The Independents

On The Independents One-Year Anniversary Show: Tortured Grubers, LeBron & Lena, Julian Sanchez, Scott Brown, More Heroes of Freedom, and Saucy Aftershow!

|

Better days. |||

Tonight The Independents (Fox Business Network, 9 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. PT, repeats three hours later) is largely concerned with the two huge pieces of news from Capitol Hill today: the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's long-overdue release of the (summary of the) Torture Report, and smarmy Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber being grilled by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Joining to discuss are Party Panelists Charles W. Cooke (National Review) and Sherrod Small (comedian), as well as Cato Institute scholar and former Reasoner Julian Sanchez, ex-CIA intel dude Mike Baker, and serial senatorial loser Scott Brown. Other topics to be discussed include royal protocol, the president on Colbert, Lena Dunham's legal woes, and our latest Heroes of Freedom.

Online-only aftershow begins at foxbusiness.com/independents just after 10. Follow The Independents on Facebook at facebook.com/IndependentsFBN, follow on Twitter @ independentsFBN, hashtag us at #TheIndependents, and click on this page for more video of past segments.

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.

334 responses to “On The Independents One-Year Anniversary Show: Tortured Grubers, LeBron & Lena, Julian Sanchez, Scott Brown, More Heroes of Freedom, and Saucy Aftershow!

    1. We should be so lucky

    2. My god, he was locked in a room with Pelosi. Hasn’t he suffered enough?

  1. I’m starting a petition to officially have Jonathan Gruber be referred to as HANS GRUBER.

    Will you sign?

    PS: Matt, you don’t need to send me a ‘personal’ email to give. I gave. I also have cans of non-perishables if Reason so desires.

    1. “Matt, you don’t need to send me a ‘personal’ email to give”

      Aw, I’m crushed! Here I thought that was only sent to me!

    2. I prefer “Herr Doktor Gruber.”

      And photoshopping a monocle and riding crop on all his pictures.

  2. Open thoughts: I’m surprised the drummer of Def Leppard doesn’t have a prosthetic.

    1. I just looked up “off topic” in the dictionary. Nice pic of you.

      1. Thanks.

    2. What would he do with it? I’d guess it would simply serve as Ballast to keep him from falling off his chair.

      1. YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO IMAGINATION.

        You have the imagi but you don’t have the nation.

        1. I’ve seen him play; their music doesn’t seem like it suffers much from the lack of drumming appendages

          1. Ha.

          2. Agreed. Reminds me of an old joke:

            What has nine arms and sucks?

            1. +1.111 octopi

              1. Shit, I meant 1.125. #mathfail

  3. Lena Dunham asks you to imagine a world where women are never treated to skepticism over rape claims

    Speaking out about the realities and complexities of sexual assault is how we begin to protect each other. I do not want our daughters born into a world that reacts to sexual violence against women in this way. This reaction, which ranges from skepticism to condemnation to threats of violence, is something I have been subject to as a woman in a position of extraordinary privilege. So let us then imagine the trauma experienced by low-income families, women of color, the trans community, survivors with disabilities, students on financial aid, sex workers, inmates, foster children, those who do not have my visibility, my access to medical and mental health care, or my financial and legal resources.

    […]

    Survivors have the right to tell their stories, to take back control after the ultimate loss of control. There is no right way to survive rape and there is no right way to be a victim. What survivors need more than anything is to be supported, whether they choose to pursue a criminal investigation or to rebuild their world on their own terms. You can help by never defining a survivor by what has been taken from her. You can help by saying I believe you.

    For a bunch of rational atheists they sure do place a high amount of value on believing things without proof.

    1. It’s almost as if there were no automatic connection between atheism and rationality.

    2. When Howard Stern said he found her funny and even posted her speech to him during his birthday bash I realized it was time to stop listening to him for good.

      1. Why would one ever have listened to him in the first place?

        Its not as if he was the least bit entertaining or ever had anything interesting to say.

        1. He had his moments in the 1990s. I was entertained. Now it’s all so forced and he’s not an iconoclast anymore.

          1. Oh, he tries from what I hear but iconoclasm is a game for the young. It goes from young turk up against The Man to The Man complaining about the kids on your lawn – to the kids.

        2. I liked the Howard Stern of yesterday who would have hated the Howard Stern of today.

          1. ^^This

            He sold Anthony Cumia down the river recently for shit he used to do (offend people)

            1. I was thinking more about Howard doing “America’s Got Talent!” but there’s that, too.

          2. Well put. I agree. He IS the establishment now.

    3. I do not want our daughters born into a world that reacts to sexual violence against women in this way.

      1) Lena Dunham is the textbook definition of “Do not want”

      2) “Our” daughters?

      You can help by saying I believe you.

      I wonder if there’s a limit to this. If some woman went public with the most obvious whopper of a lie, (e.g. got raped by One Direction at midfield during the Super Bowl halftime show) would the #BelieveHer movement run with it?

      1. Yes – because they will be supporting her *for the right reasons*.

        Just as those who were skeptical of the Rolling Stone story were RIGHT, but they were right for the wrong reasons – therefore they were wrong.

        1. Truthiness.

    4. Speaking out about the realities and complexities of sexual assault is how we begin to protect each other..

      And the best way to bring this to our attention is to make things up. If you send a few annoying white upper-middle-class frat boys to prison so they can get raped every day for 10 years, the eggs are broken and a delicious omelet follows.

      The reality is that any man who is convicted of rape, guilty or not, will be at the bottom of the pecking order at a men’s-only prison. Let’s talk.

      1. *Child-rapists* – sure. Because they are seen as weak and easy prey – no one wants to stand up and defend a kiddie-fiddler.

        Regular rapist – that’s a ‘manly’ crime and theirs no particular stigma attached to it in the pen.

        1. Well in her case it’s a Republican student at Oberlin, who decided to go after Lena Dunham twice. I’m guessing “Barry” would be prime rib in the clink.

    5. “Imagine a world in which men accused of rape are assumed guilty by default. You know, like black men in the Old South. None of this rape-denial crap, Atticus Finch!”

      1. Certainly Mayella Ewell being raped by the guy who walked by her house every day is more plausible than what Rolling Stone published.

      2. I still say “To Kill a Mockingbird” was written, primarily, by Truman Capote. And he got a silent kick out that. OK, maybe a good yarn on Harper Lee’s part, and she might have to gotten to 80% or 90% on it, but she didn’t put the touch on it.

