A.M. Links: China Warns Banks About Bitcoin, FTC Worried About Sponsored Content Online, Elizabeth Warren Says She's Not Running For President in 2016

|

  • hihowareya?
    Twp/Wikipedia

    The Chinese government has warned banks in the country to avoid Bitcoin, which it says is highly susceptible to being used by criminals and money launderers, and wants transactions registered. The price of a Bitcoin fell after the announcement. Ron Paul, meanwhile, says Bitcoin could become the "destroyer of the dollar" if it starts being used on a massive scale.

  • The FTC is concerned you're too stupid to tell when you're reading sponsored content on the internet.
  • Detroit's primary pension plan will appeal the decision by a judge this week that Detroit is eligible for bankruptcy.
  • Elizabeth Warren says she will not run for president in 2016 and will serve out her Senate term, similar to promises Barack Obama made prior to the 2008 election.
  • An Indiana restaurant has been forced to stop serving free lunches because neighboring businesses complained about the crowd the Thursday offer attracted.
  • Martin Bashir has resigned from MSNBC a few weeks after suggesting someone defecate in Sarah Palin's mouth. Alec Baldwin was previously terminated for getting caught hurling an anti-gay slur at a photographer.
  • A truck carrying medical radioactive material that was hijacked yesterday in Mexico has been found. The container holding the cobalt-60 has been open, and the thieves, still at large, may show up seeking medical attention for radiation exposure.

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: Cameron Urges British Schools To Teach Mandarin After Returning From China

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. Ron Paul, meanwhile, says Bitcoin could become the “destroyer of the dollar” if it starts being used on a massive scale.

    Chuck Schumer just ran to his panic room.

    1. Hat tip to Paul for this:

      OT: Computer Science researchers claim that specific types of attack show that BitCoin is fundamentally broken:

      http://www.businessinsider.com…..en-2013-11

      What happens when a selfish mining group is formed?

      Once a group of selfish miners appear on the horizon, rational miners will preferentially join that mining group to obtain a share of their higher revenues. And their revenues will increase with increasing group size. This creates a dynamic where the attackers can quickly acquire majority mining power, at which point the decentralized nature of the Bitcoin currency collapses, as the attackers get to control all transactions.

      When a single pool controls the currency, does the value of a Bitcoin go to $0?

      No. It all depends on how the controlling group runs the currency. But the decentralization, which in our view is so critical to Bitcoin’s adoption, is lost. It would not be at all healthy for the Bitcoin ecosystem.

      […]
      What’s the core discovery here?

      We’re the first to discover that the Bitcoin protocol is not incentive-compatible. The protocol can be gamed by people with selfish interests. And once the system veers away from the happy mode where everyone is honest, there is no force that opposes the growth of really large pools that command control of the currency.

      I don’t know too much about bitcoin, but is this realistic?

      1. The enemy of any currency is counterfeiting. In the case of bitcoin, unless the system is totally secure, I don’t see how someone couldn’t break in and counterfeit the currency out of existence.

        1. There’s really no way to counterfeit. Instead of thinking of it as tokens, think of it as a single ledger with “From” and “To” columns. Only the owner of the value in a previous “To” entry can use that value in a “From” entry.

          If you controlled a lot of the network (51%), you could make two entries for the same “From” (a double spend). It would cost half a billion dollars or more to mount that attack, and if it was for any sizable amount would destroy the value of the currency as soon as it was realized (which it would be immediately.)

          1. Forgive me for my ignorance, but what is to stop me from breaking into the system, fooling it into thinking that I have bought a bunch of bitcoins on my Visa card and then spending those coins before anyone realizes there was no original transaction where I purchased the bitcoins?

            1. bought a bunch of bitcoins on my Visa card and then spending those coins before anyone realizes there was no original transaction

              Validating your Visa transaction isn’t a process unique to bitcoin

              1. True. But stealing from Amazon doesn’t destroy Amazon’s business model the way counterfeiting bitcoins destroys Bitcoin.

            2. The bitcoins have to come from someone/somewhere. It’s a giant shared/distributed ledger, that you can’t change except in ways that the network agrees to. There’s no single system to break into, but millions of them, which all share the same data. To change it, you’d have to convince those systems (half of them, anyway) that your version was correct, which would take the previously mentioned half billion or so.

              You *might* be able to break into one exchange (like Mt.Gox) and steal coins from them. If it turned out they didn’t have any coins in place at the moment, though, there wouldn’t be anything to steal. You couldn’t create new coins.

              The network createsdiscovers coins — 25 every 10 minutes (declining in a few years), and that’s the only way they get created. There’s only 21 million, ever.

              1. Interesting. Thanks.

                1. John, there are some great vids on how bitcoin works, you should check them out. It is fascinating.

                  The only analog to counterfeiting in bitcoin is commanding the block chain as mentioned above (currently nation states would be the only ones close enough to be capable). You CAN create all the bitcoins you want by mining them it is just that it is really hard to do so. The selfish pool approach has been around and well known from the beginning. BC, however, is designed so that this prospect would be very hard to accomplish, and once there are more adoptees it becomes even harder.

                  The single most damaging attack would be to solve the BC algorithm more efficiently. Thus flooding the “supply”, akin to finding a gold mine with triple the world’s current gold supply in it. And that requires new mathematics.

                  1. I will CB. I had no idea that it was so complex. It is very interesting.

                    1. I have a few issues with bitcoin:

                      1) The block chain. Can’t this eventually become unwieldy? Can’t it become a tracking device?

                      2) Gresham’s Law. No matter how sound it is, it will be replaced by an inferior substitute for nearly every transaction. What prevents other developers from creating Bitcoin Two, Bitcoin Three, etc? They could all be just as perfect as Bitcoin, so we have to rely on faith that people will only want to use a small number of them. But we’ve lived through bimetallism and trimetallism, and the resulting promissory notes that started as a veneer only to become, by government fiat, the actual money itself. More importantly, is it actually EASIER for governments to SEIZE?

                    2. to point 1 there are a finite number of coins possible. Once that number is hit then you can talk deflation etc.

                    3. I’m not talking about the number of coins, I’m talking about the “chain of authentication” behind each coin.

          2. It would cost half a billion dollars or more to mount that attack,

            A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

            – Everett Dirksen (supposedly)

            Point: For government, this is not a lot of jack.

            1. I will admit, I pulled that number out of my ass.

              Here’s an indication of the
              Cost to mount a 51% attack compared to the defense budgets of various countries.

              It points to 2.3 billion, between Ecuador and Nigeria.

      2. Only if the selfish miners want to kill all the value of bitcoin. The “selfish miner” has more to lose by being selfish than by being good because a large (25%) selfish mining pool would destroy the usefulness of bitcoin.

        1. Which is one of the benefits of using competing currencies. If someone attempts this they just drive people away from that currency and the selfish miner loses in the end.

          1. Which is one of the benefits of using competing currencies.

            Or using something that is backed by, practically speaking, a substance that is not able to be counterfeited. If only there were such a substance.

            1. While I’m no crypto expert, I think it’s the same mining pool that prevents bitcoin from being counterfeited. It is much faster for the bitcoin network to reject a counterfeit block than checking the material properties of a shiny metal.

            2. If it’s backed by a state, they can will remove that backing.

              If it’s not backed by a state, a state will seize the backer.

              1. I’d like to believe it is possible for a state to find it advantageous to have a currency that is backed by something tangible…like existed once upon a time. Back to the Future! 🙂

                1. .like existed once upon a time

                  Such a thing NEVER existed once upon a time. The state ALWAYS eventually chiseled.

        2. Assuming they realize that and care. Sounds similar to the prisoner’s dilemma.

      3. Selfish mining is a *bit* of an attack, but not really a huge concern. The paper didn’t account for a lot of things involved (propagation delays, I forget a few others).

        Essentially, with selfish mining, a big miner (25% of the network) could get a block ahead, but not tell anyone, and start working on the next block, only releasing them when someone else gets a block.

        The thing is, it becomes likely at some point you won’t be able to stay ahead (just from random chance) and will lose, say, 75 BTC that you mined, when you could have the sure thing of 25 and a chance at the next. And it may damage the value of what you do mine.

        Additionally, it’s obvious to other network participants what is going on (lots of orphaned blocks) and who is doing it. If it was a pool, people would leave that pool. If it was an individual miner, others may band together to avoid.

        Lastly, an easy mitigation is already happening — the big pools are running back channel networks to make sure they talk to each other faster, so if someone were hiding blocks, it gets figured out quickly.

        1. Really, the problem isn’t “Selfish Miners” trying to capture the network in order to profit. It will be Selfish Government Sponsored Entities trying to capture the market so they can destroy the value of the Bitcoin and force everyone back to their fiat currencies.

          Governments manipulate each others’ currencies- there is no reason why they wouldn’t do the same to bitcoin, especially if it only costs a few Billion.

          1. They don’t need to capture a market. All they need to do is enforce legal tender laws and seize the specie. (Bitcoin is more akin to specie than currency).

            Seizing specie generally does two things: it pushes the transactions made in specie “underground” and it increases the value of the remaining specie. My problem with Bitcoin is that I’m not sure the transactions can be completely hidden from the prying panopticon of government.

    2. Panic room? I think he wear a Panic Ring that perpetually drives him to seek out television cameras and bloviate endlessly.

      1. drives him to seek out television cameras and bloviate endlessly.

        If only the TV cameras could film him jogging. The true horror that is Chuck Shumer would have children screeching, women weeping and men turning their heads in disgust. That is the power of moobs.

        1. Damn you! I just pictured Chucky Moobs Schumer in a Baywatch-esque, slow motion jogging sequence – the horror, the horror.

  2. Elizabeth Warren says she will not run for president in 2016 and will serve out her Senate term, similar to promises Barack Obama made prior to the 2008 election.

    Squaw also speak with forked tongue; want to be big chief.

    1. Re the alt-text: I’m beginning to warm to you, Krayewski.

    2. She can’t take back the gift of not running, can she?

      1. Snorted coffee thru my nose…

    3. At this point, what difference does it make?

    4. That this lying, hypocritical fraud was elected to the Senate was worse than the chosen one getting re-elected. It is Massachusetts, but still, I think it shows just how fucked we are that this women was taken seriously. Oh, and Ed Markey.

      1. I don’t get it at all. I listen to Boston radio – albeit conservative radio – but the outright opportunistic and dubious behavior of the Democrats in that state is galling. Yet, as my friend from Boston keeps telling me, smart people live in Massachusetts. I’m not seeing it.

        1. you need to change your definition of smart. It’s like Obama – he has the belief that his thoughts are the only rational thoughts, that any competing viewpoint is not just wrong, it’s illegitimate. Your friend subscribes to the same group, similar to the NY lady from ’72 who didn’t know anyone who voted for Nixon.

          1. In Massholechewsetts, it’s smaht not smart, which has a completely different meaning.

            Like — couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel.

        2. Smart people “Know” that Republicans are evil. Seriously, that’s about as much thought as most MA residents put into their voting.

        3. Howie Carr ?

          It’s the signaling. Smart people vote for Democrats. A vote for Warren means I’m smart. You wouldn’t want to admit to your friends you voted for a Republican !

          1. Howie Carr, yes.

            My friend loathes him but I find he brings up important issues and topics the left dares not discuss. His anger is also entertaining.

            1. Jerry Williams FTW.

        4. IF all the smart people you know vote for Democrats and espouse progressive views and think anyone who doesn’t vote the same way or agree with them is a stone-age throwback, it takes a special degree of independence to go against the grain.

          Also the Republican Party in MA is comically bad. Bunch of fat Rockefeller Republicans who are quite happy to skim the scraps of pork tossed to the western half of the state by the Dem machine in Boston.

          1. Ah, good to know to keep in the back of my mind. But, the candidates who speak on Howie Carr seem to be pretty level-headed. I think the challenge for the GOP in Mass. is to bring some form of balance to the legislature there. It’s run amok with crazy Democrats.

            Still, my friend told me that the left-wing in Quebec is far worse – he works and lives here and sees the difference.

            1. that the left-wing in Quebec is far worse

              *Everything* is worse in Quebec.

                1. Because poutine can’t get any worse?

        5. In my experience there is an inverse relationship between smarts and the number of times one talks about being smart. IN MA, it seems lots of people like to talk about their smarts.

