Hit & Run

A.M. Links: NSA Pushing For CISPA, FBI Pushing Against Sequester, Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Want to Go Anywhere


  • nancy!

    The NSA chief is lobbying for the Congress to reintroduce CISPA, a bill that would allow internet companies to share more data with the government.

  • The director of the FBI has been lobbying to reverse the sequester, saying it is affecting his agency's ability to do its job.
  • The unemployment rate inched down to 7.2 percent, with 148,000 new jobs created, less than expected.
  • Nancy Pelosi would like to remain the House Democratic leader until further notice.
  • San Francisco's public transit workers reached a tentative deal on a contract, ending a four day strike.
  • Google is working on technology services to bypass censorship, unveiling uProxy yesterday.
  • Amnesty International says US drone strikes in Pakistan could constitute war crimes.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here. 

Have a news tip? Send it to us!

NEXT: Obama and Hollande Discuss NSA Snooping in France

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. There is no sugarcoating it. JFK has suffered a knock on the head.

      1. This would be a good Twitter hashtag game.

        1. Get that shit trending.

    2. There's no sugarcoating it. Goliath's helmet has provided a disappointing level of protection.

      - Philistine High Command

      1. There's no sugarcoating it. Cologne doesn't cover up B.O.

  1. 99% of Obamacare applications hit a wall
    ...Experts said that if Healthcare.gov's success rate doesn't improve within the next month or so, federal officials could face a situation in January in which relatively large numbers of people believe they have coverage starting that month, but whose enrollment applications are have not been processed.

    "It could be public relations nightmare," said Nijhawan. Insurers have told his company that just "1 in 100" enrollment applicants being sent from the federal marketplace have provided sufficient, verified information....

    1. Contractors See Weeks of Work on Health Site
      ...Insurers have found that the system provides them with incorrect information about some enrollees, repeatedly enrolls and cancels the enrollments of others, and simply loses the enrollments of still others. ...

    2. All you hear about in the media are the failures of the national health care exchange Web site, but most of the 14 state exchanges are doing really well--Washington State, NY, and Kentucky, for example, have all signed up tens of thousands for Obamacare with minimal problems--124,000 in NY State alone. Turns out that if you live in a state that's cooperating with this important national effort, things go more smoothly.

      1. Who farted?

        1. Great answer, exactly what I expected.

          1. Ok SFB, if you define "doing really well" as "much better then the federal portal" you are absolutely right.

            However, if you define "doing really well" as "a significanly less worse failure than the complete disaster that the federal website is" you are just trolling, and deserve nothing but derision and contempt.

      2. See, when you dial down the trolling, it becomes more believable.

      3. Oh look, OFA sent some trolls to reason.com. I feel so important!

      4. So the states are competent and the feds are not.

        So let's just disband the federal government then.

        1. Or we could write a Constitutional that strictly limits the power of the federal government - leaving most power in the hands of the states and the People.

          So crazy it might work.

          1. Nah, not a chance

          2. There's no sugarcoating it - that hasn't worked so well lately.

      5. Of course, that 124,000 number is not the number of people who've actually obtained coverage. For some reason, we can't actually get that number.

        1. They don't "obtain coverage" until they mail a payment in.

          1. Your point?

            1. "I'm hungry, feed me" is his only point. Please don't succumb to his demands. Stay strong.

              1. Do as I say not as I do? And to think I ever agreed to be your running mate for H+R mod. (Did we win that, btw?)

                1. Justin may be a dipshit, but shrike's been at this for years. Everything it says is dripping with bad faith.

                  1. You almost have to admire such persistence in the face of total ineffectiveness. In that sense he's the perfect progressive.

                    1. You almost have to admire such persistence in the face of total ineffectiveness. In that sense he's the perfect progressive.

                      They'll replace his job with a robot eventually. I would imagine a few of us on the board could program an auto-replier right now that would fool 95% of the rest.

                    2. I almost wrote an MNG-auto-replier at one time.

                      It was going to scan H&R for a post from him and respond with "Fuck off, slaver" to every post.

                    3. ^^^This^^^

              2. Anyone engaging the Hobbitbagger should report to the disintegration chamber immediately.

                1. Sir, there is a multi-legged creature crawling on your shoulder.

          2. Going by how effective the system they put together is, more likely than not, they won't obtain coverage even then.

          3. And they can't mail a payment in until their application has been processed. And they can't complete their application until they are contacted by an insurance agent to collect the volumes of information that healthcare.gov didn't. Which almost seems like it defeats the entire purpose of the website.

          4. The "get coverage" when they are approved. That's the stat that matters.

            1. Then that number is close to 500,000.

              1. I thinkit left out a decimal and a few leading zeros.


                It puts in the decimal or it gets the hose.

      6. So nationalizing medicine through DMV is better than nationalizing it through the IRS?

        I love how the attitude toward things turns on a well-lubricated dime just because it's government doing it. Imagine the outcry if someone outside government had forced every store in the country charge more for toothbrushes and maxipads, and claimed sucking $30 billion out of people's pockets that way would make Americans better off.

      7. New York's has been a disaster.

        There was a story here yesterday, they havent signed up anywhere near that number.

      8. Troll response:

        9# 2-row
        9# Belgian Pils
        8 oz Special B
        8 oz Wheat malt
        2# D-180 candi syrup

        1 oz Amarillo 60 min
        .5 oz EKG 30 min
        .5 oz Tettnang 30 min
        .5 oz EKG 15 min
        .5 oz Tettnang 15 min
        1 oz EKG 5 min

        WLP 500 Trappist Ale Yeast.

        1. What kind of a starting gravity and content do you end up with on that?

          1. Pretty damn big.

            Not as big as you might think, my efficiency goes way down with large beers, I brewed that last Friday, Im expecting about 9.3%, plus or minus, depending on level of attenuation. The syrup will dry things out, 9.3% is for 80% attentuation, and I might get to 85%, so I could break 9.5%.

            This is for New Years, and it will be a little young even then.

            1. Hold some back for NEXT New Year's.

      9. 124,000 in 3 weeks is 41,000 a week. Based on the CBO estimate of 7 Million exchange enrollees in 2013 and New York having ~7% of the US population that has them just barely on pace to enroll their expected number of participants by the end of the year.

        That would be assuming you were even telling the truth...


        "In New York, one of only 16 states that has its own exchange, not one person had succeeded in using the site to enroll in a plan as of Friday."

        You will note the date on that article is Yesterday so this is not out of date information

        1. Also, according to some chart posted here (on reason), New York is one of the few (only?) states where people will see a sizeable decrease in premiums: something like 16.8% for a family of four. So these are some motivated people.

          My initial reaction, though, was: What sort of crazy taxes and regulations did they have, previously, in New York, different from the rest of the nation ... such that here, out of all of the rest of the nation, Obamacare looks like a DISCOUNT?

      1. I keep trying to imagine what would happen if I used these terms with my clients...

        "Your Answer seems to have been filed before the deadline..."
        "You seem to be charged with DUI..."
        "I know your last attorney didn't work at all but I'll at least set up your file..."

    3. "It could be public relations nightmare," said Nijhawan.

      Could be. And he is not sugarcoating it.

    4. http://www.slate.com/articles/....._make.html

      Before the site was launched, the president said it would make signing up for health care as easy as making a plane reservation. When, after a few rocky days that turned out to be too rosy, the administration dropped the airline analogy. Now the experience more closely approximates the saga of having your flight delayed. First, the airline tells you it will be a half hour, then it stretches it to an hour, then two, then you're offered a voucher for a drink. After four hours, it dawns on you that the plane is never taking off. They continue to assure you it will?just before they cancel your flight.

      1. John covered the airline analogy better yesterday morning.

        1. I didn't see that. I haven't been able to read many of the threads lately.

          1. I didn't see that. I haven't been able to read many of the threads lately.

            It was the start of the "sugarcoat" meme that I hope catches on outside of this site.

            1. I caught the sugarcoat meme towards the end of yesterday. Made me sad I wasn't there from the beginning 😉

              1. Here was the original, from 12:45 yesterday:

                There is no sugar coating it, TWA Flight 800 is not going to arrive on time.

        2. Delta's web site was down last week.

          The analogy is better than you knew.

        3. Yeah. It is flight 800. It is not just a 737 sitting on the tarmac at JFK waiting for the weather to clear. But Progs are still in the denial stage of their grief. They just know this is going to work.

          1. I did actually see John's comment on TWA 800. It is a fitting analogy, given the explosion just after launch.

            The significance of the Slate article is the Dickerson is hardcore liberal who has supported Obamacare from the beginning.

            I don't think he actually intended to imply that Obamacare would be canceled before anyone got to sign up, but that's the analogy he is making.

          2. It's the "hope" part of Hope 'n' Change?.

            Some say that hope is not a strategy. But the unshakeable hope of Obama supporters stands firm against all evidence to the contrary.

      2. So... TSA employees should go ahead and perform breast or testicle exams as part of our national effort to improve health care? Or we could replace the current scanners with MRI machines?


        1. If my congressman could and would make me a primo Manhattan on request, he would so start getting my vote.
          Reminds me of the greatest president, McKinley, who has a huge monument at Antietam because, as a commissary sergeant, he brought hot coffee to the troops under fire. The greatest accomplishment of any president, before, during or after his term.
          Damn it, Obama! Bring me some coffee, stat!

          1. You don't think he would just intercept the coffee along the way?

            1. I like my coffee like I like my presidents.

              1. Ground up, bagged, and in the freezer?

                1. I prefer a medium roast, as well.

        2. Let's not sugarcoat it, your drink voucher will come in the form of a rectal exam.

          1. Which is about the only healthcare you're going to get.

            1. Lots of rubber gloves... I will need to buy some stock in these companies...

    5. We are the 99%!

      Based on my experience, I suspect that the system does not reliably exchange data with the Experian system among other things.

  2. Another Journalist Joins the Obama Administration
    Former Washington Post writer Laura Blumenfeld on Monday became the latest in a long list of journalists who have joined the Obama administration when she took up an appointment in the State Department's Middle East office....

