The Independents

Tonight on The Independents: What's the Matter With Libertarians? (Bumped)


For tonight's special theme episode of your favorite nightly cable chat show, Fox Business Network's The Independents (9 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. PT, repeats three hours later), host Kennedy puts libertarians on the couch. Literally:

Nothing a hunnerd dollars won't fix. |||

Social psychologist and moral-values measurer Jonathan Haidt explains the unique set of values and personality traits found most commonly among libertarians, a theme he explores further in this video. Right-leaning hawks Ralph Peters and Stephen Hayes beat us up for our "naive" foreign policy. Left-leaning commentators Alan Colmes and Lynn Parramore argue with us over regulation and the safety net. Fox News Legal Analyst and former prosecutor Lis Wiehl takes issue with our anti-prohibition stance. Heritage Foundation fellow Ryan Anderson whacks us for supporting gay marriage.

Topping the sundae, Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson (see his 2010 interview here) argues why capital-L Libertarianism beats small-l libertarian Republicanism. And we'll share a raft of information about how, despite whatever defects of libertarians, libertarianism is gaining a bigger and bigger foothold among Americans at large.  

It's a nifty and contentious show, pass it along! Again, that's 9 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. PT, with repeats three hours later. Go to the show website for video of past segments, follow the @IndependentsFBN on Twitter, and I'll bump this post after 8 for purposes of open-threading. Whatsamatta you!

NEXT: Taxing Phantom Marijuana Transactions in Colorado

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “A democrat who hates communism”.

    That about sums it up for the modern progressive party. Man how they’ve changed…

      1. General Jack D. Ripper?

      2. Matlock?

      3. Everyone with half a brain?

  2. HOOO SHIT! The end of the video… I can never unsee that!

    1. The spooning was TOO MUCH.

      The question is: who got the woody, Matt or Kmele.


      1. Was it Spooning or Sporking?

        1. I learn something new every day here at H&R.

        2. Which is the one I do with your mom?

          1. That’s Knifey-Spoony.

            1. I see you’ve played Knifey-Spoony before. With your mom.

    2. I was kind of surprised to see Matt was the “big spoon” while Kmele was the “little spoon.” I would have thought it would have been the other way around.

      1. Any man that confident in his sartorial style is going to be the dominant one.

  3. What isn’t the matter with Libertarians? Lol, roll that beautiful bean footage.

    1. Oh how i wish that was a real web site

  4. Proposal: We replace the Gadsden flag with a flag that depicts Matt and Kmele spooning on the couch as the official symbol of the libertarian movement.


      1. LOVE IT

      2. DON’T WET ON ME

  5. “Heritage Foundation fellow Ryan Anderson whacks us for supporting gay marriage.”

    Whats this “us” crap? I don’t support gay marriage, I think government should stay the hell out of marriage, and if they did this would be a complete non-issue.

    Can’t Libertarians rise above the petty culture war bullshit of the two major parties?

    1. Please, Bard, Tonio and Bo are already annoying the shit out of everyone today. Please don’t bait them.

      1. But what about Bo’s incessant pretend-debate tactics is it you find ‘annoying’, exactly? Do you dispute that it is NOT ‘baiting’ to simply raise a number of questions in a form of statement, without ever actually saying anything of substance, but suggesting that what you seem to be saying is being somehow ‘complicated’, as it were? And do you not find the perpetual use of pedantic expressions, wrapping banal observations in a series of rhetorical devices, such as those used supra, as failing to add any substance to any particular claim? I do not see how this violates the NAP, so your objection strikes me as yet another example of how un-libertarian you are, or do you disagree?

        1. See, Bo’s problem is that he still can’t quite bring himself to call an asshole an asshole. He’ll get over that with age.

          1. He learned it from watching you, Dad!

            1. No, see, I’m perfectly willing and able to call you an asshole, NK!

              1. Are you guys going to spend the rest of the thread talking about butt stuff? Get a chat room. Geez.

                1. Yesterday was my birthday — and the day Uranus was discovered. Coincidence?

                  1. I’m sorry, CN, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.

                    1. But they renamed it “Ass Hole.”

                  2. Yesterday wasn’t my birthday. Do you dispute that this is a coincidence qua coincidence?

                    1. OK, that’s enough. GILMORE’s was funny but now you’re getting too close.

                    2. Epi, do you believe your ‘junior high’ clubby comments of this sort allow libertarians to most productively respond to the deep and probing questions I have asked pertaining to the libertarian philosophy? I notice that no one has yet answered any of the revealing queries posted by my good friend Gilmore supra, likely because of conservative sympathies preventing them from addressing the facts as I have done on a continual basis since arriving at this site.

                      Palin’s Buttplug and I attempt to make this site a more rational locus for libertarian sentiment, and it is strange to me that so many long-time commenters on this site refuse to admit that they are conservative trolls (as proven by the fact that they do not agree with me).

          2. That is not his main problem. It is but one spoke.

        2. (slow clap)

        3. When you threw in the supra you officially started getting me hot.

          Also congrats on being in the last two minutes’ hate. Obviously no one can resist your sexy sexy words.

        4. Threadwinner.

        5. Supra.

        6. Bravo, my caps-locked friend!

        7. Well fucking done, GILMORE. Well done indeed.

        8. Very nice.

          I mean, do you dispute that this is very nice?

        9. That Sir, was a perfect example of ‘Bo-Trolling’.

        10. Ergo! Vis-a-vis! Concordantly!

          Expert work, Gilly.

          1. Wow, it is like an Axis of Sad party there.

            1. You bring that shit on yourself, little man.

            2. Gilmore nailed your contentiousness to a tee.

      2. “Tonio and Bo are already annoying the shit out of everyone today.”

        Excuse me while I whip out…my tiny violin!

      3. But I’ve heard that he’s a master baiter.

    2. So you oppose straight marriage? I’m down with that.

      1. I’ll take the abortionist cop-out:

        “I wouldn’t get one personally, but I think people should have a right to their own bodiesmiseries.”

      2. He made it clear: he didn’t support gay marriage. The libertarian opposition to government-sanctioned marriages is nonexistent without the gays.

        1. So a ballot issue won’t be forthcoming prohibiting recognition of ALL marriages? Hmmmm.

          1. Is anybody working on it? Don’t think so.

            A serious question: does anybody know if libertarians and/or Libertarians tried to make the government stay out of marriage in general? Is there anything in this stand besides posturing?

      3. This is getting ridiculous. Government staying out of marriage means it should neither support nor oppose any type of marriage. I think some of you are just being assholes looking for a fight where none really exists.

        Either you think government should define marriage or it should not.

      4. So you oppose straight marriage? I’m down with that.

        Especially straight marriage.

      5. I support anyone having any kind of relationship with whoever they want at the church of their choice and none of it is any of the government’s business.

    3. Meaning, the show’s hosts.

      1. Between Kennedy riding a donkey naked and you and Kmeele spooning I don’t even want to know what you all do in private.

        1. They’re exhibitionists, they can only get their jollies when someone else is watching.

    4. Here’s my position on gay marriage:

      Government shouldn’t be licensing our personal relationships, period.

      However, if the government insists on doing so, then (1) under our Constitution, this is the province of the states, not the federal government, (2) such licenses should be issued in a non-discriminatory way to any adults who apply, without regard to race, religion, number, etc.

      1. But at root, aren’t those two contradictory?

      2. such licenses should be issued in a non-discriminatory way to any adults who apply, without regard to race, religion, number, etc.

        Why must you dwell on this petty culture war bullshit, RC?

      3. You were right with you first sentence “government shouldn’t be licensing our personal relationships, period.”

        If it’s wrong for the government to tell gays that their definition of marriage is wrong, then isn’t also wrong for the government to tell millions of Americans who define marriage as between a man and woman that their traditional definition of marriage is wrong.

        Honestly if the government just stayed out of the issue, and a gay couple decided to have their own marriage ceremony, do you think the Socons would actually give a shit?

        1. Honestly if the government just stayed out of the issue, and a gay couple decided to have their own marriage ceremony, do you think the Socons would actually give a shit?

          Actually, yes. I agree they shouldn’t and that the government getting out of marriage would be the optimal, and least contentious solution, but having proposed that to SoCon friends and family in the past they’ve argued that “homosexuals will just form churches to say they’re married if the government leaves it up to churches”* Some conservatives are just as stuck on the idea that without a government definition anarchy will reign and that will be bad.

          *That’s more or less a direct quote.

          1. “homosexuals will just form churches to say they’re married if the government leaves it up to churches”*

            Crazy people will just form churches to say that the Holy Spirit descends on them if they can’t keep their crazy inside during service.

            Crazy people will just form churches to say that the reform rabbi they are following is coming back once the Romans crucified him.

            Hey, this is fun.

            1. Yeah. I tried pointing out that several mainline denominations were blessing same sex unions, and that there had been gay friendly churches since the ’60s, nobody needed to form a new church to do anything, but that just retrenched the need for regulation.

              Also: Someone might form a church that encourages the consumption of kool aid!

          2. Some conservatives Most people are just as stuck on the idea that without a government definition anarchy will reign and that will be bad.


      4. The problem of course is not so much licensing, but recognition at the federal level. (and across state lines).

        The issue is, again, goodies.

        What don’t you get if your marriage isn’t recognized at the federal level?

        I’m told that it’s not just goodies, and while I know that not everything is a financial or direct monetary benefit, doing a brief scan of the 1138 (or whatever the # is) federal benefits received by couples is in some way financial.

        *deep breath*

        So to make things equal, the federal government needs to recognize gay marriage.

        What I don’t like, and what annoys the fucking shit out of me is the people who claim they can’t “truly love another” until their relationship is stamped and filed in some government office.

      5. They should end the institutionalized discrimination against single people. Let’s face it, the only reason gay couples want the “Married” tag by their name is to get all the handouts and tax breaks and other special privileges that the breeding class get.

  6. “Social psychologist and moral-values measurer …explains the unique set of values and personality traits found most commonly among libertarians”

    …”and why they are such a despicable, hateful bunch of nattering narcissistic fuckwits”

  7. Yes, it must be very hard to psychoanalyze the mentality of people who have no desire to control others, force them to act like they want, or steal from them incessantly. That’s a real puzzler.

    1. WHY DON’T YOU LOVE PEOPLE, EPISIARCH???? Because giving people stuff(through forced taxation)IS LOVE!!!

      You must learn to love the warm soothing embrace of the state then the state will love you back.

      1. You’re joking, but think about the level of hate and anger that emanates from the kind of people who would say that. One of the features of projection is that not only do projectors attribute their own motives to others, they often reverse the meaning of the things they do (which is why Orwell focused on such reversals). So stealing is helping, and forcing is loving, and so on.

        1. Not giving is taking and not taking is giving.

          1. Yes, exactly. No matter how actually vile their actions, they just claim noble motivations. This is why actions mean nothing to them, only words, and why a horrible dictator can spout a few nice-sounding slogans and get a total pass; because that’s how these types of people fool themselves. So it works just as well coming from someone else.

        2. Yes, but try to communicate that idea to them – that their compassion might not be so loving – and watch their heads explode.

      2. ” the state will love you back.”

        If you definition of love includes forcible anal rape.

    2. Difficult but not impossible. We have psychiatric facilites to help you, comrade.

  8. Wow that really sounds like a shit sundae. You’re going to have every statist derp on that you can followed by Gary Johnson explaining why we should eschew the libertarian Republicanism that gave him a governorship and gave us congressmen Rand Paul, Massie, and Amash in favor of the Libertarianism that gave us Gary Johnson’s failed run for president…and Bob Barr.

    1. And Wayne Allen Root!

    2. I’m trying to remember the successful libertarian presidential run…

  9. What’s the matter with statists? Is this just a dog whistle response? I didn’t think the “Ban Bossy” thing would pan out even among the dumbest victim-fetishists.…..58497.html

    1. I tune out when I hear the word ban mentioned. At the gym a month or so ago, some dude objected to that Robin Thicke song as background music because it encouraged rape (or something). Yeah, because rock/pop music has never encouraged inappropriate even violent behavior before. I cannot stand the new Victorians and their constantly growing list of things that shouldn’t be said.

      1. Actually, I’m opposed to rock music being used as background music. I died a little inside the time I was at the supermarket and a Muzac version of “I Wanna Be Sedated” started playing.

    2. (“Miss” has such negative connotations that it appears to have vanished utterly outside of beauty contests.)

      No, it hasn’t. People like you have just decided to stop respecting other people’s naming choices to the point where you apparently don’t even notice them anymore.

      1. Fraulein is deutsch for miss.

        So, better in the original german?

      2. So what does this gal say when she needs to get the attention of another woman, perhaps to let them know that they dropped something? “Hey you”?

        I say “miss” all the time. I hope I haven’t been microaggressing against the feeble women of New York all this time!

        1. Around here we usually say, “ma’am”. Of course, I say “thank you, ma’am” to the young lady who takes my order at McDonalds or bags my groceries. Mostly because nobody really pays attention to the difference of miss and madame in casual speech. The use of “miss” is a politeness because it compliments those below a certain age as appearing young enough to not be married and those above that threshold by not insulting the spinster. You can see why feminists hated it. It assumes that not being married makes a woman incomplete. I understand both the old rules and the new thinking, but I don’t give a shit what honorific people prefer, as long as they don’t expect me to know on the street when I’ve never met them before. So in the South, we’ve mostly just gone to ma’am.

          1. These must have been New York White women, it’s pretty common to hear Black people calling an elderly woman “Miss Lilian” (or whatever the first name is).

  10. What the fuck. Is this the live blog thread? It’s going to be so goddamn polluted by the time the show finally gets its ass on the air (if “on the air” is what you want to call Fox Biz) that the comments section will take four million years to reload after every post.

    This is what’s the matter with libertarians.

    1. Someone’s butthurt that he doesn’t get firsties. Delicious.


      In a number of hours when we get around to it.

    3. Maybe if you bought a new computer and installed something newer than Windows 98 on it, it would load faster. I think Hugh can loan you his copy of Windows 2000.

      1. It’s called Windows ME, you philistine.

        1. Right, I forgot how much you hated the relatively greater stability of the NT kernel. Nothing after ME for Hugh!

          1. HOLY SHIT. Remember Windows ME? Terrible.

            1. I’M TRYING NOT TO.

              1. I mean, way to shit the bed, Microsoft. Right?


                1. I mean, way to shit the bed, Microsoft. Right?

                  Ho-ho that was just their warmup! Between the Xbone and Vistard and W8 and some stupid phone they didn’t even market they’ve shit the bed and then set fire to it while shitting on it some more.

                  1. you would be an iTard. You would be.

                    1. You would be completely 180 degrees wrong. You in fact are. I hate the iTards, but that doesn’t make MS any less of a trainwreck.

                      I am a proud FanDroid.



            2. Windows ME was a trial run for Windows Vista.

      2. “Loan” is a noun. “Lend” is a verb.

    4. “(if “on the air” is what you want to call Fox Biz) “


      That’s just *mean*

      …….hmm. 2mH8-FTW!

      1. I hide my hate within parentheses so that it can’t be easily distilled down to a soundbite in 2 Mintues of Hate. The Independents and Fox Business don’t get to use my words for free.

        1. How much would you pay them?

    5. So is there we have to make comments to get onto 2 minutes hate?

      If so, Kennedy’s annoying and likes to talk over people, Matt Welch looks like a transvestite prostitute that a… friend… of mine once unkowingly picked up, and I don’t know enough about Kmele Foster to have anything to say about him.

  11. Here’s an idea: why don’t you try to actually focus on some specific topic, and attempt to have a rational discussion lasting more than thirty seconds?

  12. It’s pretty straight forward. Libertarians are like teenagers. They think they know it all and have no respect for authority, but authority really does know best about everything.

    1. No, that’s not it. It’s that libertarians are anti-social nerds who don’t understand how important group consensus is. If they weren’t such dweebs, they would understand how there is no problem that stifling minority opinions and preferences cannot resolve.

      1. Yes, the nerd thing. Libertarians get their clothes secondhand and don’t shop at the cool stores at the mall. Progs are deeply shallow. Comparing them to mature adults is giving them too much credit. They’re more like cliquish sorority girls.


