Russian Military Buildup Questioned, HealthCare.gov Still Malfunctioning, French Leaders Step Down: P.M. Links

|

  • I don't think I'll ever get tired of this image.
    HealthCare.gov

    Journalists actually went to examine that alleged Russian military buildup at the border to Ukraine but found little.

  • HealthCare.gov, which was malfunctioning this morning, is still malfunctioning this afternoon.
  • Following the pasting the ruling Socialist Party got at the polls, France's prime minister stepped down. President Francois Hollande named the interior minister as the replacement.
  • The Supreme Court today heard an important case on software patent law and what sort of creations could or should actually qualify for patents and how abstract a protected idea may be.
  • In a reminder of how utterly useless and unneeded the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is, today it prohibited companies controlling more than one television station in the same market from sharing sales staff, which hurts the very small television stations the FCC chairman claims it will protect.
  • The State of New York is joining New York City in suing FedEx for illegally shipping contraband cigarettes to customers in the state, costing the state more than $10 million in tax revenue.

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

NEXT: Leader of U.K. Independence Party Praises Putin

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. HealthCare.gov, which was malfunctioning this morning, is still malfunctioning this afternoon.

    The law itself, however, is humming right along.

    1. For the first time support for Obamacare exceeds disapproval (49% for, 48% against).

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..i_4gB8nrw#

      (Just a link to a major POLL – not an endorsement)

      1. 90% support for common-sense gun control! Romney can win!

      2. Even with that vague question, it is still underwater among “registered voters”. You know the people who decide elections.

        More importantly, the people who strongly oppose it outnumber those who strongly support 39 to 27. So, among the people who are likely to actually show up and vote based on Obamacare, it is very unpopular. And that is all that matters from an electoral perspective.

        1. If you go to Shreek’s fun poll, click to go to the next question.

        2. Wow, I got you to read a poll and analyze the data for once!

          Just savor this moment…..

          1. Yes, another moment you made a fool of yourself and got pwnd.

            1. I just cite data, dipshit.

              49-48.

              Or flipped with RVs only as John notes (so proud of him today).

              The important part is the direction – or the sentiment and how it is moving. And it is moving solidly positive in favor of the ACA.

              Of course, that is from a shoddy start in 2013. So, we will wait it out.

              1. Things are looking up for Romney!

          2. Palin’s Buttplug|3.31.14 @ 4:46PM|#
            “Wow, I got you to read a poll and analyze the data for once!”

            You are one slimy turd. You got yours; screw all the folks who got shafted!
            I wish you a long, slow, painful death.

            1. I have a question, Sevo: Can you think of any reason why anyone who identifies as being against government overreach/loss of liberty through legislation, and who has stated that they fancy themselves as a “libertarian” would actually like Obamacare and want it to succeed?

              I can’t. Just wondering if you (or, anyone else) have a theory on that. One that hasn’t already been stated.

              1. Sure. It is plausible that someone might think ACA is better than single-payer since that would pump up the government even more.

                1. OK, sorry-I should have qualified that finding the lesser of those two evils didn’t figure into my question.

              2. Obamacare has lots wrong with it, you jackoff.

                1. Suck harder shreeky!

              3. A libertarian could like Obamacare if he were convinced it would bring down the govt very soon.

                1. Hmmm…that’s an interesting take. However, it seems more like Leto II’s “Golden Path” plan than what a libertarian would do.

                  Plus, I wouldn’t think they’d “like” it, so much as they’d find it a means to an end.

        3. I find it odd that some still try to make this law seem anything other than a complete and total disaster for the Democrats. I mean, it’s not just one of those things we want to believe–even the lefty press is saying it.

          1. There are just dead enders out there who have too much of themselves invested in this pig being a success.

          2. I honestly don’t think the Republicans will do anything even if they win both houses, maybe even the White House. The insurance companies will just pay them to keep the law intact, and maybe even get them to expand subsidies. We are truly f- d.

            1. Oh, don’t be so cynical.

              Don’t you remember in 2006 and 2008 how the Democrats made huge gains in the elections and immediately started rolling back all the excesses of the Bush administration and held people responsible to prevent such blatant misgovernance from ever happening again?

              I’m sure something similar will happen this time.

            2. The top Republicans love Obamacare. They are still angry the Tea Baggers forced them to vote against it.

              But you are wrong about keeping it intact. The Republicans want in on the action. They will pass a “bi partisan fix” that will make it worse and ensure the public stops blaming the Democrats for this disaster.

            3. The hatred is too strong for a team change to quell it. Forced bussing got killed eventually and I think this thing will too.

              1. Sarcasm aside Cytotoxic, I think you are probably right.

              2. . Forced bussing got killed eventually and I think this thing will too.

                That’s the analogy that I’ve used too.

                The elites loved both but the people hated em and eventually the people’s will be done. But it will take upwards of a decade and shake up the structure of the two parties along the way.

            4. Depends on which Republicans win in November. If there’s even a small changing of the guard, it could mean some more radical changes. For a while. Until they settle into statistfuckism.

              1. The statistfuckheads might bite the bullet and kill the ACA so they can get a free pass on all the other statistfuckism they want.

          3. I find it odd that some still try to make this law seem anything other than a complete and total disaster for the Democrats. I mean, it’s not just one of those things we want to believe–even the lefty press is saying it.

            I will explain your ignorance.

            You are looking at this from only your perspective.

            This same perspective would have said “BUSHCARE (Medicare Prescription Welfare) is a complete disaster!”

            Yet Bush was reelected in 2004 despite multiple disasters.

            I have a MACRO understanding of things. LISTEN AND LEARN!

            1. I have a MACRO understanding of things.

              So just the big picture then? Details be damned?

              1. 8% of the details.

            2. You are looking at this from only your perspective.

              Are you capable of reading comprehension you fucking twat? Did you just pass over the stuff about the lefty press admitting it’s a disaster?

              This same perspective would have said “BUSHCARE (Medicare Prescription Welfare) is a complete disaster!”

              Which logical fallacy are we on here?

            3. Did “Bushcare” cause anyone to lose a health plan they liked? Did it cause anyone to lose their doctor? Did it cause premiums to increase? Did it cause companies to not hire or even fire people? No? Then how is your analogy remotely relevant?

              1. Why, because “BOOOOSHHH!!111!!!!1” of course.

              2. It also didn’t include an individual mandate.

                I think Bush benefitted from Iraq and Afghanistan at that time, ironically. It seemed the public at large still saw them both as winnable, and they seemed to instill a lot of fervor in the Republican base.

                Oh, and John Kerry.

                1. Oh, and John Kerry.

                  A tremendous liability. I can’t stand to listen to Kerry for more than one minute. Who can?

                  Yet Kerry lost by only 150,000 votes in Ohio where the GOP was pulling voting machines out of college towns.

                  In retrospect it is better that Bush won in 2004 or Kerry would be called the worst POTUS in history instead of Dumbya.

              3. You’re talking 10-20,000 tops. Statistically irrelevant.

                1. You’re talking 10-20,000 tops. Statistically irrelevant.

                  Now what are you talking about?

                  1. Now what are you talking about?

                    That was for PapayaSF.

                    1. Are you seriously claiming that only 10-20,000 people lost their insurance/doctor? Because that’s fucking wrong.

                    2. CBO – only 10,000 lost their health insurance and cannot replace it at a lower cost through the ACA.

                      FACT!

                    3. The problem Shriek is that the CBO is engaged in telling us what should be possible, if ACA actually worked. The reality:
                      Reality: According to a November 4, 2013, report in Politico, more than 3.5 million Americans have been hit with health plan cancellations. Millions more are expected to follow.

                      https://reason.com/archives/2014/01/14/they-lied

                      The other problem Shriek is that you’re a retard that doesn’t understand the concept of a fact.

                    4. WOW! I’m one of the elite 10,000 then.

      3. Except the margin of error is 3.5%.

        1. May as well be 8%.

          1. I should have refreshed before responding. 🙁

    2. Hello.

    3. Being in the middle of a long day of sitting around waiting for testpoints to run (well, since I got back from the doctors this morning), I can understand why they didn’t want to…. but they probably should have done some testing on this thing.

      1. Testing?

        Who needs stinking testing…and badges when the idea is soooo derpalicious!

  2. HealthCare.gov, which was malfunctioning this morning, is still malfunctioning this afternoon.

    Are you sure it’s not suppose to work this way?

    1. Just paving the way for their “I can’t get the internet to work” extension.

  3. HealthCare.gov, which was malfunctioning this morning, is still malfunctioning this afternoon.

    Comrades, the deadline is alive, but the web site is dead.

  4. Following the pasting the ruling Socialist Party got at the polls, France’s prime minister stepped down.

    If we truly want to follow in France’s footsteps, who from the Obama Administration should step down following the mid-terms?

    1. lol, shama lama ding dong isnt going to like this!

      Hahathatsfunny.com

    2. Not sure why Sarkozy lost in the first place. Seemed like his governance was sane and acceptable next to the socialists.

      1. Sarkozy WAS a socialist. So disappointing.

        1. No he wasn’t. He was a conservative. He was ‘socialist’ to the extent the French are.

          1. …which is still pretty damn socialist. Aside from some pension trimming, Sarkozy’s policies were dirigiste and anti-markets. Awful

            1. Yes. But he was more aligned with Bush and he wasn’t insane when it came to finance.

              1. He was still insane on finance, just not as much. Hollande OTOH is being converted to our side-no joke. He’s making all the right noises about tax cuts and labour sector liberalization.