    6. I have been and still am pretty convinced that the entire story with Dunham and her sidekicks is that they are so obsessed about convincing anyone who will believe it, that someone actually wants to have sex with them. That someone actually wants to have sex with them so much that they force it. It’s very sad. I mean, even as homely as Dunham is, if her behavior wasn’t so repulsive, she might actually find someone in the world willing to do it.

      1. Also, these leftist morons have a very distinct lack of ability to learn from their masters.

        When they get caught in a lie, isn’t the correct response to say it’s a fake scandal and move on to the next even bigger lie?

    7. Why you chose to speak out… years after it happened, as a cute story in your cute self-aggrandizing book, instead of going to the police to keep a sexual abuser from hurting other women.

      You go girl!

    8. Imagine a world in which woman never falsely accused a man of rape.

  4. I have somehow managed to get through life with no strong views* about abortion, really (I blame the 1990s)….

    … but thinking about this gives me a headache =

    What looks to be a so-dumb-you-might-as-well-be-retarded woman leaves newborn baby in dumpster to die; she now faces attempted-murder charges.

    There’s got to be at least 3 or 4 moral-dillemas going on there that i’d think would horribly complicate anyone’s 100% view on the issue either way. Or maybe not: I consistently make the mistake of assuming that everyone ‘thinks their ‘beliefs’ through’

    Anyhoo. The even-far-more “ick” inducing thought is, “what damaged-animal-instict compelled some individual to breed after looking into these eyes?”

    1. “what damaged-animal-instict compelled some individual to breed after looking into these eyes?”

      I guess for a lot of dudes, a piece of ass is a piece of ass.

    2. “Englert’s family has said she has a learning disability, didn’t know she was pregnant and couldn’t understand why what she did was wrong.”

      Some guys will screw anything. Looks almost like she has fetal alcohol syndrome to me.

    3. If only abortion were legal, none of this would ever happen.

  5. Further weaseling by Gruber:

    …”he defended the Affordable Care Act as a significant law that benefits the public. “My own inexcusable arrogance is not a flaw in the Affordable Care Act.”
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/09/…..index.html
    That may be correct, but the “flaw” was included by either him or someone else with his knowledge and approval.
    CNN also suggests his ‘faulty memory’ (lies) concerning his pay is going to get him another invitation to discuss the matter.

    Also, NBC finally had to admit to its audience there is this guy named “Gruber”:
    “Gruber’s ‘Glib’ Obamacare Remarks Will Keep Haunting Democrats”
    […]
    “I do not think the Affordable Care Act was passed in a non-transparent fashion,”
    http://www.nbcnews.com/politic…..ts-n264741
    Lying (again) in such a transparent fashion is probably not going to help his cause. NBC

  6. Korean Air Line heiress and executive goes ballistic over Deez Nuts

    “A recent Korean Air Lines flight was delayed when its chairman’s daughter, who was also vice president responsible for cabin service at the airline, ordered a senior crew member off the plane. The crime? Allowing her and other passengers in the pointy end of the aircraft to be served bagged macadamia nuts instead of nuts on a plate.”

    It makes more sense when you understand that most of Koreas major corporations are run like Family Fiefdoms that make the word ‘nepotism’ woefully insufficient. Half the time the ruling family is doing their best to rob the place blind without investors squawking too hard about it.

    1. She wasn’t wrong – only wrong about how she went about taking care of the problem.

      The airline’s cabin crew are required to ask first class passengers whether they want nuts, partly to avoid serving them to people with allergies. The nuts also should have been served on a plate.

      The crew got lazy/complacent and didn’t follow procedures. Dismissal/censure of the team leader is not inappropriate and not an example of a spoiled rich person – ‘over-mighty behavior by the offspring of the moneyed elite’ – but of a senior executive catching a mistake by employees. The higher up the guy who first catches your screw-up, the worse you can expect the consequences to be – because if your boss’ boss finds one mistake he’s gonna assume that there’s a whole lot more he’s missed.

      What *is* bullshit and an example of a spoiled princess is the public spat and delay of the flight. Just bad PR all around – none of those people want to be *delayed* over a bag of peanuts. Fix the problem but don’t inconvenience your customers.

      1. It wasn’t peanuts- it was macadamias. There’s a world of difference.

        Now apologize!

  7. Prediction: HAPPY ANNIVERSARY! I give it another six months.

  8. Welcome to the gun show I guess.

  9. They put together a COMIC BOOK to explain “health care reform”? I can’t remember the last time I went 24 hours without thinking of the movie Idiocracy.

  10. KMELE IS OFF?!

    Paid I hope.

  11. Foster’s disappeared again? What is this show hiding?

  12. Get back there? It’s naive to think we’re not still there.

  13. PUTIN DISAGREES.

    /pets leopard.

  14. 80% of independents support torture!

    Will the Independents confront this?

  15. Look, the comedian has some good points, but he’s not, like, *funny.*

  16. The Independents is must not see TV as long as that obnoxious Kennedy is a host.

    How annoying is Kennedy? She is worse than hair on soap.

    1. You’re way too harsh. She’s fine. Just needs to dial it down a notch or two.

  17. Is listening to Kennedy interrupt guest considered torture?

    1. Only if you are being forced to watch. Everyone else is engaging in masochism or consensual sadism.

      1. Not me. I’m relying on you guys to take one for the team.

  18. Frank Lloyd Wrong. Missed opportunity, Kennedy.

  19. Mister Officer John McCain wasn’t in this hearing. That’s a shame.

    1. *Must* you post that or joke about it?

      1. Some folks just need slow slicin’.

        1. I think that might be considered torture.

    2. That image was almost as bad as the Hillary Clinton country music video.

    3. Is that the Boxer Rebellion?

    1. He’s good. Can’t figure out why he doesn’t just come over to the dark side.

      1. Give him time. He’s still recovering from UK style welfare state.

  20. So what did they promise him for lying under oath?

  21. I’m so glad I don’t twat. That way I don’t run the risk of having to go to NYC or be on this show.

  22. Mike Baker has been taking Shark Sperm injections to appear younger

      1. The trick is knowing where to inject it

  23. When did you stop beating your wife?

  24. You torture our own people to *help them resist torture!* Duh.

    1. Except what we do to our own people isn’t torture.

      1. I think the point is that we do it in training precisely because it *is* torture!

        1. You think incorrectly.

          There is a difference between an interrogation technique and torture. They are two different things.

          1. All right, how about “stuff we’d protest vigorously if it happened to our POWs.”

            1. I have no doubt that the US actually engaged in “real” torture. A fact I find repulsive and reprehensible.

              But most of what these politicians are talking about doesn’t rise to the definition of “real” torture. Sleep deprivation, humiliation, playing loud Justin Bieber music…not “real” torture.

