Bill Cosby Sued, Tax Break Extension Likely, University of Texas Misplaces a Bunch of Brains: A.M. Links

|

  • joestump/Flickr

    A woman alleging she was molested by Bill Cosby in 1974, when she was 15-years-old, has filed a complaint against the comedian in Los Angeles County Superior Court. 

  • The House is expected to approve restoring a bevy of expired tax breaks for individuals and businesses.
  • A grand jury may vote as soon as today on whether to bring charges against a member of the New York Police Department in the chokehold death of Eric Garner. 
  • The University of Texas at Austin has misplaced 100 brains, which were being stored in a basement. "It's entirely possible…people started swiping them for living rooms or Halloween pranks," psychology professor Lawrence Cormack told the Los Angeles Times
  • The California Fish and Game Commission may ban prize hunts for coyotes, under pressure from wildlife advocates. But cattle farmers say opponents of the hunts don't witness the damage coyotes can do to livestock. 
  • Egypt is considering legislation that makes insulting the movements to topple former President Hosni Mubarak and his successor Mohammed Morsi a crime. Nevermind the freedom of expression guaranteed by Egypt's new constitution, I guess. 
  • The AK-47 is getting a re-brand. 

Reason's annual Webathon is underway! Your (tax-deductible!) gift will help Reason magazine, Reason.com, and Reason TV bring the case for "Free Minds and Free Markets" to bigger and bigger audiences. For giving levels and associated swag, go here now.

NEXT: If You Want to End the Drug War Tomorrow, Support Reason Today!

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. The House is expected to approve restoring a bevy of expired tax breaks for individuals and businesses.

    HOW ARE THEY GOING TO PAY FOR IT?

    1. Hello.

      Your morning Twitch:

      NATO chart: http://twitchy.com/2014/12/03/…..one-chart/

      Ferguson hypocritical dumbasses:

      http://twitchy.com/2014/12/03/…..yers-vine/

      SJW are basically Neo-Jacobins.

  2. The California Fish and Game Commission may ban prize hunts for coyotes, under pressure from wildlife advocates. But cattle farmers say opponents of the hunts don’t witness the damage coyotes can do to livestock.

    Just open for the coyotes a line of credit from the Acme Corporation.

    1. When you’ve seen coyotes kill a mother cow as she is giving birth, over a period of hours by basically eating out her viscera (and, naturally, the calf),

      well, that’s why I shoot every coyote I see when I’m hunting.

      1. The circle of life, dude. (I love coyotes, BTW. They teach my cats — and my children, come to think of it — to stay on their toes.)

        1. Coyotes will ‘play’ with dogs.

          And somewhere in the play, bite their achilles tendons thru and then ‘game over, dude’.

          It is circle of life, but coyotes are better adaptors to human encroachment than almost any other predator. That means that they need better population control.

        2. The circle of life, as it happens, can weigh 165 grains and travel at 1800 fps.

    2. That reference ages you. Jesus, you must shit dust.

  3. 6) A co-worker is undergoing chemotherapy for a recurrence of a cancer that he had originally had treated successfully 12 years ago. He jokingly asked the doctor if he hadn’t prescribed him a placebo, because it hardly seemed to affect him compared to the last time. As he explained to me, “Twelve years ago, after a session I was sick and exhausted for days. But now, I get kind of tired the day of the treatment, but I’m in the office the next day.” The doctor told him that we know so much better now how to dose the chemo, and when to time it, and how to target it, that we can use lower dosages. What impresses me is that this is not a new technology, simply an old technology butter used, and I also find it amazing how medicine progresses even despite the obstacles the government imposes on the field.

    1. Medicine is still extremely primitive. But in the next couple of decades I think we will start to advance, despite government interference.

    2. Well, I pray your friend gets through it.

  4. The University of Texas at Austin has misplaced 100 brains, which were being stored in a basement.

    Too many jokes… overload….

    1. I bet UT’s attorneys are REAL excited the prof made the comment he did.

    2. “If you like-a me, like I like-a you….”

    3. The one I got goes by the name Abbey Normal.

    4. But did the Sociology department even notice?

    5. Did they create 100 SJWs?

    6. Well, when they try to find out where the brains are, they can rule out the Woman’s Studies Department and (name of hated sports rival).

    7. I didn’t know there were 100 brains in all of Texas.

  5. The University of Texas at Austin has misplaced 100 brains, which were being stored in a basement. “It’s entirely possible…people started swiping them for living rooms or Halloween pranks,” psychology professor Lawrence Cormack told the Los Angeles Times.

    Was one of them labeled Abbey Normal?

    1. Frau Blucher

      1. Neighh!!!

        1. *smirks and slowly shakes head*

    2. Jesus way too late…I’m an amateur.

  6. Just in case anyone missed it, Tony descended to new levels of absurdity in the Oath Keepers thread from yesterday.

    1. Aided and abetted by those who think responding to him will do any good.

      1. Tony is clearly beyond hope, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t lurkers who are sympathetic to him who can be convinced otherwise.

        1. Briefly refuting him and filling a thread arguing with him are different things. I get the urge to beat up on him from time to time, but I never treat him like a human being.

          1. When I first started lurking here I felt bad for Tony. The lone progressive in the den of libertarians. Then I tried to have a rational conversation with him and when back into a corner he cursed at me and went on a rant. I have since tried not to respond to him. Although I admit on occasion throwing out a single response against my better judgement.

            1. At least comment registration finally made him give up on “Chad,” his absurdly transparent sockpuppet that he would use to agree with himself that we were all awful.

              1. How do you people read what are nothing more than blank spaces in a thread?

      2. Well, as one of those people, I will say I am under no illusion that it will do any good in terms of changing his mind or anything. And despite the idiocy and possible fictional nature of Tony, he does make the arguments that you really do encounter from actual people. It serves as a nice release so I am less likely to tell friends and associates how idiotic they sound when talking politics.

        1. I think refuting little cowards like that is for the better; it helps lurkers get a better idea of what Libertarians have to put up with and may change some minds that could be on the fence.

      3. Sometimes I have fun with it. We all have our vices.

        1. I poop with the bathroom door closed.

          1. The world thanks you for that.

    2. That was a truly glorious smackdown. Well done.

    3. Soon as a Republican is back in the White House, Tony will be right there with the war protesters claiming it’s all the GOP’s fault.

      Principals, not principles.

    4. Sweet baby Baphomet, why did I click on that? Tony is evidence that Peak Derp is unreachable.

      1. “A tax cut is taking money from government and giving it to people. Is the semantic difficulty so insurmountable for you that you can’t get to a place where we’re talking about reality?”

        Yeah, that kind of derp is immovable.

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

    5. Tony is someone who is alive only because it is illegal to kill him. I don’t have reasonable, but I can spot his conversations in a thread and simply bypass them.

  7. Egypt is considering legislation that makes insulting the movements to topple former President Hosni Mubarak and his successor Mohammed Morsi a crime.

    Can’t their Attack Waaaaaaaaaaatch! just take care of it?

  8. A grand jury may vote as soon as today on whether to bring charges against a member of the New York Police Department in the chokehold death of Eric Garner.

    “Let’s burn this bitch down.”

  9. Georgia Town Respects Religious Liberties of Muslims (Psych!)

    “There will be no mosque in Kennesaw. At least not right away. The Kennesaw City Council voted on Monday to reject the request of a group of Muslims seeking to establish a worship center in the city.

    Anti-Islamic demonstrators outside of Kennesaw City Hall made it clear that they believe an Islamic worship center is not welcome in Kennesaw.

    The local Islamic group wanting to rent the retail space for their worship center agreed to every limitation that the Kennesaw city attorney wanted to impose, including a two-year only lease, no more than 80 worshipers allowed at a time and no more than 40 parking spaces could be used at a time. It was just this past July when the City Council approved a request from a Christian church to rent space in a small retail center in Kennesaw for their worship services.”

    http://www.11alive.com/story/n…../19765075/

    1. Without government, who would control land use for the public good? There’s no downside.

    2. I’m not sure why the city council should have anything to do with it at all.

    3. Kind of stupid, as being this open about your violation of First Amendment rights is a good way to end up spending lots of money.

    4. As long as the worshippers have their guns, they should be allowed to worship…

  10. Richard III’s DNA throws up infidelity surprise

    Scientists who studied genetic material from remains found in a Leicester car park say the finding might have profound historical implications.

    Depending on where in the family tree it occurred, it could cast doubt on the Tudor claim to the English throne or, indeed, on Richard’s.

    The study is published in the journal Nature Communications.

    But it remains unknown when the break, or breaks, in the family lineage occurred.

    1. The Tudors were always usurpers. Really, both the Yorks and the Lancasters were as well. The direct line to the thrown ended when Henry of Lancaster disposed and killed Richard II. Richard was the rightful king and the only one who had any claim to the throne beyond the power of the sword.

      The flip side is that Richard was a tyrant and a complete disaster as king who left Henry and the country no choice but to depose him. The price of doing that was to set the precedent that it was okay to depose a king and the English aristocracy spent the next 85 years murdering each other over the thrown and you ended up with a family of neardowells and their bandit and cattle thief cronies taking the thrown.

      If you look at the history of the old English aristocratic families, nearly all of them, even the really old and big ones like the Howards, trace their place in the aristocracy back to the Tudors. You won’t find the family like the one in Brideshead Revisited with the knight who fought at Agincourt buried in the family chapel. The old medieval English aristocracy killed itself during the Wars of the Roses. The few that remained were hunted down and murdered by the Tudors who eliminated all of the more worthy claims to the thrown.

      1. the thrown

        You, sir, are truly the master of the misplaced homonym.

      2. No one claiming descent from William the Bastard has any claim to the throne. The crown died with Harold Godwinson.

        1. The Anglo Saxon thrown died with him. But William deposed the entire Anglo Saxon ruling class and put in his cronies. At this point it is the Anglo Norman thrown that is occupied by a live in German family who is reliably Protestant and too stupid to cause any problems.

          1. I once plotted a lovely story of Arthur returning from Avalon to a modern England to seize the English throne (NB the spelling, John). The premise was that Arthur would initially be seen as a crazy guy, but thanks to Excalibur the Brits attempts to take him into custody kept failing and eventually he retakes the island – with people flocking to his standard to offer him fealty and in return he offered them a better form of justice and lower taxes.

            I think someone with a working knowledge of English history (hintity, hint, John) would be needed to pull it off.

            1. That is a great idea. You would really need a knowledge of the Arthurian legends. The first step would be to go re-read Mallory.

              It would almost be like Mallory meets Harry Potter. I would bring back Merlin with him. He would take power using Merlin and Excalibur’s magic.

              The other thing is that Arthur is a Welsh legend. The English co-opted it in the middle ages but originally it is the Welsh, who were the Roman English, looking back to a better time and to a king who would kick the Anglo-Saxons out.

              There is a really good series of historical fiction books called The Sky Sword, which is a retelling of the Arthur legends without the magic. It starts at the end of the Roman empire and tells the story of a retired Roman legionnaire who goes back home to his father’s blacksmith shop and forges what becomes Excalibur from this mysterious metal that was found in a meteor.

              1. and forges what becomes Excalibur from this mysterious metal that was found in a meteor.

                Given that the Romans had rather advanced steelmaking capacity (the standard gladius had a mixed high/low carbon composition which later pattern-welded swords attempted to reproduce) There’s not much you could forge out of a meteorite in the iron age forges that would beat what he already knew about. Meteoric iron was little more than a curiousity by that point, having more utility pre-iron age.

                1. That is the fiction part of it. It is the way to explain why Excalibur was so much better than other swords and was considered magical.

                  1. Peter David has already wrote a series that is pretty close to this, but Arthur ends up in NYC as mayor, then President.

                    Knight Life is the first in the series.

                    If you’re at all familiar with Peter David, his writing is light and humorous, so nothing deep here, but is an enjoyable read.

              2. Holy Shit, I thought I was the only person to ever read that series.

                It was great. I especially liked the way that he tied up the series.

                Jack Whyte did a Templar Series that was pretty good as well.

          2. If you are not a decedent of Boadicea you can fuck off. Only Iceni allowed around here. (and Silurians…they are OK if they sit in the back).

            1. I almost had one of my best friends in the Army convinced to name his daughter Boadicea. Needless to say his pregnant wife was not amused by the idea and the baby ended up with the lesser name of Lauren. One of my selling points is that she would never get picked on since even the dumbest mean girl would never want to fuck with a woman named Boadicea.

        2. Nah. All you need is some claim to nobility and a big enough army and you are good to go.

          1. FORTINBRAS
            Go, captain, from me greet the Danish king;
            Tell him that, by his license, Fortinbras
            Craves the conveyance of a promised march
            Over his kingdom. You know the rendezvous.
            If that his majesty would aught with us,
            We shall express our duty in his eye;
            And let him know so.

            Captain
            I will do’t, my lord.

            FORTINBRAS
            Go softly on.

            [Exit Fortinbras.]

            Enter HAMLET, ROSENCRANTZ,
            [GUILDENSTERN,] etc.

