if he or she thinks that polygamists should have a right to have their marraiges recognized

                Something you’ve done RRR?

                1. Something you’ve done RRR?

                  Are you claiming the supporters of gay marriage also support polygamy?

                  1. Are you claiming the supporters of gay marriage also support polygamy?

                    Some of us do, some of us don’t. You’re making an incredibly tired and facile argument by a) saying that all gay marriage supporters want and believe identical things, b) that support for gay marriage necessarily requires support for plural marriage.

                    If you’d care to, you can go back and read hundreds of posts where EvH and I hashed this same thing out this morning.

                    I’d definitely like to see proposals from poly activists about the logistics of poly marriage: making marriage gender neutral has no impact on the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but changing a pair into a group could make for dramatic affect on 5th amendment issues or sponsoring citizenship, and polyandry would have to be legal as well, but I’m definitely game.

            3. Where have SSM proponents demonstrated intellectual consistency? Ever?

            4. Smell that collectivism? Smells quite foul.

              1. Of course SSM opponents are such bastions of intellectual consistency and love of liberty

                1. Of course SSM opponents are such bastions of intellectual consistency and love of liberty

                  Which is beside the point. If gay adults should have the right to marry, then the logical conclusion is that adults should be allowed to marry more than one spouse if they so choose. The government shouldn’t have any say in the matter in either case.

                  1. I agree with that. My point was that the fact that many SSM supporters are inconsistent isn’t an argument against SSM.

      3. John – as a big religious liberty person myself (and someone on occasion irked by “freedom-FROM-religion” libertoids)… how, in a specific material sense, does gay marriage interfere with any freedom of religion precisely? Is the idea that the Catholic church will continue to oppose any such thing, and get sued if they fail to endorse it? (or bless said unions)?

        i can’t imagine the law being such that it compells objecting religions to be forced to ‘endorse’ it, any more than abortion being ‘legal’, yet opposed by the catholic church. I don’t see where the rubber (no pun!) meets the road here in your point. You seem to be espousing a view that the law ‘restricts’ religious people (which i dont get), the same way anti-gay people claim gay marriage ‘destroys’ marriage…which also makes no sense.

        please to enlighten

  5. The Economist has a relatively reasonable article about climate change:
    http://www.economist.com/news/…..-emissions

    1. Oooh it’ll be fun watching the pompous asshats over there make a slow awkward climb down.

      1. I have one lefty friend who cites the economist all the time. I can’t wait to taunt him with this….

  6. Wiretap laws apply to text messages, court rules

    Canadians’ digital communications should get the same privacy protection as voice conversations during police investigations, following a new ruling from Canada’s top court.

    The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police need a wiretap order to seize your text messages from your wireless provider as they are sent and received.

    1. How can wiretap laws apply to wireless devices?

      1. The same way wire fraud does?

  7. A prohibition-era law is still on the books in Pennsylvania that forbids alcohol bought outside its borders from being brought in.

    But don’t worry. The commonwealth will only be targeting the big bootleggers. You guys just carrying a six-pack back from Jersey have nothing to worry about. (Unless you run piss off the trooper or prosecutor.)

    1. A prohibition-era law is still on the books in Pennsylvania that forbids alcohol bought outside its borders from being brought in.

      BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

      I lived on the PA/NY border when the NY drinking age was 18.

      *looks around nervously*

      Um..what’s the statute of limitations on this?

      1. Don’t worry, you’ve probably committed any number of misdemeanors (maybe even felonies) since then. Just don’t make any furtive movements when the cops finally come for you, and don’t give them any lip, scofflaw.

        1. And don’t throw anything out the window.

    2. of course it is selectively enforced.

      Oklahoma has similar laws, I believe. A lot of people go to Texas to get the 6 point beer because you can’t get much of it in Oklahoma, except at liquor stores. And then, you can’t get many brands that are sold in grocery stores.

  8. Comparing the world with Game of Thrones with actual countries.

    I like the Dorne is Spain/Portugal comparison. Easy going people that keep to themselves and like to trade and have lots of sex.