    That’s the party slogan of my libertarian autocracy.

    1. But I don’t wanna disobey!

      1. But by OBEYING wouldn’t you then be DISOBEYING? By refusing to OBEY the party slogan?

  14. But what about Bo’s incessant pretend-debate tactics is it you find ‘annoying’, exactly? Do you dispute that it is NOT ‘baiting’ to simply raise a number of questions in a form of statement, without ever actually saying anything of substance, but suggesting that what you seem to be saying is being somehow ‘complicated’, as it were? And do you not find the perpetual use of pedantic expressions, wrapping banal observations in a series of rhetorical devices, such as those used supra, as failing to add any substance to any particular claim? I do not see how this violates the NAP, so your objection strikes me as yet another example of how un-libertarian you are, or do you disagree?

    *stamps feet, whistles*

  15. Can someone explain the two minutes hate thing please?

    1. It comes from a book by George Orwell titled 1984.

      1. Much like our current government?

      2. Dude, I LOVED your latest porn!
        Why can’t I comment LOL.

    2. It’s a feature of the show where they read aloud the best comments picking at the show and its hosts.

    3. The show segment or the reference to Orwell’s 1984?

    4. They take two minutes to go through the choicest comments from Epi and Gilmour.

    5. Every so often on the show they read out comments about them from Twitter, H&R, email, etc.

      1. The Two-Minute Hate is like them giving themselves wedgies.

        1. The Independents is the worst thing since Lincoln.

          1. Lol, acrobats could jump through Kennedy’s earrings.

            1. Wait, they’ve already recorded the episode, haven’t they? Then I guess they won’t use any of my bon mots.

              1. The two minutes was just on Wednesday, and it’s every other week.

                Have we noticed any patterns on days that are more likely to get looked at for hateworthy comments?

    6. Thank you all for your clear answers.

    7. This is how it works.

      You say:

      “”The Independents: Conclusively demonstrating that even all the Koch money in the world still can’t buy *quality*“”

      … they read your hateful comment on the air, and soon thereafter you will have your own army of hookers powered by an endless supply of cocaine.

  16. SF freeloaders want something for nothing!

    “[Eric] Blanc said the focus should be on the students’ demands, which include the ouster of special trustee Robert Agrella and the end to a new policy that requires students to pay in full or agree to a payment policy before registering for classes.”…..317593.php

    Imagine having to pay what you agreed to pay! The HUMANITY!

  17. Cytotoxic’s personal blog entry: yesterday I sat through a chunk of the Red Dawn remake. The last quarter or third or so and holy cow it terrible. I expected bad but this was carcinogenic bad. The tone, cadence, setting, dialogue, even the camera work and musical score worked together to piss me off. Casting Thor as the Good American Son archetype and making him the lead was terrible. I can’t believe how much I hate everything. I guess this is what it’s like to be Dan.

  18. Imagine having to pay what you agreed to pay! The HUMANITY!

    Fucking contracts, something something.

  19. That video. First of all, there are no Democrats who hate Communism. And secondly, Kennedy restricts your freedom for an hour a night, four nights a week, Welch. Just try to get a coherent thought finished during the show and see how free you are. Her gums are flapping in your ear before you get within a mile of the point you’re trying to make.

  20. Imagine Question Time in the British Parliament but with more ADHD.

  21. I missed lunch and now I have to eat out of a fucking VENDING MACHINE.

    Relate this to libertarianism somehow – GO!

    1. Bonus points for incorporating “supra” in your answer.

    2. There should be heroin right beside the Sun Chips.

      1. Vend-a-Prostitute

      2. SHOULD be. But is there, ever?

        I blame Continental Food Service (a subsidiary of BOOOOOOOOOOOOSH, inc.)

        1. The heroin is usually there, but damn thing is always out of needles. What am I supposed to do, snort the fucking stuff?

          1. Fucking nose bleeds suck!

      3. Sun Chips should be created using unregulated free-market fusion reactors.

      4. No, the heroin should go supra the Sun Chips, the cocaine goes next to the Lays potato chips, and the pot next to the Hostess mini-donuts. “Siempre aqi seperare los drogos!”

        Sheesh. Every TRUE Libertarian knows that!

        1. Some of you philistines probably use your dessert spoon for eating your consomm

    3. You’re such a slave to the corporation that you can’t even afford the time to feed yourself. If you were a union employee, you wouldn’t have this problem. Therefore libertarianism can never work.

    4. That vending machine put some food preparer out of a job AND THAT’S A GOOD THING.

  22. Man, TI announcement goes up at 2:15PM? Really? Some days it’s up 23 minutes before the show. Another at 5:32pm. Then 7pm. I have to check in every three minutes at this pace.

    There’s no consistency.

    I hate inconsistency!

    /destroys Oreo cookie and blows crumbs into your eyes.


    1. Man, TI announcement goes up at 2:15PM?

      2:45 in Newfoundland.

      1. They should change their name to:


        1. I would have gone with Usedfoundland myself.

          1. It’s got a nice ring to it.

    2. /destroys Oreo cookie and blows crumbs into your eyes.

      Umm, RACIST?

    1. That could be the whole two minutes of hate, if it wouldn’t validate a sad, crazy person.

      1. I take it Mary was here shitting on the drapes again?

    2. Kind of disappointing. I was expecting more crazy. This didn’t even make sense but wasn’t fun crazy.

    3. She stalks my blog and posted a comment there to plug it.

      1. Gee, who is it who posts here that’s always going on and on about the “farcical” notion that we are in a “Libertarian Moment?”

        Nope, it’s just not coming to me.

        1. oh man. well here’s hoping she gets nuked soon.

          1. Much like an Obama press release, she knows there’s little scrutiny of Friday night events.

    4. Tumbleweed and an abandoned parked train as a metaphor for aimless and pointless libertarianism.

      It’s actually quite poignant in its incoherence.

      Quite the auteur.


    5. Hi Mary

  23. such licenses should be issued in a non-discriminatory way to any adults who apply, without regard to race, religion, number, etc.

    What are you, some kind of NeoCon species-ist?

  24. Left-leaning commentators creepy and odious autoritarians Alan Colmes and Lynn Parramore argue with us over regulation and the safety net how the state should control our lives and why we should take it up the tailpipe like good, little slaves.

    There! More accurate.

    1. Alan Colmes is creepy AND stupid. That’s a bad combo, even for a lefty. ESPECIALLY for a lefty.

  25. OMG I’m so drunk I’ll be posting gibberish by 9 PM!


  27. Rep. Larry McDonald, a hardcore Democrat out of Georgia, was a rabid anti-Communist, John Bircher, and believed that powerful groups and interests in the US were plotting to institute socialism and world government.

    He was shot down by the Soviets on that Korean 007 airliner!

    1. From Wiki – ‘McDonald, who considered himself a traditional Democrat “cut from the cloth of Jefferson and Jackson”, was known for his conservative views, even by Southern standards’.

  28. Shocking news: MSDNC host admits to being a socialist and calls for a total gun ban.

    1. MSDNC host admits to being a socialist

      There’s no sugarcoating it, that revelation is not very surprising. It belongs in the same category as:

      Willy Wonka Confirms Love For Chocolate

      Tom Cruise Concedes A Height-Related Deficiency

      Al Gore Found Frequenting Asian Massage Parlors

      Hillary Clinton Is Bossy Bitchy

    2. Who’s the guy in the red tie?

      1. OK its greenwald, which is what I thought.

        I don’t know much about the guy past the snowden deal. Is he still a screaming lefty despite all that?

        1. Greenwald is a lefty, but more or less honest civil liberties guy.

          Of course, he got busted several years ago sock puppetting (Tulpa-ing?) his own threads.

          But he’s been pretty consistent on civil liberties. Oth pre and post Obama, so that’s something.

          1. Of course, he got busted several years ago sock puppetting (Tulpa-ing?) his own threads.

            That’s not actually true.

            He got “caught” – if that’s the right word – using a fake name to flame the sites of his enemies.

            Which is exactly what I do under various pseudonyms every day, so I have never seen what the big deal is.

            1. Really? I could have sworn he was replying to his own articles. And talking up himself.

              Oh, wait… You’re saying you’re Glen Greenwald, aren’t you?

        1. Isn’t that redundant?

  29. I guess this means whatever harried and malnourished intern assigned to repost this at the 5 o’clock hour won’t be feeling the lash of Matt Welch come Monday.

    1. Considering that we now known that Welch only got his job through the casting couch, how much power did he have in the first place?

    2. Clearly you don’t understand internships, Serious. The intern’s only reason for being there is to get the lashes. If Welch withheld the lashes it’d be punishment. He/She is certainly not there for the pay.

      1. You sure you’re not thinking of some Wart/SugarFree matchup, there?

  30. So the Raw Story turd burglar I emailed yesterday has yet to respond:…..nt_4378182

    1. I wouldn’t hold your breath.

      1. I’m tempted to comb through his archive to find just the dozen or so most outrageous lies he’s told. I’m not sure anyone would care though.

        1. He’s just a good little foot soldier who is ready to fall on his sword at his master’s command.

          1. I want Reason to check the traffic from that article. If it’s good, why don’t they do a weekly debunking of the worst raw story article they can find?

            1. Other way around. Make sure Raw Story is watching, then post bait for them.

    2. Love it!

  31. I went to high school with this week’s Sports Illustrated Cheerleader of the Week

    1. I hope you tapped dat ass.

      1. I don’t think anyone did. Devout Christian, purity ring, the whole shebang.

        But very nice girl, not stuck up like you might think a popular cheerleader would be.

        1. Even Taylor Swift fell. Next time, you need to invoke the power of our Dark Lord Set’s corruption.

          He demands a sacrifice.

    2. I met the guy who played Principal Blackman from Strangers with Candy.

      So there!

      1. You met Greg Hollimon? I met Amy Sedaris after one of her plays. And Deborah Rush (who played Jerri’s stepmom) lived in my neighborhood in Manhattan and would frequently go to the same video store I did, and where my friend worked (he said she was quite unpleasant). And where the bassist for the Strokes worked before they took off.

        It’s a 7-11 now.

        1. video store

          Tell us about the old ways, grandpa!

          1. The old ways?

            Far over the misty mountains cold
            To dungeons deep and caverns old
            We must away ere break of day
            To seek the pale enchanted gold.

            The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
            While hammers fell like ringing bells
            In places deep, where dark things sleep,
            In hollow halls beneath the fells.

            For ancient king and elvish lord
            There many a gleaming golden hoard
            They shaped and wrought, and light they caught
            To hide in gems on hilt of sword.

            On silver necklaces they strung
            The flowering stars, on crowns they hung
            The dragon-fire, in twisted wire
            They meshed the light of moon and sun.

            1. Where the Banshees live, and they do live well!

          2. It had DVDs! Eventually…

            Jesus, I just realized that when I first started going there, and for a while, there were no DVDs. I’m going to go get drunk now.

            1. It’s okay Epi, times are much better now.

              You no longer have to feel like a weirdo when you pull back the curtain to enter the adult section in the rear of the video store. And you don’t have to deal with the shame of looking at the sweet old Korean lady at the counter when you bring up the dirtiest, nastiest, ball-slappiest interracial porn they have.

              1. looking at the sweet old Korean lady at the counter when you bring up the dirtiest, nastiest, ball-slappiest interracial porn they have.

                We’re talking about Epi, not a normal person. That was the only way he could get hard.

            2. Good idea, I’m pouring myself an Old Fashioned right now.

              1. Good idea, I’m almost out of Campari.

                1. Good idea, I’m almost out of Campari.

                  Last time I took drinking advice from you I ended up with bite marks from a ginger ballet dancer that still haven’t gone away.

                  What should I drink tonight?

                  1. So, that was what… Wednesday?

                    Sidecars. Cognac, Cointreau, lemon juice (fresh squeezed, of course) 4:2:1 ratio. Shake with ice, strain into an up glass.

                    1. The vanilla forwardness of the albanian konjak I used doesn’t quite work in this context, but it’s still a tasty option. I like sidecars.

                      (I don’t have enough french cognac on hand to make a decent sized drink)

                    2. Brandy is, of course, acceptable.

                      4:2:1 is a ratio that will serve you well.

                      4 parts rum, 2 parts simple syrup, 1 part lime. Shake, strain into up glass.
                      Damn good Daquiri.

                      Replace rum with Tequila, and do 2 parts cointreau, 1 part simple syrup, 1 part lime, and you have an awesome margarita.

                    3. 4 parts rum, 2 parts simple syrup, 1 part lime. Shake, strain into up glass.

                      I can’t drink rum 🙁

                      I like rum, but it makes me …handsy.

                    4. Do you want to get bitten by a ginger or not!?!?

                    5. Jesus man, can I heal first?

                      Also my most likely option for having sex tonight doesn’t have a car, so I have to sober up enough to drive to him.

                      Also I tend to get handsy with people who are not interested in me getting handsy with them. I’m perfectly capable of getting handsy with people who are interested without the assistance of alcohol.

                    6. Also my most likely option for having sex tonight doesn’t have a car, so I have to sober up enough to drive to him.

                      Beer it is!

                      Also I tend to get handsy with people who are not interested in me getting handsy with them.

                      Preaching to the choir. We’re not so different, you know.

                    7. We’re not so different, you know.

                      I think we knew that as soon as you were planning to raid my house for Hendricks in a post-apocalyptic scenario.

                    8. I must have been blacked out, that’s a long fucking ways.

                    9. Also my most likely option for having sex tonight doesn’t have a car, so I have to sober up enough to drive to him.

                      Beer it is!

                      Also I tend to get handsy with people who are not interested in me getting handsy with them.

                      Preaching to the choir. We’re not so different, you know.

            3. Did it have laserdiscs too?

              1. “Did it have laserdiscs too?”

                He wishes.

                I gave away my laser discs (blood sport? One or two others) and player (weighed a ton, it was an early one) probably more than 12 years ago.

                1. The only reason to own laser disc was for the Japanese version of Army of Darkness that had the original ending.

                  1. Ahem. Star Wars remastered with good visual, decent sound, and… Han shoots fucking first.

                2. Actually it did have Laserdiscs, but my friend (the one who worked there) had a much more extensive collection, which he finally sold after DVDs were solidly established…for anywhere from $30 to $200 per disc. Yup, some people are insane collectors.

                  1. I had a ripped divx file of The Lion King from a laserdisc and it was one of the highest quality rips I had in the early 2000s.

    3. Pppt.

      This is my former pool-playing buddy…..-Print.jpg

      she was pretty damn good too.

      1. I hope you tapped dat ass.

        1. I did.

          With the pool cue. When it was her turn.

      2. Nice. This was my across-the-hall neighbor.

        1. I hope you tapped dat ass.

    4. When did you graduate, last week?

  32. A Matt Yglesias clone debates Stossel. Note that he has no answer when asked how high taxes should be. At least Samuel Gompers was honest enough to say “more”.

    1. Taxes should be high enough to pay for the programs Congress has dreamnt up.

      1. Palin’s Buttplug|3.14.14 @ 8:38PM|#
        “Taxes should be high enough to pay for the programs Congress has dreamnt up.”

        Wrong, dipshit. Programs should be cut to match existing taxes, and then taxes should be cut. Repeat.

        1. Programs should be cut to match existing taxes

          Hilarious! You naive bitch. Which party has ever done that?

          I live in the real world.

          Oh, we SHOULD cut spending dramatically. But I should get to fuck Nicole Kidman every night too.

          1. Coolidge cut spending and reduced the debt. It was one of the few times in US history when that ever happened.

            He wasn’t a liberal or a Democrat.

            1. There were no social spending programs then like SS/Medicare/SNAP.

              I am sure some Whigs cut spending too.

              1. How much for your portable goalposts, shit heap?

      2. The odds of you ever saying anything true or even coherent, is about the same as the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church forming a flash mob to sing “It’s raining men!”

  33. For those bored while waiting for the show to start, entertain yourselves with this.

    1. How can anyone find that titillating when there’s so much CULTURAL APPROPRIATION going on in that video?!

    2. I dare say that was acceptable.

  34. Arggghhhhh!

    Make up your minds!

    2:15. 8pm.

    What are you flakes? Flaky behavior belongs in the progressive camp.


