NSA Head Says Email Metadata Collection Was Abandoned, Texas Conservatives Have Month to Try for Abortion Restrictions, Armstrong Claims Doping Necessary for Tour De France: P.M. Links

|

  • "He just e-mailed his buddy where he was hiding the nuts. Let's roll!"
    Credit: Stewf / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA

    In response to a new report from The Guardian that the National Security Agency had engaged in huge amounts of email metadata collection, NSA director Gen. Keith Alexander said the program was abandoned because it wasn't very effective and therefore not worth the privacy violations. That raises the question of whether they'd be fine with the privacy violations if the program were more effective.

  • The special session in Texas that Gov. Rick Perry is ordering in order to try to get an abortion ban after 20 weeks passed may last up to 30 days. That could be quite a filibuster.
  • Lance Armstrong is back in the news as the Tour de France returns, claiming that it's impossible to win the race without doping.
  • The Navy is trying to keep their SEALs around by offering them $160,000 bonuses for re-enlisting. The military will make up the money with future movie deals, no doubt.
  • President Barack Obama has arrived in South Africa as Nelson Mandela is showing some signs of improvement. It's not clear as yet whether Obama will visit Mandela, though the president said he's not looking for a photo op. Protestors calling the president's foreign policies "arrogant and oppressive" are there, though, looking for a photo op.
  • A website administrator in Spain has been sentenced to prison time – more than a year and a half – for providing links to pirated content.

Have a news tip for us? Send it to: 24_7@reason.com.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content

NEXT: Stuxnet Leak Investigation Focuses on Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

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. Lance Armstrong is back in the news as the Tour de France returns, claiming that it’s impossible to win the race without doping.

    That’s kind of the point.

    1. haven’t a good many of the winners proven his claim?

    2. So, if no one is doping – no one would win?

      1. If no one were doping, they’d all drop dead of exhaustion before finishing.

        1. They couldn’t slow down? Eat some food? Drink some water?

        2. So the one that drops closest to the finish line wins. Do I have to think of everything?

          1. If this is the case, I may enter and just use a tortoise and the hair strategy. What’s the first prize get you?

            1. A few photo ops with some rather attractive french models and a wife that will save you a bunch of money on toilet paper purchases.

          2. Or like that Stephen King story where the kids have to keep walking or they’re killed and the last one wins the lottery (or something).

    3. When everyone dopes, no one does.

  2. President Barack Obama has arrived in South Africa as Nelson Mandela is showing some signs of improvement. It’s not clear as yet whether Obama will visit Mandela, though the president said he’s not looking for a photo op. Protestors calling the president’s foreign policies “arrogant and oppressive” are there, though, looking for a photo op.

    Praise be to Obama, healer of the sick!

    1. the president said he’s not looking for a photo op.

      Is this the most outrageous thing Obama has said yet?

      1. He’s hanging around, hoping Mandela dies while he’s there, so he can do the eulogy and get pictures as a pallbearer. If he’s not allowed to do those things, he’ll drone strike everyone until he is.

        1. Droning a funeral does seem more appropriate than droning a wedding.

          1. Four Drones and a Funeral.

    1. NEVER chain your dog up outside. Keep it in the house or locked in a fenced-in area or kennel. NEVER chain your dog up outside.

      1. My dog has been “at large” for the past ten years. Rural living is healthy living.

        1. This. We bought our house specifically because it had a fenced backyard. For the dogs. They love it, we love it, neighbors love it (they all have dogs, but none have fences…weird).

        2. I guess that why I never heard of a dog getting hit by a car in rural America.

          1. And IIRC, Old Yeller lived to the ripe old age of 22, which is pretty good for a large-breed dog.

            1. I have enough property the dog (a sporting breed) never has to leave it unless following me on an ATV ride. So when I say rural I mean rural.

        3. Yeah, everyone here let’s their damn Chihuahuas run loose. Can’t drive a half a block without some damn dog darting out into the street. Worse than, kids I tell you.

      2. Pretty sure there was a news story here a month ago in which Chicago suburb cops opened the fence gate, and then shot the dog.

        There is no safe place for dogs

  3. It’s not clear as yet whether Obama will visit Mandela, though the president said he’s not looking for a photo op.

    Just a fundraising visit or perhaps get in nine holes, if Nelson is up to either.

    1. Weekend at Bernie’s 3: Back in Black!

      1. RACIST!

        1. But funny.

  4. That raises the question of whether they’d be fine with the privacy violations if the program were more effective.

    That’s classified.

    1. What’s also classified is whether they’re lying/misleading us about what they’re doing.

      1. It’s classified whether that is classified or not.

        1. That’s right. And, in fact, this conversation is classified, because we’re discussing whether or not something is classified.

      2. It might be classified, but of course they haven’t stopped. I guess their plan is to collect it all, rather than merely metadata.

  5. The Navy is trying to keep their SEALs around by offering them $160,000 bonuses for re-enlisting.

    Well, I assume training new ones is expensive.

    1. It takes a lot of fish to train ’em to play those tuned bulb-horns.

    2. SEALs ain’t got nothing on AF pilots:
      http://www.airforcetimes.com/a…..00-stay-in

  6. Eight fictional girls you were supposed to like but who actually suck.

    1. I am proud to say I haven’t seen a single one of those movies.

      1. Hey, Groundhog Day is a good movie.

        1. Agreed. And McDowell’s personality isn’t the draw. She. Be. Hawt.

          1. You have a unique definition for Hawt.

          2. McDowell is pretty but she’s like a sexuality black hole. None escapes from her. She’s more like a mannequin than a person.

            1. Andie McDowells gums vs. Genna Davis’ gums in a dental face off to end all challenges!

              Seriously, you could build a hoover dam with those girls gums.

              A DENTAL dam.

              1. No contest. Julia Roberts wins.

                1. A Challenger appears!

                  Tough call on that. Julia does have some gigantic gums.

          3. Andie McDowell has the oddest face–one minute she’s very average-looking, and the next she’s “holy shit, I want to recreate one of SugarFree’s fiction works with her.”

          4. Andi McDowell is the Antichrist.

        2. Agreed. I think the message is more like “don’t go out of your way to tick people off” anyway.

    2. Were you supposed to like Jenny?

      1. That was my thought. I thought Jenny was supposed to be a flighty, self-destructive idiot. Wasn’t that the point?

        1. Yeah, and she acknowledges in the movie that she doesn’t deserve Forrest, but since Forrest is a simpleton he doesn’t care.

          Come to think of it, didn’t she die of AIDS? How did they consummate their marriage at the end?

        2. Didn’t she sort of grow up and evolve into an adult by the end? I don’t tend to remember terrible movies that I was drunk during that well. Because movies are like a box of chocolates or something.