    1. But who are the Wildlings?!? Canadians?

      1. no, Scots

        1. Of course a puckhead would say that. I think we need to take a raiding party out past the Wall and deal with you once and for all.

          1. You can stay at my house, but you better not look at my wives.

            1. Your daughter…I mean wives are all ugly anyway, Craste…I mean Warty.

          2. The Wildings=Scots is the most obvious parallel to the real world given that the story is loosely based on English history and House Stark=House of York.

        2. no, Scots

          Last summer, at the Edinburgh Military Tattoo, they had a bunch of Scottish kids dressed up as picts, complete with wild, unkempt hair and dressed in ragged furs and such. I was immediately reminded of Wildlings.

          1. How does one get an invite to this event?

            1. It was pretty neat, Jesse. They do it every summer as part of the Edinburgh International Festival, linky. Highly recommended if you like pipe music at all. It was my first time in Scotland, but it seemed like an awesome time to go, as the weather was great and there was tons going on in Edinburgh in connection with the festival.

              1. Did you make it over to Glasgow? I hear it has the best payday loan places around.

                1. Umm, can you please plan my next trip, since you seem to know exactly what I am looking for in terms of international travel. If I start out at a shady payday loan shop in the dodgy part of town, maybe I can end up stumbling around the city with some shiftless, working class Glaswegian youths, drunk and broke and looking to scrounge the money for a late night pizza.

                  Actually that sounds kind of fun.

                  1. Glasgow really isn’t a good tourist town. Edinburgh is much better for things to do. I hope you stopped by the Whiskey Museum.

              2. Scotland has been on my list for a while. I would like to curse them in person for my peasant’s build and overabundance of hair.

                1. Make sure you go to Inverness and Castle Urquart. Good stuff.

                2. peasant’s build and overabundance of hair.

                  In some communities those are highly prized characteristics, as I am sure you are already aware.

                  Also extreme sun-resistant whiteness, right? Och aye!

                  1. We’re not that extremely sun-resistant. I mean, I get freckles after a few burn-blister-peel cycles.

                  2. In some communities those are highly prized characteristics

                    I do very well for myself.

                    extreme sun-resistant whiteness
                    My maternal grandmother’s side is all Acadian diaspora and there’s some Mi’kmaq mixed in. I tan like a champ.

                    1. Another crypto-Canadian??

                    2. I’m not just descended from Canadians, I’m descended from failed French Canadians. I would be ashamed if I experienced that suite of emotions, but I don’t.

                    3. So you’ve also decided to give nicole a run for her tiara. May the worst man/woman win.

                    4. I’m not just descended from Canadians, I’m descended from failed French Canadians.

                      Tabernac!

                    5. Tabernac!

                      Calice! (I’ll just leave this here.)

                    6. jesse is now SO OUT of my left-handers’ club.

                    7. jesse is now SO OUT of my left-handers’ club.

                      That’s cool nicole, I’ll just go sit in the corner and read a book by myself. I didn’t want to be in your club anyway.

                    8. I’ll just go sit in the corner and read a book by myself

                      But…that’s what I was going to do!

                    9. Oooh, sorry, you’re not welcome in that club! Muahaha.

                      I’ll agree to a detente if you’re willing to consort with descendants of French Canadians.

                    10. Wait, there is a left-handers’ club? I want in too! Nicole, Jesse, I knew there was a reason I like you two bitches.

                    11. left-handers club you say?

                    12. left-handers club you say?

                      Just don’t tell Epi, he’ll kick sand on us and take our girlfriends. HAHA, who am I kidding, he’ll just say we’re all the worst and move on get dragged back to his kennel by Warty.

                    13. His kennel? Warty used to keep him in one of those carrying cases you put dogs in when you’re taking them on vacation.

                      Epi’s moving up in the world!