    /throws Oreo cookie against wall.

  35. Rich Russians face margin calls as stock market hits five year low, Ruble crushed, Russian central bank panic selling US Treasuries, and bleak economic forecasts.…..stake.html

    Putin has fucked up big.

    1. Mugabe is a complete dunce and has clung to power for 34 years.

  36. 195 comments? Why such an early assemblage?

    1. united we stand, divided we fall.

      1. And alone we sing.

      2. Divided we fall, united we stand,
        Hands across America

      3. I want to build a new house.

  37. I am tired of Libertarians being associated with loser drug addicts who cannot read all the negative health effects of cannabis in the scientific literature.

    And I am tired of the gay marriage debate, government should stay out of marriage. Libertarians pushing gay marriage are as annoying as progressives.

    1. Perhaps you need a pillow?

      1. Ah, so you are the Jester to his King Lear raging against the storm!

        1. Tonight was supposed to be a Julius Caesar theme, but meh, whatever works

      2. Perhaps I need to hear Kennedy stop talking like a scientific illiterate about pot for once, when there are hundreds of studies showing is causes all forms of brain damage from memory loss to psychosis.

        1. right

          So maybe you should point your wrath at CNN’s Resident Neurosurgeon who has reviewed said ‘studies’ and believes weed is not just harmless, but a *good thing* =


          and while I’m not the biggest fan of the guy = where’d you do *your* Neurosurgeon residency, again?

          1. Gupta’s an embarrassment to the medical profession since he effectively ignores thousands of scientific studies showing the harmful effects of cannabis.

          2. Now this is a novel kind of troll. The ondcp stooge. Have we had one of these before?

        2. Please feel free to cite said studies.

          1. …aaaaaaand a chorus of crickets ensued

    2. Well, I’m glad that the High Lords and Ladies* of Libertarianism were able to convene to deliberate such an important matter, and that you arrived as quickly as you did. Your efforts are greatly appreciated, and will be rewarded. If there are any other topics for which you have found the Ultimate Libertarian Answer, let us know so that we never have to debate them again.

      *JK, everyone knows there are no libertarian ladies.

      1. Not that I agree with him, but I thought you did not consider yourself a libertarian. Seems like an odd retort to him if that is so.

        1. I don’t. So what? I’d make the same comment to a conservative or a progressive claiming to have descended the mountain with wisdom from on high for their brethren.

          Can you *try* to participate constructively in a damn thread?

          1. I descend from the mountains of scientific reason. I take it you don’t visit there often.

      2. You don’t need a libertarian answer to discuss the hundreds of scientific studies that show negative health effects for using marijuana.

        1. What happened to the ‘thousands’? WHO KEEPS DESTROYING THE STUDIES??

  38. 2nd period Rangers and Jets about to go.

  39. I don’t like Cavuto, but I always catch his “hate against himself” segment he does before the Independents starts, and I admire his candor and honesty about his critics.

    1. P.S.
      I think the “2 minutes of hate” should be a nightly event on The Independents.
      It’s fun.

  40. The Cavuto version of 2 minutes hate sucks.

    1. Independent observation, not a reply to Mr. Me.

      1. Quit “othering” me, bro…

    2. What do you mean? Some dude just called Cavuto a homo!

  41. Hoops. Sigh. Uninspired.

  42. Hoops again?!? Kennedy hates us.

    1. Not “us”. Just you.

  43. I’m not even going to talk about their outfits on casual Friday.

  44. At least Matt finally realized that monochrome tie/shirt is better than the horrors he has previously worn.

  45. Bill Maher complaining others are selfish pricks? That’s rich.

    1. Yea, that coming from a guy who incessantly stacks panels against his ideological foes.

  46. Because they are all the same group?

  47. Eff you, Independents, for making me see a few seconds of Bill Maher.

    1. Yeah that was out of bounds.

  48. Warboner gangbang!

    1. John McCain (and Barack Obama) is (are) definitely in.

  49. Whats wrong with Libertarians? WHATS WRONG WITH LIBERTARIANS??

    It must be all the Individual Freedom talk…

  50. Ah, the Weekly Standard!

  51. Wow, no one on the show–guests or hosts–is wearing something horrible tonight. Is today Christmas?

    I shouldn’t speak too soon, though.

    1. Blue tie and stripes? I spoke too soon.

  52. power corrupts

  53. Ralph Peters – Former LTC and current Asshat.

  54. Fuck you Peters, I’d school your MI ass on area studies and geopolitics.

  55. As individuals, almost everybody is a non-interventionist. You know that using force against others, even if justified, is dangerous.

    And yet, when groups are involved instead, many people forget that.

    1. As individuals, almost everybody is a non-interventionist.

      So if you saw someone getting beat up unjustifiably in high school (a friend, maybe), you just let it happen?

      You know that using force against others, even if justified, is dangerous.

      And yet, I have no problem with helping someone if the situation calls for it. I won’t go out of my way to find such situations, but when they occur I don’t hide in a cave until the situation concludes and pat myself on the back for a job well done.

      1. So if you saw someone getting beat up unjustifiably in high school (a friend, maybe), you just let it happen?

        +1 Kitty Genovese

      2. I would and have intervened in such situations.

        Let’s keep the analogy consistent. It’s OK for nations to intervene to help allies (friends/relatives for individuals).

        Was South Korea a US ally? How about South Vietnam? Or nationalist China? Or Kuwait?

        In my view, those wars were a lot like getting in a fight to help a guy you just met.

        1. Was South Korea a US ally?

          More of a protectorate adopted by the US after we defeated Japan (the former master of Korea), but it is close enough. Regardless of what I thought of my nephew, if I accepted custody over him I would protect him from others.

          How about South Vietnam?

          When it was French Indochina (a part of France, and thus our ally), or afterwards when we pressured France to abandon its colonies and took on the responsibility for the governments which replaced the French presence? Again, more of a “we accepted custody” situation than anything though I would agree that it was foolish for us to do so.

          Or nationalist China?

          Yes. Nationalist China refueled our planes during WWII, provided us intel, was on our side during the conflict, etc. We did, in fact, have treaties with them that Truman broke when the Communist Party started gaining the upper hand in China, one of many reasons he was accused of “losing China” during his re-election campaign.

          I am not saying that intervention is wise in all cases, but it is not nearly as simple as most libertarians make it out to be.

          (BTW, I am unaware of there being a loophole for allies in non-interventionism — “no entangling alliances” being the operative phrase, as I recall.)

          1. I would prefer the US make no allies unless there is a declared war. Since that ship has set sail, could we at least restrict ourselves to only going to war for the sake of allies?

      3. I have no problem with helping someone if the situation calls for it

        That’s you making a choice for yourself. If we had the choice not to support military action through our taxes (similar to the New England state’s refusal to contribute to the War of 1812) then your analogy would be valid.

        1. Then the statement “as individualists, almost everybody is an interventionist” is untrue, which was the purpose of my analogy.

  56. Whoa-ho! Five-way split screen. Orgy.

  57. Not buying that logic.

    Being non-intervention actually reflects realism.

    Holy shit! That guys projection is frightening.

    I have a history degree and knew about the Crimea.


  58. School them kmele

  59. Layeth down the smackdown!

  60. Kmele is kicking ass.


    Comin’ again to save the motherfuckin’ day, Yeah

    1. I first watched that movie when I was a mid-teen and I thought it was awesome. Then, I tried to watch it in my senior year of college and could not make it through it. What HAPPENED?!

      1. You lost your sense of humor?

    2. One of the worst movies ever, not funny at all.

      1. Jesus you’re a boring cunt.


    Sloppy reasoning perfectly describes Peters. He’s projecting his own emotionalism. The projection never ends.

  63. “Worst foreign policy president ever”

    That seems a bit over the top. Not that Obama is good, but I wouldn’t give past presidents that kind of pass.

    1. That guy Lying us into a trillion dollar ground war that served no purpose?

      Give him a pass!

  64. Good comeback, Kmele.

  65. The flabby pussy on the bottom left is quite punchable. Oh yeah, he’s game for every war now that he’s over military age.

  66. What is “isolationist” about trading with others?

    I’m reminded of the phrase:
    If goods do not cross borders, armies will.

  67. Just because some interventions don’t work…

  68. All the bullshit on the bottom of the screen obscures Kennedy’s boobs. This is an outrage.

    1. But how else would you know the closing price of PEPSICO ?

    2. What boobs?

      1. Why must you crush my hopes?

  69. Ha, Welch is going to slap Peters across the face with his own past stances.

  70. Only the interventions selected by Top Men.

  71. Peters has the crazy eyes of Curtis LeMay and the demeanor of General Jack D. Ripper.

  72. Holy crap Peters is fucking annoying. It’s a good thing I recreationally took that beta blocker earlier.

  73. Every problem is unique and demands unique fuck ups.

  74. Bottom left pussy: Liberals screw up foreign policy more betterer!

  75. So shorter asshats: I don’t know what Rand Paul’s policy is and agree with it completely.

  76. I get to see Kennedy’s first interruption!

    I lost my virginity to Kennedy.

  77. He doesn’t see the consistent war boner required to be a Republican candidate.

    1. “If your WAR BONER lasts more than 40 years, please see a shrink, or possibly the business end of a shotgun.”

  78. Cutting off the Godwinning! For once her interrupting skills are useful!

  79. War Pigs

  80. I give that segment an above average rating. Our hosts didn’t pick their brain, like they normally do, but actually smacked’em around a bit.

  81. So just what are all of you guys doing for Happy Drunk White People Day?

    1. Miller Fortune and maybe later, cheap malbec- ’cause I’m sophisticated ‘n shit.

    2. Happy Drunk White People Day

      If you’re happy emulating drunk Irish, you’re probably doing it poorly.

      1. If you’re happy emulating drunk Irish, you’re probably doing it poorly.

        I know, right?

  82. Iran is a threat? It’s an impoverished nation 6,000 miles away with enormous internal problems.

    1. But…one of my former educators was Iranian and she was damn pretty – and wealthy.

      1. I knew an Iranian in college. He grew up in Kuwait because his parents fled after the revolution. Nice guy, but kind of dumb.

        1. Hung out with a guy from the UAE in college. He introduced me to DAB.

      1. They have a chicken shortage. That’s a North Korea level of pathetic.

        1. Yes, that’s the government fucking with things. Unlike NK, they have resources though.

          1. Iran’s missiles come from NK- not famous for well-built missiles.

  83. IMHO:
    The correct foreign policy is “commerce with all, entangling alliances with none.”

    1. The sentiment is correct but I fear that can be impractical.

      Keeping the two separate is difficult.

      Look at the history of Venice who pushed for this harder than any empire. They eventually got entangled due to circumstances out of their control.

      1. I’m inclined to say that Venice lacked the ability to defend itself in the way we are, but I’m unfamiliar w/ what you are referring to. Enlighten me.

        1. Too long to get into here but in a nutshell, it is true Venice depended in the beginning on Vatican and Byzantium for protection in the beginning, but once its navy was built, it actually was protecting the Empire in the East, fighting the Turkish incursions and actively involved in the Crusades. To say nothing of its wars with other Italian cities typical of Italian history – Genoa in particular.

  84. Oh, I wasn’t paying attention. Does Kennedy even have ears tonight?

  85. At least mic him properly.

  86. Nice homebuilt tower and CRT monitor back there.

    1. Must have got that computer at Goodwill.

  87. No wonder Matt is on Kennedy’s couch, he sounds completely depressed.

    1. And he has a bit of a gut.

  88. Does Kennedy charge 5 cents for her psychiatric help?

  89. Didn’t need to see Matt whispering softly into Kmele’s ear.

    1. Did they have pants on?

  90. Good God, Peters is a moron.

    Every once in a while, could you guys try to have a non-libertarian guest who isn’t a complete moron?

    1. Very small group to choose from

  91. And yeah, wasn’t expecting Matt to be the big spoon on that couch.

  92. Whoever was responsible for that shrink segment should be tied up and put between Kennedy and her stash of amphetamines when she’s coming down.

  93. Yes, we are Vulcans!

    1. “Live long and prosper. Or don’t. Your decision.”

      1. Then again: “Do not grieve captain. Tis logical. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.”

        1. That was his human blood.

    2. Wait, not Ferengi?

        1. No wonder people hate libertarians.

      1. Don’t they all have inferiority complexes?

      1. Let’s just aspire to be Spock: cool, logical, but will kick your ass if you manage to piss him off.

        Spock’s utilitarianism is, itself, illogical, but that’s the fault of Roddenberry and the writers.

        1. Deontological spock from a parallel universe would be awesome.

          1. You mean Spock with a beard?

  94. Becuz being more logical than eemoshunul iz baaaaaaaaad!

  95. Fuck you and your psychological leading-question survey methodology snake oil, Haidt.

    How’s that for emotion, jackoff?

  96. The “cult” of Individualism is the only “cult” I shall ever be associated with.

    1. Hey, don’t sell Blue Oyster Cult short.

      1. Why can’t I join the Red Lobster Cult?

  97. Matt stroking Kmele’s shoulder…

    Brokebackarianism is born.

    1. “I never started you.”

  98. Why is this show not called The Kmele and Friends Show?

    1. Foster is black and this is a Fox channel.

      1. People might think it was about that soccer guy.

        1. “That chick was like, the Kmele of anal.”

  99. Be better at making emotional appeals to retards, got it.

    1. Show them that you like cake, too!

  100. That was interesting.

    Send it to Maher.

  101. Did Haight just say that if you love liberty you might miss out on the opportunity to restrict it? Is that the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard, or the extra stupidest?

    1. Is that the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard

      It’s also the evilest.

      1. Its very evil, but it’s also like a kind of reverse tautology or something. Of course if you respect liberty, you won’t be taking opportunities to restrict it. It’s like saying if you love your children you might miss out on opportunities to beat them.

  102. No, fuck you. Restricting one’s liberty is never in one’s best interest. Liberty is the ability to act within one’s interest.

    Fuck you, Haidt. I hope you die from prostate cancer.

    1. I… don’t think that’s the type of emoting he was looking for.

      1. As a libertarian, my emotions only range from lust to rage.

    2. Despite this, I like that he highlighted the point that libertarianism is grotesquely misrepresented by the emotional barbarians on the right and left. Overall, it was good in my opinion.

  103. Listening to all these jackasses tell me what’s wrong with me… this is their way of turning the two minutes hate back on us, isn’t it?

  104. Maybe OT:

    I have lost many an FB friend over my straightforwardness and honesty about my positions. I am only distraught to the effect that they lack the intellectual integrity to actually tolerate that which they claim tolerance of.

    1. I don’t have any FB friends, but among my real life acquaintances, I’ve lost several in the recent past since I’ve given up nodding when they claim some bullshit and started calling them on it.
      They don’t like that and their supposed ‘tolerance’ of diversity is limited to those who agree with them.

  105. Also, where the fuck is kibby?

  106. That increase in Washington State is 100% Epi’s fault.

  107. Fuk you Lis

  108. Uh, of course the Washington State Police reported an increase in MJ driving. Because not only does no one know what five nanograms (or whatever it is) means for intoxication, this is now a huge revenue increase for them. Of course they’re going to make more arrests.

  109. Okay, I get what’s going on here. The Independents is going to invite the absolute worst of statists on to debate to make themselves look less terrible in comparison.

    1. It’s actually a pretty good strategy, because it’s working.

  110. Independents Attire Review, 14 March 2014

    Et Tu: Booty?-edition

    – Kennedy: We feel our voice is being heard, as Kennedy brings both something from her stronger color-palette as well as a fabric that drapes attractively over her porcelain-perfect bosom. Mee-yeow, says I. She anchors the otherwise color-bereft panel triumvirate.

    – Matt: In theme? Something here (sort of) matches something else! While not the stellar combo seen only 2 shows ago which unified the ever-present pink shirt with its true-love red tie, beating the dead horse of Matt’s color-combo idiosyncrasy is perhaps unnecessary tonight. We would simply comment that contrast remains a ongoing struggle here, and that the silver-purple tie yearns hopelessly for a white background.