  3. Nancy Pelosi would like to remain the House Democratic leader until further notice.

    A district full of Kool-Aid drinkers, a sympathetic press and no shame? Why would she stop now?

    1. Don't forget she's SugarFree's muse

      1. You know who else inspired intensely disturbing and controversial works of art?

    2. You know who else wanted to remain in charge until further notice?

    1. Absolutely bloody awesome!! Thanks for posting this; it made my morning brighter. Ferguson's The Ascent Of Money is one of my favorite reads.

  4. Alright, Libertarians, I'm going to ask a real question here, not that I expect any of you to answer seriously, but here it goes anyway. When will you admit that the widespread availability of guns is the main driver of these massacres in schools and other places that take place on a regular basis? This shooting yesterday in Nevada. Now obviously this was a disturbed kid, and even without a gun, he might have acted out anyway. But do you really think he would have killed a teacher and injured two students with a knife? I mean, is there a point at which the body count becomes so high that any of you would be willing to entertain any measure of gun control?

    1. Dave's not here, man.

    2. So what you're saying is that if there were no guns it would be a very happy land indeed?

      1. Of course it would be! The left would have a much easier time instituting those reducation camps we all know America so direly needs.

    3. Is there any personal liberty you won't give up for the promise of safety?

    4. No Justin, fuck you. McVeigh killed a bunch of people w/ fertilizer and diesel fuel.

      More people will be killed by a "War on Guns" than by lone nutcases - see the War on Drugs for evidence.

    5. One of my guns broke out of the safe and shot 4 people while I was at work the other day.

      1. You're lucky. As a tool of the patriarchy, my gun raped someone before going on a shooting spree.

    6. I mean, is there a point at which the body count becomes so high that any of you would be willing to entertain any measure of gun control?

      No... there is no body count high enough to justify violating people's right to defend themselves.

      Was that clear enough? Are we getting through to you Justin?

    7. Any measure of gun control? You mean like all the gun free zones which have lead to the ability of crazies to shoot a ton of people before running into resistance?

      I'll tell you what: you start talking about implementing car control, knife control, and baseball bat control, and I'll take the time to argue your (at least consistent) points.

      1. Incredible. It turns out a gun-free zone that applies to a small physical space is not effective when the area around it is awash in guns.

        1. Then why do you keep pushing them?

        2. Incredible. It turns out a gun-free zone that applies to a small physical space is not effective when the area around it is awash in guns.

          EXACTLY OUR POINT!!!! 😀

          Do you know where most of the guns killing people in Mexico come from?

          They were made by an American gun manufacturer, sold to THE MEXICAN ARMY, whose soldiers then sold it on the black market.

          Your attempt to ban firearms, unless you are planning on disarming the entire U.S. government is an exercise in pants-wetting futility that will leave people increasingly at the mercy of criminals.

          But, hey, feelings trump outcomes right?

      2. We have car control. Do you not have a license to drive a car? And can it not be taken away under a variet of circumstances? As for bat/knife/nunchuck control, obviously those are limited in their physical effects and not able to kill dozens of people in a short amount of time.

        1. Do you not have a license to drive a car? And can it not be taken away under a variet of circumstances?

          No, your car can't be taken away. Your license to drive on public roads can. And you need a license to carry a gun in public.

          1. Well, in some places. Not in the incredibly nonviolent state of Vermont.

        2. So you'd wildly inconsistent, and make retarded analogies since anyone is able to buy a car at any time.

          1. Hey, run with it.

            Yes Justin, buying guns should be as difficult as buying a car.

            1. And you can legally drive that car -- without a license -- on your property.

              1. People drive without licenses all the time. Everywhere. Just because a judge or state official took away their license doesn't mean they forgot how to drive, or lost the ability to drive.

        3. Yet statistically kids are more likely to die in many different ways, yet people like you want to focus on guns. You don't care if more die one or two at a time by, say swimming pools. If guns kill people, then swimming pools are a far deadlier serial killer.

          1. I wonder how many kids are killed on state-built roads in state-approved vehicles by state-licensed drivers.

        4. We have car control? You obviously don't live in Florida.

        5. Hello? Hello? Test 1...2...3...
          Is this thing on?

        6. Justin, this community has gone over this both intellectually and with data multiple times. You just choose to believe "they don't answer" because it doesn't fit your narrow, emotional progressive instincts.

          Statistically, you're wrong.

          Oh, look. A study from Harvard! You can't blame "Faux" news for this one!


      3. If rounding the children up and putting them in concentration camps where only government-approved adults may interact with them can save the life of even one child, don't we have an obligation to try it?

    8. I think the real question is, "Are you willing to support a paramilitary incursion into every nook and cranny of the United States, probably kill hundreds, if not thousands of Americans, all to confiscate and destroy all firearms, all for the alleged possibility of maybe curbing mass shootings?"

      If the answer is yes, we're done.

      The real solution is not forcing kids to be bundled into prisons in the first place.

      1. We can augment the War on Drugs with the War on Guns!

    9. Your loaded question assumes there is no gun control at present. Compared to the protections of the 2nd, the government already controls ownership and access of guns to a tyrannical degree. We have extensive measures of "gun control" right now.

      The only thing that might impact school shooting is a level of gun illegality on par with Britain, a nation whose violent crime rate is 4 times higher than the US, and they have been talking about bans on knife ownership so vaguely-worded that they cover kitchen implements.

    10. I'm not a Libertarian but I'll answer.


      Just because a middle school child had access to weapon and decided to use it does not mean my freedom should be infringed. Do you really think all people should have their freedom taken away because some people commit horrible crimes?

    11. When will you admit that the widespread availability of guns is the main driver of these massacres in schools and other places that take place on a regular basis?

      They don't happen on a regular basis. The vast majority of gun crime is gang violence fueled by the War on Drugs. The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides.

      1. Of course the Justin's of the world will argue that "Well...in that case...guns should be illegal because they MAKE SUICIDE TOOOOO EASSSSSYYYY!!!!!!!!!"{{{{FOAMS AT MOUTH}}}}

    12. But do you really think he would have killed a teacher and injured two students with a knife?

      Damn Justin, you're totally right. It's gotta be the inanimate object's fault.

    13. When will you admit that the widespread availability of guns is the main driver of these massacres in schools and other places that take place on a regular basis?

      Maybe when you admit that the availability of guns was far more widespread in the past and these massacres didn't happen.

      1. Great. So a different society was able to operate under a different set of laws. Now we have the our current society, with different conditions, and different laws are necessary.

        1. Beg the question much?

        2. Well, genius, solve/cure the problems w/ this society then before trying to address the symptoms.

        3. Even apart from your question begging, you admit that the main driver of these massacres in schools and other places is current society, not the widespread availability of guns.

          An intellectually honest person would re-examine the flaws in his argument. What will you do?

        4. This Justin fellow keeps sinking his own ship. He makes an a convincing argument against his own contention without even realizing it. It's fascinating. Is he just trolling in a sophisticated manner? Probably not.

    14. If you want to address your "questions" to Libertarians, then you should ask Libertarians. There aren't very many on this site, though.

      1. I do tire of all of the Republican commentators on here posing non-partisan participants.

      2. I'm a Libertarian.

    15. Yes, if we eliminated guns from the earth, such shootings would not occur. It is not the "widespread availability" of guns. It is the availability of guns at all. As long as guns exist, people will own them, if even illegally. And people will use them to do bad things. The problem is that you think that if guns are less available, you will prevent this. No, to prevent these things guns have to not be available at all. And that is not something you can make happen. So you even up advocating for policies that do no good and cause much harm.

      1. Eliminating all guns on earth would lead to anarchy. How would the state enforce its laws? How would I be able to use government to stop my neighbors from doing things I don't approve of? Anarchy.

        1. I think we all know what happens when you eliminate all guns: Zombie Outlaw Apocalypse.

          1. Soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! (Drool)

    16. I'm probably wasting my time, but here goes.

      Your first question rests on a number of false premises.
      Yes, he could have killed a teacher and injured 2 students with a knife.
      No, there is no point at which the "body count" would justify further gun control. As long as there are privately owned weapons, things like this are possible. We know this. Anyone with a brain knows this. If something like this changes someone's opinion on guns, then they are either dishonest or never really properly thought about it. The right to be armed should not be subject to a utilitarian calculation. It is an essential right of free people and I find it really disturbing how readily many people are willing to give that up.

      1. Thank you for a serious response. I'll admit I didn't think I'd see one. Still disagree with you, though. "Freedom" doesn't mean as much when your child is dead due to a senseless shooting.

        1. "Freedom" doesn't mean as much when your child is dead due to a senseless shooting.

          Ah, there's your problem. Stop emoting.

        2. Emotional appeal falacy.
          Hot rodding may not mean much if my son were to be run down in the street, but until then, I'm into cars and it's my right.

        3. "Freedom" doesn't mean as much when your child is dead due to a senseless shooting.

          Exactly the same argument offered in favor of execrable laws like the PATRIOT Act, sex offender registries, etc.

        4. "Freedom" still means exactly the same thing regardless how a child of your dies.

        5. "Freedom" doesn't mean as much when your child is dead due to a senseless shooting.

          Justin, to be straightforward, that's your problem. You're letting the emotions from one specific incident blind you to the greater impact and, as importantly, the alternate consequences of your proposed solution.

          You must agree that humans have an inherent right to defend themselves against (non-self-initiated) aggression. How far are you willing to abrogate that right for the sake of your feelings? Asked another way, how many other people are you willing to let die because of your decision to not let them defend themselves, just because of a handful of dead children in one incident - which is tragic, unquestionably. But worth dictating life-altering issues to everyone else?

          Check out this article in the Liberal-Approved New York Times. It's trying to show that the NRA's self-defense stats are crap. But notice: even the much lower "correct" stats they cite show annual numbers of like 67K instances of a gun used in self/property defense. Compared to about 8K gun homicides per year.

          Are you willing to let those 67K die or be hurt just because you don't get to see them all at once or in big groups? Because that's what you're arguing.

        6. "Freedom" doesn't mean as much when your child is dead due to a senseless shooting.

