NSA

Bush Administration Reaches Through Time To Mind-Control Obama Into Setting the NSA Loose

|

Reason 24/7
Reason

Will the perfidy of the Bush administration never cease? Even from beyond the political grave, the former president reaches out with his civil liberties-violating will to mind-control the current chief executive into loosening restrictions on the National Security Agency. That must be what happened, anyway. How else to explain why the oh-so constitutionally respectful President Barack Obama would successfully prevail upon the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the NSA imposed under the previous administration?

From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency's use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans' communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.

In addition, the court extended the length of time that the NSA is allowed to retain intercepted U.S. communications from five years to six years — and more under special circumstances, according to the documents, which include a recently released 2011 opinion by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, then chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The restrictions were imposed in 2008 at the Bush administration's request. That's an interesting point, considering that more than a few defenders of the current regime have told us how much more legally reasonable the NSA's practices are now than they were under Bush. "There is a crucial difference between the Obama administration's phone call data-mining program, which is constitutional under current law, and the Bush administration's NSA surveillance program, which was clearly unconstitutional," wrote Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the university of Chicago. "it is unfortunate," he continued, "that President Obama has not done a better job of explaining the distinction, and why his administration's program does not violate the constitutional 'right of privacy.'"

Really? The Post's Ellen Nakashima adds:

Together the permission to search and to keep data longer expanded the NSA's authority in significant ways without public debate or any specific authority from Congress. The administration's assurances rely on legalistic definitions of the term "target" that can be at odds with ordinary English usage. The enlarged authority is part of a fundamental shift in the government's approach to surveillance: collecting first, and protecting Americans' privacy later.

So it's all about parsing what "legal" means, and not so much about the consequences to privacy. Got it. Such constitutional respect.

None of this means the Bush administration was especially respectful of Americans' privacy and liberty. The last administration was pretty loose with its use of surveillance and former President Bush has defended President Obama's practices. What it does mean is that, to the extent that you can see daylight between snooping policies under the two presidents, the current officeholder is at least as intrusive, and rather less honest about what he does.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: Obama Administration Eased Restrictions on NSA

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. I am no fan of either program, but I think the post should have included the entire quote from Professor Stone, which says ‘Unlike the Obama program, which is limited to obtaining information about phone calls made and received from telephone companies, the Bush program authorized the government to wiretap private phone conversations. From a constitutional perspective, the difference is critical and it is unfortunate that President Obama has not done a better job of explaining the distinction, and why his administration’s program does not violate the constitutional “right of privacy.’

    I actually think warrantless wiretapping of phone conversations is worse and more obviously unconstitutional than capturing ‘telephony metadata.’ Of course, who cares? Anyone should see that both are rife with potential for abuses and intrusions on privacy. Maybe under current law Obama’s program is not unconstitutional, but the constitution sets certain bottom limits. There is no need for administrations to settle at that bottom.

    1. Has it been proven that the Bush admin wiretapped calls within the US?

      1. That Bush wiretapped calls within the US is not even what was debated, the administration claimed they were only wiretapping calls where one party was in the US and the other was not.

        1. And if that claim was true, it wasn’t unconstitutional. Full-blown warrantless wiretapping inside the US wasn’t considered unconstitutional for the first 90 years of the existence of the telephone, so I’m not sure how “obvious” any of this is anyway.

          Or are you going to accept BO’s claims at face value while disputing Bush’s?

          1. Well, he’s been so up-front about it to this point, hasn’t he? Why should we doubt his word? The man is a nobel peace-prize winner, after all.

          2. Well it’s obvious in that if you disagree with his statement presented as evidence, you’re obviously not smart enough to talk to him at all.

          3. Or are you going to accept BO’s claims at face value while disputing Bush’s?

            How is this a question? He did exactly that.

            I am afraid that Bo Cara is simply a shriek sockpuppet. Really, how different from CHRISTFAG or BOOOOOSH are any of it’s posts?

        2. And the Obama Administration has done the same thing. It’s not the case at all that the Obama Administration has *only* gotten records of calls crossing borders from telcos– and it’s equally true that the Bush Administration used telco cooperations instead of wiretapping when it could.

          There’s continuity between the Administrations.

    2. Has it been proven that the Bush admin wiretapped calls within the US?

      1. During World War II, FDR monitored *all* communication from the US out or from the outside in. Whereas Bush authorized listening in on phone calls between a US number and a foreign number with a known terrorist connection, which was probably 0.00001% of all phone calls, if that many.

        Sure you can make the argument that there is a lot more international communication nowadays, but if you’re condemning Bush but holding FDR blameless, you’re a bloody idiot.

        1. you can make the argument that there is a lot more international communication nowadays

          I think that would be the argument. The proportion of calls that involved high level or possible espionage related stuff would have been a lot higher than it is now given teh expense and low capacity for international calls at the time. I still say it isn’t constitutional and I don’t think you will get many defending FDR on here.

    3. Maybe under current law Obama’s program is not unconstitutional,…

      No offense Bo, as I know the line came from Jeff Stone. But that may be the fucking dumbest statement a law professor has EVER made. “Current law” has absolutely no fucking bearing of constitutionality. A law either complies with the Constitution or it does not.

      Was there a recent constitutional amendment I was unaware of?

      1. If you want to throw out existing precedent, you have to show on your own how something in the BoR forbids wiretapping. Which is going to be tough with the weasel words in the 4th amendment and the very short list of things that it applies to (persons, houses, papers, effects). The only one of those that could arguably apply to phone calls is “papers”, and that’s a huge stretch.

        1. That is akin to claiming the 1st Amendment only applies to printing presses.

          1. Don’t talk to it. It is a complete asshole that argues for the sake of arguing. It is an unprincipled piece of shit that gets off on people responding to it on the intertubz. It is barely worthy of contempt, but if you must respond to it, contempt is ALL it deserves.

          2. No it isn’t. “The press” was not understood as referring to a printing press even in 1789. Handwritten publications were similarly protected.

            “papers and effects” are pretty broad concepts independent of technology, meaning records and possessions in general, but shoehorning telephone conversations in there is going to be tough. You have to somehow distinguish them from face to face conversations, which are totally unprotected. How transmission over a phone line can render them “papers” is beyond me.

        2. Its not *wiretapping* per-se that we’re bitching about.

          Its the warrantless wiretapping (or collection of metadata) in the absence of specific probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

          That’s the spot where they’re violating the constitution.

          1. Where does the 4th amendment require a warrant to conduct a reasonable search? Courts may require them, but the 4th amendment does not.

            1. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue . . .”

              Uh, right there in that first part.

          2. Those are the requirements for a warrant, which have nothing to do with this.

            You need to look at the first part of the 4th amendment.

            1. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue . . .”

              That’s the first part of the 4th amendment. Unless you’re saying that the gathering up of information, including wiretaps, is *reasonable* then the 4th amendment would seem to require a warrant and a warrant requires specific, sworn evidence to be produced.

              And if you’re saying that these searches *are* reasonable then please try to explain what criteria you would use to classify *any* search unreasonable.

              1. Telephone conversations aren’t persons, houses, papers (using the broad definition as “records”), or effects.

              2. I would say the contents of a computer drive, or a videotape in your closet, would be protected by the 4th amendment as “papers”. I’m not requiring that the “papers” be made of paper, so don’t claim I’m nitpicking.

        3. The bill of rights only enumerated SOME rights it is not the only right we have. Also what is in the bill of rights is not limiting. It is just stating some basic examples. The bill of rights does not limit our rights it stated a bare minimum, which means are real rights are far beyond the bill of rights. Go research what the federalist thought of the bill of rights. They thought it was unnecessary and that future people would think of them as limits, which they were never intended to be.

          The anti-federalist wanted them because they feared what government would do if they were not at least stated. So they both were right. If they were not there we would be far up shits creek and at the same time the federalist were right….for whatever reason people read it as a limit not as a minimum that does not have a limit.

          -_-

          1. What is that one amendment? You know the one I’m talking about? Something, something…shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, or something.

            Anyone ever heard of anything like that?

          2. Tulpa is anti-9th amendment.

            1. The 9th amendment was intended to give teeth to the Enumerated Powers Doctrine, and prevent the BoR becoming a list of the few things fedgov was not supposed to do (as opposed to A1S8 being the list of the few things fedgov could do).

              It wasn’t supposed to be a rights Rorshach test.

              1. What does that even mean?

              2. It wasn’t supposed to be a rights Rorshach test.

                Of course it was. The whole fucking point of the 9th is to limit the power of the federal government. ANY power not explicitly given is fucking RESERVED TO THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE.

                George Mason ultimately refused to sign the Constitution because he suspected people would interpret the BoR like you have here. I believe his exact words were “I would rather cut off my arm than sign”.

        4. I know I’m late to the dance, here, but whatever.

          Anyway, no, you don’t, not if you read the Constitution with the intended mindset, which is that it’s a document which explicitly grants specific powers to the government and reserves all powers not specifically mentioned to the states and to the people.

          Claiming that the 4th doesn’t protect against warrantless wiretapping because there wasn’t email in the 18th century is the same argument made for why the 2nd doesn’t apply to “assault weapons” or, technically, double-action pistols. Or revolvers, for that matter.

          1. Damn, posting prior to coffee.

            What I’m saying is that the important point of the 4th isn’t the beginning part that talks about where people should be secure, it’s the part that says the burden lies with the government to prove why it should be able to invade privacy in each case rather than with the people to prove why it shouldn’t.

      2. of on

      3. “Current law” has absolutely no fucking bearing of constitutionality.

        On the Constitutionality of a law, yes, but given that the Executive is constitutionally bound to follow the laws of the United States, the Executive’s actions can be unconstitutional if he violates a law, and then constitutional once the law is changed.

    4. Speaking of mind control and controlling the mind – apparently you can go to prison for telling someone how to beat a polygraph. Prosecutors sought two years for wire fraud and obstruction because he told undercover agents how to beat a polygraph when they informed him they planned to lie to the feds. He got eight months in prison.

      Speaking of fraud, calling that wire fraud is… uhm, fraudulent.

      Well, so much for free speech. The polygraph is widely acknowledged to be utterly flawed and unreliable – even unscientific. But telling the truth about how it works can be criminal. Wow.

      1. Talk about a chilling effect. How long until this is applied to crypto?

  2. NSA Can Spy on Smart Phone Data

    The United States’ National Security Agency intelligence-gathering operation is capable of accessing user data from smart phones from all leading manufacturers. Top secret NSA documents that SPIEGEL has seen explicitly note that the NSA can tap into such information on Apple iPhones, BlackBerry devices and Google’s Android mobile operating system.

    The documents state that it is possible for the NSA to tap most sensitive data held on these smart phones, including contact lists, SMS traffic, notes and location information about where a user has been.

    The documents also indicate that the NSA has set up specific working groups to deal with each operating system, with the goal of gaining secret access to the data held on the phones.

    In the internal documents, experts boast about successful access to iPhone data in instances where the NSA is able to infiltrate the computer a person uses to sync their iPhone. Mini-programs, so-called “scripts,” then enable additional access to at least 38 iPhone features.

      1. Oops. Ah, well. I guess I’ll just get back to my erotic memoir.

        1. I’m kind of in favor of this revelation because it means I don’t have to skype with foreign nationals all the time to make sure that every NSA agent has seen my hairy sack. My phone is a veritable mine field of things that would send someone for therapy.

          1. Scrotal recognition software. Each one is unique, like a fingerprint that smells of old cheese.

            1. Scrotal recognition software

              I’d heard they were years away!

              1. Don’t believe it, citizen. That’s how they caught Afroduck.

              2. It’s still under development. For now, it’s still trailers full of serious men in suits examining photos on lightboxes. Most of them are highly paid contractors.

                1. Serious Men

                  There’s more than one!?

                  1. For any given scrotum shot, there are at least 3 experts to reduce bias. Each one has a full time assistant, and usually several interns.

    1. I love Apple’s design and Google’s technology, but I would trade both in a second for a FreeBSD phone.

      1. Its not the OS causing the problem.

        1. If there’s no one to send an NSL to, you can’t require a backdoor.

          Ultimately, I hope that Google and Apple change their data handling so that broad spectrum snooping isn’t as cheap or effective. It would take someone a lot smarter than me to figure out how to do that, though.

          I’d like to see them implement a policy of automatically open-sourcing their software after a certain amount of time. Since Google makes its money on data, and Apple on hardware, it would be hard but not impossible. A market that actually demands such a thing is practically sci-fi, but I can dream.

          1. If there’s no one to send an NSL to, you can’t require a backdoor.

            And if Google of Apple used FreeBSD as the base of their phones, guess who who get the NSL?

      2. FreeBSD is good but OpenBSD is better when it comes to security.

        1. Technically yes, but OpenBSD’s advantages are not so pronounced if you’re actually running programs.

    2. Useful if you ever need your location data to support your alibi.

  3. Wait until Bush’s secret time-travel bureau is declassified, and we learn that he seeded all the worst events in history too. Hitler? Bush’s fault. Cortez slaughtering Indians? Bush’s fault. The Vesuvius eruption of AD 79? Bush did it.

    1. BOOOOOSHIT! (cue violin)

    2. Was he responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ? He was, wasn’t he?

      1. crucifixion of Jesus Christ?

        wait, who?

      2. First, you must understand that the serpent in the garden was not a literal serpent.

      3. St. Francis seems to think so. “Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.” (Admonitio 5,3)

    3. Insofar as Bush’s well-meaning interference in the time stream had a ripple effect that created Warty, you are correct.

    4. Reagan? Bush’s fault!

  4. So it’s all about parsing what “legal” means, and not so much about the consequences to privacy.

    We continue to elect attorneys to the White House and think they’ll respect the law.

