The Independents

On The Independents: John Bolton on Torture Popularity and Sony Terrorism, Timothy Sandefur on Sony's Free-Speech Claims, Deroy Murdock on Jeb & Hillary, Plus Heroes of Freedom, E-Cigs, De Blasio Hypocrisy and Aftershow


Hugging it out. |||

Tonight's live episode of The Independents (Fox Business Network, 9 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. PT, repeats three hours later) starts off with one of our favorite guests to parry with, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton (see our testy exchange about Iraq and George Orwell here). He'll be paired on a Party Panel with Fox News personality Jedediah Bila to discuss the Sony hackers' new alleged threat to unleash 9/11-style violence on theaters that show The Interview, plus polls showing American fondness for torture, studies showing millennial preference for e-cigarettes, and everyone's favorite Christmas movies.


Heroes of Freedom—a direct and happy knockoff of Reason's 35th anniversary effort—resumes with #s 17-15. Timothy Sandefur, principal attorney of the Pacific Legal Foundation, analyzes the First Amendment implications of the Sony hack. Fox News contributor/National Review writer Deroy Murdock assesses today's Bush/Clintontastic campaign 2016 news (slits throat); and I'll rant a bit about New York Mayor Bill De Blasio's opportunistic hypocrisy on cigarette-tax enforcement.

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

NEXT: Illegitimate "No Photography" Arrest Leads to $1.2 Million Lawsuit Victory

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

  1. “I fucking hate pseudo-science.”

    Facebook has its moments I suppose.

    1. But…our precious bodily fluids.

  2. Is K checking out Bolton’s diplomatic pouch?

  3. Oooh. I’m on pins and needles. Bolton and torture. What is his position?

  4. I am sad to say it, but Bolton has pretty much owned The Indys whenever they’ve tried to throw down with him. Eventually Kennedy just starts yelling incoherently and the match is declared forfeit.

    1. I watched Kennedy on the Salon/heroes/uniforms subject recently. I guess it aired in Nov? She has lost me. Can Kmele host the Independents now so that it’s more of a, you know, libertarian show?

      1. What, out of curiosity, do you think the default ‘Libertarian’ POV on veterans is supposed to be?

        (i dont recall Kennedy’s specific view on that point)

  5. Anyone ever watch Dino 13 on CNN?

    1. Antbody ever watch CNN?

  6. If you guys keep putting John Bolton on, the LEAST–the VERY LEAST–you should do is put Glenn Greenwald opposite him. Or Scott Horton. Or Sheldon Richman. SOMEONE willing and knowledgeable enough to denounce him as a war criminal.

    1. “…Or Sheldon Richman”


      uh, yeah, that wouldn’t help your case.

      also = why would you consider Bolton a ‘war criminal’… compared to say, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, etc? He was undersecretary of state pre-Iraq, and State was the office that was LEAST pushing for an invasion.

      1. Sheldon Richman: “The real question, I think, is how we can blame this on Israel…”

        1. Given that sheldon richman has managed to characterize every single US foreign policy since 1777 as “wanton imperialism”, I’m not sure he presents the ideal debate candidate

          1. I’m curious as to which U.S. foreign policies you think were not “wanton imperialism?” Rapidly running through our 225+year history, I think most of them would fall on Richman’s side of the ledger, not yours.

            1. you’re making my argument for me =

              – calling ‘everything’ imperialism reveals a stunning ignorance and disregard for what *actual* imperialism really was*

              (*maintaining colonial states under the rule of a distant power for 100years while repressing and exploits it for its own ends)…

              … and exposes the person as a extraordinarily biased, misinformed, hyperbolic crank who probably isn’t worth taking seriously.

              and sorry, the burden on ‘proving imperialism’ would be on you.

              1. But since you asked…

                “which U.S. foreign policies you think were not “wanton imperialism?””

                i think its notable that when the united states took control of Japan after their surrender in WWII, we helped them reconstitute their economic and political system (in ways that allowed greater freedoms for citizens vis a vis the Zaibatzu AND the Emperor), and then *just fucking left* and have been strong allies and trading partners with the 3rd largest economy on earth ever since.

                If you still think that US was ‘imperialistic’ towards Japan somehow in that instance* (compared to, say, how commodore perry opened the country up to trade via gunship, where you’d have a *slight* point) …

                …I wouldn’t even bother arguing with you, and simply tell you to explain that to the actual Japanese, who would think you insane.