    3. Hopefully not Biden. What would we do without the humor?

      1. I was going to say everyone but Biden. See, the rest are morally guilty, but Biden lacks the capacity to make moral choices, so he’s not guilty.

  5. Journalists actually went to examine that alleged Russian military buildup at the border to Ukraine but found little.

    Woodland pattern or chocolate chip?

    1. Is this the same media that said Sadam hussain never tortured his people, are you listing CNN

    2. Somehow, I’m not jumping to “there is no buildup” from “some journalists couldn’t find a buildup.”

    3. Doesn’t anyone remember what happened the last time we sent a bunch of journalists to Russia to examine what they were building?

    4. I saw a YouTube video of a Russian tank battalion on a train going somewhere…

      Large concentrations of mechanized units are impossible to hide – I would think some alarms would be raised by the Pentagon / State / President if there was a Russian Army corps ready to invade Ukraine.

      1. Said before, but CIA and NSA are too busy spying on the US, Brazil, and Congress to be bothered with 19th Century espionage.

  6. In a reminder of how utterly useless and unneeded the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is, today it prohibited companies controlling more than one television station in the same market from sharing sales staff, which hurts the very small television stations the FCC chairman claims it will protect.

    Inefficiency, thy name is government.

    1. If the FCC has any legitimate purpose it is making sure people don’t use other people’s radio frequencies and to allocate them in some reasonably fair way.

      How did they get into regulating content and anti-trust stuff anyway?

      1. Zeb, Zeb, Zeb,

        Government always expands its reach as far as people will let it.

        1. Which is why we, the people, should bitch slap the government. I mean the full slap, with a backslap on the back swing.

          1. But we can’t bitch slap them when half if us want them to bitch slap us!

            1. I said choke yourself. Now lean forward and choke yourself!

              1. It really is like Tyler Durden fighting his alter ego.

              2. Don’t grab my hand, numbnuts!

                1. +1 Thank you very much! Can I be in charge for a while?

  7. A history of post-WW2 sanctions. It doesn’t seem like an especially effective thing to do.

    1. It only works if you have leadership that cares enough to change on its own. It never works when you have leaders who don’t care about the welfare of their own people.

      1. So never then.

        1. It worked once with South Africa. But generally no other times.

          1. Even that was debatable. The Cubans leaving, local communist insurgencies dying down, and finding somebody sane to hand the government off to had more to do with ending Apartheid than sanctions.

      2. This also explains why Ghandi’s non-violent resistance tactics were genius for use against the British, but when he suggested the exact same ideas for combating the Nazis, he just kind of looked like a complete idiot.

    2. Depends how you define success. They were working on Iran.

  8. The State of New York is joining New York City in suing FedEx for illegally shipping contraband cigarettes to customers in the state…

    Shouldn’t they be suing the ATF for dropping the enforcement ball?

    1. Sue themselves for creating a black narket.

    2. So, FedEx is supposed to just know what’s in the packages it delivers? Because I doubt people are walking into a FedEx Office with a couple cartons asking for the staff to help box them before shipping them to NYS.

      It’s just a shakedown by the city and state.

      1. I would also bet that my local FedEx office employees have no idea what the tobacco laws are in New York.

        1. That’s why we clearly need to abolish individual state laws entirely & let the federal government dictate everything.

    3. It’s a state and city cig tax. The ATF doesn’t give a shit as long as the Feds still get their share.

  9. The State of New York is joining New York City in suing FedEx for illegally shipping contraband cigarettes to customers in the state, costing the state more than $10 million in tax revenue.

    There is no escaping the thuggery of the State.

    1. I’d like to see the statute that says New York can prohibit a non-resident from shipping cigs into New York.

      1. Perhaps they view such things like California, which claims jurisdiction over the entire planet.

      2. I would not be surprized, in fact I half expect it is written into NY’s laws.

        I wonder where they departed from reality – was it at the point where their laws don’t apply to people who are not in NY or was it at the point where enforcement is basically impossible?

      3. Wait a minute. Fed Ex’s knowledge aside, how does NY or NYC know that such a thing has been done and how much? Did they just pull that number out of their ass?

  10. The rise and fall of professional bowling.

    In the “golden era” of the 1960s and 70s, they made twice as much money as NFL stars, signed million dollar contracts, and were heralded as international celebrities. After each match, they’d be flanked by beautiful women who’d seen them bowl on television, or had read about them in Sports Illustrated.
    Today, the glitz and glamour has faded. Pro bowlers supplement their careers with second jobs, like delivering sod, or working at a call center. They share Motel 6 rooms on tour to save on travel expenses, and thrive on the less-than-exciting dime of beef jerky sponsorships.

    1. Well, we’ll always have Kingpin.

    2. If there was one sport where on my best day I could beat a pro, it’s bowling.

      Truly a sport for the armchair champions.

    3. Shut the fuck up, Donny.

  11. In a reminder of how utterly useless and unneeded the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is, today it prohibited companies controlling more than one television station in the same market from sharing sales staff, which hurts the very small television stations the FCC chairman claims it will protect.

    Eliminating small businesses is unquestionably a primary goal of all government agencies.

  12. “The State of New York is joining New York City in suing FedEx for illegally shipping contraband cigarettes”

    How is FedEx supposed to know what is inside the packages?

    1. tobacco sniffing cats.

    2. The governor’s cousin has an x-ray machine business…?

    3. “Well, they don’t ask customers to pinky swear there aren’t any cigarettes in the packages they send to New York, do they? Clearly they are implicitly encouraging the black market in cigarettes, depriving the city and state of tax revenue and abetting underage smoking.”

    4. FYTW, of course.

  13. The site is down, giving them the excuse they need to keep registration open through next December.

    1. Might be even intentional, since malice and incompetence are paired like a fine wine with a fine cheese in this administration.

  14. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa…..id=2413974

    So I read this last night. Interesting paper, but the guy has this weird thing about robots being around the corner, specifically he’s waiting on the generalist robot, but I think the robot model was, is, and will be the specialist model.

    1. We already have generalist robots. They are called human beings. You build robots so they can do a few things better than any human being.

      I think that guy just needs a girlfriend.

  15. Journalists actually went to examine that alleged Russian military buildup at the border to Ukraine but found little.

    Of course not, because it there was a military buildup, the Defense Department would already have leaked the incriminating satellite data to the neocon press.

    1. Or any press.

  16. So it’s opening day in baseball. Phillies have scored 13 runs today, which I fear may have used up all their run scoring ability until late June or so.

    1. They got their scoring out of the way early.

    2. Thankfully we get to wait one more day for the Lastro’s to begin their 100 loss season.

    3. May be catching a Phillies game this summer. We’re staying in Philadelphia on our way to Delaware. I hate anyone in the NL East but, sigh, it’ll have to do. My daughter wants to see a pro ball game. The Cape Cod League whet her appetite.

      1. Citizen’s Bank Park is really nice. You’ll have a good time. Make sure you get some crab fries.

        1. After stopping for a cheesesteak, right?

          1. Cheesesteak, man. Had some back in the early 90s when I visited. We took a friend from Italy to Miami and one of our stop overs was in Philly specifically for that. Now it’s my daughter turn.

          2. Yeah, if you’re not from Philly you should get a cheesesteak too.

    4. STOP THE SEASON NOW! THE WHITE SOX ARE ABOVE .500!!!

  17. The State of New York is joining New York City in suing FedEx for illegally shipping contraband cigarettes to customers in the state, costing the state more than $10 million in tax revenue.

    FedEx is big. That’s good, because that means they have a lot to lose. They can be drafted into unpaid servitude to the state, and made to enforce local laws.

    1. Yep, you nailed it, Brooksie. And once they cave to NYC, every other gubmint will expect the same treatment.

      1. Wouldn’t it be nice to see them say, “Fine, we’ll just stop delivering to New York.” God, that would be awesome. (Yeah, I know.)

    2. Wonder what else they ship into NY that hasn’t had taxes collected? Maybe NY needs to open every package that arrives so it can enforce its sales tax laws? “Good gosh, here’s a birthday Barbie doll for Suzie from Grandma in Des Moines. Send her a NY sales tax bill.”

    3. “High capacity” firearm magazines cannot be shipped to certain states – but onus has always been on the seller/shipper and not the shipping comapany.

      Not sure where this will go. It would cost FedEx a lot of money to effectively train every employee across the US to comply with this.

  18. http://nypost.com/2014/03/31/m…..ening-day/

    Diblasio is apparently a Red Sox fan (so many Progtards are) and wore a number 6 Mets Jersey to honor his favorite Red Sox player.

    God are these people stupid.

    1. Do you think there are more progtard Yankee fans, or more progtard Red Sox fans? Show your work.

      1. I bet more Red Sox fans. I say that because the natives of both cities tend to be Progs, so those cancel out. Among fans who are not native, it is my experience Progs, if they have a team from a city not their own, it is nearly always the Cubs or the Red Sox. I am not really sure why.

        1. Because progs are born losers who hate success. Thus they gravitate toward one unlucky team and another which has essentially embraced lovable loser as their marketing niche.

          1. That works for the Cubs, not so much the Sahx the past 11 years or so.

        2. Well, considering that the NY MSA is five times larger than the Boston MSA, I don’t think native progs will cancel out, personally.