              1. I’m thinking about freezing a guy to death on a concrete floor, putting someone in a faux-coffin, or whatever it was which made the other guy beg for death.

  25. Objectively, I have to say on this topic that your pocket square should match your tie.

    1. Or you could use a white pocket square.

    2. your pocket square should match your tie.

      No, no no!

      Too matchy-matchy! Ugh!

      1. THEN DON’T HAVE A POCKET SQUARE.

        1. Ya don’t have to yell…

          1. I don’t know what it takes to get through your thick skulls.

            1. Jeeze, coach, what’s a 5-yard penalty?

        2. You, sir, reek of the stables.

    3. I root for the bad guys.

  26. If you’re saying the investigation was incomplete? DUH!

  27. THEY’VE TAKEN KENNEDY OUT OF THE PICTURE COMPLETELY.

  28. Phewww. For a second there I thought Baker and Sanchez were going to debate directly.

  29. Did she just call the Dutchess a Bitch of Protocol?

    1. Ah, I say, no, she did not, girlfriend!

  30. The Independents Attire Review, 9 December 2014

    Anniversary-Edition

    – Kennedy: GOOD WITCH-Kennedy! Someone must have dropped a house on Bad-Witch Kennedy and her unpleasant Black T-Shirt. I always thought ‘pure white’ was something of a TV-no-no; something either to do with a conspiracy by transistor-tube manufacturers, or bad-Mojo related to the show “Touched By An Angel”. Either way, we’re getting ‘Eloi’-vibes; we’d call it apropos ‘travel-wear’ for anyone considering a trip to the distant future.

    – Matt: Blue-X-3, redux. A slightly different mix to prior versions; we like the contrast here more than the Royal-on-Royal combo, but this Navy-ish tie doesn’t pop quite as much as the Royal Blue w/ the same shirt. (we think this would be better w/ white; but its sort of a ‘meh’ difference either way)

    – Julian: The Old Dirty Sanchez makes a return, and we are always floored by his daring magnificence. We want to use words like ‘flair’ and ‘elan’, even though we have no idea what they really mean. We suspect the checked hanky has something to do with it. He is one of these people who flaunts the ‘rules’ by choice rather than by accident and still emerges sharp-as-shit. Victory goes to the Ringer in absence of any challenge from Kmele, whom we pine for.

    ?????

  31. Did someone say, “the right to personhood”?

  32. Mike Judge I guess should be on the list.

  33. THEY’LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM FRIES!

  34. George Washington v. William Wallace:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl7CLaZFG1c

    1. I like this one.

      Juliet steals it. Her facial expressions and body language are hilarious.

        1. Oops, *this* is their latest, and it’s not quite as good.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIsa-vfXV6Q

    2. Thats one of my favorites. The whole George Washington / Dirty Souf thing gets me right here. *tears up*

  35. How do you hang someone with no head?

    1. If you didn’t read the instructions and do the execution in the wrong order.

      1. “Wait, it says hang *first*, then draw and quarter!”

    2. She mixed up the sequence somewhat.

      in case you want to get an idea of the process, try Chapter 1 of Discipline and Punish

  36. Sugar-whats???

  37. In vino veritas, sugar tits.

  38. The problem isn’t that he goes on Colbert. The problem is that he does it in lieu of actual interviews.

  39. It seems that no one has realized that we can figure out how fast Brown was moving during the shooting from the physical evidence. Brown moved towards Wilson 25′. The audio of the shots is 6.5 seconds long with a 3 second pause apparently when Brown paused. That means that Brown moved 25′ in 3.5 seconds. That means that Brown was moving at 4.8 mph, hardly a charge, more like a brisk walk. Try it yourself. So was Brown charging “full speed”, head down as Wilson and some witnesses allege or was he stumbling forward with 4 gunshot wounds? This goes to the reasonableness of Wilson’s fear and the accuracy of his testimony. It certainly seems like enough to indict.

    1. Needs more retarded speculation

      1. What part of “physical evidence” do you not understand moron?

        1. An average person walks at about 4mph. A jogger runs at about 10mph. 10mph is 14.6fps. Brown would have covered the 25 feet in less than 2 seconds. The first round of shots alone lasted 2 seconds. The slowest player at the NFL combine ran 14mph, he was 6’6″ 300 pounds. Anything else?

          1. Crap, this was for Papaya.

      2. I’ll even do the math since you’re such an idiot.

        25/3.5=7fps 7fps=4.8mph

        1. Tell us about how 9/11 was a hoax now

          1. You understand these facts, Brown moved 25′ towards Wilson and the shooting took 6.5 seconds with a 3 second pause, come straight from the cops right? Do you understand how math works?

            1. Its great how you saw all that in the sound. No assumptions being made at all. What a scientist you are. And you have math too. You get a Gold Star for Derp.

              1. Wow. There’s an audio recording of the shots. It lasts 6.5 seconds. There is a 3 second pause. This matches Wilson’s own testimony, he shot, Brown paused, he shot again. 6.5-3=3.5. Got it? So derppitty derp derp FUCK OFF!

              2. I think IceTrey fancies himself as Juror #8.

                1. No the prosecutor. Can you disprove the FACTS or are you just an asshole making snarky comments?

                  1. Definitely an asshole.

                  2. Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left.

                    1. Except mine is actual physical evidence from the cops.

                    2. It’s like having JFK’s head in your hands.

                    3. Look, I only say what my Illuminatus Lizard People overlords tell me to say!

                    4. It’s nice you’re making jokes about someone’s death at the hands of a cop that has unleashed protestation and chaos across the entire nation. Good work.

                    5. IceTrey, lighting that social signal!

                      NO ONE cares more!

    2. Your conclusion does not follow from that evidence. You can’t tell from just the audio and the blood trail how fast Brown was moving. Plus, more witnesses said Brown was “charging” than disagreed (7 to 5).

      1. 25/3.5=7fps=4.8mph

        1. How many chucks does a woodchuck chuck? Show your work

          1. I can’t tell if your trolling or your just the most stupid person I’ve ever encountered on Reason. I’m going with the latter.

            1. the most stupid person I’ve ever encountered on Reason

              Perhaps one of your other handles?

    3. Paul Cassell @ Volokh Conspiracy investigates & comes up with different numbers.

      The overlooked audiotape of the Michael Brown shooting

  40. WHAT THE FUCK, BERNIER?

  41. That guy’s head must have been hit by too many hockey pucks.

  42. Kate, huh?

    Would ya?