    1. I’m not going to read that. I don’t think I could survive the rageurism that I imagine would come from it.

      1. Tommy jumps into the comments to personally insult anyone who disagrees with him, if that makes a difference.

    2. Wow. To reiterate: Trigger Warning for stupid bullshit.

      Scales’ specific example of such a know-nothing amateur?the official who provoked Dempsey’s alleged nonverbal disdain?is John Kerry, the Secretary of State, all “thundering voice and arm-waving” as he argued for war. That would be former Navy lieutenant John Kerry, who collected a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts in Vietnam, the same (and only) war that Robert Scales fought in.

      He was a lieutenant in the Navy 40 years ago. How exactly does this qualify him to be Secretary of State today? I have a feeling that a war with Syria will be slightly different than what Kerry experienced in the 70’s in Vietnam, particularly given the way that technology has utterly changed the way America wages war.

      Also, when Kerry was actually recently removed from his tour of duty, he was deeply opposed to warfare and said things that contradict his arguments today. With 40 years between him and the carnage, he’s suddenly decided that useless wars with no discernible goal are just dandy and that our military should be embroiled in such a conflict. Kerry’s rank hypocrisy on this issue has been disgusting, but Gawker decides to go after Wapo instead for rightfully pointing out that Kerry is behaving more like a self-righteous demagogue than someone who’s actually seen combat.

    3. From Comments:

      A military coup would be justified in the USA. Democracy is broken. The political class is owned by the 1% and the neocon nightmare of endless wars in the Middle East is not going to end until it starts WW3 and the world is in ruins.

      Yes that will end well.

      And you know which other country realized that Democracy was broken and allowed a TOP MAN to take over?

      1. Classical Athens?

      2. Rome?

      3. The Mongol Horde?

      4. Earth in Babylon 5?

      5. I must admit it’s hard to dispute the veracity of the final sentence, though.

      6. The Galactic Republic?

        1. hahahahaha nice one!

      7. Detroit?

      8. The Colonial Fleet?

    4. You headline implies the military is growing weary of the concept of a civilian CINC, and thus in contemplating a coup. In fact, they’re weary of this CINC, but not the general concept. But leave it to Gawker to sh#t stir…

      Socca sez:

      No, you don’t get to pick and choose which civilian commanders-in-chief you respect and which ones you don’t. This isn’t Egypt

      Complains about Praetorian rule by the military, demands absolute subjugation to the will of the King.

      1. You Know Who Else made sure the military was absolutely subjugated?

      2. None of them said that they wouldn’t go to war if asked. They privately said that they’d prefer not to. You don’t get to decide which commander-in-chief you OBEY, but respect is earned.

        1. Irish,

          Is it usually in your character to attack strawmen?

          Saying I’m “in favor of child prostitution” is as disingenuous as someone saying Ron Paul is in favor of heroin use because he doesn’t believe in prohibition.

          Can you make a real argument or just attack me personally or strawmen which don’t represent my opinion at all?

          1. Why are you bringing this into your third thread? Jesus Christ, let it die you nutcase.

            You said that you have no problem with a nation in which child prostitution is common and said that I was wrong for calling such a nation immoral.

            Here’s what you said last night in the thread that you seem intent on continually resurrecting:

            Define “child”.

            So they’re immoral for allowing people to do what they will with their own bodies?

            Oh wait, if they are one second under 18 they are still a “child”, and have no rights to their own body… I forgot! Silly me!

            You’re idiotically arguing that there’s nothing immoral about child prostitution. Prostitution is an act that actually HARMS the child. This isn’t like saying that a kid should be allowed to work as a janitor picking up some garbage. This is saying that a kid should be allowed to legally be violated, controlled and injured.

            Even if your argument is simply that it should be legal and you aren’t in favor of it as a practice, your insistence on continually bringing this up is creepy and seems to imply a strange obsession with the subject.

            1. So more strawmen and personal attacks?

              #1 I don’t think it’s GOOD to have child prostitution.

              #2 I don’t believe it never causes harm. Even adults who engage in such activities risk harm to themselves.

            2. Plopper has no jurisdiction. He’ll hunt you down to the end of the blogosphere and make you squeal like he did when that skank stroked his five year old weiner.

              1. Tulpa, I LOL’d.

                This might be your first non-shitty comment ever.

                Thanks!

              2. Way to put the “I feel like you guys are making personal attacks instead of engaging my point” fire out there Tulpa.

                1. His point was dealt with, several times.

                  Though people calling him a pedophile were seriously out of line.

                  1. I disagree. But w/e, there’s no arguing with Tulpa.

                  2. I didn’t call him a pedophile until he showed an inability to keep it in one f’ing thread. I said he was essentially arguing in favor of a position that would give cover to pedophiles and allow them to abuse children. I really don’t care and wouldn’t even talk about it if he stopped bringing it up.

                    1. Kinda like how legalizing drugs would give cover to drug dealers to further victimize their addict victims?

                      I think it’s more the opposite really.

          2. Why are you bringing this into your third thread? Jesus Christ, let it die you nutcase.

            You said that you have no problem with a nation in which child prostitution is common and said that I was wrong for calling such a nation immoral.

            Here’s what you said last night in the thread that you seem intent on continually resurrecting:

            Define “child”.

            So they’re immoral for allowing people to do what they will with their own bodies?

            Oh wait, if they are one second under 18 they are still a “child”, and have no rights to their own body… I forgot! Silly me!

            You’re idiotically arguing that there’s nothing immoral about child prostitution. Prostitution is an act that actually HARMS the child. This isn’t like saying that a kid should be allowed to work as a janitor picking up some garbage. This is saying that a kid should be allowed to legally be violated, controlled and injured.

            Even if your argument is simply that it should be legal and you aren’t in favor of it as a practice, your insistence on continually bringing this up is creepy and seems to imply a strange obsession with the subject.

            1. Irish, I don’t care if you disagree with me.

              I just don’t appreciate you attacking me personally and avoiding my argument by going after a strawman.

              I’ve explained I’m personally bitter about my experiences when I was a teenager and so I enjoy playing Devil’s advocate on this subject.

              It’s especially entertaining because most people, people like you, can’t even debate the subject without making ad hominem attacks and setting strawmen afire.

              If you disagree with me and we can agree to disagree that’s fine, I’ll never bring it up to you again, but when you attack me personally and attack a strawman while I’m trying to engage someone else I’m not going to let it go.

              1. Here is my position on the matter:

                https://reason.com/blog/2013/09…..nt_3989727

                If you disagree with me and want to argue with me about it, that’s fine.

                If you disagree and don’t want to argue about it, that’s fine.

                But don’t go replying to my comments aimed at other people only to attack me personally and/or strawmen.

        2. You don’t get to decide which commander-in-chief you OBEY, but respect is earned.

          This is, word-for-word, exactly what I was thinking. Commander Jugears has earned zero respect.

      3. It’s becoming clear that “statist” is not really what they are. They are “Obamists.”

        At least you could sense some good, honest cynical dishonesty in most defenses of Bush. These guys seem to know there is arsenic in the Kool-Aid and still gulp it down.

        1. Well as Ed Asner said they need to support King Zero otherwise they are racists.

          1. They can’t come out against a war they otherwise would object to because they don’t want to be seen to be anti-black.

            Doesn’t that mean the country is not ready to have a black President? How can you have a President who is above all criticism because of his race?

          2. Anti-black. What the fuck does that even mean?

            1. Magic leftist talismans have meaning?

    5. He’s arguing that this op-ed writer’s stance ? that civilians are in no position to make war-related decisions, and it’s really the military leaders who know best

      So, he wants a nice military dictatorship? I’m not sure how else to read that.

      And he wants to reinstate the draft for all citizens up to the age of 50.

      Sounds like to me, even though he’s totally ignorant of the fact, that he’s calling for a civil war right here at home.

    6. Today on Facebook there was some lefty warfest comment thread. I just popped in and dropped one little comment.

      “You know if any of you people had ever actually served in a war or were in any danger of going to fight in one, you wouldn’t be so keen of sending others to war.”

      A mountain of hilarity and butt hurt ensued. I can’t tell you the pleasure it gave me to pull the chickenhawk argument on those fucking bastards.

      1. Ha. I’m sure they love hearing that. I’ve also found that dropping “Wow so you and John McCain are BFFs now?” and “When did Dems go full neocon!?” into Facebook threads is a sure path to hilarity and butthurt.

        1. Get with the program Jesse: John McCain is a sensible moderate–except when he’s a dangerous ideological extremist, as needed by the Team Blue narrative.

          See also Romney, Mittens.

          1. Or heaven forbid Chris Christie.

        2. The beauty of this thread is that some of these very people had called me the same when I defended the Iraq war. This despite me having actually served in Iraq.

          1. Who did you serve?

            1. This ship. We rowed well…and lived.

      2. I sometimes troll the Being Liberal Facebook page. Today they posted a photo of a newspaper article from 1999 about the budget surplus with the comment that things were so much better when Bill Clinton was in office.

        My comment:

        Nice to see you liberals are so appreciative of Newt Gingrich and the GOP-controlled House’s balanced budgets.

        1. Of course libertarians do the same thing ignoring that Clinton was forced into doing what they liked (Hillarycare failed remember?) and that the deficit has not shrunk since Eisenhower’s time.

          1. The love that Clinton gets from some Libertarians is always a bit puzzling.

        2. But most people know that the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (aka the Deficit Reduction Act) was the real budget balancer and not a single GOPer voted for it.

          http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/R…..onact.html

          It contained the largest spending cuts ever – as well as a top rate tax increase.

          1. Yes, and we need OBRA-13. Fuck you to the ‘Fuck you cut spending’ wingnuts.

            Palin’s Buttplug| 9.2.13 @ 5:57PM |#

            If everyone agreed with me I would quit posting.

          2. Retarded sock puppet is retarded.

            1. And water is wet, and the clouds are above the ocean.

          3. “It contained the largest spending cuts ever – as well as a top rate tax increase.”

            Wow! That sounds like some draconian austerity following a recession. That can’t work, Paul Krugman told me so. Score one for the moderate left (ie today’s Republicans) as opposed to the far left (Krugman, et al), I guess.

          4. Also, shrike, how’s that “gold-to-$600” call you made a couple months ago working out for you? Because, you know, nobody around here can touch you when it comes to markets.

            /snicker

            1. The Fed has not begun tightening yet. Gold is in a 20 year bear grip.

              1. LOL! Bullshit. You weren’t talking about any 20-year bear market. Gold was in freefall at the time and you called the bottom at $600.

          5. lol – even Clinton stated, in 1995, that he like raised taxes to much in the 1993 budget:

            http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10…..emark.html

            1. *too
              damn it

            2. Plus, those rates didn’t really bring in more revenue. There was a revenue increase overall during the 90s, but it tracked GDP growth during the tech boom, not top rates. That’s clear because those revenues collapsed in 2000, two years before Bush cut the top rate to 35%.

    7. Scales’ specific example of such a know-nothing amateur?the official who provoked Dempsey’s alleged nonverbal disdain?is John Kerry, the Secretary of State, all “thundering voice and arm-waving” as he argued for war. That would be former Navy lieutenant John Kerry, who collected a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts in Vietnam, the same (and only) war that Robert Scales fought in.

      When people disdain a war hero like John Kerry I don’t know what our country is coming to.

      1. It’s funny when they recite his military record as if that will white wash Kerry’s universally acknowledged lameness as a leader.

  5. Poor Obama.

    It’s hell, having Dick Cheney down there in Nixon’s bowling alley running the country.

  6. “it is unfortunate,” he continued, “that President Obama has not done a better job of explaining the distinction, and why his administration’s program does not violate the constitutional ‘right of privacy.'”

    “If the President does it, it’s not illegal.”

    That wasn’t so hard, was it?

  7. Sad Brady alert! Turn on the Patriots game.

    1. Has he sat down in the middle of the field and pouted, yet?

      Oh, never mind, that’s at the end of the game…

      1. Just go sacked on third and goal. Down by one.

        No one picked Buffalo in the Hit and Run pick ’em league, so them losing won’t hurt and we’ll all get to enjoy tom Brady’s yummy tears.

        1. Sorry, I’ve been too busy laughing at the Steelers

    2. I don’t watch hockey.

    3. And now you look like both an asshole and an idiot.

  8. http://www.schneier.com/blog/a….._brea.html

    The new Snowden revelations are explosive. Basically, the NSA is able to decrypt most of the Internet. They’re doing it primarily by cheating, not by mathematics.

    It’s joint reporting between the Guardian, the New York Times, and ProPublica.

    I have been working with Glenn Greenwald on the Snowden documents, and I have seen a lot of them. These are my two essays on today’s revelations.

    Remember this: The math is good, but math has no agency. Code has agency, and the code has been subverted.

    EDITED TO ADD (9/6): Someone somewhere commented that the NSA’s “groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities” could include a practical attack on RC4. I don’t know one way or the other, but that’s a good speculation.

    EDITED TO ADD (9/6): Relevant Slashdot and Reddit threads.

    (the comments and his replies are also interesting)

    Bruce’s article at The Guardian:
    NSA surveillance: A guide to staying secure

    I’ve read some other commentators say he’s really gone paranoid now, even though he’s usually against conspiracy theories. I’d agree except it’s really just a distinction of previously preferring not to entertain much speculation, to shifting to assuming the worst, within the bounds of logic.

    1. So has the Guardian wrote editorials reneging its support for Press Censorship.?

    2. They’re doing it primarily by cheating, not by mathematics.

      Which is precisely what I suggested in last week’s thread.

      They’re not cracking our encryption, they’re asking to be allowed to read the unencrypted stream. We’re a nation of 360,000,000 people being dumbassed by our government.

  9. TOUCHDOWN SEAHAWKS…fucking finally.

  10. With DVD/Blu-Ray release of ‘Star Wars Trek Into Darkness’, it has been confirmed that R2-D2 ‘cameos’ in one scene

    To be fair, this isn’t the first time someone with a sense of humor has done something like this. The Millennium Falcon appears in ‘Star Trek: First Contact’ during the space battle with the Borg.

    1. The spaceship from Firefly, Serenity, appeared in Battlestar Galactica

  11. A military coup would be justified in the USA. Democracy is broken. The political class is owned by the 1%

    Nothing says empowerment of the proletariat like a military coup.