          1. But the Red Sox don’t have to split Boston with Mets fans and they draw from all of New England.

            1. Who/what are the Mets? Yankees draw from all of NY state as well, though I suppose Buffalo might gravitate toward the Blue Jays or Pittsburgh, and also western CT and northern NJ. Bottom line is the Yankees draw from an MSA that is 5x that of the Red Sox so, assuming equal levels of progtardness in both cities (Debatable? Not sure…), then logically there will be more progtard Yankee fans than Red Sox fans?

              1. That hasn’t been my experience. I have never met a Prog Yankee fan who wasn’t from New York. But I have met all kinds of Prog Red Sox fans with no connection to Boston or New England.

              2. Both draw all the way up here as well although I think the Sox have the edge.

      2. Doesn’t every reasonable person hate both the Yankees and the Red Sox?

        1. They both attract posers and hipster-douches.

          The Yankees brand is pure legend rooted in excellence so I guess it’s normal it’ll grab all sorts of fans and posers alike. I don’t know what the deal is with the Red Sox. I guess, like Virginian said, some people like to wallow in misery for nothing. Like the wealthy kid who insists on living like a starving latchkey kid pretending to be an artist.

          If there’s one successful team a neutral should be going for it’s the Cardinals. Mind you, as an Expos fan they always broke our hearts in tight division races.

          1. I don’t see the Yankees attracting hipsters or posers. I say this as a life long Yankees fan. Rooting for the Yankees is the easiest and obvious thing to do if you don’t know much about baseball. If there is one thing that you can count on poser’s and hipsters not to do, is the obvious or sensible thing.

            1. I have to agree with this. Now cricket I can see hipsters adopting as their own.

            2. Oh, man. I used to like you. Well, sort of…

              But you live within an hour’s drive of both the O’s and the Nats and root for the… YANKEES?!?!?

              *sigh*

          2. You were an Expos fan, and you accuse Sahx fans of wanting to wallow in misery?

            You might want to look at the past decade. Anyone following Boston to be ensaddened has left by now.

            1. Being a whinny loser is what it means to be a Red Sox fan. It doesn’t matter that they are the richest team in baseball and John Henry could buy and sell the Steinbrenners out of petty cash. Every Red Sox fan is convinced they are the underdogs and no different than the Royals or the Pirates.

              They waited 86 years you know. Red Sox fans are the most loathsome fans in sports. Say what you want about Yankees or Alabama football or Kentucky basketball fans. They may be arrogant and obnoxious, but they at least don’t pretend how hard they have it.

              1. Have you interacted with a lot recently, John? I’m in NH now, and believe me, the overwhelming majority I’ve talked to love the fact the they’ve shed their perma-2nd place identity, including the “underdog” bit. 3 WS wins does a lot to un-fuck fans’ psyches.

                Oh, and regardless of what they could pay, the Yankees still are on top with what they did pay. Also, Steinbrenner isn’t exactly hunting for payroll cash in his couch.

                1. There’s no getting in the way of John and his hatred of the Red Sox. I find it amusing if unoriginal.

                  1. A all non-Yanqi fans hate the Yabqis wit a burning passion. Red Sox not so much.

        2. Yes, go O’s!

          1. *Tillman, how do you give up a homer to Grady Fucking Sizemore?

      3. ‘Show your work.’

        I don’t know what but this made me laugh.

        1. His work would be that he really hates the Sox.

          1. But he has to ‘show’ it!

            “I write my essay in blood, for the Red Sox are a team of pure dread. Like Mordred was groomed to destroy his father King Arthur, the Red Sox were created in the image of progressive losers everywhere. Thus begins my story.”

      4. The Red Sox are pretty much the New England team (maybe not in CT entirely), so the fans are more diverse than just Eastern Mass dubbas. I’d say it’s pretty even.

        1. Fairfield County CT is deep blue Yankees.

        2. I’m not a baseball guy, but this. is relevant to the discussion I imagine.

          1. Good map, poor color choices. I can’t tell if everyone in Virginia and North Carolina likes the Yankees or if I’m reading it wrong.

          2. Interesting that state identity seems to play a big role. When a state has a team, fans usually support it even when another state’s team is geographically closer.

            1. Team! trumps a lot. We’re hard wired to be tribal.

              1. Yeah, at least this is one of the more benevolent examples.

            2. So you have never been South of I-80 in IL? #$&&ing; Cardinal fans….

  19. I see Reid is lying about having called Americans who lost their insurance liars by stating he never said it.

    Nice.

    Brav’.

    1. Does he not know that it was broadcast on CSPAN?

      1. Well, that means nobody saw it, so its like he never said it, amirite?

    2. I imagine the watchdog press will call him on that lie?

  20. So I been playing Batman: Arkham Origins the last few days. I really like it. It’s a prequel, set early in Batman’s career. So Gordon is a captain, every other cop on the force is dirty or downright psychotic, everything is bleak and blighted and ruined.

    It’s awesome, I’m loving it. Plenty of *batvoice* WHERE IS HE?!?!! and general badassery.

    /nerd.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enOHraf3LEk

    1. I’m still waiting for a verdict on Construction Machines 2014

      1. What, no report on the Juno’s?

        I was flipping channels and saw Sarah McLaughlin. Can’t watch her so I switched back to whatever I was doing. I think it was reading.

        1. I didn’t go near the Junos

      1. What about Lyle Talbot? First Commissioner Gordon and the first Lex Luthor!

    2. But what about Goat Simulator?

      1. Best or worst $10 I will spend this year?

  21. Which team loses the very first MLB replay challenge?

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/…..53079.html

    Cubs, of course.

  22. Today in tracked vehicles for sale, we get this beauty.

    http://bringatrailer.com/2014/…..ter-4t-10/

    Perfect for the evil genius who has everything and a secret mountain lair.

    1. I followed the link to the ’67 Alfa Giulia 1600 Sprint Veloce $61k and you’d have to ship it home from Holland. The very best cars from that shop have no price.

  23. Dunno what you folks think of the conservative site Newsbusters but Bob Kerrey called Obama a liar.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p…..-nonperson

    That guy from SC who shouted out ‘you lie’ is looking good these days I reckon.

    1. Didn’t he call Clinton the same thing?

    2. He joked that geneticists will one day soon ‘find a base pair’ of genes that predisposes people to deception.

      I doubt if he was joking.

  24. Someone really knows how to hold a grudge.

    WCCO reported that a criminal complaint filed on Thursday alleged that 84-year-old Pang Se Vang shot and killed his son, 36-year-old Chue Vang, last Monday after the son refused to pay to install cable television.

    A second brother told police that he came downstairs after his mother heard gunfire, and found his brother apparently dead of a gunshot wound. The second brother said that he wrestled a shotgun away from the father, who retreated into his bedroom.

    After police arrived, the suspect refused to leave his room, saying that he had stabbed himself in the chest.

    The criminal complaint alleged that Vang admitted shooting his son, and stabbing himself because he “did not want to settle the issue in court. He would settle the dispute with his son when they reached the afterlife.”

    1. So, where will they get lawyers…Hell?

      1. I think he was more envisioning a kung-fu style fight among the flames.

  25. I have been laughing at the report of a pre-filled DEMOCRATIC voter registration card found in California.

    HEY GENIUSES! ONE (1) ballot is a ratfucker and 25,000 ballots is government shenanigans!

    Do you morons understand?

    1. The more important question is: why the fucking fuck is Covered California sending out voter registration materials to ANYONE?

  26. So it’s been awhile since I’ve posted some of the latest happenings on Reddit. In this edition, a smug poster posts to the badhistory subreddit about those crazy libertarians who think the New Deal didn’t save America from perpetual impoverishment, starvation, and economic malaise. This prompts a circlejerk in said subreddit (I read it fairly regularly because most of the posts are examples of legitimate and hilariously bad history, but there is a definite left-leaning bias). He posted to the thread in r/Libertarian, where he posted his supposed refutation. Apparently, 1) taxes have no effect on private investment 2) All new industries created in the 20th century were created because of the government 3) If a few posters on Reddit can’t give sufficient examples of new industries that would have been created, providing jobs, then obviously there would have been permanent 25% unemployment without the New Deal 4) There is no possible alternative explanation for the recession of 1937, besides a spending cut of $600 million, which was less than 1% of GDP, which left the budget at 2.5x it’s pre-Depression level (and close to 20% above what it had been during FDR’s first two fiscal years, lower only than the third year), not even taking into account the deflation that had occurred in that time period.

    This is the badhistory post
    http://www.reddit.com/r/badhis…..couraging/

    1. And this is the original post in r/Libertarian
      http://np.reddit.com/r/Liberta…..on/cga7xj2

      1. To be fair, the posters on /r/libertarian tend to be batshit insane and embarassing (though not quite as bad as the AnCap subreddit).

        But yeah, that was headache inducing. And I subscribe to /r/badhistory too.

        1. That’s definitely true, but it doesn’t make this guy’s argument any more accurate or objective in this case.

    2. Stop. Reading. Reddit.

      1. Yeah, this. I read /r/videogames and /r/juicyasians. Stay far away from the political subreddits.

        1. I read r/polandball, which is worth it not just because the comics are hilarious but because it’s a great way to get a much more far-reaching perspective on something than you normally would, since there are so many posters from all over the world talking about serious international issues without making things personal.

        2. Yeah, I only read /r/pcmasterrace. Everything else especially the political ones are filled with twenty something year old Wikipedia experts.