          GUMP FICTION

          1. I don’t tend to remember terrible movies that I was drunk during that well.

            So all of them?

            1. No, not all of them. Sometimes Epi is drunk during good movies. He remembers those.

              1. I was drunk during World War Z last weekend and that sucked bigtime.

                1. Has the zombie craze finally jumped the mother-fuckin’ shark? I hope so.

                2. Hey, the book was great, even if the guy did a little paean to Upton Sinclair at one point. The movie looks like shit.

                  1. I haven’t read the book yet (I intend to soon), but a friend of mine who has who saw it with me says it’s literally not even the same story. And what they changed it to is incredibly derivative and bland. A single episode of Walking Dead is better than that movie.

                    1. The graphic novels are stunningly well plotted.

                    2. Apparently the book is a series of interviews. A bit difficult to turn into a film.

                    3. “Borat” did that well.

                      Fuck, Michael Moore can turn out an interesting documentary from a bunch of interviews, some, ahem, *creative* editing, and blatant lies.

                  2. The book is overrated. Ok, original, but not great. I read it at the same time I read Lamb, and it was not nearly as good.

                3. I was drunk during World War Z last weekend and that sucked bigtime.

                  I just heard of that movie last weekend, and I could’ve told you it was shit then.

          2. If by grew up you mean she got aids and dumped her son on a retard and possibly gave them both aids as well then yes.

            1. If by that you mean “got HIV while she was living wild and realized when she had a son she needed to settle down and that when she was dying she needed to provide for him,” then yes.

              1. I’m going with Apatheist’s version.

              2. Fuck nuance!

              3. She was just the teachable moment of a heavy handed morality play. I know plenty of women who experienced and did the things she did who are productive human beings with no to few qualms about the sexual abuse, drugs, abortions and sex with radical and less than black males that they did or continue to do.

                1. I’ll leave it to Brandon to clean up the tail phrase in that last sentence. I don’t like it but too inebriated to know why at the moment.

                  BTW, the WSAD keys are screwy. Need a new keyboard. if you are a gamer, you’ll understand.

                  1. I’m not even touching that. I think maybe some dashes would help?

                    1. Supper has subdued some of that alcohol. I’ll give it another go.

                      — know plenty of women who experienced and did the things she did but who are productive human beings with no to few qualms about growing up with sexual abuse, drugs, abortions and sex with radical and less than radical black males either in their past or in their present still.

                      Eh, a bit better. Now for another drink.

          3. She did. And she was abused as a kid. I am a big Jenny fan.

          4. My nieces watched that movie everyday for the entire fucking summer my brother and I lived together after his separation to his first wife. I don’t think it is possible to hate anything more than I hate that movie, except the wife’s hatred of the song A Day in the Life because an art professor made her class do their assignments while playing that tune on repeat.

            1. Still, I love Gary Sinise’s acting in that movie. Shame he had to do a CSI to pay the bills.

        3. Now hating Princess Buttercup would be wrong.

          1. Is she any more likable in House of Cards?

            1. She’s a sociopath who married a sociopath and they sociopath their way to success. So, more like Jenny than Buttercup.

              1. If I hadn’t seen House of Cards I’d think you were talking about Bill and Hillary.

          2. But Princess Buttercup is a cipher. Pretty and dumb. The book makes this perfectly clear.

        4. The thing is that you like the character at least a little while the movie is going on simply on the basis of the fact that the child actress they got to play kindergarten age Jenny was breathtakingly cherubic.

    3. I’ve seen most of those and it’s pretty spot-on. Numbers 2, 3, and 4 especially.

    4. I can’t believe you were supposed to like the woman in Knocked Up for ruining Seth Rogen’s life. But then that’s probably why I hated the movie in general.

      1. Can’t you make the same argument for Jenny, who you inexplicably love? The woman in Knocked Up grew up a bit in the end, and she did it without doing gobs of cocaine and contracting AIDS.

        How can you hate her and not Jenny?

        1. Forrest loved Jenny since they were children. Katherine Heigl saddled a stranger with a baby.

          1. Tragic love story very different from one-night-stand tragedy, basically.

          2. Forrest loved Jenny since they were children and she strung him along for 30 years while banging musicians, doing drugs, and hanging out with black panthers.

            That is unquestionably worse than being drunk and getting pregnant. Plus, Rogan was the one who didn’t put on a condom, so he was partially at fault. Forrest was blameless and was seriously harmed by Jenny’s cokeheaded malfeasance.

            1. Jenny coming back to him in the end=adorable love story.

              And, as I’ve said before, it’s always the woman’s choice to have the kid. Rogen was just along for the ride with her ridiculous ambitions. Although I do blame him for not leaving her.

              1. Why? As a couple they worked out better than most.

                1. But they would never have been a couple if she had kept her business to herself.

                  1. It would have broken his heart if she aborted his implantation. Which put her into a quandary. She was obviously not crazy about the abortion option either, and he did fuck up on the birth control. That’s why I think it was more his fault than hers.

                    1. She never had to tell him about it. You have one-night stands and you’re not on the pill, and then you have the balls to call the guy about it later? Ugh.

                      Anyway I just didn’t get the whole movie. It was like an entire movie based on insanity to me.

                    2. As someone who was on the dating scene for most of my adult life, I recognize him as someone who knew what he was getting into. He wasn’t selective enough for what he wanted out of the hook up.

                      You look to separate out types. For some women, like Katherine’s character, they are Catholic guilt weak, and abortion is not a viable option, nor should you expect them to just take care of business. Other women are more like Nikki, atheist mercenary strong, they are the ones who will take care of business, and it wont unnecessarily intrude on their conscience or personal lives (at least at this stage in a pregnancy I agree there is no rational reason it would).

                      His fault was not in making this determination before going forward. We have all been there, and have made that decision, he fucked up by not making the right determination and then preceding with fucking up the birth control.

          3. So just because Forrest “loved” her makes it better?

          4. Forrest loved her because he is retarded. And that’s not me being snide, his arrested development prevented him from getting past his fixation on her as that sweet little girl that was nice to him as kid.

            I find that more sad than sweet.

            1. Yes, and one reason it is more sad than sweet is that his being retarded prevented them from having a real relationship.

              My vision of this is also colored by having read the book, which is quite different, and in which Jenny spends a lot of time fucking him all over the house. They were very much a couple, but he could never fully understand her because of his mental limitations.

              1. When did that happen in the storyline?

                1. While they are in college and after. Before Vietnam.

                  1. Nicole, we all know that the real love story in that movie was between Forrest and Bubba.

                    I think it’s tragic that after the real love of his life died in Vietnam, all that was left was for him to fall back into the arms of that coldhearted harpy we call ‘Jenny.’