            HAMLET
            Good sir, whose powers are these?

            Captain
            They are of Norway, sir.

            HAMLET
            How purposed, sir, I pray you?

            Captain
            Against some part of Poland.

            HAMLET
            Who commands them, sir?

            Captain
            The nephew to old Norway, Fortinbras.

            HAMLET
            Goes it against the main of Poland, sir,
            Or for some frontier?

            Captain
            Truly to speak, and with no addition,
            We go to gain a little patch of ground
            That hath in it no profit but the name.
            To pay five ducats, five, I would not farm it;
            Nor will it yield to Norway or the Pole
            A ranker rate, should it be sold in fee.

            HAMLET
            Why, then the Polack never will defend it.

            Captain
            Yes, it is already garrison’d.

            HAMLET
            Two thousand souls and twenty thousand ducats
            Will not debate the question of this straw:
            This is the imposthume of much wealth and peace,
            That inward breaks, and shows no cause without
            Why the man dies. I humbly thank you, sir.

            Captain
            God buy you, sir.

            {Exit.]

            1. Well the Danish throne was elected then. No Really.

      3. How many before Henry VIII were not in some sense “usurpers”? There weren’t a lot of clean successions early on. In many ways, I think that has a lot to do with how English society ended up so well positioned to be so successful in the colonial era and the Empire. Kings had to prove themselves worthy (or at least able to fight) and the other nobles retained a lot of power.

        1. There are two times before Henry IV where the oldest surviving son did not take the thrown. Henry I was William’s youngest son. His oldest brother William Rufus took the throne at William’s death and the middle brother Robert went on Crusade. William Rufus was a pretty vicious and lousy king. William died in a mysterious hunting accident. He was accidentally shot with an arrow while hunting with his brother. No one will ever know if it was an accident or murder. Regardless, Henry left William’s body where it lay and took off to crown himself king. He later fought off his brother Robert and became a very strong King.

          Henry I’s oldest son William Afeling died in the white ship disaster leaving him no male heirs. He tried to leave the crown to his daughter Maude but after his death an ugly civil war happened between Maude’s supporters and her cousin Stephan’s supporters. That war ended with a compromise that let Stephen keep the thrown but made Maude’s son Henry the heir.

          After that, there is an unbroken line of oldest sons on the throne until Richard II.

          1. You are obviously more of a history guy than I. I can’t keep all those guy’s straight. I just remembered that there seemed to be a lot of fighting around successions in the pre-modern. I guess not quite as regularly as I thought.

            1. There was always fighting whenever there was a bad king. When there was a good king, things were peaceful. When there was a bad king, things went to shit.

              There was a huge civil war under Henry III where a guy name Simon de Monfort set up the first real parliament.

              The amazing thing about the English middle ages is that most of the kings were bad. Really only Henry II and Edward III were really good. The rest were either passable but with serious flaws or utterly horrible. Yet somehow the country came through.

      4. “….claim to the throne beyond the power of the sword.”

        If you clear away all the bullshit and just look at aristocracy for what it is, there is no such thing.

      5. the English aristocracy spent the next 85 years murdering each other over the thrown and you ended up with a family of neardowells and their bandit and cattle thief cronies taking the thrown.

        Sounds like the Norman invasion.

        1. the English aristocracy spent the next 85 years murdering each other

          Can we get that feature implemented over here?

      6. The flip side is that Richard was a tyrant and a complete disaster as king who left Henry and the country no choice but to depose him.

        How sure are you of this? I mean, let’s face it, most of what we know about how terrible and awful Richard was comes from Shakespeare. Given that the grand-daughter of the very man who killed him was on the throne at the time, isn’t that sort of what you would expect?

        1. Yes. I have never read a history, and I have read a few, that portrayed Richard II as anything but a nut and a tyrant who left the country bankrupt.

          The story is somewhat similar to what ended the old Roman Republic. Starting with Edward IIs reign, the King and his opponents started murdering and taking the lands of nobles who were on the losing end of things. In some ways Edward’s wife and her lover Roger Mortimer deposing and killing him was as much of a breaking point as anything. It is just that he at least had a son, Edward III, to take over and whack Mortimer and his cronies when he got old enough. That restored order.

          So Richard II comes along after Edward III and starts confiscating the lands and exiling anyone who gets in his way. Eventually he does this to Henry of Lancaster leaving Henry in the same position the Optimates left Julius Caesar, cross the Rubicon and take power or lose everything.

        2. From what I’ve read, he wasn’t a very good king. Richard III, on the other hand, may have been better than remembered.

          1. Since my strongest memory of Richard III was that he was found under a car park, it’s not hard to have been better than that.

          2. He probably was. As great as the play is, Shakespeare liked to keep his head attached to his body and was smart enough not to write anything but Tudor propaganda.

            Richard gets blamed for murdering the twins in the tower, but Henry Tudor and a lot of other people had just as much motive as Richard. As long as they were alive, no one else could claim the throne.

            Richard acted the tyrant in many ways and he may have been one at heart. We will never know. But what everyone wanted at that point was peace and stability. The only way to get that was to be a tyrant and whack everyone on the other side ending the war.

            Bosworth Field has to be the strangest battle in history. Most of the participants sat on the sidelines most of the day and waited to join whatever side was going to win. No one really cared who won, they just wanted peace.

            1. He was a strong monarch. Whether he was a good man is another question.

              Did you see the BBC series that made mini-movies of Richard II through Henry V? Pretty good. The new Q plays Richard II, and he was impressive.

              1. No but it is on my list. The BBC TV versions of Shakespeare are the gold standard. One of these days I am going to take a weekend and just watch all of the history plays from Richard II through Richard III.

            2. But, that sort of makes my point, doesn’t it?

              If Richard were such a horrible bastard (relative to the competition), you don’t think everyone would have lined up against him?

              Honestly, I think you can make the case that extended civil war did a lot more to bankrupt England than Richard, per se.

              1. England went bankrupt a lot in the middle ages. And Richard II didn’t have a civil war. He was before the civil war and left the country bankrupt. There wasn’t a civil war to depose him. The nobles just lined up and threw him off the throne like they did with Edward III.

                Richard the III was the one who came to power at the end of a civil war. The problem was that Edward IV, one of the great military leaders in English history and a man who died in his bed undefeated on the battlefield, won the War of the Roses for the Yorks but died before his kids were of age. This left another power vacancy that allowed first Richard and then Henry Tudor to seize power.

              2. I mean threw Richard II off the throne like they did Edward II not Edward III.

      7. Damn, you must rock at Crusader Kings II.

  11. The California Fish and Game Commission may ban prize hunts for coyotes, under pressure from wildlife advocates.

    Coyotes are vile nuisances. Oh, wait, we’re not talking about Phoenix?

    1. You mean Arizona coyotes.

      1. I don’t recognize that reference.

          1. I still call them the Dallas North Stars. Phoenix is lucky I don’t still call them the Jets, which I did up until two years ago.

            1. I call them the South Stars.

            2. Dallas North Stars? You mean the Minnesota North Stars, right? I mean, if you’re going back, go back all the way.

              I grew up a Braves fan (as did my brother) and bought my brother a Boston Braves hat once. Throwback, baby.

              1. Go Milwaukee Braves!

    2. I WOULD BE!

      *shakes fist toward Kyle Chipchura*

  12. A new front opens in the War on Christmas:

    South Korea Plans to Put Up a Christmas Tree; North Korea Has Threatened to Bomb It

      1. That was also a tradition of the Chinese Emperors. Only they banned the use of the words that make up the imperial names too. It ended up that there were so many banned Imperial characters that Emperors deliberately took abnormal reginal names to stop the damage to the written language.

  13. Carson Gets Ready
    His confidantes lay the groundwork for a presidential bid.

    As Carson travels the country delivering speeches ? in Kentucky on Tuesday, in Philadelphia on Wednesday ? his confidants are interviewing a bevy of people, 35 in all, who in a matter of months may be staffingh his presidential campaign, in every position from chief of staff to body man. They are here at the Hyatt for three days, before a two-day stint in New York City, and they are talking with security professionals, owners of airline charters, celebrity handlers, and, of course, political strategists.

    “We believe in being prepared, and that requires a sophisticated and complex infrastructure if I decide to run,” Carson says in a phone interview. “It’s like the Boy Scouts: Be Prepared.” I ask him how much of a chance there is that he’ll run, but he ducks the question. But the midterm elections “pushed me closer,” he allows.

    “People are starting to wake up,” he says.

    1. Is there a libertarian case to be made for Ben Carson? I am skeptical of the guy, despite his amazing life story.

      1. He’s somewhere between a statist and a libertarian. I guess we just have to figure out where between.

        1. IMHO, he will likely be better than establishment tVrds Governor Krispy Kreme, or inherited privilege people like Jeb Bush, but probably not as good as Scott Walker or Rand Paul. He sounds like a SoCon statist at times, and that makes me suspicious of him.

          1. He’s most certainly not as good as Rand. But I think he’s definitely better than Bush or Christie. So that again leaves up back to ‘where in between’. To be honest with you, I haven’t listened to the guy enough or even tried vetting him to give any opinion yet. I guess we’ll find out next year.

          2. A little like Cruz. I can listen to a speech of his and say, “Wow, not bad,” then he goes and says or does something a little less libertarian than I’d like.

            1. Cruz is too SoCon. Sure he does some libertarian like things occasionally. But as POTUS I have a feeling he’d be pretty much neutral. He’d do some things we like and some things that we hate.

              I really hope that if Rand gets the nomination that he don’t pick this guy for a running mate because he thinks it will lock up the SoCon votes for him. I mean, who are the SoCons going to vote for, Hillary?

              1. If there were no option but Cruz, I’d favor him over most other candidates, just because he does have a limited government philosophy, but there are other Sky. . .walkers.

    2. While I admit he’s got some legitimate creds, it seems way overshadowed by the novelty factor. I mean seriously, change his race to caucasian and where would he fall in the pecking order?

      1. Just another member of the evil patriarchy.

  14. Who?

    Anne Lamott: “Look at the Tea Party: Some of the angriest, most hateful people on earth, and they’re backed by what they think is Scripture”

    The more public I am, the more people I talk to, the more I realize that I’d been comparing my insides to people’s outsides. And people’s insides are all the same amount of screwed-up-idness ? People are very hurt, they’re very scared for their families, they’re keening deep down for what happened to them as children. Sometimes with truly awful families, sometimes with a culture that only values beauty or fitting in and a meritocracy. And people who were shunned by their families because of fundamentalism or because of who they loved. I find out everybody’s in the same boat. And writing’s my way of figuring things out. People feel troubled and sad and overwhelmed by the amount of pain they’re carrying. Look at the Tea Party, for instance ? some of the angriest, most hateful people on earth, and they’re backed by what they think is the Scripture. The Scripture is 180 degrees away from that.

    1. Righteous anger can be found in many places in Scripture.

      1. People who think that Scripture is all lollipops and group hugs either haven’t read it or “interpret” away about 95% of it.

        1. People get more pop psychology and the same 12-15 ‘feel good’ Bible stories in churches these days, not much actual Scripture.

          1. This is one of my grievances with most mainline churches. Focusing on a handful of stories out of the entire Bible gives people this God as Santa illusion. The God of the Bible is very loving, but quite intolerant of people who cross Him. (pun intended)

    2. Upon you all my shadow falls.

    3. That’s an interesting link.

      1. just for you, Ted. Just for you.

    4. Someone needs to reread Ezekiel 25:17

      1. Maybe I’m the Shepard.

    5. “”””The Scripture is 180 degrees away from that””

      Go tell the First Born of Egypt.

      1. I saw this great show about scientifically explaining the exodus’ plagues. It was awesome. They tied them all together pretty well, starting with a red tide explosion and ending with the 1st born deaths. That was interesting because their idea was that egyptian children ate the grain from the top since male children were the most important members of the family unit and that was where a deadly mold has settled…once they ate it the other children and adults were eating cleaner grain. Jews didn’t eat that type of grain so no dead first borns…no clue how realistic but the whole show was fascinating. Ohh and the parting of the red sea was a set down wave.

    6. Even the most radical conservative forums like Red State are nothing compared to a place like KOS or the Democratic Underground. Hell, the PJ media forums are the old Oxford debating society compared to the fever swamps of the DU.

      There are angry people on every side of politics. The amount of anger found on the left is exponentially greater than anything I have ever seen on the right. The left is always pissed off and angry. Many of them build their entire personal identity on being angry at some other. Anyone on the Right can tell you a story about how some old friendship was ended because the other person was on the left and just couldn’t tolerate associating with someone from the other side. Such stories almost never go the other way. Talk about projection.

      1. “The amount of anger found on the left is exponentially greater than anything I have ever seen on the right. ”

        Yeah, right. The base on both sides are hysterical.

        1. Show me the evidence of that?

          The difference is this. To find real anger and nastiness on the Right you have to look hard and into the real fever swamps on the internet. To find real anger on the right, you need only go to the pages of Slate or the New York Times.