      2. What can I say, it’s my own personal form of self-flagellation

    3. Reddit is only useful for the gonewild attention whores. ONLY.

    4. Here was another post today on the Soviet Union. The OP was criticizing pro-Soviet revisionism, but the linked post got some defense in the comments. Some highlights:

      “Comparing it to the West to completely absurd as the USSR started way, way behind the West in every category. Not to mention they had just been devastated by WWII in a way that the US never was. Of course things weren’t great compared to the West.”

      “Food on the table, access to education, housing and health care was guaranteed in SU (in 50s – 70s). In America you are not guaranteed those things if you don’t have money.”

      “outside of the famines caused by years of war and the stalinist bureaucracy’s ill-advised forced collectivization, it is generally not ‘bad history’ to point out that unlike ‘murica, where mass homelessness was a ‘thing’ in the 30s, the USSR by contrast was a place where workers at least had a job, a roof and food and didn’t have to beg from the starvation army for a bowl of soup”

      “DAE The Soviet Union only existed in 1932?33 ?

      Folks starved more in Ireland than in the Soviet Union.”

      1. The last guy then went on to say that the guy who made the post being criticized didn’t really mean the word “never” so it was unfair to criticize him for it. Here was that original statement (which was the start of its own paragraph, for context):

        “So do not think of life in the SU as poor. People never starved, were well educated, and had great health care, which is more than one can say for America today. The important things were taken care of.”

        Link to the badhistory post
        http://www.reddit.com/r/badhis…..iet_union/

        And the link to the original piece of bad history
        http://np.reddit.com/r/russia/…..s_here_on/

        1. Did anyone point out that Americans didn’t stave in the 1930s either? Or that ‘great Soviet healthcare’ is a fucking lie?

          1. The worst part is that a large portion of the posts at badhistory are critiques of people whitewashing the Nazis, even on stuff like economics, science, etc. and criticizing people who post pro-Nazi apologia and/or revisionism, even if they don’t seem to be a Nazi themselves. Yet, every time there’s a post regarding the Soviet Union (I also recall one about Cuba), a significant number of posters do the exact same thing with regards to the USSR and it’s perfectly accepted, even if there are some who will disagree with them.

            1. *For the record, I’m criticizing them for hypocrisy, not for criticizing Nazi revisionism

              1. That’s not how I remember it happening.

                1. Could you elaborate on what you’re referring to?

        2. People never starved
          W.T.F?

      2. Speaking of that found this gem:

        http://www.reddit.com/r/worldn…..e_russian/

        Notice how not one person has asked about how Russia is going to be able to pay for this given the state of their economy.

    5. What I love is how some of the posters think they nailed the conversation by using a clever argument no one ever brought up before (for a good reason):

      Pre-industrial economies have lower unemployment rates than post-industrial countries, because they need more workers to perform the same job.
      Prior to the New Deal, unemployment was trending upwards. After a New Deal, it trended downwards, with a brief resurgence when FDR cut back on spending.

      First, the idea that before the New Deal , America was a “pre-industrial” nation (that is, when the roaring 20s were happening and people were able to buy refrigerators, cars, radios, have telephones and electricity, etc) indicates the complete lack of awareness of economic history.

      Second, the irony-impairedness: If before the New Deal the unemployment rate was trending upwards because of progressive industrialization and supposedly the New Deal helped it trend downwards, does that mean that the New Deal achoeved artificial pre-industrialization?

  27. Top comment on a climate change article.

    mahogma ? 6 minutes ago
    I think we are beyond debate on this issue. What may help is immediately setting up an international court to determine what sort of punishment will be handed down to those people and industries that use denial to extend and maintain profits. Make the penalties for their (at best) hubris severe and far reaching, to include the families and descendants of the worst offenders, and nationalization of oil gas and coal industry profits to help defray at least a small portion of the massive damages incurred. As time passes and denial becomes more and more implausible, these criminals will be made aware of what kind of fate awaits them.

    They are getting bold, aren’t they?

    1. They so want to start killing people. They are damn near slobbering down their shirts at the thought.

      1. IT won’t get very far.

        Much of the money that the CAGW cult is wallowing in is actually coming out of the fossil fuel industry. CAGW is not just a religious cult, but also the useful fools in a war against the coal industry by competing sectors of the economy, including the oil industry.

        1. They will never get to have the camps and killing fields they so fondly dream of getting. But they probably will kill a few million people indirectly through the ignorance and destructiveness of their policies. And even better, most of those people will be brown undesirable people. So they will at least have that.

          1. If no killing fields, at least shunning fields.

            1. Wouldn’t the killing fields provide authentic, natural and reusable fertilizer?

              1. Possibly. What I worry about is that this hatred for all things Homo sapiens sapiens has one obvious and horrific solution.

                1. Who are you calling a homo?

                  1. Certainly not you. You predate homininae. In a good way.

                2. Yes, the morons will go extinct.

                  Do not consider the loudest faction of chimpanzees to be the most numerous faction. Usually they are not…

    2. Still can’t compare to Gawker’s “throw climate change deniers in jail” article from a few days ago.

      1. This guy gets bonus points for advocating both familial and generational collective guilt. Even the Gawker douche didn’t do that.

        1. They’re one-upping each other in the evil department.

        2. I guess we’re at least getting notice about who the “Jews” will be in their view of an American Reich.

          1. The can set up race laws based upon the amount of blood relationship you have to someone who worked in the evil fossil fuel industry or is a known denier.

            Will I be able to get the fake documents to cover up that I once defended oil companies?

            1. It would be best if you wrote a tell all about all the evil things you saw or overheard defending oil companies. Aim for the style of a former drunkard/criminal turned Baptist minister, but instead of mentioning God write Gaia instead.

              Not only will you be spared but you will rake in big bucks as well.

              1. I posted this in the IPCC thread, but I’m going to be a dick a repost it here:

                Several people have pointed out the religious reverence the zealots have; I’d like to make that a bit more specific. Take the idea of original sin, and change human knowledge to human economic activity, and see if these people don’t look like the biggest book thumpers you’ve ever known.

                Except it’s Silent Spring instead of the Bible.

            2. Corruption of blood is a thing now?

    3. The party of science and civil liberties…

      1. +the internets.

      2. I think we’re finally learning what American fascism looks like, at least in its nascent stages.

    4. I wonder when we’ll start to see this sentiment anywhere but anonymous internet comments. Hopefully a while. I think even most ethnic studies majors are smart enough to realize this is a bad road to start down.

      1. Come on, we have to admit that if we were all killed off, America would be a much nicer place to live. Like France or Greece.

      2. Well, as the recent flap at UCSB has shown, they’re already declaring a moral right to physically assault people holding undesirable viewpoints, with the either implicit or explicit support of a non-negligible number of leftist commentators.

      3. The good news is, these are most likely the same people who think guns are icky.

    5. Just got ASME’s magazine. It turns out a bunch of readers/professionals are not too happy about the Bill Nye Q&A the magazine had a couple months ago. Especially the parts about climate change. At least people in his own industry are calling him out on his own BS.

    6. Wow.

      Is that Tony, cuz he has alluded to most of that at one time or other.

  28. Now you can own a flying, fire-breathing dragon* for a mere $60,000.

    *Only shoots fire while on the ground.

    “Other cool features of this dragon include eyes that light up red, striking fear in the hearts of one’s enemies, and a head that rotates into the direction of turns, making the dragon look a little more authentic while in the air.”

    1. Hammacher Schlemmer is selling the dragons now

      “The Flying, Fire-Breathing Dragon”

      1. Now this is the kind of drone the U.S. should be buying and employing in droves. Or, rather, flocks. Hundreds of dragon drones would be a compelling substitute for a foreign policy.

          1. We’re so taking over the planet now. “America, Now with Dragons.”

            1. China will sue. They think they own the dragon franchise. “All you Westerners ever wanted to do was slay them, we actually thought dragons were cool back in the day.”

              1. They have lame dragons. Western dragons are deadlier.

    2. I’ll buy 3 and be like Daenerys Targaryen!

  29. Make the penalties for their (at best) hubris severe and far reaching, to include the families and descendants of the worst offenders, and nationalization of oil gas and coal industry profits to help defray at least a small portion of the massive damages incurred.

    This guy might want to take a close look at PDVSA before he gets too excited about those massive profits.

    1. Spend ten minutes reading Slashdot and you realize how scary stupid many technically inclined people actually are.

      1. Slashdot hasn’t been worth reading for 15 years.

        1. It used to be pretty interesting. At some point in the 00s the Prog vampires got their fangs into it and it just became KOS for geeks.

        2. What’s a SlashDot?

          1. It’s like a nubian, only moreso.

            1. Nubians….I had hoped to avoid them.

        3. Well, my comments there are always worth reading.

          1. They against Bitcoin yet?

            Seems like a good bell weather.

            In 1998 I see them being big fans of bitcoin.

            Now…well i don’t actually know. Their support or hatred of it would tell me how far they have fallen.

            1. I think the consensus is still pro-Bitcoin.

      2. They want the whole world to be just like the gearboxes they tinker with. If they’re engineers or anything close, they’re arrogant enough to ‘will it so’.

    2. Just how many years must we go without any warming before these idiots quit doubling down? 20? 30? 50?

      When AGW finally dies will there be an admission, “we were wrong” or will it slowly just die on the vine and be forgotten about? I would assume the latter, except they’ve made such a fuss it cannot escape the history books.