                1. Not quite. The Liberal Democratic Party ran Japan for most of the post war 20th century. Guess who was bankrolling them in the 50’s and 60’s? The US govt via a program of supporting anti-communist political parties.

                  This same program, incidentally gave money to leftist political parties to ensure that anti-communist leftists would run Europe. Which is why Europe is a fucking economic basket case.

                  1. Giving money to a political party in another country is still not imperialism. Unless we were helping them literally fix elections and were installing puppet governments, that’s not imperialism.

                    1. Not quite. The Liberal Democratic Party ran Japan for most of the post war 20th century. Guess who was bankrolling them in the 50’s and 60’s? The US govt via a program of supporting anti-communist political parties.

                      This same program, incidentally gave money to leftist political parties to ensure that anti-communist leftists would run Europe. Which is why Europe is a fucking economic basket case.

                      So was the Soviet funding of the CPUSA Soviet Imperialism?

                    2. If the Soviet Union was bankrolling the Democratic Party for 20+ years and it controlled both the House the Senate and the Presidency, I bet you’d be singing a different tune.

                    3. “If the Soviet Union was bankrolling the Democratic Party for 20+ years”

                      It wasnt?

                    4. If the Soviet Union was bankrolling the Democratic Party for 20+ years and it controlled both the House the Senate and the Presidency, I bet you’d be singing a different tune.

                      ??? The Soviet Union absolutely was bankrolling left-wing organizations and had actual agents working for left-wing political outlets, most obviously the New Republic which was basically an organ of Soviet propaganda for a period of time.

                      That doesn’t mean the Soviets were behaving imperialistically towards America. By your logic all spycraft and espionage are examples of imperialism since your goal is to manipulate the inner workings of another country. That definition is so broad as to be meaningless.

                  2. OMG IMPERIALISMS?!

                  3. I am shocked that the US helped support anticommunist parties during the cold war. My word this is hard to comprehend.

                    1. I am shocked that the US helped support anticommunist parties installed socialist governments throughout Europe during the cold war. My word this is hard to comprehend.

                      Fixed it for you!

                    2. We ‘installed’ governments… that the European citizens kept voting for?

                      How ‘imperialistic’ of us.

                      Fuck off and sell that sillyness in some 3rd-rate liberal arts college where people still swallow that kind of thing.

                    3. You’ll have to explain to me how the U.S. ‘installed’ socialist governments throughout Europe when many of those socialist governments pre-dated American involvement.

                      Britain was tending in a Socialist direction even before the end of WWII and elected Attlee’s Labour government pretty much the instant they were in the clear.

                      You haven’t even provided any evidence that American money had any impact on these elections. You just claim that it is so. It’s especially laughable given that I guarantee that you’d rightfully laugh if a progressive claimed corporations are ‘buying’ American elections with their evil corporate money.

                      So what, when a corporation spends money on an election they can’t buy it, but when America spends money on an election somehow they can? What, is government money magic?

                    4. the dumbing down of ‘imperialism’ to ‘imperialistic‘ is a core problem of the US foreign-policy critics.

                      they move the goalposts so far that they start to characterize ANY foreign policy activity that might smell faintly ‘coercive’ (or even merely influential) as ‘imperial’.

                      which is an idiotic misunderstanding of what *an actual* non-imperialistic foreign policy is.

                      there’s no such thing as ‘Foreign Relations’ that dont have *some* element of non-military coercion & influence. Thats what they are FOR: to try and sway things in a direction that benefits us.

                      Its the point of foreign relations – to have mutually beneficial arrangements where *you benefit more than they do*. Else, why bother?

                      By contrast, ‘imperialism’ is where you don’t give a flying fuck about ‘influence’ or mutual benefit, and just take what you want at the point of a gun.

                      Of course we used coercive methods *short of taking over their government and maintaining a colony*.

                      Of course we sent money to political parties that *supported us and opposed our enemies*.

                      Of course we tied them into long-term arrangements which benefited US trade. Fucking *Duh*?

                      As noted in previous discussions – the libertarian criticism isn’t really of the type of US foriegn policy per se – its that we had a foreign policy *at all*. They envision a fictitious non-relations-having universe where we are morally freed from the corrupting influence of the multinational world.

                    5. I agree. They’re basically arguing that literally any foreign policy is imperialism. If that’s your definition, then there’s no reason to criticize American foreign policy for being ‘imperialistic’ since all foreign policy is imperialistic by its very nature.