          Compare the comments on a mainstream left publication like the Washington Post to the comments on a mainstream Right publication like the Wall Street Journal or PJ media. There is no comparison. The people who comment at the Post are nuts. You can find outright genocide fantasies about the need to kill everyone in the country who is standing in the way. You almost never find things like that in the mainstream right. What is fever swamp exptreme anger on the Right is mainstream accepted thought on the left.

          You can pretend that is not the case all you like but the facts are what they are. The left has been since 2000 full of real anger and hatred towards its political enemies in a way not found on the right.

          How many Tea Party people have been convicted of bomb plots? Several OWS people have. How many right wing publications have published rape fantasies about women on the Left? None. There are multiple examples of that on the Left including a Rolling Stone article a few years ago about which conservative women are most worth hate fucking.

          1. “Compare the comments on a mainstream left publication like the Washington Post to the comments on a mainstream Right publication like the Wall Street Journal or PJ media. ”

            That’s certainly not my experience. As I’ve always said, since you are acknowledgedly located on the right I bet you’re more attuned and outraged by what you hear from the left than vice versa, and that explains your ‘evidence.’

            1. You say it is not your experience, show otherwise. i see the boards all of the time and you never see the kind of crazy anger on them you do in the WAPO comment section.

              Compare the comments found on Instapundit to those found on Jennifer Rubin’s blog at the post. There is no comparison.

              Find me one right wing website that has anything approaching the level of misandry that Jezebel does or anything like an equal level of misogyny. You won’t find it. And if you do, it will be some obscure blog not a widely known and accepted website like Jezebel.

              The worst bomb thrower conservative polemicists, Coulter and Malkin are no worse than mainstream liberal writers like Amanda Marcotte. The difference is Marcotte is considered mainstream and acceptable on the left and Coulter and Malkin are seen as radical crazies.

              Again, what is crazy on the right is just typical on the left.

              1. Your ‘evidence’ is ‘just go look at this or that comment board.’ Well guess what, that’s my evidence too. I’m betting you’re a bit selective in what you see and what registers.

                And how is Coulter and Malkin less mainstream to the Right than Marcotte is for the left? Both have sold way more books and are much bigger names to their respective bases. I imagine most people on the left have never heard of Marcotte, Coulter and Malkin are widely syndicated on major conservative sites and are practically rock stars to the GOP base.

                1. My anecdotal experience suggests there’s more idiocy, extremism and outright abandonment of principles and historical facts on the left. I can’t tell you how many times I just nod my head reading the comments at Huff, Daily Kos, NYT, WaPo, New Republic, The Nation etc. over the years.

                  Less so on the conservative/libertarian side. In fact, in my opinion, in the last 14 years or so I’ve read far more engaging articles and essays questioning and discussing all sorts of issues and events on the right side of the equation than the left. One of the first places I discovered were Reason and NRO where I sat back and appreciated them covering stuff you just don’t see in the mainstream and on the left.

                2. And how is Coulter and Malkin less mainstream to the Right than Marcotte is for the left?

                  Popular is not the same as mainstream. Marcotte may not sell many books but no one on the left would consider her views out of the mainstream. Coulter and Malkin sell a ton of books for the very reason that their fans consider them to be radicals and different from mainstream right thought.

                  1. So Coulter and Malkin are considered very radical, but for that reason are more popular with people on the right, and this shows people on the right are less what now?

              2. Again, what is crazy on the right is just typical on the left.

                Conservatism, de facto gives a much narrower birth to bat shit craziness.

                The Left will foster it, embrace it, legitimize it, internalize it, weaponize it, and, when it becomes unfashionable, demonstrate how the Right was in the vicinity of bat shit craziness when it started and is therefore responsible.

            2. Ace of Spades blog is filled with the most vile rednecks in the country this side of Stormfront. I posted there until they IP banned me.

              1. I’ve never heard of it… Am I just out of touch, or is this some niche blog that nobody has ever heard of?

              2. Ace of Spades blog is filled with the most vile rednecks in the country this side of Stormfront. I posted there until they IP banned me.

                You should be banned from every board. You are nothing but a sock puppet troll.

                That said, provide examples of this with links or shut the fuck up. The voices in your head don’t count as evidence.

                1. You’ve provided no linked examples yourself. He gave the name of a board, as you have.

              3. Palin’s Buttplug|12.3.14 @ 9:58AM|#
                Ace of Spades blog is filled with the most vile rednecks in the country this side of Stormfront. I posted there

                that’s how you do it buttplug. you make an assertion and then back it with a fact. congrats.

          2. To find real anger on the right left, you need only go to the pages of Slate or the New York Times

            FIFY

          3. To find real anger on the right, you need only go to the pages of Slate or the New York Times.

            Slate is pretty vile. The commentariat at the NYTs I wouldn’t describle as angry. I would say that they are the dumbest people on earth who are convinced that they are the smartest. Almost every post there no matter what the topic are something in support of AGW and how the deniers should be silenced.

            To find really truly vile hateful comments from the left, go to Politico or HuffPo.

        2. Hardly. The base on the right is at least capable of rational discussion without getting so emotional that they literally foam at the mouth. Unlike the left.

          1. I tend to agree. Plus, the base on the left believes in moar government power above all else and thus is more frightening to me.

            Not that there aren’t whack jobs on the right, of course.

          2. Yes, it’s possible to have a political discussion with SoCons and have it remain rational and even cordial, though the SoCons can be just as pig headed about things as the progs. But the progs will get hateful with you almost right out of the gate, they will give up any pretense of debate and start hurling one line talking points and insults.

            The other thing is that the SoCons will be happy to see you agree with them on anything, while the progs as soon as they realize you are libertarian will disagree with you even though they just agreed. With them, it’s all about identity and the hive mind.

            To be on the left, you have to be angry. You are being oppressed and there is someone doing the oppressing. There has to be, it’s your reason for existing.

            1. Progs are far more aggressive and rude. In university they were basically assholes.

              And they mastered the art of rolling eyes.

            2. John Stossel talked about this very thing when he spoke at Reason HQ a couple of years ago. He says he will go across the country and talk to real SOCONS and tell them things like that drugs and porn should be legal. And the SOCONS will politely listen to him and not often agree with him but are always nice and listen to what he has to say.

              Liberals in contrast are totally different. He says it is not uncommon for strange people to come up to him on the street in his New York neighborhood and tell him they wished he would die. He says he has never gotten a threat or any real hostility from people on the right even though he disagrees with them on just as many issues as he does with liberals. Liberals in contrast often threaten him and insult him in the most vile ways. They flat out will not listen to him or debate him.

              1. John, John Stossel is on the right himself, so again, I find it less than surprising he picks up more on leftist disagreement.

                Libertarians and conservatives have a lot of overlapping rhetoric, so of course their disagreements will be less common.

                1. Penn Jillette has said the same thing about Christians, conservatives, and SoCons. And Penn Jillette is not on the right.

                  1. Jillette is a great example. He disagrees with Conservative Christians in the most fundamental and strong ways possible. Yet, he is still treated politely and debated by them where liberals scream and shout him down.

                2. John Stossel is a Libertarian and disagrees with SOCONs on issues they feel very strongly about. If he can tell SOCONS drugs and porn should be legal without them having a fit, why can’t he tell liberals that we shouldn’t have minimum wage laws without them telling him they hope he dies?

                  The point is not left or right it is disagreement. And you can disagree with SOCONS without them going insane and hating you and you can’t do that with many liberals. Stossels example proves that.

              2. Liberals in contrast often threaten him and insult him in the most vile ways. They flat out will not listen to him or debate him

                Well, when they themselves just come right out and say that they want to shut down debate about anything they disagree with, there is hardly any reason to argue that point.

                1. Where do you get this is not common in right wing institutions? SoCon institutions like Liberty University or Christian radio stations are not exactly inviting places for different views either.

                  1. Where do you get this is not common in right wing institutions? SoCon institutions like Liberty University or Christian radio stations are not exactly inviting places for different views either

                    You say that but show me one example of someone from the other side being dis-invited or subject to being shouted down or the kind of protest rightwing speakers receive on liberal campuses. If there has been such a incident, I have never heard of it.

                    IN fact, Ted Kennedy spoke multiple times at Liberty University. Reason won’t accept the link to the website, but look it up if you don’t believe me.

                    You say these things Bo, but they are just not true. You assume they are but you are too narrow minded to look and see if they are true.

        3. There are certainly lots of angry, irrational people on the right to. But by and large I agree with John’s assessment (and I don’t think you could call me right wing in any meaningful sense). I have a limited sample too, so I can’t say anything for certain, but it seems to me that the left is a lot quicker to simply dismiss their opponents as evil, dishonest or racist and/or sexist, where the right is more likely to give an actual explanation of why they disagree.
          I certainly wouldn’t deny that there are tons of assholes and morons on both sides.

      2. I lost my last two proggy friends over debates about minimum wage and gun control. They couldn’t refute my logic, got very angry, and never spoke to me again.

        1. “They couldn’t refute my logic, got very angry, and never spoke to me again.”

          Good grief.

          1. Do you think sarcasmic is lying? I don’t. Why do you think he is? Do you not believe any facts that don’t fit your narrative?

            1. If you can’t see what’s wrong in that comment, I can’t help you.

              “People who disagree with me always get mad at my superior logic and stop talking to me.”

              1. Um, no. That’s not what I said. But whatever. I learned long ago that there is no point in explaining anything to your obtuse ass.

                1. “They couldn’t refute my logic, got very angry, and never spoke to me again.”

                  1. Uh huh. Did I use the words “always” or “superior?” No? Well then. Go fuck yourself. Ass.

                    1. How could someone this charming lose friends who disagree with him other than their inability to deal with his amazing logic?

                    2. I am quite charming when I choose to be. Ass.

                    3. I’ve lost ‘friends’ over the same issues, Bo.

                      I bet lots of other folks here have as well.

                    4. yep Restoras, same here.

                    5. Yep, I’ve lost some as well. It’s not an uncommon occurrence.

                    6. Same here. I was a social pariah throughout most of my political science courses at my university due to my, say, inability to accept concepts like “we need to raise gas prices to eight dollars to save the environment and any negative consequence is worth it” and “geoengineering is a capitalist conspiracy to undermine the environmentalist movement.”

                    7. Alternatively, I’m friends with a lot of people from Cameroon, Nigeria and Angola who have VERY socially conservative worldviews and embrace a rather specific brand of extreme African Christianity (one of them is of the opinion that gay people should be segregated from society). We’ll argue about this shit for hours but ultimately they’re still pretty fair in debate, the worst I ever get from them is the suggestion that I ‘haven’t read the right material’.

                    8. Same issues caused me to close my FB account and cost me a few 30+ year friendships.

              2. “People who disagree with me always get mad at my superior logic and stop talking to me.”

                It’s nonsense like this that makes people hate you, Bo.

                That’s not what sarcasmic said. He said they couldn’t refute his logic. Upon which moment they got angry – because they couldn’t refute it.

                The only one that brought up ‘superior logic’ was you.

                1. My point is that people who think they’ve won an argument with a friend who will not talk to them anymore because they ‘couldn’t refute my logic’ (which means their logic was superior and correct) are probably missing some of the inter-personal elements that likely played a role in that conversation.

                  1. My point is that people who think they’ve won an argument with a friend who will not talk to them anymore because they ‘couldn’t refute my logic’ (which means their logic was superior and correct) are probably missing some of the inter-personal elements that likely played a role in that conversation.

                    I see nothing in sarcasmic’s comments that indicates he either ‘won’ or believes he ‘won’.

                    His former friends could not refute or counter his arguments. They got mad. They unfriended him. That’s all that happened.

                    1. “I see nothing in sarcasmic’s comments that indicates he either ‘won’ or believes he ‘won’.

                      His former friends could not refute or counter his arguments.”

                      Good grief.

                      “He never said he won, he just said they could not counter his arguments!”

                  2. are probably missing some of the inter-personal elements that likely played a role in that conversation.

                    I take this to mean that he didn’t give their feelings the trump card in the discussion.

                    Which is entirely the point.

                    1. Well, yes, people that don’t take interpersonal elements into account in a relationship aren’t going to keep that relationship, even if they are ‘right’ in some cosmic sense during disagreements. But more importantly, I just doubt that any side was simply putting dispassionate logic out there in this instance. I mean, look at this discussion here. The same people that are insisting that ‘the progs’ just emotionally and insultingly react to cool logic are responding to me with a fair amount of emotion and insult themselves (of course I’m doing some of it too, that’s all under my point too).

                  3. try making your points better initially and you won’t have to constantly explain what your point was.

                  4. Bo lecturing people on how they lack inter-personal elements in conversation is truly amusing, considering his habit of pedantic argumentation and ‘no TRUE LIBERTARIAN’ accusations.

                2. It wasn’t that my logic was superior. It’s that I was the only one using it. All they had was emotion, which is why the freaked out on me. When I make a rational argument that conflicted with what they felt, their response was anger.

                  1. Bo, your false premise here is that you assume both parties are using logic and reason. That is not the case. Many arguments are made from emotion, which is neither logical nor reasoned.
                    Being that your premise is false, everything that follows is a fallacy.