          Check this out, Justin. Seriously.

          "I prefer this to the alternative."

        7. Thank you for a serious response. I'll admit I didn't think I'd see one.

          You got at least a dozen. Just because it isn't what you want to hear doesn't mean it isn't "serious". On the other hand, ask a fucking retarded question and don't even have the courtesy to dress it up as something other than obvious griefing and you're going to get treated like the bowl of fuck troll that you are. Hazards of the trade, my friend.

        8. Sing it with me:

          Freedom's just another word
          For your child is dead due to a senseless shooting

        9. "Freedom" doesn't mean as much when your child is dead due to a senseless shooting.

          Freedom doesn't mean as much when your child is cold or hungry or sick, either.

          Ever been to a zoo, Justin? The animals there don't have to worry about being sick or cold or hungry or shot at, they just have to spend their lives in a cage. But you may notice they keep the cages locked, they don't give the animals a choice on whether or not they might prefer the risks of freedom to the security of slavery.

          But a few questions for you - assuming that you, like most people, support 'reasonable' gun control laws - can you think of any hypothetical gun control laws that you would denounce as being 'unreasonable'? Given the myriad of 'reasonable' gun control laws we have now, is it reasonable to suppose that one more is going to do the trick? Given the continued support for yet more 'reasonable' laws in the face of the failure of all the current 'reasonable' laws, is it reasonable to suppose that some people support even unreasonable gun control laws?

    17. I actually do think libertarians may be able to offer something different than standard condemnations of liberal gun control proposals (which I oppose).

      Are there laws currently in place that would provide criminal and civil liability for any gun owner who does not exercise some level of care in keeping their firearms away from disturbed people and/or kids? If there are not, I think I could live with reasonable types of those as a response.

      1. Define "disturbed people".

        1. It would have to be something proven to a jury, that the owner had good reason to know this person should not be near his firearms and took some reasonable steps to make sure of that. Libertarians have no brook with responsibility.

          1. I don't disagree with your position. Adam Lanza's mother bears a measure of responsibility for Newtown. But to make the definition arbitrary and dependent on a jury doesn't seem like an appropriate measure - too much wiggle room to deprive people of their rights.

            1. I would try to make it as objective of a standard as it could, like that used in self defense law for example.

      2. So you'd say that you agree with the libertarian position, but you maybe have a few concerns?

        1. No, I would say I think the libertarian position allows us to offer up more than just condemnation of liberal gun control. I in no way think we should bend on our opposition to that gun control.

      3. I thought it would be easy to demonstrate negligence in civil court as a matter of general liability, without creating new terms or categories.

    18. Sure. Let the cops and government agents go first. Then, I'll consider it.

    19. The government could very easily solve the school shooting problem by simply passing a law that says you can't shoot anyone in a school. Duh.

      1. This guy gets it

    20. When will you admit that the widespread availability of guns is the main driver of these massacres in schools and other places that take place on a regular basis?

      Every serious study show, including one by the CDC earlier this year, shows a negative correlation between gun ownership and crime levels - that is more gun ownership means lower levels of crime.

      So when is the reality based community going to abandon their superstitious fear of guns and embrace the settled science?

      1. Most revealing thing about progs and gun control is how they ignore blatant, black and white stats showing gun control does not work and the lack of any correlation between legal guns and gun crime.

    21. The only logical extension of what you're suggesting is absolute gun elimination and it will never happen even if the 2nd Amend were erased...
      Body count? If you're concerned about body count, what's your thoughts about automobile accidents or heart disease if body count is your trigger???

      1. Wha?

        I guess...I think we should reduce automobile accidents and heart disease. Not sure I see your point.

        1. Reduce to zero? Because otherwise you have a curious double standard. Its okay for some people to die due to negligent or malicious operation of cars, but never for some people to die via the negligent or malicious operation of guns.

          1. Would you be willing to ban all civilian use and ownership of motorized vehicles in furtherance of this effort?

        2. My point is if body count was your real metric, you'd be posing questions on AMA and AAA forums... Pareto principle and all....

    22. Everyone was much too polite to you, scumbag. Here's the response you deserve: Fuck you.

      1. Warty's logic seems unassailable.

      2. Should that not be "fuck off, slaver!"?

    23. Is it moral for a person to own a firearm?

      That is my serious response to you.

      Answer carefully, as it will answer your questions too.

      If you dont answer it, I have another recipe or three to post.

      1. No response after 1:15 minutes.

        So here goes, recipe for trolls time:

        8# Wheat malt
        6# Pils malt
        8 oz Chocolate wheat

        1 oz Tettnang 60 min
        1 g Anise seed 5 min

        WLP300 Hefeweizen yeast

        1. dude. I love WLP300
          that shit is EXPLOSIVE
          the 320 American no so much and no real banana esters to speak of.

    24. I mean, is there a point at which the body count becomes so high that any of you would be willing to entertain any measure of gun control?

      Violent crime rates have been dropping for over 20 years now. But don't let that little fact get in the way of your feelz.

    25. As typical of liberal 'understandings' of the issues, you ignore the hundreds of thousands to millions of assaults, rapes, murders, muggings, B&E's, etc that are prevented by firearms. Bans on firearms are counterproductive as per Harvard study.

      Crawl back under the bridge, troll.

    26. "When will you admit that the widespread availability of guns is the main driver of these massacres in schools and other places that take place on a regular basis?"

      Why would I admit something so ridiculously easily proven false.

      First off, "massacres" are not commonplace nor do they happen on a "regular" basis


      "But do you really think he would have killed a teacher and injured two students with a knife?"

      Um, yes, or a Baseball bat or car or any number of other weapons.

      The simple fact is guns do not cause violence, they are merely 1 out of a huge array of tools that can be used to carry out violence.

      Now guns are among the more efficient means of violence and they can lead to higher body counts in some places but no so high as you could achieve with a car or IED and counterbalancing this fact is the fact that the presence of more guns would lower body counts as the crazies shooting people would be killed before they had a chance to shoot very many.

      1. Finally...

        " I mean, is there a point at which the body count becomes so high that any of you would be willing to entertain any measure of gun control?"

        No there isn't. There is no recorded instance in history of government prohibitions actually working to make the prohibited thing unavailable. You might drive up the price and make guns a little harder to find and in return you get even more of a police state than the drug war has created and put more otherwise peaceful people who are no danger to anyone behind bars and in the process preventing the millions of people whose active use of guns as for self defense from protecting themselves.

        Basically you would trade the 10 - 15 lives saved from lower "massacre" body counts each year for 10's of thousands of additional violent crimes and hundreds of additional murders and therefore the entire idea of using tighter gun control laws to "prevent massacres" is insane.

      2. First off, "massacres" are not commonplace nor do they happen on a "regular" basis

        They are also on the decline.

    27. Does it matter? Bad shit happens, but worse shit happens when the good people have no means of defending themselves from bad people.

    28. Disarm the cops and the military, and then we'll talk.

      Cops and the military have a very, very long history of killing people in numbers that are several orders of magnitude greater than killings by civilians. Why not disarm the cops and military first?

      Absurd? Yes, but no more absurd effectively disarming citizens with even more oppressive gun laws.

      But, if you're really serious, why don't you spend your time for an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment?

      1. Slightly off topic, but, is it really possible to repeal the 2nd Amendment?

        Just as repealing the 1st Amendment would require Congress to make a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances...", The very thing it prohibits Congress from doing.

        Likewise, repealing the 2nd Amendment, would require Congress to make a law infringing on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

        I realize that this argument would likely not fly but it seems clear to me that the framers meant that these rights were absolute and were not to be abridged even by amending the Constitution.

        1. Well, the 17th Amendment went forward despite explicit language in Article V, which states "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's [sic] equal Suffrage in the Senate".

          Utah specifically objected to 17th Amendment. Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia never ratified. Thus, these States (qua States) have been deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent.

          1. Since all states still get two senators, I'm not really sure how the 17th changed any state's "equal Suffrage in the Senate".

            I'm about as against the 17th Amendment as anyone but changing the method of choosing senators was pretty much a technical change.

  5. Google is working on technology services to bypass censorship, unveiling uProxy yesterday.

    Google had help designing the software from some of the NSA's finest developers.

  6. The Morgan Shakedown
    ...The bulk of the settlement is related to mortgage-backed securities issued before the 2008 financial panic. But those securities weren't simply a Morgan product. They were largely issued by Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, both of which the federal government asked J.P. Morgan to take over to help ease the crisis.

    So first the feds asked the bank to do the country a favor without giving it a chance for proper due diligence. The Treasury needed quick decisions, and Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon made them in good faith. But five years later the feds are punishing the bank for having done them the favor. As Richard Parsons notes nearby, this is not going to make another CEO eager to help the Treasury in the next crisis. But more pointedly, where is the justice in such ex post facto punishment?...

    1. In the first paragraph, "asked" should be in sneer quotes.

    2. I must say, watching the state repeatedly burn the business community is delicious. They're turning the guns on their cronies now.

      1. I'm sure that MS will make much much more in crony deals over the next few years than they paid in these fines.

    3. Sorry, I just can't shed any tears for JP Morgan or any other TBTF institution that has been able to operate outside the law.

    4. this is not going to make another CEO eager to help the Treasury in the next crisis

      At least there is a silver lining.

      1. Dimon is still Barak's pet CEO along with the rest of those cronies. They will move on be pets of the next Repub president as well, so I doubt there is a silver lining.

        The moral hazard is set in stone now unless we have another crisis and the .gov says FU to banks (and that includes the FED, so it will never happen).

  7. It's not a war crime when a Democratic president does it.

    1. Also: Robot testimony not admissable in court ( Kirk vs M-5 duotronic unit, 2267)

      1. "Answer the question!"

        "Does not compute! Error! Error!"

        1. "Faulty!...Faulty...!

            1. Exterminate?!?!

              If you're making the reference I think you are, it should never be in the form of a question.

              It is a directive, simply EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!!!!!!

  8. Canada Has Death Panels
    Last week Canada's Supreme Court ruled that doctors could not unilaterally ignore a Toronto family's decision to keep their near-dead husband and father on life support. In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, Canada's most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the family's choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.