    1. I bet the retard that said that doesn’t even stop to think that the 1% ARE the political class.

      1. Nor that his kind of progressive is hated by a great many military personnel.

  12. More Trek: Star Trek Into Darkness writer Roberto Orci tells Trek fans to fuck off

    Star Trek writer Roberto Orci has criticized fans after reading an article about how the franchise is “broken”.

    Orci – who worked on the 2009 reboot and this year’s sequel Star Trek Into Darkness – described fans as “s**tty” in a post on TrekMovie.com.

    On September 1, the fansite published an article titled ‘Star Trek is broken – here are ideas on how to fix it’, which prompted the writer to comment on the site under the screenname ‘boborci’.

    Orci’s identity has been confirmed by TrekMovie.com moderator Matt Wright.

    Orci wrote: “I think the article above is akin to a child acting out against his parents. Makes it tough for some to listen, but since I am a loving parent, I read these comments without anger or resentment, no matter how misguided.”

    He rejected the idea that Star Trek is “broken”, adding that the last two movies have received the “best reviews”.

    The 40-year-old continued: “Having said that, two biggest Star Treks in a row with best reviews is hardly a description of ‘broken’. And frankly, your tone and attitude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future.

    Way to be a thin-skinned douchebag Roberto.

    1. thin-skinned douchebag

      You know which other person involved with Star Trek is/was a thin-skinned douchebag?

      1. Hitler?

      2. Kodos the Executioner?

        Khan Noonien Singh?

        Apollo?

    2. I too am amazed at the good reviews those two pieces of shit have received. Are the reviewers quote-whoring or have standards really sunk that far?

      The guy who played Scotty also had an obscene message for ST fans who didn’t like the movie. What the hell is wrong with these people? Are they trying to make us pine for the days of Berman and Bragga?

      1. They are very well-made movies from a technical standpoint. No one disputes that, but what Abrams and Co don’t seem to understand is that Star Trek fans generally want a more ambitious movie, one that involves a unique premise and actually raises thematic issues. Otherwise it’s just another Star Wars clone.

        All of that gets lost in the special effects way too-fast pace of the new Star Trek movies.

        And the hostility is unwarranted because they still made a shit-ton of money off of it, it’s not like their efforts didn’t pay off.

        1. That said that editorial was pretty reasonable I think as it wasn’t full of too much of the reactionary nostalgia that fandoms can sometimes be like where everything old was perfect and all changes then were accepted.

          unique premise and actually raises thematic issues. Otherwise it’s just another Star Wars clone.

          Problem is the movies that did so were the first and fifth ones which are not well liked.

          1. I think all of the first 10 movies tried to raise thematic issues. ST5 was probably the most ambitious but was poorly executed. At the other end of the spectrum ST4 was a cheap attempt to cash in on the 1980s US’s obsession with itself.

            1. Questioning superiority of humans over their technology
            2. Kirk’s aging and guilt for what he did to Khan (or did not do)
            3. Kirk’s relationship with his son and McCoy’s helping his non-friend
            4. Questioning superiority of humans over other Earth creatures
            5. the incompleteness of Vulcan logic and relation of God to ST (poorly done)
            6. making peace and letting old prejudices go
            Gen. Picard’s regret of not having a family, Data’s troubles with emotion
            FC. Picard’s quest for revenge and disappointment at the reality of a “hero”
            Ins. Corruption in the Federation and emptiness of high-tech life
            Nem. Picard’s aging and Data’s reflection on how much he’s grown (very poorly done)

            1. I maintain Insurrection is the worst movie of the franchise.

              It was like a rough draft of a bad TNG episode.

              1. I can certainly respect that conclusion. It’s hard to choose between ST5, Nemesis, and Insurrection for the worst. I tend to think Nemesis is the worst because it was less ambitious than the other two and still failed to execute.

                I really, really liked the idea of Insurrection. I’m surprised Roddenberry didn’t try to rise from the grave to stop it.

                1. The story of Insurrection made zero sense. For starters, the exact same issue of forced relocation was addressed in the TNG episode ‘Journey’s End’–in which Picard was fine with following orders to forcibly remove Native Americans from a Cardassian planet.

                  But in Insurrection suddenly he thinks it’s unconscionable to remove a bunch of self-righteous hippie Luddites from a planet who’s energy effect could help billions of people. What happened to ‘the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few’?

                  1. In Journey’s End they had to remove the people or risk a war with the Cardassians; in Insurrection, the Federation just wanted what this planet had.

                    Picard made some monstrous decisions (“Homeward”, where he sat idly by as the entire population of a planet was extinguished because of the Prime Directive) but I can sort of understand his position in JE.

                  2. What happened to ‘the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few’?

                    “The needs of the many” don’t trump property rights, or a grabby FedGov.

                    I don’t get the hate for Insurrection – it’s one of my favorites, precisely because the hippies were annoying but Data and Picard did the right thing and defended them anyway.

                2. A recent poll of Star Trek fans at a convention, when asked to rate all 12 Trek movies and (amusingly) GalaxyQuest, put Star Trek Into Darkness dead last. GalaxyQuest ended up 7th of 13, amusingly.

                  1. GalaxyQuest was THE best Star Trek movie, period, the end. It did Star Trek better than Star Trek ever could.

        2. They are very well-made movies from a technical standpoint.

          In what way? I don’t know enough about cinematography etc. to evaluate them for that; Abrams’ style makes my eyes hurt but maybe I’m just a freak.

          The dialogue is mediocre, the plots are nonsensical (not talking about inconsistencies with previous ST, just general stupidity), and the emotional impact is nil. ST:ITD was obviously an attempt to ripoff/remake ST2:TWOK and looks terrible compared to it.

          Spoilers: Fuck, at least the original took an entire movie to resurrect the dead guy, who was still pretty messed up afterwards, instead of a few minutes and he’s the same as before.

          1. The set designs, costumes, cinematography, and camera work (minus the lens flares) were all impressive IMO.

            I particularly liked the look of the alien world from the beginning of the movie and the design of USS Vengeance.

            But everything else you said about the silly plot, the bad characterizations, and the cheap deus ex machina ending are spot-on.

            1. I admit that I liked the Into Darkness but I did find the ending rushed and the plot felt empty.

              Problem is when Trek was most ambitious and filled with Important Ideas that was the first one which was little more than one of the more pretentious TOS episode stretched by another hour with additional effect shots. Or the fifth one.

              1. If you read what Shatner originally wanted to do with ST5 it looks like it could have been pretty good. But Nimoy and Kelley refused to go along with Spock and McCoy joining the bad guys, so there went half the plot.

              2. To me, the new ST movies feel more like the original series than the ponderous, overly serious tone the franchise took after they started the movies. It’s not the feel of the best episodes, but I appreciate that they’re trying to get away from the repetitive, sermonizing nerdiness of Voyager, Enterprise, and the later movies.

                I can’t say I’m a huge fan of them, but I think it’s a better direction for the franchise than where it’s been going, and I don’t really get the hate.

                1. repetitive, sermonizing nerdiness of Voyager, Enterprise, and the later movies.

                  Suderman has a sad. Of course it was the films that didn’t do that that are the fan favorites.

                  Of course Gillespie would support some ironic hipster camp take on Star Trek which I doubt will work or be liked by the fans.

                2. To me, the new ST movies feel more like the original series than the ponderous, overly serious tone the franchise took after they started the movies.

                  There is that, but the frenzied pace just tries to mask the gaping plot holes and makes the whole thing completely forgettable when it’s over. I saw the first one and I don’t remember a damn thing about it except I couldn’t stand the ‘Kirk’ actor.

        3. way too-fast pace

          This trend has also ruined the new seasons of Dr Who. And pretty much everything else it touches.

        4. “Star Trek fans generally want a more ambitious movie, one that involves a unique premise and actually raises thematic issues.”

          Then why the fuck are they watching Star Trek?

    3. He rejected the idea that Star Trek is “broken”

      But Star Trek ISN’T broken. The reboot was FUCKING AWESOME and Into Darkness very good.

      And anyone who disagrees with me is OBVIOUSLY worse than Hitler.

    4. Speaking of Trek, Amazon has box sets of each series on sale.

      Deep down in your hearts, you all know you want to spend $176.49 on the box set of Voyager.

      1. I got my STTNG set from Borders with a 50% off coupon. A couple of weeks later they went bankrupt.

      2. Only $109 for Captain Quantum? That’s a bargain.

  13. The crucial difference here is that Bush only listened to calls that involved at least one foreign party. Obama in contrast collect information on purely domestic calls. It doesn’t matter that it was only metadata. What matters is that Obama used the NSA to collect information on millions of Americans without even pretending there was a foreign nexus. That is the bottom line that the hack Obama defenders should never be allowed to forget.

    1. Bingo. At least Bush followed precedent set by FDR who monitored all communication in and out of the US during Workd War II.

  14. It is funny as hell to listen to these assholes argue for war for humanitarian reasons in Syria. For the entire second Bush term they did everything they could to discredit the idea of war for humanitarian purposes. It would be one thing if they had just objected to it. But they objected to it in such a histrionic and dishonest way calling Bush a war criminal and Iraq the greatest blunder of all time and so forth. More importantly, they practically invented the concept of war for humanitarian reasons and nation building. But they were so stupid and short sighted and arrogant they actually thought they could go right back to waging war for humanitarian reasons when they were in charge.

    Here we are in 2013 and shockingly the public isn’t buying the idea that the US should go to war over reasons of international law and humanitarian crisis. Who could have possibly seen that coming? It is not like the very assholes who want this war didn’t spend years lying and discrediting the entire concept or something. Obama winning re-election is terrible for the country. But the longer his second term goes, the more obvious it is that justice demanded that these assholes finally reap some of what they had sown.

      1. Yes. On both counts.

      2. Warty’s safeword is “more”

  15. http://opinionator.blogs.nytim…..rden/?_r=0

    This is some classic pro Obama butt hurt. Bush is a coward for not coming out and supporting Obama on Syria. It is all Bush’s fault that people won’t support this. Wow.

    1. You don’t remember Clinton coming out and defending Bush over Iraq?

      1. They try to pretend that people are tired of war and won’t support this one because Bush was just so bad. The reality that people don’t trust Obama and one of the reasons why they won’t support another war is because of the viciousness and mendacity that they attacked the Iraq war just doesn’t fit the narrative.

        1. I get a kick out of “journalists” and other pro-war commentators and politicians using “war-weary” like it’s a character flaw.

          In a society unburdened by the perverted moralism of our political class, people would be war-weary even when they’re not at war yet.

          1. “War weary” is just journolist speak for “they won’t support our war”. They can’t ever admit that Obama is incompetent much less that the hated Bush might have been more competent. So, they can never mention the fact that Obama hasn’t made a single good argument for this war or made any kind of a case to the public or Congress. The fact that the country and Congress won’t just blindly follow him to war is clearly just because the country is “war weary” because of that evil Bush.

            1. “They can’t ever admit that . . . that the hated Bush might have been more competent.

              Well, thankfully they’ll never have cause to admit *that*.

              1. “More competent” may be tough to justify, but “less incompetent” is pretty much a slam dunk at this point.

              2. Yeah, Bush just managed to assemble a 50 nation coalition for his war and get significant support from both sides in Congress. The ability to work with your opposition is a big part of Presidential competence. Bush was able to do that. Obama is not.

                By any measure, Bush was a much more competent President than Obama. Obama is without doubt the most incompetent President of the post war period.

                Put down the crack pipe, wipe the spit from your mouth, stop yelling “but BOOSH!!!” and start thinking a little bit and making a better effort.

                1. Bush was doing this barely a year after 9/11. Much, much easier then.

                  1. Not for Iraq it wasn’t. And Bush got Dem votes on lots of things. Obama is incapable of doing that. He has never once moved public opinion on a single issue.

                    1. Bush’s ability to get Dem votes on big government spending schemes like NCLB and Medicare Part D and TARP is roughly equal to BO’s ability to get GOP votes on militaristic police state legislation like the NDAA and the re-up of the Patriot Act.

                      About as hard as convincing Casey Anthony to put out on the first date.

                    2. And convincing big government republicans is any harder? I didn’t say it was hard. I said Obama is such an idiot he can’t do to.

                    3. You supported the Iraq War and you’re a Republican. It doesn’t get much more big government Republican than that.

      2. not only do I remember Clinton supporting Bush in Iraq, I remember him signing the Iraq Liberation Act as President, I remember Dem after Dem on the record about how Saddam had WMD and needed to be stopped, and I remember Bill’s wife and the current VP & SOS supporting the AUMF.

        And when you point that out to the left, all they have is “Bush lied.” I am constantly amazed at how a man the liberati claim was the stupidest occupant of the Oval Office ever managed to snooker not just majorities in both parties of both houses, but also a lot of nations and the UN.

      3. You don’t remember Clinton coming out and defending Bush over Iraq?

        I remember Al Gore defending him at the CFR before the war. He praised the Axis of Evil speech, wanted military regime change in Iraq, and supported belligerence toward Iran.

        http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/c…..asks/p4343

  16. HAH!
    Nobody un-circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills!

    1. You should be more supportive of your country’s NFL team.

  17. Off Topic.

    The Washinton Post also has a great front page story today about people whose homes have been seized due to failure to pay very small (

    1. I would say “pay your taxes” except that the DC government is so horrible, I bet those people never even knew they owed that money.

      And this is one time where I would support the mob. Go find the asshole whose business model is to put $197K in fees on a $134 debt and burn his home to the ground.

      1. See my post below.

  18. Argh.

    The Washinton Post also has a great front page story today about people whose homes have been seized due to failure to pay very small property tax bills )(less than $1000).

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..h-nothing/

    Basically, under the District’s laws, an investor can purchase a tax lien and if so is entitled to 100% of the equity. The homeowner gets nothing. So this has spawned a cottage industry of real estate companies buying up tax liens, including some for very small amounts, then tacking on onerous fees so the homeowner can’t pay, then foreclosing and selling the house for hundreds of thousands of dollars in pure profit.