  43. That went right through the five-hole.

  44. HAHA. Love the guy in the Hartford Whalers hat.

    1. One of the best logos in sports.

  45. McCain wasn’t having any of this royals business.

  46. Your public service announcement: Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show tonight @ 10:00 pm on CBS

  47. Uh, Kennedy, did you at least Google “South Africa snow”?

    http://www.getaway.co.za/trave…..th-africa/

  48. NO I WANT TO BE THE BEST GAS MEASUREMENT COMPANY IN THE WORLD.

  49. Is this gas meter from Manufacturing Marvels filling in for Foster tonight?

  50. You can’t touch them because all that inbreeding left their bones brittle as all get out.

    1. Retarded Ontarian square heads lose their minds over the Monarchy.

      1. Squareheads? I thought that was a slang-slander for people of Scandinavian-ancestry in the upper-midwest US.

        1. I think those are called Bohunks

          1. Bohunks are people like me – Bohemian.

            1. Don’t forget the hunk portion of that = Hungarian.

              (Mrs. Lytton is a bohunk)

          2. Rufus version =

            ” square head
            A literally translated derogatory term used by French-Canadians to describe English-Canadians. But always spoken/written in it’s French form. Can be used in a good natured way between friends. Kind of the opposite of “Frog”.
            Most English-Canadians are unaware of it’s usage”

            To be fair, ‘definition #1‘ is closer to mine. Who knew.

            1. von Richthoven: I must now tell you of the full horror of what awaits you.

              Black Adder: Ah, you see, Balders. Dress it up in any amount of pompous verbal diarrhoea, and the message is `Squareheads down for the big Boche gang-bang’.

        2. Tete-carre (square heads) are what Quebecers call English-Canadians.

  51. Not Quebec that’s for sure.

  52. GODDAMMIT KENNEDY LET HIM FINISH HIS POINT.

    1. She’s on a roll tonight.

  53. Commonwealth nations have some bizarre fixation with royals

    1. We’re part of the Commonwealth. Not so weird.

      Canada remains Loyalist in large parts of the country.

    1. Big time cunt.

      1. I’m going to play devil’s-advocate for the sake of an argument and posit alternatively that she’s a Horrible Cunt

        1. I disagree. Cunts are somewhat desirable. And definitely serve a useful purpose.

          Can’t say as much for Ms. Dunham.

      2. I like cunts. She’s more of a trench.

  54. Matt. You just admitted you find Dunham interesting on TV.

    Just reminding you.

  55. They should have photoshopped Foster out of that graphic.

  56. I am at the very least impressed at how Lena Dunham can be so successful in the media world without being attractive, intelligent, or particularly careful about accuracy.

    1. She’s a hero to drab, boring, mediocre, talentless people everywhere

      1. She must at least be hard-working to succeed with all her other disadvantages?

    2. Accuracy means nothing. I think she’s probably bright, though it’s smothered by trendy PC dogma. She’s homely, but homely women have done OK on the screen in the past, though usually as secondary characters, especially if they are funny.

    3. Well, I will concede I admire her chutzpah in publishing an article about how anyone who doubts her is a rape apologist while her publisher pays off her accuser.

    4. She’s not any more successful than Roseanne Barr or Rosie O’Donnell were at the peak of their careers. It’s a short and steep way down though, and I think she’s beginning to realize this, hence the carpe’ing of her diem.

      1. “the carpe’ing of her diem.”

        I’m stealing that.

    5. Lena Dunham can be so successful in the media world without being attractive, intelligent, or particularly careful about accuracy.

      It’s the perfect recipe for the NPR crowd.

  57. Fuck this SHOW US THE BEEFCAKE

  58. I’m still reeling from Matt’s Dunham declaration.

    1. He should be inspired by Gruber and

      (a) deny he meant it

      (b) say it was spoken accidentally

      (c) apologize fulsomely and ask that this whole squalid episode be forgotten

      1. He said he finds Dunham ‘interesting’.

        1. I once found something on the bottom of my shoe “interesting”.

  59. Only 147 comments. Is the honeymoon over for the Independents?

  60. Scott Brown = comes off a pretty straight shooter for a politician. I like him.

    1. Too bad New Hampshire didn’t.

  61. Can Welch cash checks with the name Walsh on them?

  62. He should have slammed the cake in Kennedy’s face.

  63. Here’s to another year! Good luck, folks.

    1. I suppose congratulations is in order at the one year mark.

      /blows party thingy.

  64. The picture of Kmele looks like he’s now the Generalissimo of the Democratic Republic of the Independents of East America

    DOBBS!

  65. So… if they keep a gluten free cake in front of Kennedy more often, she might interrupt less often?

  66. Holy shit are you guys listening to Obama on Dobbs?

    FRIGHTENING.

    1. Holy shit are you guys listening to Obama on Dobbs?

      Why would I start now?

      1. Yeah but the shit he was saying on BET.

        Unbelievable.

        1. I believe it and I don’t even know what it was. But I will believe it no matter what it was.

        2. What did he say on BET?

          I REFUSE TO DO MY OWN RESEARCH!

          1. “Burn this bitch to the ground”?

  67. Dobbs just called ‘BET’ the ‘Black Television Entertainment Network’.

    Oh, and for people who never ever bothered to help me figure out why the aftershow livestream never worked for me – it was AdBlock

    Oh, look, they’re talking about where to score Smack in NYC

  68. So Glenn Greenwald’s The Intercept published an article today criticizing Rolling Stone which suggested that the ‘rape epidemic’ is inflated and not a real threat.

    Every time I think feminists could not conceivably get dumber, they prove me wrong. In the comments section, literally a dozen people mentioned that ludicrous 1 in 4 stat that’s been repeatedly debunked.

    One person argued that rape culture has to exist, because there was one study about East Asia in which one out of four men allegedly admitted to committing rapes. First of all, what are the odds that this would also be a one in four statistic? I’m sure it’s just a bizarre coincidence that these two totally different studies form opposite sides of the world found a one in four incidence for completely different populations.

    Secondly, what the fuck does a study that focused on rural Thailand and Laos have to do with America? They’re two vastly different cultures, so even assuming the East Asian stat were correct, it has no bearing on American college campuses.

    How do these people get this stupid? Is it genetic?

    1. “Is it genetic?”
      I don’t think so. Look at Charlie Munger’s kids.

    2. literally a dozen people mentioned that ludicrous 1 in 4 stat that’s been repeatedly debunked.

      You do know that once they get their talking points, there’s no convincing them otherwise, ever?

      They’ll still be calling people global warming deniers when they’re up to their arses in snow in San Diego, in July, if their leaders don’t change the talking point.