      1. …”I would assume the latter, except they’ve made such a fuss it cannot escape the history books.”

        Hasn’t stopped Ehrlich from continuing to make a fool of himself in public.

      2. It will disappear from polite discourse, as Eugenics did.

        1. Isn’t the US still giving money to developing countries to forceably sterilize unwanted populations?

          I am not so sure it went away.

      3. Pretty much we’ll have to wait for Mann, et als to retire or die.

        The history of plate tectonics, as in the acceptance of the theory by the geology community, is instructive in this regard.

        1. Yeah but all the skeptics are old farts.

      4. I remember the “global winter” discussion from the 1970’s. We never got a “sorry, we were wrong” on that one either. So I expect global warming will slowly drain away until nobody can bring it up without anybody within earshot thinking “crackpot”. Nobody will ever say – “Ooops!”, much less take the blame for this worthless political sidetrack down a blind alley.

      5. The temps have to trend downward for a good decade before they’ll admit wrongness.

    3. Yeah I notice that since the 1970’s they keep pushing up the doomsday date. Now it is 2050 huh? First the mid 80’s, then early 90’s then 2000, then 2012….now they have pushed it even farther into the future.

      I guess they figure they need more time to sell their bullshit.

  30. Well I finally watched the Red Wedding scene from GoT. I kind of knew what was coming but still, Jesus. *spoilers* It would have had more impact if I hadn’t already watched the Ozzymandias episode of BB, which is kind of like 45+ minutes of Red Wedding. Also, I really like that Arya is becoming a sociopath. Also, I really like that Daenarys Targarean follows the Kneel Before Freedom or Die routine that served America so well when Lincoln and Sherman were in her position. She would definitely be Ayn Rand’s favorite GoT character is she were still around.

    1. Arya is a fucking boss. I hope she and the Hound become a badass duo who go around owning fools.

      I really wish they had spared Rob and his wolf though.

      1. You do know this is based on books, right? Feel free to read ahead.

      2. Arya is becoming my favorite character, after Tyrion. She’s going to go totally badass on that list of hers.

        Speaking of direwolves, what ever happened to Arya’s? It just left when she told it to scat? A reunion in the works?

        1. Something tells me a warg reunion of sorts will be in the near future.

          1. Something tells me a warg reunion of sorts will be in the near future.

            Sort of.

            Two of them do end up sharing the same grave.

        2. spoilers

          In the books, rumors abound of a monstrous direwolf leading a huge pack of wolves around the countryside, feeding on the dead, ravaging livestock and killing anyone who tries to hunt them down.

          The fates of the direwolves mirror their child owners: Nymeria has become a tale to make children frightened of the dark.

        3. Arya is becoming my favorite character, after Tyrion

          Arya dead this season Tyrion dead at the beginning of the next.

      3. What happened at The Twins was horrific but…the Starks had a case of The Stupids, and nothing makes my stock in a character fall faster and harder than The Stupids. There were multiple bad decisions on Rob’s part that led to that moment.

        Looks like next season is about turning The North into a kind of Vietnam for occupying forces.

        1. The books make it clearer that what Walder Frey did was almost unthinkable in their society. Walder has blackened his House forever. No one will trade with the Freys, no one will sign a pact or agree to a marriage with them, anyone willing to deal with them will receive almost the same treatment. (And some other stuff occurs I won’t spoil.)

          Walder Frey committed a slow suicide of his entire bloodline to rectify a broken oath made under duress and the promise of some Lannister gold. What he did was so out of context, Robb and Catelyn couldn’t conceive of it. They weren’t stupid, just a bit naive as to the monstrous nature of their foes (a failing of most of the Starks.)

          1. Fair point. The stupid decisions I refer too were the killing of the Castarck leader and marrying Rob’s heart-throb when she could have waited and Rob could have captured stuff for a deal with Walder.

            I’m excited for the next season but man that 3-eyed raven shit better pay off. Going North of the wall based on some vision is more retarded than Hodor.

            I know I can just look this up, but what was the deal with the other warg and his companion archer Rikkon and co. met half-way through S3? I can’t remember. Was it explained in the show or was it one of those ‘wait a season and we’ll tell you’ bits, like how it was with Theon’s Torture Fun-Fest?

            1. The marriage is different in books. He doesn’t marry for love, but rather for honor, and she a member of a minor House, not a foreigner. And the Karstark deal is better explained. Not that Robb didn’t make mistakes, but there is more of an air of inevitability about what happens to him, a fate nothing could alter.

              Yeah, they really fumbled the ball with the Reeds. They are the children of Howland Reed, a bannerman of House Stark, and Howland was a companion during the war and great friend to Ned. They come to Bran long before the Fall of Winterfell to be his companions at court. They show is shortchanging them.

              Howland Reed may also be the last living person who knows the truth about Jon Snow’s parentage.

              1. They are the children of Howland Reed, a bannerman of House Stark, and Howland was a companion during the war and great friend to Ned.

                He is also Jon Snow’s real dad.

                1. Which really does not matter much as Jon Snow will will be dead about mid-season anyway along with Howland Reed.

            2. I’m excited for the next season but man that 3-eyed raven shit better pay off.

              It does pay off.

              They all die…but it is pretty cool how they die.

              1. I’m excited for the next season but man that 3-eyed raven shit better pay off.

                It does pay off.

                They all die…but it is pretty cool how they die.

                Oh screw it i will just tell you.

                Brandon sees through his third eye the Night’s King Murder his Brother, Bran the Builder, in a sacrifice to the old gods which forever dooms the First Men and all of Westeros.

    2. like that Arya is becoming a sociopath

      she will be dead within the first 3 episodes of this season.

      I really like that Daenarys Targarean follows the Kneel Before Freedom or Die routine

      Dead at the end of this season

      1. she will be dead within the first 3 episodes of this season.

        The scene right before she dies, where she gets spitroasted by the Boltons? Genius.

  31. Note that the back end of Healthcare.gov is still not finished. They are doing some “workarounds” to try to make up for the fact that insurance companies are still not getting accurate enrollment information, that enrollees can still not make changes in their policies or correct mistakes, etc.

    1. They used to call such things “sneakernets.”

    2. It’s still insecure as shit too.

  32. Darwin Award possible:

    GUADALUPE, Calif. (KABC) — A man was swept out to sea during a baptism ceremony at a Santa Barbara County beach on Sunday morning.

    The tragic incident happened just west of the small town of Guadalupe around 10 a.m. Benito Flores, 43, was helping baptize a man when a rogue wave pulled him and two other men into the ocean.

    The two other men managed to get out, but Flores did not. His cousin, who is the pastor, says he tried to grab Flores but could not save him.

    “I tried to take him out, but he was heavy, and then another big wave came and threw him,” said Pastor Maurigro Cervantes of Jesus Christ Light of the Sky Church.

    Searchers scoured the area but could not locate Flores. The search was called off around midnight, and Coast Guard officials say there were no plans to resume it.

    1. The Darwin Award is given to all those individuals that decide to place themselves recklessly in obvious danger, paying the ultimate price for it. Now, how is being hit by a rogue wave the equivalent of placing yourself recklessly in obvious danger? People are hit and drowned by rogue waves and rip tides each year, without being reckless. Next you will want to say that the kids who died in the Albatross also deserved the Darwin Award.

      1. He’s probably going to say that they deserve the DA because they were in the ocean for a *baptism*. If they weren’t doing the religious mumbo-jumbo (hur-hur) they’d have been OK.

        He’s kinda an arsehole.

        OTOH, I hope they *finished* the baptism for the guy who didn’t make it to shore. Really suck to get thaaaaat close to salvation and miss it.

  33. Journalists actually went to examine that alleged Russian military buildup at the border to Ukraine but found little.

    What? You mean the American mass media… lied to me?

    Say it ain’t so, Shoeless!

    1. Yeah or these journalists are. Lets wait a little while to you know get some more evidence.

  34. Mo money, mo money, mo money, mo money

    Our children are more than worth such a major investment. After all, if we can find untold billions to bail out big banks and Wall Street and billions more for military ventures of dubious nature abroad, we can certainly find billions to invest in our children, our future.
    This can be our finest hour ? to Halliburtonize America, not just the countries we destroy to later rebuild. “The people don’t exist for the king, but the king for the people!” said John Milton. A nation exists for its people, not the people for the State!

    What they never say is “how much is necessary”.

  35. Tuscon cop body-checks woman:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the…..video.html

    Also includes a GIF of a guy taking the cops’ pepper spray and pepper balls like a fucking champion.

    1. I posted this earlier, but thanks for the repost. One of the worst examples of blatantly, inexcusably awful police behavior that I’ve seen caught on tape.

    2. The chick was walking straight toward the backs of the riot line. I don’t have a ton of sympathy. She got off light. If it had been a guy, they’d have beat him till he had brain damage. It’s not like they were protesting anything. It was a sports riot. Leave the fucking area already.

      1. That’s some nice, quality satire (I hope)

        1. I assume you’ve never been caught in a riot.

          1. Wait, you’re actually serious? Then again, I shouldn’t be surprised.

            1. No you shouldn’t. The ability properly analyze a situation is one that I’ve demonstrated here numerous times.

              1. You’ve also demonstrated a great deal of humility (sarc)

                Even granting that 1) the riot was as bad as you’re making it out to be and 2) the cop was justified in stopping her, we are still left with an officer who uses ludicrously excessive force, thinking he’s Ray Lewis tackling an NFL running back when he’s blindsiding a 20-something year old woman walking by, and knocking her over a bench. Anyone who watches that video and thinks the girl is more at fault than the officer, or that the officer was actually justified, is either blind or a sociopath.