    In other words: Canada has death panels....

    1. Date for cataract surgery set, then cancelled
      ..."There's even more demand and they're cutting back," he said, adding he doesn't blame the hospital or the surgeon, opthalmologist Dr. Barry Emara. But he believes people who've paid taxes to the Ontario government all their lives should get prompt access to health care now they need it. "It's like a car insurance company saying 'We've had two many accidents this year, we're cutting everyone off.'"

      The problem, according to hospital CEO David Musyj, is that the number of procedures ? when it comes to cataracts, hips replacements and knee replacements ? is capped by the Health Ministry. And hospital officials (up until October, cataracts were done by Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital, which has since transferred cataracts to Windsor Regional) were scheduling surgeries based on the previous year's cap of 5, 022. Then in September, they learned the cap for the fiscal year that started April 1 would be 4,849. In 2010, there were 5,412 procedures, he said. In a guest column published in today's Windsor Star, Musyj said the cuts are due to the continuing rise in health care costs and governments looking for ways to cope with them....

    2. I believe it's spelled panles in Canada.

    3. Is the guy writing that a loathsome little fascist or what? We Canadians roll our eyes when you Americans worry about government.

      1. Did I read that incorrectly, or did you just say that you are Canadian?

        1. No. I was quoting him. I am not a Canadian.

          1. Okay, I didn't think you were.

            1. I take a lot of abuse on here. But being called a Canadian is too much even for me.

    4. but, hey, they are called adjudicators. Nowhere are the words death panels used. See the difference Ms. Palin?

      1. I love how they went from "Palin is such an idiot" to "everyone knew that and this is what we planned on".

        1. It is Politifact's Lie of the Year and your Palin-love will never change that.

          1. Which is saying something because Politifact tells thousands of lies a year.

            1. Somehow im guessing "if you like your insurance, you can keep it" isn't going to even make Politi"fact"'s top 10.

              1. And yet, incredibly, it turns out I can't keep my insurance - how could that possibly happen?! unpossible. The only silver lining is the inevitable whining of my lefty co-workers over this - and I'm in Cambridge, MA so that's, like, all of them.

    5. While I totally sympathize with the Rasouli family, I wonder how willing they would be to keep their husband/father alive with their own funds.

      I think everyone is forgetting the old saw that "he who pays the piper, calls the tune." Of course, Canadian Medicare compounds this problem by prohibiting private payment for the piper (or the doctor).

      They moral question here is not so much that someone is deciding to "pull the plug" but who is doing the deciding.

  9. The unemployment rate inched down to 7.2 percent, with 148,000 new jobs created, less than expected.

    Five years into an economically inept administration and the rosey expectations continue.

    1. I assume the participation rate will continue to drop until full employment is achieved.

    2. Imagine if we didn't have the stimulus, and were at a horribly tragic 5% like they predicted!

    3. Lest you had any doubts about the level of manipulation the administration will go to to manage perceptions...I bring you: 691K Full time jobs created in Sept! And nearly as many part time jobs disappeared! See, you Obamacare haters don;t know what you are talking about 😉

      Full time jobs magically appear (ZHedge)

  10. There is no sugarcoating it, the AM Links were not early.

  11. Thousands Of Consumers Get Insurance Cancellation Notices Due To Health Law Changes

    An estimated 14 million people purchase their own coverage because they don't get it through their jobs. Calls to insurers in several states showed that many have sent notices.

    Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people ? about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent.

    1. If you like your insurance, you can keep it.

      1. Those people obviously didn't like it.

      2. Hey, he never said if your insurance COMPANY likes YOUR business they can keep it.

    2. How many of those had maximum benefit payouts of $5000 like the idiots that work in Home Depot stores had?

      Although a contract that one-sided should be allowed, I must admit. That is overreach on the part of the ACA in its effort to see people get treatment for more than just a minor bruise.

      1. How many of those had maximum benefit payouts of $5000 like the idiots that work in Home Depot stores had?

        Not a single one of them.*

        *See I can make up bullshit too, shrike.

      2. For all those people with catastrophic plans with a high deductible that were declared inadequate by fiat, your argument is just another non sequitur.

      3. Very few, I would imagine. Before all of this shit you could get a high deductible $1 million max benefit plan for $100/month on the individual market. The low max benefit plans are just a way for an employer to look better and pay their employees a bit more without paying taxes on it.

      4. One Home Depot store assistant is worth more than ten JournoList scumbags like you, dipshit.

    3. My insurer wrote to advise that my individual plan was grandfathered under ObamaCare. A couple of weeks later they wrote to advise me that the premium went up by 20%.

      Three weeks and about ninety tries later, I still can't get any information from Healthcare.gov.

      Thanks, Obama!

  12. The director of the FBI has been lobbying to reverse the sequester...

    Lobbying? J. Edgar, he ain't.

  13. Dug In Against the Gang of Eight
    Conservatives warn House leaders against the Senate bill on comprehensive immigration reform.

    The recent budget talks have also, to the extent that it is even possible, increased House Republicans' dislike and distrust of President Obama. Representative Raul Labrador (R., Idaho), a prominent supporter of immigration reform and a member of the (now disbanded) House version of the Gang of Eight, has said "it would be crazy" for House Republicans to negotiate with Obama on immigration reform, because the president would never do so in good faith.

    "He's trying to destroy the Republican Party . . . and I think that anything that we do right now with this president on immigration will be with that same goal in mind, which is to destroy the Republican party, and not to get good policies," Labrador said last week during a meeting with conservative lawmakers hosted by the Heritage Foundation.

    1. Eat a bag of dicks, Gang of Eight. Nothing good has come from grand Senate compromises. The Civil War probably being the low point.

  14. Cemetery withdraws approval for SpongeBob gravestones

    Seeking to honor Kimberly further, the family had two 6-foot-tall SpongeBob SquarePants headstones erected. The first, dressed in an Army uniform, would be for Kimberly. The second, dressed in Navy attire, would be for her twin sister, Kara, who currently serves as an IT specialist. Each gravestone cost $13,000 and weighs 7,000 pounds.

    According to WLWT, the gravestones were installed on October 10. A short time later, officials from the cemetery told Walker's family that the stones weren't appropriate and needed to be removed because they didn't fit in with the cemetery's guidelines.

    1. Picture:


    2. If I were the family I'd sue. Based on detrimental reliance. And if I were Nickelodeon, I'd want a piece of the action.

      1. Depends on what the underlying contractual relationship was, and any representations that were made by the cemetery*. My bet is the cemetery retains some right to veto monuments in the contract.

        1. OK, I read both articles now. So the cemetery is willing to replace the headstones, and said whoever approved made an error.

  15. When will you admit that the widespread availability of guns is the main driver of these massacres in schools and other places that take place on a regular basis?


    Regular basis?

    Your premise is flawed.

    1. Doesn't matter, he's staying with it.

  16. Analysis: Despite budget win, Obama has weak hand with Congress

    The 16-day partial government shutdown highlighted Obama's challenges in basic governing. Although he refused to concede to Republicans in exchange for reopening the government and raising the U.S. borrowing limit, he could not block the emergence of what he called a "manufactured" crisis.

    The president would now like to seize momentum to push forward three legislative priorities: the farm bill, immigration reform and a more lasting budget deal.

    But his chances of progress on those issues, particularly immigration reform, depend on convincing embittered Republicans to work with a White House many of them detest. That leaves Obama more or less at the same strategic juncture he encountered before the shutdown began.

  17. Taxpayers foot ?350k legal bill for Muslim pubic hair battle

    Taxpayers have been left with a legal bill of ?350,000 after Muslim parents went to court to win right to shave their disabled daughter's pubic hair.

    The mother and father of the young woman, who cannot be named and is referred to as ED in court documents, said their daughter's pubic hair should be removed in line with Islamic tradition.

    But their local council, which has cared for their daughter since 2008, questioned whether the disabled woman had the mental capacity to consent to her hair being removed.

    1. The British government is so bad, they make you take the side of strict religious Muslims. Sorry sir, the village owns your daughter and thus is the one making this decision.

    2. Muslim pubic hair battle

      Nice band name.

      1. Good porn movie name too

    3. The mother and father of the young woman, who cannot be named and is referred to as ED in court documents,

      They named their daughter Erectile Dysfunction?

    4. pubic hair should be removed in line with Islamic tradition

      Why are Muslim men so angry all the time?

      1. they're irritated by the stubble in their arse cracks

        1. So baby powder really is the path to world peace...

    5. There are more than the two false choices that others have presented here. If she's not capable of consenting to shaving, then how the hell is she competent to choose a religion? IOW, the parents are asserting ownership of her and claiming that she has religious beliefs which she's incapable of understanding.

      Also, you turn your daughter over to the state for care, you get what you get.

      1. So accepting welfare means you lose parental rights? It is a simple issue, who gets final say over a minor child, the parents or the state. If you believe in freedom, it has to be the parents. If you don't and think the state owns everything and everyone, you think it is the state.

  18. 'SNL's' Kenan Thompson Refuses To Dress In Drag Until The Show Hires A Black Woman

    Thompson opened up to TV Guide in a new interview, saying he will no longer dress as women on the show.

    When asked what "SNL" will do now when confronted with potential black female characters or celebrity spoofs, Thompson revealed, "I don't know. We just haven't done them. That's what I'm saying. Maybe [Jay Pharaoh] will do it or something, but even he doesn't really want to do it."

    Thompson blames the lack of quality black female comedians. "It's just a tough part of the business," Thompson says. "Like in auditions, they just never find ones that are ready."

    1. Aisha Tyler is black, funny, and hot.

      1. She sounds too much like Lana, though.

        1. This is how we get ants.

      2. She's also too talented for SNL.

      3. Very true, but I bet if they hired her, they will never use her to make fun of Moochelle.

    2. Hey!!

  19. Canada Has Death Panels
    And that's a good thing.

    In Canada, with our single-payer health care system, Rasouli's situation has a very public bottom line: Should taxpayers foot the bill for his family's indefinite goodbye?