    – Kmele: Oh, does no one every prep each other before the show? Matt goes grey -Kmele follows suit? We missed an opportunity here to provide needed contrast to save Matt from fading into the greyscale spectrum; however, saying that Kmele ‘does it better’ is by now as clich? as it was for James Bond. We add that the apropos sweater-jacket combo does much to rectify sweater-sins of the past. The purple tie-on-grey improvement over Matt’s *almost there* silver-purple seals yet another win for the Kmele-inator.

    Sartorially Yours,


  111. “I know this is an anecdote, but I’m telling you that I know it’s a gateway drug!”

  112. In Drug War bingo, “gateway drug” is the free square.

    1. Is it also every square?

  113. The gateway is the legal system. Not the drug.

  114. You make things illegal, there’s going to increase crime. That’s just how that works.

    1. You’re being rational. You heard that guest, you gotta be emotional.

  115. She is so stupid

  116. “I’m worried about the vanishingly small chance of someone doing something I harp on!”

  117. Fuck this bitch.

  118. Jesus, really? They’re *still* hammering on “weed driving” as the great scourge of legal-weed? This just continues to show how the prohibitionists have completely run out of anything remotely resembling a decent fact-based argument, needing to now create the specter of *potential* risks.

  119. NO ONE IS GOING TO JAIL FOR MARIJUANA. Except all those ones who are.

  120. This woman is an extraordinarily mendacious cunt. Weed is so much fucking cheaper than anything else that no one has to steal for it. Fuck you, lady.

  121. “Economic activity is happening without government permission or tax revenue. EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE!”

  122. Prohibition is a real problem, hmm?


    1. Look at you all glass is half empty!

      Somalia is a successful Islamist state.

  124. If there was only some other prohibition policy from history that we could examine to predict what would happen if we made pot legal.

    1. kind of how Jews were prohibited in 1930s Germany?

  125. I remember when I bought my first oz back in the 70s the guy had a big old bottle of Rorer 714s. He didn’t have change for my two $20s so he gave me 3 ‘ludes…GATEWAY!!1!

  126. That’s a lot of obsession.

  127. Johnson gets zinged from out of nowhere.

  128. It’s absolutely amazing how 90+% of TEAM BLUE attacks on libertarians is pure, unadulterated projection. Self-awareness is not a feature of these people.

  129. Alan Colmes looks like some sort of B-movie space creature.

  130. Ugh, Colmes.

  131. Wow, lots of activity for a Friday night. And watching FBN on a Friday night, what, do you not have college basketball where you people live?

  132. Like I care. That was good!

  133. Really? Income inequality? Right off the bat she’s establishing herself as a leftist moron.

    1. Quite shocking coming from a Cultural Theorist / Media Consultant.

  134. Fuck the IMF. Bunch of gangsters.

  135. Oh this should be good. Let’s pretend the economy is the zero-sum game because inequality!

  136. Oh, man. Who is this chick? Is she for real?

  137. Yes! Guaranteed income. There needs to be a lever that opens a trap door under guests like her.

    1. like slime came out when you said “i don’t know” on YCDTOTV?


  139. I want to reduce income inequality through…


    How moral of you.

    1. It is either that or restrictions on those who would do better than others.


  141. Ahh, Lou Dobbs!

  142. Ah, “inequality”, the “problem” that TEAM BLUE uses as the justification for unbridled force against individuals. Wait, there is a huge inequality between the government’s ability to use force and mine. Fix this inequality now, lady.

  143. Inequality- because all the other reasons progs have come up with are bullshit.

    1. Derpetologist|3.14.14 @ 9:34PM|#
      “Inequality- because all the other reasons progs have come up with are bullshit.”

      I’m not presuming any sort of conspiracy, simply a sort of bland stabbing at things like a Mexican birthday party with a pinata.
      Now that the lefties have gotten their ‘medical reform’ and fucked it up royally, there’s nothing left but to pitch stuff at the wall and hope something sticks to keep the ‘free shit’ votes coming.
      Hence: ‘Income Inequality!”

      1. Which was the talking point in 1913.

  144. …I want to see those things reduced by transfers and taxes…

    Let’s steal from some to give to others! What could go wrong?!

  145. What fucking countries is she talking about?

    Specific examples, please.

  146. Liberal woman confuses monetary and fiscal policy. No one bothers to point it out.

  147. Is that the new lefty attack on ObamaCare? The Heritage Foundation created it?

    1. it’s not single-payer, so they’re not happy.

  148. Is everyone the same age? Or height? Weight? Gender? Intelligence?

    If that’s not a big deal, why worry about wealth inequality?

    1. That is pretty silly, wealth is pretty different than all of those.

      1. “wealth is pretty different than all of those.”

        And so is income. Did you have a point?

        1. Different in morally relevant ways.

          1. Bo Cara Esq.|3.14.14 @ 9:41PM|#
            “Different in morally relevant ways.”
            Which are unstated, I see.

            1. Imagine someone having your child, and you are in the waiting room. If they came out and said ‘it is a boy’ I imagine your reaction would be little different than if they said ‘it is a girl.’

              Now imagine they came out and said ‘your child is, and will be tall’. Would that be so much different than ‘your child is, and will be, short.’

              Now imagine they said (and it was somehow true) ‘your child is, and will be, poor.’

              Different, right?

              1. “Now imagine they said (and it was somehow true) ‘your child is, and will be, poor.’
                Different, right?”

                Is that a WalMart strawman? You ca try again if you please, but I’m not sure I’ll look back to see it. Pretty worthless this time.

                1. Most people would be very depressed by the last answer, the other answers would matter little to most. There is a reason for that, wealth opens a lot of doors that are closed for those who do not have it.

                  I get why libertarians resist thinking inequality is bad, because a lot of statism uses that as an excuse for their bullying. But statists could find any excuse for that. In our usual life people tend to be suspect of at least some inequality. If you saw someone just vastly favoring one kid, showering them with stuff, while doing little for the other, it would appall you. If you do not care about any inequality, then why?

                  1. “If you do not care about any inequality, then why?”
                    Because I really don’t care to defend a strawman.
                    You STILL haven’t addressed the difference between wealth and income, nor have you addressed the obvious sillyness of your ‘the doctor said’ comments.
                    An now you’ve compounded it with a ‘for the childrunz’ argument.
                    You really need to develop focus; your ‘arguments’ are the sort everyone had with highschool ‘first dates’.

                    1. Sevo, I am just choosing children for my hypothesis because my main point is about differences unrelated to the person’s efforts or choices.

                      I know there is a difference between wealth and income, I just do not see how it is relevant for this discussion.

                    2. Bo Cara Esq.|3.14.14 @ 10:29PM|#
                      “I know there is a difference between wealth and income, I just do not see how it is relevant for this discussion.”

                      Yes, your dishonesty shows there.

                  2. If you saw someone just vastly favoring one kid, showering them with stuff, while doing little for the other, it would appall you.

                    I see and practice that every single day. It’s called ‘parenthood’. Sorry if that offends you.

                    1. Wait a minute, you see a parent showering one child with gifts and denying the other, I bet you are going to wonder why. There are reasons that would make you go ‘oh, ok, parenting’ but there are reasons that would appall most people too. If that person said ‘I shower my first born, but the other one, screw him’ you would say ‘ah, parenting at work!’

                    2. Bo Cara Esq.|3.14.14 @ 10:23PM|#
                      “Wait a minute, you see a parent showering one child with gifts and denying the other, I bet you are going to wonder why.”

                      Willfully ignorant of so in love with his sophistry he missed it?

                    3. Sevo, I doubt you are going anywhere for a while, so why not in one post spell out what I missed so badly.

                    4. Um, no. I shower my daughters with gifts and attention that far exceed that of a child on the street. There is nothing unfair or unnatural about that circumstance — and what’s more, while I certainly meet for their material needs more or less on an equal basis, the way that I spend time and money on them is very different between each daughter. And that is in the context of a personal relationship, not an impersonal or abstract institution like government or society.

                      Why would we expect society to operate on egalitarian lines, when such is not even true of interpersonal relationships or almost any human experience?

                    5. “I shower my daughters with gifts and attention that far exceed that of a child on the street.”

                      Holy Moses, IT, the entire time I was talking about a parent favoring one of their two children, not a child on the street and their child. Sorry if I did not make that plain.

                    6. Then I fail to see the point. All else being equal, I treat people equally since it is arbitrary to do otherwise. All else is not equal, and most people are wise enough to acknowledge this fact and respond accordingly.

                      Egalitarianism only makes sense if you assume a lack of diversity among individuals and their decision, or if the unit of importance is not the individual but rather society or something else where equality can be abstracted to be a non-arbitrary response. Arbitrariness and justice are more than sufficient to encourage equal treatment where it is relevant (between people of different skin color or sexual orientation, for example) and discourage it where appropriate (when deciding who to hire or what stock to invest in, for example).

                    7. Let me make sure we are not missing one another.

                      A society which had inequality based solely on person’s choice or efforts is not only morally unproblematic, but morally laudable. My objection is to forms of inequality that are not so related, such as being born to a poor (economically or other ways) set of parents vs. being born to a rich (again, in several senses) set. By what idea of fairness or desserts should person X have less opportunities than person Y because of who they were born to? In my opinion lessening that situation, without violating the NAP, is a worthwhile goal.

                    8. By what idea of fairness or desserts should person X have less opportunities than person Y because of who they were born to? In my opinion lessening that situation, without violating the NAP, is a worthwhile goal.

                      How do you propose doing that?

                    9. By what idea of fairness or desserts should person X have less opportunities than person Y because of who they were born to? In my opinion lessening that situation, without violating the NAP, is a worthwhile goal.

                      How do you propose doing that?

                      It’s easy! We’ll just pass an equalization of opportunity bill! Maybe need a directive to get us there!

                    10. By what idea of fairness or desserts should person X have less opportunities than person Y because of who they were born to? In my opinion lessening that situation, without violating the NAP, is a worthwhile goal.

                      How do you propose doing that?

                      It’s easy! We’ll just pass an equalization of opportunity bill! Maybe need a directive to get us there!

                    11. I think people that have wealth or skills that could help the disadvantaged kids should volunteer to help them with their problems in that area.

                      That is all.

                    12. Bo Cara Esq.|3.14.14 @ 11:17PM|#
                      “I think people that have wealth or skills that could help the disadvantaged kids should volunteer to help them with their problems in that area.
                      That is all.”

                      Yes, Bo and that’s the reason people here don’t take you seriously.
                      To paraphrase your solution: “If everyone were nice, there wouldn’t be any nasty people!”
                      I hope you never have to deal with reality; it’ll be a shock!

                  3. Most people would be very depressed by the last answer,

                    And that last answer is the only realistic way to reduce inequality – “Your kid will be poor, along with everyone else”.

                    the other answers would matter little to most.

                    Bullshit. The one that would really freak people out is your kid will be ugly. Which is a statistical reality for some percentage of people and a non monetary form of inequality.

              2. Now imagine they said (and it was somehow true) ‘your child is, and will be, poor.’

                Different, right?

                Not really.

                Tell me which country, which neighborhood, and in what century this person was born. Tell me what job and inclinations this person will have. Such will tell me how much I care about “poverty” as defined relative to society.

                If you tell me “this person will not have enough money to ______”, where you can fill in the blank with something objective (buy food, buy a house, etc), that’s something else. Otherwise, it’s really quite unimportant that a person with have less resources than his peers; for all we know such a thing is unimportant to him.

                1. Really? So if I told you that one of your children would forever have less money than his current peers, you would say “oh, well, I guess his inclinations will be happy with that!”

                  Of course if your child was Leo Tolstoy and found happiness through wealth renunciation you would be OK with that. My point is that other things being equal I am betting you want your kids to be able to have wealth comparable to their peers so that they might have the same opportunities IF THEY WANT THEM (sorry for the all caps, never learned to use italics in this setting).

                  I am not saying all inequality is bad. If you want to renounce wealth and live an ascetic life and I want to work all day every day I should have more money than you, and that is a good and just thing. I am talking about differences in wealth that are not related in any way to the choices or efforts of the people involved.

                  1. So if I told you that one of your children would forever have less money than his current peers, you would say “oh, well, I guess his inclinations will be happy with that!”

                    No, I would say that I need more information before determining that it is a bad thing. Of all my siblings, the one who is happiest and finds himself most fulfilled is the one who became an Episcopalian priest (he doesn’t make much money, as you can imagine). My father was the wealthiest of all his brothers, and he was miserable. I work in a high-income job, but I can’t say that I’m appreciably happier than I was when I was in the USAF on a monetary basis (I do appreciate being able to set my own schedule, but that’s not strictly related to my income).

                    other things being equal I am betting you want your kids to be able to have wealth comparable to their peers

                    I also want for them to be more attractive, taller, and healthier than their peers. I don’t see how that demonstrates a distinction.

                    I agree, more money is, all else being equal, better as with any positive trait — but I don’t see how it is *bad* to end up on any part of the distribution of wealth provided that you are able to meet your needs and obligations, or why any particular wealth distribution would imply prosperity or increased ability to meet needs.

                    1. “I would say that I need more information before determining that it is a bad thing.”

                      Sure, no argument on that point, I meant all other things being equal.

                      ” don’t see how it is *bad* to end up on any part of the distribution of wealth provided that you are able to meet your needs and obligations”

                      Let’s say you have two children. You visit a gypsy fortune-teller who can see the future. She tells you that the first child will, through no effort or choice of her own, but through luck or caprice, will be incredibly wealthy. Then she tells you the second child will have the exact bare minimum to meet her ‘needs and obligations,’ which will be ‘downsized’ due to her chronic relative (but not absolute, she will be well fed and not cold) poverty.

                      Are you really going to tell me, as a father, that you would smile, happily, with that result? I admit I am not a parent, but that strikes me as strange.

                    2. I meant all other things being equal.

                      If all things are equal, anything other than a consistent response (and therefore an equal outcome) is arbitrary. If all things are not equal, a consistent response is foolish and arbitrary. In both cases, the root problem is the arbitrary nature of the decision-making process, not equality. Equality is merely a relationship between objects, not a desireable goal in and of itself. It brings me great joy to see people achieve success (monetary and otherwise) — but that doesn’t mean that this success need take the same form or that it correlates with equality. IMO, proponents of egalitarianism have confused a sometimes favorable result (everyone being equal in some circumstance) for the thing which makes the result favorable (justice and non-arbitrariness).

                    3. “In both cases, the root problem is the arbitrary nature of the decision-making process, not equality.”

                      If you want me to say my problem with inequality is really one with a fact situation where some people are better off for arbitrary reasons than are other people, then yes, that is what I think. But that is what I mean by being concerned by inequality; someone who thinks that people should be equal regardless of choice or effort strike me as crazy. I honestly think all non-crazy people who worry about inequality see it that way.

                    4. my problem with inequality is really one with a fact situation where some people are better off for arbitrary reasons

                      Alright. What do you consider to be an arbitrary reason people generally have for being better off and what do you propose should be done about that?

                    5. I think an arbitrary reason is who you were born to, and what you get or do not from them.

                      My answer is that I think people should (they should of course not be forced, but should in the ‘moral’ sense) when they can volunteer to help out those born to disadvantaged or just terrible parents.

                      That’s it.

                    6. And by ‘people should’ I mean ‘people who can (in the sense they were born to parents who helped them get the wealth or skills which they can then volunteer to the less fortunate).’

                    7. I can get behind that.

                    8. I think an arbitrary reason is who you were born to, and what you get or do not from them.

                      Who you’re born to isn’t arbitrary. Rape babies excepted, you are the result of a volitional, entirely non-arbitrary decision made by your parents. Swing and a miss.

                    9. It’s nice to you actually state your position for once though: you think rich people have a moral duty to give things to poor people just in case they got where they are because their ancestors made good choices (leaving aside the fact that the majority of millionaires are self-made)

                    10. Let’s say you have two children[…] Are you really going to tell me, as a father, that you would smile, happily, with that result?

                      I have three daughters, and my primary concern with all three is that they be happy and that they be moral in their dealings with others. If they arrive at wealth in the process, that’s nice but not particularly important. This applies as much to your scenario as to anything else I can think of. In my observation, the result of most people’s pursuit of wealth is unhappiness and regret, or a realization that wealth is not what they were after in the first place. I hope my daughters prioritize what is important and don’t care what people think about their wealth or lack thereof.