        6. You are sort of making the same mistake that the loyal Democrats in Boston make in assuming that people who disagree with you must be stupid or lying. Smart people come to all sorts of conclusions about things, just like stupid people do. None of us is as rational as we like to think we are. And I find that political beliefs have a lot more to do with one’s temperament and the dominant culture that one lives in than any kind of rationality or smarts. Libertarians are sort of an exception as that is not really part of the dominant culture anywhere, and I tend to think that on average libertarians are a bit more intelligent than people in general, but there are certainly dumb ones too.

    5. We’ll see if she’s also an Indian giver, similar to Obama.

      1. Would you smoke a WarrenPiece pipe?

        1. Probably not. Whatever she’s smoking apparently does brain damage.

      2. Indian giver

        I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with that term.

      3. It’s funny how many people in Mass. power aren’t from the state. Patrick is from Illinois, Warren from Oklahoma, another is from Jersey.

        1. I think that’s become increasingly common nationwide, though, just due to the massive mobility of the populace since the end of WW2. Look at the lineup of Senators, Representatives, and state governors across the country, and you’d probably be surprised at how many of them are NOT from that state.

          In New Mexico, the governor is from El Paso, and the Senators are from Arizona and Missouri.

          1. In KY, the two senators were born in Alabama and Pennsylvania.

            The Governor was born in Dawson Springs, KY.

    6. There’s only one Big Chief! She shall pay for her pretensions!

  3. Does anyone here live south of Birmingham Alabama and drive a Chrysler Town and Country with libertarian bumper stickers?

    I may have been behind you on my way up the 280 to the airport this morning.

    1. Libertarian bumper sticker? A baby fetus attached to the bumper holding an AR-15 and a crack pipe you mean?

      1. I’ve got one of these on the back window of my pickup…but your idea is so much better. Tip o’ the monocle to ye sir.

        1. I’d tip back but the orphans are running slow today and haven’t finished shining my monocle up… It’s so hard to get good whip men to keep my orphan workforce in check.

          Is that a libertarian hedgehog sticker though?

      2. I remember decades ago reading the Libertarian Party paper/magazine (?) in the dusty shelves of my Univerity Library and they had an article about how as a libertarian you had two types at meetings – one guy with a car plastered with all kinds of crazy stickers and the stealth dudes who had nothing on their cars.

    2. Isn’t Caleb Turberville from Alabama?

  4. An Indiana restaurant has been forced to stop serving free lunches because neighboring businesses complained about the crowd the Thursday offer attracted.

    What will they do to curry favor with the neighboring businesses?

    1. Perhaps they should open a new Delhi?

      1. Get back in the kitchen, mr lizard!

        1. Nope, I am home with the norovirus…. Cook your own food, you filthy mammal.

      2. An Indiana restaurant you illiterate slope-browed knuckledragging racist Koch-sucking Rethuglican hatemongers.

        Damn all of you and your Subcontinent Othering.

      3. Perhaps they should open a new Delhi?

        +1 lol!

  5. A Fauxcahauntas run would be hilarious.

    1. Agreed.

      DO IT DO IT DO IT

    2. Yes indeed. The cat-fight between her and Bilary would be teh awesome.

    3. I disagree. I do not trust the American people to not elect her.

      1. But wouldn’t the lulz be even better then?

      2. even better. just years and years of comedy gold.

      3. ^THIS^
        At least the chosen one had no paper trail, thus people could project anything they wanted on him. Warren has a history of deceit and hypocrisy, and it didn’t fucking matter. If the right people want her, she’s a no kidding serious contender for the White House.

        1. Warren is not black and Warren has a huge paper trail. I do not believe that people are going to feel the guilty need to vote for a woman for President like they had about voting for a black man.

          1. Obama merely evicted tens of people form one building and pushed them out into homelessness (no really it’s the only bit of lawyerin he did before he returned to academia).

            Warren helped Travelers claw back money from thousands of sick people. In MA they didn’t care. But I can’t believe the rust-belters are going to vote for her after that, and when the Rust Belt votes Republican, they win the presidency.

            1. The Rust Belters voted for Obama. Twice. That sets the bar so low that I can’t believe the Rust-Belters wouldn’t vote for anyone.

          2. Warren’s paper trail should have sunk her and it didn’t. Disclaimer: Massachusetts is not the whole country but…. She’s probably got half the electoral votes she needs just by showing up. Throw in some “populist” rhetoric and the “historic” nature of voting for her.If she is the first woman at the top of the ticket in 2016, I could not say that her defeat is a forgone conclusion.

            1. No paper trail short of going to prison will sink a Democrat in Massachusetts. I agree with Tarran, no way would she win in places like Ohio and Wisconsin. And for every electoral vote she wins by showing up, there is one she automatically loses by not being a Republican.

              To win the Presidency you have to win in places like Ohio and Virginia and Colorado. To do that you have to be likable and be able to present yourself as a centrist. Remember, the media played Obama as a centrist who would make politics work. Even the media couldn’t lie enough to make Warren likable or convince anyone she is a centrist.

              1. Even the media couldn’t lie enough to make Warren likable or convince anyone she is a centrist.

                Have the last 5 years taught you nothing ?

                Seriously, I’m not saying she will win, but, as stated elsewhere on this thread…she’s dangerous. She could win.

                1. She could win.

                  Maybe, if the Republicans fuck up even worse than the last two elections.

                2. I agree. She could win. Mass. knew damn well who she was. Even with a real centrist (RINO) like Scott Walker couldn’t beat her despite all the BS around her. If there was one guy who had a likeability factor it was him and he had a proven record of “crossing the aisle” yet they fired him.

              2. You’re overlooking the question of her opponent.

                Outside of Paul what Republican is there who could be running that would do better outside the party than inside it?

                Chris Christie? Yeah he’ll play well in Ohio

                Scott Walker? The Union Buster winning in the rust belt, not likely.

                Paul Ryan? ZOMG socon war on wimminz

                1. Inside of Paul..it would be very dark.

            2. Any candidate from one of the major parties will win half of the electoral votes they need just by showing up.

          3. But we’ve never had a vaginally-abled President! Vote for Warren to defeat the Patriarchy!

            1. All the smart people agree.

          4. John, it’s the turn of the Indians to attain power! Warren it is!

            1. why an American-Indian would be historic!

      4. First of all, Obamacare is going to hand the Democrats electoral defeat next time around. Secondly flyover country types would vote for a woman, but not a vile leftist. She would have to be a hot, down to earth-seeming Sarah Palin type.

        1. OT, but you know who’s hot. Jessi Combs, the sturdy little blonde on those car building shows. She can fabricate, she can weld and she’s got a nice bottom. When I found out she has two fused vertabrae from a motorcycle accident..I said she’s the gal for me.

        2. This. MA voters would elect a turnip with a D next to it. The rest of the country, not so much.

          1. The rest of the country would be better off if MA had elected a turnip instead of Warren.

            1. A whole Senate full of turnips would be nice.

              1. Or possibly ostriches.

            2. My dream is to get a large turnip in the county.

          2. ehem. You misspelled turd.

          3. The rest of the country, not so much.

            I’ve got two Presidential elections that point the other way.

            1. And now that those voters are getting the fruits of their historic victory(ies), the bar gets that much higher for progressives.

      5. I do not trust the American people to not elect her.

        After watching the idiot electorate put Obama in office twice, I don’t trust the American people to ever do anything intelligent, collectively.

    4. I do not trust the Republican party not to screw up and nominate someone so ridiculous that she ends up winning by default.

      Of course, that applies to every Federal election campaign.

      NBCNews did a hagiography/PR piece on her as the “happy warrior”. “Now, she is looking for less regulated areas of the economy that need oversight”. Could there be a more dangerous person?

      Most people go into politics for the money, or the fame/respect. Liz is one of the truly dangerous ones who is motivated by her enjoyment of the feeling when she stomps her boot on someone’s face.

      1. Thank you for clarifying why I despise her. Yes,. she’s definitely in it for the sadism

      2. That’s why I was hoping Scott Brown could kill it in the cradle. Now she’s in the Senate. Don’t kid yourself, she’s a contender.

        1. It’s no accident the DNC made her one of the final keynote speakers at the 2012 convention. She’s not getting the tongue-bathing from the media on the same level Obama did (probably because no one knows what Hillary is going to do right now), but there’s very little critical examination of her career.

          The one caveat is that being from the “Democrat wing of the Democrat Party” could sink her in a national election, but populist demogauges like her tend to have an outsize following in periods of social and economic uncertainty, because they provide easy and convenient scapegoats for the mob to target.

          1. I’m rooting for her for two reasons:

            -To see Hillary! drip some tears (and Bill make some sexist comments)
            -Because I think this country needs to go from being on it’s knees now to on it’s back before we rise back up and un-fuck all the bad shit happening

  6. Brooklyn man arrested after cops mistake his breath mints for ecstasy

    Ron Hankins was stopped and searched on the street
    He was carrying a plastic bag full of mouth fresheners
    Police held the Brooklyn man for around 30 hours

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..stasy.html
    Curiously strong…

    1. The NYPD has a history of mistaking legal and edible items for drugs, another Brooklyn man was held for a day earlier this year when officers suspected his Jolly Ranchers were meth.

      Only good things happen when you combine prohibition and the brain trust that is the police force.

  7. Explicit Nymphomaniac trailer accidentally shown to children ahead of Disney film Frozen

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..rozen.html
    Haaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    1. Ha! OH NOEZ TEH CHILDRENS SAW SOME BOOBIES! I’ve never understood why parents are so uptight about depictions of nudity.

      1. No, weird thing is little kids see boobs all the time, some of them see them every day.

        The parents’ argument isn’t that the kids shouldn’t see boobs, but rather that they should only see their mom’s boobs.

        There’s something very twisted about that.

        1. Don’t forget:

          May [your wife’s] breasts satisfy you always. (Proverbs 5:19)

        2. Surely when Laura Ingalls was living in that little house on the prairie, she heard the bumping and grinding of the sex her parents were having that produced her three younger siblings.

          1. Ahem. Only two of them were younger. Hearing her parents have sex three times is what turned Mary blind, duh.

            1. She had a third younger brother who died.

        3. The parents’ argument isn’t that the kids shouldn’t see boobs, but rather that they should only see their mom’s boobs.

          There’s something very twisted about that.

          God SF, right-thinking people know breasts are not for sexytimes, but for snackytimes.

          Yeah, that’s definitely fucking twisted.

          1. Jezebellians seem to love their breasts right up to the point a man appreciates them as well.

            1. All the jokes I’m coming up with are too depressing.

              1. Welcome to my world.

                1. Welcome to my world.

                  No thank you.

            2. Jesus, there are guys who would like Jezebellians’ tits?

              There are some sick fuckers in this world.

              1. They have to do something until they are finally ready to come out of the closet, BP.

                Watch one of those videos with Lindy West and her “boyfriend.” He’s as queer as a three-dollar bill. And far too good looking of a gay man to be wasting his 20s on her swampy twat.

        4. I saw the trailer – think only a few small boobs and full on BJs

      2. I’ve never understood why parents are so uptight about depictions of nudity.

        The funniest example was the outrage when people found out that there was nudity in the Grand Theft Auto 5 video game.

        “Can’t my 8 year old son just enjoy his criminal and murder simulator without being exposed to this kind of SMUT!?”

    2. BTW, Frozen is a pretty good movie. Or you can check out Hans Christian Andersen’s the Snow Queen from the library if you are on a budget and don’t like Celine Dion style wailing. 😉

      1. It was good.

    3. I am going to assume this was an actual film trailer and not digital. Trailers can be green band (approved for all audiences) or red band (restricted audiences). It’s clearly visible when you splice it in which it is. Ideally (if you aren’t projecting at a megaplex and all the movies change at once) you will watch the movie and make sure that you don’t have inappropriate previews or one of the reels in backwards.

      If it was digital, beats me, that was after I got out of the booth.

      1. I worked for a while as a cartographer. Back then, it was almost entirely a photographic process. Computers were only just starting to be used.

        Fuck, I’m old.

        1. you made maps?

          1. you mad movies about maps?

            1. No, I’m not mad there are no movies about maps.

              And yes, I made maps.

              1. you made mad maps about america’s penis?

                1. by the way, your response confused me since i assumed you were saying you worked in a movie house like PD when you responded to him.

                  ambiguity can be awesome, or not.

    4. . . . eyes after the trailer for X-rated film

      Mail needs to learn how American movie ratings work.