                1. we are still left with an officer who uses ludicrously excessive force, thinking he’s Ray Lewis tackling an NFL running back when he’s blindsiding a 20-something year old woman walking by, and knocking her over a bench.

                  I agree completely. It’s just that there are so many instances of actual abuse of power and people, someone wandering towards the middle of a riot and getting knocked down doesn’t really ping my outrage meter.

                  1. Ok I’m done here. You’ve got to just be fucking with us. You’re a day early on that.

                  2. If you will read the article Coeus you will see that the girl was trying to get to her car to leave. You left that out of your expert, proper analysis.

                    No matter how unwise it was for her to walk and bother no one thinking no one would bother her ( she probably believed that if she did nothing wrong she wouldn’t have anything to worry about ) it is no justification for some psychopathic goon to get his rocks off abusing someone smaller and weaker than himself.

                    1. No matter how unwise it was for her to walk and bother no one thinking no one would bother her ( she probably believed that if she did nothing wrong she wouldn’t have anything to worry about ) it is no justification for some psychopathic goon to get his rocks off abusing someone smaller and weaker than himself.

                      You know how much I hate cops. So carefully consider my opinion here without kneejerk reactions. I agree he overreacted, I just don’t think it was that horrible. He should have stood in front of her and pushed instead of coming in from the side. But he couldn’t have allowed her to walk right up to the backside of the cordon, so you can’t be arguing that. If she had been heading -anywhere- else, it would have been inappropriate to even get in her way.

                      She didn’t get arrested and wasn’t injured. How much worse would it have been for her if she had not been seen until she was directly behind the riot police line?

          2. If you RTFA, they said she was waiting to get to her vehicle. They also body checked a 90lb girl, instead of the other males near the back of the line.

            1. They also body checked a 90lb girl, instead of the other males near the back of the line.

              She was closer, quit being sexist.

              1. Oh, neat. Now you’re trolling. That’s cool.

              2. “She was closer”

                Proof that you didn’t even watch the video. Cop lunges from the left of the screen, to fuck up the girl standing on the right side of the screen, next to a male.
                Quit trolling.

                1. the girl standing

                  no

                2. next to a male.

                  Actually she was several paces closer to the backs of the cops on the riot line. Watch it again.

                  1. “Actually she was several paces closer to the backs of the cops on the riot line. Watch it again.”

                    No, Half a step max. Male was closer, given the angle the cop came from. Keep licking those boots, though.

                    1. No, Half a step max. Male was closer, given the angle the cop came from. Keep licking those boots, though.

                      This is just fucking retarded. You have to be trolling.

                    2. This is just fucking retarded. You have to be trolling.

                      He is. He probably hasn’t even watched the damn thing.

                    3. No, Half a step max. Male was closer, given the angle the cop came from.

                      He wasn’t even on the damn line. He was probably coming up to reinforce it. She was walking straight towards it. Watch it closely for fuck’s sake.

            2. TFA says they were “trying to get to their car.” Regardless of how the cop acted, if a line of riot cops is between you can your car it will behoove you to take a roundabout route.

              1. you *and* your car

              2. Yeah, because I’m sure a 19 year old white girl from Tucson has had ample opportunity to understand the “ins and outs” about negotiating around police blockades and riot containment procedures.

                1. Most people, even 19 year old white girls, manage to know what police blockades are.

                  1. “Most people, even 19 year old white girls, manage to know what police blockades are.”

                    Uh, no. Most people do not, in their young adult lives, encounter riot police, much less get stuck behind them, blocking their only means of escape.

                    1. Uh, no. Most people do not, in their young adult lives, encounter riot police, much less get stuck behind them, blocking their only means of escape.

                      If you’re not gonna watch it, save us the trouble of arguing.

                      You’re just trolling at this point.

                    2. I’ve been in several situations exactly like that. Nobody just walked straight at the blockade like it wasn’t even there.

                      blocking their only means of escape.

                      Oh good grief. They weren’t in a cave.

              3. If your husband has had a bad day at work, it would behoove you to make sure his dinner isn’t cold when he gets home.

                If you’re out on the town on a Saturday night, it might “behoove” you not to wear a short, tight skirt, on the off chance that some drunken frat boys are feeling rapey.

                OR, just maybe, we could stop blaming the victim.

                1. Karl is into that Slut Walk shit.

                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                  1. Karl is into that Slut Walk shit.

                    Yep. Progtard. Called it.

      2. It’s funny, in any other segment of society, a man who does this to a woman is rightly branded a coward and a bully, maybe one notch above a child molester. But as soon as he puts on that little costume, it becomes, “well she should’ve been listening,” or “she shouldn’t have mouthed off.”

        But as always, there are those who go all panty soup at the sight of a cop in riot gear who will try to find a way to blame the victim.

        1. But as always, there are those who go all panty soup at the sight of a cop in riot gear who will try to find a way to blame the victim.

          Yeah, that’s me to a T. Cops biggest fan.

          Watch it again, and look for the line she’s walking towards. It’s a sports riot. Leave. You’re more likely to be fucked up by another rioter than a cop. A body check when you’re walking right into the thick of it is a kindness. She wasn’t arrested and wasn’t beaten.

          1. Would a lighter check have worked? Probably. Get caught in a riot and tell me how measured your actions are. This isn’t cops converging on a dancing guy and beating the shit out of him. This is a chick drunkenly wandering toward the backs of some really beleaguered cops who got body checked, knocked on her ass and then went the other way.

            1. The violence wasn’t remotely proportional to the threat.

              OTOH it’s always nice to see idiot college kids get a lesson in reality.

            2. “This is a chick drunkenly wandering toward the backs of some really beleaguered cops who got body checked, knocked on her ass and then went the other way.”

              Drunkenly wandering? You’re full of shit. It’s amazing no one else came near her. None of the other cops came over to deal with her friends, or the males, so it’s more likely this cop wanted a chance to inflict the maximum amount of damage on a target of opportunity.

              1. Given that it’s Coeus, I’m not surprised he assumes she was drunkenly wandering around. Bitch was asking for it, I guess.

              2. None of the other cops came over to deal with her friends, or the males,

                Cause they all stopped walking toward the backs of the other officers? You see that part as well?

                1. “Cause they all stopped walking toward the backs of the other officers? You see that part as well?”

                  No, because I don’t make shit that didn’t happen. Everyone was moving in the same direction as the female. Officer Dickhole hit the girl as hard as he could, while everyone else was still moving in the same direction. No one stopped until after the cop went into a roid-rage.

                  1. No, because I don’t make shit that didn’t happen. Everyone was moving in the same direction as the female. Officer Dickhole hit the girl as hard as he could, while everyone else was still moving in the same direction. No one stopped until after the cop went into a roid-rage.

                    Yes. That’s exactly what happened. Why are we arguing this point? He knocked the girl down, and everyone walking behind her stopped walking towards the line.

                    1. “He knocked the girl down, and everyone walking behind her stopped walking towards the line.”

                      They all stopped walking AFTER your boyhood superhero damn near killed her. That’s not what you originally claimed. Nice goalpost moving, though.

                      “Bitch had it coming for being in the wrong place at the wrong time” –Coeus

                      Got it. Thanks.

                    2. They all stopped walking AFTER your boyhood superhero damn near killed her. That’s not what you originally claimed. Nice goalpost moving, though.

                      And what did I originally claim then? Got anything more than lying proggie bullshit? It sure doesn’t seem so. It’s like arguing with Marcotte.

                      There were several people walking towards the back of the police cordon. She was several paces in the lead. When she got hit, they all stopped, hence did not need to be dealt with. When did I say anything different? If my description was less complete to this previously, it’s because I didn’t realize I was dealing with a retard who didn’t watch the video closely (if at all).

                2. Regardless of whether or not she was or wasn’t the only one walking in the general direction of the line, I don’t see how any rational person can seriously think that fact is even remotely near as relevant as the fact that the cop could have simply stepped in front of her and told her to turn around, or at most grabbed her arm, like a normal, sane person, instead of body checking her over a bench like a hockey player smashing an opponent into the glass.

                  1. cop could have simply stepped in front of her and told her to turn around, or at most grabbed her arm, like a normal, sane person, instead of body checking her over a bench like a hockey player smashing an opponent into the glass.

                    Agreed. he hit her too hard. But it’s more akin to a tackling while playing flag football than police brutality. Dick move, but not that huge a deal.

                    1. There was no need to hit her. At most, he could have grabbed her and turned her around. At most. A better analogy would unnecessarily leveling someone standing next to a bench from their blindside. Oh wait, that’s actually what happened, and it’s actually a lot worse than getting tackled (in a standard manner) in a flag football game. How the fuck can you even write this shit?

                    2. and it’s actually a lot worse than getting tackled (in a standard manner) in a flag football game.

                      “In a standard manner”? She got hit, she went down. She got back up and walked in the other direction. You’re picking nits to justify your outrage. Looks like a tackle to me. I could show you dozens of youtube videos with similar patterns and results in football. It’s an almost perfect analogy. Even down to the relative differences in force involved. Hell, it might even be a larger difference. Pulling a flag versus turning someone around. Do you call the cops when someone tackles in flag football? Or do you call him a dick and keep playing?