                      This is however moving away from the topic of wealth distribution, since what you are getting at is that everyone prefers being rich (a logical impossibility in any system, much less a perfectly egalitarian one where “rich” and “poor” are terms without practical meaning), not that everyone prefers being closer to the mean (which is closer to what equality means).

                    11. I honestly do not see your first paragraph as responsive. Let me put it this way, absent any actions on their part, I bet you would leave your three daughters equal shares in your will. I think this shows that equality is the ‘default’ position, though which can be trumped by choice and efforts.

                      “is that everyone prefers being rich ”

                      No, and this is perhaps my fault for badly explaining. I think wealth enables one to take advantage of things which help, but do not determine, people reach what they prefer. And everyone being equally well off is a form of equality. Most people who talk about equality would like to see everyone have all the opportunities (opportunities which, of course, they may reject or exercise) rich people have.

                    12. Most people who talk about equality would like to see everyone have all the opportunities (opportunities which, of course, they may reject or exercise) rich people have.

                      That’s not really possible. I will never be able to spend billions of dollars pursuing my interests; Bill Gates can.

                      I do not see this as a bad thing, btw; simply as something that is. I would agree that the wealthy should try to support efforts that make others outside themselves and their family better off (though I think that’s true of the poor as well), but if that is the goal of the inequality movement it will never happen — with or without government.

      2. So explain why that must be equalized but other traits should not.

        I’m pretty sure the answer is because you can steal money, but not height, youth, strength, etc.

        1. For the leftist I am sure that a big part of the difference is they think they can more easily do something about wealth inequality, and yes, stealing or restrictions is what they usually choose.

          For me that is not the important difference.

          1. So what’s your explanation for why wealth should be made equal?

            1. See my response to Sevo. Wealth determines so much for people.

              I should qualify that I do not think it should be ‘made’ equal through any NAP violation, I just think inequality can be a bad thing and would like to see less of it.

              1. There are plenty of other factors like gender that are even more influential.

                Why is inequality a bad thing? Because it causes people to lead different lives? I thought diversity was good.

                1. I do not think anyone thinks the kind of diversity where some people have access to all kinds of interesting, helpful things while others do not is good.

                  1. And that could apply to any of the traits I already mentioned.

                    Don’t you think parents would be saddened if they were told their child would probably die by the age 20 (say from cystic fibrosis)?

                    And yet such parents would not demand every other child be put death at 20 like Logan’s Run.

                    There is no argument to equalize wealth that could not be used for any other trait.

                    1. Cystic fibrosis does not equate to one’s gender or age. I imagine every person who thinks inequality is a bad thing also thinks people dying young is a bad thing too, if that is what you are getting at.

                    2. CF is just as fixed as gender and age.

                      Please present an argument for equalizing wealth that could not be used to equalize anything else just like “Harrison Bergeron.”

                      Here the ones that have been busted so far:

                      -Because wealth has a great impact on the life you lead

                      -Because wealth gives advantages

                      -Because minimizing differences is good

                    3. I think we are missing each other.

                      CF is fixed, but is very bad. To the extent that inequality is ‘fixed’ it is bad.

                      Gender and height are fixed, but are no big deal.

                      No one can do anything about age, so I do not see that as relevant.

                  2. Bo Cara Esq.|3.14.14 @ 10:09PM|#
                    “I do not think anyone thinks the kind of diversity where some people have access to all kinds of interesting, helpful things while others do not is good.”

                    I do not think that anyone with half a brain thinks ‘fixing’ that is worth the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent people.

                    1. Sevo, I said plainly that I do not support anything that would violate the NAP to address inequality.

                      But there are lots of things someone who is concerned about inequality can do that does not violate the NAP. You could volunteer to help educate or mentor poor kids, volunteer to help out poor families, donate books to poor kids, etc. All that increases the chances those kids will close the income or wealth gap, but no NAP violation.

                    2. Bo Cara Esq.|3.14.14 @ 10:38PM|#
                      “Sevo, I said plainly that I do not support anything that would violate the NAP to address inequality.”

                      Of course you did, and then you offered no other practical way to do so.
                      Do you fantasize that we are as feckless as you?

              2. Bo Cara Esq.|3.14.14 @ 9:56PM|#
                “See my response to Sevo. Wealth determines so much for people.”

                As does appearance. And since the onely way to equalize wealth is to steal from the rich, we can just as easily make the attractive ugly.
                Besides which YOU STILL CONFUSE WEALTH WITH INCOME!
                How long do you typically ignore a mistake in your argument? Forever?

  149. Ahahahahaha, they’re now distancing themselves from Obamacare. The Dems are so fucked in November.

    1. …”The Dems are so fucked in November.”

      I certainly hope so, but deflecting attention from one fuck-up to ‘income equality’ still gives the free-shit party candy for the kiddies.

  150. This comedy commercial seems racist.

    1. HA HA! Those libertarians want to live like a bunch of African savages!

  151. Failed socialist state that’s actually improved under its failed state situation compared to when it had communism imposed on them.

  152. Wait, you can’t show that fucking video without tearing it apart!

  153. Somalia video- the most elaborate lefty strawman yet.

    It sure is great how a failed socialist dictatorship is now proof that free markets and limited governments can’t work.

    1. A failed socialist dictatorship and a functioning Islamist state. Seriously, bands of roving bloodthirsty zealot-brigands armed to the teeth is the closest you can get to how old Mohammed and the boys rolled in 7th century Arabia.

      1. Or Basra, Iraq from about 2005 until about June 2008. Jaish al-Mahdi for the LOSS.

  154. I realize that “this bitch is stupid” is a comment that could apply to most guests on the show (of either gender)… but God, that bitch is stupid.

    1. If that comment were copyrighted this website would make someone quite rich.

    2. She represents everything we’ve been rationally dismantling for days, weeks, months and years!

  155. Also, let a liberal define what a conservative is and what a libertarian is.

  156. Holy fucking shit Colmes, did you just project the fact that liberals define the shit out of everyone else onto…everyone else doing it to liberals?

  157. Yeah, how can you have blind faith in the market. LET THE GOVERNMENT FIX YOUR SHIT BECAUSE IT TOTALLY WILL.

  158. Little things along the way…

    1. Understatement of the millennia.

  159. Prog mysteries- They hate monopolies, unless it’s a monopoly of force.

    1. It’s because they think they will always be in the driver’s seat of that force.

      1. Even though they have often been the first victims of totalitarian governments.

        It’s like centuries-long version of battered wife syndrome.

  160. Wow, I didn’t realize Kennedy charged $20 for a blowjob. That seems like a lot.

    1. Does it come with a swallow?

    2. It’s cheap, which is ultimately why her health care was affected by Obamacare.

    3. How much do you charge?

      1. I…I give them for free. What else are glory holes for?

  161. Right. YOU see the ‘whole picture.’ Typical prog derping.

  162. Do you know what’s truly funny about liberals? It is that they do not believe in individuals being armed. And they incessantly come after those that do believe in being armed. Who wins in this scenario?

    1. Hey, Byte. I answered you up thread.

      Your life won’t change. But still…

    2. It’s the reason I can still sleep at night.

  163. This woman is incredibly stupid. Why is it a problem if a market is so well-serviced by a handful of providers it’s hard for smaller competition to break in?

    Absent entry barriers to market that means demand is being adequately met until there is a shift in consumer preferences.

  164. Ah yes, the car industry, truly a beacon of government non-involvement.

    1. And Kmele got in the zinger on that point again … and was completely ignored. LALALALALALALALALALAL, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!!!

  165. Yes, tip off, come on Clemson, one more time.

    1. Since they’re playing Dook I agree with you

      1. We got them earlier in the year.

        1. Uh oh, does not look like a good start.

  166. And when I looked in the sand and saw massive Frisbee-sized footprints, it was when we walked with an elephant.

  167. The most entertaining Independents shows all seem to have Moynihan as a guest, coincidence?

    1. Michael Moynihan? That writes for the Beast?

      I imagine his throwback anti-communism focus is quite the warming experience for your paleo heart.

      1. A True Libertarian? should never have to apologize for being anti-communist.

        1. Again, an odd comment coming from one who is (laudably in my opinion) quite up front about being a true libertarian.

          As to the substance of your comment, of course a libertarian has to hate communism, but paleos who act like there is still some Red worldwide threat strike me as almost as silly as the neocons going on about the global Islamo-fascist threat. Most paleos I know that are like that formed a lot of their ideas in the 1980s which were, of course decades ago.

      2. Those of us who were alive when Nirvana was around remember when he wrote for Reason, too.

  168. Nerdy Jesus works for Heritage? That makes total sense.

  169. There was a kid involved in that wedding ceremony? It looks like someone had to get married.

  170. This guy had me then he lost me.

  171. Socrates SAID it, Plato *transcribed it*

  172. Without a license, no one would couple up.

  173. Uhh…gay people can’t adopt children?


  174. So, my gaydar is terrible, but this fellow is very likely a ‘mo.

    Just saying.

    1. That would explain his obsession. And his terrible, gay logic. It’s almost like women’s “logic”.

      (shakes head at ludicrousness of it all)

    2. Seems more like a Curly to me.

      1. Totally a Shemp.

        1. Seriously, what’s a ‘mo?

          Is this another version of the argument that “I love gay people so long as they agree with me, but anyone who disagrees with me is a dumb f____t?”

          1. ‘mo being an extremely truncated version of homosexual. You’d probably look like an asshole trying to use it because it’s a glib mockery of the dated usage by social conservatives of ho-mo-sexual.

              1. Are you expecting me to watch an ICP video? I have standards. They may be low, but they’re above ICP.

            1. That being said, it’s not itself derogatory, but depending on tone an usage it could be. It’s often used in cases where the sexual orientation of the person is in question or ambiguous.

              I didn’t mean it in a derogatory sense, but in a somewhat glib, informative sense.

        2. Once he starts losing his hair, you’ll totally see that he is, in fact, a Larry.

          1. I stand corrected. He did indeed have something very Larryesque about him.

  175. The state cares about marriage because the state cares about children power.


    1. and tax revenue!

      1. That’s what I said…power.

  176. jesse, big government is apparently your fault.

  177. You guys were right.

    Kennedy is an interruption nymph.

  178. Dear nerdy Jesus,

    Do wet streets cause rain in your universe? Which came first, shitheap- the welfare state or the massive rise in single-parent families?

  179. Is Kennedy batting 1000 on interruptions tonight? Its encouraging Kmele to pile on.

    Also, Jesse, your gaydar is not just bad, its broken.

    Although he has pretty eyes?

    1. Also, Jesse, your gaydar is not just bad, its broken.

      Likely true, but you don’t think he’s a ‘mo?

      Although he has pretty eyes?

      I’d hit it but I have low standards broad tastes.

      1. Jesse = he’s from the *Heritage foundation*, on the show to argue *against* Gay marriage.

        I’m taking a scientific guess, combined with my own Bro-dar

        1. GILMORE, if gay marriage is normal he might get one. The HORROR. Seriously, I could get him to come up to my hotel room if we met at a conference.

          1. It should be noted that I’m not claiming that of all critics of gay marriage. He’s just a bit of the gay about him, or he’s at least a bit wobbly on it.

            1. I concede to your finer sensibilities in this area

  180. While I don’t agree with the guy’s argument, it’s not helpful for Kennedy to argue against a different argument than the guy’s making.

    1. Yeah, bad form. He’s the guest. I want to hear him out. Slow down, Ken…nedy.

    2. yep, had same thought.

  181. Sorry, Kennedy, you got PWNED.

  182. Holy FUCK Kennedy you fucked that argument about polygamy up.

  183. Service that beard? Was that a sly accusation?

  184. Well, Kennedy shut Nerdy Closeted Jesus down pretty hard there at the end.

  185. Sometimes I can’t tell if Kennedy is split personality or just doing passive/aggressive wrong.


  187. Why didn’t Kennedy just say polygamy is fine? She shit in her principles there.

  188. He actually made a good point. I always love using the polygamy argument with liberals. They always get that deer in the headlight look. Kennedy really wiffed on that one.

    1. I am surprised the liberals you put that to do not just give you the common answer that, just as conservatives say ending interracial marriage is different than ending heterosexual marriage because the latter changes something fundamental about marriage the former does not (the genders involved), that perhaps the number is something fundamental about marriage.

      1. A few do, but most of them realize that saying that changing the genders IS a fundamental change and it’s moronic and stupid to say otherwise.

        1. Why is changing the genders such a big deal? Historically, maybe, but, in terms of the ideal two guys can love each other in a committed way as easily as a man and a woman.

          1. Why is changing numbers a big deal? Plural marriage has a much greater historical record than monogamous marriage. You either think consenting adults are free to associate freely or you don’t. I’m guessing you don’t.

            1. You realize every conservative (well, all the supporters of traditional marriage) thinks the number is critical too, right?

              I myself do not think the number matters, if a bunch of grown people want to form some kind of union, good for them. My point is that it is as reasonable for someone to think the number is critical as it is to think the genders are.

              1. Please see below, I’m NOT a conservative. I just like tweaking self-satisfied liberals who think they are “cutting-edge” in their “openness”.

            2. And for the record, I’m not arguing AGAINST gay marriage. I just enjoy coming at liberals from the left. I simply believe that adults should be allowed to live their lives in whatever associations they desire.

              1. Lie I said, I think they should just tell you the number is important while the gender is not.

                There is something to that. The entire reason I think the door is open for gay marriage is that the entire idea of marriage has changed from one of having and providing for children to one where the most important thing is a committed relationship. Gender is important for the first, not to the second. But one could argue that a union of two people is something different and more intimate than unions of greater number.

                For me, I agree with you: maybe two person unions are more special, but who am I to tell someone who thought differently not to try it.

                1. Unfortunately most people disagree with you and believe they have every right to tell others how to live. NAP is the exception, not the rule.

                  1. Sadly true.

    2. Part of the problem is that few people had the courage to say “so what?” when conservatives started screaming about the slippery slope of gay marriage. Now it’s just a stick to beat gay marriage supporters with:

      Not in favor of polygamy: hypocrite
      In favor of polygamy: but you told us it wasn’t a slippery slope

      1. It makes perfect sense.

        When SSM was first a thing, advocates had to deny the slippery slope so as not to scare off the normals.

        Now it’s supposedly a done deal, they can heave a sigh of relief and start going down the slope.

        1. Ohhhhhh no. I’m not being forced to marry a duck. Forget that.

          1. Jesus, that duck is going to rape the shit out of you.

            1. It can’t be rape if we’re married.

              1. The duck will teach you otherwise.

            1. I made it 1 second. This, on the other hand, this I could watch again and again.

            2. Jebus. I didn’t even watch it, I’m offended just by Garfunkle and Oates.

        2. Notorious, what do you think happens when we go down that slope that is so awful? If heterosexual, two person marriage is more natural, fulfilling and such I imagine most people will choose it.

          1. And you stop even pretending to understand what my actual argument is.

            1. I think you think I am trying some trick. If I misunderstood your argument I apologize, and would appreciate you pointing it out to me.

              My question is just, if gay marriage is recognized, and then polygamous marriage is, why would you object to that? If two person heterosexual marriage is really more fulfilling and natural, most people would choose it I think, and I imagine most gay and polygamous people will just live as married if their unions are not recognized.

        3. Problem is gay marriage and polygamy aren’t on the same slope. They’re not even on the same mountain.

          1. Problem is gay marriage and polygamy aren’t on the same slope.

            Not sure how being married to two people or being maried to the same sex is ANY different in principle.

            The bottom line is, if they aren’t hurting anyone, who cares?

            1. “Not sure how being married to two people or being maried to the same sex is ANY different in principle.”

              If you think that marriage is a word that should be reserved for the ultimate relationship, and you think that the ultimate relationship exists between two people, then that is the principle.

              Of course, what kind of jerk would want to prevent someone who thought different from trying it out?

            2. What I meant is that they are the concerns of two very different populations. Who in America would advocate for polygamy the most? Fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims. Compare that to which groups advocate for gay marriage. It’s like a film negative.