                    6. All foreign policy? Don’t see how you could call the peaceful promotion of genuine free trade ‘imperialistic’? Or, for that matter, something like an arms reduction treaty

                    7. “Don’t see how you could call the peaceful promotion of genuine free trade ‘imperialistic’?”

                      Sheldon Richman has previously made that very case here. Hence my previous point.

                    8. I always thought Richman’s (or standard left-libertarian) argument was that most of our trade agreements (e.g., NAFTA) aren’t genuine free trade because they include thousands of regulations, can promote unfair competition via the trade of subsidized goods, and stringently protect intellectual property laws?

                    9. ” our trade agreements (e.g., NAFTA) aren’t genuine free trade “

                      Go back and re-read my point about how libertarians complain about ALL foreign policy because of idiotic idealized beliefs about what actual foreign relations ARE.

                      If your idealized notion of ‘real’ free trade insists that the US not use its relative power disparity to negotiate benefits that advantage us, then you don’t understand international trade to begin with.

                      Richman’s specific complaint that i took issue with was his claim about how the US ‘provoked’ Russia by drawing former satellite states away from their hegemonic influence and trying to integrate them into the global economy.

                    10. But ‘real’ free trade would also be beneficial to the American people…

                      I suppose it may not be realistic, but that is also an argument often leveled at the domestic policy preferences of libertarians.

                    11. “I suppose it may not be realistic, but that is also an argument “

                      What argument?

                      Saying that ‘free trade’ as it exists is not ‘free enough’ is arguing with what exactly? that we shouldn’t do it at all unless its perfect?

                      The obvious point should be that we should encourage as much free(est) trade as we can.

                      As noted, the counter-point sometimes made by people like richman is that we *shouldn’t* do it unless its completely free of any possible entangling complications, and has zero elements that are ‘unfair’ or ‘coercive’.

                      Which is effectively an argument against international trade entirely. The nature of all foreign relations is one of relative power-imbalance. Nothing is ‘purely equal’ and there is no flat playing field. it doesn’t exist.

                    12. Not exactly, but it is important to acknowledge and eventually correct. Additionally, the US wields the most power, so if we made a concerted effort to remove the unfair/coercive elements then it would likely go a long way. However, this is where our domestic divisions may prevent this from happening.

                    13. “it is important to acknowledge and eventually correct”

                      Instead of blandishments like this = give an example, and explain how ‘correction’ occurs and what the incentives are.

                    14. Well, I did point out that certain problems with our trade agreements have their origins in domestic policy disputes. For instance, we’ll have to tackle IP reform here before we can even hope to codify them within international agreements. I realize this is a classic issue of concentrated benefits, and dispersed costs at the moment. Obvious incentives to reform exist in the form of higher growth potential and the removal of restrictions on economic/individual liberty.

                    15. “The_Millenial|12.17.14 @ 1:03AM|#

                      Well, I did point out that certain problems with our trade agreements have their origins in domestic policy dispute”

                      I don’t see any reference to any specific problem in a trade agreement; saying ‘NAFTA’ is unfortunate not a substitute for making a specific argument.

                      You’re evading the obvious conclusion = that trade agreements reflect what is politically possible/palatable/able to be sold to the respective public in each nation as being in their interests.

                      Any talk about more-idealized free-trade relations are meaningless if they ignore what is politically possible.

                    16. Couldn’t that logic apply to pretty much every program or law? It seems a bit circular to me.

                      In any case, my only point is that we should work to get closer to the ‘ideal’

                    17. “? Or, for that matter, something like an arms reduction treaty”

                      Arms reduction that forces potential adversaries to disarm at a point where you retain significant military and economic advantages would certainly be considered ‘imperialistic hubris’ and unfair meddling in the security of foreign nations by libertarian non-interventionist die-hards.

                    18. I was talking about mutual arms reduction treaties, but I get your point about maintaining an advantage.

                    19. All foreign policy? Don’t see how you could call the peaceful promotion of genuine free trade ‘imperialistic’?

                      Simple: Call it cultural imperialism and claim that the United States is using free trade treaties in order to force its culture upon other people. Leftists do this literally all the time.


                      Cultural imperialism is the practice of promoting a more powerful culture over a least known or desirable culture. It is usually the case that the former belongs to a large, economically or militarily powerful nation and the latter belongs to a smaller, less powerful one. Cultural imperialism can take the form of an active, formal policy or a general attitude.