                    3. This wasn’t a fucking football game, even a flag one. She wasn’t carrying the ball during a live play (and that’s ignoring the fact that she was flipped over a bench). For someone who prides himself on rationality and logic, you really seem to have a very poor, deficient ability to draw valid comparisons, beyond “This looks kinda similar to something that could happen in this instance, therefore = exactly the same!”

                      And for the record, I wouldn’t call the cops on the cops, but I would (had I been the one videotaping) turn in the clip to the press and report the incident. And if this guy had done the same thing to this girl in a flag football game, I, and every non-sociopath I know, would have done a bit more than call the guy a dick.

                    4. This wasn’t a fucking football game, even a flag one.

                      Correct. It was a riot.

                    5. Yeah, that girl was really rioting. The cop was right in the middle of a warzone and had to make a split second decision to save his life or his comrades’. Again, the only people that got injured in this “riot” were hurt by the cops. Maybe some of those were justified. This one wasn’t. Not even a little bit. This wasn’t a guy getting a little too physical in a flag football game with his buddies. This is a police office in riot gear blindsiding a young woman that weighs maybe 100 lbs (and before you accuse me of being sexist, he still would have been just as wrong even if it was a guy) who did not pose a threat (and no, slowly walking towards a police line does not make her a threat that requires anything more than getting in front of her and telling her to back away, or at most, grabbing her arm) and knocking her over a bench. Had she hit her head, she seriously could have died from that (another difference from flag football – last I checked that usually isn’t played on concrete). You sound like the people who argued that even if Trayvon did attack Zimmerman, Zimmerman had no right to use a gun, cause he was only getting his head bashed into concrete.

                    6. and knocking her over a bench. Had she hit her head,

                      She didn’t go over the bench. She tripped on it, and landed seated. She probably wouldn’t have even fallen down if she hadn’t hit it. Her falling makes it look harder than it was. If it was that hard, she would have flipped over it. Watch the video. She landed on it seated.

                      You’re gonna see what you want to see here, that much is abundantly clear, especially in light of your summary of the comments you posted down-thread.

                    7. You are fucking delusional. Lying on your back and butt with your legs flying over your head is an odd definition of “seated.” The only reason she didn’t completely flip over it is because she was several feet from the bench when she got hit and was hit up high. She was also clearly falling over before she even made contact with the bench. Pause the video around the 0:23-0:24 mark and watch slowly if you don’t believe me.

                    8. You’re gonna see what you want to see here, that much is abundantly clear

                      You’re right, people see what they want to see.

                      For instance, you saw a disobedient woman being put in her place by a costumed male, and you derived a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction from it.

                    9. You’re right, people see what they want to see.

                      For instance, you saw a disobedient woman being put in her place by a costumed male, and you derived a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction from it.

                      Back already huh? Finished your homework? Obviously you did nothing about your regrettable inability to view anything through any lens but that of sex, but did you at least pick up a dictionary and look up analogies and inferences so you don’t sound like such a ridiculous fool? Why reply here and not down thread where you were giving such a marvelous impression of a brain-dead SJW?

                    10. “… it’s more akin to a tackling while playing flag football than police brutality. Dick move, but not that huge a deal.”

                      I think it is called assault. It is criminal and it is a big fucking deal.

                    11. “… it’s more akin to a tackling while playing flag football than police brutality. Dick move, but not that huge a deal.”

                      I think it is called assault. It is criminal and it is a big fucking deal.

                      Thank you. An argument relying on a legal definition and not progtard projection and obfuscaion.

                      Depending on the state, it would probably be asault and battery, but I take your meaning. Wouldn’t want to play a pick-up game with you, but I understand where you are coming from.

            3. This was a “riot” where nobody even got injured. The poor cop wasn’t exactly in the middle of Stalingrad.

              1. This was a “riot” where nobody even got injured. The poor cop wasn’t exactly in the middle of Stalingrad

                Agreed. He checked her too hard. But it’s not exactly on par with the stuff we usually see posted here on a daily basis. If it had been a guy, pretty much nobody would even give a shit.

                1. “If it had been a guy, pretty much nobody would even give a shit”

                  Speak for yourself, dipshit.

                2. As a final reminder, once again, April 1st is tomorrow.

                3. But it’s not exactly on par with the stuff we usually see posted here on a daily basis.

                  Giving your wife one black eye for dinner being cold isn’t “exactly on par” with giving her two black eyes. But you can rest assured that those of us who are actually bothered by men beating up women are going to say something anyway.

                  1. Giving your wife one black eye for dinner being cold isn’t “exactly on par” with giving her two black eyes. But you can rest assured that those of us who are actually bothered by men beating up women are going to say something anyway.

                    Such a sexist. Embarrassing, really. But you sure seem caught up on wife-beating. This is about a riot. Something you need to get off your chest?

                    1. Such a sexist. Embarrassing, really. But you sure seem caught up on wife-beating. This is about a riot. Something you need to get off your chest?

                      Analogies, how do those work?

                    2. Analogies, how do those work?

                      They’re not difficult, though I’m not surprised that the concept is beyond you.

                      Saying “I’d hate to be your wife if dinner was cold.” Is not an analogy. Is is demonstrating fear for someone’s safety because you believe me to be violent. But thanks for playing. Maybe don’t skip the weigh-in next time. It can often result in these horrible mismatches.

                    3. Saying “I’d hate to be your wife if dinner was cold.” Is not an analogy. Is is demonstrating fear for someone’s safety because you believe me to be violent.

                      I don’t think you’re necessarily violent, just repugnant for condoning violence against women.

                    4. I don’t think you’re necessarily violent, just repugnant for condoning violence against women.

                      Then you need to learn what analogies are, how inferences work, and you need to stop being so sexist.

                      You have a long day ahead. Get cracking.

            4. Would a lighter check have worked? Probably. Get caught in a riot and tell me how measured your actions are.

              I’d hate to be your wife if dinner was cold.

              1. Given that it’s Coeus, I’m not surprised he assumes she was drunkenly wandering around. Bitch was asking for it, I guess.

                I’d hate to be your wife if dinner was cold.

                Awesome. You guys argue like progtards. I usually have to post on rawstory to get kneejerk bullshit instead of arguments.

                Why don’t you both watch the fucking video again and shove the mysoginist wifebeater bullshit comments up your asses?

                1. You guys argue like progtards.

                  Welcome to HyR.

                2. I watched the fucking video. I posted this in a different thread earlier. As I said above, if you watch that video and your response is not “Wow, that cop is way out of line” but rather “Stupid girl getting what she deserves” you are blind or a sociopath. Spare me the tripe about how you’re some beacon of logic in contrast to our raw emotion. If you post pathetic shit like you have in this thread, don’t expect the most enlightened academic discourse to follow. Several people here, myself included, have given ample reasons why your argument is trash.

                  1. “Wow, that cop is way out of line” but rather “Stupid girl getting what she deserves”

                    These aren’t mutually exclusive.

                    1. Sidd, let’s grant that the girl didn’t pursue the wisest course of action in this scenario. If you seriously think that for that, she deserved to get body checked over a bench (something that actually could have killed her had she hit her head hard enough), you are a still a sociopath.

                      Not to mention, the stupidity or naivety of some random girl isn’t really of much relevance (to understate it) to a libertarian website in comparison to police misconduct.

                    2. If you seriously think that for that, she deserved to get body checked over a bench

                      Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.

                      Not to mention, the stupidity or naivety of some random girl isn’t really of much relevance (to understate it) to a libertarian website in comparison to police misconduct.

                      If I write a strongly worded letter, it will certainly be directed at the TPD rather than the dumb chick.

                    3. “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”

                      Apparently, your reading comprehension is significantly worse than your ability to quote over-used Clint Eastwood lines.

                      “If I write a strongly worded letter, it will certainly be directed at the TPD rather than the dumb chick.”

                      You’re, why do libertarians even bother pointing out governmental abuse and misconduct?

                    4. why do libertarians even bother pointing out governmental abuse and misconduct?

                      Probably for the same reason every other ideology does.

                    5. First off, that should have said “You’re right, …”.

                      Nice dodge by the way.

                    6. It was a serious question? Ok then.

                      Abuse and misconduct are bad things.

                    7. I was talking about the other part. Where I pointed out that your sassy Clint Eastwood quote made you look like a dumbass who can’t read.

                    8. “Deserve” has literally nothing to do with this. That lady who got her face eaten by her pet chimp didn’t “deserve” it. Slutty chicks who get singled out for rape don’t “deserve” it. Actions cause reactions. Observing reality has nothing to do with judging morality.

                      I can simultaneously notice that the cop acted like an ape, and that the chick and the dude are fucking idiots for strolling up behind riot cops like that.

                    9. Alright, let’s go through this step by step:

                      1) I posted this: “As I said above, if you watch that video and your response is not ‘Wow, that cop is way out of line’ but rather ‘Stupid girl getting what she deserves’ you are blind or a sociopath.”

                      2) You posted this: “These aren’t mutually exclusive.”

                      3) I posted this: “Sidd, let’s grant that the girl didn’t pursue the wisest course of action in this scenario. If you seriously think that for that, she deserved to get body checked over a bench (something that actually could have killed her had she hit her head hard enough), you are a still a sociopath.”