    3. The second part. True.

    4. Secondly, what the fuck does a study that focused on rural Thailand and Laos have to do with America? They’re two vastly different cultures, so even assuming the East Asian stat were correct, it has no bearing on American college campuses.

      Lefties routinely ignore demographics completely. To not ignore demographics is racist or something like that.

    5. Actually, the article’s from four days ago, I just saw it today.

      Anyway, the comment I remember is even dumber than I said up above.

      “For a ‘rape culture’ to exist, it would require a very large percentage of males to be not only sexually aroused by raping a woman, but willing to actually do it.”

      1. Why does it require a large percentage of males to be a culture? Oh, and research in Asia showed that 1 in 4 men admitted to sexually assaulting or raping a woman at least once.

      2. Sexual arousal has little to do with it. It’s mostly about power and dominance.

      3. Rapists know better than to discuss their crimes.

      Okay. So his thesis is as follows:

      1. Even if most people are against something it’s still the culture. Therefore, even if 99% of men think rape is awful, we still have a rape culture.

      By this logic, we also have a murder culture, but for some reason that’s never brought up.

      2. For some reason information about Asia’s rapes is somehow relevant to America. Somehow.

      3. Even though we have a rape culture, rapists don’t feel comfortable discussing their crimes. Gee, it almost sounds like that’s because we don’t have a rape culture, and if they talked about their crimes they’d all go to prison.

      1. This individual commenter is the gift that keeps on giving:

        Victims of severe trauma often recall details of events differently than they actually happened. This is well documented in psychology. So discrepancies don’t necessarily mean it didn’t happen. Nice for TRS to blame ‘Jackie’ for not being dependable when they were the ones who failed to do their due diligence.

        That being said, when my wife was raped the Chief of Police refused to even file a report because he bought the lies told by her rapists friends and told a 15 year old girl that she must have wanted it. And a preachers boy would never do something so awful? So, yes actually, sometimes a few statements from a couple of frat boys will destroy a case because people believe frat boys and rapists more than they do women that have been raped. In our society a woman that says she has been raped has virtually no credibility.

        Now, it’s tragic if what he says about his wife is true, although I’m hesitant to believe a random person commenting over the internet about a theoretical rape that he knows about third hand, which he did not witness, and for which he provides no evidence.

        However, his last sentence is idiotic. Women who claim they’re raped have so little credibility, that an obviously fake story was reported as unvarnished fact for two weeks based on nothing but a woman’s word. That doesn’t sound like the problem is not affording women enough credibility.

      2. You know what’s really funny about this entire thing to me? I, as a male, white male member of the patriarchy, never think about rape. Out of all the crazy stuff that goes through my mind on any given day, that’s not one of them. I could probably count the number of times that I’ve thought about rape in my entire life on the fingers of one hand. Sure, like most males, I’ve spent my entire life thinking about sex several times an hour, but not about rape.

        However, interestingly enough, many feminist women are obsessed with it. It seems that they NEVER stop thinking about it. Why is that?

        1. I would not only never discuss this subject again, I would never think about it again if it weren’t for feminists using the specter of sexual assault to gut due process and unfairly impugn and castigate innocent people.

          This is yet another example of the way leftists create a super controversial political issue, and then if you disagree with the issue they just politicized, they attack you for allegedly politicizing something serious.

          Feminists politicized rape by lying about rape statistics in order to a) shut down frats and imprison people they don’t like, b) gain political power for themselves, c) inflate the budgets of gender studies departments, and d) punish those they deem to be privileged.

          No one has done more damage to rape victims than modern feminists who have stopped rape from being a crime which is taken seriously and have turned it into a political side show.

          1. You two are MONSTERS!*

            *lights social signal

            1. Compliment accepted.

          2. A comedy sketch is forming in my head:

            “I was brutally murdered at a UVA frat house!”

            “But you’re still alive…”

            “Don’t live-splain to me, you murder-denialist! You’re perpetuating murder culture.”

            “Can I go now?”

            1. I get abducted every single night by a UFO full of rape murdering patriarchy aliens! Why don’t you believe me!? Rape denier!

          3. The times I have even thought about it must have been because I saw something about it on the teevee or someone… yeah, ok, it was my sister when I was maybe 17 years old say that some guy tried to rape her.

            For me though, the thought of a woman resisting my sexual advance is extremely unappealing, not something that I would want to think about. It’s right up there with sticking my dick in a tank of piranhas.

            1. It’s right up there with sticking my dick in a tank of piranhas.

              Stop mocking my fetish!

              1. Well, the Intercept’s comments just told me that no matter how many men are into something, we can still have a cultural problem.

                As such, I declare that we have a dick-eaten-by-piranhas culture, and believe we should fund studies on how to most effectively deal with this pressing issue.

                1. +1 victim of the icthyarchy

                2. As such, I declare that we have a dick-eaten-by-piranhas culture

                  If I see that on the evening local news tomorrow, that this has become a frightening epidemic with teens and that we need new laws, I won’t be surprised at all.

        2. You probably think about being beaten by a cop a lot more than cops think about beating you.

          1. Yeah, sure, puppies think about being shot by cops all of the time too.

        3. However, interestingly enough, many feminist women are obsessed with it. It seems that they NEVER stop thinking about it.

          Yup. SJW feminists spend about as much time thinking about rape as Rick Santorum spends thinking about gay sex.

  69. How much vodka can you drink during a single break?

    1. all of it

  70. Well, the live stream seems to be shitting the bed right now. So, fuck that.

    1. You are only pleasant first thing in the morning, FOE.

  71. I’m going to guess Foster has had it with < i The Independents and has quit the show. Call that an OFFICIAL PREDICTION.

    1. Why would he? Think the exposure isn’t up to snuff?

  72. Fake steps? WHY EVEN HAVE THEM?

  73. You motherfucking fuckshits, every time I have to refresh the page to get the stream to start again you make me watch a bullshit commercial over again?

    1. Fist gets very angry after a Pens loss to a rival.

  74. The HR guy left just before they started discussing their drug history.

  75. I nominate Eric Hoffer as a hero of freedom

    He makes a great point in the linked video series about how American Freedom is best appreciated by the Poor. I’d paraphrase it but would get it wrong.

    1. the Poor.

      I know your jesting with that, GILMORE. “the Rich”, “the Foolish”, “the Clueless”. No titles to the “the score keepers”.

      1. Not sure what you’re referring to.

        his point was here =

        “Doesn’t it seem to you that free time is the privilege of the working class? =

        Hoffer = ‘America is for the Poor! Only we have a good time in this country. The rich have a better time in Europe, even in Russia. Especially intellectuals are better off everywhere else. The only people truly at home in America are the common people. Its god’s gift to the poor. For the first time in history the common people do things on their own….”