                    14. Another crypto-Canadian??

                      I am ashamed to admit it, but my grandparents moved from Canada to the US when my grandpa started med school in Cleveland. They became American citizens shortly thereafter. On the other side of my family, some family members have voluntarily moved to Canada, and now consider themselves Canadian.

                      It’s so surreal to see me type those words. But I sure feel alot better getting that off my chest. Thanks to you all for your support.

                    15. EDG you’re among friends too far away for Warty to hunt you for sport.

                      It’s a weird day on Reason when people are running around coming out as left-handed and/or of Canadian descent.

                      Dagny, you can be in my left-handers’ club. Nicole has a one-drop ban on Canadians in her club, so I’m out.

                    16. The double-whammy of weirdness of both left-handedness and Canadianness explains a lot.

            2. Just show up in a skirt and you get the “royal” treatment.

        1. Do they have ROADZ in Somalia? If so, how?

  9. New Zealand could follow the U.K.’s example and introduce a regulator for the press.

    And the high hopes for the Free State Project – Nation Edition fall back to earth.

    1. The law commission’s president … said that New Zealand’s review was not driven by a crisis of confidence in its media. Instead it was prompted by gaps and disparities in the legal and ethical standards and accountabilities that applied to news and current affairs.

      Oh. OK, then.

  10. Is Senator Ted Cruz Our New McCarthy?

    http://www.newyorker.com/onlin…..rvard.html

    1. left-leaning mag attempts to caricature Tea Party fave. In other news, water is wet.

    2. Two and a half years ago, Cruz gave a stem-winder of a speech at a Fourth of July weekend political rally in Austin, Texas, in which he accused the Harvard Law School of harboring a dozen Communists on its faculty when he studied there.

      Surprised it’s that low. At any rate, pointing out how out of touch our country’s most elitist institute of higher learning doesn’t make him Joe McCarthy.

      1. Falsely calling them Communists does though.

        1. They still teach Marxoid bullshit. That’s not a paranoid Bushpig fantasy, I’ve actually had teachers that were committed to Marxist political theory even if they weren’t communists, just good progressives.

          1. Hell, two of the professors I used to chat with in the faculty lounge during my teaching days would cheerfully admit to being marxists if you asked them about their political views.

            One of them was a pretty good statistics teacher too.

          2. Isn’t there a joke about how the first thing a communist regime does is kill all the lawyers?

            So are they suicidal or something?

            1. Commies often believe that they won’t be put with their backs against the wall when the revolution comes. Of course, the assholes in charge don’t care; they’ll order people shot regardless of loyalty, class or innocence to help cement their grip on power.

        2. how do you know the claim is false, and McCarthy pegged more than one person accurately.

          1. Cruz’s Harvard Law School Professor Charles Fried, a Republican, said it was false in the article.

            1. Oh well of a Republican says it’s false…

            2. Why on Earth would a Harvard professor want to protect his employer’s reputation?

            3. and Obama said health reform would lower premiums and I could keep my doctor. Seems Harvard is pretty good at producing bipartisan bullshit artists.

            4. You guys clearly don’t understand the burden of proof that Shrike operates under. If one guy says something he agrees with, then that is evidence that Shrike is correct.

        3. Go ahead and die on that hill. No one will care.

          1. He dies on every hill. Scream and throw shit. That is what he does. He is our own little pet retarded monkey.

            1. SHRIKE 2016: DIE ON EVERY HILL

        4. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

          Falsely calling them Communists does though.

          Oh! So you know them personally?

          Because you’re not saying “I don’t believe they’re communists” or “I think he’s exaggerating” or “he may be wrong about them.”

          NO! You’re saying he’s stating falsehoods. So you must have first-hand information that allows you to safely make such accusation, like personally knowing the people about which he is talking.

          1. see reply upthread by Fried.

            Also, us secularists have been called “Commies” by the Theocrats for decades.

            It takes a real wingnut to call Thomas Jefferson a Commie – but many on the right do such.

            1. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

              Also, us secularists have been called “Commies” by the Theocrats for decades.

              You mean you are one of the dozen that Cruz mentioned?