  8. Female soldier ‘made $400-a-night at Fort Hood sex parties set up by sergeant who preyed on cash-strapped servicewomen’

    Iraq veteran found guilty of attempting to hire prostitute
    Private told court-martial she was offered $100 for hotel room tryst
    Army still investigating claims that sexual assault prevention officer targeted cash-strapped recruits for prostitution ring

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..rties.html
    That’s right. The sexual assault prevention officer was pimping out recruits.

    1. Well, it fits. The UN Human Rights committee is made up of the biggest violators, etc. We live in a satire these days.

      1. Jonathan Swift wouldn’t be able to make a living writing satire it is so absurd.

        1. If Swift wrote today he’d have legions of followers for his mock plans.

    2. How were they ‘cashed strapped”, the military provides them with food, clothing, lodging and pay?

      “”””That’s right. The sexual assault prevention officer was pimping out recruits”””

      Usually the worse people get put into these kind of jobs since the best ones are kept doing more important ones. Nobody want to send their best person off so they send their worse.

      1. How were they ‘cash-strapped”

        Women who voluntarily exchange money for sex are always helpless victims.

        1. They had cash and they were strapped?

    3. Saw 2 female Marines sent home from Desert Shield in ’90 for Court Martial. The had over $50k in cash, checks, and money orders on them when arrested.

      1. “Saw 2 female Marines sent home from Desert Shield in ’90 for Court Martial. The had over $50k in cash, checks, and money orders on them when arrested.”

        Same thing in OIF. A 1stLt and LCpl got busted when they discovered a bunch of cash in their gear at March ARB.

    4. No one who has any future in the Army or really any interest in doing the things the Army does, would want to be a “sexual assault prevention officer”. So only the worst of the worst are going to ask or be assigned to those jobs.

    5. well, he was preventing assaults, wasn’t he?

    6. “Female soldier ‘made $400-a-night at Fort Hood sex parties set up by sergeant who preyed on cash-strapped servicewomen

      This is nothing new or even interesting. Some women use sex to their advantage, even especially in the military.

      1. fucking tags..

    7. Private told court-martial she was offered $100 for hotel room tryst

      What? They didn’t offer fast track promotions too? I am disappoint in today’s NCOs.

    8. Hey, he wasn’t *assaulting* them – we still do consider voluntary prostitution to be kosher, right?

  9. ‘Star Wars’ pistol up for auction: Weapon used by Han Solo character in The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi

    The so-called DL-44 Blaster is expected to sell for up to $300,000 at auction
    Replica weapon is still in its original condition but shows signs of wear

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ction.html

    1. I bet it doesn’t even work. Think of the real laser you could have for that price.

    2. Which is it? The one used by Han Solo, or a replica?

      1. Did it shoot first, or not?

  10. An Indiana restaurant has been forced to stop serving free lunches because neighboring businesses complained about the crowd the Thursday offer attracted.

    I originally read that as an Indian restaurant, and figured the complaints from neighboring businesses were going to be about wrecked restrooms.

    1. I didn’t realize it wasnt Indian until I read your comment. Now my attempt at a pun on curry just looks like genuine concern for the local business relationships in that town.

        1. Beat me to it!

  11. Elizabeth Warren says she will not run for president in 2016 and will serve out her Senate term, similar to promises Barack Obama made prior to the 2008 election.

    Didn’t Hilary make such noises also? I’m pretty sure it’s de rigueur for these narcissists to play the reluctant warrior chief.

    1. Yes she did. We are still three years out. All fauxcohontus is saying to her low sloped forehead supporters is “be a man about it and come and make me run”.

      1. Why would any national party nominate any politicians who wins statewide office in Massachusetts? Kerry, Romney, Dukakis. That state is hardly representative of the nation.

        1. I don’t know that she could win the nomination. But there are a lot of doctrinaire Progs who would vote for her. She has a pretty substantial natural constituency within the Democratic Party.

          1. -But there are a lot of doctrinaire Progs who would vote for her.

            Sure, see Kerry and Dukakis. But one would think even the most blind partisan would eventually respond to repeated whippings.

          2. She does seem frighteningly popular among the hard core. But I still find it doubtful that she could win the nomination. I think the same of Hillary. For everyone who loves either of them, there are two that can’t stand her (and many who don’t feel strongly one way or the other). And Hillary is fucking old.

        2. It represents the right part of the nation.

        3. Bo,

          Obama was elected.

          At this point, a sock puppet or muppet could win.

          1. I might vote for Kermit.

            1. I’m going with Beaker or Animal.

            2. Gonzo for Veep

              1. Gonzo for Prez – Rizzo for VP.

          2. Obama may be a special case. I’m going to wait a while before drawing any conclusions about what that means for future elections. I don’t think that Hillary vs. fatso, or Warren vs Paul, or whatever is going to excite a lot of young people.
            Remember, not that long ago everyone was talking about how there was going to be a permanent Republican majority.

        4. That state *is* representative of the core of the national Democratic Party’s platform.

      2. I would be surprised if the Clintons haven’t come to her yet with a threat/offer.

      3. Yup, this is the “beg me to run” ploy. Let’s hope it doesn’t work.

    2. yes, as did President Zero. It’s all about the ‘Well, the people insist I serve” posturing. Such nobility.

      1. Please don’t throw me in no briar patch.

      2. Brutus. Was the crown offered him thrice?

        Casca. Ay, marry, was’t, and he put it by thrice, every
        time gentler than other, and at every putting-by
        mine honest neighbours shouted.

        Cassius. Who offered him the crown?

        Casca. Why, Antony.

        Brutus. Tell us the manner of it, gentle Casca.

        Casca. I can as well be hanged as tell the manner of it:
        it was mere foolery; I did not mark it. I saw Mark
        Antony offer him a crown;?yet ’twas not a crown
        neither, ’twas one of these coronets;?and, as I told 330
        you, he put it by once: but, for all that, to my
        thinking, he would fain have had it. Then he
        offered it to him again; then he put it by again:
        but, to my thinking, he was very loath to lay his
        fingers off it. And then he offered it the third
        time; he put it the third time by: and still as he
        refused it, the rabblement hooted and clapped their
        chapped hands and threw up their sweaty night-caps
        and uttered such a deal of stinking breath because
        Caesar refused the crown that it had almost choked
        Caesar; for he swounded and fell down at it: and
        for mine own part, I durst not laugh, for fear of
        opening my lips and receiving the bad air.

        1. If only our emperors would follow the script to the end.

          1. If only the SENATE would follow the script to the end.

            FIFY

    3. I don’t see Warren having a chance in hell on a national level–she’s too obviously a joke and way too leftwing for too many states–but I also think the idea that Clinton, who has been unimpressive in every role she’s been in, is going to win the nomination is unwarranted, too.

      1. How about this for a scenario? Both run in the primaries with Clinton’s hook that she is more “centrist” than the radical Warren. Kind of like Romney and every other Republican in the last election.

        1. Depends a lot on who else runs, but Clinton is just too well hated and too old, I think.

        2. I suspect we’ll have a candidate who is neither of the above. The Democrats are well aware that the Republicans have the upper hand this time, especially if 2014 is the disaster for the Democrats it looks like it’s going to be. Which means they’ll have to at least fake a real centrist.

          Clinton will try to do that, but it’s not just Republicans and independents (not to mention Libertarians) who are tired of the Clintons. And her tenure as SoS was not good at all, even leaving aside a major, unsettled scandal.

          1. I agree with Pro Libertate. I think the Democrats will lose the Senate in 2014 and Obamacare will become a continuing albatross around the neck of any of them who supported it. The 2016 candidate will be in the position to Obamacare and Obama as McCain was to Iraq and Bush, having to sort of apologize for it. So the inside track would go to some ‘outsider’ who did not have a direct hand in it.

            I disagree with you though about Clinton. I think she can command more popularity than you estimate (most voters will not care about Benghazi, especially by then), and she can (and will) position herself as not part of Obama’s tainted legacy.

            1. I don’t think she’ll not make a splash, but I do think the extra baggage and general desire by then to move a different direction will kill her candidacy.

              The interesting game right now to play is guessing who the nominee will actually be.

  12. The FTC is concerned you’re too stupid to tell when you’re reading sponsored content on the internet.

    On one hand, they’re right for most users.

    On the other hand, it’s none of their business.

  13. FTC Worried About Sponsored Content Online,

    That Taboola shit shouldn’t be illegal, but people who use it should be shunned.

  14. But that growth has led to concern among consumer protection officials, at the F.T.C. and elsewhere, that the commerce-driven content can mislead consumers, at times even when the information is labeled advertising.

    Just grade them on a scale of Pinocchios and let’s call this a day so we can catch the new Disney movie.

  15. The FTC is concerned you’re too stupid to tell when you’re reading sponsored content on the internet.

    So they are talking about everything published in the New York Times, right?

    1. Or a hell of a lot of local TV news, which is either recycling press releases from pressure groups, or regurgitating government propaganda.

    2. New York Times? The only place I’ve seen it is on the seats of Amtrak Business class because the liberals behind me were at best paper trained and couldn’t be trusted to hold it.

      (These people were uncritically and non-sarcastically advocating in favor of human extinction in their private conversation. They didn’t realize that I could hear every whiny word they said)

      1. Well, at least the human extinction people follow their ideas about the environment through to their logical conclusion.

  16. Martin Bashir has resigned from MSNBC a few weeks after suggesting someone defecate in Sarah Palin’s mouth.

    So MSNBC isn’t even good at giving its small audience what they want. Where are those dozens of viewers going to go for the crucial hating of former governor slash non-entity political figure?

    1. I think Drudge linked to a story a couple of weeks ago saying they had lost half of their viewers in the last year. No matter what you think of the substance, propaganda is just really boring.

      1. How to explain the success of Fox then?

        They do have some quite attractive newsreaders.

        1. Because Fox isn’t propaganda. Fox is mostly just muckraking and sensationalism. The people who think it is propaganda are people who never watch it. If you ever watch it, their shows are of two types, two guys from opposite sides screaming at each other, and the latest celebrity story or missing white girl or other tabloid story. And those things people for whatever reason find entertaining.

          1. Fox is pushing the phony ‘War on Christmas’ meme 24/7 now.

            They are pure propaganda for the gullible like yourself.

            1. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

            2. Fox is pushing the phony ‘War on Christmas’ meme 24/7 now.

              How would you know that? You a closet Fox News watcher?

            3. The anus-filler is an O’Reilly fan!!!

          2. No John, people who watch Fox aren’t smart enough to see past the attractive blondes.

            1. Why do people need to see past the attractive blondes? What is going on behind them?

              1. Even more attractive brunettes. Duh.

          3. -Because Fox isn’t propaganda.

            Oh, that is silly. I watch Fox a bit and it is MSNBC’s mirror, especially the prime time lineup.

            1. The difference–and this is a major one–is that most of that is in their talking heads programming, not their news broadcasts. MSNBC is that crap all of the time.

              1. Good point.

                1. Fox is interesting, because Murdoch isn’t at all a right-winger by American standards. The right bias it has in its commentary appears to be strictly due to the market opportunity presented by an almost monolithic left bias in the other major news sources. Of course, even that bias (for all of them) is overcome by the lust for viewers/readers at times.

                  Be great if libertarians were in large enough numbers to get our own network.

              2. I believe there was a study done that measured hours devoted to “news” and “talk” segments on the major cable news channels.

                CNN was about 54% news, 46% talk. Fox was the reverse of those numbers. MSNBC, on the other hand, was about 25% news, 75% talk. They saw Fox’s ratings and took the completely wrong lesson from it.

        2. Yes they do, which suggests they’re getting to the heart of the matter more than we think. Plenty of highly intelligent people listen to Limbaugh for example.

          All Limbaugh does is read what’s in the news and reacts and is entertaining. The left condescendingly reacts to Limbaugh without making any coherent points.

          1. Limbaugh’s “crime” is presenting conservative viewpoints in a manner that not only attracts an audience, but in doing so, validates the viewpoints themselves. The left hates that its media monopoly is no more and that any non-liberal thinking is not automatically dismissed as illegitimate.

          2. I like Limbaugh’s show. I think he is a hack most of the time, but to be honest if you do not want to listen to pop or country music what else are you going to listen too? NPR can be OK, but one can only take so many ten minute stories on selling tractors in Ghana or what not. Limbaugh at least reads the news and makes a good point now and then.

            1. You could try Pandora.

            2. But Limbaugh lies incessantly. He is the reason lies float through the right-wing fog so freely.

              For instance he claims that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd caused the mortgage crisis without a shred of evidence. I have debunked this lie for the Peanuts many times before you got here.