                    1. “Many arguments are made from emotion, which is neither logical nor reasoned.”

                      But not yours of course. No, yours was just direct logic, which they just couldn’t handle.

                      I just don’t believe it. Don’t take it personally.

                    2. I just don’t believe it.

                      Start believing. It happens all the time, every day.

                    3. I don’t doubt that people stop talking to sarcasmic when he argues with them, that I don’t find surprising at all.

                    4. I don’t doubt that people stop talking to sarcasmic when he argues with them, that I don’t find surprising at all.

                      Jesus H. Christ. Really?

                    5. Yes, Bo, my argument was direct logic.

                      The minimum wage one did bother me a bit. I did like the guy. My logical argument was that when the price of something rises, that people buy less of it and/or find alternatives. He agreed. I proposed that that principle also applies to employers paying for labor, and that raising the price of it with minimum wage hurts those at the bottom who have the least experience.

                      He went ballistic. Called me a corporate shill, said I supported slavery, that I was a mean and evil person, and I haven’t heard from him since.

                      But whatever, Bo. I know feel that it was because I was a big meanie-pants, not because his stance was based on emotion and he couldn’t refute my logic.

                      Yep. sarcasmic the big meanie-pants. That’s me.

                    6. But whatever, Bo. I know feel that it was because I was a big meanie-pants, not because his stance was based on emotion and he couldn’t refute my logic.

                      Yep. sarcasmic the big meanie-pants. That’s me

                      It’s Bo, you could say that 2+2=4 and he would argue that it would technically be 11 in base 3. You would literally have to publish a peer-reviewed study analyzing the effects of your logic on the brains of your prog friends, controlling for argumentation style, before Bo would give an inch.

                    7. You would literally have to publish a peer-reviewed study analyzing the effects of your logic on the brains of your prog friends, controlling for argumentation style, before Bo would give an inch.

                      Even then he wouldn’t budge. He’d just attack the people who did the peer-reviewed study and then smugly proclaim victory.

                      He claims to be a libertarian, but he argues like an affirmed leftist. All personal attacks. No logic or reason.

                    8. Bo, if you honestly can’t believe that I really have to question if you’ve ever left your parents basement. People on the left often argue from emotion and would rather use insults and slander than debate honestly. This isn’t fucking news to anyone here.

                      Alternatively, you could just be an idiotic contrarian troll.

                    9. Of course people on the left often argue from emotion. People on the right do too. Libertarians do.

                      My point is that stories about how “I used only logical arguments and the person I disagreed with was a raving emotional nut” are more often than not self serving, and they’re accepted among fellow believers because, hey, everyone wants to think the people they disagree with are crazy nuts.

                      I disagree with people all the time. I try never to curse them or assume they’re idiots, I usually think we are just starting from different value points. And I don’t find many people, left or right, who stop speaking to me about those things.

                    10. Alternatively, you could just be an idiotic contrarian troll.

                      Why not both?

                    11. “I just don’t believe it. Don’t take it personally.”

                      So, what you really mean is : “no stupid assholes exist on the left. Only on the right.”

                      I like this form of argumentation Bo. It’s really easy.

                3. Logic.

                  I recently posted Carey Price’s statistics in my hockey pool showing that while his numbers are solid and is a solid goalie, they remain pretty much the same as Jaroslav Halak. In fact, Halak’s WIN % and save % as well as perseverance ratio are slightly better or on par. Same with Price’s peers.

                  Nothing bad but should have sparked an interesting discussing.

                  Instead, some guy with a man crush on him went off the rails attacking me PERSONALLY and calling me a ‘hater’.

                  He said, ‘I laugh at your statistics’ (which, I pointed out weren’t mine but hey).

                  He’s a doctor.

                  A doc who hates statistics.

                  He attacked me; not the content of my argument.

                4. It’s nonsense like this that makes people hate you, Bo.

                  Well, I would say that it isn’t just nonsense like this.

                  There’s also the fact that he doesn’t argue in good faith.

                  There’s also the fact that he tries to discredit arguers rather than arguments.

                  There’s also the fact that he’s a disingenuous little fuck.

                  The reasons to hate Bo are myriad.

                  1. I think the main reason you hate me Bill is that you’d like to have your cake and eat it too, pop up on a libertarian website and be a Republican. And I call you on the occasions where that contradicts and you don’t like it. The board has a right-leaning feel so people like you don’t get called on it much, but then people like me show up and viola. And that makes you angry. And sure enough, if you track when you started to be most combative with me, it followed me pointing out that perhaps what you perceived as bias was your own professed leanings coloring your observations.

                    1. I think the main reason you hate me Bill is that you’d like to have your cake and eat it too,….

                      No, Bo, I really do hate you because you’re an insufferable douche. Consider your argument for just a moment. You’re arguing that you’re the only real libertarian here and everyone who contradicts you doesn’t qualify as a libertarian – that the threads have a “right-leaning feel”. You demand everyone else to take your word that it’s their perspective that’s skewed, rather than consider the possibility that it’s your own.

                    2. Bill, actually what I tend to do is hold up people like you to the Reason writers or the LP, and I started to do this only in response to posts by people like you criticizing the Reason writers or commenters who agreed with them.

                      I think it makes you feel better to work this ‘you think you’re the only real libertarian’ gimmick, but it’s a pretty tired one, devoid of any connection to what I actually have written.

            2. Do you think sarcasmic is lying? I don’t. Why do you think he is? Do you not believe any facts that don’t fit your narrative?

              Well, there is no way to prove whether he is lying or not. But I don’t see any reason to not believe that story since I’ve myself seen the same exact behavior out of progs. I used to work with one and he would prattle on about leftist talking points all day, but if you tried to debate him on any of those points he would get extremely defensive and quite visibly upset and refuse to talk to you the rest of the day.

              So, I tend to believe him.

              1. Hyperion, if we asked him about those situations, do you think he’d tell a different story? I find these things are much more like Rashomon than ‘he couldn’t refute my logic and so ran away.’

                1. Hyperion, if we asked him about those situations, do you think he’d tell a different story? I find these things are much more like Rashomon than ‘he couldn’t refute my logic and so ran away.’

                  Sorry, Bo, but my opinion is that even if sarc made that up, it’s still a believable situation.

                  I think you are biased against him here because you clearly represent a more left leaning view here that most posters, and you don’t want to think your prog friends are that bad. Well, sure, not all progs are like that, but many are. From my experience, most of them are like that.

                  1. You don’t think it could be because I’ve seen sarcasmic post here quite a bit and his disagreements are not usually based in polite logic, but rather quick to curse people out?

                    1. Bo, generally when I curse people like you it is not because I disagree, but because they are being insufferable douchebags. As you are being right now. The fact that several people agree should be food for thought for you, but I know it won’t be. You’re way to arrogant for that.

                  2. From my experience, most of them are like that.

                    I hate to make blanket statements, but on this I’d have to say they’re all like that. They feel things to be true, and when someone questions what they feel with logic and reason, they have a choice. They can engage their brain or have an emotional response. If they engage their brain then they risk agreeing, and if they agree then when they go back to the hive they will be shunned. So it is only natural that they have an emotional outburst.

                    1. “I hate to make blanket statements, but on this I’d have to say they’re all like that.”

                      Sigh, yes, certainly it was just sarcasmic’s mere logic that caused them to stop talking to him. Amazingly, everyone who disagrees with him from that side is, of course, like that too!

                    2. I hate to make blanket statements, but on this I’d have to say they’re all like that.

                      Bo is one of the most agreeable left leaners that I’ve ever talked to.

                      But the reason is clearly obvious. Bo is having an identity crisis where he thinks he might be a libertarian. I can see why this might be a terrible struggle for anyone who has been identifying with leftists, since leaving their community is tantamount to some type of blasphemy and heresy and you’ll be banished forever and hated more than any lifetime right winger.

                    3. I don’t think I’m a libertarian, I know it. I think you lean to the right yourself, and so you see me as leaning to the left. That’s funny to me because my classmates think I’m only slightly to the left of Ghengis Khan on the right, since I’m for free trade, no minimum wage laws, repealing most environmental laws, and want to cut the government down to something like 1/50th of its size.

                    4. I don’t think I’m a libertarian, I know it.

                      Great. Now I’ve got to clean tea off my keyboard.

                  3. I think you are biased against him here because you clearly represent a more left leaning view here that most posters,

                    Oh, no, Hyperion. Bo is the One True Libertarian. And if your views are any more right-leaning than his own, it’s because you aren’t really a libertarian – just an icky old conservative.

                    1. Here’s what gets me about this type of line from you Bill: I’m not putting you through an Inquisition or anything, you freely admit you are a Republican and attend Republican events regularly (or used to).

                    2. And I’ve demonstrated many times to you that the two categories – libertarian and Republican – are not mutually exclusive (Ron Paul, Rand Paul, the last two Libertarian candidates for president until they ran on the Libertarian ticket). Your statement has no bearing on the legitimacy of my arguments. And it doesn’t somehow or another indict me as not a libertarian. And again, even if it did, it would have no bearing on whether what I was saying was accurate or not.

                    3. Bill, you can be a libertarian and a Republican, sure. And even if you couldn’t you’re right that wouldn’t make your point wrong. But, when you testify to the bias of others I submit that the fact that you yourself locate yourself on what would be the right side of the continuum of libertarianism might be coloring your testimony. See?

                    4. But Bill, you’re an icky Republican, so you hate Bo because you’re a racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe! It’s definitely not because Bo argues in the same style as a Jezzie or anything.

                    5. How do I ‘argue in the same style as a Jezzie?’

                    6. How do I ‘argue in the same style as a Jezzie?’

                      Fuck you. I just got done cleaning off my keyboard.

                      It has been spelled out to you on numerous occasions by multiple people. Like here for example. But you will never get it because you judge arguments by the person who is making them, not the arguments themselves. Which is exactly what makes you a Jezzie. Ass.

                    7. Constant attempts to discredit or attack the character of individuals, attempts to use the identifier ‘libertarian’ to proclaim your moral superiority and social status, throwing out the term ‘Republican’ or ‘conservative’ like they’re horrible insults that should disqualify the person from debate?

                    8. 1) you latch onto one small clause in a larger point and use it to further your preconceived notions

                      2) you have no concept of the basic “ethos, pathos, and logos” argumentation styles taught in speech 101

                      3) while you don’t name call, your ad hominem attacks are frequent and tend to anchor your assertions

                      4) you make massive assertions with minimal evidence, reading in your own biases

                      5) you are a master of projection

                      6) you tend to be hypocritical when you’re on the defensive

                      7) you see a person’s “right leaning tendencies” as a sign of no credibility.

                      8) you pick up on small gaps in a comment and insert pedantry. This is a comment board, not a thesis defense… Sometimes you have to fill in the gaps with a reasonable standard, not an adversarial one.

                      I’ve said this a few times, but the actual point that you bring up in many discussions is not a bad one. If somebody takes the time to distill your base point out of all the posturing and fluffery, it is quite defensible. However, your style of argumentation is grating and in need of massive overhaul. I’ve debated and conversed with quite a few left libertarians, and they have influenced my ideology as I’ve gotten deeper into libertarianism. However, they’re not consistently argumentative or pedantic, so it’s a general joy to talk with them, even if we disagree.

                    9. Bo is playing the same game MNG and Joe from Lowell before him played. The idea is to make Reason and its comentary boards a controlled opposition to the Left. You are never going to make Reason liberal. So the goal is to make it a controlled opposition that does more damage to the right than it does to left.

                      The way to do that is target every commenter who is to the right of the spectrum and marginalize them as “conservatives” and “not true libertarian” so that what is acceptable becomes a more leftwing friendly version of libertarianism that viciously attacks the GOP and the right while giving a few “those crazy well meaning Dems sure are stupid but not as bad as the Republicans” yeah but criticisms.

                      It is why Joe and MNG always went after me and my posts more than anyone. I was the most noticeable person on this board from the right side of the spectrum. Bo is just picking up the mantle here.

                    10. To be fair, John, sometimes you go really, really off. Like the time you accused me of being an Obama supporter, speculating that McCain reminded me of naval aviators who had raped me in the shower.

                      You also tend to paint people with too broad a brush (if you inserted the adjective “many” before the word leftists in your diatribes it would make me grind my teeth a lot less).

                      But you do know a fair bit about law and history and related subjects and do occasionally admit that you are wrong.

                      It is easy to forget that you are a Yankees fan.

                    11. Of course I go off the rails. Everyone does. That is the fun of such a board.

                      I don’t remember the McCain incident. But in the light of day now, I can see where he would.

                      Here is the difference between me and the lefties I mention above; I will give unqualified criticism of the Republicans. There are plenty of times on here where I will call out the Republicans in pointed ways without any “yeah but the Democrats are just as bad” qualifications. Those people don’t do that with the Democrats.

                      One of the ways I used to torture Joe and MNG on here was to challenge them to list one Democratic Politician they would vote Republican to see removed from office and give one example of where the Democrats are wrong and worse than the Republicans.