        He goes on to point out in later segments that the poor aren’t crushed by the kind of nepotism in the Old World which kept social classes very distinctly stratified. That ‘American Culture’ mostly comes from and is for ‘the poorest’. We don’t idolize classics – we reward new ideas. Etc.

        He also later notes that “freedom” is most appreciated by poor people while rich intellectuals think they should prefer socialism. Poor people actually take pride in small achievements like their home, their job, their kids, and simple things like ‘freedom to move’ that rich people dont even think about.
        .

        1. How much experience with actual poor people do you have? You may be idealizing them a little bit.

          The ones I run into are quite comfortable with living off welfare.

      2. Another interesting point he makes =

        in societies that value ‘intellectuals’, they tend to create millions of ‘supervisors’ to ‘help’ the poor. Half the population is employed in ‘administrating’ the other half.

        In the US, he argues, our strength is the ability to leave people alone and let them do what they want, and consequently we have far more vastly ‘diffused competence’

        e.g. “The vigor of a society should be measured by its ability to get along WITHOUT strong leaders.”

    2. Seconded.

      “Failure in the management of practical affairs seems to be a qualification for success in the management of public affairs.”

      “The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.”

    3. And he never quit his day job (longshoreman).

      “Hey, Eric, wanna go down to the bar after work?”

      “I’d love to, but I need to explore the sociology of mass movements.”

      “Ah, OK, have fun with that.”

      “Thank you!”

      1. He was blind for 10 years after a fall at age 5.

        I bet this guy threw a knife into heaven and could kill with a stare.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7iVsdRbhnc

      2. Notorious G.K.C.|12.9.14 @ 10:32PM|#
        “And he never quit his day job (longshoreman).”

        I read “The True Believer” many years ago (as you might imagine) and can’t remember a whole lot, except that he was not taken by socialist bullshit/dogma.
        Strangely, he was employed in an occupation dominated by a communist union; see Harry Bridges:
        “Bridges hewed to the Communist Party line throughout the late 1930s and 1940s. After the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed in 1939, the party attacked Roosevelt and Churchill as warmongers and adopted the slogan “The Yanks Ain’t Coming”, Bridges denounced Roosevelt for betraying labor and preparing for war. John L. Lewis, the head of the CIO, responded in October 1939 by abolishing the position of West Coast director of the CIO, limiting Bridges’ authority to California”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Bridges

    4. “The Jew in Europe faced his enemies alone, an isolated individual, a speck of life floating in an eternity of nothingness. In [British-governed] Palestine, he felt himself not a human atom, but a member of an eternal race, with an immemorable past behind it and a breathtaking future ahead.”

      *The True Believer,* Perennial Library, 1966, 63

    5. This sort of makes sense to me. I have known some of the poor and I have been them. I come from a very poor family and lived part of my life growing up in Appalachia, although unlike a lot of people I knew then and still know, I escaped it fairly early on.

      I think to understand this, you have to live it.

      To this day, I still know some of these people who are very poor, but they seem to be, at least in their mind, a lot more free than I am. To put it bluntly, they don’t give a fucking shit. Their poverty doesn’t bother them. They don’t want anything more. They don’t have to work, they eat well, they drink all they want and do all the drugs they want and live the way they want. They never worry about their situation.

      For me, I’m caught in the situation of caring and I can’t escape it. Not saying that I want to, but even if I did, I couldn’t. So, being a middle/upper middle class guy through my own hard work, I constantly worry about finances and I like nice things that cost too much money.

      So yeah, those toothless hillbillies are, well might be more free than me, but it’s the price you pay for giving a fuck.

      1. When I was in Tanzania, I was amazed by all the happy children I saw. Even the poorest of the poor who would dig through garbage to lick a candy bar wrapper were always smiling.

        1. Well, that’s probably because Tanzania doesn’t have some of the social problems you see in other poor areas.

          A friend of mine went to Haiti for humanity work. Apparently there’s not a lot of smiling in Port-au-Prince.

          1. One of the funnier things that happened to me there:

            I was late for lunch, so they told me to go to the school kitchen and the students working there would fix me a plate of leftovers.

            We got to talking about life and its hardships. One of them said “well, we just eat our ugali and wait for death.”

            “You’re pulling my leg aren’t you?” I said.

            “Well….yeah.”

            We all had a good laugh.

        2. Blissful ignorance?

          Of course, that’s not fair at all to say about children. It’s a natural state for them. It’s when they can remain that way well into adulthood that is amazing.

          If governments could bottle that shit and give it out for free, it would be their ultimate prize.

          Understanding of one’s own situation, enough to care is the beginning of all suffering, bro. It’s why we libertarians are so cynical.

  76. What a perceptive guy this Hoffer was!

    Hoffer noted that leaders of mass movements were often frustrated intellectuals, from Adolf Hitler in 20th Century Europe to Hong Xiuquan’s failure to advance in the Chinese bureaucracy of the 19th Century.

    “It is probably true that business corrupts everything it touches. It corrupts politics, sports, literature, art, labor unions and so on. But business also corrupts and undermines monolithic totalitarianism. Capitalism is at its liberating best in a noncapitalist environment.”

  77. “We are ready to die for an opinion but not for a fact: indeed, it is by our readiness to die that we try to prove the factualness of our opinion.”

    This is similar to what ex-KGB propagandist Bezmenov said: there has never been anyone in history who gave their life for the truth of 2 + 2 = 4.

    http://youtu.be/SZnkULuWFDg?t=1h34s

    1. What a load of meaningless pablum. No one ever threatened to kill anyone over 2+2=4. Can’t be a martyr without a murderer.

      If you define a fact as something indisputably true, then no shit, nobody’s died for a fact because there’s no reason to kill someone over stating the obvious.

      If you define a fact as something that is objectively either true or false, but which one it is is not obvious, then shitloads of people have died for facts. Thomas More, Giordano Bruno, etc.

      1. Bad examples.

        Thomas More died because he was a staunch Catholic and the king wasn’t.

        Bruno died because he made some speculations that conflicted with church dogma.

        People never argue about things that are clearly true or false. They argue about things that might be true.

        See this essay for elaboration:

        http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

  78. Another gem from Hoffer:

    “The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, who in less than three decades killed or maimed nearly a hundred million men, women, and children and brought untold suffering to a large portion of mankind.”

    1. Lenin, Stalin, and all the other leftists never hated wealth for themselves. They just hated that if there were a free market, that they themselves might not wind up on top of the money pile. Nothing about the modern left has changed in that regard.