              1. Meh, sure he stretches the truth sometimes, but pundits do that.

                And by the way, while I do not think Frank and Dodd ’caused’ the mortgage crisis I do think some of their policies contributed.

                1. And by the way, while I do not think Frank and Dodd ’caused’ the mortgage crisis I do think some of their policies contributed.

                  But none of their policies were implemented.

                  And don’t repeat the lie that Barney Frank “blocked” something – a House minority member can’t block anything.

                  1. But none of their policies were implemented.

                    All of their preferred policies were already on the books, retard. The roots of the crisis were set in the early 90’s.

                    a House minority member can’t block anything

                    Ranking members can block plenty, and as the legislative quarterback of the Democratic financial services policy team for two decades, Frank had outsized power for his station.

                  2. I am thinking of policies and rhetoric putting pressure on banks to make potentially risky loans to ‘underserved’ populations.

                    1. But “underserved” populations had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis. The CRA myth is known as ‘The Big Lie’.

                      Another lie he fosters.

                      DA BLACKS CRASHED THE ECONOMY! – is a perfect Limbaugh two-fer. It appeals to bigots and anti-gov Medicare types.

                    2. I do not think ‘da blacks crashed the economy.’ But I do think it is clear that there were policies and political pressure which pressed banks to make some risky loans to people, some of whom were certainly black, in the name of increasing home ownership and that these loans at the very least contributed to the collapse.

                    3. Pure Bush policy.

                      Bush created the American Dream Downpayment Act to give (yes give) $10,000 down payments to first time homebuyers.

                      Bush pushed all the HUD programs to take on more federal programs to assist in his Ownership Society.

                      Bush blocked efforts to cut off capital to Fannie and Freddie.

                      Bush was at fault.

                    4. Shriek refuses to admit that such things even happened (at least not before BOOOOOOOOSH), never mind that they were a problem. He’s even dumber than usual about this issue.

                      Wallison’s FCIC dissent does a good job breaking down Federal policy’s role in the housing bubble. Worth a read if you have a couple of hours.

                  3. And don’t repeat the lie that Barney Frank “blocked” something – a House minority member can’t block anything.

                    Of course not–he was just lying that there was nothing wrong all the way up until the bubble popped.

            3. In Canada, we have a hockey commentator named Don Cherry. He’s a loud mouth, rabble-rouser who holds no punches and tells it like it is as he sees it. He’s become one of the most beloved Canadians of all time and even American sports guys love to have him on their show like Cowherd and Rome.

              He has said some things that were perhaps better off not said but that wouldn’t be fun, right? When you’re paid to have an opinion sometimes you go over board. The trick is to know how to make salient points in between all that. Cherry, like Limbaugh, is a MASTER of this because, know why? He damn well knows hockey.

              Very little of what Cherry says about hockey is wrong. It’s just that it’s unpopular for our PC world and especially the media who tend to have a love-hate relationship with him. Some lousy writers even loathe him but when you measure their knowledge of hockey against Cherry’s there’s no contest.

              It’s a case of shooting the messenger rather than the message and I see that with Limbaugh and the left-wing media.

              These people get it right more than they do wrong. And that’s why people love them.

              1. What Rufus said. The left hates Limbaugh because he is popular and disagrees with them. The left are fundamentally totalitarians and honestly believe, thought they rarely admit it even to themselves, that no one who deviates from the orthodoxy has any right to free speech.

              2. I recommend Don Cherry’s biography. Great reading of old time hockey.

            4. I’m sorry I never saw the attraction in Limbaugh.

              I did listen to quite a bit of “conservative” talk radio in the past Starting with Jerry Williams, Howie Carr, and Gene Burns in Boston and then Neil Boortz and Sean Hannity (who I rarely agreed with but could at least tolerate) and when I can find him on the air Jerry Doyle but I have never been able to tolerate more than 10 minutes of listening to Limbaugh

    2. I thought that MSNBC highest ratings came from various bus, train, airport waiting rooms where they had lost the remote control and the TV was stuck on MSNBC.

      1. Hell?

        1. Yeah, that’s CNN. Every airport I’m in has CNN on. MSNBC has dirt for ratings.

  17. Anti-Immigrant Diatribe From Townhall.com

    -the Chamber of Commerce is not a union nor does it make any pretense about representing workers; it represents businesses. So their desire for cheap foreign labor and disregard for millions of unemployed American workers –ready, willing and able to work — is understandable, if not disturbing. Short-term profits can accrue from lowering labor costs. But to the extent that the Chamber also has a mission of promoting broader long-term economic growth, they’d better question their alliance with groups determined to flood the U.S. with millions of newly amnestied illegal aliens and massively increase legal immigration. Adding tens of millions of low-skilled and heavily government-dependent immigrants to the country increases competition for scarce jobs, reduces wages and increases welfare burdens.

    http://townhall.com/columnists…..w-n1757528

    Of course illegal immigrants have a very high labor force participation rate and contribute to the economy too, but let us ignore that!

    1. Another problem with anti-immigrant people is the static worldview represented further into the diatribe (remember, Irish immigrants voted Democrat at first, but eventually delivered for Reagan):

      -the Center for Immigration Studies showed a far more detrimental impact on Republicans. It demonstrated that if the Senate Gang of Eight Immigration bill becomes law — or if any similar massive amnesty plan becomes law — it will add 17 million new potential voting-age citizens by 2036. That’s on top of 15 million new potential voters that the current level of legal immigration will add by 2036. Together that’s 32 million potential voters by 2036. That research didn’t suggest which way they’ll vote because it didn’t need to. Previous studies show that new immigrants tend to vote for Democrats. In this instance, the Democrats might pick up 32 million new voters in the years ahead.

      1. Bo, you have made the Peanut Gallery hate list – you can tell by the imitator below.

        Bask in the hatred. It is like taking money from your pals in poker.

        1. There are certainly a few here who are, shall we say at the least, oddly sympathetic to social conservatives. Two days ago the commenter Restoras mocked a post of mine about social conservatives trying to prohibit the opening of a casino in NY. I asked him what his problem with the post was and he let his mask slip saying ‘I support the right of voters to organize their communities how they see fit.’ Sadly it drew no ‘what in the world’ comments from other libertarians here.

          Anyone who has been a libertarian long knows that is common in libertarian circles, to have conservative ‘hangers on’, but I honestly think most posters here are actually libertarians.

          1. Socons are less threatening than progressives with power.

            1. I actually agree, at least in current times (there was a time when Socons really restricted a wide swath of everyday American life-think of obscenity laws, blue laws, and laws dealing with private sexual behavior). But the lesser of two evils remains evil.

              1. To that end, I reckon libertarians focus on progressives because it’s their agenda finding its way into legislation. We have bigger fish to fry and at the moment, it’s the progressives. We know the faces of progressivism – Obama, Warren, think-tanks, pundits etc.

                Less clear with Socons because they just don’t have the clout; even though as you said, they’ve managed to pass some (mostly censorship?) laws.

                For now, they’re marginal. We’ll worry about them at some other point.

                It’s like the whole Palin thing. Chick was still being attacked long after she was no political threat. Some of that focus and energy would be better spent on people who, you know, actually hold power.

              2. Is townhall.com some supposed socon org?

                From the first sentence, I assumed some left wing org, from their anti-chamber position.

                1. I don’t see it either? Anti-illegal is not socon (in fact Catholics support amnesty). It is more National Review Conservative. Unless you subscribe to the left view that people are only anti-illegal because they hate messicans.

                  I’m anti-illegal, btw

                2. I did not say it was Socon, though some social conservatives write there.

                  1. Well, suddenly in the responses the word came up, so I was wondering. It was in one of your replies to nothing. I dont know what you replied to, as I cant see it.

            2. Socons are less threatening than progressives with power.

              Yes and no. Currently that may be true, but do remember that the first generation of progressives at the turn of the 20th century were SoCons. They’re the ones who passed prohibition, and started the war on drugs. They started the “safety net” programs, and passed many restrictions. It just so happens that their movement detached from God within a generation, and the God-fearing progressives were left out in the cold. Those progressives have evolved into the modern SoCon bloc.

              SoCon is just a flavor of progressive that has fallen out of favor with mainstream progressives.

              1. I can go with that.

    2. The GOP is as usual the stupid party. There is no reason why immigration reform has to be “path to citizenship”. Most illegals don’t even want to be citizens. They just want to work legally and send their money back home. If the GOP were anything but the stupid party and or the bipartisan fusion party, they would counter offer on immigration with a path to legality which allowed illegals to get green cards that were good for say 15 years and then, assuming they hadn’t gotten arrested and deported offered them the choice of citizenship or going home.

      The Democrats would never agree to this because they want new voters and green cards don’t make voters out them. Meanwhile, Hispanics would be left asking “why didn’t you agree to the deal?” And from the GOP perspective, most of the opposition within the party has to do with people rightfully concerned that the Democrats just want to import voters. So the opposition to giving Green cards would be much less and would be unlikely to spark a civil war in the party.

      1. Fair enough, but I think that Republicans should realize that just because immigrant groups might have supported Democrat Party candidates recently that does not mean that they would do the same in 2036. As I said, the Irish American experience shows that these things are not static.

        1. Sure, but that is why you just keep importing new ones. As one generation grows old and wisens up, you just bring in new ones. And of course, it doesn’t matter how they vote as long as you have them registered and have a large pool of volunteers to go vote for them.

          Once again, if the GOP were not the stupid party, they would offer amnesty in return for universal voter ID. Watch the Dems turn that down and then explain to Hispanics why voter ID is more important than amnesty.

          The Dems care about immigration as a way to get votes and create opportunities for fraud. The GOP should put the Dems in a position to have to admit this.

          1. Well of course both political parties are badly motivated. Many Democrat supporters just want voters, while many Republican opponents are just worried about Democrats winning elections, or worse, bad economics and xenophobia. For me the issue is freedom of movement. Conservatives rightly laugh at talk of restricting the free movement of capital and goods, but all too often embrace restricting the free movement of labor.

            1. Not everybody is going to be a perfect libertarian. Illegals push down wages, which makes low income people poorer and causes more support for government handouts. Plus I don’t like crowds and more trashed open space and parks.

              1. -Illegals push down wages, which makes low income people poorer

                Even if that were true they would also exert a downward push on prices which would benefit the poor, right?

                I think it is a freedom of movement issue. Libertarians might not like a lot of things people might do, but as long it involves voluntary associations we fight to allow it.

            2. I agree that it is a freedom of movement issue and that is a pure libertarian position. I just think it undermines any movement of this country towards being more libertarian since illegals are mostly poor (but do work, and work hard), add to the ranks of people who use government and due to their culture tend to support socialistic government policies.

              We have enough poor people to keep prices low, don’t need another few million peasants (I’m referring to the next 15M that will come after amnesty of the current 11M) to keep prices down.

              1. I think you may be overlooking what may be the more offsetting benefits of immigration here, but more importantly while I do not find your reasons unreasonable I do not accept utilitarian exceptions to the NAP.

                1. I support legal immigration and am prejudiced towards letting in many more educated people rather than peasants. I understand the benefits of that.

                  Sorry, showing my ignorance, what is NAP?

                  1. Oh. And Root Boy :

                    NAP = Non Aggression Principle.

                2. while I do not find your reasons unreasonable I do not accept utilitarian exceptions to the NAP.

                  wait. what? Are you for real? So you are against taxation? I didn’t know that about you.

          2. Thanks Biggins – but non-aggression applies to immigration and border enforcement? I guess this is why I’m not a pure libertarian, still believe in a nation-state.

      2. Why on earth are the Republicans not suggesting this? It really is the best fix for our illegal immigration problem.

        1. I think it is because the current proposals suggest a ‘path’ to citizenship, meaning that after immigrants have been here for a number of years they can become citizens, and it is hard to argue against that without (rightly in my opinion) alienating groups from which many immigrants are members.

        2. Because there is still a base of brown-people-haters they have to appeal to. And legal aliens hurts the bottom line of the business wing.

          And, they are pretty stupid.

        3. BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ARE MERCANTILISTS!

          Jesus Christ! It’s so frustrating that people are mazed by the sight of mercantilists advocating mercantilist policies (ie the only thing they want from foreigners is their gold).

          Just because the Democrats went from being liberals to neo-feudalists advocating a de-chritianized Methodist pietism didn’t magically make the Republicans the good guys. They just continued down their mercantilist path.