                    1. Not to mention Sally Field! Oh mama. Sniff.

                    2. Nicole, we all know that the real love story in that movie was between Forrest and Bubba.

                      I think it’s tragic that after the real love of his life died in Vietnam, all that was left was for him to fall back into the arms of that coldhearted harpy we call ‘Jenny.

                      Best interpretation of Gump ever. Irish, you are on your game today and then some.

              2. Forrest goes to space and lives with the natives in New Guinea!

                1. I’m in for this sequel. Though it’s going to hard for him to run in space.

                  1. Actually the running part replaces the space/New Guinea crash-landing part of the book. Really all we need is a directors-cut.

                2. I know that in the sequel Forrest Gump accidentally is declared Godking of Earth through a wacky misunderstanding that occurs after he wins MVP of the NBA Finals. Then the purges start.

                  It gets dark pretty quickly.

        2. nicole identifies with Jenny because Jenny was a huge slut who did cocaine and got STDs. Duh. Come on, dude, you know this.

          1. And Katherine Heigl was a huge slut that got preggers and complained a lot.

            They both have clear parallels to Nicole’s life, which makes this even stranger.

            1. Do I have to spell this out for you? Which one was in Princess Bride?

              1. ^this^ Chicks love Princess Bride.

                1. Hey man, I love the Princess Bride.

                  Loving the Princess Bride is a fact of life, regardless of gender.

                  1. But we love it because chicks love it, and it appeals to our own inner chick. It’s delightful in that way.

                1. For what, Spicoli?

                  1. No, are you kidding? He peaked then.

                    1. Bad Boys was pretty decent too, soda cans to Clancy Brown’s grill and all.

                    2. Sean Penn made the movie about Harvey Milk solely to atone for his quote about why his rival surfers were no threat to him, in Fast Times: “Those guys are fags!”

    5. “Her character is a prime example of someone we were just supposed to be on board with loving for many years entirely because she was pretty.”

      and it totally worked

    6. I don’t think you’re supposed to *like* Jenny as much as feel sorry for her.

    1. What is it with people wanting to make them gay? They’re not fucking gay. I mean, seriously, PBS did not set out to portray gay puppets in the 1960s.

      The same shit happens with historical figures, all of whom were gay if they had male friends.

      1. I thought they were cousins.

        1. Gay, incestuous cousins? That’s fucked up.

      2. I always thought people making them gay were just joking.

        I had an acquaintance in college who was as uptight as Bert and wore the same sort of turtlenecks, who turned out to be gay, too.

        1. Me, too, but now some people seem obsessed with making them actually gay. Like sex is such a core issue on Sesame Street.

          People are so fucked up.

          1. After Rowling retconned Dumbledore to be gay people went nuts about it too.

            1. At least she was the author doing something dumb and pointless with her own work.

              1. Yeah, I was more pointing out the reaction of other people.

      3. Or, like Leonardo da Vinci who had a morals conviction in his past for solicitation of a male prostitute. Why would anyone assume he was gay on that bases? Just ask Eddie Murphy.

        1. Of course, some historical figures were gay or, at least, batted several directions.

          I just read a pretty good history of the Plantagenets that mocked people’s beliefs that Richard I and some other monarch were gay, because the evidence for it is almost nonexistent. Of course, some who weren’t known for it must’ve been, right?

          1. You can build a thousand bridges . . .

            Funnily, that is a modern attitude. Back in LDs day, the male prostitute was just the cheaper choice.

      4. Pretty sure until recently having unmarried men living together wasn’t considered gay.

        1. Of course not. Roommates? Remember those?

  7. Game of Thrones casting announcement: Chilean actor .

    I’m glad they are acknowledging the clearly Mediterranean/Spanish roots of Dorne in the casting.

    1. Do you have a link, dumbass?

    2. Whoops, here’s the link:
      http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/06…..er-oberyn/

      1. Well, he doesn’t get to be a cast member for very long.

      1. The story is seven years old. There has to be a use by date fresher than that…

        1. Did you know Gatsby dies?

          1. WHAT THE FUCK, MAN! I was going to get to that book after I got back from doing the Charleston at a speakeasy tonight, but now you’ve ruined it.

            1. That is the funniest thing I’ve read on this site. Ever.

          2. There’s a 1930 movie called Moby Dick, starring John Barrymore as Ahab. This movie, however, is based on an earlier movie called The Sea Beast. So Ahab actually successfully kills the whale and returns home. To his girlfriend (Joan Bennett), no less.

            Not your father’s Moby Dick.

            1. That’s, like, an M Night twist ending right there.

    3. Nobody expects the Dornish Inquisition!

    4. Very droll fellow, until a mountain fell on him.

  8. “We started that debate and said this did not have the value to stop the terrorist attacks that we need,” Alexander said. [“I]t wasn’t meeting what we needed and we thought we could better protect civil liberties and privacy by doing away with it.”

    “We started that debate” and “what we needed” — Details, please.

    These guys dig themselves in deeper every time they open their mouths.

    1. They need terrorist attacks?

      1. Duh, so they can justify raping the bill of rights. Try to keep up.

  9. “President Barack Obama has arrived in South Africa as Nelson Mandela is showing some signs of improvement.”

    Damnit, I misread “has arrived” the first time as “was arrested” and got my hopes up.

    Just wishful thinking I guess

    1. There’s a path to world peace.

      1. Is Obama there to help Mandela get better? Or is he there to finish him off?

  10. Some happier news: Pennsylvania girl initially denied permission for a lung transplant by Department of Health and Human Services regulations is recovering after undergoing two lung transplants.

    Prior to Sarah’s operation, the Murnaghans had been in the midst of a prominent legal battle over the established rules for organ donation, after filing a lawsuit to have the guidelines changed to help save their daughter’s life. Under the current guidelines for organ donation, children under the age of 12 must wait for pediatric lungs to become available, and adult lungs cannot be offered to children under 12 until they are offered to adults and adolescents first.
    The Murnaghans argued the rule keeping Sarah off the list was “discriminatory.”
    A federal court judge granted a temporary order on June 5 that allowed Sarah to join an adult organ transplant list

    1. What about the guy/gal who would have gotten those lungs? How’s he/she doing?

      1. RTFA. She got two defective lungs, so it’s likely they scraped the bottom of the barrel for them.

        It’s incredible that she’s doing as well as she is right now.

        1. No, my point is that we’re all happy for her, while some faceless person just got a death sentence…

          1. Those were scratched and dented lungs. They would’ve been thrown out anyway.

          2. Exactly. A death panel of one judge. Crony medicine.

          3. while some faceless person just got a death sentence…

            Tony is that you?

          4. Two faceless people got the death sentence, since they first set didn’t work and they had to do it again.

            She’s how many people are we going to kill in the name of this one girl?