    In the highlighted case an elderly man with dementia failed to pay a $174 tax bill and ended up losing his fully paid-off $197,000 house. And got nothing back in equity.

    1. His debt had snowballed to $4,999 ? 37 times the original tax bill. Not only did he lose his $197,000 house, but he also was stripped of the equity because tax lien purchasers are entitled to everything, trumping even mortgage companies.

    2. I hope everyone involved in that dies in a fucking fire. That is some morally bankrupt bullshit.

      1. I would support the Chinese slow death by a thousand slices for that. Dying in a fire would be too quick for them.

    3. WTF!? Time until Team Blue tries to put 100% of the blame on greed and 0% of the blame on bullshit legal architecture?

      1. Lizzie Warren will be going on the war path over this.

        1. I’m imagining them leaving the same kind of legal architecture that made this possible with some kind of limp wristed punishment that won’t really stop anyone from screwing over home owners, but will make voters feel like they’re punishing the greedy rich.

      2. Yeah, you can see people in the article claiming that the problem is lack of sufficient “protection” from “predatory” investors for “low-income homeowners”.

        As if awarding tax lien purchasers 100% of the value of the property would be more just if the victim was middle or upper class.

        The obvious problem here is that people who purchase TAX liens are given special status that purchasers of ordinary mortgages are not. They are given a special extra opportunity to screw homeowners over right good as an incentive to buy up tax liens. Because you know, TAX debts as SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than other kinds of debt. We can’t have the government taking a loss once in a while, now, can we?

    4. This is the pure evil of cronyism and a political class far out of control.

      My solution of tar and feathers, removing them from power, and putting them in prison, is really far too kind.

      It is the enablers of this bullshit, career establishment politicians, who really need punished, first and most.

  19. Today’s panic: Blind people buying gunz!

    Okay, so what. But WTF?

    Polk County doesn’t deny permits because of visual impairment, Sgt. Jana Abens said. Barber obtained a training certificate, and his background check didn’t come back with any reasons for the Polk County sheriff to deny the permit.

    When Barber purchased a gun at Bass Pro Shops on Aug. 15, it was the first time a blind person had purchased a handgun there, as far as operations manager Todd Godfrey could determine.

    The store’s clerks gave Michael Barber no static about his inability to see, and assisted him in obtaining two shoppers in the store to serve as the required witnesses to his signature on paperwork required under federal law before purchasing the handgun.

    Witnesses? Two of them? Where the fuck did that come from?

    1. Yeah, I’ve bought three guns over that last three years and have never had to have other shoppers sign as witnesses.

      IDK, maybe the store clerks did – I’ve got a new gun coming in a week or so and I’ll check on it then.

    2. A large bore handgun loaded with blanks is a good self defense weapon for a blind person. At close range a blank round will fuck you up.

    3. It’s commonly required for people who can’t sign properly (usually due to illiteracy, but blindness probably qualifies too).

  20. Team Oracle is not performing to the expectations of rich billionaires.

  21. CNN is on the case.

    After The Des Moines Register’s story, word about Iowa’s approach spread swiftly on social media Sunday.

    “What could possibly go wrong?” Jeff Smith, an assistant professor of politics and advocacy at The New School in New York, quipped in a Twitter post.

    “At least on its face, it just seems totally absurd and absolutely in the other direction from the kind of common-sense gun safety restrictions that the president and others fought for earlier this year,” he said.

    “Just because we have a Second Amendment shouldn’t mean that blind people can walk around with concealed weapons.”

    He’s an assistant professor of politics and advocacy; defer to his superior wisdom, you hicks!

    1. “Just because we have a Second Amendment shouldn’t mean that blind people can walk around with concealed weapons.”

      Shouldn’t the outrage be highly offensive to blind people? It’s basically saying that blind people can’t be trusted to handle a firearm.

      1. Well, we trust the police with guns, how much worse can it be that blind people have guns? I vote that we take the guns away from the police and give them to blind people. Now that’s justice.

    2. common-sense gun safety restrictions

      Paging Barfman…

    3. Hate to be a “contrarian”, but I’m scratching my head as to how a blind person can possibly follow the rules of gun safety. Does their seeing eye dog tell them which direction to shoot? How do they practice?

      Obviously it sucks to not be able to defend yourself, but a lot of things suck about being blind.

      1. Check your Sighted Privilege, Tulpa

        1. I did — still there.

        2. If I don’t play a particular musical instriument, or any musical instrument at all, I am not asked why, “because [well-known musician] is sighted like you and he/she/xe plays [instrument]

          I don’t know if I can forgive you for leading me to read that Pantsfan. I’m packing up my invisible knapsack and going home!

    4. common-sense gun safety restrictions

      Why do I just assume anyone who uses the term “common sense” has no legitimate argument?

  22. So this has spawned a cottage industry of real estate companies buying up tax liens, including some for very small amounts, then tacking on onerous fees so the homeowner can’t pay, then foreclosing and selling the house for hundreds of thousands of dollars in pure profit.

    Just think of the short term capital gains windfall; I’m sure there’s a huge push to get rid of this practice.

    1. Oh, and libertarians have no empathy.

  23. “Legally blind” not same as “total utter blackness”.

    1. It’s enough to make it dubious that you can know your target and what’s beyond.

      1. So their liability is higher. Seems like a shitty reason to deny their second amendment right.

        1. Is their liability going to resurrect the innocent person they accidentally shoot?

          And they have absolutely no hope of exercising that right in an effective way. I’d think that gun owners would understand that defending yourself with a gun is something that takes skill.

          1. Since we’re terming rights in terms of privileges to be denied at our collective discretion, I, too, support denying dyslexics their 1a privileges. Who knows what misapprehensions those crazies might cause.

            Seriously, Tulpa, there’s no way the blind might somewhat mitigate their potential liability? Say, exercising greater discretion when handling their firearm? Raising the bar for permissible lethal responses? Rather than confronting the fellow entering your property at the back gate, instead waiting until he’s cleared the threshold to the house and failed to retreat? They’re not Daredevil, but they’re not Helen Keller, either.

            1. Since we’re terming rights in terms of privileges to be denied at our collective discretion

              Just to test how well your moral high horse fits…. do you support allowing mentally ill people to carry firearms wherever they go?

              Seriously, Tulpa, there’s no way the blind might somewhat mitigate their potential liability?

              There we go with “liability” again. You’re talking about innocent people being killed, not having to pay for someone’s fender.

              (and this was about permits to carry, not just have a gun in the home)

              1. Just to test how well your moral high horse fits…. do you support allowing mentally ill people to carry firearms wherever they go?

                I had no idea blind people are the equivalent of retards in terms of capacity to reason.

                1. I never said they were; just seeing how far Dweebston is willing to follow his position that 2A rights can’t be denied for public safety reasons.

                  1. If a right can be denied simply for what someone ‘might’ do, then its not a right.

              2. I’m certain the visually impaired would love the comparison. The blind make decisions given imperfect inputs, which to some degree is true of anyone handling a gun in self-defense. The mentally unfit arguably do not possess the faculties to make such decisions, whatever their inputs. It’s a legitimate question, and the fact is that I don’t know: I certainly don’t favor proscribing their rights based on having sought mental health therapy, for example, and that seems to be the thrust of “reasonable” gun control legislation. Any more than I favor proscribing the rights of the blind to lethal self-defense if they’re confident they can operate such weapons safely. I’d probably feel more comfortable with holding caretakers responsible (as with children) rather than attempting to enforce indiscriminate bans against an entire, poorly-defined class of people.

                And we’re not talking about innocent people being killed. We’re talking about hypotheticals and whether they’re enough to rob a class of citizens of a constitutional guarantee.

                1. I’d probably feel more comfortable with holding caretakers responsible (as with children) rather than attempting to enforce indiscriminate bans against an entire, poorly-defined class of people.

                  This is slippery. Are you allowing the caretakers to disallow their wards from carrying guns around?

                  If so, you are denying people the right to choose to carry a gun. If not, I don’t see how you can conscionably hold the caretakers responsible for misuse of the gun.

                  And we’re not talking about innocent people being killed. We’re talking about hypotheticals

                  Seriously? If this blind person is guaranteed never to fire the gun, then the right is pointless. They may as well carry a water pistol.

                  So considering what’s likely to happen when they fire the gun is hardly a hypothetical.

                  1. Am I allowing the people with the legal discretion to care for those who are incapable of caring for themselves to make a decision of that nature, if they’re held liable for the consequences? Why, yes, I believe so. This does not sound analogous to the blind, unless your definition of caretaker and legal discretion extends to government and blanket bans, in which case, get off my lawn and take your petition with you.

                    Seriously? If this blind person is guaranteed never to fire the gun, then the right is pointless. They may as well carry a water pistol.

                    I didn’t say that. I said I don’t see why it’s impossible for a blind man to defend himself with a similar degree of safety as, say, George Zimmerman. I say “similar” because the burden of safety on such a person would necessarily be higher. Which is why I suggested they can mitigate their liability somewhat by taking precautions. Did you think I meant they’d be authorized to fire blindly into crowds?

                    1. Did you think I meant they’d be authorized to fire blindly into crowds?

                      They’d always be firing blindly…

                    2. Right. You know who else probably fired blindly? Jorge Zimmerman. Besides the rain, the ambient light, and some frumpy-shirted six-foot teenager knocking the back of his skull into the pavement, he was probably doped up on adrenaline and fearing for his life. It doesn’t take much input to make a point-blank shot at an aggressor straddling your waist, and I imagine this is the sort of situation the blind fellow in question would wish to defend himself against?not shooting into crowds or through walls, behavior we wouldn’t countenance from sighted holders, either.

                    3. The point is that a blind person doesn’t know whether they’re firing into a crowd or through a wall.

                      GZ wasn’t firing blindly. For example, if a neighbor had run out and tried to pull Trayvon off of him, he would have seen the neighbor and (hopefully) not fired (since in that case the neighbor would take the bullet after it exited Trayvon). No way a blind person can make that distinction.

                    4. No way a blind person can make that distinction.

                      In fairness, had Zimmerman accidentally shot some third party intervening during the fight, he’d credibly (and for all we know, legitimately) have claimed the shooting accidental, unanticipated, and the fault of Martin for having attacked him.

                      Tulpa, I refer to my earlier point: we cannot deny the blind their right to lethal self-defense, unless you’re wanting to make the second amendment a parody of caveats and proscriptions. Knowing some of what you’ve advocated, you probably do. Others of us, myself included, prefer to leave the question of self-defense to the individuals involved to handle as they see fit. So long as they understand the risks involved and bear the consequences, I’m content.

                      I’m sighted and I don’t carry; I don’t even possess. I prefer to think I can neutralize burglars and muggers with my crazy nunchaku, or at the very least avoid pissing myself as I smash the window screen and bolt from the house.

          2. Nooooo, gun-owners understand that most of the time simply brandishing a firearm is enough to end a confrontation.

            Hell, I stopped a confrontation from even escalating to violence once simply by reaching for my (non-existent) piece.

            1. It hurts me to say this because you are a good and honest commentator, but that is not good advice, Ag. Up there with guys who say that you should leave your shotgun unloaded for home defense, because the chink-chuck sound when you pump it is enough to scare an intruder away.

              1. Space Cadet Biden seems to think it’s a dandy idea.

              2. I’m not offering it as advice – I’m pointing out that there’s *many* ways to use a firearm for self-defense and taking away this guy’s right based on a rather broad legal definition of incapacity is stupid.

                Most of this argument is because we’re blathering over something in a *new* article. And all of here should know by now that news tends to leave out key facts if they contradict a sensational story.

                This guy may be legally blind, that doesn’t mean he can’t see well enough to use the weapon.

      2. “It’s enough to make it dubious that you can know your target and what’s beyond.”

        Actually, its not – I’m juuuuust on this side of being legally blind in one eye. Yet I can see shapes and color well enough to see people, signs, whatever at a hundred yards with that eye. What I *can’t* do with it is read text from more than 3 feet way unless its really large.

        There’s a whole range of blindness, starting from the above point. And keep in mind ‘legally blind’ means ‘can’t correct your eyesight to better than 20/200’ all the way to ‘can look at the sun and not see it’.

        “An individual shall be considered to be blind for purposes of this title if he has central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with the use of a correcting lens.”

        1. 20/200 means you need objects to be ten times closer to have the same clarity as a 20/20 person.

          So your vision at 300 feet is as clear as mine at 3000 feet, over half a mile. I know for damn sure I can’t make out individual people at that distance and would sure as hell never shoot at a target that far away without optics.

          1. Now you’ve crossed the lines beyond your normal mendacity. Shut the fuck up Tupla.

            1. What in particular is mendacious about this? A commenter is arguing that 20/200 vision is good enough to use a firearm safely and I’m disputing that. If you have something to contribute to the conversation please do.

              1. We are talking about a person who is legally blind but out of the blue you raise the issue of being able to see out to 300 feet.

                Everybody – even skilled shooters – have distances past which they would not shoot due to the limits of their abilities. Any gun I carry I have practiced with and know the range at which I can hit a tennis ball sized target. Beyond that I would not attempt to shoot anything.

                A legally blind person simply has a much shorter range of competence – most probably point of contact which is a legitimate range for using a handgun. I know people who, in training indigenous troops where there was no provision to train them properly in handgun marksmanship, advised just that; shoot only when you can touch them with the pistol’s muzzle.

                1. 300 feet was in reference to Agammammon’s statement that he can see people and signs out to 100 yards.

                  Not sure how the blind person is supposed to know what’s behind the person they’re shooting, even at contact ranges.

                  1. The times I’ve been approached by people with obvious bad intent – which required a gun to disperse – never happened in a school playground, crowded shopping mall, or a place where there were lots of people around. Funny that how criminals choose places and times where they can expect to not have a lot of witnesses around.