    1. Peru’s environment minister, Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, said women suffer disproportionately from climate change impacts, including weather-linked disasters

      Links with data, please, cunt.

      1. Well, Hillary Clinton said women are the real victims when men die during war. So if men aren’t even the primary victims in their own violent deaths, I can see how climate change wouldn’t particularly affect them.

        1. The climate change cult are becoming a parody of themselves.

          1. Climate Change Gender Action Plan (ccGAP)

            When it comes to developing a ccGAP, there are four steps. The first is to ‘take stock’ of the country’s current situation by analyzing the legislative and policy frameworks, initiatives and stakeholders, and assessing the technical capacity of the country to create a gender-responsive climate change policy. The second step involves ‘leveling the playing field’ by building the capacity of certain stakeholders to be able to engage in a meaningful way. For most, this means training on climate change for women and women’s organization, as well as capacity-building sessions for government and environmental CSOs on the links between gender and climate change. The third step is creating a national workshop where stakeholders, such as governments, civil society, international organizations, academia, and donors are brought together to develop measures that will be included in the gender action plan.

            1. cont

              Finally, the ccGAP goes through an official validation process to be approved by the Cabinet or the Ministry and put into action. In some cases, elements of the ccGAP have been included in the country’s National Communications to the UNFCCC or in project proposals, such as Mozambique, which used its ccGAP to influence its Pilot Program for Climate Resilience under the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds.

              Is the ccGap as wide as the giGap(gender income)?

              1. the second step involves ‘leveling the playing field’ by building the capacity of certain stakeholders to be able to engage in a meaningful way. For most, this means training on climate change for women and women’s organization…

                Is the author saying women are stupid? They need to level the playing field by “training” women so that they can engage in a meaningful way?

                1. I guess that training pays off. From the link in my @ 11:59 post below:

                  Women’s participation in decision making at higher levels has specifically benefitted environmental policy, such that countries with more women in their parliaments are more likely to set aside protected land areas and ratify international environmental treaties.

                  1. bliss|12.10.14 @ 12:10AM|#
                    “I guess that training pays off. From the link in my @ 11:59 post below:

                    Women’s participation in decision making at higher levels has specifically benefitted environmental policy, such that countries with more women in their parliaments are more likely to set aside protected land areas and ratify international environmental treaties.”

                    I guess you’re posting sarc, right?

            2. The 3rd step involves going broke and becoming dependent on government after wasting a lot and time and money on worthless ‘knowledge’ which doesn’t result in any real world skills.

              What a bunch of maroons.

    2. um … devastation.

      I know everyone will forgive a spelling mistake from a poster deeply distraught from encountering such terrible news.

      1. I don’t know why you’re even here, instead of weeping forlornly in a corner for the ravages we have inflicted on the Earth Mother.

        1. Hey, we might just make it after all!

          In Nepal, women farmers avoid crop failure in the face of changing weather patterns by growing off-season vegetables and bananas, which are more resilient to flood and drought (ActionAid, 2007). In Jordan, women’s management of small-scale irrigation projects and involvement in water harvesting and soil conservation improves the efficiency of water use (Al-Naber & Shatanawi, 2003). In Tanzania, when men migrate from home for longer periods due to the impacts of climate change, women take over the role of livestock herding and pasture management (Matinda, 2010). In Nicaragua, following a disaster, women were actively involved in evacuating those at risk, transporting materials to clear roads, and organizing food collection brigades and health care campaigns (Delany & Shrader, 2000). Women often lead the way in adapting to climate change impacts, but they also play a key role in mitigating climate change by optimizing energy
          efficiency, using low-footprint energy sources and techniques,and influencing a household’s and community’s consumption patterns (Rojas, 2012).

          1. Women often lead the way in adapting to climate change impacts, but they also play a key role in mitigating climate change by optimizing energy
            efficiency, using low-footprint energy sources and techniques,and influencing a household’s and community’s consumption patterns (Rojas, 2012).

            Word, dude. My wife often does this by doing laundry 3 times a day even though there’s a nearly empty clothes hamper and no need for doing a load of laundry. Women are better at everything, football for example, and smarter too, which is why they keep bitching about not being able to get into STEM fields.

            1. …”why they keep bitching about not being able to get into STEM fields.”

              Well, my wife has a masters in engineering and amazingly enough, she doesn’t bitch about getting into engineering *or* doing the laundry (we swap that duty).
              She’s also a pretty good cook, but a real tyro at…
              You get the point…

              1. My wife is a fantastic cook, and she has 3 degrees including 2 masters and a law degree and the equivalent of the bar from her country. I’m not in any way saying that women are not smart.

                I’m just saying that all of this women are better at everything is total bullshit.

      2. bliss|12.9.14 @ 11:13PM|#
        “um … devastation.
        I know everyone will forgive a spelling mistake from a poster deeply distraught from encountering such terrible news.”

        Care to give us a hint about that to which your comment refers?

          1. I just saw your amusing “Nepal” post. Sorry I missed it earlier. My goodness, what a pile of shit!
            I’m guessing you’re posting sarc?

            1. Yeah, the dog thing is obviously sarcastic.

              I like this bliss guy. He’s got a well-cut jib.

              1. I’m waiting for the punchline.

  79. Someone posted this article from the New Yorker which is a satiric mocking article about a ‘libertarian police department.’ People in the PM links seemed offended, but how can you not think this is funny?

    He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

    “Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos? Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs? on the guy.

    “Because I was afraid.”

    “Afraid?”

    “Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”

    I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.

    “Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”

    That’s hilarious. Given that I thought not being whiny, entitled bitches is what separated us from the progressives, I don’t know why anyone had a problem with this.

    1. Someone linked that earlier, and the comments made it clear that no one and no dog got shot by the cop.
      If cops had to ay by the bullet, they might think twice.

  80. So, has there been any discussion around here about Boehner’s supposed attempt to give Obama one billion in tax payer money to support his ‘amnesty’ executive order?

    No idea how true it is. They are going nuts about it over at Dailycaller.

    Boehner gives Obama the goodies

    1. Hyperion|12.9.14 @ 11:28PM|#
      “So, has there been any discussion around here about Boehner’s supposed attempt to give Obama one billion in tax payer money to support his ‘amnesty’ executive order?”

      I sure haven’t seen a word about it, but there’s a lot of ‘reportedly(s)’ in that link.
      I’ll get more concerned when it’s less vapor-ware.

      1. I saw it first on Drudge, so I was of course immediately not too convinced of it’s trustworthiness(at least as far as the real context of the story).

        I’m with you on not being so concerned yet. Just trying to get any details about the source of this.