          5. “some faceless person just got a death sentence…”

            Blame the panel.

        2. and if they can buy her a decade there is a reasonable chance that we’ll be able to grow her a new pair of her own in that time.

          1. Or print them out on a 3-D printer

      2. guy/gal

        Discrimination against the trans/cis/whatevergendered!

    2. And some unhappy news to go with it – who’s going to die now that she was moved up the transplant list?

      Always thinking about what is *unseen* biotches.

  11. OK, what the fuck, Doherty? I had actual work in the middle day, so I’m only seeing them now, but: what is with the 1-2-3 nut punch at noon? I know Balko’s getting attention for his new book, but that doesn’t mean you have to step up your game so severely.

    I’m seriously going to drink some hard stuff tonight. Fuck the cops, and fuck busybodies, especially Canadian busybodies.

  12. The atlantic is officially dead as a news source. They’ve got a fucking column by Hugo.

    What SNL played for laughs, many men (and some women) took – and still take – seriously: Some men can’t win with women, these people believe, no matter what they do or say. This attitude is best observed in the recent backlash against calling men “creepy.”

    He then goes on to agree with all the arguments, but then says:

    When men complain about being “creep-shamed,” or insist that the Tom Brady sketch accurately reflects reality, what they’re really lamenting is a culture that is increasingly willing to honor women’s right to be sexual — and women’s right to be safe.

    Is that what those “some women” feel as well? They hate that they have a right to be safe?

    The whole article is garbage, but he’s going to Marcotte levels here.

    1. Maybe the guy who admitted that he once tried to murder a girlfriend isn’t the best person to give advice about being creepy.

      1. That just means he has valuable lived experience to share.

        Excuse me, I need to go vomit.

    2. As long as they are publishing quality long-form journalism like this, I’ll continue to scan their pages.

      1. I also like Conner, and Coates, now that he’s finally realized that most of the problems in the Black community are the result of Progressive policy, but my god. Hugo? Really?

        1. Coates is back to his old self? That would be awesome if he stopped deleting comments for disagreeing with him.

          1. Yeah, that’s some serious bullshit. But he made the turn a few months ago, and is steadily coming around to reality. He read too much history.

            1. Then again, here he is, once again missing the point.

              I fixed it for him, though:

              It is wrong to strip people of wealth because you are bigot. It is wrong to strip people of the right to name their caretakers because you are afraid. It is wrong to make war on people because you can not get over yourself. And though today we may say that we have advanced, through much of this country, the wrong continues unabated.

    3. “Creepy” describes having “the creeps;” it’s a word that centers on women’s own feelings. It’s no more “unfair” for Ashley the hypothetical barista to be “creeped out” by the advances of an older, unappealing co-worker than it is for her to be excited by the same approach from the man to whom she’s attracted. In that sense, the SNL sketch got to an important truth: Women’s subjective experiences and instincts matter.

      So the attempted-murderer cum sociopath wants to go back to the days where a Black male could be lynched because a White woman thought “he looked at her funny”.

      Unsurprising.

      1. Furthermore, that point makes no sense. Yes, it’s possible for a woman (or a man) to be creeped out over anything, but that doesn’t mean she/he is always justified in being creeped out. That’s the whole point.

        1. Yeah. Sometimes, while I’m driving around but don’t have anywhere pressing to be, I’ll just start following someone else’s car for 10 to 15 minutes. Just to fuck with them.

      2. It’s very interesting how much feminism likes to focus on subjective “lived experiences” and the like. They are making being non-objective a cornerstone of their identity.

        They are literally the opposite of scientific in their approach to the world.

        1. Now, don’t start mansplaining how patriarchal science works.

        2. Pretty sure that’s on purpose. Thence “mansplanations.”

          1. I like the word ‘mansplaining.’ Mansplaining is best defined as ‘when a vile patriarch refuses to check his privilege and tells a feminist the truth.’

            1. Oh, it’s even more fun than that. Why, women have ways of knowing things that no man could comprehend.

        3. You could describe many “-isms” that way. Feeling the right way about stuff has supplanted reason for many, many people. Of course, that’s because they were emotional, irrational idiots in the first place.

        4. The A+ crew has taken to calling objectivity “vulcan logic” and say that it simply doesn’t apply to social justice issues. But the only reason they’re getting pushback is because those other guys just hate women, right?

          1. I hadn’t seen that yet. Awesome. Not quite as catchy as mansplaining, though.

          2. I suffer murderous urges every time I see/read/hear the term “Social Justice,” or “Economic Justice,” or pretty much any type of justice that has nothing to do with Justice.

            1. Why are you anti-justice, anon?

            2. Social comes from the Latin socius, meaning “opposite of”. Thus social justice is the opposite of justice, social science is the opposite of science, etc.

              1. Don’t know latin nor am I a linguistics major, but your conclusion is definitely correct.

          3. That’s great. At least they’re starting to admit it. I’m getting tired of social justice freaks complaining when I say it’s based on nothing other than their personal whims.

          4. The A+ crew has taken to calling objectivity “vulcan logic” and say that it simply doesn’t apply to social justice issues.

            And yet, after Surak, Vulcan culture didn’t suffer from sexism, racism, or any other social ill.

            Strange, that.

        5. Have you ever tried to read a “feminist history”? I’m a big WWII buff and I saw a book that purported to be about the experience of women and children in the Eastern front.

          All of it was “narrative history” bullshit in which there were, perhaps, 4-5 primary sources used (there was no bibliography so I can’t be sure), interspersed with feminist-inspired insanity and profound historical illiteracy (did you know that Soviet conquest in the east was inspired by concerns about womens’ access to birth control? WTF?!)

          1. “did you know that Soviet conquest in the east was inspired by concerns about womens’ access to birth control? WTF?”

            No. No. Tell me you’re joking? Or that the book was a parody?

            1. Sadly, no. The thesis of the book was that the Eastern front was fundamentally a gendered conflict between a reactionary Nazi Germany (itself purportedly the result of a Weimar Republic which allowed women to display themselves in the public square), and a despotic but well-meaning USSR, which reluctantly had to involve itself to satisfy the female socialists in the movement who wanted womens’ rights in the East protected.

              Complete insanity.

              1. Because the USSR was so protective of the rights of women.

                That alone makes the book insane. The rest of it makes me think it was written by someone who somehow traveled here from an alternate universe.

                1. Maybe the alternate universe where they still use zeppelins and the Statue of Liberty is bronze?

                  1. the Statue of Liberty is bronze?

                    I thought they just coated the copper in that universe.

            2. It’s amazing to read a theory about an historical event that literally nobody involved at the time, not a single individual, would have believed.

              What is the title of this book??

