RNC Tells NBC, CNN to Boot Clinton Films or Else, More Senate NSA Hearings to Come, Even Russians Know Snowden's a Whistleblower: P.M. Links


  • Maybe the RNC would approve if she wore this ugly outfit the whole time.
    Credit: aphrodite-in-nyc / Foter / CC BY

    The Republican National Committee has voted to boot NBC and CNN from the debates unless they cancel planned film projects on likely 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. But what if they're awful and make her look awful?

  • In the wake of the latest news in the National Security Agency surveillance scandal, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is calling for another hearing. He's concerned they're still not getting "straight answers." Because they're obviously not.
  • Even Russians realize that Edward Snowden is a whistleblower trying to alert Americans to abuses in federal surveillance.
  • Penn State faculty and staff are rebelling over "wellness" policies that require that they inform the college that they're engaging in certain healthy behaviors – like examining their testicles monthly – or face fines up to $1,200.
  • A Florida deputy was actually punished for doing something bad. In this case, he was demoted and suspended for leaving his loaded gun in a movie theater bathroom.
  • A judge has ruled against a challenge from public unions to Michigan's right-to-work law. It means employees of the state of Michigan can drop out of their unions and not have to pay dues following the next round of contract negotiations.

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

Get Reason.com and Reason 24/7 content widgets for your websites.

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


NEXT: Google Now Encrypts Cloud Storage Data

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. Even Russians realize that Edward Snowden is a whistleblower trying to alert Americans to abuses in federal surveillance.

    In Soviet Russia, whistle blows you.

    1. In Soviet Amerika, abusers surveille Russia!

      Wait – what?

        1. Gesundheit!

    2. However much the Russians say they see Snowden that way, the simple fact is that Putin and his gang of thugs would have treated a Russian counterpart of Snowden in a way that would make Cheney blanch.

      1. Isn’t Cheney permanently blanched?

      2. I never saw Russia as an ally to Snowden’s (ostensible) cause, just as an expedient place to go where the locals would take him in just to poke the US government in the eye. I figure it was about safety, not common cause.

        1. I agree, I was just questioning the idea that the Russians’ purported view of Snowden as a whistleblower can be squared with the way that Russians would react if one of their own people did it.

          Looking back in time: To North Americans, Oleg Penkovsky was a hero who feared that the Soviet Politburo was going to start a thermonuclear war, to Russians, he was a despicable traitor.

  2. He’s concerned they’re still not getting “straight answers.”

    He’s concerned about saving face. Any answers will do, NSA.

  3. How can Joe M already have a post up, appearing concurrently with the article? I thought Fist posted them?

    1. Obvious answer: Sockpuppet.

      1. I thought I was Joe M’z Law?

      2. Joe M is Fist is Epi is Suki is CE coving for himself?

        1. No, I’m not half of those guys.

    2. I don’t always try to post first, but when I do, I prefer to succeed.

      1. And in this case, clearly, I waited for my sockpuppet to reply first.

  4. A Florida deputy was actually punished for doing something bad. In this case, he was demoted and suspended for leaving his loaded gun in a movie theater bathroom.

    There’s something seriously wrong when he receives more punishment for losing the gun than he would if he had shot someone under dubious circumstances.

    1. Shooting someone spreads the rep of his gang as people not to be fucked with.

      Losing your gun in the shitter screams incompetent boob, which damages your crew’s rep.

      If you treat them as the best armed gang, their actions make a lot more sense.

    2. totality of the circs, yo

    3. Makes you wonder why he de-holstered his piece in the first place…

      1. He was taking a dump?

        1. That was my immediate thought.

          1. Yeah but that’s always your immediate thought. About everything.

            1. And you’d be surprised at how often it’s accurate.

    4. So when does his union get the “punishment” overturned?

      Real punishment would be facing criminal charges like a non-cop would.

  5. In this case, he was demoted and suspended for leaving his loaded gun in a movie theater bathroom.

    They were going to chain him to a rock and have his liver pecked out, but that turned out to be against union contract.

    1. I can’t really blame him. This one time I left my sunglasses in a bathroom, and that’s pretty much the same thing, right?

  6. Penn State faculty and staff are rebelling over “wellness” policies that require that they inform the college that they’re engaging in certain healthy behaviors ? like examining their testicles monthly ? or face fines up to $1,200.

    Well, Penn State never had a problem with their employees examining the testicles of others, so this makes complete sense.

    1. I’d submit pictures, you know, just to be sure I didn’t get fined.

      1. Anthony Weinerspitzer approves this message

    2. What the fuck? I wasn’t aware that testicular self-exams were particularly useful after age 35. Or that anyone 35 or under wouldn’t notice if their balls felt different.

      1. Also, is getting guys to fondle their balls REALLY that hard that it requires $1,200 fines?

    3. So Jerry Sandusky is really a doctor?

  7. Monthly? They don’t check every day?

    1. I check my balls continously.

  8. I find it funny that reason posts all these Libertarian Populism articles and hate the IRS considering the Populists were the ones who supported the income tax in the first place!

    1. Shorter Derpstone – “derp”

    2. That’s pretty derpy.

    3. What the fuck does this even mean? White Indian was more coherent than this.

      1. You need the Derpstone translator. Basically, all of Derpstone’s post translate to, “derp”.

        So save the money on the translator.

    4. Libertarian populism is a different group then the Populists who supported the income tax.

      Separated by Time Space and Political inclination.

  9. Maybe you should squat more, homo bro

    The longer I stared at myself, the more I began to notice what it was that made Julio cringe. My chest was dystrophic. My arms were unformed. My neck was frail. Skin hung over the band of my underwear and, on top of that, I was hairy. Everywhere.

    I began to panic. This was the first night my boyfriend saw me naked. He had that godlike body to offer me–and all I could give him was … was this hairy, lovehandley mess of skin?

    Yes, how did homosexuals ever get stereotyped as a giant pile of neuroses?

    1. I’m guessing the writer was the submissive

    2. Just from seeing the headline “The tyranny of buffness” in the URL let me know I absolutely should not click through. Yet another gripe about how people who achieved something are oppressive just by their having the fruits of their achievement, I bet.

      1. Nah, there’s a lot of soul-searching about “what kind of gay culture are we creating?”

      2. Naw you are confusing fags with feminists.

        Gay men tend not to be as PC as other leftist groups.

        Well unless you call them fags or something.

      3. Well you can understand my confusion though.

      4. I think the writer is just finding out that most gay men are just as superficial about this stuff as most straight men.

    3. I was hairy

      If one was gay for men wouldn’t he like hair?

      It is the fairer sex which tends to have less hair.

      1. Depends where and how much – i.e. we’re not all the same.

        1. My 20s were spent in the 90s.

          So I am fully aware.

          90’s GF: “Shaving my pits and legs is what the patriarchal magazines tell me to do”

          90’s Me (cringing): “yes dear do whatever you feel is right and i will support you”

          Me 20 years later reading an article that says shaving has greatly diminished the spread of pubic lice: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!

      2. Some do, but there seems to be a preference for less hair these days across the spectrum. Women are hairy, actually, they just shave most of it off. Why do I know that and you don’t?

        1. Tony, are you really so stupid that you don’t know the difference between “less hair” and “don’t have hair”? Hint: he said the first.

          Additional hint: if you’re having to shave your wife’s chest, there’s something wrong.