                    Even if we throw the most probable situations out the window – lets say there are people around – the idea of “contact range” generally means a physical struggle is taking place. In this situation the probability is that the blind person will be shooting from the horizontal which means the bullet, after expending most of its energy, will be traveling in a generally vertical direction.

                    Better still, the blind person could simply load frangible ammo which – even if it did cause an exit wound – would be unlikely to cause harm to anybody more than a yard or two away, if that.

                    1. Tulpa seems to have gotten most of his understanding of blindness from Mr. Magoo cartoons.

                      I’d like to think most blind people understand their disability better than a government agency and can decide accordingly whether it would be prudent to own a firearm. This would seem to be borne out by fact that there haven’t been any stories about the epidemic of blind shooting sprees in Iowa despite this lack of clearly sensible common-sense regulation that just makes sense.

          2. 1. You don’t need razor sharp clarity to identify your target.

            2. Your target DOESN’T APPEAR TEN TIMES SMALLER just because your eyesight is ten times less acute.

            3. I can put a round on target from my tiny little mousegun using only my bad (right eye) and my off-hand (I’m a lefty) at 15 yards and my eyesight in that eyes just under (probably now over) 20/200. And yes, I can see what’s behind the target well enough to tell if there are people in the line of fire up to several hundred yards away.

  24. For your pleasure:

    Libertarians Are the New Communists

    Most people would consider radical libertarianism and communism polar opposites: The first glorifies personal freedom. The second would obliterate it. Yet the ideologies are simply mirror images. Both attempt to answer the same questions, and fail to do so in similar ways. Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..nists.html

    #2 on Bloomberg.

    1. Reason already dealt with this.

    2. Both attempt to answer the same questions

      No they don’t.

  25. We shredded that tiresome hogwash already. Were you locked in the closet in your hood and ball gag, Shreeeek?

    1. His head was in it’s usual place, up Obamas arse.

    2. He occasionally has to go to court for those involuntary commitment hearings.

      1. But should he should be allowed to own a firearm?

        1. Ten of them, all single shot and with hair triggers.

          On the barrels should hang a sign that says ‘free puppy within’.

  26. Nanny-statism? In my Capitol? Never!

    Washington, DC may institute 24-hour waiting period for tattoos and piercings

    If you had to stop and think about it for a day, would you still get that giant dragon tattoo across your back?

    That’s the question being raised by health regulators in our nation’s capital, where Washington, DC officials are considering a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before getting a tattoo or body piercings.
    “The licensee or operator of a body art establishment shall ensure that no tattoo artist applies any tattoo to a customer until after twenty-four (24)hours have passed since the customer first requested the tattoo,” reads the language of proposed language of new regulations from Washington DC’s Department of Health.

    “We’re making sure when that decision is made that you’re in the right frame of mind, and you don’t wake up in the morning .?.?. saying, ‘Oh my God, what happened?’?Washington DC Health Department Spokeswoman Najma Roberts told the Washington Post.

    I, for one, feel safer already.

    1. I am going out on limb and bet that D.C. doesn’t require a waiting period for abortion.

      1. It might spoil my scheme to get Welch sloppy drunk, take him to the tattoo parlor, and get “Property of Krugman” tramp-stamped on him.

  27. Procedures were followed

    Just hours after she had fallen asleep, she awakened to a nightmare: Her husband had been shot to death in the building she owned and by a longtime family friend, Pittsburgh police Officer Kenneth Farnan of Bloomfield, who has been on a workers’ compensation leave from the Pittsburgh police bureau since 2010.

    “I just can’t believe it happened. We’ve known Kenny for years. I used to rent [an apartment] to him even. We never had a single problem. Not until last night,” Ms. Condrin said Sunday afternoon.

    Mr. Evans, 56, was shot to death at 2:24 a.m. inside the bar, called Condrin’s Tavern, at 4501 Torley St. in Bloomfield, according to Pittsburgh police Cmdr. Thomas Stangrecki. Ms. Condrin said she’s owned the building since 1972, though the business is run by her brother. She said the bar has never been marred by serious trouble until early Sunday morning when she lost her husband of 21 years to what she was told was three gunshot wounds. Cmdr. Stangrecki said Mr. Evans was dead when emergency responders arrived at the scene early Sunday morning. The Allegheny County medical examiner’s office was to conduct an autopsy.

  28. A news release from police indicated that a witness said a fight preceded the shooting. It’s the same story Ms. Condrin heard.

    “Three different people told me they got into an argument. The problem is, Kenny was drunk and he was carrying a gun. This is what happens,” said Ms. Condrin, 57. Mr. Farnan, who is 50, according to police documents, could not be reached for comment.

    Police said no arrests would be made until the Allegheny County district attorney reviews the case and the police investigation. Mr. Farnan was initially taken to police headquarters following the incident but he was not incarcerated, according to officials at the Allegheny County Jail.

    Mike Manko, a spokesman for the district attorney, said his office’s involvement in the case is normal protocol for an incident involving a police officer, even if the police officer is on a medical leave. “For several years, we’ve had a memo of understanding; if there is an incident involving an officer, we review the incident. Our involvement is a normal thing,” Mr. Manko said.

    Of course, any citizen could reasonably expect this sort of forbearance.

    1. Thank God he wasn’t blind, someone might have gotten hurt.

    1. Blessed be the Zardoz.

  29. Is their liability going to resurrect the innocent person they accidentally shoot?

    And they have absolutely no hope of exercising that right in an effective way.

    Always assume the worst possible outcome. Thanks Eeyore.

    1. Responsible gun owners ALWAYS assume the worst possible outcome.

      We’re not talking about french fries or monkey bars or weed here, we’re talking about instruments of death.

      1. No we don’t – we simply always assume the gun is loaded.

        1. …AND that every mechanical safety is going to fail if you pull the trigger;

          …AND that if you put your finger inside the trigger guard, you will pull the trigger by accident;

          …AND that if you point the gun in an unsafe direction, it will somehow fire;

          ….AND that the bush you can’t see past, behind the bad guy, has an innocent kid standing behind it.

          1. So, basically never use the gun because, worst case scenario, you always assume you’ll kill innocent people?

  30. Responsible gun owners ALWAYS assume the worst possible outcome.

    Responsible gun owners behave responsibly. Se Nando’s link. See my “drunk cop on disability gets pissed off and shoots his friend” link.

    IQ tests would save more lives than eye tests.

    1. Behaving responsibly means assuming the worst possible outcome. That’s why we have 3 rules for gun safety that are supposed to be obeyed at all times, even though any one of them is sufficient to prevent an accidental shooting.

      Not sure what the drunk cop has to do with anything.

      1. Not sure what the drunk cop has to do with anything.

        Maybe that having the gift of full sight doesn’t necessarily mean you will handle a gun any more responsibly or competently than the legally blind guy whose 2nd amendment rights you would take away because his effective targeting range is 30 feet instead of 300 feet?

      2. Behaving responsibly means assuming the worst possible outcome.

        Obamacare?

  31. People with 20/20 vision have shot family members in dark or confusing situations. There are no guarantees. We should just confiscate all privately owned firearms.

    1. False dickotomy FTL

  32. What “false dickotomy”?

    IT COULD HAPPEN, THEREFOR WE MUST BAN.

  33. People are really pissed about the cops shooting that 107 year old guy, as they should be.

    Officer: There were only 15 of us, and that 107 year old guy was really scary!

    It’s the top headline on Drudge. Fuck, our politicians and their goons are going to instigate a civil war I suppose, since I don’t think a majority of people have any hope of figuring out that they have to vote for libertarians, or this is what they will get more of.

  34. Great day of television: Packers and Niners in a tough game, Giants Cowboys on Sunday Night Football, Dodgers-Reds on Sunday Night Baseball, Breaking Bad, and the season premiere of Boardwalk Empire.

    1. Opiate of the masses.

      1. To a Collective Farm, GO!

      2. Hey, if they can only eat foods with five ingredients then at least let them have some football.

      3. Nando| 9.8.13 @ 7:06PM |#
        “Opiate of the masses.”

        Naah. That’s free shit from Obama!

  35. Footsballs? Bah!

    Rolex boys are at Laguna.

    1. Its a shame the season opener for the Panthers was Seattle and not someone mediocre. If they lost to Tampa Bay, I could just go ahead save some trouble and give up on them now. But there is little to draw from here — the defense was really good, keeping Lynch pinned, that is just not done, Smith is still productive, but the offense still lacks something. Hard to say where Newton stands at this point, good sprinting, accurate throwing, but if the rest of his guys are still fumbling, dropping easy balls and the like, keeping his head in the game has proven to be difficult for him.

      1. Nice prediction by ButtPlug, wrong as usual.

        That was one hell of a defensive battle though. I think that Seattle has the best defense in the NFL, and they are my pick to win the SB this year.

        1. I usually skip shrike. What did he say?

          1. He said that Carolina was going to beat Seattle, by 3. It wasn’t a bad call considering the source, and that he was wrong. I thought Seattle would stomp them.

            1. No, I said take the 3-points and Carolina as a home dog.

              Still wrong though. But close.

              And there were lots of close games – two decided by a lame brain personal foul penalty in the last seconds.

  36. Three words to describe the US Open.

    Underboob sweat — ugh.

  37. I like a girl with sweat all over her. Especially if it’s my sweat.

  38. Well, just as we predicted, it’s back!

    Global Cooling!

    1. Yeah, that came up earlier today and I commented hastily on it, only to be rebutted by Irish and Tulpa.

      I was not able to respond properly at the time.

    2. “I just invested all my eggs in a scorching hot future world! What ever shall I do now? I’m completely unprepared.”

    3. That’s why they call it the Daily Fail!

    4. Why I am a denier:

      Tulpa is probably too busy trying to figure out how to deny blind people their second amendment rights to read this.

      In Confessions of a Confidence Man, Edward H. Smith lists the “six definite steps or stages of growth in every finely balanced and well-conceived confidence game.”

      1. Foundation Work – Planning and employing assistants.

      Noted con artist Margaret Mead and her malthusian buddies at the 1975 climate conference. They conspired and admitted that they needed a fake climate crisis to help reduce world population. They also elaborated on recruiting the scientific community to help them sell their bullshit.

      2. Approach

      See the legions of predictions and cries of approaching doom by members of the press who have zero idea of what they are talking about. And yes, tulpa, the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice free by 2013. I think shriek did as well. Low lying islands in the pacific were supposed to be uninhabitable from sea level rise, and some douchebag canuckstanian journalist predicted 1 billion dead from global warming by 2012.

      1. 3. Build-up

        See #2 and add in all the so called scientists who joined the chorus. Incidentally, every single fucking one of their predictions proved to be false. The only thing they have is a tiny increase in temperature that leveled out 15 years ago and can easily be explained by natural climate fluctuations.

        4. Pay-off or Convincer – usually fake or token amount given to the mark to build anticipation.

        Carbon credits. Electric cars. Solar panels. The coming green economic revolution. Feeling good about saving the planet.

        5. The Hurrah – A sudden crisis or unexpected development by which the sucker is pushed over the last doubt or obstacle and forced to act.

        This is the hurry up and act because we are all doomed bit. Dont think, hurry and act!

        6. The In-and-In – This is the point in a con game where the conspirator puts some of his money into the deal with that of the victim; first, to remove the last doubt that may tarry in the gull’s mind, and, second, to put the con man in control of the situation after the deal is completed.

        This is the part where they fuck up. Greenie Al and his ilk display stunning hypocrisy with regards to their advice for all of us. It is a pretty stupid tell, but then look who we are talking about. Those people would never stoop to taking their own advice for the rest of us.

        It has all the earmarks of a scam because……it is a fucking scam.

        1. Nice summation.

        2. And it’s certainly not the first scam to become a religion, and likely won’t be the last.

  39. I had some guy on HuffPo call me a Teabagger and use an Op-Ed on Fox News, written by John Yoo of all people, as his sole support for why Obama has the authority to attack Assad at his leisure.

    It’s like the fucking Bizarro World over there.

    1. Thanks for inviting me to be in the FF league this year.

      Something tells me you’re just afraid of getting your pyga beat again.

      1. Um, the invites went out to the usual e-mail addresses more than once. After a couple of efforts, I got rid of the unanswered invites and opened the invitation.

        You know what? I don’t need to explain myself to you. Good day, sir.

        1. Jesus, FF with Tulpa?

          1. I bring my A-game every week. You know what A stands for?

    2. You could have been at Politico. Progressives are fucking stupid. They’ve been wrong for a hundred years and still don’t know it.

      1. It’s just never really been properly tried, Hyperion. That’s been the problem all along, and all of the corpses are really unfortunate, but they’ll get it right eventually, they’re sure.

      2. They also have managed to convince themselves that all the horrible things done in the early 1900s by progressives were secretly done by those damn conservatives. Eugenics, prohibition, free speech restrictions, imprisonment for being anti-war…all of those were progressive ideas. In Buck v. Bell, the case where the Supreme Court decided it was alright to sterilize the ‘mentally incompetent,’ the progressive court voted 8-1 in favor with the only dissenting vote coming from a semi-conservative Catholic.

        It’s disturbingly easy for them to come to this ahistorical view because at the time there was a very progressive wing of the Republican party. That means that anything done by progressive Republicans can simply be claimed to be the result of conservatives.

        1. Eugenics, prohibition, free speech restrictions, imprisonment for being anti-war

          Don’t forget the income tax and property taxes.

          1. “Don’t forget the income tax and property taxes.”

            No problem. If you do forget them somebody will come along to remind you.

    3. You comment on HuffPo?

  40. Never underestimate the superfluously supernatural powers of a dirty little Bushitler.

  41. Did you think I meant they’d be authorized to fire blindly into crowds?

    That’s a rhetorical question, right?

    Tulpa believes in the Keep It Stupidly Simple principle.

  42. Lessons in How Not to Teach Math

    http://www.popecenter.org/comm…..ml?id=2887

    In a chapter that discussed the difference between “knowing” and “understanding,” a chart presented examples of “Inauthentic versus Authentic Work.” In that chart “Practice decontextualized skills” (otherwise known as “reading”) was listed as inauthentic while “Interpret literature” was listed as authentic.