          2. Have you ever tried to read a “feminist history”?

            Rather go slam my dick in a hot oven.

      3. I’ve seen that in my own life. A delicate little flower wanted the guy who brought her to a party to take her home because a black guy there was too gangster for her liking. The guy was totally harmless, and to this day has no record, nor does he act gangster.

    4. The Atlantic has taken Hugo in after they wrote a profile of him. He’s like a really retarded cat that we all feel sorry for, so we leave a saucer of milk out on the stoop.

    5. “Creep is the worst thing you can call a man,” wrote Jeremy Gordon for the Hairpin, pointing out it’s an impossible charge for a guy to disprove.

      Really? Because I’m pretty sure I’ve called men a lot worse. Let me consult my files:

      Pussy
      Cunt
      Bitch
      Bitch-ass
      Punk-ass bitch
      Bitch-ass bitch
      Cocksucker
      Kiddie-diddler
      Coprophage
      Dickless Piece of Shit
      Buttboy

      Others argue that “creepiness” connotes something specific: male homeliness.

      If you want to attract women, post your bank statements on your favorite online dating site instead of your “homely” face.

      Until recently, however, few women could make sexual choices based primarily on physical desire and emotional attraction. In a world where few women had the opportunity to prosper without a man’s protection, marriage was about survival.

      Did we turn into Saudi Arabia and nobody told me?

      1. Really? Because I’m pretty sure I’ve called men a lot worse. Let me consult my files:

        You left out “Progressive.”

      2. You left out Douchebag, which is strange.

        1. Never been fond of the term “douchebag.” It just lacks that cutting power that a well-placed “bitch” possesses.

  13. Krugman inhabits a completely different reality.

    In fact, however, none of that happened during Obama’s first term. But would the second term be different? For a little while it looked as if the old scandal machinery was finally springing back to life, with Benghazi, the IRS, and more. You could almost hear the sigh of contentment from a certain part of the press corps.

    But now it has all evaporated. Benghazi never made sense; it turns out that the IRS was targeting conservative as well as liberal groups. And as Chait says in the linked article, the NSA stuff is a policy dispute, not the kind of scandal the right wing wants.

    1. But now it has all evaporated. Benghazi never made sense; it turns out that the IRS was targeting conservative as well as liberal groups. And as Chait says in the linked article, the NSA stuff is a policy dispute, not the kind of scandal the right wing wants.

      The idea that the IRS was also targeting liberal groups has been disproven and the ‘policy dispute’ over the NSA is something that would have had Krugman in hysterics a decade ago.

    2. It amazes me that anyone, even people who also beat the leftist drum, take him seriously. There is absolutely nothing he won’t try to distort, regardless of the facts. If it would serve the Democrats for people to believe we had no Moon, he’d explain how the Moon was a big Republican myth.

      1. He’s like Rachel Maddow with a beard.

    3. He’s surrounded by people who tell him day and night that his shit tastes great, so now he’s either seeing how far he can push it before they wise up, or he’s eating that shit himself.

    4. I’m beginning to think that Krugman doesn’t even believe most of the stuff he writes these days. I think it’s definitely possible he just decided to mail it in years ago and become a full on mindless TEAM BLUE hack for the sake of career success. Some of his writings from the late 90s weren’t completely insane.

      1. I’ve seen some of those. It’s like he had a Gary Busey type accident between now and then.

        1. The things a man will do for pussy.

          1. The things a man will do for pussy.

            In Krugman’s case this is a more literal statement than with most men.

            1. This one is still my favorite. There’s just something about the picture that’s indescribable, but so perfect … From looking at this picture alone, one could guess all they need to know about Paul Krugman

              http://dealbreaker.com/uploads…..th-Cat.jpg

              1. He’s looking off into space like Gomer Pyle while the cat looks like it is about to send him off to go kill whatever has its attention.

              2. He looks like a dollar store Dr. Evil.

            2. Just check out the picture in the article Sidd Finch linked to.

        2. How Paul Krugman found politics.

          Wait, he found it? When? I’ve seen no evidence.

        3. She’s not awful looking, but if she married him, she must be batshit crazy….

  14. I am VGER: Voyager 1 approaching edge of Solar System.

    To keep up with the timeline established in Star Trek we should also start freezing and launching humans into space as well.

    1. Wait, are we talking about Khan or about those 20th century people Picard picked up who were amused by the concept of synthahol?

      When Picard found humans from the 20th century, he returned them to Earth. When Kirk found humans from the 20th century, he beamed them to a hostile planet.

      1. Given what we know about Earth in Picard’s time, Kirk did the far more humane thing.

        Seriously, imagine waking up after a 200 year cryo-sleep and learning that it was hard to get a good glass of alcohol. And that drugs also didn’t exist.

        1. Also anything you might want to make or produce can be done better by someone else or a replicator.

        2. Uh, replicators, dude. Instead of “Earl Grey, hot” you’d just order “cocaine, pure, powdered”.

          1. Data tells the drug addict that the replicators can replicate all the drugs he wants without any of the harmful side effects.

            Which raises the question as to why in the 24th century everyone just isn’t getting stoned 24/7?

            1. They were, but then they got used to it and got bored, so now they join Starfleet and do tedious boring jobs on starships within a military command structure because that’s way more fun.

            2. I assume that’s because getting stoned is a “harmful side effect”.

            3. Alongside the question of why anyone ever leaves the holodeck.

              1. You’re telling me I can have all the gorgeous redheads I want all at once, without any effort, pregnancy or STDs, and you expect me to go work for free instead?

                1. Holodeck poon? Totally beta. A real man like Kirk goes out and explores strange new worlds and bangs real-life alien babes.

                  1. In the time it takes him to walk to the transporter room I’ve already banged 3 alien babes.

              2. I just want to know why they don’t have faucets in there for hosing down the walls after what everyone would actually be doing in there.

                1. For some reason only Barclay seemed to do that. Though Geordi got close.

                2. Do sonic showers have faucets?

                  1. I can’t tell.

                    Anyway, is a sonic shower capable of cleaning up gallons of splooge? It’s a serious question.

                3. just use the transporter to beam it out into space. Or Wesley’s quarters, if you’re wanting to play a terrible joke.

                  1. How would beaming Wesley into space be in any way terrible?

                    1. Beam the splooge into Wesley, and then beam him out into space. But wait a minute before you do.

                      Only the best for our Wesley.

                    2. Sure, that works if you want to put him out of everyone else’s misery. But if we’re going to fill him with splooge first, then let’s put him in a cell directly below the holodeck’s floor drain.

                      BURIED ALIVE!

                    3. THIS is holodeck drainpipe 5!!!

                    4. How would beaming Wesley into space be in any way terrible?

                      I initially thought that his mom would be distraught, but then I realized that would be a great opportunity to sex her up, so I fail to see any downside.