      2. That is one of the great problems with the whole argument. When you remove a barrier, like is being done with gay marriage, it’s legitimate to ask why it’s being moved and why the new barrier is more legitimate. I think it’s a shame that this isn’t being openly discussed. I’m not sure why monogamy is being treated as sacrosanct, and I’ve never heard any valid argument for it. I think the argument he made in the show, that only hetero sex can create children has some validity even though I think it’s flawed. And I think those against the change have a legitimate point that the “new line” has even less legitimacy than the previous one.

        I expect to see polyamory become legal within the next ten years using the same arguments as gay marriage. And I think that’s just fine.

  189. The fuck, did anybody else get the Pawn Star safety razor commercial. WTF is that?

    1. It’s a copy of the Gillette Milord safety razor. It’s like the M1911 pistol of razors.

  190. And those were only from KMW.

    1. Motion passed.


        1. You missed the bus there buddy

  191. GayJay!

  192. Do you still think pi is better than tau?

    1. What? Who the fuck thinks that? Probably the same person who insists that decimal counting is superior to dozenal counting in everyday life.

  193. After three shots of Averna Matt looks like Drew Carey on my Mac.

  194. “Gary Johnson: He doesn’t give two shits about you.”

  195. Gary Johnson = button that goddamn collar so I don’t have to be distracted by your pulsating arteries.

  196. Gary Johnson needs to fill in for the next panelist who goes on vacay.

  197. Wait, wait, Fuck you, Gary. You’re making the ‘no true Scotsman’ argument?

  198. Most people are not “libertarian”. At all. Most people are 1) individualist anarchists, and 2) mildly sociopathic. They want to be able to do all the things they want to do, but they want to be able to take that away from others if it suits them, because they cannot extend or understand that individual desire existing in others, or understand it badly.

    1. Well put.

      As I like to say, everyone is a capitalist when it comes to their own wallet and everyone is an anarchist when it comes to their own life.

      1. Yes. It’s the ability to realize that others want the same, and respecting that as long as force isn’t involved, that actually makes a “libertarian” or “classical liberal”.

        Not many people are like that, unfortunately.

        1. As I’ve argued elsewhere, classical liberalism is taught as if it’s a dead, impractical philosophy for white rich folks.

          Libertarians do need to hammer at the ‘compassion’ angle if anything to refute critics.

          1. classical liberalism is taught as if it’s a dead, impractical philosophy for white rich folks

            Indeed. It is taught as if it were not an important part of making the 18th-19th centuries a much more humane place.

            For example, few people would be able to tell you that in S Africa, there existed a relatively peaceful state with multi-ethnic voting, the rule of law, a vibrant free market, and a relatively high commitment to civil liberties prior to the Afrikaner-dominated system. Or how many committed classical liberals were responsible for dismantling atrocious racial and social injustices at that time.

  199. I’ve said this before: But, with regard to the NEW New York commercial;
    IT’S A TRAP!

  200. I want to hear Kennedy say “Curmudgeon!” three times really fast.

    1. Curmudegeon. Cumsmudgeon. Cumglugglug.

      1. Cumdungeon? What’s going on in your downstairs?

  201. Move to NY and pay no taxes for 10 years- because that’s how long it takes to get a business going, right?

  202. Ha, that first dude totally turned the interview back on Kennedy.

  203. Look at all these fine products of our public schools and universities.

  204. Liberty is the root of libertarian? I was waaaay off.

  205. I also like how the lady with the foreign accent knew the obvious answer.

    1. But, remember, Hispanics are here to turn the country into a Venezuela sans the callipygous rumps of the womenfolk.

    2. She learned it watching Scarface, obviously

      1. “This city is a pussy waiting to get fucked” is pretty much the sine non qua of libertarianism.

        1. ach.

          If kibby were here,

          a) these latin mistakes would be corrected instantly, and

          b) she would have gotten my repeated “Ides of March” references.

          1. someone was referencing ides of march? about time. No one will be around tomorrow.

            1. Dude =

              See my attire review
              My mention of Julius Caesar
              My linking to the band named IDES OF MARCH??

              What the fuck. philistines, all of you.

              1. We’re not worthy!!!

              2. I got it, but if I mentioned it, I would then have to mention the 15th is my birthday. And I don’t want to be reminded of that. Mainly because my wife’s birthday is 2 days after, and she’s turning 30!

                I’m thinking about a trade-in, but the interior is comfortable.

          2. True, but in my defense I’m drunk.

            1. In Vino, Veritas

              1. Tombstone FTW!

          3. Do you know who else didn’t get Ides of March references?

            1. Big Chief

              I got the fart joke reference, does that count?


  207. Being libertarian, or being a Libertarian?


  209. And Matt ends the week with some spastic air drumming. Good form.

  210. Ahhh dobbs

  211. Kmele makes sense, and you know the show is over and …DOBBS MY EYES!!

    1. What ‘country’ do you live in?

    2. If by suffering, you mean “awesome”

      I once, for some twisted reason, got into my head that Flash Gorden was actually modeled after Gerald Ford when he played for UMich. It won’t leave my head, of course.

  212. Nice tie, tho, Dobbs

    1. I prefer Ask Dr. Stupid from Ren & Stimpy.

      Or this:

  213. How do we get to the “aftershow”?

    1. Drink a bunch of cough syrup and hallucinate it because they ain’t doing one tonight.

      1. Red Stag is a lot like cough syrup, so thanks for the prescription, Doc.

        1. Campari is even more like cough syrup.

    2. Usually here:…

      but only on nights that the show is live, not tonight.

      1. Tonight they seem to be replaying the infamous inbreeding Muslim debate.

  214. Hmmm Prometheus is on HBO2GO, should I watch one of the other choices?

      1. Fair enough, I’ll probably just rewatch tombstone for the millionth time.

        Either that or 42.

    1. Punch yourself in the cock and you’ll get the same thing Ridley Scott will do to you if you watch it. It’ll save you time.

    2. A friend of mine described it accurately as “attractive nonsense”.

    3. If you have Netflix go watch ‘Europa Report’. It’s sci-fi and the ‘found footage’ genre done absolutely right.

      1. Oh. My. God. Remind me never to take film advice from you.

        1. You didn’t like ‘Europa Report’?

      2. Too late, Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday it is!

          1. That’s the rumor.

        1. I got two guns… one for the each of ‘ya.

          It seems Mr. Mullato is an educated man. Now I have to hate him.

          Excellent choice.

        2. Never a bad choice. **slaps Apatheist** Now jerk that pistol and go to work!

      1. Better yet, Unforgiven is on EACT.

        1. Unforgiven is in my DVD player.

          1. Dire Straits (Brothers in Arms right now, self titled coming up) is streaming from my laptop to the big stereo (just the boring solid state shit, not the tube shit.)

          2. Deserve’s got nuthin ta do with it.

      2. If I wanted to watch an asteroid movie from 1998, Deep Impact was available.

        1. Pretty sure I (as a teenager) snuck booze into the theater for that one, came out of it sure that, if it happened, my friends and I would go out drinking in lawn chairs on my dad’s roof. We didn’t see it as important to inform him of that.

        2. Come on, completely different genre. Deep Impact was a comet.

  215. How many Canadians are there on this site?

    1. All of you.

      1. WE ARE LEGION

      1. NOT ENOUGH

        1. That’s probably very true.

    2. Whoever they are, they’re probably all named Gordon.

      1. What’s that aboot?

            1. Let me tell you, Mrs. Gin was entirely impressed this link was already purple. Because I used to play this down at the legion.

              LIQUOR AND WHORES

          1. Ha this is song number two if I’m conscripted to karaoke. Song number 1 is Gypsies Tramps and Thieves.

            Classic Cher and Gordon Lightfoot are both well in my limited vocal range.

            1. I made it to the sequins.

              1. Awkward moment at work event where I karaoke’d it:

                I never had schoolin’ but he taught me well
                With his smooth southern style

                Luckily I was hammered at that point.

            2. You know nothing of music.

            3. “Gypsies Tramps and Thieves”

              I lost my little sister in Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum when I was about 14 and, every time I went past the Cher part, I’d hear the first line or two of that chorus. I heard it about 40 times in the span of 10 minutes. *shudders*

            4. Shit. It took a long time for the ginBrain to kick in and associate Karaoke == I can see paradise by the dashboard light

        1. The Nova Scotia Cowboy

          He punched codfish, not dogies.

        2. ^^ Stompin Tom may win this subthread…. I assume he rode the saddledome.

          Obviously you need more Gordon, though.

  216. So you handle the Communism-is-OK guy with kid gloves and fawn over the Snowden is a traitor guy, but these folks tonight deserve the verbal beatdowns?

    1. It took ’em a while to get warmed up. I think there are commenters here who could do a better job. In fact, they should just let the commenters write the questions for them.

      1. Yeah, that should be a cesspit of civility.

        “So, have you stopped hanging out in men’s rooms wearing Nazi bondage gear?”

        “Why are you such a Nazi?”

        “Would you like me to read my latest short story?”

        1. Don’t Nazi shame.

          1. guffaw

  217. The Ghost of Bastiat haunts Raw Story–exchange of the day:

    classicallady Ghost_of_Bastiat ? 4 hours ago
    Spare the humiliation here. I am a western European.You know what is like not to run on paranoia? Thank you!
    No healthcare because they’d rather kill anyone sick.Just like CONservatives in the US.
    I have the feeling you have never, EVER travel outside your country…Very short minded.

    Ghost_of_Bastiat classicallady ? 3 hours ago
    Which country?

    classicallady Ghost_of_Bastiat ? 3 hours ago
    Dad was an Italian Diplomat. Mummy was French with a Ph.D in Math And yes.I’ve traveled the world.From former USSR to the new oligarch’s republic.

    Ghost_of_Bastiat classicallady ? 3 hours ago
    That’s good and I envy you since I have not traveled as much as you have. I do like Europe and its culture even if I don’t agree with their economic policies.

    But I should remind you that the European people themselves don’t seem to really like all that regulation and taxation you favor and want imposed here. This is evident as almost 20% of economic activity in the Eurozone is done through the ‘shadow economy’.

    Government just isn’t very good at actually accomplishing its goals through regulation. Too many unintended consequences and intelligent people that know how to dodge them.

    1. Dad was an Italian Diplomat. Mummy was French with a Ph.D in Math

      Translation: How dare you get uppity with me, you pig farmer!

      classicallady needs her face punched until it is reduced to a bloody, mushy pulp of bone, flesh, and sinew.

      1. They could probably say “horse” in 9 languages, but rode around on cows.

  218. Just realized again that asking for ‘a coke’ is different than asking for ‘some coke’.

    /obvious, cap’n

      1. are you saying coke like I say pop?

        1. Yes. although here, you’ll likely get Vernors. And if you cough while drinking it, we’ll shoot you.

          1. Vernors better before they changed the recipe.

            1. everything was better before they changed the recipe.

  219. I’m as restless as a Law&Order; witness.

    1. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?

      1. any ‘facts’ in the first 35 minutes of a Law & Order episode is meaningless.

  220. lickin’ 700 posts? Is this the new “P.M. Links”?


    A maintenance worker in Milwaukee allegedly was held down by two black teens and beaten by a third person with a baseball bat when he shot and killed the two teens, according to police.

    The 39-year-old worker, who has not been named by police, had his injuries treated at a hospital. He then was taken into custody at the Milwaukee County Jail on suspicion of committing two counts of first-degree intentional homicide, Milwaukee’s WITI-TV reported.

    1. Stand Your Ground is probably to blame.

      1. More specifically, Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is to blame. It’s plaguing the entire country!

    2. non-World Nut Daily link…..55061.html

      1. Thank you

        I was caught up with browsing the crazy racists @ WND, which is a sad kind of voyeurism

        Oh, fuck.

        They misspelled “paradise” on their mural. I mean, really? Come on…

        1. Funny thing…

          I found reason magazine through WND.

          I used to love reading crazy partisan wordsmithing, particularly sites heavy on hyperventilation and spittle. I spent a lot of time on WND and Daily Kos, among others.

          Reason was on WND’s list of links and one look at the dysfunctional comment section citizens here was all it took. That was 7 or 8 years ago.

          Damn, all the time I’ve wasted on here with you freaks I’ll never get back. Fuck it, productivity and meaning are way overrated.

          1. interesting.

            I am not sure how I got here. I tried to think of the earliest issue I can remember reading, which may have led to the blog…

            I’m going to guess it was this, which someone pointed me to =


            1. Pretty sure I found it via Fark. At the time, Fark had an almost libertarian bent. Now, all statist, of course.

              IT *may* have been through Mises/Tucker. But I think Fark more likely.

              1. Fark for me as well. About 6 years ago or so.

            2. I’ve been reading the print mag since the late-80s. I was a snot-nosed anarchist punk and “subscribed” by putting a real address with a fake name and checking the bill me later box on a blow-in card.

          2. Actually, funny – now that I’m looking at older magazines, I specifically remember the one with the Devil Fries


            At the time I used to write about Food-industry issues, and was aggravated by CPSI ‘pseudoscience’ being so popularized by the media… I suspect that was how I got initially linked up. But I can’t be sure. I do remember posting on H&R during the presidential election in 2004, so it was around then at least.

      2. Update: the guy was released, but the investigation is still ongoing.

        “Meanwhile, an attorney for the 39-year-old Cudahy man says his client has a permit to carry a gun.

        “Attorney David Geraghty told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the man “considers it an occupational necessity” to carry a gun.”

        What ever gave him that idea? The crazy gun-clinger!…..75881.html

        1. Sorry, your link mentions these things.

    3. Police say the incident was caught on video.

      Should be interesting.

    1. Lame!
      C’mon! Where’s the guys on the grassy knoll? Elvis’ alien love-child? Area 51? Floride?

    2. Occam’s Razor.

      It’s at the bottom of the ocean.

      1. I’m pretty sure the Langoliers ate it because Al couldn’t leap back in time. Sam leaped to the starship enterprise, obviously.


        1. jesus, beaten to the Langoliers reference… *by minutes*

          (squints at SG… thinking… ‘*time travel*’, ay…?)

          1. yea, I been hanging out with Warty and his time travel suit, what’s it to you?

      2. Langoliers

    3. Back in 2009, when Flight 447 crashed, 7 theories were put forward. In the end, it was discovered the plane stalled — which wasn’t one of the theories.

      I’m sure something similar will happen with Flight 370 when it is eventually found.

  221. Wisconsin’s gun laws aren’t too bad. They recognize my GA pistol license.

  222. I didn’t even have a pizza; did anyone else celebrate Pi Day?

    1. Project manager brought pies into the office, so I had pi before lunch.

      That said, aside from eating random pie, I fucking hate pi day. It doesn’t get anymore 9th grade math teacher than that.

      1. …”It doesn’t get anymore 9th grade math teacher than that.”
        And like my 9th-grade math teacher, easily forgettable as is was until I did a bing search.

    2. Meh. Next year will be even better.


      1. Two years, it is 3.14159…

        1. ?

          March 14, 2015



          1 year

          1. 3.14159… rounds to 3.1416, not 3.1415.

            Sad story, I’ll always remember pi as 3.14159 because it used to be part of a football cheer at my Eng University.

              1. That would be many March 14ths from now.

                1. Might as well call it ALL March 14ths from now.

              2. That’s just the first 100,000 digits. Like Obamacare it just goes on and on and on and…

                1. Big Chief’s assisstent go to medicine man.

                  “Big Chief no fart”

                  Medicine man say “Big Chief take these pills, call me tomorrow.”

                  Assistant call back. “Big Chief, no fart.”

                  Medicine man say “Okay, try these pills and call back tomorrow”

                  Assistent call back:

                  “Big Fart No Chief”

                  1. NOW I get it.

              3. Pi is exactly 3!

      2. What about those of us who write it 14/3/2014 ?

        1. 20140314

    3. I made chocolate truffle freezer pie with a konjak whipped cream to bring to work. One of my coworkers made a strawberry pie and one of my coworkers promised to bring pie, but had to take her mother to get a lung biopsy so she failed.

  223. The sailor in the famous VJ Day kiss in Times Square photo has died

    McDuffie had told the AP he was changing trains in New York when he was told that Japan had surrendered.