    2. If the US annexed the Mali, the poorest country on earth, the US GNP would rise by the GNP of Mali. Hail Caplan! In the subsequent inclusion of Mali’s citizens with the US welfare state, sales at Toys-R-Us would skyrocket. With a 5+ birth-to-woman ratio among the new americans, what could go wrong?

      1. There was once this thing that someone said about giving us your poor and oppressed and/or something like that.

        What changed is the addition of the welfare state and the ensuing tipping point that this ensures.

      2. You don’t think that way, no one could. That Bill Gates would set up a college scholarship fund that explicitly excluded white americans, the bulk of the demographic that made him rich, is unthinkable.

        1. Oh, it’s totally thinkable these days, in fact, most universities today think exactly like that. The world has went completely insane.

  81. The first person to shake Jonathan Gruber’s hand after the Congressional hearing was policy analyst and National Review contributor Phil Kerpen. He claims he said the following:

    Phil Kerpen
    Follow
    Right after hearing I shook Gruber’s hand, looked him in the eye, and said:
    “Thank you for helping us destroy the shitty law you passed.”

    American hero.

    1. He’s also an optimist. We’re a long way from destroying the law or even getting rid of any of it.

      The war on the middle class shall continue without interruption.

      1. Hyperion|12.9.14 @ 11:51PM|#
        “He’s also an optimist.”

        Agreed, but I’m sorry I didn’t get a chance to do and say the same thing.
        Looking him right in the eye as I did so…

        1. He’s also a little inaccurate in that, in that I don’t think Gruber was in congress when that law was passed.

          Gruber’s disgusting, but not nearly as disgusting as the members of congress, who are elected, and who are supposed to represent the best interest of their constituents in passing a piece of shit that they knew would fuck over most people for the benefit of a few.

          1. I really don’t think most members of Congress understood the effects of the law. They bear responsibility for recklessly passing something they didn’t understand, of course, but Gruber is a special kind of evil.

            1. I really don’t think most members of Congress understood the effects

              Since most of the electorate are obviously not intelligent enough to not elect people as their representatives, who are even dumber than they are, I think we need some serious amendments to the constitution.

              1. If the Constitution can’t deal with stupid people it’s doomed to begin with.

                It was the impulsive nature of the US electorate that made Obamacare possible, not stupidity. They really didn’t like the GOP and wanted to punish them.

                1. If the Constitution can’t deal with stupid people it’s doomed to begin with

                  There’s been an intentional dumbing down of the public through public schools, a progressive policy, for decades now.

                  Leftists now completely control our public education system. Do you think that they want anyone knowing about the constitution?

                  I’m not talking about not letting people vote if that’s what you think. I’m thinking more about requirements that legislation cannot be hidden inside other legislation and that bills are required to be posted online, accessible to everyone for, let’s say 90 days, in their FINAL form before they can be voted on.

                  1. Can you even blame the schools?

                    Tonight Obama was on the Daily Show (or Colbert, one of them) defending Obamacare, and the audience lapped it up.

                    1. Can you even blame the schools?

                      Yes, all of the morons you are talking about are products of the schools.

                      Leftists are not taught to think. They are taught to let their masters think for them, give them their talking points, and agree. That is all.

                    2. “Tonight Obama was on the Daily Show (or Colbert, one of them) defending Obamacare, and the audience lapped it up”

                      The audiences on lefty TV shows are self selected.
                      Ever see the clip of Hitch flipping off Stewart’s audience? Ha, ha, Bush joke! Turd would laugh at it.

          2. I didn’t see the claim that he was. But then neither were the staff who wrote the damn thing along with Gruber.

            1. the shitty law you passed

              You have to be a voting member of congress to pass a law.

              I’m not saying that what he said was not ballsy, which is sorely lacking everywhere in society these days.

              1. Yeah, he didn’t vote on it, but he ‘passed’ it in that he lied through his teeth to make it passable.
                Mao didn’t ‘kill’ people, either.

              2. You have to be a voting member of congress to pass a law.

                There’s another definition of ‘passed’ that works in this case. As in, the law that Gruber shat out.

              3. You have to be a voting member of congress to pass a law.

                There’s another definition of ‘passed’ that works in this case. As in, the law that Gruber shat out.

          3. “You crossed the line first, Tea Party. You squeezed them, you hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn’t fully understand.”

      2. I know. But I would have wanted to say something like that too, just to see the look as his smug, prick face drooped a little.

  82. OK, the vid’s been used (WELL) a lot, but we now have “Gruberagedon!”
    “Hitler Finds Out Field Marshal Gruber Spilled the Beans ”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKhkQqA53v0
    Thrill as (whoever is acting as) Hitler goes ballistic!

    1. Fuck, the guy sounds like he’s getting a giant wedgie, lol. That is a total destruction and yet, sadly, nothing will come of this.

      1. I hope you’re wrong.
        NBC finally admitted to its audience this evening that someone named Gruber exists and in fact the story was not dismissive.
        I don’t know how old you are; Nixon’s lies were ignored by quite a bit of what was known as “the press” at the time. Not forever.
        It can happen that a lying POS is finally called on it and made to pay for it.

        1. I think I was maybe 13 when Nixon resigned.

          A lot has changed since then. Nothing will happen to this guy.

    2. And St Gruber went to the Garden of Derpsemene to pray. He fell to knees and prayed “Oh Obama, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0da4PjaS90A

      1. A few eggs have to be broken to make the perfect socialist omelet, comrade.

        1. AND.NOTHING.ELSE.HAPPENED.

  83. And St Gruber went before the governor Derpius Pilate. Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Gruber and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Progs?” Gruber answered, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?” Pilate answered, “I am not a Prog, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?” Gruber answered, “My microsimulation model is not of this world.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IqfGxzG8VM

  84. Those who had arrested Gruber took him to Issa the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. But Gruber’s lawyer followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mR8jvkBm2w

  85. It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the House Oversight Committee was torn in two. Gruber called out with a loud voice, “Mr. Chairman, into your hands I plead the 5th.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

    The proggy journalist, seeing what had happened, praised Obama and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jawoOSJGx6U

    1. Derp, I predicted youtube content was gonna grow; no time now, tomorrow morning is a good time for a laugh at Gruber.

  86. I can’t believe that Shreeky hasn’t been here yet to declare this yet another fake scandal.

    Oh well, I’m sure he’ll be along tomorrow to do as much.

    I wonder if he is busy yet building himself a Hillary shrine and bowing down to lick some cankles. Ewww…

    1. My Aunty Mila recently got a nine month old Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 just by parttime work from a computer…
      Try this web-site ::::: http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.