    But American critics of Canadian health care will declare that merely asking this question is unacceptable, unethical, even unthinkable?and that it proves that the Canadian system gives doctors a dangerous incentive to kill off their patients as quickly as possible. They are wrong. The Hippocratic Oath's promise to do no harm still applies. But they are also only wrong in part. When taxpayers provide only a finite number of acute care beds in public hospitals, a patient whose life has all but ended, but whose family insists on keeping her on life support, is occupying precious space that might otherwise house a patient whose best years are still ahead.

    1. But isn't that a violation of the Right to Healthcare? Shouldn't we press gang people into medical conscription to solve this?

  20. I was reading the above link Johnny Longtorso gives to the Slate Article by the Canadian twit praising death panels. These people are the kings of cognitive dissonance.

    1. All Progs believe that the country is founded on racists ideals and guilty of a huge litany of crimes. They all love their Hoard Zinn.

    2. Progs embrace the idea of the total state and the government being us.

    3. Progs trust the government to do virtually anything.

    You would think the people who view things like the Tuskegee experiments to be the essential narrative of American history would be a bit skeptical of letting the American government own everyone's healthcare.

    What that tells me is that Progs really don't give a shit about the historic crimes they are always going on about. They view those things as a way to feel morally superior not as something they would really care about as long as they are getting what they want and are in power.

    1. As we know John, it's not the power itself that bothers them, it's the possibility that they won't be able to wield it perpetually that does.

    2. What that tells me is that Progs really don't give a shit about the historic crimes they are always going on about.

      Right. They don't give a shit (generally) about most issues they are going on about. A recent exhibit is that asshat (forgot his name already) who wrote the article on how progs shouldn't join libertarians in trying to stop the surveillance state.

    3. One of the ways to put a turd in the punch bowl is to steer the conversations past the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and the horrors of slavery. Then when sparring about the dangers of big government (and confronting implications that you are a paranoid nutjob) ask in what way Germans are fundamentally different than Americans so that the Holocaust couldn't happen here...

      Their choice is to argue that Americans (the native american rapers) are not so bad, or to accept that big government wielded by a dangerous culture can be bad.

      The internal conflict can be entertaining.

      The best answer I've gotten is that public schools don't teach people to hate anymore... 😀

      1. That is a great idea. I will have to do that sometime. And really when you think about it, the Germans had in some ways fewer crimes on their collective heads in 1911 than Americans do now. There hadn't been slavery in Germany since the middle ages. Yet, just 30 years later they were putting people in ovens.

      2. That answer made me howl in depressed laughter.

        Public Schools peddle hate all year (9 months) long. You are taught to hate ( whether through the curriculum or in the prison yard) smokers, smart kids, dumb kids, sick kids, rich people, white people, British people, southern people, German people, gun owners, etc. Hate flows through public school as much as it flows through Emperor Palpatine's cancerous bowels.

      3. The best answer I've gotten is that public schools don't teach people to hate anymore...

        True. That's what homeschooling is for.

      4. public schools don't teach people to hate anymore..

        It's nice to know that they think there's no more racism, sexism, or bigotry in the US anymore.

    4. -You would think the people who view things like the Tuskegee experiments to be the essential narrative of American history would be a bit skeptical of letting the American government own everyone's healthcare.

      I always tell ACA supporters, wait until the next Republican administration gets into office, maybe a SoCon, and they start making regulations that are the flip side of the contraceptive mandate.

      1. I get your point, but I suspect the R counterpart to the contraceptive mandate would just be having people pay for their own birth control.

        1. I am thinking of things like requiring health plan to cover things like counseling from 'crisis pregnancy centers' or, as PB mentions, regulatory measures at the federal level related to reproductive rights.

      2. They already are at the state level.

        "Mandatory vaginal ultrasounds" are not just a GOP fetish.

        1. What is a vaginal ultrasound?

          1. A weird experience. I had one to check for possible DVTs a million years ago - I had to drink a lot of water in advance so my bladder would be easily identifiable, so I was busting. Then the chick gets this long device, popped a condom on it, but her embarrassment meant she was utterly useless at inserting it, so I did it.

          2. It's when you hum while performing cunnilingus. Chicks love it.

          3. trans-vag, is what they're called. It's when what's in your uterus (or other female parts) is too small to get picked up by the external ultrasound . . . so they go in from the inside.

    5. Most people in Canada know only as much about the US's health care system as what Michael Moore told them in his ridiculous documentary. They look down on the US for its gun laws and health care system from such an ivory tower is amazes me.

      Canadians will acknowledge their health care systems short comings but would never touch the idea of private hospitals and Doctors. There is a mental block or something stopping them from even exploring the idea with any critical thought.

      However whenever a politician gets sick here they seems to be the first to book a plain down to the US for their health care. Funny how that works.

  21. WAPO: Syria's crisis averted? Not so fast.

    But now the (chemical weapon) arsenal has been traded for a much more tangible benefit: "to remove the threat of aggression" by the United States. That has allowed the regime to go back to waging a merciless war against civilians. In recent weeks Syrian planes have resumed bombing in urban areas, while ground forces have come up with a new way to eliminate resistance in the Damascus suburbs that were the target of the Aug. 21 gas attack: They are blocking food supplies with the aim of starving their residents.

    1. To be honest, I always wondered why the Syrian government would even use chemical weapons. I can't imagine it would give the government that much of an advantage, and it would just piss off everyone else. That they are using the tactic described by WaPo is unsurprising in the least.

  22. Family left heartbroken after police officer shoots their pet dog dead in front of mother and 2-year-old son

    Nothing else happened.

  23. Contractors See Weeks of Work on Health Site

    Federal contractors have identified most of the main problems crippling President Obama's online health insurance marketplace, but the administration has been slow to issue orders for fixing those flaws, and some contractors worry that the system may be weeks away from operating smoothly, people close to the project say.

  24. Sigh

    -Five states this month advanced funding to the federal government to reopen some of their national parks and protect themselves from major losses in tourism revenue during the 16-day shutdown. Now those states are hoping for reimbursement.


    1. They should take the parks over via eminent domain.

      1. No, the parks should be privatized. States taking their citizen's money for parks is wrong. The federal government taking money for them is also wrong. The state's demanding federal money for them is even worse.

  25. Time for that popular (ha!) "Ask a Libertarian" for personal advice:

    "Our Friend is Demanding We Stop Socializing with His Ex-Wife"

    There are seven sets of couples in our circle of friends who have been very close for the past 9-10 years. About four years ago, one of the couples began to experience marriage troubles. "Frank" became involved with a girl he met online while his wife, "Miranda," was away on an extended business trip. Frank and Miranda kept their problems mostly private and tried to work through his affair. About nine months ago, Miranda came clean about her own infidelity so she and Frank filed for divorce, and it was finalized about five months ago.

    Since the divorce, more details about the demise of their marriage have come out and Frank is expecting that we drop Miranda from the circle of friends. He's become extremely confrontational with the women who have remained in contact with Miranda, and he has asked the men to talk to their wives about not speaking to Miranda or including her in any events that we plan. We have all expressed that we want to remain friends with Miranda and have tried to have events where she does not attend, but Frank wants for us to "pick him" over her.

    1. Keep pushing Frank, and they'll just stop talking to you.

      1. Surprised they haven't already. Having events with just one of them at a time seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise.

  26. Jets fan who punched woman served prison time for stabbing a teen to death

    The male New York Jets fan who punched a woman in the face after Sunday's game has been identified
    The man is Kurt Paschke, a 38-year-old bartender from Suffolk County, New York who served time for the stabbing death of a teenager in 1992
    Paschke has no been charged with an offense as yet
    Police are currently investigating the brawl

    Here's the best part:

    The father of the deceased told the New York Post that Paschke 'got off lightly' for the stabbing of his son because Paschke's father was a Suffolk County police officer.

    1. Are you suggesting there's a double standard? How dare you!

    2. Hmm, a police officer's son is a violent sociopathic murderer who used state/personal connections to gain leniency AND he likes punching women in the face? Who'da Thunk It?

      1. Like father like son.

    3. Unless the teen had a knife too, that is what we like to call murder. And that kid's father has more self control than I do. If some guy murdered my kid and got off lightly, I wouldn't murder him. But I would knee cap him or do something else to let him live his life in pain just like he left me to live my life in mourning for my child.

      1. In a way, shotgunning someone's kneecaps into oblivion is probably a worse fate than death. Especially if some flak rips through the groin area.

        1. Yes it really is.

        2. Pretty sure I'd take the knee capping. I don't think that most people confined to wheelchairs would be better off dead. Even with no dick.
          The will to live is quite strong in most people and it kind of amazes me how quickly some people will declare that death would be preferable to one thing or another.

          1. You're will to live is admirable Zeb, but heck, people jump off bridges because all their money was wiped out, their wife left them, it rains too much in Seattle, etc. I'm sure for those types of people, being a cripple with no dick is cause enough for suicide. The will to live is not as strong as you think it is.

            1. Your. Fucking Engrish.

            2. Right, but those people are a tiny minority of people in the situations you describe. The vast majority of people want to live even when their life sucks. Most people who kill themselves are fucked up in the head before whatever triggers their suicide happens. It is very rarely a rational response to suffering.

    4. Watch the whole video - she hits him first. While most adult men would just push her away to disengage - he didn't start it.

      A women who wants to fight men because they won't punch her back hit the wrong thug.

      1. That's fair Drake. I couldn't watch the video, but if that's what happened, his reaction, despite his history, is not surprising. Still, he sounds like an asshole.

        1. Oh yes. A safe assumption that everyone in the video is an asshole.

          1. Duh, they're Jets fans

      2. This may be an un-libertarian position but unless a women is threatening a man with some sort of weapon it is beyond the plae to every hit a woman. Especially at some moronic football game.

        1. Not buying it. It only takes one lucky punch to destroy an eye, crush a trachea, or knock someone cold so they bust their head on the ground. You assault someone, you deserve to get your ass kicked.

          1. A fair reply. However, aren't women on average significantly weaker than men owing to less muscle mass and smaller bones? That would be one magic fist...