          1. BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ARE MERCANTILISTS!

            Thank you for cutting thru all the BS and getting directly to the point.

            1. If the GOP were mercantilists they would love the importation of cheap labor to improve the profit lines of domestic merchants.

              No, the response to Immigration is largely nationalist- they want to protect laborers from downward pressure on wages.

        4. Because the “DEY TUK UR JERBS” crowd is still pretty influential among the working class.

    3. “”””Of course illegal immigrants have a very high labor force participation rate and contribute to the economy too, but let us ignore that!”””

      So this means we should not make them legal since then they will just be lazy Americans.

    4. flood the U.S. with millions of newly amnestied illegal aliens

      Flooded with people who are already here?

  18. “Elizabeth Warren says she will not run for president in 2016 and will serve out her Senate term, similar to promises Barack Obama made prior to the 2008 election.”

    She’s gonna wait until he messes up good so she can “clean it up” with real socialist-progressive alchemy.

  19. Eli Manning has amnesia, says he cannot remember why he didn’t want to play in San Diego.

    1. Then he looked at his Super Bowl rings and said, “Oh, that’s right”.

      1. Yeah, it was a lame answer to say he can’t remember. All he had to do was say I thought I had a better chance to win here…and I was right.

        1. Actually if I remember correctly it was an issue with the coach and more importantly the Offensive line (or complete lack of one at the time)

  20. Elizabeth Warren says she will not run for president in 2016 and will serve out her Senate term, similar to promises Barack Obama made prior to the 2008 election.

    Maybe she figures she can do better by sticking to the bank holding company protection racket.

    1. between her, Obama, and Dodd Frank, no new banks are being formed. what a huge gift to the big banks she claims to hate so much.

      1. No to mention the millions of personal credit card transaction records hand delivered to the NSA. What a progressive warrior this woman is…:rolls eyes:

    2. She is actually sponsoring a bill to break up the TBTF banks.

      That was her sole issue as a candidate – tapping the bank hatred.

      I don’t get it myself – the banks repaid TARP plus handsome interest and it is not like they went hat in hand to Dumbya begging for a loan.

      1. She is actually sponsoring a bill to break up the TBTF banks.

        then it would no doubt result in there being only one bank in the U.S.

      2. She’s co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill to reinstate Glass-Steagall.

        And, of course, she’s issuing blowhard press releases, which are generally done to shake more financial support out of the targeted industry. In her case, that would be the Wall Street lawyers.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/…..illiamson#!

        Yeah, a real champion of the little guy.

    1. Hey, she got two months of premiums for making an ass of herself.

      1. “Hit it” is a poor turn of phrase. I’d be inclined to drive my fist through her face. Some things can’t be made up for with a pretty face.

    2. I hope that $2,000 prices her out of receiving a subsidy (although I doubt it).

      1. That would be *awesome*.

    3. Wow.

      Now all we need is some proggie group to condemn this as rightwing-hate group sponsored parody.

      These people are like vampires in that they cast no reflection in a mirror.

  21. Which one of you is Rick Santorum?

    Rick Santorum wrongly claimed health plans on the health care exchanges are offering more limited networks of doctors and hospitals “because the Obama bill set prices at such levels” that some doctors and hospitals “do not participate in these programs.” The Affordable Care Act does not set prices for medical care.

    The private insurance companies participating in the exchanges set prices, which doctors and hospitals can balk at. The insurance companies set those prices in order to be able to offer more affordable plans in a competitive marketplace.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2013/…..exchanges/

    Whoever you are, I told you Obamacare does not set insurance rates.

    1. The Strawman Slasher claims another victim!

      1. Some few did argue with me here that Obamacare set all healthcare prices.

        RC Dean and Sevo IIRC.

        1. Then you should be able to produce quotes.

        2. You moron. Obamacare mandates coverages and who must be accepted in the program. With more unnecessary coverage and lots of pre-existing conditions, the premiums must be higher. So, yes, Obamacare jacks up prices.

        3. What I probably said was something more along the lines of how OCare sets the stage for rate regulation by the Feds, in the form of their requirements that insurance companies spend, what, 85% of their premium revenue on claims.

          The OCare sticker shock that people are experiencing makes that next move all the more likely.

    2. Palin’s Buttplug == Rick Santorum?

      You learn something new every day.

      1. You have to use something, or the santorum just runs all over the floor.

      2. Palin’s Buttplug = Santorum

        FTFY

    3. See my comment above turdpolisher. You cast no reflection.

      As despicable as Santorum is, he is right in this case. Because of Obamacare legions will lose access to the medical care they want.

      You cant spin reality dipshit.

      1. Does Obamacare set prices or not?

        Stay on topic, idiot.

        1. does it technically set prices? Not really. Does it influence them? Just a bit.

  22. These people were uncritically and non-sarcastically advocating in favor of human extinction in their private conversation.

    NTTAWWT

  23. Does smoking pot cause man boobs?

    Gynecomastia is caused by a hormone imbalance between testosterone and estrogen. When the ratio between testosterone and estrogen tips in favor of estrogen, the body responds by creating excessive breast tissue. Hence, man boobs.

    Animal studies have shown that exposure to the active ingredient in marijuana can result in a decrease in testosterone levels, a reduction of testicular size, and abnormalities in the form and function of sperm.

    1. I knew I preferred cocaine for a good reason.

    2. Yeah, well, that’s like your opinion, man.

    3. So they are trying to say that MJ users will weed themselves out of the gene pool?

    4. Does smoking pot cause man boobs?

      So Chuck Choomer?

      1. Does smoking pot cause man boobs?

        [looks down]

        Nope.

    5. Our dreamsicle Preznit has a bit of the moobs going on. Maybe he still gets together with the Choom Gang from time to time.

    6. From the actual study:
      Marijuana has been associated with the development of gynecomastia in an
      early case series, but a case control study showed no association.
      Given the effects of marijuana on the HPG axis in males and the possibility that noncannabinoid components of marijuana smoke have affinity to the estrogen receptor, an association with gynecomastia is plausible but has not been convincingly demonstrated.

      1. Many of the responses observed, however, are lost with chronic administration, which is likely due to the development of tolerance. Studies in humans have had inconsistent results that may reflect differences in study design, the hormonal milieu (e.g., stage in menstrual cycle), or the
        development of tolerance. Long-term effects on the various endocrine systems have not been clearly demonstrated, and clinical consequences, if present, are likely
        to be subtle.

    7. That idea has been around for a long time.

      1. ^^This

        And never proven or even correlated.

      2. I totally believe there is a correlation.

        Eating lots of shitty junk food and sitting on your ass all day causes man boobs. I’ll leave the rest of the correlation chain as en exercise for the reader.

  24. Congratulations, Ohio! You Are the Sweariest State in the Union

    A new map, though, takes a more complicated approach. Instead of using text, it uses data gathered from … phone calls. You know how, when you call a customer service rep for your ISP or your bank or what have you, you’re informed that your call will be recorded? Marchex Institute, the data and research arm of the ad firm Marchex, got ahold of the data that resulted from some recordings, examining more than 600,000 phone calls from the past 12 months?calls placed by consumers to businesses across 30 different industries. It then used call mining technology to isolate the curses therein, cross-referencing them against the state the calls were placed from.

    The findings?

    People in Ohio cursed the most as compared to every other state in the Union

    1. I am pretty sure most of that came from Cleveland Browns fans, especially after the game with Jacksonville.

    2. Having lived all my life in New Jersey where ‘fuck’ is used as punctuation, and having visited the Midwest, I find this very hard to believe.

      1. How much time have you actually spent with the people of Ohio? Not just going into businesses where people are on their best behavior, but actually just hanging out with Ohioans?

        This didn’t surprise me that much. I was surprised places like Jersey and NY didn’t score higher than us, but not that we were near the top of the list.

        People in Ohio are fucking sailors and truckers, man. I’ve only ever had one friend who didn’t love to swear, and it everyone’s speech sounded weird around him. We’re so used to including random curse words in our sentences that when people don’t, it doesn’t sound right.

    3. I’ve lived in Ohio, I cursed a lot too.

    4. My bad folks, I’m military and move every 2 years and have lived in a good number of the blue states. You might say I’m the johnny appleseed of fuck

    5. It should read: “People in Ohio are cursed the most . . .

  25. Cats Recognize Their Owner’s Voice But Choose to Ignore It

    Cats, according to new research, recognize their owner’s voice. They just can’t be bothered to react to it.

    Researchers in Japan arrived at this conclusion after performing experiments with twenty house cats. They played recordings of the cats’ owners’ calling to their pets in whatever cat-talk voice they typically used. They also played recordings of three strangers calling to the cats, using the same words.

    To quantify the cats’ reactions, the researchers recorded how often cats moved their head, tail, paws or ears, or whether they meowed or dilated their pupils. While the cats showed a significantly greater response to their owners calling their names than to strangers doing so, they did not bother to get up in either instance, the researchers found.

    1. They needed to study this? I thought this was common knowledge.

      1. Did you not see the story a while back about the study showing that women prefer bigger cocks?

      2. I thought the same thing. Who could imagine that cats don’t recognize their human’s voices? Cats have better hearing than dogs, which I didn’t even realize. I looked it up after reading this story.

    2. If you have ever owned a cat and paid attention to how they act, they are quite clever and intelligent creatures. They can navigate obstacles in ways dogs can’t. A dog will get himself trapped in something. A cat nearly never will.

      Cats were never domesticated like dogs. Their relationship to humans was from the beginning symbiotic. Humans had large grain stores that attracted mice and cats were happy to eat the mice, which humans wanted gone. For that reason cats never developed the ability to follow human orders like dogs did. They never needed to.

      1. That is interesting. I use to have a cat and it was as affectionate as any dog I have ever had. It would run to the door when I or my girlfriend got home from work and try to cuddle. It would come to its name if it was in another room and you called it, it loved hanging out with us. It was by all measures a great cat.

        Lost it in the divorce (breakup) though. *tear*

        1. That is interesting. I use to have a cat and it was as affectionate as any dog I have ever had.

          One of my cats is like that. He also loves belly rubs and will even let you hold him. Best cat ever.

        2. My cat that died last year was like that. She would play fetch. We would have parties at our house with 20 or more people and she would be down in the middle of it jumping on people’s laps and being the life of the party. My current cat is a bit more cat like. She is not one of those hide under the bed all day cats. But if strangers are in the house she makes herself scarce. When it is just my wife and I, she is generally where we all hanging out but doesn’t jump on our laps or particularly enjoy being picked up and petted. About once a day she will let you pick her up and pet her for a couple of minutes and that is it.

          1. I’ve found it to be quite breed specific. My current cats (a tabby and a tortoiseshell) are quite affectionate. Back home, the black cat (RACIST!) was a “hide in the basement” type.

        3. My current cat, a muted tortoiseshell, is very friendly, provided she’s in the mood. But she’ll sleep on my wife’s feet all night, watch TV with me, greet us at the door, and meow for the rare times we let her outside. She also loves to meet new people, unless its a repairman, which makes her growl. One of the best cats I’ve ever had.

          On the other hand, I’ve had some psycho cats – mostly rescued ferals – who just never learned to like people.

      2. Don’t forget their developing biological warfare agents to make us love and care for them while killing our offspring in the process

    3. Anyone who has owned cats know the defining characteristic of felines is their ‘fuck off’ mentality or indifference.

      I love cats.

    4. I never understood the assertion that dogs were more intelligent because they follow commands. Would these people agree that they’re stupid if they don’t do what I tell them?

      1. Progressives do as they’re told, and they are all really smart. So
        PRogressives=dogs
        Libertarians=cats
        ?

      2. Yeah, this too. Cats do what they need to do get what they want, just like dogs. The thing is, they don’t want attention all the time like dogs do.

  26. -after suggesting someone defecate in Sarah Palin’s mouth.

    Bashir strikes me as a creepy fellow, but I finally got around to watching the tape of this incident and I do not think this is correct, at least technically. What Bashir said was essentially that Palin’s slavery metaphor was appalling because actual slavery had these horrible practices, and “if anyone truly qualified” for such practices Palin would be an “outstanding candidate.” Being a good liberal pundit Bashir would be duty bound to (constantly) recognize that slavery and its practices were the worst thing on earth and therefore no one would ‘truly qualify’ for it.

    1. The right-wing PC crowd is relentless.

    2. Of course Democrats use slavery as a prop all of the time. Joe Biden told a black audience that Mitt Romney intended to put them back in chains. I never heard of anyone on MSNBC objecting to that.