    “I was so happy. I ran out in the street,” said McDuffie, then 18 and on his way to visit his girlfriend in Brooklyn.

    “And then I saw that nurse,” he said. “She saw me hollering and with a big smile on my face. … I just went right to her and kissed her.”

    “We never spoke a word,” he added. “Afterward, I just went on the subway across the street and went to Brooklyn.”

    Gibson’s daughter, Bell, said on anniversaries of the war’s end her father would recall that moment and the air of excitement in Times Square.

    For years it bothered him that he wasn’t identified as the man in the photo, she said, and he turned to Gibson for help to clear it up.

    “He wanted to do it before he died,” she said.

    McDuffie is survived by his daughter and two grandchildren. His funeral will be held March 21 at the Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery.

    Whoa whoa whoa, WHOA. Hold on a minute. He never got consent! That man is a perpetrator of RAPE KULTUR! That photo needs to be purged from the public record immediately lest it serve as a trigger warning for other women who have been spontaneously kissed against their will.

    1. That man is a perpetrator of RAPE KULTUR! That photo needs to be purged from the public record immediately lest it serve as a trigger warning for other women who have been spontaneously kissed against their will.

      You joke, but I remember an essay someone posted the link to on here that argued just that.

      1. That’s why I feel sorry for The Onion staff. It must suck to try and write satire and have it just turn out to be prophesy.

        1. That shit was in slate. I was trying to look it up before HM posted, but hadn’t found it yet.

      2. Holy Jesus. What is that? What the fuck is THAT?!


        1. Feminism is a form of brainwashing that removes everything in the brain that is unrelated to the ideas of rape or privilege. So it’s impossible for these feminists to imagine that A. The guy wasn’t thinking about sex, he was just intoxicated with the joy of the war being over and B. Maybe the nurse was happy the war was over too

          Maybe neither of them were thinking about sexual assault because, I don’t know, maybe the war being over was a big fucking deal.

    2. God dammit…am I really going to have to be the guy who makes the point that kissing a women you don’t even know without asking her is indeed wrong? You’re really making me become that guy.

      1. Yes, it definitely is. But being as it happened 70 years ago, it doesn’t register to me. And I wouldn’t go to the extreme of calling it sexual assault. Plain old battery maybe.

      2. I wouldn’t make a habit of it, but for fuck’s sake, World War II had just ended. He violated her personal space but there was nothing perverted or prurient about it, it was just a spontaneous expression of joy.

      3. You’re really making me become that guy.


        There was a time when nobody thought a kiss was assault.

        1. So if you’re walking up the street and I grab your girl and start making out with her you won’t even be mad?

          Good to know.

          Pics of lady friend, please.

          1. I’d be amused. She probably would be too, under the circumstances.

            My first kiss with my wife was in an elevator, at a party, and she was seeing an acquaintance of mine. We were drunk, it was a funny lark and it was without consent (god forbid) and it was reciprocated.

            We still laugh about it.

            1. If you really want me to drive to Montana to make out with your wife I’ll do it, but I’m gonna need gas money.

              Seriously, you have to admit that there is a measure of implied consent when kissing an acquaintance that isn’t present with strangers.

              The picture is presented as a cute story reflecting the jubilation of a war ending, but I don’t wanna live in a world where strangers are comfortable grabbing me and putting their mouth parts on me. People get shot for less.

              And fuck jubilation. If I’m wading my way through a St Paddy’s day parade to get to work and some nasty fat bitch grabs me and shoves her tongue down my throat I’m gonna punch her in the goddamn FUPA ninja-style.

              1. Why kiss his wife? Might as well kiss him. Maybe give him a nice firm grab on the ass as well. I’m sure he’ll be amused and flattered.

              2. Really, wouldn’t bother me. I’d laugh it off. Today (maybe not 15+ years ago) I’d laugh it off even if it was a guy.

                People take shit too fucking seriously now. Life used to be fun. Now everyone is a victim. Yeah, by the strictest definition of the law, you were assaulted, but that doesn’t mean you can’t take it as a compliment.

                1. Thing is, you don’t know who your grabbing.

                  Maybe it’s some dude with a carry permit that kills you because you scared the shit out of him by running up and kissing him for no reason. I have a family member, for instance, that was the victim of a horrible home invasion/sexual assault where she was almost beaten to death and would probably stick her spyderco in the gut of some creep who pulled that shit on the street.

                  It’s nice that you’re easy going enough that this stuff wouldn’t bother you, but I’m not. I don’t want motherfuckers touching me, let alone putting their mouth on me. I’ll fucking bite you. And as for my girlfriend, you’d probably need some sort of specialist to remove the nails and teeth embedded in your skull.

                  So, sure, it shouldn’t be illegal to kiss a stranger, but their reaction shouldn’t be a problem either.

                  1. So, sure, it shouldn’t be illegal to kiss a stranger, but their reaction shouldn’t be a problem either.

                    True. But as was said, context matters. The nurse in question may well have put a knee in the lad’s groin or slapped him in the face after the picture was snapped. She’d be well within her rights to do so. Or maybe she just took it for what it was – a spontaneous, frivolous, spur of the moment reaction to an event that every person there knew was destined to become major history. People were a lot less prickish back then for one, and considering that fucking nuclear weapons had recently been deployed for the first time in history and their use and proliferation could well have ended life for most human beings on the planet, the end of the war was kind of a big deal for people and they may have been receptive to behavior they otherwise wouldn’t be.

        2. Fortunately we no longer are in that time. It may not be something to seek charge over for me personally but it’s definitely battery. I would definitely feel violated if somebody encroached on my personal space like that.

          1. I would be amused and somewhat flattered that I was worthy of a stranger’s kiss.

            Why does everything need to be a crime?

            1. Me as well. Is common sense only in Montana..,sad.

          2. It lasted only a few seconds according to the photographer Eisenstadt. The nurse had no time to resist or complain and the sailor immediately backed off and walked away afterwards..

            Did he violate her personal space? Yes.

            Was it really that big of a deal considering the circumstances and intent? Not at all and the nurse didn’t begrudge him for it.

            Should that be illegal? De minimis non curat lex.

            1. Would the nurse be in the middle of the streets if she didn’t want to be kissed? Sorry, victim blamimg.

              1. It’s not even that, it’s just there are rare situations where socially unacceptable behavior (like kissing strangers in public) is less taboo due to overwhelming mass jubilation.

                Finding out that you don’t have to be shipped out to some bombed out Japanese shit hole to fight a fanatical enemy is one of those rare moments.

                1. Sorry but “mass jubilation” doesn’t excuse a violation of my self ownership. And sure, not necessarily a criminal matter but certainly a civil. And, as I said, it isn’t something I would bother pursuing.

      4. I never thought about it like that, but I think you’re correct.

        If I were walking around a parade and some big gay army dude gripped me up and started making out with me, I’d definitely consider that assault. Maybe other commenters don’t feel that way, but not everyone is open to being groped by the mouths of strangers.

      5. I never thought about it like that, but I think you’re correct.

        If I were walking around a parade and some big gay army dude gripped me up and started making out with me, I’d definitely consider that assault. Maybe other commenters don’t feel that way, but not everyone is open to being groped by the mouths of strangers.

  224. I was discussing common law somewhere recently but couldn’t remember this guy’s name.

    I was just a kid when this killer was active.

    The wiki doesn’t mention it but a Georgia judge “outlawed” him (in the pre-Magna Carta common law meaning of the term). Everyone knew he’d be “shot while trying to escape” sometime soon after he was taken into custody.

    Obviously, there is a long history of lynching and cops or jailers killing criminals under the pretext of preventing escape but this is the only (or at least the last) time in US history I’m aware of in which a judge “legally” declared someone an outlaw.

    I need to see if I can find a newspaper record of the outlawing.

  225. As bad as I hate to admit it, I really miss you guys since I haven’t had time to post. Well, I mean I don’t miss Shreek or Tulpa, but most of you.

    I spent most of today on an Island named Itamaraca. It’s a big island and mostly forested with lot of hills. We got way off road and I saw the most exotic looking plants and trees that I’ve ever seen. And lizards, like 1000 different types of them.

    And so… where the fuck is flight 370? Yesterday morning, my wife woke up and told me that they found the plane and that everyone on the flight is ok, but they still didn’t know what happened. So then I told her that’s not true, and after a few minutes, she realized that she dreamed it.

    I drank too much beer today. Is it apparent?

    1. Tulpa usually goes by “Bo” these days.

      1. Rollo, actually.

        1. Variants on other commenter’s names using punctuation, spaces or different case letters as well.

      2. Haven’t seen Tulpa since the day after “the incident”. Been kinda nice.

        Of course, Bo has certainly taken up the slack.

        1. Oh yea, he’s dropped in a few times. No shame will keep Tulpa away.

          “trying to keep opposing viewpoints around”

    2. There’s nothing wrong with day drinking, and I missed you too.

    3. Flight 370: plane vanishes. It’s tracking systems were inactivated part way through the flight. Ground radar and/or satellites tracked it hundreds of miles of course until it dissapeared. Two people on board had stolen passports but were probably just trying to emigrate. Little or no wreckage found. Still a total mystery. The word ‘sabotage’ has been thrown around a little today. Your drinking is not apparent from your posts.

      1. One more note: engines kept running for 4 hours.

        1. Did no one have their cell phones on?

          1. I didn’t hijack it, what the fuck do I know?


          2. They wouldn’t have any service, out over the ocean like that, I don’t think, even if the phones were on.

            I started suspecting yesterday that there was foul play involved, and I feel 99% certain of it now.

            My best guess now, the plane was hijacked that the hijackers ran out of fuel and crashed the plane.

            1. It’s ridiculous, but I’m leaning “hijacked, but landed/crashed somewhere”

              The REAMDE situation, actually (like I said, it’s ridiculous).

              The thing is, the engines apparently kept running for four hours. That much gets them where they are going. Possibly lots of other places.

              1. It sounds like they had about 7 hours of fuel for a 5.5 hour flight. Or something close to that.

                I don’t think it’s ridiculous at all at this point.

                I think it’s the most likely scenario. Of course, I want all the passengers to be found alive, but I’m not sure where they could land a plane of that size without detection.

                I still think hijacked and a miscalculation resulting in a crash, possibly on land in thick jungle and/or mountainous terrain.

                1. But electrical fire could explain all of this.

    4. where the fuck is flight 370?

      Death by Sharktopus.

      I drank too much beer today. Is it apparent?

      Yes. Cease all internet activity at once; it’s only a short step from drunk-commenting on H&R to posting dick pics on PoliceOne forums along with your home address.

      1. I tried, but I couldn’t do it. See, that’s why we need thought crime. If the authorities would have known that I would still be drinking at this hour, then they could have cut me off. But as it is, I’m still on the loose.

        1. Godspeed, sir! Right there with you!

    5. Oh….! Yeah, and there was the cat. So, there was this little bar on the island and we stopped there to get a beer (it was 97 and around 80% humidity) and there were 3 cats prowling around, I guess looking for table scraps.

      And so, one of the cats is this really tiny black cat with big green eyes, and I started talking to him and he came right up and I was playing with him and he was really friendly and craving attention, and all of the sudden, something hits my hand out of nowhere and I look down and there’s this white cat with big blue eyes, some kind of Siamese mixed breed I think and he was swatting at me because I guess he didn’t like that his friend was getting attention. And then he hissed at me and was gone.

      So like 2 minutes later, this same cat just attacks our driver! Seriously, he had climbed up on a chair and sprang across the table and clawed the guy on the arm! So then, he calls the waitress and he’s telling her, that cat attacked me! LMAO, I was laughing so hard.

      Ok, I’m bored, I admit it.

        1. It has to be global warming. It’s causing cat attacks and rape.

  226. Did someone say Karaoke?

    1. What are you, a Canasian?

    2. Excellent.

  227. Some very good news: millennials describe themselves as ‘environmentalist’ at a far lower rate than members of other generations. Maybe…just maybe my cohort isn’t totally retarded.


  228. Do you suffer from Top-man-itis? If so, Libertix may be for you. Libertix treats bootlicking, equivocation, and other major symptoms of Top-man-itis. Ask your doctor about Libertix.

    Side effects of Libertix include irritability and alcoholism.

    1. Lack of empathy. Extreme rationalism.

      1. Other side effects can include inability to vote for the chosen candidate on your team, and a loss of war boner.

  229. So what’s the longest Reason troll free thread ever? We’ve got to be close…

    1. Are you kidding? Look up-thread for Bo.

      1. I’m thinking of those 1000+ gamboling threads of the dark days, in the before time, in the long, long ago.

        1. I can’t even remember the last 1000 comment thread, period. It’s been a while.

          Although, I don’t know if it’s a sign of relevance or not. Because I’ve seen 20k comment threads at Huffpo, that I couldn’t find even one intelligible comment no matter how long I tried.

  230. Here’s my beef with Pi: you know all those area and volume equations (e.g. V=4/3?r^3) you had to memorize in school? You ever try to remember that shit as an adult? It’s impossible, right? Here’s the thing: all that complicated bullshit is the result of a giant conspiracy involving at least Big Education and Big Pi.

    Now, pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, but what fucking good does that do? What we really need to to know is the ratio of circles to squares and and spheres to cubes, because we don’t need to memorize equations for right-angle shits. Well, here they are: ?/4 and ?/6. That’s it, all you ever needed to know. For anything you need to calculate, figure out the math for the square or cube and multiply times that ratio (substitute D for l). Example: volume of a cube = l^3. volume of sphere = (?/6)D^3 = 4/3?r^3.


    1. Right, that’s one that a person can arrive at pretty intuitively by simply thinking about the geometry involved — but of course we don’t teach K-12 math visually or with concrete examples in addition to abstract teaching/rote memorization, because that would make too much sense and be too useful.

      1. If people were forced to learn language the way they learn math, there would be a lot of grunting and pointing going on.

      2. One problem with creative teaching methods is the requirement that the teacher not be a dumbass, like my 5th grade science teacher who jumped off a shelf at the same time as a student to prove that heavier objects fall faster. That’s still the most impressively wrong thing I’ve ever seen.

        1. E. gad.

          Did the experiment change his mind at all?

          Here is where I point out once again that ed majors have the lowest SAT scores and the highest college GPAs.

          1. Ceteris paribus, heavier objects do fall faster. That wasn’t one of the myriad problems with the demonstration.

            1. Some context: this followed the simultaneous dropping of a horizontal 8×11 sheet of paper and a coin.

            2. Heavier objects do not fall faster absent other forces because of the equivalence principle. It’s the reason heavier balls don’t roll down faster than lighter balls. That’s how Galileo proved it.

              1. But “other forces” include atmospheres, of which we were assuredly in the presence.

                Heavier balls don’t roll (much) faster than lighter balls because friction is negligible.

                1. If heavier objects really did fall faster than lighter objects on earth, Galileo would not have discovered anything.

                  I can prove it. Suppose we have an object of mass m. The force of gravity on it it is F, so F = ma. If we solve for acceleration (note I’m using a instead of g) we get a = F/m. Now suppose we have an object with twice the mass, 2m. If we do the same thing, we get 2F = 2ma. If we solve for a again, we get a = 2F/2m = F/m; same as before.

                  The acceleration from gravity does not depend on mass.

                  1. The acceleration from gravity does not depend on mass.

                    Sure it does. As you note, downward force is a function of m and g. But there’s other forces, or in the case of a free-falling object, an other force: drag. Drag is a function of (cross-sectional) area and velocity squared.

                    So we have a downward force that increases linearly with mass and an upward force with no mass component at all. As I said, “Ceteris paribus, heavier objects do fall faster.” Because of the area component, “heavier objects fall faster” can be stated more clearly, but no less correctly, as “denser objects fall faster.”

                    1. Drag is not applicable in a vacuum, though — not to Bo it up, but wouldn’t this be the actual Cet. par scenario?

                    2. The atmosphere is equal in both cases, and people don’t generally refer to objects hurtling through space as “falling.” So no, I do not think (/Bo) that’s the CP scenario.

                    3. Thanks, had to ask.

                      Only a few comments to go…

                    4. Ceteris paribus means other factors equal. If you say that other factors are equal (eg no difference in air resistance) the statement that heavier objects fall faster than lighter object is false.

