Watch Nick Gillespie, Remy, on Fox News' Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld Tonight, 3AM ET


More details here.

That is all.

NEXT: Rand Paul Amendment Would Bar Prosecution of Medical Marijuana Patients

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

  1. Who will be interrupting?

    1. No one. It’s #RedEye, not #IndependentsFBN.

      Thanks to DVR, I’ll be able to watch it Sunday. Cause – gone tomorrow.

      1. Same diff.

  2. Why not here?
    SF has a housing “crises”, wherein some folks think housing costs “too much”. So what is to be done? Why, ask the voters to, uh, wish there were a while lot more housing by some date! Why didn’t someone think of this before?

    …”voters will be asked in November to set specific housing goals, including Lee’s aggressive plan to build or rehabilitate 30,000 housing units by 2020.”…..645554.php

    1. I think I know who came up with this plan. I guess she moved to San Fran. No one came rhyme like I can.

      I know a man whose name is Stan. He lives in a van and howls like Tarzan.

      1. I made it to just over 1:00; ENOUGH!

        1. You’ll never be a derpetologist at this rate.

          That video is Stage 1 of derpetology Hell Week.

          You gonna quit on me, cry baby? GET OFF MT BEACH, MAGGOT! Go ring the bell! Go ring the bell!

          1. Mt Beach would be a great name for a national forest.

      2. Does anyone jump into frame and bash her head in with a ball-peen hammer? I couldn’t watch the whole thing.

        1. And deprive the world of her wonderful derp? No, it should forever be preserved like a pinned butterfly.

          1. Maybe, but is there any shots of the people to whom she’s addressing that line of bullshit? Are they dumb enough to buy it? Is anyone laughing out loud? Giggling?

    2. It would specify that one-third of them should be affordable to low- and middle-income residents … and that half should be in reach to the middle class.

      With all due respect, what does this even mean?

      “I want emphasize that this is very much a compromise, but we all share same goal,” [Kim] said.

      Kudos for the apparently accurate — albeit RACIST! — quoting.

      1. “With all due respect, what does this even mean?”

        I don’t know a lot about city pols in other cities, but SF’s are truly embarrassing.
        What that means is nothing other than a signal to other statist bleevers that the person making the statement shares the same ignorant bleefs about reality; ‘vote for me; I’m one of you’.
        Obviously, subsidizing 1/3 to be cheap enough for “low income” residents means the other 2/3 are now priced ‘way above what they would have been, starting a new round of furrowed brows concerning the “housing crises”.
        Oh, and there are entirly too many votes tied to “rent control” to touch it.

    3. Instead, voters will weigh in on a measure that would set the same lofty housing goals but wouldn’t force market-rate developers to undergo a time-consuming review process they said would have slowed down housing development.

      Is it the review process that would slow housing development, or the fact that few developers would want to build housing if they are guaranteed to have their profits capped via price controls before they even break ground?

      It astonishes me that there are people who look at NYC’s rent control policies and then say to themselves, “Golly, that really solved the problem of inexpensive, plentiful housing for the poor and middle class, didn’t it? Let’s try that here, since developers will build lots of housing no matter what.” The cynic in me says that they know more controls will reduce available housing, and they’re doing it to win the economic illiterate vote while propping up property values.

      Dumb or evil, the eternal question.

      1. “Is it the review process that would slow housing development, or the fact that few developers would want to build housing if they are guaranteed to have their profits capped via price controls before they even break ground?”

        As of now, ‘new builds’ are exempt from rent price fixing, but all it takes is one more lefty to change that.
        Countering that is the current rental market, with supply at miserable levels courtesy of “rent control”. Rents are truly amazing! (thank you, Rent Board. The income is appreciated)
        So a builder can put up units (no interest, thanks, Obo) quickly (if the builder is ‘connected’), and get a quick return even with the set-asides.
        It’s a rent-seeker’s dream!

    1. “What doe you call someone who graduates from medical school last in their class?”

      1. The thing which thou hath made manifest; verily I did see it anon.

      2. Doc-in-the-Box

      3. A cab driver.

      4. Dr. Nick Riviera? No, wait? Hitler? No, he was last at art school. Shame that.

    2. The debt load keeps her up at night. Her damaged credit has prevented her from buying a home or a new car. She says she and her boyfriend of three years have put off marriage and having children because of the debt.

      So, her student debt is becoming a major asset in her life. Either that, or her boyfriend is firing on at least four braincells, sees her student loan debt and is saying, “Yeah, fuck no I’m not absorbing half that when you have your cathartic sexual awakening and discover you’re a lesbian”

      1. See? The system works. The system fucking works.

  3. The reasoning for this ruling was simple: That’s what the law says.

    What black and white, narrow-rut thinking.

    There are nuances here that these judges clearly don’t understand. There’s a spirit to this law.

  4. Drink every time Gutfeld says that he’s a libertarian, then calls Snowden a traitor while claiming that all his fellow libertarians favor military intervention overseas to protect our liberties.

    1. Knarf Yenrab!|7.24.14 @ 11:14PM|#
      “Drink every time Gutfeld says”…

      Barney, as much as I hate to load you with the responsibilities, there is no way I’m gonna watch that, so you get my drinks.

      1. I may not be up to the task, as I am beginning to suspect that libertarian drinking games involving socialists progressives or neocons media libertarians are especially bad for the liver.

        1. Beyond my limits, but then I’m getting to be an old fart.

  5. I can’t watch Red Eye anymore. The cute bitch they got to replace Bill isn’t nearly hot enough to make up for being so fucking dumb. Bill could be a colossal dimwit, but at least he had a sense of humor and made cogent points.

    Really, the show started taking a serious shit when Greg started showing up on other shows (notably O’Reilly) and he decided to take himself seriously. Now it’s too much like The Daily Show to be watchable.

    1. Gutfeld once had a raunchy sensibility that would have fit well among the commentariat here, even if he’s to the left of Buckley on many things.

      But at this point he’s sat next to glib neocon Mike Baker enough times that I feel bile rising every time I see Shorty McShortenstein’s squashed face.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.