              Wow! What a small world!

              Idiot.

            2. Also, us secularists have been called “Commies” by the Theocrats for decades.

              Poor baby. From one atheist to another: grow the fuck up.

        5. Only if you call them CARD CARRYING communists.

      2. Don’t respond to the retarded sock puppet. I know I set a terrible example. But we all can rise above the retarded sock puppet.

    3. Did no one tell them about the rehabilitation of McCarthy as telling truths that the left didn’t want people to hear? I’m vaguely aware that history has proved him right in the case of several prominent individuals he accused of ties to the USSR.

  11. F-f-f-feeeeheeeheeeeeeeeennnyyyy!!!
    /eric matthews

    No alt-text?

    1. You know they’re making a sequel, right?

      1. Yeah. You know Topanga is a smokeshow now, right?

    2. “Looks like that cavity search paid off!”

    3. Lookin’ back on the track for a little alt-tag
      Got to find just a kind or I’m losin’ my mind.

  12. If the Supreme Court decides to alter the way the federal government recognizes gay marriage, it could have an unexpected impact for some same-sex couples: higher taxes.

    Haha, yes, unexpected. They’re just throwing John a bone with that.

    1. Man stuck on ‘It’s A Small World’ Disneyland ride awarded $8,000 for ‘pain and suffering,’ disability law violation totally justified in killing spree.

      1. It’s a nightmare. The only thing worse would be getting stuck on that ride…with Warty. I hear that’s his favorite song, by the way. He calls it his “raping song”.

        1. Are you sure that’s not EVERY song?

        2. Odd, I would’ve thought Dueling Banjos, are you sure he doesn’t count ALL songs as his “raping songs”?

          1. Both of you make a good point.

        3. Have Warty and Steve Smith ever been seen in the same place at the same time?

    2. “The music was blaring. They couldn’t get it to go off.”

      It’s a small switch, after all.

    3. I’ve lived close to Disneyland my entire life and I haven’t been in 10 years, I don’t understand how so many people I know can go 15-20 times a year.

      1. There’s alcohol now ASM. You go, hit a few rides, have over priced food and drink and then go home. Passes just went through the roof cost-wise though.

        1. sort of but there is only one restaurant in the park that serves.

          1. There are a couple of places to get your booze on in CA adventure, no?

  13. Even The Beach Boys had a bad day

    1. Not the Beach Boys’ only bad day.

  14. Remember how women who wear thongs while doing yoga are suffering from patriarchy induced self-consciousness?

    Teen girls who buy Victoria’s Secret lingerie to be like college girls are just liberating themselves from the constraints of their parents prudish and archaic soclai mores.

    Here’s a reality check: The average American first has sex at age 17, and by age 19, seven out of 10 teenagers are sexually active. Even if they aren’t having sex, most teenagers are still fantasizing about it. That’s a good thing. They need this time to experiment, make their mistakes, and figure out who they are and what they like before the responsibilities of adulthood start to complicate things. As long as they aren’t wearing their sexy panties at the gym, there’s no harm in giving teenagers a little freedom to do the growing up that they need to do.

    Lighten up parents, your daughters are going to make mistakes like getting pregnant or a VD, let them, they shouldn’t have to worry about the consequences of those things or deal with your admonishments.

    1. Wait, I’m confused. They should wear sexy panties, except not at the gym? Such complicated rules.

      1. And only when they are under 18.

      2. Teen girls are horny as fuck, it’s just biology, but she’s mocking the very idea of parenting as sexist and patriarchal because in her ideal world teen girls will have Plan B in Pez dispensers and abortion on demand.

        It’s not about equality, it’s about making women not have to deal with the consequences of their actions rather than teach them wisdom.

        1. All teens are horney as fuck. But maybe engaging in actions that have consequences you are unprepared to deal with is a bad idea.

    2. So a grown woman wearing a thong underneath her yoga pants is supporting the slut culture. But a 15 year old girl buying sexy lingerie is “liberating”.

      Wow.