      1. I never heard of anyone on MSNBC objecting to that.

        Well that’s because it’s true! Didn’t you know? Rethuglicans want to bring back slavery and outlaw abortion! And they will just as soon as they get control of the Supreme Court! Everyone knows it’s true!

        1. Sarc you need to be more specific. The Teathuglicans want to bring back black slavery. That’s what makes them evil.

      2. That really was an incredible moment, even for Biden. The suggestion of the most watered down banking de-regulation=path to slavery!

  27. Northampton man admits downloading ‘fish porn’ to his mobile phone

    Police raided the home of Shannon Johanson, aged 20, of Wade Meadow Court, in Northampton, on June 15, this year, seizing eight wraps on cannabis.

    He was then taken to the Criminal Justice Centre, in Brackmills, where officers seized and examined his Blackberry.

    Police found three “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene” videos, including a graphic six-minute clip of a woman performing a sex act with a dead fish.

    1. seizing eight wraps on cannabis

      Would someone *kindly* translate this into American?

      1. Marijuana in bulk, wrapped in multiple layers of plastic film or aluminum foil to avoid drug detecting dogs, often with soap or coffee in between.

        The dude has a shitload of weed.

        1. Silly me. I thought “wraps on cannabis” might be marijuana cigarettes.

          1. It’s a typo. But then “wraps of cannabis” is not clear to an American audience either.

            If you ever got any Mexican ditch weed, seedy and pressed so flat it was hard, wrapping is what happened.

    2. So Gillian Anderson et al draping their nude bodies with dead fish is okay, but this is too far.

  28. wut?

    World Cup downhill training canceled due to snow

    The second men’s World Cup downhill training session was canceled Wednesday due to heavy overnight snowfall.

    The forecast wasn’t much better throughout the day, leading race organizers to call it off. A downhill training session scheduled for Tuesday also was scratched because of travel issues with some teams that couldn’t arrive in time from Lake Louise, Alberta.

    The racers will try to squeeze in a training run on Thursday, with the snow tapering off but the temperatures expected to remain bitterly cold.

    1. AGW! GAIA HAZ A FEVER FROM HER HUMAN VIRUSES!!!

    2. I think it sounds like it was actively snowing, meaning the conditions on the slope were unsafe.

      1. I believe they also don’t want fresh powder for the downhill, but a slicker track.

        1. This – downhill skiing is done on ice. Powder will kill race times and compromise safety (skis and boots are configured for fast icy conditions, not powder)

          1. Kristen is correct, in addition to the zero visibility of the course.

      2. eg. if the visibility is 20 feet, skiing at 70 mph is a good way to splatter oneself across a stretch of mountain.

    3. This gives me an idea for soccer (yes, I know this comment wasn’t about soccer). A field that can be set to an angle. For certain penalties, the offending team gets the field lifted up a few degrees.

      1. How about the idea that the longer time in between scores, the samller the field gets. After a goal, it expands back to its original size.

        1. I like the tilt-a-field better. Gets pretty hard when you get a tilt of 10% or more. At least, it does for the team going uphill.

          Could do this in football, too, introducing a specialty player who simply rolls downfield once he’s through the line.

        2. My suggestion is metric goals.

          Instead of 8 yards by 8 feet, it is 8 meters by 8/3 meters.

          That extra bit would lead to big increases in scoring.

          Goalies are too tall and athletic any more.

          1. Tilt. And maybe put the fields in giant wind tunnels to simulate gale conditions.

          2. Or half the size of the goal, but the goalie has to stay outside an exclusion arc that starts two yards on either side of the goal.

            1. Enforced by a virtual fence with shock collar?

              1. I think a simple foul will suffice.

                1. Enforced by electric shock?

                  1. I’m starting to think you might be a bit of an electrosexual, PL.

                    ProLib Porn

                    1. No, you added the sexual part. I just think yellow and red cards are insignificant next to the power of the force. The electromagnetic force, that is.

          3. Mines.

        3. Pfft. They can’t score now with the goal being the size of a double wide. The only way to fix soccer is to have the goals pop up in random spots on the field.

          1. MULTI-BALL!

          2. I like a lacrosse style rule where you must have 3 people on the offensive side of the midline at all times (and defensive, to be fair).

            Parking 11 in the box would be verboten.

        4. Smaller in that spikes are raised up from the ground at the perimeter of the field.

          Then we either see them get a goal *or* someone falls, and is left, writhing in agony on the spikes until the next goal.

          Win-fucking-win

  29. I posted this in the Repeal Day thread, but it needs more sharing.

    Every War on Drugs myth thoroughly destroyed by a retired police captain

    This guy is great. He’ll never convince the hardcore drug warriors, but things like this could sway people who truly are ignorant of the situation.

    1. Love this clip.

  30. What Victoria’s Secret Workers Think When Men Walk Into The Store

    A former Victoria’s Secret employee told us that workers at her Chicago-area store were trained to treat male customers differently from female ones.

    “The general feeling about men is that they would buy anything in order to get out of the store as quickly as possible,” the worker, who wished to remain anonymous, told us. “That means they would spend more money.”

    While workers tell women about promotions like 5 for $25 panties, they are more likely to sell men full-priced merchandise, the worker said.

    1. Is this that Male Privilege thingy I’ve been hearing so much about?

    2. Good for them. Of course when men at say an auto repair shop sell a woman they figure out is uninformed stuff she doesn’t need, that is sexism. But what Victoria Secret is doing is totally okay.

      1. This combo of examples makes me want to look up auto shop porn

        1. SEe my comment above regardind Jessi Combs

          1. Have to go google her, though I do remember a hot grease monkey chick on one of the auto shows.

            I was thinking of the milf who can’t pay her car bill though, sleaze-bag that I am.

    3. “Do you have anything in crotchless panties?”

      1. Teh gaze!

      2. Fine tuning:

        “Do you have anything nice in a crotchless panty?”

        *Guaranteed* to get a reaction.

        1. Do yiou have anything nice I can cut the crotch out of…

          to make a coffee filter?

      3. dude…that is Frederik’s

        keep it straight.

    4. Any man who goes in there and doesn’t just get a gift card is asking for trouble later.

  31. but Rhode Island is such a tiny state

    Which State Is the Biggest?
    On this list, Texas doesn’t even make the top 40.

    The result? A list of all 50 states, “ordered by penis size”?and some surprising news for the Dakotas.

    North Dakota
    Rhode Island
    South Dakota
    District of Columbia
    Massachusetts
    Ohio
    Arizona
    Alabama
    New York
    South Carolina

    1. And it’s *cold* in the Dakotas!

    2. Rhode Island is compensating for being such a tiny state.

      1. Wait, you used my joke before I could.

    3. “compiled condom sales data by state to find out which states bought a higher-than-average amount of larger-sized condoms.”

      Who’s gonna do the walk-of-shame to the register with a box of “lil warriors”?

      1. Also excludes data on those who bareback.

      2. Exactly.

        I was in a gas station late one night on Orange Blossom Trail, and some young chick called out to her male companion, “HEY, DO YOU WANT THE REGULARS OR THE LARGES?”. The guy looked sheepish and mumbled, “the large ones”.

      3. So this is a list if states with the most gullible men who don’t realize that a one-size-fits-all condom will fit over your forearm.

        1. Maybe your forearm, skinny!

          /Popeye the fornicator

    4. How can anyone possibly know that? Even if you go and measure thousands of dicks, it is bound to be a fairly self selected sample.

      And under what conditions do they measure? I’m a grower, not a shower.

      1. Reading the article helps.

        1. The standard is to measure while flaccid, but while extending the penis manually to the point of indicated discomfort.

          1. The fact that there is a standard penis measuring practice surprises me a bit. The fact that you know what it is does not.

            1. unfortunately THIS ^^

  32. Dear Prudence: My Two Lads
    My daughter wants to bring her husband?and her boyfriend?to Christmas.

    Our daughter “Amanda” lives in another state and has been married to “Jacob” for several years. Theirs is an open relationship, and I have always known that. My husband, however has kept his head in the sand regarding this. My daughter has a boyfriend, “Tom,” whom Jacob knows about and has a great friendship with. They are all planning to come to our home this Christmas, but my husband insists that Tom (who has visited us previously) is not welcome. Do I tell our daughter, son-in-law, and daughter’s boyfriend to make other holiday plans? My opinion is that they are all consenting adults, there are no children involved, and always behave appropriately in public.

    ?Stuck in the Middle With Him

    1. Do they have to advertise that Tom is banging the daughter? I don’t know about these people, but the various members of the family’s sex lives is not a conversation that has ever come up at any Christmas I have experienced. Let Tom come but tell the daughter to keep their lifestyle to themselves, which is something they should do anyway.

      1. Weird Uncle Buford should bring his sheep, too.

        1. Exactly. Who knows what the members of your family do in private. There are some things you just don’t want to know.

      2. Do they have to advertise that Tom is banging the daughter?

        Yes. What’s the point of having an unconventional lifestyle, particularly one that your Dad disapproves of, if you can’t shove it in people’s faces?

        1. Maybe because you enjoy it but don’t want to deal with people’s disapproval and thus value your privacy?

          I just so old school like that. Not made for these times.

      3. Even if they don’t say anything it is usually noticed. People who are sexually intimate with each other behave differently towards each other than those who are not and astute observers will pretty much always figure it out.

    2. Another potential title: Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.
      Guess Who’s Coming too, Sinner.

      I could keep going on and do a porn title, but I will stop here.

  33. wut?

    World Cup downhill courses need to be hard and fast.

    1. that’s what she said /yuck yuck

    1. What is funny about that is that he honestly seems to believe in the magic power of words. He seems to think that young people will agree to a horrible deal and make an irrational decision if you just talk to them enough about it. If he we just talk enough and say enough magic words, the program will work.

      For years people on the right have been talking about how higher education teaches that only words not truth or reality matter. I never really believed them. But Obama has just about convinced me that is what is going on.

      1. If he we just talk enough and say enough magic words, the program will work.

        It got him elected, didn’t it? Why change a proven method?

      2. I think it’s true. Lefties tend to be idealists in the sense that they think “enlightening” people or raising their consciousness or whatever will lead to social change. The famous quote from Margaret Mead encapsulates this perfectly: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

  34. Obama gives Medal of Freedom to Gloria Steinem, who says Margaret Sanger should have received the medal. So Steinem says her medal honors Sanger’s work.

    Shar.es/807rl

  35. That was her sole issue as a candidate – tapping the bank hatred.

    Or, as it is known in the back room, “Playing the suckers.”

  36. It would come to its name if it was in another room and you called it, it loved hanging out with us. It was by all measures a great cat.

    Cats are not all the same, and have distinctive personalities. Surprise!

  37. As economic interests trump human rights, the idea of utopian Sweden becomes increasingly faint and fragmented.

    In addition, the suggestion that national corporate interests were having an influence on Swedish foreign policy cropped up in 2011, when Sweden took the unprecedented step of unilaterally blocking EU efforts to impose sanctions against a number of Syrian companies. While Foreign Minister Carl Bildt argued that Swedish opposition to the sanctions was because two telecom companies on the list provided communication possibilities for opposition activists, these same two companies had links to Sweden’s Ericsson, causing many to suspect that Sweden’s opposition was based on economics, not human rights.

    And, while Swedish telecom companies (partly owned by the Swedish state) were revealed to have collaborated with repressive regimes over the surveillance of political dissents, between 2005 and 2012, successive Swedish governments had reportedly supported the secret construction of a weapons factory in Saudi Arabia. The cherry on the cake, however, could well be Sweden as the only EU member state – along with the UK – to veto espionage talks with the US over NSA leaks: a decision which looks increasingly suspicious, as revelations over US abuses of surveillance in Europe escalate.

    1. No surprise there, since Sweden passed a law in 2008 authorizing warrantless wiretapping of all communications which cross the border.

    2. Ericsson’s are giant pieces of crap (switches, muxes, all of it). I have worked with almost every network element made and theirs are in the top 3 of shittiest equipment.

  38. Sessions: Obama’s Concern for Income Inequality Not Compatible with Support for Amnesty

    “It is shocking for the President to give a speech about income disparity and falling wages while pushing an immigration plan that will hammer American workers and widen the disparity,” Sessions said in a statement, noting that the Congressional Budget Office projected that the Senate immigration bill would reduce average wages and increase unemployment over the next decade. “The President says people are worried ‘the system is rigged’ and yet it is the President who has teamed up with a small cadre of CEOs to double the flow of immigrant workers when these exact same companies are laying off American workers in droves.”