    The professor asked if we had any comments. I asked, “Do you really think that learning to read is an inauthentic skill?” She replied that she didn’t really know about issues related to reading.

    I normally limited myself to one outburst per class and was now at my limit, but I kept on pushing her and put the argument on a math level. I referred to the chart’s characterization of “Solve contrived problems” as inauthentic and “Solve ‘real world’ problems” as authentic and asked why the authors automatically assume that a word problem that might be contrived didn’t involve “authentic” mathematical concepts.

    I knew she wanted me to shut up. The class wanted me to shut up. Even I wanted me to shut up. She wrapped the discussion up by saying, “Let’s move on.”

    1. The distinction the book (and the professor) makes between “authentic” and “inauthentic” learning has been around for a while. This concern about “authentic” versus “inauthentic” work comes from progressive education reformers who believe that it’s best for students’ school work to be as realistic as possible?that is, focused on learning about and trying to solve “real world” problems.

      It comes from romantic nihilism. I love a good Herman Hesse novel as much as the next guy, but as the philosophical underpinning of a curriculum, that’s a bit scary.

      1. From the comments:

        I’m a musician, not a pedagogy expert; but it seems to me that “drill and kill” is essentially what is well known in musical performance as “practicing.” And my experience as both a musician and an engineering professor (now retired) is that “practice makes perfect.” Just sayin’

        I think a simpler explanation is that people who get education degrees and write this stuff are rather stupid and completely disconnected from the real world or any sort of results based paradigm.

  43. Most of this argument is because we’re blathering over something in a *new* article. And all of here should know by now that news tends to leave out key facts if they contradict a sensational story.

    This story is lighting up the wires specifically to get people like Tulpy Poo whipped into a frenzy of paranoid outrage, up there on his cross.

  44. Want for Christmas

    1. Holy shit. That is hilarious.

  45. “Why Christians Make Great Libertarians

    “…In 1932, the Christian apologist G.K. Chesterton expressed concern that many people were according the government with a trust and reverence that ought to be reserved only for God. Chesterton’s admonition was not only prophetic, but rooted in the deepest mainspring of Christianity’s past; he was echoing words spoken by the prophet Samuel nearly two thousand years ago.

    “…This equation of statism with idolatry is alive and well in modern Christendom. In particular, Christians in the United States have ? since before Bush left office ? been moving away from federal advocacy and towards political decentralization. Whenever someone suggests that Christians cannot be a viable force for liberty, I know that person has been long out of touch with America’s Christian culture. The believers I speak with increasingly feel put upon by the earthly state and simply wish to be allowed to live as they see fit in their own communities.

    1. “These libertarian Christians stand on solid ground. A well-established body of Christian scripture and tradition rejects the rule of limited human beings in favor of God’s majesty. In the words of F.A. Hayek, “Individualism, in contrast to socialism and all other forms of totalitarianism, is based on the respect of Christianity for the individual man.” Christians are, for the reasons I’ll explore here, especially predisposed to becoming passionate libertarians ? and libertarians would do well do bear this in mind in their outreach.”

      http://thelibertarianrepublic……i0LvH_9zYR

      1. It is a valid point.

        Solid atheist here, but I grant christianity the credit it deserves for advancing many ideas that are the core of liberty. Even if they didnt invent all of those ideas, they did collect them all together and popularize them. That seed has grown into what we know today.

        The enlightenment and all that came from it would not be except for the widespread belief that all men are equal in the sight of god.

        1. My views on religion will be considered fringe by many.

          Is it possible that there is a god and that we are created?

          Are you fucking kidding me? Really. We have had something that you might call advanced technology for 100 years, and the universe is 13 or 14 billion years old?

          And, we know everything?

          We know nothing.

          1. I was only pointing out that Libertarianism is the child of christianity. It would have arisen in no other culture/religion that I am aware of.

            Still, I am curious as to what you think others would consider fringe ideas.

            1. That’s a bold statement, considering, just for one example, the Romans worshiped the personification of liberty as a goddess.

              1. Yes, they did, but not all citizens were equal in the eyes or the law, or persons in the eyes of various gods. The christian notion of equality in the eyes of god evolved very slowly, very painfully into what we call the rule of law.

                I would also say that it is unlikely that the bedrock of liberty as we think of it, the concept of self ownership, would be scoffed at by the vast majority of romans.

                I am not as knowledgeable as you on this subject so I was hoping you would weigh in.

                The pagan roman notion of liberty and how they viewed it I would guess was somewhat different than ours. I would also point out that it was the romans and their christian church that spread the ideas I was talking about.

                1. OK, that was a really sloppy, shitty argument. More vodka please.

                  I will work on that and get back to you.

                  1. Deal.

          2. “And, we know everything?
            We know nothing.”

            Classic argument from ignorance.
            Sorry, we do “know” quite a bit. Enough to make a pretty strong guess as to how our ‘universe’ began as a form of matter and energy. And we know it well enough to produce some really powerful demonstrations of that processes.
            We know enough to get pieces of metal to fly, other pieces of matter to ‘compute’, etc.
            A god is not required for any of this, explains nothing and adds worthless noise.
            If you have some reason to presume that for which there is zero evidence, please offer it.

            1. We don’t know what consciousness is.
              Yet here we are.

              1. William of Purple| 9.8.13 @ 10:14PM |#
                “We don’t know what consciousness is.”

                And that means what?

                1. It means we don’t know anything. But you said we know everything.

                  1. William of Purple| 9.8.13 @ 10:21PM |#
                    “It means we don’t know anything.”

                    Speak for yourself.

                    1. Sevo’s answered every question of philosophy.
                      It leaves one unanswered, why is he wasting time on this puny blog?

                    2. William of Purple| 9.8.13 @ 10:30PM |#
                      “Sevo’s answered every question of philosophy.”

                      William of Purple is engaged in the typical xian bullshit endeavors.

                  2. It means we don’t know anything. But you said we know everything.

                    Various versions of this argument were known as far back as the Scholastic Period. Of course there’s a pretty big gap between “our human way of thinking is incapable of understanding the origin of the universe” and Christianity being correct, which even St Thomas Aquinas admitted. He stated that his “proofs” of God’s existence were intended to show that faith is not inimical to reason, but couldn’t seal the deal of proving Christianity.

            2. Sorry, Sevo, we don’t know fucking shit.

              I’m serious. We are barely out of the hunter gatherer, stack rocks up and create us a god stage.

              Seriously, you really think we know a lot with our great 100 years of advanced technology in a 13 billion year old universe?

              I LOL.

              1. Hyperion| 9.8.13 @ 10:21PM |#
                “Sorry, Sevo, we don’t know fucking shit.”

                Sorry, Hyperion, Assertion absent evidence.
                Please look up ‘argument from ignorance’; it ain’t helping your cause.

                1. There is no evidence, because we are a primitive tribe.

                  Damn, dude, just a few years ago our astronomers were telling us that there are no habitable planets in the universe outside of earth, and now they know that there may be billions in our own little galaxy.

                  We do not know shit about this universe yet.

                  1. Damn, dude, just a few years ago our astronomers were telling us that there are no habitable planets in the universe outside of earth, and now they know that there may be billions in our own little galaxy.

                    Cite for the astronomers saying there were no other habitable planets in the universe?

                    1. Cite for the astronomers saying there were no other habitable planets in the universe?

                      +1 on that. Last I heard, Fermi’s Paradox was still a paradox.

                    2. Thanks for the plus, but there are some very good reasons why contact would be unlikely even if the universe is full of life.

                      We’re still discovering species here on earth in unexplored regions, after all. If faster than light travel is impossible (and there’s no indication it’s not) there aren’t going to be any galactic naturalists wasting time traipsing around looking for undiscovered habitable planets. And if they are, we probably don’t want to meet them.

                    3. If faster than light travel is impossible (and there’s no indication it’s not) there aren’t going to be any galactic naturalists wasting time traipsing around looking for undiscovered habitable planets.

                      That’s true. But there is no need for them, or us for that matter, to visit other planets in our organic forms. Indeed, first contact will probably be between our Von Neumann machines and their FJHdfs?HLDFSJHLDF:SJ machines.

                    4. Trying to reignite the argument over Star Trek: The Movie?

                    5. Dude, I don’t care what anyone says. The origin of the Borg given in Star Trek Legacy is the absolute worst thing ever in the STverse. Even worse than JJ.

                    6. Thanks for sharing your disgusting things with us, HM.

                      Data: I hate this! It is revolting!
                      Guinan: More?
                      Data: Please!

                    7. Eugh, what the Christ? That’s worse than Brian Herbert’s perfidy, and his was the only book I’ve ever torn from its spine, ripped apart, and burnt to ashes.

                    8. “Last I heard, Fermi’s Paradox was still a paradox.”

                      Yep.
                      Plenty of claims that ‘there must be more intelligent life forms’, and scientific-‘sounding’ formulations to ‘prove’ it. And the ‘proofs’ are as yet assertions.

                    9. That is really, really sad that you don’t know this.

                    10. Insults don’t count as cites, sorry.

                      I’ll chalk that up with being called a “sheep” because I think jet fuel fires cause steel beams to bend under load. 😉

                    11. Hyperion| 9.8.13 @ 10:59PM |#
                      “That is really, really sad that you don’t know this.”

                      You don’t want to post that.

                2. Sorry, Hyperion, Assertion absent evidence.
                  Please look up ‘argument from ignorance’; it ain’t helping your cause.

                  Nope, sorry bro. You are the one arguing from ignorance. I am telling you that we don’t know shit about this universe/multiverse, and you are arguing that we do.

                  Were is your proof? Do you think that we will sail off the end of the earth if we try to reach Europe? Is the earth the center of the universe? How many stars are in the Andromeda galaxy? How many planets orbit other stars in our own Milky Way galaxy? Are they extremely rare?

                  1. “Were is your proof? Do you think that we will sail off the end of the earth if we try to reach Europe? Is the earth the center of the universe? How many stars are in the Andromeda galaxy? How many planets orbit other stars in our own Milky Way galaxy? Are they extremely rare?”

                    Damn; that is truly ignorant!
                    Sorry ‘bro’; let’s see even *ONE* (1) suggestion that what we know requires some magic guy.
                    That’s all, just one. But it has to *require* the magic guy; not some ignorant WoP comment about ‘conscience’.

                    1. Well, in view of Aquinas’ cosmological argument, there are two possibilities (given that we exist and things happen):

                      1. There is something at the beginning of the universe that we cannot hope to explain with our cause-and-effect understanding of the universe.
                      2. Our cause-and-effect understanding of the universe is completely wrong.

                      Aquinas immediately concluded #1 in his argument; David Hume noted that #2 was also a possibility and claimed victory for the skeptics.

                      But it really isn’t much of a victory, is it?

                    2. let’s see even *ONE* (1) suggestion that what we know requires some magic guy.

                      Maybe if you could tamp down your religious hate boner for 3 seconds you’d notice that acknowledging the limitations of human understanding doesn’t require “some magic guy”.

                      Then again, probably not.

                    3. PM| 9.8.13 @ 11:26PM |#
                      “Maybe if you could tamp down your religious hate boner for 3 seconds”…

                      Nope, dipshit, no ‘hate boner’; just tired of idiots claiming they have evidence for something they don’t.
                      Now, got evidence? Or are you just hate bonering for someone who would like honest answers?

                    4. just tired of idiots claiming they have evidence for something they don’t.

                      Well, nobody claimed they had evidence of anything. Somebody just made an observation that every sentient human since Org and Ugh discovered they could communicate with each other has intuitively understood: There’s so much more we don’t know.

                      Live up to your own standard though: prove that humanity’s knowledge is complete and without error. Because that’s the only way to falsify the claim that was made. If you don’t believe that human knowledge is complete and without error, then you’re just arguing for its own sake because you got it into your head that this was a religious discussion and it activated your “I need to be a cunt” mechanism.

                    5. Sevo, seriously, where do you see in this entire argument that I say we need a magical guy?

                      I said we are primitive and might not know shit about this universe compared to what we think we do, and you are conjuring up a magical guy?

                      Make no mistake here, if there is a magical guy, in my opinion, magical guy is from an advanced technology, not magical at all.

                    6. Hyperion| 9.8.13 @ 11:33PM |#
                      “Sevo, seriously, where do you see in this entire argument that I say we need a magical guy?”

                      So you’re saying there is no magical guy?

              2. Your conclusion is that we don’t know shit; but your argument depends on us knowing the age of the universe.

                1. Your conclusion is that we don’t know shit; but your argument depends on us knowing the age of the universe.

                  No. My conclusion is not based on the age of the universe.

                  I am going with what our best scientist know now, that it is around 13 billion years.

                  Do you think it makes a difference that it’s 12 or 15 billion years, when we have 100 years of modern technology?

                  We are so primitive. If you want to let your pride take over logic, it’s up to you. Humans are extremely primitive in this universe, and that’s the only logical best guess that anyone intelligent can take.

                  1. It probably took a several billion years for stars to produce the amount of heavy elements in the universe that we have now and enough of those stars to supernova to spread them around. For all we know we may actually be ahead of our time.

                  2. “We are so primitive”
                    Compared to?
                    Your Sci Fi fantasy? Those aliens who carried off Elvis?
                    Sorry, we are NOT “primitive’; we are the most intelligent life form in the universe as far as we know.
                    Got evidence otherwise? I keep asking and you keep asserting.

                    1. Tube worms in hydrothermal vents are the most intelligent life form on earth as far as they know, too. The Dunning-Kruger effect exists at a species level, too.

                    2. “The Dunning-Kruger effect exists at a species level, too.”

                      Fail there; the D-K effect requires an observable comparison.

                    3. we are the most intelligent life form in the universe as far as we know.

                      Lol. Your dog is the most intelligent life form in the universe as far as it knows. What the fuck does that even mean?