                4. They have force fields for that.

              3. Alongside the question of why anyone ever leaves the holodeck.

                To re-hydrate. Worst job on the ship is the holodeck janitor.

            4. Which raises the question as to why in the 24th century everyone just isn’t getting stoned 24/7?

              Because pure synthetic cocaine with no side effects plus FTL travel is way more fun than sitting around laughing at shit that isn’t funny.

          2. Haven’t you heard? They have software to prevent these kinds of things. You think you can just order a gun?

      2. Simply another reason that Kirk is greater than Picard.

    2. Hey Pro Lib, how long has it been since Voyager last left the solar system? About 7 hours?

      1. You’re going to like this. Look at the e-mail NASA sent me yesterday:

        NASA Science News for June 27, 2013

        Three papers published in today’s issue of Science suggest that Voyager 1, now more than 18 billion kilometers from the sun, is closer to becoming the first human-made object to reach interstellar space.

        FULL STORY: http://science.nasa.gov/scienc…..n_voyager/

        1. Three papers published in today’s issue of Science suggest that Voyager 1, now more than 18 billion kilometers from the sun, is closer to becoming the first human-made object to reach interstellar space.

          I could have told them that for only half the cost of those studies.

          1. What’s sad is that Voyager is winning the battle to be the first man-made object to leave the solar system (leaving aside the many man-generated photons that are way past it), but it will lose at some point to a faster vehicle.

            1. Not necessarily. It may have already left the solar system by the time it gets passed.

              Also, we might get all blown up by aliens or commies.

              1. It’s got a long ways to go. I figure you’re in the solar system so long as the sun is the dominant gravitational influence. That’s at least a light year, right? And there’s the Oort cloud.

                1. I figure you’re in the solar system so long as the sun is the dominant gravitational influence.

                  That’s too logical of a definition. We should use magnetic levels or something!

                  1. Where’s the force field? That’s a good barrier, right?

                2. The Oort cloud is also gravitationally bound to the sun.

                  1. That’s what I meant–the Oort cloud is an obvious example of objects a light year out being bound to the sun.

                    1. Oh, gotcha. I read that wrong and thought you meant a light year, end of sun’s gravity, then the Oort cloud. The concept of the solar system is a human invention, originally meant to describe the sun and a few planets, as opposed to all the other stars. It’s been expanded to include planets much further out, dwarf planets, asteroids, comets, and the Oort cloud since then. At this point, I don’t think there is a bright-line definition that would make sense.

                    2. There probably isn’t a bright line, but I’d be okay if they picked some point around a light year or so out, based on where the sun’s influence appears to end.

                      I’m no expert, but this seems really uncertain from what I’ve read. I’ve see a radius of up to two light years suggested. And, of course, the sun’s gravitational influence, if you take out the dominant part, is what, over four billion light years out?

                    3. I’d be happy with the Oort cloud as a “boundary,” conceding that the cloud is so gossamer that finding it’s edge would be impossible. So call it the Oort cloud plus or minus a few billion miles.

                    4. Exactly. Figure out what looks like the edge of the cloud, add some AUs to make it clean, then declare Voyager outside of the solar system. In however many thousands of years that will take.

    3. What is this? Like the seventh time we’ve heard that?

      1. Yeah, I’m starting to think this is the new cold fusion.

        1. Either Voyager shows that their theories of the solar system were inaccurate and/or no one really knows for sure what counts as the “leaving the solar system.”

        2. There is no “edge of the solar system.” Scientists are finding out the Solar System is basically one big set for The Truman Show, except for all of humanity.

  15. Lance Armstrong is back in the news as the Tour de France returns, claiming that it’s impossible to win the race without doping.

    I’m not sure what he means by this. Does he mean one must dope because others are doping? Does he mean that if no one doped, and they held a Tour de France, that no one would win… that everyone would just collapse 3/5ths of the way through the race?

    1. I’m gonna go with the first one.

    2. Well, they had the race before they had real doping, so it clearly can be done. Just slower.

      1. Like anyone would watch that shit. Call me when it’s The Bicycling Man.

        1. People actually watch that shit with doping?

  16. It’s very interesting how much feminism likes to focus on subjective “lived experiences” and the like. They are making being non-objective a cornerstone of their identity.

    And yet, they are in no way reluctant to extrapolate from a singular nonrepresentative “lived experience” to broad policy prescriptions.

  17. Someone should make a cable TV show involving gay bi cisgendered ninja pirate sparkly vampire zombie pony dragon gangster in the 1960s who sells meth. Call it The Ballad of Warty.

  18. The reason the NSA stopped collecting email metadata is obvious:

    They’re collecting the entire email content now. Hence, they can make the statement, “We stopped the program where we collected email metadata” and have it be “the least untruthful option”.

    We need guillotines on the National Mall, with disposal units running night and day.

    1. Do you oppose the Death penalty?

      They’re collecting the entire email content now. Hence, they can make the statement, “We stopped the program where we collected email metadata” and have it be “the least untruthful option”.

      Bill Clinton will be proud.

  19. Strap in folks, this one’s a real doozy…

    If you ever want to get a full eyeball of how little value is put on the life of a young black man by white nitwits, just watch all the digressions and whining and mockery inspired by the George Zimmerman trial.

    […]

    It would be funny, except it’s awful, because someone was murdered and it turns out that you can basically get away with murder in Florida if you create even the barest bones plausibility for self-defense, up to and including chasing someone down until they, fearing they have no other choice, take a swing at you in hopes to escape your scary ass.

    I think the real question is why someone with a reputation for supporting blatantly false allegations in legal trials (*cough*DukeLacrosseTeam*cough*) would be so stupid as to do so again in another high-profile, controversial case. Well, it would be a question if we were talking about anyone besides Marcotte…

    1. Bonus quotes:

      She was there to defend her friend. And herself. Though she was not on trial, she seemed to know instinctively that Black womanhood, Black manhood, and urban adolescence is always on trial in the American imaginary.

      Rachel Jenteal has] also become a massive object of fun for soulless racists, who enjoy mocking her for being fat, speaking with an accent, being a 19-year-old who drinks and parties, and who is combative with the defense attorney who is trying to get the guy who murdered her friend off for his crime.

      to bring it up now because Rachel Jeantel, the last person who spoke to Trayvon Martin before he was shot to death by George Zimmerman, mentioned that Martin called Zimmerman a “creepy-ass cracker”, makes you a moral monster.

      1. She lied about major aspects of her initial testimony and her testimony is refuted by some people who were actually at the scene.

        Never let facts get in the way of the narrative.

        1. It also came out during her testimony that she gave her testimony at Martin’s house with his mother sitting on the couch next to her.