                      This pretty much proves my and Gilmore’s point. Literally anything you dislike from a foreign policy perspective becomes ‘imperialism.’ Even if it’s something as nebulous as a ‘general attitude.’

                      Imperialism no longer has any meaning beyond ‘this is something of which I disapprove.’

                    20. Someone could literally argue anything, but I was looking at it more from a libertarian perspective. As such, I think it’s safe to assume we all agree that free trade is desirable.

                    21. I don’t know if there is a consensus libertarian foreign policy position, but non-interventionism is usually the default from what I can gather. Realism as discussed recently on Reason may be the most dominant position among more moderate or beltway libertarians.

                      I actually maintain that most of our foreign interventions have not been vital to our core national security interests or in response to an attack, Don’t particularly care if they’re called ‘imperialism’ or ‘imperialistic’. Most of them are very difficult to justify from a realist perspective and/or if attempting to extend core libertarian principles like the NAP to the foreign policy sphere.

                    22. Most of them are very difficult to justify from a realist perspective

                      Well, of course. They were based on Wilsonian Idealism.

                    23. And it has been an issue for about 100 years now, although TR’s interventions did take place before Wilson’s Presidency.

                    24. Yes, “Wilsonian”-style Idealism was around before Wilson.

                    25. I dislike many of America’s recent foreign policy decisions. Libya was idiotic, Iraq was a catastrophe. Great. However, neither of these things are imperialism, since, even in the case of the Iraq invasion, the plan was always to allow free elections.

                      Actual imperialism doesn’t allow for such things, which is one of many reasons why the people calling the Iraq invasion imperialism didn’t know what the hell they were talking about.

                    26. I think that’s the more important point though. In any case, the US’ role has often been more complex than your Iraq example would suggest. For instance, the US did support Karzai a few years ago even though he clearly cheated to win the election.

                    27. “I don’t know if there is a consensus libertarian foreign policy position,”

                      What is called ‘consensus’ are usually a collection of basic principles that have very little basis in practical application of foreign policy – by their very nature, every act is a compromise of those principles and the issue becomes a perpetual case of deciding what the ‘least’ intervention-y policy is that isn’t idiotic.

                      I’d suggest before getting too tied up in the issue you actually read about foreign policy completely independent and outside of libertarian circles, then come back.

                      The way foreign policy terms are discussed here (e.g. ‘non-intervention’ or ‘realism’ or ‘Neo-conservatism’ or ‘Wilsonianism’ etc.) is often not consistent with what most academics and FP professionals understand those terms to mean in actual historical practice.

                      I’ve regularly argued that its the weakest component of the magazine here, and that the cadre of people they bring in to comment on subjects (like Sheldon Richman) are either left-field cranks that neither represent ‘conventional’ libertarian thinking or are recognized as legitimate experts on the topic in the outside world

                    28. You linked to the CFR? Sheez. You could have at least given the brotha a link to the Hoover Institute‘s foreign affairs page, if all you wanted to do was give him a non-libertarian perspective. Dropping him into the CFR is like first exposing him to pornography by showing him a snuff film.

                    29. I’m well aware of the CFR and the Hoover Institution. That being said, thanks for looking out for me. I do enjoy reading the CFR’s Micah Zenko though.

                    30. “Dropping him into the CFR is like first exposing him to pornography by showing him a snuff film.”

                      I’m not sure what you mean. I’ve subscribed to Foreign Affairs since 2000 and FP mag for a handful of years… and i find FA generally the less clearly-doctrinaire of the 2. (FP seems to lean toward more liberal, eurocentric academic types, with some exceptions)

                      Both rely on submissions from academics, think tankers, diplomatic corps people, ex-military, etc. and i’ve never really discerned a huge bias from either with the exception that FA seems to solicit more current-political-insiders, and FP seems to have more ‘liberal-leaning foreign correspondents and academics’.

                    31. I agree. FP and FA will usually include pieces from a variety of perspectives. You’re not going to find radicals, of course, but they definitely publish viewpoints ranging from conservative to liberal. And, yes, I realize it isn;t always as clear cut when it comes to the foreign policy realm.

                    32. Dropping him into the CFR is like first exposing him to pornography by showing him a snuff film

                      This is among the greatest metaphoric devices I have seen in my life.

                      Thank you.