          1. The lack of hair on women’s torsos is kind of beside the point considering they also have breasts there. It’s like Corning has never been to a gay bar. Are there ever hairy gogo boys? Ever?

            1. Bears exist and i am positive they get more dick then i get pussy!!!

              See what you did!!!! SEE!!!

              Now i have to go back to playing CoD and cry myself to sleep again tonight.

            2. I’ve never seen a hairy gogo boy, or even one who wasn’t pretty muscular.

  10. The Republican National Committee has voted to boot NBC and CNN from the debates unless they cancel planned film projects on likely 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. But what if they’re awful and make her look awful?

    More likely they’ll depict her as a heroic woman fighting DC sexism and Republican malfeasance to bring down Nixon.

    1. That’s exactly what will happen.

    2. This is a stupid move on the RNC part.

      They have created more publicity for the project than it deserves and will undoubtedly inspire cries of “censorship”.

      A smarter move would have been to sponsor a “write the script” competition and publish the most ludicrous ones.

      “Hillary, though deeply wounded by Bill’s infidelity, nevertheless stands strong for social programs and in the end, overcomes the GOP program to starve the poor.”

      1. This is a stupid move on the RNC part.

        Stupid. Party. Gonna. STUPID.

      2. I initially had this reaction, but one of the really dumb things about the GOP over the years has been their acceptance of certain major media outlets as cheerleaders for their opponents. They really should be saying no more about shit like this.

        Because we all know that any Clinton biopics run by NBC and CNN (CNN??) will make Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth look like a Roman take-down of a known Jewish rebel.

        1. This is true. A lot of voters still think that mass media is an impartial arbiter of the issues. This might call into question the framing of information and how it is passed.

          1. If I were with the RNC, they’d have refused to accept the really outrageously biased media outlets all along. Just refuse. Refuse to let them moderate or host debates, etc. Stop playing along.

            1. That’s why it might be a good move. Especially CNN, whose journalistic bona fides don’t quite match the content anymore. NBC has a legit claim, but CNN is awful. will.i.am holograms!

    3. What if no one watches them?

      1. Well it will be on NBC…

        1. Kenneth: It’s NBC. “We comedy.”

          Jack: Kenneth, it’s “We Peacock Comedy!” You say the “peacock”

          Kenneth: What? That’s insane!

    4. More likely they’ll depict her as a heroic woman fighting DC sexism and Republican malfeasance to bring down Nixon.

      Yes. That heroic feminist who played cover for every powerful man in her life from her husband to Obama.

    5. “what if they’re awful and make her look awful?”

      What if Rachel Maddow does a documentary entitled – “Friedrich Hayek – misunderstood champion of freedom”?

      That’s about as likely.

      1. Anything they hold up as a great accomplishment on Hillary’s part will be awful, even if TEAM BLUE doesn’t see it that way.

        1. Scene: Hillary, in a seductively lit wood-paneled convention room, giving a speech about the necessity of social intervention into private lives. She wraps up her talk with the soon-to-be-infamous “it takes a village” line, delivered to a spontaneous standing ovation. Hillary beams out at the crowd with bright-eyed humility.

          Cut to the next scene outside the convention center. Reporters rush Hillary’s entourage as they exit, her metrosexually attractive bodyguards intercepting and narrowly buffeting the outstretched news mics. One in particular, an overly-made up middle-age woman, pokes a mic labeled Fawks News in her face, and asks, shrilly but audibly, “Hillary! You claim all children belong to the government. Do you expect Americans to forfeit their children to the police?” Hillary musters a reasonable answer, but is shortly shouted down by the conservative media. Her bodyguards usher her into the waiting sedan, the Fawks News correspondent waving her mic after Hillary like a gavel.

  11. But what if they’re awful and make her look awful?

    Like their news divisions have made a point of examining her involvement in Benghazi even if it makes her look awful?

    1. I think another three years will do that for them.

    2. These are the guys who have produced all the Kennedy hagiographies that appear on TV so regularly.

      There isn’t a chance that the production will be anything but a boredom fest.

      1. You know, I’d love to see an honest movie about the Kennedys. Honest across the board, with all of the criminal activities and corruption given full light of day.

        1. There’s a lot of stuff that would have to happen first. The personality cult would have to be disbanded and the like.

          I guess what i’m saying is we’ll drive off that bridge when we get there.

          1. There’s always Bollywood.

          2. I see what you did there.

        2. Narrow highway through the country, 69 Cadillac swerving lackadaisically down the road. Some other shmoe sleeps in the back.

          Ted Sorenson, eyes drooping half awake. Ted Kennedy drifting off in shotgun. A thud knocking wakes them up to full attention.

          Kennedy: What the fuck was that?

          Sorenson: Hit an animal or something?

          Kennedy: No. No. No. Pull the fuck over.

          All three get out. Pop open the trunk. Mary Jo Kopechne is tied, bound and bloodied. Her eyes are wide with fear.

          Kennedy takes out a butcher knife and slices her in the gut with several quick cuts. Schmoe whips out a 45 AP and shoots her three times in the chest.

          Sorenson doesn’t even blink. Looks over his friends, detached.

          Sorenson (voice over) As far back as I remember, I always wanted to be a Kennedy hanger on.

          1. Shit, sentence got fucked up in the editing deletes!

            Narrow highway through the country, 69 Cadillac swerving lackadaisically down the road. Ted Sorenson, eyes drooping half awake. Ted Kennedy drifting off in shotgun.
            Sorenson driving, Ted Kennedy, nodding off, riding shotgun. Some other shmoe sleeps in the back.

          2. Is this that scene from To Catch A Thief with Gracie?

            1. No, but you’re close. It’s the Scorsese frame by frame remake.


              1. I was kidding, but thanks for that. ’69 couldn’t be Gracie, only in real life, I guess.

  12. Twelfth!

  13. But what if they’re awful and make her look awful?

    I’m sure the RNC views it this way: if they’re hagiographies, that’s bad because it maker her look good and could sway some voters. If they’re hatchet jobs, they will cause a massive surge of outrage from TEAM BLUE that will just increase support for her and possibly sway some voters. So either way, for TEAM RED, no biographies is the best option.

    1. I have a feeling the 2016 Republican presidential primary debates are going to be entertaining this time around, more interesting than any Shrillary biopic.

      1. Rand Paul can make them very interesting indeed.

        1. Although, I’m curious how many questions he will get if they choose Sean Vanity or Limbaugh to moderate, as they’re threatening to do. It might look a lot like his old man’s showing in the last ones.

          1. I don’t know. He’s a vastly more polished speaker than his father and he seems more willing to interrupt or point out that Sean “The Red Ape” Hannity is being a prick.

      2. If it is like the typical hagiography that the MSM produces, it will be awful because the NBC is trying to make her look good. It will be the object of ridicule. It will also be forgotten in a week.

        OTOH, if the RNC makes a fuss about it, the story will not only persist, the news will be about the RNC’s attempts to prevent it being seen, not about the inaccuracies and poor production quality.

        [Thought experiment: You have probably seen at least two Kennedy hagiographies (or parts of them). Can you clearly separate which one was which in your memory? Probably not, because they are badly made and forgetable.]

        1. hagiography seems appropriate for the biography of a hag.

    2. NBC is amazingly stupid. Why would you make a movie that was guaranteed to piss of half of your audience?

      1. Because they’re TEAM BLUE cheerleaders, they obviously don’t care about ratings in the first place, and partisans are really fucking stupid, especially about business decisions?