      1. John, you need to understand how contemporary feminism works on this. If a woman is jealous of another woman for being too hot, then its the patriarchy. If a woman herself wishes to slut it up though, that’s liberation.

    3. Why shouldn’t they wear their sexy panties at the gym?

      1. Marcotte said yesterday that doing so is buying into the slut culture and exploitative. They should wear only yoga pants and no panties.

            1. I used to have some app on my old phone that had girls running on a treadmill. You could switch between front and rear view.

          1. Yoga pants are proof that there is a God and that he wants us to be happy. They make even average looking women attractive.

        1. OMFG! Marcotte submitted both those articles within days of each other?!?

          I actually feel pity that people could be so cruel as to put someone as stupid as Amanda Marcotte on exhibition so that everyone can see how stupid she is and laugh at her.

          1. She really is amazing. And what is funny is she thinks she is so smart.

          2. She puts herself on exhibition so she’s just being cruel to herself, which is fine by me.

            1. Episiarch, she can’t be cruel to herself; she lacks the capacity to comprehend that she is being hurt. To be cruel, one must be aware that one’s victim is feeling pain.

              1. I’m just saying I see no moral problem with it, OK? Sheesh. You don’t need to get so technical.

                1. When one orders the types of being correct from best to worst, where does being technically correct fall, Episiarch?

                  1. Webmaster! Bring me the forms I need to fill out to have tarran taken away!

              2. Maybe she goes home, dresses as a man and oppresses herself where no one else can see, then cries drunkenly into a tumbler full of sangria.

      2. I linked this Monday .

        Basically women who wear thongs to yoga are living in a sexualized hell because Marcotte doesn’t like to wear them.

      3. I support womynz right to go commando. Oh wait, she wants them to wear granny panties? Fuck off, slaver!

        1. Actually, she did want them to go commando.

    4. Forget this. I’m locking my daughter up from ages 13-30. It’s the only way I’ll survive.

      * Note to the DCF agents likely monitoring this: I’m kidding, and you have better things to do.

    5. “Remember how women who wear thongs while doing yoga are suffering from patriarchy induced self-consciousness?”

      No I don’t but thanks for putting that into my concousness. I can never have too much of type type thing in there.

    6. “They need this time to experiment, make their mistakes, and figure out who they are and what they like before the responsibilities of adulthood start to complicate things.”

      If you make a mistake in matters of sex, that rather leads to complicating adult responsibilities (on a number of fronts), so just dive in there!

  15. John’s nightmares are coming true!!!!!

    http://www.glaad.org/arizona

    1. Every woman wants the tranny in the stall next to them.

    2. Ughh how exactly is his new bill wrong? Businesses should be able to set conditions on restroom usage.

      Now, the Republican says he pushing a law that protects businesses from criminal prosecution and lawsuits if they deny transgendered people from entering the restroom in which they identify with.

      That’s the right stance. I am free to set conditions to access my property. If someone finds them onerous, they are free to leave.

    1. Put another way, freedom isn’t my right to live unless someone stronger wants to kill me; it is my right to live even if someone stronger wants to kill me.

      BURN STRAWMAN, BURN!!

      1. Put another way, freedom isn’t my right to live unless someone stronger wants to kill me; it is my right to live even if someone stronger wants to kill me.

        I like how she thinks libertarians disagree with this statement. It’s like saying “Unlike libertarians, I support the separation of church and state.” She’s literally asserting that libertarianism is the opposite of what it is.

        Oh wait, two weeks ago someone called Russia’s ongoing issues the result of a libertarian government.

        1. At least she’d kinda getting hammered in the comments.

        2. Libertarianism is the blank canvas upon which both TEAMs, but especially TEAM BLUE, paint their boogeyman. It has no connection to reality. Don’t ever expect it to, because it is not rational, logical, or even remotely intelligent.

        3. Many “libertarians” think the church and state are inseparable due to “Gawd’s natural rights” — see Judge Andrew Napatilano for instance.