            1. Well, a child could put an eye out on a 300 lb body builder. The trachea isn't much better protected. Cold cocking someone is more difficult of course, but it probably doesn't take that much force if you hit someone in the temple.

              1. Well, a child could put an eye out on a 300 lb body builder

                With...a Red Rider BB Gun? You see, this is why we need gun control lawz.

                1. But it was an icicle!

          2. I'd qualify this and say that your response should be measured. If you get slapped, that isn't license to bash your opponents face in.

        2. Sexist.

          One shouldn't hit someone weaker than they are if there are other reasonable alternatives no matter their sex or the venue.

          1. I don't think it qualifies as sexism since women on average are significanlty weaker than men but yes I agree.

            1. Have you ever seen two women fight? What they lack in strength/size they make up for in ferocity and dirty tricks.

              1. Umm...yes...I think you have something here.

                I know...we'll just pass a law making all pugilistic altercations subject to Queensbury Rules.

                Problem solved!

  27. Damn, Longtorso, I'll just stop posting the serious stuff.

    1. She wouldn't have needed to do it if you had Canadian health care

  28. Jon Stewart Tackles Obamacare Site: 'How Are Democrats Gonna Spin This Turd?' (VIDEO)


    You would never see conservatives demonstrate this type of honesty. The disaster in Iraq was cheer-led by John types for the entire Bush administration. And it was a real disaster - not a fake one.

    If a web site delays your insurance purchase you call that an "inconvenience" - not a DISASTER!

    1. Sure, ruining everyone's healthcare is just a fake disaster.

      1. John, they didn't even spend a billion dollars on it. How can we expect it to possibly be close to working?

        1. Iraq cost over $1 trillion and killed 4500 US soldiers and it is just a "mistake" now.

          The ACA cost $400 million and it is a DISASTER!

          1. Yeah, the cost of the ACA is just the cost of the website. Not the cost in lost jobs or higher insurance or anything.

            And since you think Bush fucked up Iraq, Obama now has a blank check to fuck up as much as he wants.

            Come on retard. The fuckers at KOS surely gave you better talking points this morning than but BUUSSHHH!! And if they didn't, that means you are not supposed to say anything. Don't make up your own talking points. Wait until your handlers give you one. That is why they are the handlers and you are the sock puppet.

            1. Did you support that debacle in Iraq John? That is pretty incredible. As horrible big government projects go it is right up there with Obamacare.

              1. Yes Bo, lets not talk about the ACA, lets have thread number 1 million about Iraq.

                See Shreek. Your handlers apparently sent us Bo to show you what a proper troll looks like. The idea is to constantly change the debate away from facts you don't like but to do it in a way that makes you look concerned and on our side, not in some vulgar idiotic way that makes you look retarded.

                1. I am just asking a question. You rail a lot about big government programs here. How do you reconcile that with your support (which I take from your dodge) for that nation-building debacle?

                  Now I have to wonder, did you support Bush's NSA doings as well?


                    1. My, but you are silly.

                      If you met someone that loudly (and rightly, in my opinion; I have never said a good work about Obamacare) denounced the ACA as a horrible, arrogant, big government program and then you heard they supported the Iraq debacle I think you could rightly ask them 'what is up with that' without trying to blame everything on 'Booosh' or what not.

                  2. But I bet you supported clintons war in kosovo!

                  3. Now I have to wonder, did you support Bush's NSA doings as well?

                    John goosesteps with the GOP when asked to.

                    1. PB, I have taken you to task numerous times for only focusing on GOP and conservative efforts to undermine liberty. I stand by those. But I have to agree with your statement that a lot of people here get curiously upset when someone notes what an all too recent conservative inconsistency.

                    2. Yeah Retard, I totally support the NSA, not

                      Of you course neither you nor Bo would know that since neither of you ever seem to show up on the NSA threads. Funny that.


                    1. Goodness you are quite emotional sarcasmic. And a bit disturbed to do that so many times in all caps too, perhaps.

                    2. Red herring followed by ad hominem! It's fallacy day!

                    3. Yes, your emotional rant was certainly the epitome of cool logic, sorry if I failed to live up to that standard in my retort.

                    4. Just hear it in Julia Child's voice.

                  5. If you want to have a thread about Iraq, Bo, start one. We have had a million of them. But that is not what you do. What you do is start a thread about Iraq in the middle of an Obamacare thread. You don't want to debate Iraq. You just want to make sure that we don't talk about the failure of Obamacare. Iraq is just your way of changing the subject. That is trolling. And I am not biting.

                    1. John, I actually agreed with and pointed out some additional failings with the ACA in reply to one of your posts supra! So that is a pretty silly charge on your part.

                      This is the first time I have heard that you supported that debacle in Iraq, and I am rightly curious as to how you square that with your denunciations of big government programs like the ACA. Note, I opposed both.

                    2. No you don't. I don't believe you Bo. If you actually thought that, you would be saying it instead of bailing out your fellow troll shreek by trying to continue this red hearing thread.

                      That is all you are doing here. If you want to make a contrary point, do what Justin did above regarding gun control and just make your point in your own thread. He is a liberal not a troll. You in contrast only make such points in the middle of other conversations where liberals are being criticized. It is not hard to figure out what you are doing.

                    3. Actually, I think Justin S is a troll. He didnt respond to my question in response to his questions.

                    4. Maybe Justin is a troll. But I am fine with his trolling. It is not that people shouldn't be able to make liberal points on this site. It is that they shouldn't do so for the purpose of distributing conversations they don't like by creating red herrings.

                    5. I never felt joe was a troll.

                      He was a liberal willing to argue his position.

                      Justin wont respond. Hence, a troll.

                    6. Bo.

                      Ive pointed you to this before, but you fail to listen.

                      There is a search box at the top of the page. If you want to know John's position on Iraq, you can find it easily enough.

                      You can also find me and joe arguing about Venezuela, in case that ever comes up. My position is clear and available via search, so I dont feel the need to repeat myself.

                      See also, my position on Coase. Which is oddly appropriate in this subthread.

                    7. Additonally, my positions on redheads and alt-text are both readily available, though no particularly relevant to a discussion about ACA.

                    8. Lets have another thread on Iraq and while we are at it Sarcasmic and I can argue about fat women. You know, something knew and different.

                    9. The plus-size market is one of the most neglected sectors in fashion. So why are brands STILL failing larger women?


                      Because not everyone is a chubby-chaser like John?

                    10. There is no sugar coating it...


            1. have you ever experienced the near magical accuracy of their jigsaws? then shutup.

  29. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.....00254.html

    It is QE infinity. Reasons why I haven't bought a house. The asset bubble is going to burst sooner or later.

    1. Why? The inflation will eventually push up prices.

      I want to buy a farm and hide from the coming crash.

        1. I know. Even as a nice fantasy, it ends in gunfire with SWAT.

      1. They'll (the state raped banks or the government that takes over said banks during a crash) will probably scale your mortgage with the value of the dollar on a whim. I also suspect this would happen with student loan debt. So basically, the only saving grace of inflation, paying off more with less, will be quashed by the jack-booted fucks on day 1 of the "NOW we're Boned" times.

        However, buying a relatively cheap farm outright ASAP, might not be a bad idea.

    2. The reason to buy a house is because you can afford it and it is a place to live. If you like living in someone else's property, of course that's ok too, but it isn't yours.

      1. Of course, as long as I have a mortgage, my house really isn't mine either. And yes, the only reason to buy a house is for a place to live. But if you have a mortgage and the value crashes, you better like living there because you won't be selling it for a long time.

        1. Are you not worried about inflation and interest rates?

          1. Perhaps. But of course the higher interest rates go, the less people can afford to pay for houses. So the end price ends up the same. If interest rates go back up, housing values will fall to make up for the increases in borrowing costs.

      2. You don't own your house. You're renting it from the government. Don't believe me? Try skipping your property taxes.

  30. Marianne Williamson, the best-selling author whose "A Return to Love" spent 39 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list in 1992, announced Sunday that she is running as an independent for the US House of Representatives in California's 33rd District

    Williamson writes on her campaign website that [Henry] Waxman has been a good representative for 38 years and that she does not consider him an opponent. Rather, she sees them both as simply different candidates for the same position.

    Gee, what a nice lady!

    1. She has to be an improvement over the evil Moleman from Planet X.

      1. She's making sure he'll get reelected by gathering protest votes that might have gone to a Republican. And if she does get in by some miracle, then they have as bad or worse representation.

        Her entire campaign is a illegal donation to Waxman.

        1. That doesn't surprise me. And now that you say it, it makes sense. So this will allow the moleman to embrace the total state and his low sloping forehead supporters to salve their consciences by making a protest vote they know won't really mean anything.


    2. Stephen King is a best-selling author, generally respected in his field, and a freaking millionaire. He is also a statist fuck who thinks you should pay more taxes while probably skirting as much of his tax liability as possible through loopholes, lawyers, accountants, etc. When it comes to political power, I wouldn't trust many best-selling authors with it.

  31. I don't read the site for one fucking day and there's already a new meme? WTF is this "sugarcoating" shite?

    1. There is no sugarcoating it. Kristen is a little behind.

      1. Kristen is a little behind.

        Said nobody, ever. (because my behind is enormous. Get it? Ha ha!)

        1. Yesterday in response to Obama saying "there is no sugar coating it, the website is working too slow" I said that claiming something that is not functioning is working slow is sugar coating it as in "There is no sugar coating it, TWA flight 800 is not going to arrive on time". And thus a new meme was born.

        2. Funny, I regretted that phrasing for exactly the reason that it might be misconstrued as "having"...

    2. All credit to John, with an assist by Obama.


      1. I support reason by supporting its sponsors but this is a bridge too far.

  33. http://www.gallup.com/poll/165.....arter.aspx

    Obama job approval barely above Bush at this point in his second term and only above Bush and Nixon when compared to all Presidents since Truman.