                      After your response in #2, you do not get to later quote Clint Eastwood to try to sound cool and logical and claim that “deserve’s got nothing to do with it.” Let’s not ignore the fact that Coeus didn’t get attacked because he just said something “Wow, that girl was dumb.” He has repeatedly stated that it was no big deal, not egregious, and that she got off lightly. You posted one paragraph about the cop overreacting, and every other post (that I’ve seen) has been defending Coeus and attacking the girl for making a dumb decision. I think you’ve got your priorities out of whack.

                    10. I don’t give a shit about the argument between you and Coeus. If I understand you two correctly, I’m somewhere in between. I’ve defended him however because Sy and Karl are being retards and proggies. Sy claimed in the subthread above that the girl was “waiting” and “standing” even though the article said she was “trying to get” and she and the dude are clearly walking in the video. And Karl is using that stupid “blaming the victim” Slut Walk pseudo-logic. I don’t know if this is insanity, blind proggie rage, or just trolling. But I’m going to defend Coeus against it because whatever our disagreements, they’re based in observable reality.

                      I quoted Eastwood because I originally wrote something like “‘Deserve’ isn’t relevant” and just changed it to the quote since it’s basically the same thing.

                      My priorities kick ass.

                      Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.

                    11. . I’ve defended him however because Sy and Karl are being retards and proggies.

                      Don’t let Cali off the hook on that just yet:

                      Calidissident|3.31.14 @ 6:57PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      Given that it’s Coeus, I’m not surprised he assumes she was drunkenly wandering around. Bitch was asking for it, I guess.
                      reply to this

                    12. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you a PUA? Given that, and the fact that you have a fixation with feminists that is several times stronger than Bo’s is with SoCons, I’m sorry if I don’t cut you much slack when you so nonchalantly dismiss a woman getting blindsided by a cop for no good reason as being “no big deal.”

                    13. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you a PUA?

                      Depends on your definition. If your definition is “have something interesting to talk about and talk to a lot of women without doing or saying a few things that most women you’ve encountered don’t respond to” then yes.

                      If you mean it like the SPLC does, then no, and I have to wonder why you feel they’re correct about PUAs but almost nothing else (don’t feel alone here, the majority of the commentariat here seems to have that blind spot).

                      Is there stuff out there under the “PUA” label that is rediculous? Absolutely. But if you don’t feel that libertarianism is defined by the most insane posters on Lew Rockwell, then I don’t understand why you would feel that way about PUA.

                      Given that, and the fact that you have a fixation with feminists that is several times stronger than Bo’s is with SoCons,

                      It’s my beat around here. Others do it as well, but I can usually find the funnier and/or anti NAP stuff that they throw around the web. I also post about violent-asshole cops a lot as well. Odd that that gets no weight in this particular discussion.

                      The Socons (outside of abortion restrictions, which are extensively covered around here) don’t push very much legislation. Especially compared to the feminists.

                      Though I must admit, I do post socon articles where they rant insanely against “the gays”. I view those as ridiculous as the feminist rants I post.

                    14. Unlike Bo, I don’t feel that the socon stuff needs as much of a pushback. Afterall, look at how I’ve been responded to in this thread. Feminist arguments designed to shut down debate have been thrown around extensively. I don’t often (or ever, really) see socon arguments thrown around here to in order to stifle debate.

                      when you so nonchalantly dismiss a woman getting blindsided by a cop for no good reason as being “no big deal.”

                      Sorry it pains you so, but I don’t really see someone getting blindsided by a cop (not arrested, not beaten and not injured) for walking towards the backside of a police cordon during a riot as a big deal.

                      I also don’t see how me not doing things that make me appear unattractive to women factors into the conversation.

                    15. This is absurd. Did you fail high school English? Reread the quotes I posted. See when the first time the word “deserve” was mentioned. Read what your response to that was. Notice that it was not the “deserve’s got nothing to do with it” post. End of story. And I don’t see how you can separate my argument with Coeus from the context of my post, because he has all but explicitly stated that the girl deserved what happened, so yes, deserve does have something to do with it in this case.

                      “But I’m going to defend Coeus against it because whatever our disagreements, they’re based in observable reality.”

                      Really? Describing the girl as “sitting the bench” and saying she wouldn’t have fallen without the bench being there is based on observable reality? Comparing that to a tackle in a flag football game is an analogy based on observable reality?

                    16. In the first quote, I thought you were being hyperbolic like that time you said some commenters were 100% sure Trayvon started it, and I took you literally and you went ballistic . You really need to clarify your approach to paraphrasing others.

                      I separate your comments from Coeus because I don’t care to follow every sub-sub-subthread.

                      Describing the girl as “sitting the bench” and saying she wouldn’t have fallen without the bench being there is based on observable reality?

                      He’s wrong on that. But he’s not crazy so I’ll bet he’ll admit to that.

                    17. He’s wrong on that. But he’s not crazy so I’ll bet he’ll admit to that.

                      I agree she would have fallen anyway, but describing her as ending up sitting on the bench is, I believe, more accurate that describing her as being flipped over it.

                3. Why don’t you both watch the fucking video again and shove the mysoginist wifebeater bullshit comments up your asses?

                  The true misogynists are usually the ones who, like you, try to say that “she had it coming.”

                4. “Why don’t you both watch the fucking video again and shove the mysoginist wifebeater bullshit comments up your asses?”

                  Because it’s obvious you desperately want it to be true that a woman deserved to get hit by a cop. You just spent an inordinate amount of time defending his actions, while blaming her own (or lack thereof). After your “stop being sexist” comments, it’s pretty clear you’re projecting.

                  1. After your “stop being sexist” comments, it’s pretty clear you’re projecting.

                    Yeah, dozens of comments along the lines of “it’s just a girl”, and I’m the one being sexist.

                    Progtard logic. Sad really. We’re supposed to be better at rational arguments than them.

                    1. Not just any girl, a white girl. I’d be surprised if she can dress and feed herself.

                    2. Yeah, clearly your arguments in this thread have proven you to be a titan of logic and rationality. The cop acted in a very logically sound manner, and anyone who disagrees is an overly-emotional sexist progtard.

                    3. Yeah, clearly your arguments in this thread have proven you to be a titan of logic and rationality. The cop acted in a very logically sound manner, and anyone who disagrees is an overly-emotional sexist progtard.

                      I’ve already agreed, multiple times that he overreacted. I just don’t think that it was that egregious.

                      The overly-emotional sexist progtard reactions aren’t those who disagree, they’re those who accuse me of being a wife-beating misogynist for disagreeing.

                      But why should your analysis of the comments be any better than your analysis of the video? Clearly, I am asking too much of you. For that, I apologize.

                    4. “I just don’t think that it was that egregious.”

                      Just curious, but what would he have had to do for it to be egregious? Whip out his baton and beat her to death? Shoot her?

                      “But why should your analysis of the comments be any better than your analysis of the video?”

                      Considering that my analysis of the video has been far more sane and rational than yours, I’ll take that as a compliment.

                    5. Considering that my analysis of the video has been far more sane and rational than yours, I’ll take that as a compliment.

                      She didn’t flip over a bench, she landed on it seated. It’s clear I’m wasting my time here. Either you haven’t watched it closely or you refuse to see what’s there.

                      I suspect it’s refusal, since you also refused to address the points I made in my comment. Point out where I’m wrong, and we’ll discuss it. Emotional arguments, outright lies and intentionally ignoring points made indicate to me that you’re in full-on refusal mode.

                    6. I responded to this above.

                    7. I meant the points I made in the above comment:

                      1)I have already agreed he overeacted so this: “The cop acted in a very logically sound manner” is obviously a ridiculous strawman of my argument.

                      2)where you accuse me of calling anyone who disagrees with me sexist progtard instead of the real reason, namely that several idiots jumped to inferring or outright stating that I was a misogynist and/or wife-beater. It’s like arguing with Amanda Marcotte.

                      Instead, you responded with unsupported bullshit when you should have been apologizing for being a disingenuous ass.

                      As to the comments upthread you are referring to now, I’m so happy that you finally watched it closely. It’s a shame that it did not happen before you had formed your opinion, otherwise we could have a more productive conversation. You should also apologize for wasting my time up til now.

                      You will now be tempted to deny that you didn’t watch the video closely til now. If you do, you should probably have a reason thought up as to why you’ve been describing it incorrectly in numerous comments as “flipped over a bench” or similar when she landed on her ass and remained seated.

                    8. Again, if you describe that as seated, you learned the English language differently than I did. Lying on your back with your legs in the air is not “seated.” Whether or not she completely flipped over isn’t even relevant. As I pointed out, it wasn’t because the cop didn’t use enough force. The fact that you can say she wouldn’t have fallen if not for the bench, and then smugly and condescendingly chide me for not watching closely speaks volumes.

                    9. After watching it again, you are correct, she would have fallen anyway.

                      Lying on your back with your legs in the air is not “seated.” Whether or not she completely flipped over isn’t even relevant.

                      It is when you describe it as “flipping her over a bench”.

                      See, now isn’t this better than impugning my motives and calling me names? An actual conversation about the facts? It’s a shame it took us so long to get here, and that you’re the only one of the original 3 who made it this far.

  36. In a reminder of how utterly useless and unneeded the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is, today it prohibited companies controlling more than one television station in the same market from sharing sales staff, which hurts the very small television stations the FCC chairman claims it will protect.

    But, don’t you see, you unbeliever??? JOB STILULUZ!!!!

    1. Straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

  37. Dude seems to know whats going on over there.

    http://www.GotzAnon.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.