          1. You’re the dumbest sockpuppet ever.

            1. See below to find out how wrong you are.

          2. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

            Many “libertarians” think the church and state are inseparable due to “Gawd’s natural rights” — see Judge Andrew Napatilano for instance.

            Ok, I saw Judge Andrew Napolitano and found out your contention is false. Now what?

            You may be confused by all these difficult concepts, Buttwipe. That Amerikan Pulbic Skool Edukashion stinted your cognitive abilities but there are people who prevailed even when hobbled that way. You are still yet to climb over that ledge. So let me be clear: Separation of Church and State does NOT MEAN FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

            1. Separation of Church and State does NOT MEAN FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

              Yes it does – when it comes to the government imposing religion on me.

              There is a sick slice of the LP who is Theocrat – like you are.

              1. Yes it does – when it comes to the government imposing religion on me.

                Government can’t compel you to engage in religious activity or support it with your tax dollars in a way that is not content neutral.

                Other than that you don’t have a right to not have your atheist sensibilities offended by Baby Jesus on a firehouse lawn.

              2. since when is state forcing you to go to church, temple, or mosque?

              3. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

                Yes it does – when it comes to the government imposing religion on me.

                Again, you’re confused with these difficult concepts, Buttwipe. The government imposing anything is force. It is aggression. Separation of church and state only means that the state does not get to establish a particular religion as the official religion. However, separation of church and state does not mean people around you have to hide their beliefs so you can be comfortable with yours. It does not mean people cannot be free to exercise their religion anywhere or everywhere. It does not mean the state gets to impose NON-religion, as it is also force.

          3. Just when I think the internet has reached peak retard*…

            *yeah, yeah, I know: human stupidity is the world’s only infinite resource.

    2. Though Paul is (fortunately) not in a position to jeopardize the Civil Rights Act, the no-government philosophy he champions poses a real threat to the legislative priorities of the LGBT community. The LGBT community needs laws that would offer protections similar to the Civil Rights Act, such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the Housing Opportunities Made Equal Act (HOME) and other federal legislation that will guard against discrimination. The unrealistic notion that equality can be achieved without government enforcement and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms is not a workable solution to LGBT discrimination. In the fight for LGBT equality, the notion that libertarianism can sustain us is a dangerous myth.

      First, no-government philosophy? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
      Second, way to make John sound right about this, you dumb cunt.

    3. Though Paul is (fortunately) not in a position to jeopardize the Civil Rights Act, the no-government philosophy he champions poses a real threat to the legislative priorities of the LGBT community.

      For some reason I can’t discern, her whole argument deviated from “libertarians are consistent in their principles of advocacy for freedom” to “Paul was annointed the King of Libertarians.”

      Read on…

      The LGBT community needs laws that would offer protections similar to the Civil Rights Act, such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the Housing Opportunities Made Equal Act (HOME) and other federal legislation that will guard against discrimination.

      … therefore and since Paul is the King of Libertarians, we will have discriminatory anarchy!

      We need government to make people love us!

      1. You did not know that?

    4. Libertarianism tells us that freedom is the ultimate good and that it should be maximized, so in order to accomplish that, we must limit government intervention, which restricts free action. Here’s the problem with that premise: Freedom isn’t simply the absence of government. It’s the absence of any force stopping people from doing what they have a right to do. If we take away government, we aren’t left with freedom; we’re left with anarchy.

      Put another way, freedom isn’t my right to live unless someone stronger wants to kill me; it is my right to live even if someone stronger wants to kill me….

      Achieving LGBT equality will require ensuring the freedom to exercise equal rights, which includes the right to get married, but also the right to work, access fair and affordable housing, make use of public accommodations and live in communities and go to school free from fear of violence, harassment and intimidation.

      It’s a pretty straightforward conflation of positive and negative rights is all.

      1. It’s a pretty straightforward conflation of positive and negative rights is all.

        You bet it is. And that is why libertarians have to be careful. When liberals say “rights” they don’t mean what you think they mean.