                      A moon astronaut did it with a hammer and a feather:

                    5. If you say that other factors are equal (eg no difference in air resistance) the statement that heavier objects fall faster than lighter object is false.

                      Dude, just stop.

                      Upward force due to air resistance = 1

                      Object 1, m=2

                      Object 2, m=4

                      For simplicity’s sake, g=1.

                      (Downward force minus upward force)/m

                      Object 1, (2g-1)/2 = 1/2

                      Object2, (4g-1)/4 = 3/4

        2. That is AWESOME!!! He might have created a whole class of libertarians right there. Never trust appeals to authority. I went to a poor rural school, but I never had a teacher that ignorant.

    1. Cats and dogs living together – mass hysteria!!

    2. Ohhh… wait until the TRUE liberals hear about this. Heads will roll.

    3. And lucidity from Andrew Sullivan? WTF IS HAPPENING

  231. Pi rounded to the nearest thousand is 0.

      1. Just don’t look into the sun, you’ll burn your eye out.

  232. What a shock. Ralph Peters was batshit insane. He used to be ok, back when he was still in the Army and writing a column for Army Times. After his retirement and 9/11, he went completely off the deep end. His early novels were alright when I read them years ago.

  233. Watching Unforgiven. The “let’s shoot some pheasants” scene came on and my two bird dogs erupted off the couch at the sound of flushing birds.

    1. I was watching Atlas Shrugged, part II, before the show. And am getting ready to go back to finish it.

      There seems to be irony in telling that to someone going by Francisco d’Aniconia, but like Alanis Morisette I’m not sure that’s the right word…

    2. Typical Libertarian, shooting peasants, after you’ve pillaged and burned their village and defiled the women. And all of that after not paying your fair share. Ohhhh!… pheasants, ok… bird hater!

      1. …bird hater!

        Hate’s got nuthin’ to do with it.

    3. A president? *laughs* Well why not shoot a president?

      1. This country don’t need no queens whatsoever, I reckon.

  234. Don’t sleep. We’re close to the magical, ever elusive 1000 comments thread.

    1. Well, if we’re gonna make 1k without Mary, it’s gonna take more karaoke.

      Maybe more meatloaf.

      1. I’m running on beer here…, but after much hope, it seems that everyone has given up the cause, sigh..

        1. Friday night reason thread is hard.

    2. And now I’m praying for the end of time!

      Shut up Bitch!

    3. If we get close to a 1000 they’ll assume someone is a troll and redact him/her.

      1. Ok, Reason, I can’t lie. Jesse is the troll!

        1. No which hunts for Jesse. Don’t talk shit about jesse or he’ll put 55 gallon drums of lube in your amazon history.

          Drink more. Or less. It’s not exactly the right amount.

          1. At least you didn’t find that drum of lube funny and like it on Facebook. Then you’d be an unwitting lube advertiser…

            1. Hah, no, no facebook for the Gin-ster. No facebook. None.

              Whoever it s that you caught with that, though… awesome.

              1. Better, my littler brother liked Trojans and it was plastered all over everyone in the family’s Facebook.

  235. I firmly believe in the right of uncircumcised, un-circus-ied orcas to get gay married unless they have an abortion or like deep dish.

    That should push it to the limit.

    1. I hate hummus! (cues hummus cult to freak out).

        1. Against the Hummus or the Orca or the Deep Dish?


    1. WHERE THE FUCK IS THE ZAMBONI ON THIS VIDEO OF SUNDOWN? I’ve got 30% Candadian content, WTF is going on here?!?

        1. you can’t dis-own that shit. That’s all you.

          Like Grape’s worst sport coat, Ron McClean’s worst cover for Grape’s worst sport coat. You own that.

            1. I’m sorry, let’s open the hockey season with Alanis Morrisette.


  237. 120 comments to a thousand. I don’t think this thread is going to make it.

      1. Ha! I used reverse psychology to get you to comment!

    1. It’s not gonna make it!

    2. What the fuckity-fuck? Attack of the Bo?

  238. Did someone say something about Lucy? No? Well, I miss Lucy.

    Pretty sure she’d post something about Copperhead Road.

    1. my friend went to a Steve Earle concert because of that song.
      He was dissapoint.

      1. I can imagine that would happen..

        Always some hank Jr. if you need it…

    1. Keep it short: have they found us?!?

      1. I don’t think so, but the article has 566 comments and apparently there’s also a Deadspin article, which is where a friend of mine found out that Kennedy had a show on Fox News.

        I’m sure SOMEONE has found us and complained.

    2. I thought Kennedy’s response was one of her best, about her Mom vaccinating all her kids and none of them have Autism. Actually Kennedy may be the perfect example of Anti-Autism.

    1. I am thoroughly unimpressed with this season so far.

      Shitty sound from the engines and watching their revs? Whee.

  239. Discuss:

    Yea or nay: “Cutting your own hair, for fun and profit”

    1. I shave my head at the beginning of every summer, so yea?

      1. There are 3 acceptable styles.
        High and Tight, Crew Cut & Buzz Cut.

        1. My winter hair is far from acceptable, but my monocle game is on point.

    2. One of my buddies has a flowbee (sp?, fuck it) and I never knew that he cut his own hair.

      1. My little brother used a flowbee for years. Looked surprisingly good, too.

    3. Pfft. Everyone knows that real libertarians let their mothers cut their hair.

    4. I’ve been cutting my own hair since 2004. Got a buzz cut when I deployed. Never went back. Hair is a pain in the ass.

  240. Malaysian official tells AP hijacking of flight 370 is no longer just a theory, “it is conclusive”

    1. Beauty, eh

  241. Have a lot of sex and be proud of it! Meet the two girls who host an ‘anti-slut shaming’ podcast where they talk to the men they’ve screwed

    After Fisher went through a rough breakup, the two New York-based stand-up comedians, both in their mid-20s, decided to pool their collective un-shame about sex and create a podcast in which they interviewed men they’d slept with. The first episode of “Guys We F**ked, The Anti Slut-Shaming Podcast” was released in December. Since then, their audience has grown quickly, and the show now has over 200,000 subscribers on SoundCloud.

    “We’re saying, have a lot of sex and be proud of it,” Hutchinson explains at the beginning of the debut episode.

    The pair touch on everything from dirty talk to disastrous one-night stands with equal parts honesty and humor. But “Guys We F**ked” isn’t meant to titillate — Hutchinson and Fisher hope that the podcast encourages women to feel more comfortable with themselves and everyone to have more great, shame-free sex.

    Let’s see how they feel about this in 20 years if their entertainment and media careers don’t pan out.

    1. I think women call other women sluts a lot and that is terrible.


      The worst thing for me is when women make comments being like: “You are filthy, you don’t get this, you’re disgraceful.”

      […] when it’s women against their own kind I just sit back and think “we have so far to go.”

      It’s like they think that women aren’t in competition with each other: they seem to believe in the mythical Sisterhood or something.

    2. At least they had the decency to quit comedy.

      I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush, but every female comedian I’ve seen is about as funny as a burning orphanage.


    3. Based on the casual-sex types I know, they’ll feel as good about it then as they do now. For anyone who believes in self-ownership and assuming responsibility for your own choices, I don’t see anything objectionable here.

      1. TL;DR They mostly just talk about themselves.

  242. That’s it? For that thirty-four second sound bite I rearranged my schedule and made it a point to tune into the show?

    If so, I feel like I’ve been bait-and-switched.

    I guess I’ll go over to YouTube and see what Nick Gillespie’s been up to.

    1. Nobody watches the show for the show, it’s for the comments and snark in the comments.

      I watched the show by itself once and it was shitty.

  243. What a bunch of pussies. Only 69 comments to go and we are gonna come up short?

    1. Shall we have a rolling discussion of monetary policy and push this bitch over 1k?

    2. Your obsession with base-ten objectives offends my polydactyl-friendly sensibilities.

      1. Go play with your Platonic solids, and return with count-pushing commentary.

    3. I’m here, let’s do this.

    4. Scruffy’s on a break.

  244. I’m drunk. How about hot women I’d like to fuck instead?

    1. Had a thing for Reese Witherspoon as of late.

      1. I’ve always preferred cute to beautiful.

        1. Beautiful is gone at 40, cute lasts a lifetime.

          1. Think about it, you can have cute little old ladies. You never have beautiful little old ladies.

          2. This is the only life lesson I knew innately.

            1. I left this comment before FdA’s creepy old ladie explanation.

              1. Come on Sidd. Everyone likes granny porn.

          1. You sir, are a god.

          2. What is that? I don’t speak Flemish!

            1. Hungarian.

      2. She never did it for me. Strange body, strange face.

    2. Compromise: We’ll determine acceptable inflation targets, interest rates, etc. for various fantasy fucks.

      …Start with an easy one, say, Scarlett Johansson. How high must I push the CPI before you turn down that tail?

      1. Wait… What?

        1. Check my comment above his, then weigh in to push the count.

    3. what happened to Naomi Watts

      1. The shelf life of actresses is extremely short.

        All of my original “celebrity waiver” girls are over the hill now.

        1. God invented movies so I could see Rita Hayworth in her prime, comment on it here, and push the count a little higher.

          1. Meh, Ingrid Bergman was better.

            Just a few more…

              1. Jennifer Connelly, Natalie Wood, Jill St. John.

              2. While we’re on the topic, best Hollywood Golden Age film?\

                I’m gonna have to go with Casablanca or the Maltese Falcon.

                1. Wow, I can’t top those. Those are probably my two favorites from that era. If we expanded the “golden age”, I’d add “The Searchers”.

                  1. It’s ’59, but I’ll throw in North by Northwest.

                    1. If we go that late, I’ll toss in “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence”. I love that one.

                    2. Man Who Shot Liberty Valence is a great choice. Haven’t seen North by Northwest yet.

                  2. Here’s a couple, My Man Godfrey, The Thin Man, Grand Hotel.

                2. I liked Casablanca. Funny thing about old movies…their length. Casablanca was 82 minutes long.

                  Somehow I associate “good” movies with longer lengths. Not so, back then.

                  1. Casablanca somehow feels longer than that, in a good way. Only scene in the movie that felt out of place was the Paris montage; with modern tech it would have looked much more natural.

                    Or George Lucas would have shoved 3-D Space Nazis into every frame of the Enhanced Edition and added a musical number, thus ruining the charm of the original.

                    On second thought, I’m glad Casablanca was made in the 40s.

                    1. I wonder if they’ll ever get around to Casablanca 2: Rick’s Revenge?

                    2. Casablanca 2: Brokeback Desert

                      Rick and Renault consummate their beautiful friendship.

                    3. That “added scene” in Star Wars where Hans steps on Jabba pisses me off to no end. I can’t watch that damned film any more. Thanks Lucas, you putz!

          2. My original 4.

            Lea Thompson
            Mary Stuart Masterson (yeah I had a “Some Kind of Wonderful” thing
            Meg Ryan
            Winona Ryder

            1. Holy shit, dude. We might be brothers. Lea Thompson, oh yes.

              Except for Masterson. She never really did anything for me.

            2. Winona Ryder aged gracefully, if we’re going by Star Trek 2009. The rest… oy.

              1. Andie McDowell, St. Elmo’s Fire era

  245. We could resurrect the F-35 debate…

    /bolt of lightning followed by organ music

  246. This comment is worth your time.

    1. LIES

  247. Well I’m out. Had to stay up way past my bedtime to pick up my younger sister from work and buy her food.

    You guys have 35 minutes to get 50 comments in after this one. Godspeed.

  248. So, did we ever get a clear answer on whether or not Donald Rumsfeld was a lizard person?

    1. Yeah, I keep oscillating between reptile and amphibian…

      1. I assumed that was going straight to Herr Icke.

  249. Jeez, no problem here. I’m om the other side of the globe so it’s the middle of Saturday afternoon – and – both my boys are taking a nap.

  250. I’ll just throw this out and see if it gets any momentum…

    Why is it that most gun guys believe a proper self defense rifle has to be semi-auto and magazine-fed but a shotgun for a similar use has to be manually operated and tube-fed?

    With a number of really reliable semi-auto 12 gauge shotguns which feed from detachable magazines (Saiga-12 &, MKA-1919 to name a couple) I don’t see why these get more interest.

      1. Derpetologist|3.15.14 @ 2:37AM|#



        (see also: U.S. Military)
        [Win 1897 “trench gun”/ Win Model 12 “trench gun”/ Mossberg 590SP/ Rem 870/]

    1. I’m a useless outlier here, since my family has always used semi-auto shotguns for hunting purposes and such.

      Still, +1.

      1. I went from hunting with a Benelli Super Black Eagle semi to an over-under Franchi Alcione for birds. It’s simply a matter of weight and speed.

        I would think self defense would favor speed and capacity.

        1. The Saiga-12 is quite handy with 5 round magazines. The 10 rounders are a bit long and add a bit of weight – this is one reason why I’m probably going to get a few of the all-steel 8 rounders I saw recently.

          The MKA-1919 is also much lighter than you might expect. With 5 round magazines it feels about the same as a current issue AR.

          1. Saiga-12 was great with C4 and the light armor upgrade in Bad Company 2. Run around and clear all the rooms.

    2. I do still have my Remington 870 pump and a side-by-side double barrel just because – but for serious purposes it just seems to make more sense to have something I can change magazines and have, 5, 10, or even 20 rounds available on tap. I can even change between 00 buck, slugs, or any other load just as quickly. You can’t do that with a Benelli.

  251. I like to make parody lyrics by substituting the word strawman wherever possible

    Strawman told me not to come
    Hello Strawman my old friend
    Leavin’ on a strawman
    More than a strawman


    1. Strawman in the Sky with Ad Homs
      Midnight Train To Strawman

      And so on…

      1. Derp works too.

        All you need is derp
        Derp me tender
        Derp angel

        1. Killing me softly with his Derp
          Derp Machine
          One of these Derps

    2. Auf, Strawman-Dragoner! Auf, Strawman-Bayreuth!

      Schnall um deinen S?bel und r?ste dich zum Streit!

  252. Oh boy, I think we’re gonna make it!!

      1. That was one of the first movies I took my wife to see when we started dating. Good times.

        1. My date was a very horny Catholic girl, with the most amazing brown eyes. Sadly, lost track of her many years ago.

  253. Gentlemen, we have done it!

  254. That’s it, boys and girls. 1,000


  256. OK, now who wants to see Matt be more assertive on the show?

    1. Kennedy won’t allow that.

      1. Good Point.

  257. Is there anything we cannot accomplish through copious snark and voluntary cooperation?

      1. Thread winner! +1 Internets to you, sir!

      2. Wouldn’t that be cool, though?

        Anchorman: “All the results are in, and it looks like Jeb Bush will be our next President…one moment…just checking Hit ‘n Run a second…ooh! Burn! I guess Jeb didn’t make it after all, and I would like to be the first to congratulate our real next President: The Jacket. Good night, and good luck.”

    1. I’ve not yet begun to snark.


  259. I have nothing to contribute and obviously this post has no substance, but lets see if I can put in 23 more comments.

    1. Those kids are all going to go blind, then they’ll be sorry… they’ll all be sorry…..

    2. How to Motivate Your Son to Use Pornography

      1. Have a son.
      2. There is no more.

      1. Pretty much.

        I was lusting after women before I even knew what sex was.

  260. The problem with libertarians is that they spend too much time on their freedoms and not enough on their responsibilities. If you don’t want more taxes, pay your own bills. If you want to smoke pot don’t work for a trucking company or you will get fired.

    If libertarians would say they are as much about responsibility as they are freedom, they would get alot farther.

    1. “Pot smoking truck drivers, the lot of you!”

    2. Derp da derp da tiddly terp.

  261. Wow. I went to bed last night and the comments were in the mere hundreds.

    Now. Crashed through 1000.

    As for me, I committed a type in calling Kennedy a ‘interruption nymph.’ It’s a missing a vowel, Pat.

  262. Wow- never seen 1000. 800 a couple times.

    So, when did this thread get rerouted to artisanal, home-brewed, deep-dish circumcisions?

  263. A new circle-jerk record!

  264. You should have a follow up episode, “What is wrong with cosmotarians”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.