      2. Does anyone who isn’t an old Democrat watch NBC anymore?

        1. Does anyone who isn’t an old Democrat watch NBC anymore?

          Fixed it for you.

          1. There’s hockey fans.

      3. Why would you make a movie that was guaranteed to piss of half of your audience

        What audience?

      4. Because A) they want to be seen as trying to help her win, B) all of her fans will watch it, and C) everyone who doesn’t like her will watch it too, so they can criticize NBC about it.

        1. C is definitely wrong. I can’t stand her and there’s no way in hell I will waste precious hours of my life contemplating her existence.

          1. They won’t watch it, but they’ll still criticize it.

      5. NBC is owned by Comcast. Thanks to government-created monopolies, Comcast has made pissing off customers their preferred way of doing business.

        1. Capitalist extremist I may be, but I never delude myself that any major corporation gives a rat’s ass whether they piss me off.

          Only if I had a couple of million to spend would they care. (Or have a good enough case and lawyer to really cost them a bundle.)

          1. Well, not you specifically, but if you’re representative of a large bloc of the customer base, that’s different.

      6. What makes you think NBC’s audience is half composed of people who would be pissed off by a Clinton infomercial?

        I’m guessing most conservatives watch Fox, and libertarians — well, who knows. I don’t watch network TV at all.

      7. For the same reason that Hollywood cranks out pro-left pieces of PC crap: they do it to pat themselves on the back and impress their colleagues. The fact that more conservative movies can do much better b.o. is secondary.

    3. No such thing as bad press.

  14. Worst. Drunk story. Ever.

    We all do stupid things when we’re drunk, but among bad decisions, this one deserves special distinction: on the night of January 4, 1965, U.S. Army Sergeant Charles Robert Jenkins pounded 10 beers, deserted his infantry company at the edge of the Korean Demilitarized Zone, walked alone across a minefield, and defected to North Korea.

    1. A new Peak Retard!

      for now

      1. It’s not a new peak. It means that we already hit the peak in 1965. Which is just implausible.

        1. Sorry – my fingers typed “now”, but my brain meant “then”, at that time.

          Me try harder.

      2. Please don’t summon Shriek, it has been nice not seeing him around.

    2. He left an American imperialist puppet state to a state that opposed US warmongering imperialism. Is that bad?

      1. Wait, I know this one.

        Yes, it’s bad.

      2. Ramone?

        1. I was being sarcastic.

    3. Shit. There clearly are places where, all desire aside, you definitely do not want to fuck up your capacity for reason.

    4. Presumably he was going to defect anyway and used this as a cover?

    5. This is available on Netflix, which includes a bit on Jenkins. The asshole “star” of the movie wasn’t too fond of him.

    6. Are we sure this is what happened or just what North Korea told us what happened?

  15. Reading the comments on this article about the Russian Polevaulter talking about homosexuality has made me wonder what the fuck people are thinking posting such shit under their own names, often with their location or even employer attached. I mean I understand people saying such vile shit anonymously but man.

    1. Why do you support USG imperialism and war Apatheist? Attacking anything about Putin’s Russia is neocon. Didn’t you get the memo?

    2. Why would anybody use the fucking Facebook comment platform?

    3. She’s welcome to vault my pole.

    4. “Russian Polevaulter”

      Russia has lots of experience vaulting Poles.

    5. It’s rather ironic that a country whose sympathizers played such a critical role in making political correctness a ubiquitous feature of American life, has so thoroughly rejected it in their own land.

      1. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen here. Once the progressive/socialist collapse in the US really gets underway, everything linked to them, for good or ill, will be tainted by association.

  16. But what if they’re awful and make her look awful?

    Well I’d never defend the RNC but check this casting:

    Hillary Clinton played by: http://tinyurl.com/Clinton-Hillary

    Next Republican Victim Played by: http://tinyurl.com/2016-loser

    See! A bit biased.

    1. The Incredible Melting Man, right? Never saw it, but Starlog did some big article on it. That and Laserblast (which I finally saw thanks to MST3K). Otherwise, Star Wars all the time.

      1. “The Incredible Melting Man”

        I have no idea why but that friggin movie gave me nightmares for years.

        I saw it at the drive in when it first came out, I would have been around 9 or 10 and even though I rationally knew it was impossible and had actually seen scarier movies for some reason this one stuck in my head to wake me up with cold sweats repeatedly.

        1. You see this is why we (libertarians) will NEVER SEIZE AND WIELD INCREDIBLE GOVERNMENTAL POWER.

          Not one of you commented on the uber hot photo of Selena Gomez?!?!

          Misplaced priorities!

          We’re truly doomed!

    2. Why want you save the AIDS victims, Ronny?

      They sinned, Nancy. They deserve to die.

      1. What’s sad is that most politicians can be trashed with the truth, yet these media outlets have to go way overboard with the lies.

        1. Attacking Reagan as a statist fuck would ruin the leftist narrative and imply that “anti-government extremism” is an acceptable political philosophy.

  17. SLD, I don’t support giving tsx subsidies to pro sports team, but Eat a dick, Jerry Jones!

    They do arms races a bit differently in Texas. These days, the weapons aren’t pistols, they’re high-definition video screens.

    Reliant Stadium, home of the Houston Texans, now boasts two video screens that beat the record previously held by Dallas.

    1. Do the screens block the sight lines like in Jerry Jones’ shithole?

      1. I’ve only been there once but it’s hard to imagine that the screen block the sight lines. Maybe to the far end zone, I guess, since I didn’t sit in the end zone.

        1. Actually, it’s not the video screens; those only block punts. But there were obstructed-view seats in Cowboys Stadium which may or may not have been rectified.


        1. For those not familiar with Texas, Brett is engaging in one of our time-honored sports: Houston vs. Dallas.

          Why? Because Dallas sucks.

          1. How do you confuse a Cowboys fan?

            Ask him to find Dallas on a map.

            1. The guys from Oklahoma told me it’s windy there because…Texas sucks.

              Is that true?

              *runs away*

              1. The full version is that Oklahoma is windy because Texas sucks and Kansas blows.

                I lived in Oklahoma for just over a year, and hated it.

      3. Block what sight lines? The video screens are perfectly visible from any seat in the stadium.

    2. I’m interested in seeing them. Reliant was already better than that pile in Arlington, at least for college games.

      1. I got to sit in Reliant’s box on the 50 a few years back to watch Miami beat the hell out of UH. Those were some good seats, and Reliant is a nice venue if you’re sitting in a box.

        1. I’ll probably see them at the Bayou Bucket. It’s pretty easy to get good seats to that game.

          1. The wife got both degrees from UH, so we have seasons.

            1. Let her know how much the Coogs suck for me.

  18. Anyone else not give a fuck that the “Woodward Dream Cruise” is happening right now? Anyone? Bueller?

    1. I am enjoying all the crying about the traffic from friends who still live down there.

      1. I pass the Woodward exit to/from work. Thought it might be backed up – nope.

        I like car shows, and I like cruises where cars actually move. Chairs 10 deep and cars sitting in traffic overheating? No thanks…

    2. Never heard of it before today. I could only figure out from the sponsors where it even takes place.

  19. I have a hard time accepting there are voters who don’t already have an opinion on Hillary Clinton.

    1. That’s the problem. Everyone already despises her.

      1. Not everybody. If she runs in 2016, you know there’s going to be a segment of the media cheerleading for the possibility of a president with a vulva.