                      They never would give me an answer, yet would insist that there were things they didn’t agree with the Democrats on and Democratic politicians they loathed. But they could never bring themselves to say exactly how they disagreed and which politicians they loathed.

                      I will and often do both of those things with regards to the Republicans. That more than anything is why I held Joe and MNG in such low regard. It wasn’t that I disagreed with them. It was that they were dishonest. They were nothing but partisan Democrats who pretended otherwise. The Democrat part is fine. It is the pretending otherwise that made them so loathsome.

                    12. They can pretend to be anything they want for all I care. The only things that I look for in a reason commentator are 1) good faith debate and 2) logically rigorous arguments.

                      I couldn’t give a flip if I’m arguing with an AnCap or a commie, as long as they debate with good faith and logical rigor.

                    13. That is just it, trshmnster, Joe and MNG never argued in good faith, because they were never honest about what they believed and were on here just to be assholes rather than debate the issues.

                    14. Agreed. For the record, if somebody were to make a sock puppet prog or socon and successfully pull it off so they didn’t come off as a troll, I would welcome that. A good devil’s advocate makes for great sparring practice.

                    15. I agree. I have thought about doing it sometimes. I could do the SOCON but the Prog would be hard. It is just an intellectually bankrupt ideology.

                      You certainly could argue the hard edges of Libertarianism. Say that not everyone is cut out to make it on their own and as a society we need to recognize and account for that. But you would end up sounding more like a mushy GOP moderate rather than a real Prog. I don’t know how you argue as a real prog without being totally disingenuous or coming off as completely nuts.

                    16. but the Prog would be hard.

                      Not really. It’s quite easy. It’s all based upon envy. Feelings. Just shut off that part of your brain that separates you from animals, and feel. React. Don’t respond, just react. Feel the envy and outrage at all the unfairness in the world. Look at government as us, and the corporations as them. Then think of how government can punish the corporations for evilly employing people while providing goods and services to willing customers.

                    17. When you view society as a whole, individuals may contribute very little, if at all, to the continuation of injustices that have lasted for generations, but they still bear a responsibility for correcting those injustices. After all, how can blacks or women or LGBTQ persons be truly equal if they are not in a position to be able to exercise their equality? By having the privileged sacrifice just a small amount of their privilege, the disadvantaged can be brought to true equality Just like liberty is useless without the means to exercise it, so is equality.

                      /My impression of a thinking prog

          2. The gun control guy demanded that I give a reason why anyone should be allowed to own more than two guns, and I told him the burden of proof is on him. He screamed and yelled at me, hung up, and refused to answer any further calls.

            The minimum wage guy got all mad because I want everyone to be a slave to the corporations, called me a bunch of names, and I haven’t heard from him since.

            1. I’ve seen you disagree with people here and you can be quote nasty (not John levels of quick go-to-nasty, but it’s there). I’m sure none of that was a factor.

              1. That’s because “here” is an online forum filled with people who are not my friends, nor anyone who I ever plan to meet in person. So I am less restrained here than, say, with someone I would call friend.

                1. Sure you are, sarcasmic, sure you are. I’m sure you’re just a happy, easy-going fellow when you’re not cursing out strangers who commit the sin of disagreeing with you online.

                  1. One thing is for sure Bo. No circumstances exist in this world under which I would call you friend. None. Zero. Nada. Feel free to take that personally.

                    1. Oh noes!

                  2. Bo, stop being a douche. Seriously.

                    1. Restoras, if you view two people talking, and one talks to the other like “Go fuck yourself. Ass.” and the other doesn’t, and your issue is with the one who doesn’t, calling him a ‘douche’, then you too might be lacking in normal interpersonal skills. See, most people would think that if anyone is being a ‘douche’ it is the guy who is cursing out a stranger just because he doesn’t believe his story about how his friends won’t talk to him anymore because he whipped them in an argument so well.

                    2. Except, you aren’t talking face to face. You are exchanging messages on a chat board anonymously. Different rules of decorum apply. Insults and ITG Syndrome are de rigueur. In fact, you engage in it yourself though in a very smug, backhand manner.

                    3. No one is immune to being a little disagreeable, but I try not to initiate it and don’t curse people. That’s a bit unhinged in most society. This ‘it’s the internet’ excuse for such behavior is one that is only convincing to other regulars on the internet argument boards, most people in ‘real life’ are turned off by it here and in the ‘real world.’

                    4. I don’t think it is at all unreasonable to have a different set of decorum on an internet chat board. Sure, being wantonly disagreeable is annoying and petty insults are ridiculous and pointless – but since you generally can’t behave that way face to face with people without risking getting your ass kicked I think the venting that people can engage in here is a good thing.

                      In moderation of course, as with all things.

                    5. I think there is something sad about people who need to run to some anonymous forum to act in ways they won’t act in ‘real life.’ This is real life too. We should act like we want, the way we think we should, here and there.

                    6. In real life, you simply cannot always act and speak as you like. People are far too judgmental and generally unwilling to challenge themselves on their own belief structures regardless what they are, political, religious, or otherwise.

                      I agree it is sad, or unfortunate, or whatever, but that’s also just the way it is.

                    7. Bo, you are in fact being a douche.

                    8. How so? I mean, articulate it. Because I seem to find that for a regular group of posters here ‘being a douche’ greatly overlaps with ‘not going along with the right leaning party.’ I don’t think the left base is any worse than the right base, and I think when a right leaning fellow tells a story about how his leftist friends won’t talk to him because in a disagreement they ‘couldn’t deal with his logic’ that he’s probably seeing that from a glass darkly. I get that if you want everyone to go along with the moment then you might find my behavior ‘douchey,’ but that’s a pretty odd definition of it.

                    9. Because you immediately launched into a personal attack against sarcasmic by mocking him. He never used the words “superior logic”. You created the phrase, attributed it to sarcasmic, and then mocked him for using the phrase. The phrase you created.

                      Then, when called out about it, you get defensive and try to attack other posters. That’s douchy.

                    10. Talk about pedanticism! But, let’s play. When you say that someone can’t refute your logic that’s not equivalent to saying your logic was superior?

                    11. “Bo, stop being a douche. Seriously.”

                      But then what would he have?

                    12. Bo, stop being a douche. Seriously

                      Might as well tell a fish to dry off.

                      A doucheless Bo can not exist.

                    13. Bo, stop being a douche. Seriously

                      Might as well tell a fish to dry off.

                      A doucheless Bo can not exist.

                      Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Add Obtuse Pedantic Contrarians to My Reasonable Filter.

                    14. You might as well ask the grass to stop being green or the sky to stop being blue, Restoras.

                    15. It’s fascinating to see the wagons circled here. John admits he’s not a libertarian, but a conservative Republican. Bill goes to Thursday night GOP meetings. I haven’t forgotten Restoras’ admission not long ago that he would support a local community blocking gambling between consenting adults.

                      Let me propose something incredible, perhaps: maybe, just maybe, there’s for whatever reason a lot of conservatives on this site. And, incredible as it may seem, conservatives are more likely to pick up on, notice, etc., leftists being jerks than people they agree with being jerks!

                      Now here’s what’s great: if someone doubts one of them on this, thinking it has more to do with their own leanings than the people that stopped talking to them, then of course that person too is an example of someone not agreeing with them, and, thus, being a douche.

                      The lack of self awareness is amazing.

                    16. The lack of self awareness is amazing

                      Pot, meet Kettle.

                    17. It’s fascinating to see the wagons circled here.

                      The only thing that happened is a statement was made by a commenter, you twisted the statement into a different statement not made by the commenter to cast him in poor light, and you got called out on it.

                      I find nothing fascinating about that at all.

                    18. 1. I didn’t twist it. Saying ‘they couldn’t refute my logic’ is equivalent to saying ‘my logic was superior.’

                      2. Sarcasmic’s story ringed of the kind of self servingness that casts others in a poor light when they disagree with you and stop speaking to you. I just doubted his story. Ironically, now you guys are supposed to be upset with me because I’m being condescending for not accepting his condescending story!

                      I submit a better way to make sense of the upset is: we tend to focus on ‘progs’ here and we like to get into long group discussions where we revile ‘progs’ primarily, and you’re trying to bust that up, and we don’t like it!

                    19. 1. I didn’t twist it.

                      Yes you did twist it and you did so insidiously, with malice and attempt to discredit someone.

                    20. 1. I didn’t twist it. Saying ‘they couldn’t refute my logic’ is equivalent to saying ‘my logic was superior.’

                      That assumes the other person was using logic, which is not a valid assumption.

                      But I already said that, and you ignored it. That is one of the many reasons why no one likes you. You make assertions, and when they are refuted you personally attack people.

                      Ironically, now you guys are supposed to be upset with me because I’m being condescending for not accepting his condescending story!

                      Don’t flatter yourself. No one is upset with you. Disgusted perhaps, but not upset.

                      As others pointed out, they believed my story because they have had similar interactions with progressives who got upset when their emotional stances were trounced with logic and reason.

                      The fact that they could personally relate to my anecdote, combined with your personal attacks on my, is why they are disgusted with you.

                      It’s you, Bo. Face it. When everyone agrees that you are an ass, and they are all saying the same reasons as to why you are an ass, then maybe you are and ass.

                      If you had any humility at all you would pause for self reflection, but you won’t. You’re like some kid who is getting picked on for doing something stupid, and your mommy keeps telling you that it is all them.

                    21. Again, Bo, you really are tiresome.

                      I’ve demonstrated many times to you that the two categories – libertarian and Republican – are not mutually exclusive (Ron Paul, Rand Paul, the last two Libertarian candidates for president until they ran on the Libertarian ticket).

                      But, again, none of this has any bearing on the argument. Someone’s claim is accurate or not, regardless of whether the person is a conservative or a libertarian.

                    22. It’s fascinating to see the wagons circled here. John admits he’s not a libertarian, but a conservative Republican. Bill goes to Thursday night GOP meetings. I haven’t forgotten Restoras’ …..

                      I don’t feel any inclination to make a sound, let alone valid, argument against Bo. But I’m sure I would much rather go out drinking with John (to teach me about Porsche’) or Sarcasmic (who doesn’t hate pigs nearly as much as I do) any day.

                  3. I feel pretty confident that Bo treats people in person with the same level of condescension and contempt as he treats people in online forums.

                    So, he’s got that going for him.

                    1. I am starting to think you are right, RC. From what I’ve seen it never ends well.

                    2. Again, try this outside the internet community bubble.

                      Tell someone “I heard a conversation today between two guys. The first guy said that people that disagree with him have stopped talking to him because in the agreements ‘they couldn’t refute his logic.’ The second guy said ‘I’m not sure about that, perhaps your idea that your logic was superior turned these people off more than your logic itself?’

                      Now, ask the person, which person is condescending? Because I’m betting most people will say that someone who says his friends stopped talking to them because they couldn’t handle his logic is going to be the one fingered for condescension.

            2. The gun control guy demanded that I give a reason why anyone should be allowed to own more than two guns

              I agree that he needs to prove that there is a good reason why you should be limited to two guns. But I’d star with: “well, you need at least one shotgun, one higher powered rifle, one .22 rifle and a handgun.” Gotta have the right tool for the job.

              Fortunately, most of my lefty friends are pretty good on guns and don’t get all weird because I have a bunch of them.

              1. At least one handgun. I think you need to have one each in two popular calibers.

                .45 and a 9mm; .45 and .40 SW; .45 and .380 ACP; .45 and .44 Magnum – you can even have a rifle in the .44 Magnum so double bonus!

                1. Yeah. Nice to have an auto and a revolver too. Which reminds me that I might actually have enough money for a new revolver now.

                2. You can have a rifle in any of those calibers (except .380, as far as I know)

              2. Well, the .22 is for plinking, the 9mm was cheap, the Nagant is for the history, the Saiga is there for anything big enough for a .308, the .410 is for vermin…

        2. Everyone has a story like that. Yet, I have never heard a similar story from anyone on the Left about someone on the Right ending a friendship over politics.

          1. A Pauline Kael moment.

            1. If these stories exist, point to them? You clearly don’t’ have one of your own or you would tell it.

              And this is not a Pauline Kael moment. The Kael statement was an example of ridiculous anecdote because it stood in contrast to the known evidence of the election. Here, there is no election or overwhelming evidence to the point. Anecdotal evidence is all there is. So the complete lack of anecdotal evidence on one side is relevant.

              1. You’ve pointed to no actual evidence either John, just a ‘go look at the comment boards.’ I reply ‘yeah, go look at them.’

                1. My evidence is my own experience and the other people on this board who have experienced the same thing. I also point to John Stossel’s experiences above. His account if very compelling since he travels the country giving speeches for a living and interacts with thousands of people.

                  Where is your evidence to the contrary. Go find me some account by someone on the left who says they lost a friend from the right over politics.

                  1. This is laughable as evidence John, as a lawyer you should know that. “Why, my experience, and some others here, and this famous guy says he’s seen the same thing!” That’s no more weighty than me saying the same thing back to you!