          Can you think of a less neutral place to take a witness’s statement?

          1. *her initial testimony.

      2. That’s real retarded, ma’am.

      3. Rachel Jenteal has] also become a massive object of fun for soulless racists, who enjoy mocking her for being fat, speaking with an accent, being a 19-year-old who drinks and parties, and who is combative with the defense attorney who is trying to get the guy who murdered her friend off for his crime.

        There’s nothing racist about making fun of a dumb fat cunt for being a dumb fat cunt…

        1. About the fact that she’s illiterate? Can I mock her for being illiterate?

          1. You can, and you’ve picked the absolute perfect venue for it!

        2. She certainly is a massive object.

      4. If Zimmerman’s key witness was Honey Boo Boo’s mom, I’m sure the left would be culturally sensitive.

        1. Honey BooBoo’s mom figured out a way to make hundreds of thousands of dollars off or her cute kid.

          She’s fucking Einstein compared to Jenteal.

      5. I don’t know or care about the woman who testified, but I know whoeve wrote this is an ignoramus:
        …”she seemed to know instinctively”…
        Bullllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
        shit.
        Harks back the the pomo ‘other ways of knowing’ crap.

        1. Yeah, I agree. Anyone that uses phrases such as “seemed to know” or “you could feel” should be shot immediately for not knowing what the fuck they’re talking about.

    2. I think the real question is why someone with a reputation for supporting blatantly false allegations in legal trials (*cough*DukeLacrosseTeam*cough*) would be so stupid as to do so again in another high-profile, controversial case.

      “I couldn’t help it,” said the scorpion. “It’s my nature.”

    3. I don’t think there’s a need for a question here; lying whore is a liar, end of story.

    4. And she knows beyond a reasonable doubt that it went down exactly as she describes and that Zimmerman would be legally liable in such circumstances.

      I’ve debated people on here recently who seem to think who know with 100% certainty who started the fight, how it happened, etc. but I will also be the first to say that there is nowhere near sufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman of murder.

      1. Meh, no idea how it went down, just think Zimmerman’s being targeted because “OMG THAT GUY’S WHITE AND HE KILLED A BLACK KID WHY DO YOU HATE NIGGERS!?”

        Were the races reversed, this wouldn’t be a news story, and some black guy would probably be wrongfully convicted. Just sayin.

        1. Don’t disagree.

      2. *we know

      3. Who are they? It’s certainly not me. I haven’t seen Papaya or John say they’re 100% certain.

        1. Do you know what “seem to think” means? Do you know that people don’t always talking completely literally? Do you realize the point of what I was saying in that comment? Are you the new Tulpa? Because you sure do like playing word games

          1. I don’t know. It did sound like you were saying that there were people here saying that Zimmerman is definitely innocent, so I think Sidd’s comment is reasonable.

            1. Considering Dunphy and Shriek, I would not be surprised either way.

            2. I was being a bit hyperbolic because I think that some people here are a little too confident in their perception of what happened that night. I don’t know about Sidd or even Papaya, but John all but explicitly stated that there’s no possible way Martin didn’t start the fight, and some of the points he made to support that were stupid IMO. And Papaya also said that Martin was likely casing the neighborhood for a burglary which is an assertion with not much evidence to back it up

              1. Perhaps John was being a bit hyperbolic because he thinks some people here aren’t confident enough in their perception of what happened that night 😉

                John all but explicitly stated that there’s no possible way Martin didn’t start the fight

                And you explicitly stated that there were multiple people here who seemed 100% certain.

                And Papaya also said that Martin was likely casing the neighborhood for a burglary which is an assertion with not much evidence to back it up

                Do you have a link to that?

                1. “Perhaps John was being a bit hyperbolic because he thinks some people here aren’t confident enough in their perception of what happened that night”

                  I think that’s unreasonable. I mean, even if you’re confident that Martin attacked Zimmerman, I don’t think you can really be confident about how it happened. Did he jump out of the bushes? Did Zimmerman say something to him and then he attacked him? No way of knowing that. Not to mention some of the reasoning he used was stupid, as I said.

                  “And you explicitly stated that there were multiple people here who seemed 100% certain.”

                  And I think there are multiple people here who are close to 100% certain they think what happened, which I think is unreasonable. 100% is admittedly hyperbole. Also, I don’t think that applies to just people defending Zimmerman. They’re were a couple of people (no regulars, don’t remember the names) on here criticizing Zimmerman going off of baseless assumptions about what happened.

                  I’m too lazy to find what specific thread it was (it was one of the Zimmerman threads from this past week). If you want to try to find it, be my guest, but I understand if you have better things to do

                2. I am rarely 100% certain of anything. I will say that as far as I can tell, there’s no way Zimmerman is guilty of murder two or even manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. It still looks like self-defense to me.

                  I can’t easily find the link I was thinking of about Martin casing the neighborhood, but it had to do with a map of his movements and the timeline: he didn’t go straight from the store to home, took way too long, especially considering the rain, and Zimmerman says he was looking into houses.

                  And there is evidence that he committed at least one other burglary.

                  “On October 21st 2011 a burglary took place a few blocks from Krop Senior High School where Trayvon Martin attended. The stolen property outlined in the Miami-Dade Police Report (PD111021-422483) matches the descriptive presented by SRO Dunn in his School Police report 2011-11477.”

                  1. Here’s Martin reffing a bare-knuckle fight. So this is the guy who was so afraid of Zimmerman? Yeah, right.

                    1. Not sure what a video of him reffing a fight is supposed to prove. I also don’t think he necessarily had to be afraid of Zimmerman for Zimmerman to be responsible

                  2. “I am rarely 100% certain of anything. I will say that as far as I can tell, there’s no way Zimmerman is guilty of murder two or even manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. It still looks like self-defense to me.”

                    I don’t disagree with that.

                    Not walking straight home isn’t evidence of anything. I think virtually everybody has taken walks at times to clear their head or whatnot. We have no idea what was going on his personal or family life that might have made him preoccupied, or if he just enjoyed taking walks. And I know plenty of people who love the rain, though I don’t.

                    Is there any way to read the police report online? It does seem pretty damning for him in that case, but that still doesn’t mean all that much as to what happened that night. It’s not like teenage burglars are out doing that every night.

                    The other thing is it’s not like Zimmerman has a squeaky clean past and reputation. This isn’t a case of a punk teen versus an upstanding citizen with no credibility issues whatsoever. His word alone isn’t much.