        1. I would have to see it to believe it. No, wait, not that!

        2. There are what, 160 million other women in this country?

        3. I think I’ve seen a Hillary for President ’16 sticker. I’m not sure because I immediately started hyperventilating.

          1. It’s so weird. I don’t think all that many people on the left like her much, yet they’ll just automatically support her (though I bet she fails to get nominated again). Why? They have other candidates, more qualified, more likable, less loaded down with baggage. For that matter, younger.

            1. It was a middle aged white woman driving the car. Had the usual assortment of Coexist, etc. stickers.

              Keep forgetting to tell y’all I saw a Prius with California plates here in Atlanta – the tag said (and I wish I was joking) “I(HEART)BNGRN”. I sincerely hope the driver dies from fart inhalation.

        4. If she runs in 2016, you know there’s going to be a segment of the media cheerleading for the possibility of those who despised her in favor of saint Barack in 08 fawn over the possibility of a president with a vulva .


      2. Its not so much her. She’s probably as shrewd a President as we can hope for. Its all the other fucking Clintonistas that I would crawl over liquid hot magma to prevent from regaining the levers of power.

        1. No, it’s her, too. She’s scum.

      3. Yeah, if only this were close to being true.

      4. though not huge, there is a new crop of 18-21 year old voters to harvest every presidential election cycle.

    2. That’s because you think all voters can handle getting an ID card to vote. Some of them aren’t quite sure who she is.

    3. Dude, there are people out there who probably don’t even know who she is.

      Regardless, they’re not doing it to sway a ton of voters. It’s just another TEAM BLUE circle jerk.

      1. She’s going to take a beating in the primaries against Uncle Joe. I especially look forward to the Draft Julian Castro movement which I predict will hit a fever pitch if the Democrats take a beating in the midterms and they become panicked that they need another young, charismatic minority to run.

        1. Yeah, but this is going to get interesting as the feminist wing of TEAM BLUE starts going apeshit if she seems to be getting hammered in the primaries. They did in 2008 if I recall, and TEAM OUTRAGE has gotten way fucking louder since then.

          If TEAM OUTRAGE gets a good outrage orgy going, it’s going to be a massive clusterfuck for the DNC. Which will be hilarious.

          1. There is a certain breed of middle aged hag, think Kathleen Parker or Emily Bazalon or Maureen Dowd, whose butt hurt will be historically epic and probably never heal if Hillary doesn’t win in 2016. They will literally never get over it. They sucked it up in 08 because a black man was elected President. But if Hillary is past over for an ordinary white guy, they are going to go insane.

            1. Exactly my thought. TEAM OUTRAGE is getting really addicted to their outrage orgies, and on top of that, the last Dem presidential candidate was “historic”. And they loved it. They’re going to want another “historic” candidate, and if they don’t get it, they will explode with fury.

              1. Their entire self worth is based on being a victim.

            2. As much as 2016 is gonna suck, I will enjoy some of what’s going to happen. Watching both teams eviscerate themselves in the run-up is going to be epic.

          2. If HRC wants the nomination, she will get it.

            The DNC will not pass up the opportunity to notch another “first”, particularly if it plays well to a major Team Blue constituency.

            Also, remember that Team Blue has a wide margin over Team Red among female voters.

            1. No, she won’t. She craved it in 2008, and she got beat from some nobody with no experience.

              There’s no automatic because she’s a woman. If she were Blank Slate Woman, maybe, though I think that ship has sailed. Lefties may not openly admit it, but I bet a lot of them are thinking they could’ve done a lot better than Captain Moron.

        2. She’s going to take a beating in the primaries against Uncle Joe.

          You can’t really be serious here. Can you?

  20. Julian Assange complimented Rand Paul. The Wikileaks twitter account is complimenting Rand, and especially Ron. Their followers are going apeshit over anyone daring to give those two any positive press. It’s quite humorous.

    1. Er, that should have been Assange complemented Ron.

      Examples of their followers going crazy

      1. My god they’re painfully stupid. Nothing is worse than an uninformed idiot who thinks they know everything.

      2. From the HuffPo article on it:

        The problem is that the same libertarian policy would get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Head Start, federal funding of education, block grants to cities, lower rates on student loans . . .

        I realize this might sound like a dream to the Paul-ites, but really, no Social Security? No Medicare or Medicaid? Do you really want the elderly dying homeless in the streets? Which is what happened before these programs.

        You can’t even caricature them anymore.

        1. No you can’t.

          I’m reminded of Chris Matthews comparing the Sequester to a coup. Or all those articles bashing the “anti-government extremism” of the current GOP.

        2. They are just greedy middle class schmucks who don’t want to take care of their parents.

          1. Of course moving away from your parents is part of the dreaded Nuclear Family that the left hates.

        3. When reality surpasses caricature = peak retard?

  21. Greg Gutfield: shittiest faux-libertarian next to that guy who used to work for Cato.

    I happen to support both Stop and Frisk, and Prism (as well as the other programs)


    Some good news: Ecuador surrenders; will not hold back drilling for oil because the world won’t pay up.


    I’ve noticed a trend lately of left or center-left governments selling out the ecotards. They’d rather have wealth to loot than nothing.

    1. that guy who used to work for Cato.

      And even some guys who currently work for Cato.

    2. Yeah, Gutfeld – I am disappoint. Love Red Eye, but he’s a little right wing warboner midget. Fuck that shit.

      He’s funny, so I give him more of a pass than some…but when he starts talking about “keep us safe , the ends justify the means”….yeah. Greg – STFU

      1. Comments are hostile.

    3. shittiest faux-libertarian next to that guy who used to work for Cato.

      Which one?

      1. The douchey one.

        1. The douchey one.

          That really narrows it down;)

          1. Wilkinson. I seriously forgot his name and was not just being difficult. Although I was also being difficult.

            1. Wilkinson is beyond a douche. It is like he is such a douche bag the hipsters wouldn’t take him so he started pretending to be a Libertarian.

    4. I was going to post a youtube video of some Nazis at a checkpoint asking everyone for their papers, but when I searched ‘Nazis papers please’ all I got were videos of checkpoints here in the US, one of which was in NYC.

      Fuck you Guttfield.

      1. Would a Vichy French checkpoint do?


      2. Just use that scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark:

        “No ticket.”

  22. Also, Michigan unions – FUCK YOU!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Your red-faced, spittle-flecked outbursts of rage make my ice-cold heart warm. “Gravy train stops here, boys.”

    Die in a fucking fire, you useless, overpaid cunt stains.

    1. But how do you really feel about Michigan Public Unions? 🙂

      1. One of my fraternity brothers (from 30 years ago) is now a teacher, and participated in some of the protests at the Capitol that turned a bit violent. We had a get together a couple weeks ago, and he went on and on about how he went around taunting cops and fucking with people who supported the Right to Work legislation. I just sat there and looked at him. He’s my pal, but FUCK – the stoopid and ignorance and violence was…..a bit much. “Dude – who’s the violent party in this? LOOK IN THE MIRROR, ASSHOLE!”

        So I decided to keep the peace, kept my mouth shut and it passed eventually and we just had a nice drink and reminisced about the good old days when our enemies were all the other fraternities 🙂

        1. So I decided to keep the peace, kept my mouth shut

          That’s always the hardest part. It’s like an variation on the Iron Law: No matter who your friend, there will be some assholish position he mostly agrees with.