      2. And a conflation of minarchy and anarchy.

        1. Well, that’s mostly because even when these fools screech “no-government”, they actually cannot conceive of that, and they’re actually talking about “significantly less government than we have now”, which to them is Armageddon. Trust me, they really cannot conceive of “no-government”, it’s impossible for them; I’ve had enough discussions with people like that to know.

      3. Right to work = your obligation to hire me.

    5. Jesus christ this just burns my ass. Not only does it have the standard liberal stupidity and wilful ignorance about libertarianism, it neglects the fact that WE WERE ALREADY ON THEIR GODDAMN SIDE ON THIS ISSUE – in fact way, way ahead of the position taken by their Chosen One.

      Speaking of which, a bad two days for advocates of the administrations’ position in front of the Nazgul. After reading the oral arguments I totally can’t understand what the hell they are trying to advocate for, except that it’s some sort of political in-betweenness.

      1. WE WERE ALREADY ON THEIR GODDAMN SIDE ON THIS ISSUE

        No, we arent (even ignoring people like me who arent on their side for other reasons). As we have learned with other issues, THE STATE is all that matters.

        They would sell every gay down the river tomorrow if it maintained the state.

      2. “WE WERE ALREADY ON THEIR GODDAMN SIDE ON THIS ISSUE”

        Get ready for the hurricane of denunciation of homophobic libertarian teabaggers wrecking the cause of LGBT equality. “OMG you would let Kochprayshuns discriminate against LGBT people!?!?!?”

    6. So close, yet so far.

    7. Jesus Christ, marriage equality has been a plank in the Libertarian Party platform since 1972!

      1. And a bunch of other stuff I’d forgot about, such as repeal of laws prohibiting cross-dressing, or recognition of the right of a gay parent to have custody of his or her child.

        Libertarians really are the only people who care about the rights of individuals, especially “unpopular” minorities. It’s wonderful that over 50% of the population finally considers gay people to be people, but what happens when that drops under 50%?

        1. “You have outlived your usefulness.”

          http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw…..Usefulness

        2. When the Dems added gay marriage to their plank a number of my friends were self-congratulatory on FB and then annoyed when I pointed out that most of the third parties had robust gay rights platforms in the early ’70s.

        3. Because the other people don’t think gay people are people, somehow.

          And, come on, Right Kind of White Person vs. Wrong Kind of White Person is not a moral issue at all. Are you that dumb?

      2. Yes, so what?

        People like her are not for that issue for the same reasons you are. Libertarians have an awful blind spot about that, especially when it comes to dealing with progressives. They keep being surprised by it.

        1. True, they’re probably just horrified that people can be in committed relationships without a license from the state.

  16. Gay couples could face higher taxes if the Supreme Court rules that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

    “Let’s get married! Let’s get married!” So I did and this is what I get??? I should’ve kept to gay bars and promiscuity!

  17. Gay couples could face higher taxes if the Supreme Court rules that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

    Hey, they asked for it. “You wanted equal treatment under the law, OK, here you go. Enjoy. Look at this way: now you’re paying your ‘fair share’.”

  18. New York legislators have introduced a medical marijuana bill despite the fact that Gov. Cuomo has said that he is not in favor of such legislation.

    That’s a weird way of phrasing it.

    You could have said “because the fact that Gov. Cuomo has said that he is not in favor…” New York legislators are the legislators and Gov. Cuomo is merely the executive.

    1. I think what they’re trying to get at is that even if it passes the legislature Governor Cumshot will most likely veto it. It is clumsy phrasing though.

      1. Worthwhile to see the voting margin though.

    2. Not if you believe that the proper position of the legislature is under the Governor Cuomo’s thumb.

    1. I have to question why that woman thought it was a good idea to hop that fence in broad daylight.

      1. You’re assume the whole event wasn’t black propaganda conducted by the Government.

        1. *assuming

        2. Propaganda of color?

  19. What is the reasoning behind offering married couples a lower tax rate anyway?

    1. It’s only a lower tax rate when you’re under $150k total income or so.

      I do miss my ex-spouse who didn’t work now that it’s tax time.