                    4. PM| 9.8.13 @ 11:22PM |#
                      “Lol. Your dog is the most intelligent life form in the universe as far as it knows. What the fuck does that even mean?”

                      It means you’re stupid enough to post that.
                      My dog recognizes that food comes from certain activities around other beings.
                      Care to carry that analogy to humans, idiot?

                    5. Care to carry that analogy to humans, idiot?

                      Every time you try to score with a woman, probably.

                    6. My dog recognizes that food comes from certain activities around other beings.
                      Care to carry that analogy to humans, idiot?

                      I think you probably missed the point (stunner). That your dog only knows what it knows is not an indication that your dog’s knowledge is supreme or complete. Fuck… this really shouldn’t be that complicated.

                    7. Dogs don’t think they’re smart. You don’t think they wonder why they’re the only ones who have to go outside to poop? They know their place.

                      Cats, on the other hand, need to pipe down.

                    8. Lol. Your dog is the most intelligent life form in the universe as far as it knows. What the fuck does that even mean?

                      It means that we KNOW that we are soooo smart, just because. Its ignorance, that’s all.

                    9. Sorry, we are NOT “primitive’

                      No. I am sorry, we are less harrier apes, that is all.

                    10. Hyperion| 9.8.13 @ 11:35PM |#
                      “No. I am sorry, we are less harrier apes, that is all.”

                      So we are not primitive compared to them? Compared to whom are we “primitive”?

                    11. Sorry, we are NOT “primitive’;

                      Geez, dude, stop acting like a progressive.

                      Where is your evidence that we are NOT primitive.

                      200 years ago, you would have been wanting to bleed the sins out of your neighbors.

                      If I have learned anything, it’s that we don’t know much.

                    12. “Where is your evidence that we are NOT primitive.”

                      YOU claimed we are “primitive”; prove it or STFU.

                    13. YOU claimed we are “primitive”; prove it or STFU.

                      Every post you make here goes a long way towards proving his hypothesis.

                      But seriously, you need proof that mankind is primitive? Besides the war, slavery, genocide, famine, rape, murder, theft, persecution, racism…?

                      Or maybe you meant that since we put men in space we’re still better than… the alternative? Is there one? I suppose we know, since we’ve explored the entire known universe and quantified it. Wait, we haven’t done that yet? “Primitive” is relative.

                2. Which is shit in the grand scheme of things. That shouldn’t be a controversial statement for anyone, especially not for the committed atheist. The knowledge that humans have accumulated is staggering, and yet in totality it’s relatively very little. Otherwise there wouldn’t be much point in continuing to learn and experiment and advance human knowledge. 500 years from now our current understanding may seem as primitive as the understanding 500 years ago seems to us. And even that will be just the tip of the iceberg. Ironically, Sevo thinks being a closed-minded, arrogant cunt is the height of human progress, as if a sense of wonderment and curiosity were exclusive to religion or unnecessary for the advancement of the science and reason he ostensibly holds supreme.

                  1. PM| 9.8.13 @ 11:19PM |#
                    “Which is shit in the grand scheme of things. That shouldn’t be a controversial statement for anyone, especially not for the committed atheist.”

                    Why? Does your god claim we ‘know nothing’? Do you have evidence that what we know is some miniscule portion of what is to be known?
                    How do you know this? Did your god tell you, or are you guessing since you took a hit on the bong?

                    1. Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy. – Ben Franklin

                    2. William of Purple| 9.8.13 @ 11:32PM |#
                      ‘Behold another worthless comment’
                      Got it.

                    3. Dude, it’s like Sevo is the anti-Vsauce.

                    4. “Heroic Mulatto| 9.8.13 @ 11:37PM |#
                      “Dude, it’s like Sevo is the anti-Vsauce.”

                      Yeah, man and the universe is like that little atom in the table leg, man!

                    5. It would be a shame if you didn’t take the same to watch Vsauce’s videos.

                      Interesting and informative information about cool science and philosophic topics.

                    6. Heroic Mulatto| 9.8.13 @ 11:46PM |#
                      “It would be a shame if you didn’t take the same to watch Vsauce’s videos.
                      Interesting and informative information about cool science and philosophic topics.”

                      OK, I’ll give it a try, maybe. I watched 2 or 3 minutes and he was ‘proving’ we don’t know things. Reminds me of sophomore U discussions where we could buy beer.

                    7. Reminds me of sophomore U discussions where we could buy beer.

                      Well, it’s edutainment for a popular audience, but the cool thing is that everything mentioned is always provided with a litany of links below the video to read more in-depth, if one is so inclined.

                    8. Why? Does your god claim we ‘know nothing’? Do you have evidence that what we know is some miniscule portion of what is to be known?
                      How do you know this? Did your god tell you, or are you guessing since you took a hit on the bong?

                      This is a conversation completely disconnected from religion. Your compulsive need to act like a cunt whenever religion is brought up has no bearing here. Try to activate what’s left of the other parts of your brain.

                      I’m 100% confident that human knowledge, as vast as it is, is pretty incomplete. I make that judgment based on the fact that there is so much more we wish to know that we presently do not. Like I said, that shouldn’t be controversial.

                    9. “I’m 100% confident that human knowledge, as vast as it is, is pretty incomplete.”

                      Amazing!
                      Did your god tell you that?

                    10. Amazing!
                      Did your god tell you that?

                      No, I memorized a few rote phrases and repeated them over and over again in response to every statement, regardless of content or context, as if they were an actual argument. Because I rely purely on reason and facts. Isn’t my superiority self-evident?

                      Since you’re incapable of arguing any more intelligently than Tony on this topic, I’ll treat you as you treat him:

                      Fuck off, shithead.

                    11. “No, I memorized a few rote phrases and repeated them over and over again in response to every statement, regardless of content or context, as if they were an actual argument. Because I rely purely on reason and facts. Isn’t my superiority self-evident?”

                      No, asshole, your ignorance is self-evident.

                    12. “Your compulsive need to act like a cunt whenever religion is brought up has no bearing here.”

                      Stick it up your ass, you pile of shit.
                      My ‘compulsive need’ is to dispute ignoramuses like you.

                  2. The knowledge that humans have accumulated is staggering, and yet in totality it’s relatively very little

                    And finally, an intelligent post.

                    1. Hyperion| 9.8.13 @ 11:45PM |#
                      The knowledge that humans have accumulated is staggering, and yet in totality it’s relatively very little
                      “And finally, an intelligent post.”

                      Really?
                      What evidence have you? Did your god tell you that?

                    2. Meanwhile, a Vogon Constructor Fleet enters Earth orbit.

                    3. Sevo has no answers. He has insults.

                    4. In fairness, neither has anyone else.

                      The difference being that nobody else (posting here, anyway) claims to have the answers.

                    5. But Sevo is the one who said there are no unanswered questions.

    2. “The believers I speak with increasingly feel put upon by the earthly state and simply wish to be allowed to live as they see fit in their own communities.”

      You know who else simply wish to be allowed to live as they see fit in their own communities? But let’s not talk about that.

      Since this is from “The Libertarian Republic,” I’ll assume their definition of Christianity is very similar to the liberal “salad bar Christianity.” I’m not a Christian myself, but I have respect for people who are actually somewhat consistent with their beliefs.

      1. I disagree. I think the best religious people are those that claim to be religious and just ignore the parts of their religious texts that are unpalatable. One of the problems with the Middle East is that the Muslims are very strict in their adherence to terrible ideas within the Koran, whereas in America almost all Christians just ignore the precepts about stoning gays, selling your daughter into slavery, or men having total control over their wives. This is unquestionably a good thing, and if our founding generation hadn’t consisted of a good number of salad bar Christians, there’s a good chance we’d be a theocracy today.

        1. One of the problems with the Middle East is that the Muslims are very strict in their adherence to terrible ideas within the Koran, whereas in America almost all Christians just ignore the precepts about stoning gays, selling your daughter into slavery, or men having total control over their wives.

          For the record, in America almost all Muslims ignore those parts of the Koran too. That’s one reason we don’t have the same problems as the Europeans do from Muslims that move there. The ones that come here are generally much more willing to integrate into society.

          1. The ones that come here are generally much more willing to integrate into society.

            Well, one reason for that is because we allow them too, unlike France, for example. If I were a Muslim in France, and the government told me that Muslim women weren’t allowed to wear hijab in public, even if I were fairly nonobservant, I’d ask my wife to go out in full burka just as a fuck you to the French dirigistes.

          2. They just haven’t attained critical mass yet. The first Muslims in France were well-behaved because they knew that they were too small a population and the natives still had some ability to defend themselves. It was only after they became a larger portion of the population that they decide to burn down their cities. Hopefully our Jewish rulers put a stop to this immigration, but I’m not counting on it. They hate the A-rabs but they hate us even more.

            1. Go away, ‘Murcan

            2. What the fuck did you just fucking say about Muslims, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Al-Quaeda, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on the Navy Seals, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire global jihad. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, infidel. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of both Hamas and Hizbollah I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit.

              1. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, filthy kafir.

                1. Murcan is talking to himself.

                  1. good thing we did that registration thing.

                    I want MNG back.

            3. Yeah. I’m sure Islamic doctors living in McMansions are just biding their time. They’re just pretending to enjoy the lifestyle of Americans in order to lull us in to a false sense of security.

              1. I’m sure Islamic doctors living in McMansions are just biding their time.

                That just might need a little bit of tweaking…

                Jus’ sayin…

                Then again, some of them are merely neuroscientists who earned their doctorate at….Brandeis University!

                There is a god. His name is Loki and he is laughing his ass off.

        2. whereas in America almost all Christians just ignore the precepts about stoning gays, selling your daughter into slavery, or men having total control over their wives

          I think that’s mostly because Jesus came and basically said, “There are some good things to know from the Old Testament, but above all else, love your neighbor as yourself, and love your enemy even more.”

          Stoning gays and selling children into slavery doesn’t exactly fit into that mold that Jesus laid out.

        3. if our founding generation hadn’t consisted of a good number of salad bar Christians, there’s a good chance we’d be a theocracy today.

          I don’t know about that. The thing about Christianity is that even in the very… pious? communities, like the Quaker and Amish, the people may practice the aspects of their religion you find untenable (not the stoning, but certainly the female submission) without making it mandatory that everybody else do likewise. Most of them are content to be left alone. They may think you’re going to hell, and may tell you so, but they don’t want to put you in chains. That’s a very libertarian sentiment.

          1. Ironically, it’s the evangelists, the reformers, the “cafeteria Christians” who seem the most willing to translate their belief into binding legislation.

  46. Okay so how about writing out anything Star Trek related with Captain Pike? No Abrams, No Menagerie and No Mirror Universe. Along with the Searchers. Sevo will approve.

    1. My favorite Star Trek characters are Han Solo, and the effiminate comic-relief robot, lol

      pleasedontkillme.com

      1. And my favorite Star Wars villains are the Klingons, lol

        wavingaredflaginfrontofaherdofnerds.com

      2. Yeah, it was pretty badass when Admiral Ackbar jumped the Battlestar Pegasus into the atmosphere over Arrakis.

        1. Colin Baker was the best actor and had the best costume on Serenity.

          1. Wesley Crusher was the best pilot the Millenium Falcon ever had.

  47. Speechless.
    A Manifesto for Living in the Now: Q&A with Douglas Rushkoff

    D: What do you have against clocks?

    DR: Time has always been used against us on a certain level. The invention of the clock made us accountable to the employer, gave us a standard measure and stopwatch management, and it also led to the requirement of interest-bearing currency to grow over time, the requirement of the expansion of our economy. That’s not really consonant with a sustainable civilization.

    D: In an ideal world, how exactly would this new, post-clock era work?

    DR: First and foremost it would unshackle us from this very time-based money that we’re using. Working less, making less, producing less. The mandate for efficiency of the industrial age is not to produce things more efficiently, but to produce more things over time. We’ve had to keep looking to increase.

    1. Working less, making less, producing less.

      Translation: I want to bring everyone down to my level.

      1. See my comment above about the global warming scam. It has been discussed at length right from the start of the AGW movement. Bringing everyones lifestyle down to a pre-industrial level is on their agenda.

        1. So why are these huge high-tech companies like Google and Apple going off the grid with solar as fast as they can?

          Are they in on the race back to the 17th Century?

          1. PR purposes? They will likely never make back what they payed to install those solar panels on the energy they produce unless the government subsidizes them big time somehow.

            Besides, these renewable energy farms are almost a form of extortion. These guys get massive tax subsidies to produce this unreliable electricity and use the grid as a sort of battery to blast electricity into when the sun suddenly is shining or the wind picks up. If wind and solar grow here like in Germany (which is obvious by now is an awful idea), the grid will become more and more unstable. And us rate payers (on top of the tax subsidy) have to pay for it because they all get first-to-market contracts even if the electricity produced by them is far more expensive than a coal or nuke plant and is not needed.

            1. Spain is now taxing people on the electricity they produce with their solar panels. They nearly broke themselves subsidizing all those panels. Then they discovered that not enough is being paid in electric bills to sustain their existing production plants, and the panels themselves will not produce enough to run the country. So now they are taxing solar panel electricity to prop up their existing system.

              That kind of stupidity is off the scale.

              1. But at least they are making wise investments like this:

                http://qz.com/86988/spain-just…..cant-swim/

                It is cronyism run amok; See Obama’s green energy funding including the biofuel debacle for the navy.

                1. What is their strategy for dealing with dangerous 107 year old guys? Are nukes involved?

            2. Unfortunately, here in the USA our rulers make all decisions of any importance, and our rulers refuse to learn from other’s mistakes.

            3. Smilin’ Joe Fission| 9.8.13 @ 9:49PM |#
              “PR purposes? They will likely never make back what they payed to install those solar panels on the energy they produce unless the government subsidizes them big time somehow.”

              Yeah, the PR is a side-benefit.

          2. Palin’s Buttplug| 9.8.13 @ 9:17PM |#
            “So why are these huge high-tech companies like Google and Apple going off the grid with solar as fast as they can?”