        2. Sometimes we have to tell our friends they are assholes. If he never talks to you again, he wasn’t really your friend.

    2. Yeah, fuck Michigan! Preach it, brother! O-H!

      Wait, you said Michigan unions? Oops.

  23. Also, a friend sent me a non exhaustive Word Doc on the best of the ethics violations cases compiled by the DOD in 2012.

    Warning: Word doc from the internet. I downloaded it and read it and didn’t appear to catch any viruses.

    1. didn’t appear to catch any viruses.

      Sounds like what my friend said the morning after ‘being’ with a stripper. Give it time.

  24. Hetero couple changes wedding venue after owner declines to host a gay wedding

    It was after that decision, and out of a love of art and all things eclectic, that we chose the G?rtz Haus Gallery as our reception site. It was also a somewhat personal decision, as one of my mother’s dear friends (rest in peace, Diane Foster) used to show her artwork there. We booked it nearly a year in advance, and I paid not only the advance deposit but the full lump sum for the space reservation. (To be fair, the Odgaards have indicated that they will give me a refund.) We’ve spent hours planning and arranging our perfect day there. It would have been so easy to just shrug our shoulders and look past the Odgaards’ refusal to host a gay wedding, but I thought of all the times I had had the opportunity to volunteer and go out in support of gay rights and all the resources that I could have provided to one event or another but came up short on either time or money. This had to be my penance. I’d take it.

    So this is our stance. We stand in solidarity with all those who have had to fight for equal rights or hide because it was too dangerous or scary to be who they really were. This is for all the other injustices that came before the 21st century.

    Anyone find this over-the-top moralizing obnoxious?

    1. *raises hand*

    2. Sure, but at least they’re putting their money where their mouth is and not calling for government force. Isn’t that the way it should be?

      1. Yes it is. But that doesn’t make you any less of a narcissistic douche for pretending that where you hold your wedding is some deep moral question of international justice.

        1. What John said, exactly

        2. If they believe in gay marriage, it’s a fully logical position. No hint of force or the threat of force.

        3. I’ll agree that they come off a little pretentious in their explanation, but I would do the exact same thing in their situation. Not only taking action (or taking inaction, I guess, in the case of refusing them your business) against bigots but encouraging others to do the same is the only effective way to enact change peacefully. While there probably is some Pharisee-esque bragging going on here, their point is valid and I support emulating this behavior.

        4. Yes, that’s so much douchier than pretending that the sexual orientation of the people renting your property for a ceremony is a deep moral question of divine justice.

      2. That’s my take. The owners have the right to refuse people’s business for bullshit reasons, so does this couple.

    3. I’m fine with it. That’s exactly what the reaction should be — if you don’t like what they’re doing, you take your business away from them. Much better that than “I don’t like what they’re doing, so the government shouldn’t allow them to do it”.

      1. This

      2. Can I still hate them for writing this:

        out of a love of art and all things eclectic

        1. Isn’t it a moral imperative to do so?

    4. Weddings are obnoxious to begin with. Any bride who’s spent hours “planning and arranging” their perfect day is going to be even more obnoxious when he doesn’t get his way.

      1. Weddings are horrible, but if done in a very classy way with an eye on making the guests happy, they’re tolerable. I went to a friend’s wedding in Honolulu recently at the Halekulani and it was actually really pleasant. But that’s because they started at 10, kept the ceremony really short, immediately served drinks and hors d’oeuvres, and then served a full meal. It was over by 1 and we were all free to hit Waikiki and then attend an afterparty that night.

        But most are not like that.

        1. My favorite part is when all the married people, who damn well know better, tell the bride and groom again and again that everything will be bliss and unicorns if they just love each other enough.

          1. The worst is not having an open bar. Now I’m not going.

            1. Open bars are the only things that make weddings tolerable. Well, that and horny bridesmaids.

              1. I was once invited to a friend’s wedding. It was:

                1) In Maine (probably a six hour drive for me at the time)
                2) I couldn’t bring my then-girlfriend because “the church was small so only spouses or fiances can come”
                3) They were pretty Christian, and so no bar
                4) No meal

                I didn’t go.

                1. You chose wisely.

                2. 3) They were pretty Christian, and so no bar

                  As an atheist who was raised catholic I find this offensive.

          2. I make a point of telling them it’s hard work and that when it does to remember why they got married in the first place.

          3. I make a point of telling them it’s hard work and that when it does to remember why they got married in the first place.

            1. At my cousin’s wedding several years ago I was sitting next to my grandmother. Someone was braying on about the secret to marriage was to love each other, so grandmother laughs and says, “The secret is to put out!”

              1. Putting out is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a relatively blissful marriage or relationship.

            2. Telling them twice helps with memory retention.

          4. To be fair, the married guy in the next cubicle at my first job kept telling us single guys “never get married”, but I think we all did.

      2. I understand the sentiment but planning a wedding does take many hours and I’m damn glad that my wife did most of it. Sooooo boring.

    5. This is for all the other injustices that came before the 21st century.

      I guess the holocaust, the horrors of communism, slavery Jim Crow and the rest are all good now.

      Wow people are stupid. Is is that hard to just say “if this guy doesn’t want gay couples’ money, then he can’t have ours” and leave it at that?

      1. You should be ashamed of yourself, John.

        BTW, this comment is for all of the children who died of malnutrition in Uganda.

        There, that should even the score.

        1. In lieu of your wedding gift, I’m writing a check to the NRA.

      2. I guess the holocaust, the horrors of communism, slavery Jim Crow and the rest are all good now.

        Nah he was specifically talking about Pinochet and only Pinochet.

      3. They are the new Pharisees, how can they show how righteous they are without moral preening all over the place?

    6. The moralizing is a bit over the top, I agree, but I have no problem at all with them deciding to refuse to do business with a venue that refuses to serve gay weddings. As others have said, that’s the way it should work, instead of the government forcing them to serve gays.

      1. Yeah, I don’t have a problem with their decision, but look at the words she uses. Lumping not having your dream gay wedding at an art gallery is not the same as the other injustices of the 20th century like the Holocaust or Jim Crow.

        1. So many people immediately call for government force, and she didn’t. I’ll cut her a little slack for being self-important.

          1. Sarah Hankel-Hoffman legally wed her husband Jason Hoffman in March 2013, but they will hold a second ceremony and reception Sept. 7, 2013, in Des Moines, Iowa, where it is illegal to practice bigotry and, even worse, immoral.

            The way they have chosen to run their business is not in line with our morals, what we believe, or what is laid out in Iowa state law.

            She loves the government boot as much as anyone. It’s just right now her self righteous preening is winning over her love of authority.

    7. It’s too many words, as is often the case with that sort, but there’s nothing wrong with the action.

  25. The Republican National Committee has voted to boot NBC and CNN from the debates unless they cancel planned film projects on likely 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. But what if they’re awful and make her look awful?

    This is very stupid on their part as they can be used as a basis for critique’ of Lady Clinton.

  26. “The Republican National Committee has voted to boot NBC and CNN from the debates unless they cancel planned film projects on likely 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. But what if they’re awful and make her look awful?”

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Hillary’s campaign got to see them before they air–and they give them a chance to make some suggested edits.

    I mean, how likely is it to cover Hillary Clinton’s part in embezzling taxpayer money meant to reimburse the widows and orphans of Madison Guaranty–only to end up as a contribution to Bill Clinton’s election campaign?