    2. There is no good way to account for both married single, married dual income and single people under a progressive tax code. Any way you set it up, at least one of those arrangements gets shafted in relation to the others.

      1. Made up examples: Single person and a married man with a stay at home wife both makes $200k. Should they pay the same amount of taxes? You can make arguments on policy or “fairness” that the married couple should pay more OR less. They’ve got more expenses and are supporting more people, but the same income, why should they pay the same? Or the wife is providing untaxed shadow economic benefits and receiving the general benefits of the government, why shouldn’t they pay more?

        Now take a married couple where each makes $100k. Under an individual tax regime their combined taxes would be less than the single breadwinner making $200k with a stay at home spouse. Should they be? Why or why not? What scheme will you use to fix it?

        There’s no obviously correct policy answer to any of this.

        1. Single Land Tax doesnt have this problem.

          1. Straight Poll Tax, either.

            1. But gays don’t have to pay the Straight Poll Tax.

        2. There’s no obviously correct policy answer to any of this.

          Of course there is.

          Everyone is afforded the same benefits from the govt. Every man, woman and child should pay an equal flat fee. Govt services are worth X. Everybody pays X for them. Simple and ultimately fair. It also has the added benefit of keeping government to an absolute minimum as growing it would have the biggest impact upon the poor.

      2. The income tax is an individual income tax. Individuals should pay the same tax on the same income regardless of marital status*

        *Of course this is all assuming a progressive income tax. In my ideal world, the income tax wouldn’t exist.

        1. The income tax is an individual income tax.
          As currently (and always) constituted it’s actually an individual household tax. Individual ideas of fairness aside, there are significant disincentives for a wife to work if we switch to always taxing individuals rather than households. She’s facing a higher marginal tax rate on the decision whether to stay at home and take care of the kids, so some will make the decision to do that. If you don’t care or prefer that outcome, fine.

          1. “Individual ideas of fairness aside, there are significant disincentives for a wife to work if we switch to always taxing individuals rather than households.”

            Compared to the status quo, maybe, depending on how much she and her husband make. My point is that a single person shouldn’t have to pay more (or less) taxes than a woman who has chosen to marry. That’s a neutral tax code. It doesn’t incentivize one or the other

            1. You cannot have a neutral tax code when the code is deliberately not neutral. A progressive tax cannot, by definition, be neutral. Unless that central fact is changed, all attempts to neutralize the code is fiddling around the margins.

              1. “You cannot have a neutral tax code when the code is deliberately not neutral. A progressive tax cannot, by definition, be neutral. Unless that central fact is changed, all attempts to neutralize the code is fiddling around the margins.”

                I was referring to neutrality specifically regarding marital status, not in general. I agree that the income tax shouldn’t exist, and if it does should be as flat as possible

                1. “I was referring to neutrality specifically regarding marital status,…”

                  I understand, but the problem is not soluble on that level. You cannot have the code be neutral on marital status and be progressive. It is not possible.

        2. Depending on how a couple makes their money, it is possible for one spouse to hide income under the other spouse’s name, lowering the individual taxable income of the spouse on the cusp of a marginal rate. That’s one of the reasons married couples are not treated the same as individuals for income tax purposes, even if they file separately. Again, this really only matters under a progressive income tax regime

          Assuming government was capable of obtaining perfect knowledge of everyone’s income sources, maybe it would be possible to administrate even a progressive income tax equitably. The essential unfairness is the progressive tax, no arrangement of the chairs is going to eliminate it.

          1. “The essential unfairness is the progressive tax, no arrangement of the chairs is going to eliminate it.”

            I agree with that. And people will always try to get around taxes the best they can. My point was that explicitly treating married people differently increases unfairness, not decreases.

            1. And my point is that you are focusing on a tree and not the forest.

  20. OK wow I really like the way that is going, hit it up man!

    http://www.GoneAnon.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.