                    1. Bo, as a wannabe lawyer, you should know that you go to court with the evidence you have.

                      We have a number of witnesses supporting John’s point.

                      You got, well, yourself.

                      So far, you’re losing.

                    2. John’s got, what, half a dozen people who’s experience matches him, and a famous person? Notice that a lot of the people agreeing (though surely not all, Zeb and tarran for example don’t strike me as leaning right), have admitted to being on the right side of the spectrum with John, and the observation in question is about people on the left side. And this board has a tilt that way.

                      So I’d say it’s pretty unpersuasive.

                    3. Why? Because leaning to the right automatically discredits someone? That’s an ad hominem argument, Bo. A fallacy. Just like your saying “using logic” is equivalent to “superior logic” is a fallacy because it assumes both parties were using logic.

                      That’s all you got Bo: Fallacies.

                      You’re no different than Tony.

                    4. And if you didn’t notice yet, no one likes Tony. No one likes you either. No one. You will not see anyone jump up to defend you.

                      *crickets*

                      No one.

          2. This is why I love reason. I come her to talk politics, in real life I try not to bring it up because I know my belief system is so far outside the mainstream that I would need hours to explain myself.

            1. Exactly. Like I said in another thread, this place help me stay sane. Out there in the real world when I try to explain that raising the minimum wage is stupid, public debt crowds out private investment, and the dip dish pizza is a mortal sin, people look at me like I have third eye.

        3. About half my high school class that were connected to me on facebook unfriended me over the Newtown school shooting. It was very impressive – and the stupid political shit in my feed dropped from 65% to about 8% instantly.

          A bunch of them won’t acknowledge me anymore – which is quite comical. People who had said in the past they admired my courage to stand for my principles suddenly decided I was an evil threat to civilization.

          Interestingly not even the handful who went into law enforcement and completely embraced the cry-bully culture did that – despite the fact I keep posting snarky comments linking to incidents of police brutality.

          The right-wingers get pissed at my anarchist views, but seem to be able to accept that. In my personal experience – the left is far more intolerant and very, very angry.

          Of course, in Boston one really is swimming in the same proggie swamp that regularly births little faux-intellectual hate-mongers like Elizabeth Warren, so I may be experiencing a significant sampling bias.

          1. You must be some kind of egomanical jerk, tarran. There’s no way anyone would ‘unfriend’ someone over political disagreements.

            1. Of course people unfriend each other over political arguments, and of course it’s often because some people are irrational. My point is that when you’ve got a pattern of behavior of cursing people out for disagreeing, and then you say they stopped talking to you solely because ‘they couldn’t refute my logic’ I’m betting some other personality things were going on.

              1. Bo, I think you are just trying to illustrate to us what an ad hominem looks like.

                Excellent example. Thank you.

                1. Nothing says ad hominen like not believing a guy who relates a story about how his friends won’t talk to him because they couldn’t handle his logic.

              2. I just think there are different rules of decorum for face to face discussions versus internet ones, and both are acceptable.

              3. Except I don’t curse people out on Facebook Bo.

                I vent my spleen semi-anonymously under the tarran nom-de-plume, but when using my regular name, I stick to the ideas.

                Amusingly, the debate that caused the great cut-off started with one fellow writing a diatribe that anyone who supported private ownership of firearms had the blood of children on their hands.

                A bunch of people commented approvingly – and then I arrived. And now they had a problem; they had worked themselves into a frothing rage about how evil people like me were and it was great when it was all depersonalized and about some abstract evil other but now one of us was amongst them.

                They had a stark choice; to back off on the hateful rhetoric or to act in accordance with it.

                And they chose to act on it.

                And lest you assume that I was an asshole to them, I wasn’t. I dispassionately argued for the right to self-defense and explained *why* the police should not be treated as a special class that uniquely had the power to use violence in defense of persons and people. I cited the warning that is the abject failure of gun-control in Mexico – the danger to oppressed minorities such as blacks and gays when disarmed etc.

                The fury of these people was quite impressive – they accused me of all sorts of murderous impulses, racism, homophobia etc. I suspect there was a fair degree of projection involved which was quite disturbing. The years of friendship were instantly negated by me outing myself as a Volkssch?dling.

                1. tarran, in our exchange about the laws of war the other day it took you all of two posts to personally insult me, so I have some doubts about your claim that you just dispassionately argued your case and nothing more.

                  But, apart from that, consider this: I think you’ve told me you come from Massachussets, a Blue State known for it’s gun control sympathies. I come from SC, a Red State known for it’s SoCon sympathies. Perhaps our different experiences just reflect our different environments more than anything else?

                  1. tarran, in our exchange about the laws of war the other day it took you all of two posts to personally insult me, so I have some doubts about your claim that you just dispassionately argued your case and nothing more.

                    You were making an argument that only a very dense person would make in good faith, and I called you on it. But machts nicht; your callowness will either be corrected by experience or you will end up a sad bitter husk as Tony appears to be.

                    Perhaps our different experiences just reflect our different environments more than anything else?

                    My gosh, you are right!!!!! Why didn’t I consider that possibility at all (it would make a great concluding paragraph to the comment I am linking to don’t you think?)?

                    1. “You were making an argument that only a very dense person would make in good faith, and I called you on it.”

                      Yup, again, I’m sure it was just dispassionate analysis that turned off these folks.

                      Sheesh.

                    2. I mean, wow.

                      Tarran: Bo, I’ve had the same experience as sarcasmic where people stop talking to me just because I disagree with them, not because I was insulting, rude or condescending.

                      Bo: I don’t know, tarran, I’ve seen you be pretty quick to be insulting and condescending when someone disagrees with you. Like that discussion we had recently.

                      Tarran: Well, you were making an argument that only a very dense or dishonest person would make!

                      QED

                    3. Yup, again, I’m sure it was just dispassionate analysis that turned off these folks.

                      Sheesh.

                      Well, Bo, if you want to accuse me of being a liar, be my guest! 🙂

                      I do, however encourage you to consider that given your history of completely misunderstanding what people are saying – for example accusing my of Confederate apologia for describing the psychological bond that enemies who survive a battle feel with each other – or accusing (bizarre for a lawyer) people who value the rule of law as being apologists for aggression (the thread where I called you dense) – that perhaps people aren’t nasty to you because you are telling truth to power, but because you are a very contemptible lazy thinker who emotes his way through discussions and can’t be arsed off enough to actually listen to what people who disagree with him are saying.

                      Again, I strongly encourage you to not go into litigation. You might do OK in transactional law (if you can find a state where you can pass the bar). I personally suggest that you stay out of law; you don’t have the attitude and personality to do a good job representing clients.

                    4. “but because you are a very contemptible lazy thinker who emotes his way through discussions and can’t be arsed off enough to actually listen to what people who disagree with him are saying.”

                      Again, I’m sure you just dispassionately disagreed with these people, because it’s not like you seem to have some pattern that you can’t help (I mean, like one that would have to manifest itself in a very discussion where you’re staking on you not engaging in the behavior) of insulting those you disagree with.

                    5. Tarran: Bo, I’ve had the same experience as sarcasmic where people stop talking to me just because I disagree with them, not because I was insulting, rude or condescending.

                      Bo: I don’t know, tarran, I’ve seen you be pretty quick to be insulting and condescending when someone disagrees with you. Like that discussion we had recently.

                      Tarran: Well, you were making an argument that only a very dense or dishonest person would make!

                      Bo: Er, see, you’re doing the very thing I suspect you might have done to turn people you disagree with off.

                      Tarran: But that’s only because you are a very contemptible lazy thinker who emotes his way through discussions and can’t be arsed off enough to actually listen to what people who disagree with him are saying! Now for some more insults!

                      Bo: Er, Sheesh.

                    6. Let’s see, I write:

                      I do, however encourage you to consider that given your history of completely misunderstanding what people are saying – for example accusing my of Confederate apologia for describing the psychological bond that enemies who survive a battle feel with each other – or accusing (bizarre for a lawyer) people who value the rule of law as being apologists for aggression (the thread where I called you dense) – that perhaps people aren’t nasty to you because you are telling truth to power, but because you are a very contemptible lazy thinker who emotes his way through discussions and can’t be arsed off enough to actually listen to what people who disagree with him are saying.

                      Bo characterizes it as me saying:

                      But that’s only because you are a very contemptible lazy thinker who emotes his way through discussions and can’t be arsed off enough to actually listen to what people who disagree with him are saying! Now for some more insults!

                      Frankly, Bo, I am grateful; it’s always gratifying to have an opponent submit the evidence that makes my case.

                      You have a nice day now. 😉

                2. I avoid politics like the plague on FB, other than with libertarians and anarchists. In fact, I’ve used the political posts of friends to filter out the worst idiocy, by blocking their sources. Now, my feed is virtually free of gibbering lunacy.

                  Life’s too short.

          2. “to about 8%”

            Shriek is a fb friend of yours?!

          3. the cry-bully culture

            Excellent. Stealing that.

        4. That’s a shame. I carefully pick which friends to argue with about that sort of thing. I have some very good friends with whom I have had some awesome arguments (completely traumatizing the other people in the car with us in one case). For the most part, though, I sort of let people know that I don’t completely agree with them and try to change the subject.

          1. That’s what I do. I’ve frankly lost very few friends over my political beliefs. I go to a ‘SoCon’ church and my classes are disproportionately African-American card carrying Democrats. I don’t deny my positions that might disagree with theirs, but I don’t throw it in their faces (in return they usually don’t do the same to me), and when we disagree I don’t pretend that I am not persuading them because ‘they can’t refute my logic.’ I think most disagreements come not from logical disagreement, but different starting points on values anyway.

        5. When your entire ideology is based on fiction and lies, you can’t tolerate logical debate since that is not a path to victory for you.

      3. Evidence: the way the left represents the Tea Party. My understanding of the Tea Party is that one their biggest beefs is the Federal Spending. Read: economic issues.

        But when I read about the left talking about the Tea Party, you’d think they were Jew-hating National Socialist. To me, the irony is that vitriol that pink-shirt spew towards the Tea Party has way more common with brown-shirts.

        1. Shit, if I would have seen Suthenboy|12.3.14 @ 9:47AM|#, I would have posted this there. Fuck threaded comments.

    7. Nothing screams ‘let me take you seriously’ than an older white woman in dreadlocks.

    8. I find out everybody’s in the same boat

      It’s funny how mentally ill people think that everyone else thinks exactly the same way that they do.

    9. In all of the ‘tea party is made up of nazis and racists’ stories I have yet to see one tea partier given as an example or a single instance of their vileness. The claim is made that they are awful people and the claim is never substantiated.

      Oh wait, there was that one time that nbc filmed the white supremist carrying the machine gun at a tea party rally. At least they have that.

      1. In all of the ‘tea party is made up of nazis and racists’ stories I have yet to see one tea partier given as an example or a single instance of their vileness

        The people making those statement do not know any tea partiers, have never known one, talked to one, or even know anyone who knows one. They have been told that the tea party is evil. So they are. They have been told that the Koch Brothers are evil. They don’t even know who the Koch Brothers are, what they do, or anything about them. These folks don’t think, they get their talking points and run with them.

        1. When the Tea Party started up I attended several of their events. Most of them are really nice people, older people and some younger people for whom the bailouts were the last straw. I’d say they were angry, but their anger was ‘righteous’ and not unhinged. There were some angry jerks at these events, same as anywhere else, but most people just had a strong opinion about something that matters to them.

      2. The Tea Party are all racists but they would all march on Washington to make Ben Carson President if they had the opportunity.

        Two of the biggest stars in the Tea Party universe are Mia Love and Ben Carson, both of whom are black. But every liberal knows the Tea Party is nothing but a racist white supremacist movement that is driven by their inability to accept a black man is President. How the hell do liberals manage to function with that kind of cognitive dissonance going on in their heads?

        1. The Tea Party is white.
          The Tea Party are SoCons
          Ben Carson and Mia Love aren’t “real” blacks.
          The Tea Party are racists

          /Bo logic

      3. Oh wait, there was that one time that nbc filmed the white supremist carrying the machine gun at a tea party rally.

        I thought that was actually a black guy, and it took a little editing to make sure that wasn’t apparent.

    10. “What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.”

  15. “Nevermind the freedom of expression guaranteed by Egypt’s new constitution, I guess. ”

    Hey, no rights are absolute. You can’t yell An-nar in a crowded theater for example.

  16. Fuck overlays that you can’t close if you have your browser set not to load images.

    1. Poor guy couldn’t make it long enough to see the Cup go back to the Great White North.

      1. Detroit is north of Windsor. 😉

    2. And Gordie Howe – hallowed by his name – is recovering from another stroke.

      1. At least Gordon Bombay is alive and well.

      2. Gordie’s son is claiming it wasn’t actually another stroke. (At least, not what sent Gordie to the hospital over the weekend.)

        1. Saw the headline the other day via the Detroit Free Press. Of course the Freep isn’t exactly the greatest paper out there.

          1. I heard a report on the CBC this morning that Gordie’s son is disputing the stroke report. Of coure, the son could be spreading disinformation.