    How likely is it to cover how missing FBI files on her political enemies somehow miraculously materialized in her desk at the White House?

    How likely is it to cover her actions during Benghazi?

    I don’t blame the RNC one bit for going balls out on this–if Hillary Clinton doesn’t get to be president, it won’t be becasue her campaign left any arms untwisted.

    1. I am dying to see their depiction of her dodging bullets at an airport in the balkans.

      1. Oh, we could produce a great documentary of Hillary Clinton!


    2. How likely is it that NBC and CNN are being blackmailed into producing these projects based on dirt the NSA dug up on them?

      1. Very unlikely. The MSM don’t need to be blackmailed in order to produce TEAM BLUE propaganda.

  27. Protestants will never understand monetary policy

    The WSJ doesn’t like Mark Carney (the new Canadian head of the BoE) because he is a monetarist, indeed maybe even a secret market monetarist. He has said things that have been interpreted as verging on Sumnerism: nominal targeting. In other words, he is an inflationist in the Fisher-Friedman-Bernanke-Krugman tradition. These are the kind of people whom one doesn’t want one’s daughter to meet, let alone date or, God forbid, marry. They are cheap and unclean.


    Why is the Right so in love with hard money, low inflation, and high unemployment? Here is my answer: because they do not believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch. You could spread out a smorgasbord of caviar, salmon, lobster and Dom Perignon, and they would turn their heads and eat a cheese sandwich. Reflation is easy and thus sinful. It’s that Protestant thing. The only people who understand monetary policy are Jews and Catholics.

    1) “Fisher-Friedman-Bernanke-Krugman tradition”?

    2) Don’t Catholics oppose usury?

    1. 1) WTF IS THIS SHIT?

      2) Carney sucked as head of Canada’s central bank.

      1. 3) There is such a thing as a free lunch?

        Carney sucked as head of Canada’s central bank.

        The WSJ doesn’t like him so couldn’t have sucked. duh.

    2. Why is the Right so in love with hard money, low inflation, and high unemployment? Here is my answer: because they do not believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch. You could spread out a smorgasbord of caviar, salmon, lobster and Dom Perignon, and they would turn their heads and eat a cheese sandwich.

      Because if someone gives you something, clearly no one had to pay for it.

      1. low inflation, and high unemployment

        Don’t you just love how the left still clutches to the phillips curve as if it was never totally disseminated.

        1. dismantled

          Damn you firefox spellcheck!!!

    3. Since when are high inflation and high unemployment mutually exclusive?

      1. Jimmuh Carter gives a golf clap

    4. The only people who understand monetary policy are Jews and Catholics.

      Freed the slaves, built New York and Chicago, Invented and financed the rise of the American middle class.

      Why the fuck are we still picking on the poor WASPs?

    5. 2) Don’t Catholics oppose usury?

      Pretty sure the Medici were catholic…also pretty sure the bible is clear about usury in both protestant and catholic circles.

    6. “The only people who understand monetary policy are Jews and Catholics.”

      I don’t care about the context, this is the most ecumenical sentence I’ve ever read ever.

  28. But what if they’re awful and make her look awful?

    Then the DNC would have it pulled, like the Kennedys series.

  29. The thing is a lot of Democrats hate the Clintons. Hillary has so much dirt. She is such a crook. I wonder if her enemies are going to release the dirt and go after her. If they do, a whole lot of women liberals are going to be very unhappy.

    1. As the late, great JR Ewing said, good luck finding my enemies. Check the graveyard.

  30. I got the dubious privilege of shepherding a 20GB file across the internets at what appears to be a hard limit of 150KB/s.
    Me: Holy shit, this is going to take 30 hours! If these guys are east of the Mississippi and south of the Ohio, I can drive to the data center, download this onto a thumb drive, drive to Tampa and upload this on the server, and drive home in about that time.

    Then I looked up how long it would take on the 1200 baud modem through which I first experienced computer networking… 160 Days

    1. *photo of a mouse looking up at an elephant with the caption: ‘PERSPECTIVE’*

      1. Actually, I was thinking, “This explains why ASCII porn was a thing.”

      2. A little mouse constantly propositions an female elephant for sex. Day after day, month after month, year after year. Eventually she became so fed up with the mouse that she said, “yeah sure, go ahead. So the mouse climbed up onto the elephant an at the very monent of penetration, a coconut dropped on the elephant’s head causing her to yell “OUCH!”, at which point the mouse said, “Suffer, bitch!”

    2. lulz – my first “real” job was programming for a contract company at one of the automakers in the mid 80’s, IBM XT with 512K RAM and 10M (MEGs!) of hard drive. State. Of. The. ART.

      Sending files to my company outside Pittburgh via dial-up modem from Ann Arbor…at about the speed of smell. Half the time it crashed and you’d have to start over.

      Good times. Good times.

      1. Me, thinking in 1987 upon getting a new computer: “A 20 MB hard drive! This is huge! Who on earth could ever need this much space on a drive?”

        And a 1200 baud Hayes external modem.

        1. My first computer (okay it belonged to the school) was a 10-character-per-second teletype. And we played online multiplayer games on it. Which we lost, until we upgraded to the 90-cps teleterminal.

    3. Yeah, every time I get pissed at a slow download I remember when I had to download my porn in an overnight queue.

      1. I remember when I had to walk to the store and buy it.

  31. http://deadspin.com/why-your-t…..1155533770

    Today’s Why Your Team Sucks is the San Diego Chargers.

    Holy shit, I feel for Chargers fans because they too have had the experience of Norv Turner as a head coach. It sucks. It sucks a lot.

    1. Yeah, but – they’re the Chargers. Fuck them.

      1. The Seahawks already did last week.

    2. At least you won’t have to reserve the Cleveland Browns as pallbearers for your funeral if you’re a Chargers fan.

  32. But what if they’re awful and make her look awful?

    There’s no such thing as bad publicity (disclaimer: if you’re on Team Blue).

  33. The Republican Party shoots itself in the foot, part… I don’t think I can count that high.


    1. Not Florida! Fuck yeah!

    2. This will be national news next week.

    3. You only count how much foot is left. I see some giblets hanging on.

    4. Snakes have no feet.

  34. Cornell frat guys create website ranking sorority girls, you know the drill

    Cornell Fetch works much like Mark Zuckberg’s first rendition of Facebook: it allows users to choose between Facebook photos of women in sororities next to their Greek affiliation. Do you like Rachel from SDT or Liana from Kappa Delta? Is Theta’s Brittany hotter than Amelia from Phi Sig Sig? Cornell Fetch doesn’t actually ask you to rate whom you find more appealing ? the user decides for him or herself. And therein lies the brilliance, according to Teddy,* one of the site’s founders and an undergraduate at Cornell. The goal of Cornell Fetch, he told us, is to expose a “sorority hierarchy” that’s “generally known of but not acknowledged.” So what if they humiliate women by posting their photos online and forcing them to participate in a ranking game without their consent? Girls are catty and judge each other, anyway! It’s ironic.

    “All we’re doing is formalizing an unspoken consensus,” Teddy explained in a rather self-satisfied manner. “We’re not saying this general perception is right or even fair. We’re just saying it exists.”