                    I forget who said it, but another commenter summed up the events pretty nicely, with something along the lines of “When two stupid people meet in the night.” I think both these guys in all likelihood made some dumb decisions that led to what happened

                    1. I grant that individually, these various facts about Martin aren’t dispositive. I would never think “Martin didn’t walk straight home and thus was probably the aggressor.” Hell, some of the things below apply to me or people I know. But add them up. First, what Zimmerman saw:

                      – young black male
                      – wanders in rain at night
                      – looks into houses
                      – dresses like a wannabe gangsta (I grant this one is arguable, depending on your feelings about hoodies, and I don’t know what else Martin was wearing)

                      Anyone with any current street smarts would conclude as Zimmerman did: suspicious character. I don’t consider it “racist” to think that. If he saw a middle-aged black woman dressed for church, with an umbrella, wandering in the rain and looking into houses, and thought “suspicious character!” instead of “she must be lost,” yeah that would be racist. Given that the neighborhood had seen a lot of crime, some known to be done by young black males, Zimmerman’s suspicions don’t seem unwarranted.

                      Now, add what we now know about Martin that Zimmerman may or may not have known:

                      – talks like a wannabe gangsta
                      – gold tooth

                      Plus what Zimmerman didn’t know:

                      – smokes pot
                      – trouble at home
                      – trouble at school
                      – evidence of burglary
                      – participates in bare-knuckle street fights

                    2. [cont.] OK, individuals of that type are sometimes the innocent victims in street confrontations… when attacked by others of the same type. What are the odds that they’d be set upon by some lone white or Hispanic guy? Damn close to zero. (Except for maybe a lone white or Hispanic cop. Sorry, Dunphy, just covering all the bases here.)

                      Side note: If Martin really did call Zimmerman a “creepy-ass cracker,” was it because he thought Zimmerman was gay? Note that “ass-cracker” is slang for “gay.” Did Martin perhaps actually say “creepy ass-cracker”? So might this have been a gay-bashing? Wouldn’t that confound the white liberals condemning Zimmerman? LOL

                    3. Is that slang that Martin would use? Maybe that’s what the witness meant when she said it wasn’t racial.

      4. There is not enough to convict Zimmerman under the law. I certainly hope that the Court and the jury remember there are higher standards of evidence under the law than under the klieg lights.

    5. Just a quick side note: if you were the type of person who published a book with this cover, calling it “retro” and “nifty-keen”, you should really avoid talking about race issues.

      Delightful.

      1. Wow, not much self-awareness or checking of one’s privilege going on in her head.

      2. Marcotte doesn’t fool me. I know her choice of cover art was a reflection of her subconscious jungle fever.

        If you give me enough tequila, I’ll take one for the team.

        1. That’s a catch-22, HM. The amount of alcohol you’d need to consume to have sex with Marcotte would literally kill you.

          /Archer

          1. True.

            I expect a glorious hymn to be composed in my honor. Nothing less than dactylic hexameter will do.

            1. A triumphalist hymn is always good, but I was thinking more iambic pentameter — you know, what the Medieval bards used to chronicle their king’s exploits in banging virgins.

      3. Although Amanda has long been one of my favorite bloggers, any enjoyment I once got out of reading her snappy takedowns of misogyny is rapidly turning to ashes in my mouth. And that’s why I can’t sleep, why I feel like throwing up.

        Over a silly book cover. It’s like piranhas turning on each other.

        1. And that’s why I can’t sleep, why I feel like throwing up.

          This is hilarious. Whenever I really start to hate some horrible left-wing psychopath, I remember that most of the hardcore leftists are miserable human beings, forever unable to know happiness. That makes me feel a little better.

          This woman is losing her mind over a book cover to the extent that she can’t sleep and might vomit. That is just precious.

          1. If only I could talk to her for just 5 minutes. Man would that be funny.

    6. You wouldn’t even use these kinds of arguments to rationalize murdering a dog, assholes. How can you use them to minimize the murder of a human being? What the fuck is wrong with you?

      Git that strawman, woman. Git it.

      1. How can you use them to minimize the murder of a human being?

        To which I reply:

        Have you seen some of these fucking human beings lately?

      2. She’s the Captain Ahab of witch-hunt inspired trials.

        Don’t give up, Mandy! You’ll get a man wrongfully convicted someday.

    1. Huh so I guess anonbot really isn’t as bot as he wants us to think.

  20. Sometimes man you jsut have to do it.

    http://www.Go-Anon.tk

    1. You’re slippin’, anonbot. Slippin.

      Either that, or anon-bot is actually SugarFree.

  21. Alec Baldwin slurs British reporter, calling him a “toxic little queen”.

    So will Baldwin get the Paula Deen treatment? Of coursr not, because he’s a media and Hollywood approved leftist, and leftists can use any vile slurs and epithets they want with no accountability.or professional repercussions.

    1. Paula Deen was an asshole to her employees who deserved what she got. Baldwin is nice deflection if you can get it.

      1. Paula Deen deserved what she got, but Baldwin deserves the same treatment and isn’t going to get it.

        1. Baldwin is deflection to defend Deen in the case Mike is making above.

          1. I didn’t take it that way. He’s just pointing out the hypocrisy.

            1. Well, what is worse? Hollywood hypocrisy or the offensive behavior? There are a lot of people out defending Paula Deen for her ‘persecution’, without knowing the facts of the matter. She not only said offensive things, but she and Bubba belittled and humiliated her employees to the extent to which they could get away. I’m not saying pointing out Hollywood hypocrisy is invalid, but please, use almost any other person but Paula Deen to make that case. It is too much of an aside here.

              1. I really think everyone misses the true vileness in this situation, and that is the people who give a fuck about what (insert asshole here) said.

              2. OK, but that still doesn’t mean Mike was using it as a deflection.

      2. Did I say that Deen did nothing wrong? No, I didn’t. She’s an idiot who probably deserves everything that’s happening to her. I’m talking about the double-standard in how liberals and non-liberals get treated for this kind of despicable behavior.

    2. I think it’s largely a matter of news value. Deen’s actions/comments were more of a surprise, whereas it’s now common knowledge that Alec Baldwin is an asshole.

      1. That may partly explain the news coverage. But will Baldwin get the same treatment from his peers as Mel Gibson? Of course not.

        1. Who gives a shit what some thespian morons say about other thespian morons?

          1. Do you read, do you watch TV? PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY, as far as I can tell.

    3. Judging by Stark’s picture, I’m gonna say it’s not an epithet as much as a statement of self-evident fact.

      1. No wonder they deserved the Red Wedding.

  22. I for one was horrified that Scott chose Ramona over Knives.

    1. Did you know they filmed an alternate ending where he ends up with Knives instead?

      1. Nope, had no idea

  23. ANYONE KNOW WHY THE FUCK ALL THE VIDEOS ARE ON AUTOPLAY WITH REASONABLE?

    1. I just turned on that option to check, and I’m not getting any autoplays.

    2. Maybe because your shift key is stuck.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.