    1. Can you imagine if he wasn't getting shit tons of free propaganda from the job-seekers in the MSM?

  34. Kathyrn Jean Lopez Interview Asks: Should Pro-lifers be Vegetarians?

    -Fifty billion animals are tortured and killed in factory farms every year. Fifty billion. Concern for the horrific treatment and mass slaughter of such animals is not an issue of the Left or the Right, nor is it an issue opposed to the dignity of human beings. Virtually no one needs to eat factory-farmed meat, and, indeed, the huge amount of meat in our diets is one of the important causes of heart disease and cancer. That such large numbers animals are doused with antibiotics is also likely to cause even more drug-resistant disease. Furthermore, our factory-farmed meat is often made artificially cheap on the backs of poor and desperate immigrant workers. Pro-life Christians are committed to standing on principle, against a culture of violence and death, in favor of vulnerable populations. It is high time we include concern for animals as part of this commitment.


    1. If you assume that animals are morally equivalent to people, then yes. Otherwise, no.

      1. I think you can have a middle ground though. Just because animals are not morally the same as people, doesn't mean they have no moral standing. Animal cruelty is still wrong even if it is not on the same level of wrongness as human cruelty.

        1. If you don't equate the two, you can be a vegetarian but it doesn't rise to the level that you necessarily should be.

        2. I agree with this that there can be a middle ground. However, you need to have priorities because we are not gods with infinite compassion for every little thing that goes wrong. In my experience, moral vegetarians save every drop of their indignation for bunnies in distress. IMO that is effectively an FU to humans.

      2. I think you just have to equate animals with fetuses.

        1. Only when I can stick another fetus on the barbie

          1. I think it is too literal to say 'one is about eating, the other not.' If people were eating fetuses rather than what they do in aborting them pro-lifers would, of course, be equivalently horrified. As they say, 'murder is murder.'

            1. That was a joke based on my being Australian. But go ahead and be all serious...

              1. Well, I was responding as much to several other like comments, mate.

        2. That's the same thing if you are pro-lifer.

        3. I think you just have to equate animals with fetuses.

          Which, of course, pro-lifers don't. So, uh... yeah. Good job. You were within spitting distance of actually having a point.

    2. No one needs to write for a living either. Think of all the resources wasted on publishing and writing and stop.

    3. It hinges on the misnomer "pro-life" and the argument that "life begins at conception."

      The argument against abortion is based on when human personhood applies. It has no implications on diet, unless you are eating fetuses.

      A more powerful argument is "Why aren't vegetarians who oppose eating meat for ethical reason not also oppose to abortion?"

      1. That is a good point. Pro life really is a misnomer. No one, or most people not named Peter Singer or members of the Environmental Liberation Front, is pro death. We all agree murder is wrong. It is just a question of what is murder.

        1. And it's not about life generally, but about individual human lives. Life does just fine in any case.

        2. Well, in equal time fairness, pro-choice is a bit of a misnomer, as no one thinks people should be free to choose 'murder.' The difference between the two sides comes almost completely by the fact that one sees murder, the other does not.

          1. The difference between the two sides comes almost completely by the fact that one sees murder, the other does not.

            Exactly, and really, they both see the same thing (with rare exceptions), its just about drawing the line.

            Well, maybe not as universally as I just made it, but at least the intralibertarian debate should be entirely about where to draw the line. Before X, its fine*, after X, its murder.

            *and by fine, I mean "not murder", not necessary moral. If you think X is conception, you can still be opposed to birth control even while supporting its legality.

    4. If they want to be. Not really related positions.

    5. This is good debate for pro lifers to be having. Youre not a pro lifer. You should focus on getting your choicrr allies to repudiate the likes of peter singer who preach animal rights while allowing the killing of newborn humans.

      1. Why would someone care what Peter Singer thinks just because they happen to agree with him about the legality of abortion?

        1. It is guilt by association. One of those fallacies that logic police like sarcasmic oddly let slide around here when conservatives make them.

          1. I think it is fairly obvious what you are doing. You're setting out a position held by a minority of pro-lifers and putting forth that position as normative for all pro-lifers, so that you can dismiss the prolife majority as hypocrites whose arguments aren't worth responding to - since they don't *really* believe their own principles anyway!

            You want to hold prolifers accountable for not taking a stand on factory farming, but suddenly it's guilt by association to point out the silence of most choicers about the most prominent animal-rights activist in their midst.

            1. You're setting out a position held by a minority of pro-lifers and putting forth that position as normative for all pro-lifers

              Perhaps so.

              You should focus on getting your choicrr allies to repudiate the likes of peter singer who preach animal rights while allowing the killing of newborn humans.

              But then it's ok when you do the same thing.


              (deep breath)


              Eddie, welcome to the John category. You're dishonest and irrelevant.

              1. I'm suggesting that choicers should repudiate Singer, especially since (as you seem to claim) they don't share his views. So is this a "no enemies on the left" kind of thing, or is it simply embarrassing to admit the existence of this crazy uncle (who not only is an ivy league professor but was appointed as a professor of *ethics*).

                It's amusing that the choicers' animal-rights problem is so bad, but we're focusing on a prolife debate over factory farming.

                Ha (X infinity)

                1. You don't need to limit it to Pete Singer. Planned Parenthood (or their reps) and the President are on record saying that they have no opinion on killing a newborn in a botched abortion.

                  1. Indeed, their vacillation (at best) on this issue is troubling.

                    Singer is important because his pro-infanticide views are so explicit and blatant, and because he's known as a champion of animal rights - the issue which Bo strangely thinks is a vulnerability for the prolifers, not his side.

                2. Why does anyone need to repudiate assholes like Singer just because they happen to share one view with him? Not everyone defines their whole existence based on whether they think abortion should be legal or not. I know you do, so maybe that makes it difficult for you to understand, but most of us don't primarily identify as "choicers" or "lifers".

                  1. Gosh, I wasn't referring to you, but to choicer organiztions like Planned parenthood, NARAL, and the Democratic Party - you know, the ones who organize their existence around whether abortion should be legal or not. The ones who demand that prolifers repudiate the Nietzschean Eric Rudolph.

                    Why did you think I was referring to you?

  35. What was it that the Great and Powerful Zero said about preferring to be a successful one term president rather than a two term nonentity?

    How's that coming along?

    1. IN fairness, I am not sure he will be remembered as a nonentity. You can't call an arsonist productive, but you can't call him a nonentity either.

  36. Her entire campaign is a illegal donation to Waxman.

    How can you say that? It's not like she's writing him a check.

    1. "In kind" contribution. If he paid for her campaign to give him cover, it would be illegal; if she gave him the amount of money she's going to pay to give him cover, it would be illegal.

      SLD on campaign finance laws, of course.

      1. Above, I made a comment on most of the media being essentially a propaganda outfit for Obama. If Senator Smalley were to ever succeed with his quest to overturn Citizens United, the Republicans could sue almost every major media outfit in the country for in-kind contributions.

        But they wouldn't, of course, because stupid party.

        1. Damn, that's a good idea.

  37. Beer company under fire for 'dumb blonde' variety which they say 'goes down easy'

    Deep Ellum Brewing criticised for using 'rape culture' to sell beer
    Have used the logo and catchphrase on pink vans in marketing campaign
    Texas-based firm claim it is just a play on words and is 'meant to be fun'

    I blame the government! The whole point of labels needing to be approved by regulators before they can be used is to prevent crimes like this from happening! The bureaucrat who approved this must be taken out and shot!

    1. Are they being told to stop or else or are a bunch of people just butt hurt about it? In fairness that is a pretty idiotic and unfunny slogan. I really don't see how it is a good idea to alienate half of your customer base. But, most advertising is an insult to the human race anyway.

    2. Perhaps the finest beer ad ever


      1. That is awesome.

    3. Awesome, I'll have to go buy some more. I typically don't like blondes all that much but that one is quite delicious as it actually packs some flavor in.

    4. Indicating a willingness to perform oral sex is promoting rape?

      Cool story, fembro.

      1. Mean girls suck. Nice girls swallow.

        Nope, doesnt help figure out the rape aspect.

        1. When a woman is giving head, she can't continuously give consent?

          1. I realized that in my current relationship (yes, I really have one), there hasnt been a single step that I have received consent in advance. Nor have I asked for it.

            Im old school. I just go for it and see what response I get.

            1. ERMAHGERD! [sutherland shriek]

      2. Q) What's the difference between a job and a wife?

        A) After a few years the job still sucks.

    5. How are blow jobs part of rape culture?

      And who is raping who in that case?

    6. I suspect that it's more than just feminists who would have a problem with this brand. They're probably trying to promote sales of their dumb brand by picking a fight with a feminist, as if anyone who isn't a feminist would love this stuff.

  38. Beer company under fire for 'dumb blonde' variety which they say 'goes down easy'

    Next up: Railroad Porter, in the twenty four ounce can. "It's black and it's huge. You want it inside you."

    1. Next up: Railroad Porter, in the twenty four ounce can. "It's black and it's huge. You want it inside you.

      If they can get the rights to use this clip they've got another ready made commercial for it:

      "I want to put my dick in it! I want it to put its dick in me!"

  39. "Google is working on technology services to bypass censorship, unveiling uProxy yesterday."

    Will the proxy service be run on NSA servers?

    P.S. Don't be evil.

  40. 'Women need to stop spreading their legs like peanut butter': What college rape victim 'was told by cop when she complained about being raped on campus'


  41. The NSA chief is lobbying for the Congress to reintroduce CISPA, a bill that would allow internet companies to share more data with the government.

    I wonder if Rand Paul and/or Justin Amash would be willing to introduce a bill (or attach an ammendment to an existing bill) barring agencies or departments of the executive branch from lobbying Congress for specific laws? Especially laws that result in more power for said agencies or departments.

    As much as I hate the idea of Congress creating more laws, this one might be useful. If there's some way they can make the acronym spell out "fuck off slavers" that would be awesome.

    1. Such a law already exists. The NSA chief is breaking the law here. The executive is supposed to propose things, answer questions and generally be accountable to Congress. They are not allowed to lobby. Funny how they use that word never realizing they are accusing the NSA Chief of a crime. But most journalists are profoundly ignorant about the law and government even though that is most of what they cover.