                  4. Guess who was bankrolling them in the 50’s and 60’s?”

                    From your link =

                    “Eisenhower’s administration authorized a similar financial program during 1959 “to try to split off the moderate wing of the leftist opposition in the hope that a more pro-American and ‘responsible’ opposition party would emerge.”

                    The document suggested the amount of secret money for the moderate group in the JSP came to $75,000 in 1960, when a predecessor of the Democratic Socialist Party was formed as a moderate JSP breakaway. “It (the aid) continued basically at that level through the early 1960s,” the document said.

                    “The subsidy program for Japanese political parties was phased out in early 1964,” it said.


                    Apparently we somehow outspent the Zaibatsu with our pocket change.

                2. Also, we occupied Germany and although we never left since we still have soldiers there, we didn’t exactly try and make Germany an American satellite or protectorate.

                  America also told Britain to back off during the Suez crisis, which meant that we came in on the side that was opposed to imperialism in that case.

                  The U.S. has actually hardly engaged in any imperialistic pursuits in its history. There are some examples where we behaved imperialistically, particularly in the Philippines, but most of America’s wars aren’t really imperialistic in any legitimate sense.

  7. Apparently, Hillary is not inevitable … because of Bill Cosby.

    1. “**The new public scrutiny of Bill Cosby is also problematic for Bill Clinton. I am not talking about consensual sex but, in some cases accusations of sexual assault, torn clothing, and at least three victims who say he bit their lips as a disarming move and to get them to remain silent. In short, Bill Clinton has a Bill Cosby problem.”

      That’s a bit of a stretch, re: ‘hilary’s main problem’.

      Its also one paragraph out of a 2 page article, and its a sidebar at best.

      I think the article makes some pretty compelling points about why she sucks far above and beyond that particular angle

      she’s old
      she’s got no actual policy ideas
      she’s got a shoddy track record; particularly in the foreign policy areas she’d like to claim ‘success’ in, which are now disasters.
      she’s got no friends/allies in the party
      she’s got so many skeletons in the closet she had to build a new wing


      1. “Hillary had full knowledge of her husband’s activities and authorized and directed the use of heavy-handed private detectives to wage a intimidation campaign to terrorize Bill’s victims into silence”

        I guess that’s their money shot

    2. I hope so. I so want the leftards to explain why Cosby’s behavior is wrong but Clinton’s is excusable and why Hillary is therefore not a victim blaming shrew.



      Oh wait.

      1. It’s a free country.

        (At least it used to be.)

        1. (At least it used to be.)


          And possibly accurate.

    2. You can’t spell Independents without Depends!

    1. Just one color off on the spectrum.

  9. Flight of the Conchords reference.

    1. THat’s not how you do it…

      Oh wait, you mean on the show.

    2. Is that the show about hipsters?

  10. Oh, Kennedy. North Korea is going to attack < i The Independents.

  11. It seems to me that if you are willing to use it regularly to train your own folks then it should be permissible to do it to detainees where time is critical to the info needed. Anything beyond that should be prohibited.


  13. Except the guy who froze to death.

    1. Wrong thread?

      1. No. He said there was no torture. I’m thinkin when your subject dies of hypothermia, you’ve crossed the line.

  14. Jedediah may be the coolest name EVAH! And even more so for a hot chick.

    1. It embiggens us all

  15. Again – there were about 12-15 people ‘tortured’ overall

    the ‘25%’ that they’re talking about were ‘3-4 suspects’.

    Stats. the whole point is to create the most exaggerated impression of reality.

  16. You know who else acted within the guidelines of internal policy?

    1. People following Executive Order 9066?

    2. Ferguson PD?

    3. NYPD?

      1. My friends call me Rusty.

  17. Did Kennedy goes crazy there for a second?

    1. that was what we call a moment of clarity

  18. Un*achoo*constitutional!


  19. The Independents Attire Review, 16 December 2014

    Baby Doll-Edition

    – Kennedy: “Its all over now-Baby Blue”: we’ve previously denounced Blue as Kennedy’s least-winning color (*caveat made for some Navy items). Here we have a major exception: the light-pastel shade here actually brings out skin tone from Kennedy’s otherwise ghostly-pallor, and contrasts nicely with her pink lipstick. This is straight-up cuddly.