            About the time it seems we’ve found the depths of your stupidity, you manage to surprise.
            In answer to your question, have you heard of “subsidies”? And “Public Relations”?
            Just asking.

            1. What SPECIAL solar subsidies are there in the USA for non utilities?

              I call bullshit.

              Not that I know the answer but I your track record is terrible.

              1. In louisiana if you buy 25k worth of panels for your house the state will subsidize 50% of it and the feds 30%.

                Sevo is exactly right on all of his points.

              2. Palin’s Buttplug| 9.8.13 @ 10:09PM |#
                “What SPECIAL solar subsidies are there in the USA for non utilities?”

                Right, asshole. Two minute search:
                “GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES FOR INDUSTRIAL-SCALE SOLAR”
                “Industrial-scale solar power generation is economic
                ally feasible only because recent policy has
                brought massive taxpayer-funded subsidies to the table.”
                http://solar.ehclients.com/ima….._Solar.pdf

                1. A 30% ITC? BFD. No one cares. I’ve seen companies spit on 100% ITC.

                  1. The government’s preferred lube – spit. Point to Shrike.

                    Palin’s Buttplug| 9.2.13 @ 5:57PM |#

                    If everyone agreed with me I would quit posting.

                  2. Palin’s Buttplug| 9.8.13 @ 10:50PM |#
                    “A 30% ITC? BFD. No one cares.”
                    k
                    Yeah, asshole, I’m sure your company would be happy to go bankrupt turning down 30%.
                    BTW, asshole, what it your annual return after taxes?

          3. So why are these huge high-tech companies like Google and Apple going off the grid with solar as fast as they can?

            They don’t call it cloud storage for nothing. You tell ’em, Shrike.

            Palin’s Buttplug| 9.2.13 @ 5:57PM |#

            If everyone agreed with me I would quit posting.

    2. I saw the movie ‘Time” this weekend. What can I say? I was bored and that was the only thing on the movie channels that I had not seen.

      Stunning. In attempt to villainize the rich and the capitalist system they use time as currency. Time as in time to live. Everyone has some kind of a clock that determines how long you live. You can add time but only if someone else gives you some of theirs. You can give others time, but at the expense of your own time. It was a perfect illustration of how cold and greed driven the capitalist system is (snort). The rich have thousands of years and have acquired them at the expense of many people’s lives.

      The economy is a zero sum game. A lot of people buy that shit. I guess more kids ate paint chips than I thought.


    3. D: That sounds a bit idealistic. Don’t you think people freed from the constraints of a clock-based economy and society are more likely to go a little Mad Max, especially if they have to buy their clothes on Etsy?


      DR: I do believe humans can rise to the occasion. I think human beings are not necessarily ruthless. They can be. Look at those cultures that push old people off cliffs instead of caring for them. That might be the true presentist society. I guess I’ll find out.

      Yes my view of utopian future society may be totally wrong but hey it’ll be nice to see for sure!

      1. We have to push society off the cliff in order to find out what’s at the bottom.

    4. “D: In an ideal world, how exactly would this new, post-clock era work?”‘

      DR First and foremost, computers wouldn’t work. I’m long abacus’!
      ————————
      Dumb shit.

      1. “…computers wouldnt work.”

        Is he proposing to change the laws of physics?

        1. Ever see a computer work without a clock?
          Check back after you look around.

  48. OT: I now own .00601 bitcoins.

    That is about 73 cents, currently.

    1. So this chart is accurate?

      http://blockchain.info/charts/market-price

      That is actually a fairly healthy looking chart.

      Still not for me though.

      1. Close enough. I see it at $121.

        Not really my thing either, but I was playing bitcoin poker.

        Won .002 in a freeroll and then won the rest in a .001 entry fee tourney.

        1. There are two big advantages to a bitcoin poker site:

          1. Easy to get your money out. No complicated transfer rules and stuff, just do a bitcoin transaction.

          2. The kind of people who have bitcoins arent very good poker players.

      2. We all await your sage advice on when to invest in Bitcoin, Shrike.

        Palin’s Buttplug| 9.2.13 @ 5:57PM |#

        If everyone agreed with me I would quit posting.

  49. Someone tell the Giants and Cowboys we’re no longer in pre-season.
    Gong show.

    1. Like 4 seconds went by before Eli threw his first pick.

  50. The invention of the clock made us accountable to the employer,

    Wrong.

    1. You Know Who Else was wrong?

        1. Ehrlich? Obama? Mann??
          Did I win something

  51. Tulpa?

  52. I’m pissed off today. It’s these goddamned Jews. I’m a high school student and I have to deal with a fucking integrated school with all these niggers and spics, and the constant pro-miscegenation propaganda. Meanwhile, these Jews go to their own, 100% Jewish school a block away, they don’t have to fear that their daughters will be pursued by niggers. It was the Jews who started this whole integration crap and yet they get their own school. Why? Because they hate us. They hate all non-Jews and particularly White gentiles. Just read their Talmud. You know I used to consider myself a libertarian, but you guys are just more race-traitors. Why don’t I hear you complaining about anti-discrimination law? Why don’t I hear any criticism of the pro-miscegenation propaganda these schools are forcing down our throats? Because you guys support that stuff, you guys are hypocrites.

    1. I’m pissed off today retarded.

    2. go away ‘Murcan

    3. Fun fact:One of the first successful candidates of the Know Nothing party was Lewis Charles Levin, an American-born Jew from Charleston who ended up representing Pennsylvania as America’s first Jewish congressman.

      That’s right, you read correctly, the Know Nothing party.

      1. Catholics vs. Jews could get fairly ugly, alas. The Know-Nothings didn’t last fairly long, but their target was Catholics, so there was no inherent contradiction in some Jewish people supporting them. Just before they collapsed, the Know-Nothings tried to revive the dying embers of their support by taking up the Mortara case (Jewish child kidnapped by Papal government – for some reason, in the late 1850s, the US govt chose not to make a big fuss about a government which allowed the kidnapping of children – can’t guess why).

        1. The child was technically Catholic, not Jewish anymore…

          1. Yes, that was the argument. And he went to Rome to study for the priesthood, under the benevolent supervision of the Pope, unlike *certain* countries at the time, where children taken from their parents could find themselves sent to pick cotton.

            1. Not that I endorse the Pope’s conduct, but certain other countries didn’t have the moral standing to complain.

            2. Er, the Church encouraged enslaving Africans to spare the natives of the New World for conversion.

              The Church may be holy and apostolic and shit, but it sure as hell has a lot of blood and suffering on its hands.

              1. I’ve been doing something of a study on this, and numerous popes issued thundering denunciations of the enslavement of Indians and Africans. The Spanish and Portugese just ignored it, being good cafeteria Catholics on that subject. Reminds me of modern Catholic “dissenters” in this country.

        2. Just before they collapsed, the Know-Nothings tried to revive the dying embers of their support by taking up the Mortara case (Jewish child kidnapped by Papal government

          That’s interesting. I didn’t know about that.

    4. Retarded complaint about fictitious racial categories is retarded.

      1. Race doesn’t exist.

        The Jewish people exist.

        /Jew

        1. What the fuck did you just fucking say about the Jewish people, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Sayeret MATKAL, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire Israeli Defense Force. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life.

          1. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Tzva HaHagana LeYisra’el and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

          2. Kill any Palestinian children today?

            1. Now it’s talking to itself.

            2. I don’t give a fuck who you are or where you live. You can count on me to be there to bring your fucking life to a hellish end. I’ll put you in so much fucking pain that it’ll make your Jesus being nailed to a cross in the desert look like a fucking back massage on a tropical island. I don’t give a fuck how many reps you have or how tough you are IRL, how well you can fight, or how many fucking guns you own to protect yourself. I’ll fucking show up at your house when you aren’t home. I’ll turn all the lights on in your house, leave all the water running, open your fridge door and not close it, and turn your gas stove burners on and let them waste gas. You’re going to start stressing the fuck out, your blood pressure will triple, and you’ll have a fucking heart attack. You’ll go to the hospital for a heart operation, and the last thing you’ll see when you’re being put under in the operating room is me hovering above you, dressed like a doctor.

              1. When you wake up after being operated on, wondering what ticking time bomb is in your chest waiting to go off. You’ll recover fully from your heart surgery. And when you walk out the front door of the hospital to go home I’ll run you over with my fucking car out of no where and kill you. I just want you to know how easily I could fucking destroy your pathetic excuse of a life, but how I’d rather go to a great fuckng length to make sure your last remaining days are spent in a living, breathing fucking hell. It’s too late to save yourself, but don’t bother committing suicide either? I’ll fucking resuscitate you and kill you again myself you bitch-faced faggot.

                Welcome to hell, population: you

    5. Actually, I’m kinda curious. Do we just assume that people like ‘Murrican are dedicated consumers of the barebackinest ballslappiest harddickinest interracial porn they can find?

      If so do we consider this an expression of being interested because it’s a taboo, being more energetic about racist attitudes due to shame, or a combination or both?

        1. Ooh, I know a French guy who’s WAY into that although the way he talks about his girlfriend getting ravished by a big dicked black dude it seems more like his fantasy is structured cuckolding, size, race in order of importance with racial insecurity being icing on the cake of the other two conditions.

        2. Reminds me of the famous “Am I a racist because I want my white wife to get fucked by a big black guy?” Savage Love column.

          http://www.thestranger.com/sea…..oid=133984

          1. Ah this one was back when I was still a regular reader and Savage hadn’t become big enough to have to worry about being glitterbombed for saying something “inappropriate”.

      1. These Jews love making Black on White porn because they hate us, I wish someone would make Palestinian on Jew Porn.

        1. What the fuck did you just fucking say about Palestinians, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the PLO, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on the Mossad, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire al-Qassam Brigades. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life.

          1. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Hamas and Fatah and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, Jew.

            1. …”but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Hamas and Fatah and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit.”…

              Some rockets that couldn’t hit the inside of a barn with the door closed, explosives to make some IEDs and a batch of AKs.

            2. Derp. 14 year old trolls….. great

  53. It’s these goddamned Jews.

    “Joos. Why did it have to be JOOS?”

  54. Too bad the Lions won today. Now I have to wait for a few more weeks before they LET ME DOWN ONE MORE TIME.

    1. Other than Peanut the Bears D looked awful. And Peanut was puking on the sidelines.

      We finally get a decent offensive coach and now the D goes to shit. Typical Bears.

      1. Eh. The primary reason the Bears defense got lit up was because of AJ Green. 169 yards and 2 TDs.

        We just couldn’t cover one of the best receivers in the NFL. I’m not too worried. The Bengals are a legitimate play off team and we still beat them.

        1. I dunno, Dalton had all day to throw, except for that one sack by McClellin on the last drive. And they were missing their best O-lineman.

  55. Jesus fucking AntiChrist – did NY and Dallas forget how to play football? This game sucks almost as much as the Michigan State game yesterday. Boooooooring.

  56. Tony Robinson’s The Worst Jobs In History series is pretty good.

  57. Sounds like a very good plan to me dude.

    http://www.AnonWorkz.tk

  58. Sounds like a very good plan to me dude.

    http://www.AnonWorkz.tk

  59. Sounds like a very good plan to me dude.

    http://www.AnonWorkz.tk

    1. It must be 3:00 PM somewhere.New Zealand?

  60. If “HIP HOP ABS” is so damned good, why isn’t it mandatory

    1. +1 Tilt.

      -2 Tuck.

      /3 Tighten.

  61. 1) Nobody better be dissing Captain Quantum

    2) Norm MacDonald said Giants +3.5 was free money.

  62. Might have been posted before, but I just saw it, so here we go:

    Please Bomb Syria. It’s For the Children

    PLEASE
    JUST HEAR US OUT AND READ THIS WELL
    GET US OUT OF THIS HELL
    THE US STRIKE IS NOT A WAR
    THIS IS A CURE
    IT WILL SAVE OUR SOULS THAT
    ASSAD HAS BEEN KILLING EVERYDAY
    EVERY NIGHT THERE IS SHELLING, BOMBING. AND SHOOTINGS
    AND I PROMISE YOU IT IS NOT THE FIRST OR LAST TIME HE WILL BE USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST US, AGAINST WOMEN, AGAINST CHILDREN
    BUT YOU SHOULD FEEL ASHAMED BECAUSE YOU CAN SAVE OUR LIVES BUT YOU NEVER WANT TO TRY
    IF YOU REALLY ARE AGAINST THE WAR………
    IF YOU HAVE ANY HUMANITY IN YOU….
    YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT THE US TRIKE AGAINST ASSAD
    WE ONLY ASKED FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY
    IS THAT REALLY MUCH?
    IS THAT A CRIME?
    WE JUST WANTED
    TO LIVE LIKE HUMANS IN DIGNITY
    BUT HE KILLED US
    HE SHELLED, BOMBED, AND MASSACRED ONE AFTER ANOTHER
    GENOCIDE AFTER ANOTHER
    THE WOUNDED ARE CRYING…..
    AND THE REST ARE DYING
    BUT HE CANT KILL OUR DREAM
    YOU HAVE TO SAY YES
    YES FOR THE US STRIKE AGAINST ASSAD
    YOU WILL BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE
    HIT ASSAD DOWN! LET SYRIA SHINE!

  63. Message for public and social media in the west,
    People in the west have been deceived by the so called ILLUMINATI who really are just a little boys club of haters and dividers. They try to instill fear and intimidate with threats and such, but they do not intimidate me!!! I know their game here in the west and in Germany of old, and have studied them and watched their tricks and circus acts controlling the media. They are just a bunch of punks and spoiled rich kids who have to have their way, so don’t be fooled and think they really have any power because they have been exposed to have none, and only influence, deception and lies. Don’t be intimidated when you see Illuminati, because they are just school yard bullies who want to control recess. They have names, addresses and are listed for the clean up.

    1. You know a guy named [HERC]?

  64. Am I free to gambol?

  65. Rollem rollem rollem, keep them doggies rollin!

    http://www.AnonWorkz.tk

  66. Best thread ever.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.