      1. In that case I'll expect NSA chief Alexander to be arrested and the Lightbringer to request his immediate resignation any day now...

        BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!1111!!!!!! Yeah right, laws are for proles!

  42. http://www.politico.com/story/.....98647.html

    Bloomburg making big ad buy for Mcauliffe. But you can totally believe him when he says he is pro gun rights. If you give the Dems the state House, kiss your guns goodbye Virginia.

    1. If that happens maybe every county west of Richmond will want to attach to West Virginia.

    2. Does he need it? I thought polls had McAuliffe substantially ahead already.

  43. When a woman is giving head, she can't continuously give consent?

    She's nodding her enthusiastic consent the whole time.

    1. She better not be from the Balkans!

  44. The DoD is apparently going to make the Air Force fly all of Congress down to Florida and back for the funeral of their fellow critter who just died, at taxpayer expense of course. I've never heard of such a thing until now.

    Remember, there's not a single penny in government left to cut though!

    1. Well, it might actually be cheaper than reimbursing them for all those last-minute booking, first class seats on commercial flights.

      Which isn't to defend the practice of reimbursing them for travel to funerals, but rather as long as we must do this let it be done in the cheapest fashion possible. Personally, I think chartering some motorcoaches would be best. Low-bidder wins, of course.

    2. If it is in the unpressurized cargo hold of a C-17, I support this idea.

      1. C-130 rollin' down the strip,
        Takin' all of Congress on a little trip...

  45. Fox pushes back 'Almost Human' premiere date

    There's a football doubleheader on Sunday the 17th that could serve up a huge lead-in to sample the new show at 8 p.m. Fox must have figured the upside of getting a bunch of NFL fans checking out its sci-fi drama outweighed the downside to having a new series debut at an odd time and changing the date so close to premiere. Fox has used big football opportunities to launch 24 in previous seasons as well.

    Hopefully this means the show is pretty good. The previews looked interesting.

    1. Parks and Rec already scheduled next 2 episode have been moved to mid-November. I wounder if the TV stations know something we don't.

      [whistles x-files theme]

      1. Whoa. You are blowing my mind, man!

        Haven't they done that before? I think it's just one of those "low-ish ratings but dedicated fan base" shows that gets crapped on a lot.

        1. Parks and Rec got bumped for a SNL clip special, so it might be a ratings game. Or they are saving up two eps of P&R to replace a sitcom-to-be-cancelled-later.

          The Almost Human push sounds like the advance buzz is weak and maybe Fox is going to fiddle with the show. It has to be a desperation move, they've been running the Nov. 4th promos hard for the last two weeks.

          1. They're not saving up P&R eps - they're airing back-to-back P&R eps when it comes back on air.

            1. Then I am truly baffled. It's probably the last season anyway. Rob Lowe and Rshida Jones are only on half the season and Polher has some new projects that have been announced.

              1. I could tell from the premiere that they were not only wrapping up the Chris-Ann stories, but every storyline. They've gotten to 100 episodes and they're in syndication, so I think NBC has told the showrunners to tie everything up.

                And the lack of Chris Pratt is awful.

                1. His weight-loss for Zero Dark Thirty was explained well: "I just stopped drinking beer and I lost like 30 pounds!"

      2. Yep. They pushed back Ron's traditional pirate costume until after Halloween. The bastards.

  46. I wonder if Rand Paul and/or Justin Amash would be willing to introduce a bill (or attach an ammendment to an existing bill) barring agencies or departments of the executive branch from lobbying Congress for specific laws?

    I would be okay with a restriction on "any individual or entity" who can be shown to be a direct beneficiary of a law to be prohibited from lobbying for it.

    Unfortunately, it will never happen.

    1. So, willing to toss free speech out the window, eh?

      I have no trouble forbidding govt agencies from lobbying, but barring individuals is counter-freedom.

  47. For out patriarchical, rape culture promoting, "this is why there are no femele libertarians" commenters:

    Natural celebrity boobies.

    1. How do we know those are all natural?

      1. Only Perry, Jennifer Lawrence and Hewitt haven't done a nude scene or haven't had nude photos leak out of the group.

        Blake Lively had a boob job. Her leaked nudes show it rather plainly.

    2. Why the hell is Miley Cyrus in this list?

      1. Kelly Osbourne is a better "Why the Hell?"

        1. Ooof. She shouldn't be on either, but I think I would take her over Miley.

          1. It's one of things where if you met Miley in a reality where she wasn't a celebrity, most would find her a reasonably attractive girl for her age, bit of a butterface, but a nice body.

            It's hard to make that argument about Kelly Osbourne.

            1. bit of a butterface

              A bit? That face could curdle milk!

              1. She's not horrible looking for a young girl with a severe case of Bell's Palsy.

        2. The comments mentioned Kat Dennings, Jessica Simpson, and Salma Hayek as much better choices.

          1. Yes, No*, Yes


            1. No to Jessica Simpson? Over Miley or Kelly?

              1. No to all three. No, no, no.

                Alison Brie

        3. I think they may have had trouble coming up with 20 celebs with nice racks (it's about their tits, not their faces or the rest of their bodies) that aren't fake.

    3. Any list of breasts without Olivia Munn doesn't count.

      1. Bitch looks like Alice Cooper, Sarc.

  48. "Fecundophobia: The Growing Fear Of Children And Fertile Women

    "By Molly Hemingway

    "...There is much more than a whiff of the misogyny in denigrating mothers of multiple children as brainless, in stating that mothers who are homemakers are inferior to those who "earn" their living, or in attacking women for prioritizing fertility above independence. It's not just that nobody on planet earth could be truly independent ? which is to say completely self-reliant or free of any other human support. It's not just that we each depended on others from the moment of our conception to birth, but all of society is comprised of individuals who work with each other and depend on each other throughout their lives. Or healthy societies are, at least. It may be impolitic to suggest that men and women are in any way different, science be damned, but many women have a particular specialty in cultivating relationships and family. To denigrate women who acknowledge and accept this as a good thing rather than fight against it is not exactly life-affirming.

    1. "...In August, I visited the Hawthorne Street Fair in Portland, Oregon, and had a blast. A parade of Occupy protesters marched down the street, calling on everyone to vacate their houses and live outside ? and to turn their houses into houseplant sanctuaries. I hadn't been at the street fair more than five minutes before I was asked to sign something in support of Planned Parenthood. Then I saw the NARAL Pro-Choice America booth, encouraging activism in support of abortion rights. A few blocks later I was thankful to see enthusiastic signage in support of adoption. It turned out to be about pet adoption. By the time I got to the tent with a sign that said "Thank you for not breeding," I'd had enough."


      1. That reminded me of an article in WSJ a few months ago


        Younger women want to delay pregnancy, which is arguably worse than not wanting kids ever. Because the chances of fertility decrease dramatically in their mid-30s.

        1. ...worse than not wanting kids ever.

          And what is wrong with not wanting kids ever?

          1. Nothing. As long as you're tolerant of other people wanting kids.

            1. Actually that reminds me of something my friend witnessed in a grocery store - a busybody liberal lady chastising a pregnant lady for contributing to overpopulation.

              1. Ah, yeah. That's uncalled for and dickish. Sorry if I misread you. I've been dealing with a lot of vitriol for my position of not wanting kids. I was recently told that I must be defective if I didn't have the natural desire to have lots of children. Shit gets old real quick.

                1. It all comes back to the fact that people are willing to impose their beliefs on others. If i believed that way (which I don't, because i didn't want kids as recently as 2 years ago), there's no way in hell i'd tell you what i thought, unless you asked for my opinion on the matter.

                  as much as i'm skeptical of the whole "society is becoming crude, and that's a bad thing" argument from the cultur wurrors, i do agree that a lack of respect for others is killing a lot of good things. It's not anymore that people agree to disagree and go their separate ways. Now they go petition the government to pass laws to get their way.

  49. So, willing to toss free speech out the window, eh?

    Yes, exactly.

    Two colluding parties working behind the scenes to craft a means of funneling taxpayers' funds into specific projects for their mutual benefit is the ultimate form of "free speech".

    It makes me want to arise from this chair and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

    1. Yes, exactly.

      Well, thanks for admitting that.

      But you can't snark your way out of the corner into which you've painted yourself.

      Two colluding parties working behind the scenes to craft a means of funneling taxpayers' funds into specific projects for their mutual benefit is the ultimate form of "free speech".

      So, judge them on their intent, or at least what you feel their intent is. Srsly, Brooksie?

      Look, government agencies have no business lobbying congress. It's reasonable to prohibit federal employees from lobbying congress on anything to do with the function of the agency by which they are employed. But if you want to cut off private individuals, you're no better than the proggies who whine about Citizens United. Srsly.

  50. If Senator Smalley were to ever succeed with his quest to overturn Citizens United, the Republicans could sue almost every major media outfit in the country for in-kind contributions.

    But they're just telling the truth. That's their job.

  51. But if you want to cut off private individuals, you're no better than the proggies who whine about Citizens United. Srsly.

    The real solution, of course, is to limit the ability of ANYONE to financially benefit from manipulating the legislative process, by reducing the scope of government meddling in the economy. But currently, we have a system in which business interests can generate revenue more successfully by lobbying for preferential treatment than by creating and delivering desirable products and services.

    1. Would I be prohibited from lobbying to repeal the income tax?

  52. And- The relationship between Citizens United and corporations is a red herring, because the money is much more effective when spent on lobbying.

  53. Would I be prohibited from lobbying to repeal the income tax?

    No. Unless you were lobbying for a repeal applying solely to you.

  54. Why is it that grand juries almost always fail to indict Police Officers? They are just a rubber stamp for every other dumb law that a Prosecutor wants to go after someone with, why is it so hard to indict Police?

    Are grand juries really just such Police cheerleaders that they never see any wrong? Do Prosecutors somehow just minimize the charges or make them so boring as to seem unimportant?

  55. Hello dear, are you enjoying with this comical YouTube video? Hmmm, that?s nice, I am as well watching this YouTube funny video at the moment.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.