    1. I assume they got angel investment to the tune of $50M to take this to universities across the nation.

      1. Yeah, wasn’t this Zuckerberg’s MO?

    2. There’s an app (I don’t think it’s exclusive to USC and I know it’s not exclusive to sororities) some girls at my school use to rate guys and comment about them (it’s connected to Facebook, and your profile has to be set to female to use the app). Where is the outrage on that?

      1. Tinder?

        1. Fuck if I know the name of it

      2. Well you see, Cali, this app is yet another manifestation of patriarchy. Women in their natural state would be shrill harpies with their noses in Gloria Steinem’s Ms magazine, but the patriarchy has subverted them such that they emulate the degrading practices of males. Much like the Satan of a medieval play, the patriarchy is a vague, mysterious, and powerful force in this world responsible for all evil.

        This is the revolutionary truth we have been called to pay witness to. Therefore outrage should be heaped on males for encouraging this behavior. I hope that answers your question.

      3. It was my experience that “Hot or Not” was more widely used by women then by men..

      4. A woman at Duke did something like this with guys she hooked up with. I’m sure the feminist blogosphere threw a fit when that happened, right?

    3. Didn’t the women post their own photos online? How can they have an expectation of privacy? Or good taste, from frat guys?

    4. “Stop trying to make ‘fetch’ happen!”

    5. Compare and contrast with this article.

  35. What would be a bigger disaster for America: President Hilary Clinton, or President Michelle Obama?

    1. Elizabeth Warren?

    2. Michelle Obama. Hands down. If you think TEAM BLUE worships Obama and bristles at even the tiniest criticism of him, just wait (hopefully not) and see what they do with her. My god, it would be insane. She literally would be unable to do anything wrong in their eyes. Plus who the fuck knows how Wookies govern.

      1. Plus who the fuck knows how Wookies govern.

        Bilateral disarmament?

        1. I have a suggestion: let the Wookie win.

        2. Nice.

      2. it’s a good end-run around the 22nd amendment.

        1. Aping George Wallace? Oh Irony! And John posted something by Orson Scott Card yesterday where he predicted just that.

    3. Obama. The media won’t criticize a black president, as we’ve learned. They also aren’t going to criticize a female president. Put them together and it’s the going to be the end of America as we know it.

      1. Didn’t Code Pink have to apologize for criticizing her because of racism and TEH Patriarchy?

    4. Excuse me while I go hide in fear of a Michelle Obama presidency.

    5. This denial means she’s running.

    6. Mrs. Clinton. She knows what she’s doing when it comes to abusing government power. Mrs. Obama just knows how to waste money on trips and nag kids about overeating.

    7. Clinton will drag us into WW3

      Obama will impose the new new new deal which will regulate every scrap of food that goes into our mouths.

      1. Yeah, but on the other hand, as men we innately possess the ability to completely tune them out, so the endless talking wouldn’t be quite so bad for a change.

  36. Vietnamese college students much smarter than ours.

    Market forces are working against college degrees in the ideology of Marx, Lenin and Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, where the Communist government has resorted to offering free tuition to attract students.

    Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung recently signed a decree giving free tuition to students who agreed to take four-year courses on Marxism-Leninism and the works of Ho Chi Minh, the country’s revolutionary hero, at state-run universities.

    Students have been shunning such degrees because potential employers are not interested in those programs, said Pham Tan Ha, director of admission and training at Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities. Degrees in subjects like communications, tourism, international relations and English are more popular because students believe “they will have better chances of employment and better pay when they graduate,” he said.

    [. . .]

    “Studying Marxism and Leninism is rather dry and many students don’t like it,” said Tran The Anh, 23, a fifth-year student. “The number of students studying these courses is very modest because many of them believe that it is difficult to find a job after graduation.”

    1. You don’t find a job after getting that degree. You work for the government.

    2. I envision lots of American high schoolers applying to these Vietnamese colleges.

    3. That’s hilarious.

    4. Mmm, Tan Dung.

  37. Meritocracy isn’t fair because some kids get lead poisoning

    Obviously the right response to lead and other atmospheric toxins is to clean them up. But the fact of the matter is that we’re not going to eliminate lead from the build environment next year, and we’re certainly not going to go back in time to the late 1960s and clean up the environment that today’s 45-year-olds grew up in. And though lead is very important, it’s also obviously not the only source of relative cognitive disadvantage out there (consider mercury or bad school lunches or just noise). The point, however, is that the unfairness that who your parents were and where they lived 30 or 40 years ago has a major impact on your income and opportunities today isn’t a contrast to the idea that the American economic system in some sense rewards merit?this happens precisely because the system rewards merit and possession of “merit” is largely driven by factors that are themselves totally beyond a person’s individual control.

    1. This bullshit never fucking goes away.

      “People don’t have exactly equal childhoods therefore we need socialism.”

      1. Of course under socialism (or any other human-devised system) there isn’t a correction mechanism in place to level the playing field, either — just arbitrary assignments of wealth based on political considerations.

        Our welfare state isn’t giving money to kids who had lead poisoning; it’s giving money to politically sensitive voting blocs.

        1. What does “politically sensitive” mean?

          The bribery=speech movement you guys championed is indeed contrary to a healthy system, but you can hardly blame those of us in favor of a welfare state for corruption you explicitly endorse.

          1. Ouch, you got us for once.

          2. Politically sensitive = if you scream loud enough people will give you money

            Middle class blacks and hispanics are in no way on life’s shit list — yet they get their college educations and work subsidized to the hilt — ditto progressive white artisan types.

            In contrast, no one outside of churches gives two shits about homeless people or felons — people who often legitimately suffer from mental problems, destitution, and all the things that leftists claim to be concerned about. Funding and treatment of the mentally infirm is pitiful. I will start caring about what leftists have to say about “fairness” when I see them next to me at a homeless shelter, in a prison, in a mental institute, or (God forbid) at a crisis pregnancy center. Until then, fuck off.

            1. You’re describing a social safety net, the very institution that defines the political left. And criminal justice reform is pretty high on the list of the left’s priorities. What on earth are you talking about?

              Do you perhaps get all your information about liberals from fat men on the radio? Because I’ve been in the left for a long time and I have no fucking clue what you mean by “white artisan types.”

              1. I’ve never bothered to listen to men on the radio for their political opinions. (I suspect you’ve heard a lot more out of their mouths than I have.) I have noticed a glaring lack of progressives with me when I am helping out at the aforementioned institutions. The “social safety net” is a complete joke when it comes to the aforementioned groups — the people its incentives cater to are those who are lazy, *not* those who are unfortunate. One of the reasons that it is a complete joke is that most progressives (having no real experience helping or interacting with the poor) have no idea how to separate the unfortunate from the lazy, and no practical way to implement a program that would help those groups.

                If you expect to get a cookie just because you mention the homeless or mentally infirm in passing, then think again.

                1. One of the reasons that it is a complete joke is that most progressives (having no real experience helping or interacting with the poor) have no idea how to separate the unfortunate from the lazy, and no practical way to implement a program that would help those groups.

                  Nailed it.

                  Those who are unable to provide for themselves are a very small group. Those who would rather mooch off others is a much bigger group, and much more likely to vote.

                2. separate the unfortunate from the lazy

                  So you as a “leave me alone” and “small government” type wants to probe into everyone’s personal habits, which would require a rather large an intrusive bureaucracy, to determine who is morally worthy of access to the safety net. Whereas I, a big government liberal, thinks we shouldn’t be moral busybody nannies and should just provide the safety net. Not everyone availing himself of it will meet my standards for being an upstanding human being, but that really doesn’t matter, because his children shouldn’t be forced to go hungry for his sins.