    3. NOOOOO! I didn’t know.

      Holy shit.

      Without doubt one of the greatest and classiest athlete in professional sports history.

      Sad.

  17. Clinton camp says long-shot Democratic challengers still pose a real threat

    All of the possible challengers are long shots against Clinton and would face a steep climb against the well-known former secretary of state. Many Clinton supporters also say competition would help her by honing her campaigning skills and discouraging the sense of entitlement that damaged her White House bid in 2008.

    But each of the emerging challengers also appeals to a constituency within the Democratic Party that Clinton has struggled with in the past. And unlike Clinton ? who has yet to formulate a clear message for a potential campaign ? each has distinct issues to build a campaign around.

    1. Hillary has no claim to the nomination other than “I was married to Bill and might bring back the good old days” and “its a woman’s turn”. Well, she is not the only women and a lot of people in the Democratic Party don’t view her husband’s term in office as the good old days. She is a paper tiger.

      Her mistake was becoming Secretary of State and associating herself with Obama. The smart move would have been to stay in the Senate and spent the last six years playing Casandra for Obama’s disasters. Instead, she is associated with them.

      1. John, the next time you are in Boston visiting the in laws, count how many cars you see with anti-war stickers and a “Ready for Hillary” bumper sticker.

        I generally see about 5 a week. And they still bring a contemptuous sneer to my lip.

        1. Boston is not America Tarran. It is not even the Democratic Party. And how many of those people with those stickers would go for fauxchontus if she ran?

          I bet Warren would win any Mass Democratic Primary you held.

          1. True, it’s more my laughter at the sort of moron who:
            1) Thinks politics is important enough to festoon their car with political bumper stickers.
            2) Has anti-war views
            3) IS UTTERLY OBLIVIOUS TO CLINTON’S CHEERING FOR THE IRAQ WAR!!!!

            The incident that made me aware of the insane anti-war Hillary supporter was a car with a “Bush Lied – People Died” bumper sticker with a “Ready for Hillary” sticker symmetrically posted on the opposite side of the car. I wanted to take a picture of it, but couldn’t get the phone positioned before they took the off-ramp.

            1. The senior foreign policy correspondent for HuffPo I think was on some conservatives pod cast and didn’t know that Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998.

              You have to remember how willfully ignorant these people are. The entire history of the 1990s and Clinton’s enforcement of the no fly zone and his hawkishness on Iraq has gone down the memory hole. You want to torture these people sometime, do a few google searches and feed some the things Al Gore said about Iraq and the threat posed by Saddam to them. They honestly believe the US went to war with Iraq under both Bushes and no Democrat had anything to do with it.

      2. “Hillary has no claim to the nomination other than “I was married to Bill and might bring back the good old days” and “its a woman’s turn”.”

        I wouldn’t underestimate the political appeal of either of those, irrational as they may be.

  18. But cattle farmers say opponents of the hunts don’t witness the damage coyotes can do to livestock.

    Hell, if you want to kill some coyotes, come to my neighborhood. The coyotes are eating cats and little dogs. I live in an urban neighborhood three blocks from the beach.

    Every time I see one I think, “That is one ugly, mangy dog.” Then I remember, it’s a coyote.

  19. A Story Too Useful to Verify?
    Rolling Stone’s UVA rape story has sent shock waves ? and stretched credulity.

    Erdely expounds: “Andy seconded the opinion, adding that since he and Randall both planned to rush fraternities, they ought to think this through. The three friends launched into a heated discussion about the social price of reporting Jackie’s rape . . . ”

    Really? Neither boy put Jackie’s medical needs above their pledge prospects? What a convenient conversation for an expos? of rape culture ? it reads like a script written for a feminist avant-garde theater troupe. Similarly, when Jackie reports what happened to school authorities ? again, a brutal, premeditated gang rape by nearly half the pledge class of a prominent fraternity ? the dean is described as responding with all of the emotion you’d expect if Jackie requested to change majors. Meanwhile, it was all kept hush-hush until Erdely reported it.

    1. Hanna Rosin from Slate is now questioning the story. I think its total, spectacular collapse is imminent.

      1. Yeah. When you have written a campus rape story and have lost Hanna Rosin, you are in a lot of trouble to say the least.

    2. Robby needs to screencap that Jezebel post before they disappear it.

      1. Yeah, that will be gold if the story falls apart. Make sure to get his comments and their responses too. The accusations that the people skeptical of the story were just acting on emotion or feelings were especially awesome.

        1. Epi is right, it really is all projection.

    3. I can’t figure out why anyone gives Rolling Stone the benefit of the doubt. They are masters of ultra-liberal clickbait.

      1. Someone in my office subscribes to that rag. They keep leaving old copies in the break room.

        Puerile drivel is too kind an assessment of the writing in that sad sack of a magazine.

        1. you should start leaving your copy of reason on top of the rolling stone mag.

        2. Hey now, I’ve got a subscription to RS. Not sure how the fuck it happened, but I suspect I missed one of those automatically checked boxes that proclaims ‘Of course I want shit sent to me’ when I was buying a concert ticket.

          I’ve never even looked at cover, yet alone opened it.

          1. They’re so desperate for numbers that they randomly subscribe people. I get Sports Illustrated, Midwest Living, and Rolling Stone to my dad’s address (haven’t lived there in 8 years). It all started shortly after graduating high school.

    4. Where does Nancy Grace stand on this? She had such awesome integrity on the Duke Lacross case I would trust evidence based her judgment.

      1. *I would trust her evidence based judgment. Way to fuck up some snark, Troy.

  20. City looking to fine truckers $5K for hitting low bridges

    As of Oct. 2, the Cambridge Street bridge had been hit 20 times this year, and there were eight other bridge strikes in Worcester. Police said they began electronically tracking bridge crashes for the first time at the beginning of 2014.

    Police in October said they believe the main reason for the strikes is that out-of-town truck drivers “put too much trust” in their GPS systems and ignore the signs posting the height of some of the city’s lower bridges.

    Currently, drivers receive $40 tickets for hitting a bridge. The legislation would make it unlawful for the driver of any vehicle to strike bridges with posted heights. It does not explicitly say whether the driver or the owner of the truck would be liable for the fine and other charges.

    1. There’s a great video on Youtube of a particular bridge which has claimed numerous victims. It’s so bad that the city installed an iron crossbeam to protect the bridge, as well as flashing warning lights before it. Can’t look it up because I’m at work.

  21. The Axis of Evil have identified the world’s true villain: Canada

    North Korea, Cuba and Iran Criticize Canada’s Lack of Human Rights at UN

    1. Just because NK, Cuba, and Iran are evil doesn’t mean Canada can’t be evil too.

      1. What with their floppy heads and gravy on french fries… clearly evil.

        1. Yeah, and that “aboot” shit.

    2. There’s that UN credibility at work again.

    1. I believe either Taylor is completely insane and that is why she doesn’t have a man or she knows she is hot, rich, famous and young, and thus can be extremely picky. Also she is an attractive girl but when you stand her next to a victoria’s secret angel she fades to the background.

      1. She better be get picky quickly because I doubt her looks will last. She’s already losing that baby fat in her face.

      2. thus can be extremely picky.

        Nah, she just needs a guy with enough balls to smack her around a little.

        /dear SJW lurkers, I said, “a little.”

    2. Dammit, why did she have to go with the granny panties? Women’s fashion has really gone downhill since the early-mid 2000s.

      I’m with Zeb on this. Just ditch the clothing all together.

    3. She is one of those people that by all objective measures should be very attractive, but for some reason just doesn’t do it for me.

      1. I think it’s all in the makeup. If she were just a girl walking down the street with minimal makeup, nobody would bat an eye.

        1. I’d probably like her better then. I don’t like makeup that looks like makeup.

    4. How’d they get a walking stick insect into women’s undies?

      She really, really does nothing for me.

  22. The burning goat is back:

    The biggest Christmas Goat in the world

    The strange history of the G?vle Goat began in 1966. A man named Stig Gavl?n came up with the idea of making a giant version of the traditional Swedish Christmas goat of straw. The aim was to attract customers to the the shops and restaurants in the southern part of the town centre.

    On 2 December the 13-metre (42,6 feet) tall, 7-metre long, 3 tonne goat stood on the square. At the stroke of midnight on New Year’s Eve, the goat went up in smoke. The perpetrator was found and charged with vandalism. The G?vle Goat has been burned down 25 times since then.

  23. Thieves steal $2,400 in lingerie from Oregon store

    Police in the Portland suburb of Tualatin say five members of what appears to be an organized theft ring have stolen more than $2,400 worth of high-end lingerie from a store in a shopping center.

    Lt. Greg Pickering said Monday that one of the ring members distracted the lone clerk at Posh Lingerie on Sunday evening while others stole lingerie items.

    The store was able to obtain surveillance photos of the suspects. Police are investigating.

    1. “stolen more than $2,400 worth of high-end lingerie”

      so two thongs

      1. Diamond encrusted thongs.

    2. Victoria’s Secret isn’t cheap, but it wipes the floor with all other competitors. Why anyone would pay $100s for an inferior product is beyond me.

      1. By ‘wipe the floor’ do you mean in quality? Because Victoria’s Secret has the best marketing, not quality.

        1. I mean in terms of making boobs and butts look awesome. I don’t really care about the quality of the stitching. Though for what it’s worth I have to make my wife get rid of old bras not because they are falling apart, but because she has too many and no where to keep them all.

  24. “The University of Texas at Austin has misplaced 100 brains, which were being stored in a basement.”

    Related to their affirmative action program?

  25. Why is Peter Pan always played by a woman? Are the producers suggesting that women are really just little boys that never grow up?

    1. Robin Williams ain’t no…well, wait a minute http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107614/

    2. Women can be just as manly as men. It’s sexist to suggest otherwise.

    3. Maybe they are hardcore Aristotelians.

    4. This girl playing Peter Pan this year is HAWT! She looks like a properly fed Keira Knightly.

      1. She’s on Girls, with Lena Dunham. She has a strict no-nudity contract.

        1. Fuck you sugarfree. Now I’m going to have a Pavlovian gag reflex every time I see Allison Williams thanks to you associating her with Dunham. Oh yeah, how did you know she was on girls sugarfree. It had better been on in the dentist’s office.

          1. I watch Girls. It’s like a slow-motion train wreck involving meat and entitlement.

            1. You all saw it! He admitted to watching girls! Of course now that I think about it, that show probably gives you some material for your “Works of Fiction”, now that I know that Lena “Child-Molester” Dunham is on the show.

              1. All fires require some sort of fuel.

                1. So we’re burning the cast at the stake?

                  1. *runs off excitedly to get gerry can full of diesel*

            2. Sugarfree, you WERE once my hero.

    5. Are the producers suggesting that women are really just little boys that never grow up?

      So, feminists?

    6. Well, because they need someone pixiesh who has the acting range to carry off the lead role. Much easier to find that combo in a twenty-something (or older) actress than a young teen boy.

      Also, that role involves a fly harness and I’d always hear green room stories about the actor who was castrated onstage by a poorly-fit fly harness.

  26. Burt Reynolds’ personal promotional car from ‘Smokey and the Bandit’ for sale

    If there’s anything more iconic about Burt Reynolds than his mustache, it’s the 1977 Pontiac Trans Am from “Smokey and the Bandit.”

    Now, Reynolds is selling just such a car. This one wasn’t used in the film, but was a promotional vehicle for the movie and then given to Reynolds, according to the listing.

    “She features a 400 cid Pontiac V-8 engine with just over 12,000 miles, a 4-barrel carburetor and an automatic transmission,” the listing says. “This is an amazing opportunity to own what just might be the coolest car EVER!”

    The Trans Am has a pre-auction estimate of $60,000 to $80,000, but with more than a week to go, bidding has already reached $70,000.

    The car is part of an auction of some 650 items from the Oscar nominee, including movie memorabilia and props, photos, a letter from Katharine Hepburn and his 1978 People’s Choice Award for Favorite Motion Picture Actor.

    “I have been in the auction community for 25 years and I’ve never seen an opportunity like this,” Museum of Television president James Comisar told Fox News. “My guess is that these artifacts offered in the auction will go for 10 times their estimate.”

    1. I could go for a Cannonball Run remake.

      1. A movie basedcon the guys who recently crushed the coast to coast record would be good too.

    2. Who would want to buy a People’s Choice Award?

      1. People who love trees too much to use toilet paper.

    3. He’s not giving it to Archer?

      1. +1 Gator McClusky

    4. “I have been in the auction community for 25 years and I’ve never seen an opportunity like this,” Museum of Television president James Comisar told Fox News.

      Alles schlar, Herr Comisar?

  27. The California Fish and Game Commission may ban prize hunts for coyotes, under pressure from wildlife advocates. But cattle farmers say opponents of the hunts don’t witness the damage coyotes can do to livestock.

    Well, why does the farmer have livestock to begin with? Everyone MUST adopt a vegan diet and depend solely on non-animal sources!