  39. This might be the worst one yet

    Social Conservative Laments SCOTUS Opinion Striking Down Ban on Selling/Giving Contraception to Unmarried People

    -Eisenstadt v. Baird, a decision that gravely wounded marriage and set the nation on a course of gradual debilitation by ruling that states could not restrict the sale of contraceptives to unmarried people.

    In Eisenstadt, the Court overturned Massachusetts state law and pulled new sexual rights for singles out of a hat?but gave no standing to the child born of pre- or extra-marital sex. The Court played God by redefining the purpose of sexuality. In the process it unleashed sex’s destructive power detached from marriage. The Court could see rights to contraceptives in the “shadow” of the Constitution but could not see what a blind man could: the right of every child to married parents.

    In America, the chaos from Eisenstadt must eventually be checked. If not by the Supreme Court and Congress, then by whatever government will follow after the collapse of our present order. Sexual license and republican liberty cannot live together. One of them will supplant the other. Either we become a sexually restrained people?a form of self-control needed for institutions that depend on liberty?or, as we become more and more sexually unrestrained, we will need the all-helping state to do what we won’t be able to do for ourselves and our children.

    http://www.ruthblog.org/2013/0…..-marriage/

    1. Conservatives have been trying to ban the Pill since before ‘Griswold’.

      1. trying and failing. meanwhile progs have been successfully taking a third of my income for my whole life and they still want more.

        1. -trying and failing

          Well, successful before the 1972 case which is the subject of the lament. That is a few decades ago but is not exactly ancient history.

          How tiresome is it that if you criticize social conservatives from a libertarian perspective some people here feel the need to rush to post ‘well, progs are worse!’ I actually agree they are worse, but sometimes it is worth noting how many socons hate liberty as well.

        2. Conservatives want a third of your income too – see the 35% top rate Bush set.

          If I could get my SoLib paradise* I will pay a point more in taxes.

          (* = unlikely)

          1. “If I could get my SoLib paradise* I will pay a point more in taxes.”

            Progressives aren’t SoLib, they’re SoLib on gays and abortion, and SoFascist on what you eat, how you talk, what you smoke. So if you try to get your SoLib paradise through them, you’ll probably end up breaking even there and getting 20-30 points more in taxes.

    2. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)

      OLD NEWS IS SO EXCITING

      1. The case is old, but the article lamenting it is not. So are you angry at the author or something?

        1. I wish someone had named the author, so I could direct my ire at HIM instead of a label.

          1. I also wish someone would learn some basic html so they would quote properly.

            1. This. At least get a chrome based browser and reasonable so I can tell which part of the post is a quote and which is original.

          2. -I wish someone had named the author

            You could click on the link.

            1. I dont read links until I know the source.

              And usually not then either.

              This goes back to the whole feministing thing. If I see Marcotte or feministing mentioned, I just scroll down. When you were being good and mentioning sources, I generally just scrolled on by.

              In other words, when sources are named, I generally treat both exactly the same, which is what you apparently want me to do. No double standard at all.

              But I think you realized this. You want the responses. You were getting a lot less responses to your posts when naming the sources. So you reversed behavior today.

              That is all I can figure, but I could be wrong.

              1. robc, with all due respect I do not think much about you at all when I post. As I have said before to you, to the extent I think of it I think your cranky stalking about this is simply indicative of a strange double standard or eccentrically odd view on grammar on your part.

                1. Then why the first change and then the switchback?

                  For the last week or so, I hadnt seen the word socon in your posts but I saw lots of them, like the townhall above, that listed the source.

                  Then halfway down this thread, you switch back.

                  You may have not been thinking of me (I hope you werent), but you had taken the advice, whether from me or others, to heart. And then you fell back.

    3. While you’re waiting for socons to ban contraceptives, ill wait for a comet to strike the earth.

      Its much more likely the solibs will ration contraceptives than than that socons will ban them.

      1. What do you think of his argument Eduard?

        1. Why am I accountable for the musings of every Don Quixote who tilts the windmill of legal contraception? Oh, wait, I know – socons are just an indistinguishable blob of Otherness, a vast network of interchangeable evildoers.

          1. I was curious as to what you thought of it more than I was curious as to how likely you thought his wishes would be carried out were.

            1. Too tired to look it up, but I’m fairly sure ive said contraception should be legal.

        2. Still just asking questions.

    1. The Jew was asking for it. Maybe those Jews moving into the neighborhood will pay taxes and start businesses and make it a better place. What a horrible person.

    2. And what is appalling is that if some Republican in some place no one had ever heard of said the same thing about Mexicans or blacks, it would be a national story for a month. This will go totally unreported even though it is a council woman in New York, which last I looked was a pretty big city.

    3. I thought the official Journalist 2.0 position is that The Knockout Game is just a myth. Way to get off script, Laurie.

      1. Yeah, and she represents the district where the non-attacks are non-happening.

        So the stages of denial so far –

        The attacks don’t exist.

        It’s the Jews’ fault.

        Next theyll say white supremacists are exploiting these unfortunate incidents for political gain.

        Finally they’ll say it proves the need for more social spending, plus gun control “so that these incidents don’t escalate.”

        1. Next theyll say white supremacists are exploiting these unfortunate incidents for political gain.

          Finally they’ll say it proves the need for more social spending, plus gun control “so that these incidents don’t escalate.”

          Damn, you are good.

      2. Al Sharpton and Russell Simmons have launched a campaign to get people to stop doing it.

        http://newyork.cbslocal.com/20…..kout-game/

        I guess they missed the journolist memo. I have to give them credit. For once they are willing to admit to a problem and try to do something about it.

        The jounolisters manage to actually make Al Sharpton look responsible and honest.

      3. Honest question: is anyone actually saying that the whole thing is a myth, or just the idea that it is a growing trend?

        1. Sad beard and Klein and pretty much entire Washington Post and left blogshpere all come out with the “its myth” talking points on the same day.

        2. The standard story is that the trend is a myth, and then present that the proof that it is a myth is that The Knockout Game doesn’t really exist in the first place.

          Oddly, black pundits admit that it exists for mare than white from what I’ve seen. Especially in this nasty little piece from The Root. (Although as a whole The Root reports as if the TKG is undoubtedly real. One example of the many.)

          (Who was the one guy who said the game was a myth and then talked about how he did the exact same thing when he was a kid, but his friends didn’t call it TKG, so that meant TKG didn’t exist. Someone posted it a few days ago.)

  40. Social Conservative Laments SCOTUS Opinion Striking Down Ban on Selling/Giving Contraception to Unmarried People

    Oh noes! TEH WHITE SHARIA!

    Why don’t you go spam some MSNBC blog with this crap, you tedious dipshit?

    1. As usual, I am curious as to why me posting about a social conservative lamenting a decision to strike down a law prohibiting the sale and distribution of contraceptives to unmarried adults makes you this upset. As a libertarian do you support such laws? Do you think we should ever keep our focus on ‘progs’ and any deviation of that focus, even on someone who is obviously no friend to liberty, is wrong?

      Or are you like the fellow the other day who slipped and admitted that he thinks communities should be able to prohibit any voluntary behavior that is not expressly protected by the Bill of Rights?

    2. I really don’t see why posting ridiculous things that conservatives say is any more tedious or idiotic than posting ridiculous things that progs like Amanda Marcotte or Jezebel writers say.

      1. BECAUSE HE DIDNT NAME THE FUCKING PERSON.

        Put John Q Smith says blah.

        I would guess that a majority of actual SoCons are okay with contraceptives being sold in general.

        The law struck down was in MA, afterall. Not exactly the core of social conservatism. Even in 1972.

        1. -BECAUSE HE DIDNT NAME THE FUCKING PERSON.

          More of this silliness? This thread is full of posts with people referring to ‘liberals,’ ‘Democrats’, ‘feminists’ and even more group terms and yet your underpants are all in a bunch once again because I labeled the fellow a social conservative?

          Look, I get it. You conceded to me in a previous conversation that you are very ‘sympathetic’ with social conservatives views, and you are uncomfortable with me talking negatively about them in the same way that people (including myself by the way) talk about progressives, liberals, feminists and such all the time. It is an appalling double standard of yours and as I have said before double standards often say a great deal.

          1. Bullshit.

            Once again, I never said anything of the like. Quote it to me.

            I have called people out for doing the same thing you are doing. Name people. Targeting Marcotte is one thing, targeting feministing is one thing.

            I HAVE NEVER TARGETTED “FEMINISTS”. Name the fucking sources.

            You have being doing so good the last week and have you noticed I havent complained?

            1. You never said you were sympathetic to social conservatives lifestyle views?

              -I HAVE NEVER TARGETTED “FEMINISTS”.

              What I meant is I have never seen you stalk someone who posts about ‘feminists’ or ‘liberals’ or ‘progs’ with the same demands you have for me to stop using general terms.

              -You have being doing so good the last week

              Though you certainly are coming off as some pearl clutching old lady you are not my mother robc.

              1. You never said you were sympathetic to social conservatives lifestyle views?

                I doubt I used the word sympathetic at all.

                See below also. Im not at all sympathetic on legal views (with exception of abortion, maybe, and even then I come from a libertarian pov that happens to get to approximately the same place).

                1. And you do not think your ‘agreement’ with them on lifestyle issues might be behind your silly, cranky double standard here?

                  1. No, its my dislike of you from day 1.

                    And there is no double standard. Ive picked on John for making similar universal statements (and he isnt making them about socons). I did it to Longtorso in his golden girls phase.

                    And I used to do it with Fist but gave up on that one.

                    I dont do it with everyone, because Im only one man. But I pick on pedantic nits all the time.

              2. You in the past claimed that I had made the same type comments about feminists that you make about socons.

                Ive asked you to point one of them out. You still havent.

                Im still waiting.

                1. No, in the past, and today, I am saying that I have never seen you nit pick with someone for posting about ‘feminists.’ As you have noted to me, there is a search feature on this website, why do you not produce an instance where you have done so? If you can not I would think the fact that you react differently when there is another group term at issue provides for an inference that you are just more uncomfortable with someone posting about social conservatives violating the NAP (or just being silly). And your concession of agreement and sympathy with their lifestyle vies adds even more support to such an inference.

          2. And to be clear, I agree with them on many lifestyle issues, I am not at all sympathetic to them on legal issues.

            1. Wow, the speed of that walkback qualifies as speed walking.

              1. There is no walkback. We were talking about legal issues, or so I assumed, and I havent changed on that at all. I was clarifying in case you werent just talking about legal issues.

                1. robc, Bo’s just asking questions.

                  1. Yes, here is one: why are you so silly?

      2. Ok. So at the risk of joining the ranks of tedious dipshits, I must say I really don’t understand all teh Bo Cara hate that seems to be goin’ down in these parts lately.

        That said, I must also recommend that Bo lighten the fuck up.

        1. Well, he made a bad first impression. He came in from the beginning and started assuming things about regular posters (me included) without any regard to our posting history.

          Because he didnt fucking lurk until he learned.

          And that pisses me off more than anything else he will ever do.

          1. That first day he was about 1 post away from being reasonabled away forever.

          2. He didnt fucking lurk until he learned. And that pisses me off.

            HA HA HA. Because an idea’s legitimacy is wholly dependent upon the personality espousing it. Oh Robc. You take yourself and this chat room waaaay too seriously.

            1. Too seriously?

              I take it both hyper-seriously and not-at-all seriously, depending on my mood.

              But I think that above is a general rule of the internet that Ive espoused for decades, back to usenet days.

              Lurk and learn the personalities before posting. No the regulars and their styles and backgrounds and inside jokes so you dont look like a fool.

          3. He came in from the beginning and started assuming things about regular posters (me included) without any regard to our posting history.

            WTF? Are you really asserting that people have a duty to review the archives with due attention to your august postings before they dare to comment here?

            Get over yourself, robc. It’s not all about you.

        2. Well, it would help if he kept his SoCon posting to things more temporally appropriate.

          I’m not sure why I should get worked up about a *failed* attempt to stop birth control 40 years ago.

      3. And the thing is, people like Marcotte and Sadbeard are seen as thought leaders for their communities. Most of the links he’s posted have been from people no one has heard of.