                  Fucking puritans, the lot of you.

              2. “You’re describing a social safety net,”

                You mean like the ones that have been in place and exponentially growing since the 1890’s? What a great job they’re doing! /sarc

              3. Leftist don’t want a “social safety net.” They want a centralized, government-run social safety net. Big diff.

      2. It’s just them scrambling to find any reason that people will buy to take money from “the rich”.

        It took me a while when I was a kid to understand how incredibly bitterly envious a tremendous number of people are towards anyone who has more than them. It took me a while because I didn’t understand it, and then I started to see the hate and the jealousy and man was it ugly.

      3. Straw man. The point is meritocracy is a lie and so pure capitalism is merely social darwinism and has nothing to do with the virtues you guys claim it has. And if you don’t claim it has those virtues then what good is it?

        1. The mechanism that has done the most to raise mankind out of poverty and has helped the largest number of people raise their standard of living is nothing more than social Darwinism. Got it.

    2. possession of “merit” is largely driven by factors that are themselves totally beyond a person’s individual control.


    3. possession of “merit” is largely driven by factors that are themselves totally beyond a person’s individual control.

      That makes it exactly the same as “diversity” then doesn’t it?

    4. Slate seems to be hiring all the paint eaters, so it’s not like they can’t get jobs.

      1. Yep, you can tell there’s no merit hiring at Slate.

        1. My theory: Slate is a money laundering scheme, so they don’t have to care about quality control.

          Hell, Yglesias probably says hi to the mob boss who *really* runs the place every morning before putting on his dunce cap and writing his daily allotment of drivel.

    5. So what is SadBeard’s alternative? Having some politician handing out free shit to however he feels like isn’t very fair either.

  38. Was reading comments to CNN’s NSA story earlier.

    Fairly surprised to see a lot of agreement. Overwhelming disdain for government spying on Americans. They actually sounded like Americans rather than Republicans and Democrats.

    1. It IS having an impact. Not like a bombshell but more like the effect of listening to Tulpa for a long time.

    2. Distrust of government was one of the great virtues shared by many Americans until fairly recently. Let’s restore this traditional value.

      1. In a sotra fucked up way, this could be good for the nation.

      2. Also, in its way the NSA isn’t partisan, so TEAM is coming into it less than it usually would, which helps.

        1. Yes, and I wish people would see that more clearly. It’s both of their faults. Like most of our government’s problems and evils.

    3. The scope of it is so broad and the NSA so secretive and powerful that I think most people other than the true mouth-breather TEAM hacks are kind of disturbed. I mean, this shit is huge.

      1. They should see this with the IRS scandal(s), too. Yes, this time it’s the Democrats, but come on, if nothing happens, wouldn’t you (if you were a Democrat) be terrified of what an empowered Republican would do to you via the IRS next time around?

        1. Yeah, but in that case the IRS was investigating TEAM RED, so…TEAM. Plus the IRS takes money from rich people, so TEAM BLUE likes the IRS. The only reason the NSA scandals are getting traction is that there was no TEAM aspect to it. They are spying on literally everyone.

          The partisan hacks are true scum, and if there a TEAM slant to anything, they will change their behavior accordingly. In fact, the best thing Obama could do to make this go away would be to somehow make it about TEAM, and make sure the NSA is TEAM BLUE.

          1. What, you think the NSA data hasn’t been used for political purposes?

            1. Of course it has. But that’s not what the leaks and the scandals are about. The whole narrative on this story has been that they’ve been doing it to everybody. And the reason for that is no one wants to get caught holding the bag on this one. But the funny think is that I would bet that if this could be placed squarely on the TEAM BLUE side, the TEAM BLUE base would suddenly have a lot less problem with it.

              We’ve already seen that to a certain degree from the most rabid TEAM BLUE scum.

              1. You’re probably right. I keep wondering if there’s some point where they’ll just lose it and start hating the administration, too, but, for the rank and file, that line doesn’t seem to have been crossed, except maybe with the NSA scandal.

                Some of the fawning media seems to be less fawning, but I think it’s the attacks on them that have wakened them up, not the general corruption. Note that they’re still providing general cover on most of the scandals not relating to them. Stunningly short-sighted and stupid. No, evil.

                1. They will never turn on the administration, because to do so would destroy their self-image and all the warm fuzzies they get from being in TEAM BLUE. It would literally be turning on themselves.

                  A few of the more self-aware ones may rethink their allegiance. The rest will just put their fingers in their ears or hate on the NSA as long as they can convince themselves that Obama knew nothing about it.

      2. On the down side, I had to dig to find the article on their site. I’m afraid the dog will get wagged and people will lose interest.

        Best thing Snowden could do is leak a bit at a time.

  39. Bitmessage: like Bitcoin but for email. Even if they tap your ISP the spooks can only see what email messages you look at not what they say or what you’re sending or who’s sending what to you. Without the tap, nothing.


    It’s in early development.

    1. Go through tor and sign up for something private and encrypted like hushmail and never log on to it unless you’re on tor. Done.

  40. The standard for “blood bath” seems to get lower and lower. I would at least thing something approaching Normandy would be the standard, but no.


  41. Witness the term “American Style” used in it’s full pejorative glory

    Yukon RCMP stops participating in reality show

    1. Now that US is heading to socialized medicine does that mean Canada will privatize health care? I mean where will the Rich and the politicians go for their private clinics?

      1. If I were God-Governor General of Canada, I’d privatize healthcare right now. In fact, I’d go all free market and limited government and laugh as the U.S. sank into my country’s economic shadow.

  42. If you assembled two hours of “Hillary’s Greatest Hits” film clips, without even deliberately manipulating or torturing context, and showed it to ten thousand random Americans, the ones who loved Hillary before they went in would love her even more afterward, and the ones who hated her before they went in would hate her even more afterward.

    Of the ones who had no particularly strong impression, about equal numbers would be pushed one way or the other. In aggregate, it would probably have no discernible effect on the numbers.

    That’s what I believe.

  43. Maybe it’s some sort of evil misogynistic plot, but the pictures of Hillary which accompany any Bloomberg news item about her make her look as if she’s about ten seconds away from getting pushed into the oven by Hansel and Gretel.

    1. BakedPenguin and I saw her in a different light when she assumed the SoS mantle.

  44. this happens precisely because the system rewards merit and possession of “merit” is largely driven by factors that are themselves totally beyond a person’s individual control.

    And the solution is, viz Detroit, to determinedly put the most obviously incompetent and corrupt people in charge. Whatever it is, whatever you decide to call it, at least we can all sleep soundly at night knowing Teh Meritocracy has been given the heave-ho.

    1. I haven’t read a whole lot of TEAM BLUE political philosophy, but I have the strong suspicion that they think people who have the “advantage” of, for example, not being lead poisoned are successful later because it was easy for them. They didn’t work hard, they didn’t delay gratification, they didn’t build that; success just rained down on them. Therefore, any and all advantages must be eliminated.

  45. Wow she sure is full of herself.


    1. Not as funny as the Santorum joke, but for the purposes of this thread only, I defer to you.

  46. fuckcispeople


    “You’re drunk.”

    “Yeah, well, you’re crazy. Tomorrow, I’ll be sober, but you’ll be crazy for the rest of your life.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.