  28. White America’s scary delusion: Why its sense of black humanity is so skewed

    It is deeply apparent to most black people that the legal proceedings in the grand jury deliberations were a farce. Whether we consider the deliberate incorrect instructions given to jurors by the prosecutor, or the refusal to challenge the incendiary and inhumane characterizations of Michael Brown as “it,” “demon” and “hulk,” black people know that a lie has been perpetrated.

    Too many white people lie comfortably in bed each night with the illusion that justice was served, that the system worked, that the evidence vindicated the view that they need to believe ? that white men do not deliberately murder black boys for sport in this day and time and get away with it. Most well-meaning white people need to believe this. For me as both teacher of different kinds of epistemology and as a black person, I do not have the luxury of believing this. I do not have the luxury of stepping over the bodies of Eric Garner, John Crawford and Tamir Rice, leaving my unasked questions strewn alongside their lifeless bodies.

    1. I will never understand why they seem to shrug at the truly egregious cases of police abuse and focus on one that is questionable at best.

      No way was this cop ever going to get convicted with the physical evidence and conflicting testimonies.

      http://spectator.org/articles/…..rsus-facts

    2. Too many white people leftists lie comfortably in bed each night with the illusion that justice was served, that the system worked, that the evidence vindicated the view that they need to believe ? that white men police unions do not deliberately murder black boys for sport support bad cops in this day and time and get away with it.

    3. kinds of epistemology

      I tend use solipsism based epistemology. Hello any fellow solipsists out there.

    1. It’s totally Congress’s bag, baby.

    2. WAR ON WIMMINZ!!!111!!!

      Oh, wait.

    3. my neighbor recently bought a slightly used Lexus. when she was showing it to me she found a small case in the trunk and opened it. “what’s this?”. don’t touch it I said helpfully. she immediately picked it up. it was a penis pump.

      1. Yuck. Heck, it might have even been taxpayer-funded!

  29. Environmentalist knives sharpen for Hillary as she refuses to stake a position on Keystone Pipeline

    First, Clinton appeared at a private fundraiser for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), an embattled incumbent who favors construction of the massive Keystone XL oil pipeline opposed by environmentalists.

    Just two hours later, Clinton appeared on a different stage to deliver a speech to the League of Conservation Voters ? a mainstream environmental group that strenuously opposes Keystone.

    “The science of climate change is unforgiving,” no matter the continued skepticism about its causes, Clinton said. “The political challenges are also unforgiving. There is no getting around the fact that the kind of ambitious response required to combat climate change is going to be a tough sell at home as well as around the world.”

    She did not mention the pipeline that Landrieu insists is essential to Louisiana.

    The contrasting events illustrate the dilemma facing Clinton, who has declined to take a position on Keystone but needs support from the Democratic Party’s crucial environmental wing if she pursues a presidential bid in 2016.

    1. “The science of climate change is unforgiving,”

      It *is* unforgiving. It just turns out that atmospheric CO2 isn’t the problem that Clinton and guys like Tony pray every night it would be.

    2. The Democratic Party is tearing itself apart. Hillary can’t win the general election unless she convinces a respectable number of working class whites to vote for her. She can’t depend on the kind of epic black turnout that Obama got. But to get working class whites to vote for her, she has to take positions the crazies in the Democratic Party won’t tolerate.

      1. I’m gonna vote for her. But then again, I’m trading in my Schweitzer for misanthropy.

  30. The Affordable Care Act isn’t – Americans Are Spending 42 Percent More on Health Insurance Than They Did in 2007.

    http://dailysignal.com/2014/12…..ance-2007/

    1. So the people who wrote this think its a success.

  31. “The University of Texas at Austin has misplaced 100 brains,”

    That could easily be interpreted as a metaphor of a lost generation of students in all universities judging from the crap we see on campuses across North America.

    1. Damn Rufus beat me.

      I will say it anyway;

      “The University of Texas at Austin has misplaced 100 brains…”

      Why is this news? Every damn university in the country is misplacing brains.

    2. After all, a mind *is* a terrible thing to waste…

      1. You’re worse than Hitler.

      2. “After all, a mind *is* a terrible thing to waste…”

        And an even worse thing to taste

        1. … considering all those brains were probably in formaldehyde….

  32. Some puny congressional aide makes a nasty comment about the Obama kids, and that’s a headline. Meanwhile, In much less important news than Lauten’s Facebook post, Dem staffer pleads guilty to sexual assault

    1. Buttplug will shortly be around to blame Bush.

    2. Media bias is just a rightwing meme.

  33. Bo Cara Esq.|12.3.14 @ 9:31AM|#

    If you can’t see what’s wrong in that comment, I can’t help you.

    “People who disagree with me always get mad at my superior logic and stop talking to me.”

    This right here is what we call an *opportunity*, folks.

  34. So I have already pretty much had it with the onslaught on Christmas Music but then a friend of mine tuned me into the Twisted Sister Xmas album, and I highly approve of it. Enjoy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wid6EJnAKrY

    1. When done well, Christmas music is great. It only sucks when people try to make pop songs out of it.

      Christmas music is like any other form of religious music, if it was made after World War II, it likely sucks donkey balls in the worst way. If it was written before World War II, it can be great and usually the older it is the better it is.

      So some old school English carol like God Rest You Merry Gentleman, great. Jingle Bell Rock, stab your eyes out horrible.

  35. 67 year old homeless man Tai Lam beaten to death on the streets of San Francisco by three men for no apparent reason. And it was caught on video.

    Obama’s America is rapidly degenerating into a sickening, stomach-turning place.

    1. Its a big stretch to blame Obama for San Francisco. The locals have been fucking up the Bay Area just fine without help.

    2. Let the blame game begin.

      Is it the fault of taxpayers for not offering more money on homeless shelters?

      Or it it the fault of taxpayers for not offering more money for mental health services which would prevent homelessness?

      Or is it the fault of capitalism because it causes poverty, like some of my Derpbook “intellectual” “progressive” friends claim?

      It definitely is not the fault of the perpetrators. This is a societal ill.

    3. Obama’s America is rapidly degenerating into a sickening, stomach-turning place.

      What are you talking about?

      The sergeant said two of the suspects are believed to be African-American while the third is believed to be Caucasian.

      Sing it with me! “Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony…”

      1. Yes, I know one of the perps is white. And Tai Lam was pretty obviously an Asian guy, so this wasn’t a simple black on white or white on black crime.

        I’m talking more about the generally toxic and poisonous atmosphere in the country right now than I am about any one particular incident, and the atmosphere seems to be getting worse by the day.

        We were told by Obama’s sycophants that he was going to unite and heal the country like no one ever before, and instead the precise opposite is happening.

    4. “Obama’s America is rapidly degenerating into a sickening, stomach-turning place.”

      Inevitable.

      What you see now would seem like paradise compared to what his policies would usher in were he free to have them all implemented.

  36. UT Austin Sorority President: “Well, girls, our social event went off swimmingly. I want to thank Beatrice for getting those large hamburger patties – when we cooked them up they were delicious!”

    Beatrice: “Well, they were just lying there in the basement of some building – it seemed a pity not to put them to good use!”

  37. There’s no bandwagon Lady Gaga won’t jump on.

    Lady Gaga revealed on The Howard Stern Show Tuesday that she was raped as a teen.

    The singer, 28, made the revelation after host Howard Stern asked about the controversy surrounding her performance of “Swine” at SXSW in March. During the song, “vomit painter” Millie Brown spewed neon green liquid all over the pop star. “Everyone’s just looking for something to bitch about,” Gaga said with a sigh. “Just lighten up! It’s art! My friend Millie?she lives in London?it’s her art form. She doesn’t eat food and vomit it up. She swallows gallons of paint, OK? She’s a hardcore bitch. She swallows paint and then she regurgitates it on canvases in rainbows and color. It’s bizarre to watch, and sometimes there’s techno in the background, and sometimes someone’s singing, and sometimes it’s in silence.”

    1. “When the flush of a new-born sun fell first on Eden’s green and gold,
      Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mould;
      And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
      Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, ‘It’s pretty, but is it Art ?'”

      *sighs, returns to cabinet to retrieve bottle of bourbon*

    2. The benchmark for parody keeps getting higher and higher.

  38. Beer related: I finally signed my lease on Monday. Now the long permit process begins!

  39. Student Fakes a Rape Threat to Advance Diversity Initiatives

    A federal investigation revealed that a racist rape threat against a University of Chicago student activist was actually fake, written by the student’s friend to gain support for their cultural-sensitivity initiatives.

    Freshman Derek Caquelin posted a threat against junior Vincente Perez on his own Facebook wall on November 18 ? and then claimed a racist hacker must have done it.

  40. Believe the victim. Unless it’s a man.

    Whatever the legal implications, giving a national platform to someone who considers himself a victim of a false rape accusation implies that false accusations are more common than they are and reinforces the idea that victims of rape deserve part, if not all, of the blame for their own assault.
    Encouraging sympathy for the accused and blame towards the victim is one of the major factors contributing to the ongoing prevalence of rape and impunity of rapists.

    The victim is him, you moron. He’s the fucking victim.

    1. giving a national platform to someone who considers himself a victim of a false rape accusation implies that false accusations are more common than they are and reinforces the idea that victims of rape deserve part, if not all, of the blame for their own assault.

      “Take one for the team, you sissy-pants!”

    2. Rape is a serious crime. Falsely accusing someone of that crime is also a serious crime that isn’t much better than rape if the false accusation results in someone being imprisoned.

    3. “And why has the overwhelming response to The Guardian’s piece been to believe the anonymous letter-writer (the man falsely accused) instead of the victim( the woman who made the false accusation) ?”

      There it is. The woman who made the false accusation is referred to as the actual victim after a lengthy but false argument is made to discredit the existence of false accusations of rape.

      All women are rape victims and all men are rapists I guess.

  41. The AK-47 is getting a re-brand.

    It’s going to be sold now as the “Ass-Kicker 47”

    1. Freedom Fighter Starter Kit

  42. Jesus wept.

    I’ll admit it: I used to be on the Hate Train on these women (and many others) as well. But then I started to do something that drastically changed my perception of famous women: I assume that all criticism of women is rooted in misogyny.

    I know that some of you are cringing at that and think I’m overreacting. But think about it: when you live in an overtly sexist (or racist, or homophobic, or ableist?etc.) society, do you truly think your judgements are free of bias? Completely? I don’t think so. If you aren’t actively fighting your internal biases at all times, you’re being influenced by them.

    “But I’m not a sexist! I love women!” you think. I know. But you still have sexist thoughts and behaviors. You were raised in a sexist society and you live in a sexist society. You are the product of a sexist society, and that means you have biases, whether you admit them or not. You probably think “I’d have the same reaction if it were a man (or a white person, or whatever), but you wouldn’t.

    Proof by asertion. And the bolding is from the article.

    1. But you still have sexist thoughts and behaviors. You were raised in a sexist society and you live in a sexist society.

      “The road to salvation starts by accepting that you’re a sinner and by refusing yourself from worldly matters.”

      1. I like to file the constant attempts to insert Judeo-Christian ethical concepts into secular debate without a hit of self-awareness in my ‘Nietzsche was right’ folder.

    2. I suppose sexist could be taken to mean that you don’t think that men and women are the same in every non-anatomical way. If that is the definition, though, pretty much everyone is sexist and sexism and misogyny are completely separate things.

      I really think that no one does more harm to the cause of equal treatment of women and racial minorities than the assholes who assume that every disparity is caused by misogyny or racism.

    3. It is original sin Coeus. We are all born misogynistic racist cripple haters therefore we are not allowed to speak. We can only absolve ourselves by joining the church of progressive feminism.

      Let us pray.

  43. The University of Texas at Austin has misplaced 100 brains, which were being stored in a basement.

    “The Great Brain Robbery”

    1. Damn you OM.

      I went and made a cup of coffee, was just sipping/sitting down and looked up to see that.

      Damn you.

      1. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
        This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  44. Hey, realize it’s a bit late for folks to still be reading here, but I wanted to followup on the bit from the OathKeepers thread linked above. Commenter OneOut said (on that other thread) that “[a] Sheriff’s oath of office is to protect the Constitution…”

    Anyone got a cite for that? Not being combative, but I’d really like to know. Also, assuming that means the constitutions of the various states since sheriffs are not federal officials. IMU (IANAL) they are purely county/city level officials.

  45. ” “It’s entirely possible…people started swiping them for living rooms or Halloween pranks,””

    “Yes… yes…. that’s just what they’ve done… YOU FOOL!!

    HA HAHAA HA HA HAHA HAHAHAA!! My plans are coming together just as I had… planned!! And soon, SOON! My Cyborg Army will be unleashed to crush my enemies and take over…. Stop twittering you robotic freaks, and listen here! SOON WE WILL RULE WITH AN IRON… ok, yes, ‘Titanium’, thanks X341B…. A TITANIUM FIST!! AND ALL MANKIND SHALL FEAR…. what? ‘What about ‘Womyn-Kind’?! Cis-what?? What the hell have you cyborgs been doing on *Jezebel*? And damn my eyes, are your brains disintegrating??””

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.