        1. That post is from the Ruth Institute which is a wing of the National Organization for Marriage. It is a pretty prominent organization in social conservative circles. I am guessing few people may have heard of them here because of the very thing I try to remedy a bit-many libertarians, for some good reasons, get a lot of news from conservative sources, and those sources do not cover the silliness of people in their tent.

        2. Agree. If ruthblog is well read in conservative circles and gets to visit Boner’s office, maybe it will make sense. Otherwise it is close to trolling.

          1. The Ruth Institute is part of NOM, which is the organization that led the fight to pass Proposition 8 in California. So yes, they are a bit more influential than Amanda Marcotte.

            1. NOM is influential, at least in CA. But that doesnt mean a part of them is.

              I have no clue about Ruth, never heard of them until today.

              1. Ruth is a division of NOM.

                Are you seriously arguing that Amanda Marcotte, a writer for Slate, or even Jezebel has more influence than the organization that has successfully led anti-same sex ballot initiatives in California and other states?

                1. Heck, NOM’s founder Maggie Gallagher, who also writes a syndicated column and is a regular contributor to National Review magazine and website is by herself more influential than Amanda Marcotte.

            2. Touche then.

              I have no problem with promoting marriage since it’s a proven way to keep kids out of poverty, but don’t think it’s government’s job to do it — they currently promote single motherhood.

              That said, if NOM is promoting banning contraceptives, that does deserve to be mocked.

  41. Al Gore’s “PolarBearGate” scientist forced to retire from the Department of the Interior.

    The bad news is that the lying con artist Charles Monnett who fabricated all those stories about drowning polar bears is going to receive $100,000 and still get to keep his cushy federal pension.

    That’s America today: make a bunch of bullshit up for the sake of the propagandists, and live like a king for the rest of your life.

  42. “Do you have anything nice in a crotchless panty?”

    Nice girls don’t wear crotchless panties, you disgusting pervert. They wear neatly ironed gingham aprons, and stay in the kitchen, where they belong; pregnant and barefoot. Unless they’re out in the field, pulling the plow.

    1. Nice girls just know they’re called ouverts.

  43. http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..catskills/

    This is the strangest story I have seen in a while. A bunch of rich Chinese want to build an enclave in upstate New York. Why?

    1. China’s cracking down on corruption a bit more and there’s some wealthy Chinese coming over and having kids in America for citizenship (they seem to be unaware of the ‘tax returns while overseas’ thing).

    2. This is the strangest story I have seen in a while. A bunch of rich Chinese want to build an enclave in upstate New York. Why?

      Hmm…Fox News article…The Chinese hate Christmas?

    3. First Chinatown, next Chinacity, finally Chinametropolis.

    4. Dr. No and Dr. Fu Manchu are building a new lair…is a joke a racist would make.

    1. I actually had Turley as a prof in Law School. He was back in the 90s a pretty big liberal. But unlike most liberals, he seems to have some integrity.

      1. Yep. It’s going to be pretty hard for the JournoList scum to portray Turley as a “ratfucker” given his long track record.

    2. “REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R-VA)”

      I always thought, with that name, he should be representing Seattle.

  44. A bunch of rich Chinese want to build an enclave in upstate New York. Why?

    Why not? There are some nice places in upstate New York.

  45. Team Obama Changes Course, Appears to Accept China Air Defense Zone

    Top Obama administration and Pentagon officials signaled a willingness to temporarily accept China’s new, controversial air defense identification zone on Wednesday. Those officials expressed disapproval for the way in which the Asian power has flexed its muscles, and cautioned China not to implement the zone. But they also carved out wiggle room in which the United States and China ultimately could find common ground on the issue, indicating that they may be willing to live with the zone for now — as long as China backs off its demand that all aircraft traveling through it check in first.

    “It wasn’t the declaration of the ADIZ that actually was destabilizing,” said Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, America’s highest-ranking military officer. “It was their assertion that they would cause all aircraft entering the ADIZ to report regardless of whether they were intending to enter into the sovereign airspace of China. And that is destabilizing.”

    1. So is this the latest since Joe Biden and Psaki said different things about the ADIZ?

      At first the Pentagon was giving a nice FU to the Chinese with the bomber runs, so I suppose that is over. What’s next – recognize their claim to the Spratleys?

  46. another one from Foreign Policy:

    Israel’s Kill List
    Inside the Mossad’s campaign to off its most dangerous foes, one by one.

    “There’ll be a summit conference in the sky,” smiled an Israeli intelligence official Wednesday morning when he learned of the assassination of Hassan Lakkis, the Hezbollah commander in charge of weapons development and advanced technological warfare, in a Beirut suburb around midnight on Tuesday, Dec. 3. The killing of Lakkis is yet another in the latest in a long series of assassinations of leading figures in what Israeli intelligence calls the “Radical Front,” which comprises two countries — Syria and Iran — and three organizations: Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas.
    COMMENTS (0) SHARE:
    Twitter

    Reddit

    Bookmark and Share More…

    “We’re talking about a number of organizations and people involved in nuclear and terrorist activity. [They] do it not only for their countries in various missions, but have created an international network — the most dangerous and most efficient that I have met,” the official added. The coalition’s goals: “the construction of a nuclear bomb and of various missilery capabilities — from very short to very long ranges — and the implementation of suicide terror at the highest level.” The Israeli goals: take these men out, one by one.

    1. They live in a tough neighborhood.

      1. Wasn’t the Lakkis hit by Al Queda? I’m sure Mossad could have done it, but they are happy with AQ fighting Al Quds and the Hezzies and would want to sit things out.

    2. This has been the Israeli M.O. for a very long time. The use of laser-guided anti-tank missiles to assassinate people was pioneered by them. Not sure why it’s suddenly news now.

  47. Top Obama administration and Pentagon officials signaled a willingness to temporarily accept China’s new, controversial air defense identification zone on Wednesday.

    Leaving aside the obvious question of whether we are ruled by feckless morons, why is it any of our business what the Chinese claim as “their airspace” in the China iea?

    Get back to me when they claim Catalina, and start shooting down Navy jets over San Diego.

    1. This is a very much a legitimate diplomatic issue.

      The biggest problem is that this new ADIZ they’re claiming partially overlaps with one that Japan has claimed for a pretty long time. There is also the issue that China is taking the rather unusual position that they need to be notified even if an aircraft passing through it is on route to another country.

  48. I am curious as to why me posting about a social conservative lamenting a decision to strike down a law prohibiting the sale and distribution of contraceptives to unmarried adults makes you this upset.

    Because you’re a useless bore. You provide no added value to this “community” with your imbecilic obsession with the impending SoCon dictatorship, and your obsessive-compulsive quibbling about insignificnt minutiae.

    At least Shreeek is amusing, in the way it’s amusing to go to the monkey house and watch the unsuspecting mommies and daddies react to nonstop masturbation and shitflinging by the cute little monkeys, and struggle to explain it all to their innocent little kiddies.

    Go be part of the Volokh circle jerk with Fearless Fosdick.

    1. Hold on there sport!

      Bo Cara’s shtick started when he asked why people kept linking to Jezebel and Amanduh’s drivel for the purpose of mocking them.

      He asked why nobody did that to so-cons, and someone said “Knock yourself out.”

      People’s hostility to him doing what he does while not similarly reacting to the people linking to the Jezzies is kind of fascinating. We should be mocking the slavers mercilessly regardless of the aim motivating the slavery.

      1. Bo annoys me a lot. But the SOCON stuff doesn’t bother me. It is what it is. There are a lot of nuts out there. Occasionally he will link to people objecting to something but not demanding government coercion as if that is not their right. But other than that, I don’t see the problem.

        1. -Occasionally he will link to people objecting to something but not demanding government coercion as if that is not their right.

          As tarran notes this ‘project’ started with my conversation with you and Immaculate Trouser about routine Jezebel and Marcotte mocking, and those posts are not always about feminists demanding coercion. Sometimes it is interesting to just see the silly thoughts that go around in illiberal circles (and which often get expressed in actual calls for NAP violations).

      2. I agree. I really don’t get the hostility toward Bo. There are plenty of obnoxiously pedantic commenters, but at this point it seems pretty obvious (to me anyway) that he is a legit libertarian and argues in good faith. Certainly no more of a troll than the beloved regulars who post almost exclusively joke or heavily sarcastic comments.

        1. I really don’t get the hostility toward Bo.

          90% of my hostility would go away if he would learn to fucking quote properly instead of that dash bullshit.

          I cant figure out what is his and what is being quoted half the time.

          Italics or block quote, either is easy to understand.

          1. Yeah, can’t argue with you there. Links and some basic html formatting aren’t that hard.

            Bo, you hear that? At least learn how to do fucking italics.

          2. Hey, the dash is my signature line!

            1. I dont think you know what a signature line is then.

              Im going to start assuming that everything after the dash is your viewpoint from now on.

              Its going to make for some interesting responses.

              1. Assume away.

      3. If he names the sources, I like his posts. He has been doing it recently the way I suggested. Today, he fell back into his old pattern.

        I thought he had eliminated the s-word from his vocabulary like I suggested, but apparently not.

        1. the s-word

          Sharkeisha?

          1. Dont say it 2 more times or you will summon it.

      4. ^This, this, a thousand times this (tarran at 10:42).

        Yep, they can dish it out but they can’t take it.

  49. “Elizabeth Warren says she will not run for president in 2016 and will serve out her Senate term, similar to promises Barack Obama made prior to the 2008 election.”
    Only worth noting as evidence of her lying when her views ‘evolve’.

  50. Yes, even pegging rents at 20% of market STILL requires guangi to get an SF apartment:
    “The family went to Supervisor Jane Kim, whose district includes the Hamilton shelter and the NEMA development. She got involved, as did the mayor’s office.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..036123.php
    Ya know, sometimes reality is trying to tell you that you can’t afford to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

    1. Since it is on a peninsula, it will always be wildly expensive. Of course the prog do their best to help that along by ensuring no new housing gets built.

  51. People’s hostility to him doing what he does while not similarly reacting to the people linking to the Jezzies is kind of fascinating. We should be mocking the slavers mercilessly regardless of the aim motivating the slavery.

    Somewhere, back in the mists of time, I attacked Coeus (I think) in exactly the same way, for spamming me/us with a nonstop stream of OMG teh feminists will emasculate us all! bullshit.

    Slavers gonna slave, but I’m more concerned with real threats, like the total usurpation of the fourth Amendment by PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY RUN THE GOVERNMENT.

    Elizabeth Warren and Peter King are who I worry about, not a bunch of snake handlers.

    1. So it is about you wanting to keep unwavering focus on the Greater Evil. As noted supra I guessed as much.

      I am curious as to where you live? I live in a deeply red Southern state so social conservatives actually are in charge of quite a bit that affects me. I should ignore their violations of the NAP, keep quiet about it, because then Elizabeth Warren has won or something? I post quite a bit about progressive follies here.

      1. Post some local to you stupidity like the blue laws or abortion doctor murders.

        My city (big, southern, democrat) voted down the last of the dry areas recently, but we still can’t buy beer before noon on Sundays. I’m more worried about them giving money to Acorn and Sports Stadiums though.

        1. A lot of what has passed here is not just local (such as strict immigration laws that empower the police to stop and seize more, prevent voluntary business and property transactions with illegal immigrants, and mandate businesses use ‘e-verify’), but trending in red states.

          I readily agree that the current federal administration trods regularly on my liberty as well. But that does not mean I have to ignore the social conservatives doing the same where I live.

          1. Like I said, have at it. What I like about HnR is I hear what’s going on in different places, get the latest Daily Mail cheesecake and hear how government fucks up people’s personal lives.

            Let’s hear your story BOsquire!

            1. Sarcasmic seems to be a little slow lately on the daily fail cheese, though.

    2. Brooksie, I’m glad you have the luxury of not being the target of the hostility of the real SOCONs. Not all of us are similarly situated. Not expecting you to fight my fights, but do realize that others here might be differently situated and have different priorities than you. And that just as you are not eager to jump on our bandwagon for whatever reason that we have legitimate concerns of our own and may be too busy trying to secure and maintain our basic rights to get involved with things that don’t affect us.

      1. And why do you need to fight anyone? Why do you care how anyone else lives? They don’t like you. But so what? It is a free country isn’t it?

        You hate the SOCONs mostly because you think everyone owes you their approval of your lifestyle. People like Brooks rightly don’t see it that way. Get your affirmation somewhere else.

  52. Speaking of which. Here’s my comment trolling on the new Dallas Buyers Club movie – looks like a great libertarian-themed flick:

    http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/dallas-buyers-club/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.