    – Matt: Holy #@(*@ 3rd Suit?? (last Fri we saw a new light grey suit) Charcoal Grey here: the most style-neutral and decisively ‘Boring’ of all suit options, and therefore one of the most popular overall. If you don’t feed it interesting colors/collars/ties, it makes you look like a bureaucrat. The striped shirt and navy tie manage to make it look ‘well composed’, but nothing really pops. He should wear this in case he needs to fire anyone.

    – Kmele: “The Baller”(aka “Jamaican Pimp”); we always say the same thing = needs Gold Gucci Shades, pinky ring, cigar, and a couple of bikini-wearing, twerking bimbos astride him. Also, a Bentley with spinning rims and a swimming pool with neon trim. You know: ‘Thug Classy‘. This has the opposite ‘enculturing’ effect of the 3-piece suit we saw last night; if that would have gotten Kmele through the door of the Yale Club sans a second glance, this would get Kmele into the VIP section of a strip club in Newark.

    Baie Dankie

  20. Today, I could have used a Sandefur.

    Huh, not a woodworking tool? Nevermind.

  21. Wasn’t TJ in France during when the Constitution was written? I forget.

    1. Thomas Jane?

    2. Yes, although he followed the debates via Madison. I believe his position was akin to “ratify but amend.”

  22. Napolitano ahead of Jefferson?

    How are they compiling this list?

    1. Randomly?

      1. Looks like it.

  23. Just a few more decibel levels higher and you got the Judge down.

  24. What if Judge Andrew Napolitano was a hero of freedom?

    1. Would he accept the award?

  25. Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

    (And Jefferson.)

  26. Before the Judge sold Kennedy to Stossel. The price? Hair dye and an intern to be named later.

  27. The judge is a polygamist?

      1. Winnah!

  28. Not enough free government golf carts and big novelty scissors to be Stossel.

  29. “Sexual affinity for Stossel?” Sorry, I’m out of the movement.

    1. There’s a movement? Why wasn’t I told?

    2. Mustache ride time!

      1. I trim my mustache now and then to Stossel size. I feel like less of of a man.

  30. Santa is a utilitarian and Rudolph’s utility has again dropped.

  31. Elf on a shelf, Mench on a bench.

  32. I don’t remember growing up ever being under the Elf on Shelf’s thumb.

  33. I had the same expression in my selfie in front of a half-buried Statue of Liberty.

    1. Take your hands off me, you damn dirty ape!

    2. Damn you! Damn you all to hell!

  34. At that mom watches their appearances on TV.

  35. My favorite Christmas movie? Die Hard.

    1. Lobsterman from Mars!! Bestest movie ever.

  36. Mom, was right. She’s dissapointed that they are TV pundits.

      1. are you ‘dissapointed’? 😉

  37. My favorite Christmas movie is ‘The Shining’.

    What? It takes place during the winter.

      1. Sure.

    1. What? It takes place during the winter.

      by that criteria, Four Brothers qualifies

      1. Reindeer Games

        1. Good bad one

  38. Elf is very good.

    Christmas in Connecticut is lesser-known but very good.

  39. Die Hard is the best Christmas movie

  40. Black Christmas?

    Silent Night, Bloody Night?

  41. oh she’s smokin alright

  42. She’s allergic TO CANCER.

  43. Bolton saw what happened on last night’s aftershow.

    1. Did I miss something? They’re either a complete train wreck or the best thing ever.

      No middle ground!

      1. They went just shy of talking chemtrails.

      2. Well, the truth is too delicious. Malice started talking about how 20 years after Roe v. Wade crime dropped and < i The Independents cut him off before they could have entertain the implications of what he was saying.

  44. Nicotine is a cure for everything!

    1. My friend got his PhD working w/ nicotine

      he mentioned that its actually a pretty badass poison. an actual drop of the pure-100%-concentrated stuff (if i recall) he said could kill you through the skin.

      1. I always heard that a drop of nicotine would kill a horse.

        1. Also, if you put a steel nail in a bottle of coke overnight, in the morning, it will be gone.

  45. “We will talk politics next.” What have you been doing?

  46. Sometimes name recognition isn’t all that good a thing.

    You know ho else has name recognition?

    1. Dr Pepper?

  47. Dynasty! Vote for JR

      1. ooh First Lady Alexis.

  48. She speak with forked tongue.

  49. Solid physical core. Thought that’s what he was going to say.

  50. Yay! cigarette taxes. *Cough, cough.*

  51. These threads always end abruptly with some form of ‘Oh noes, DOBBS!’

    1. Too soon!


    1. I thought those were the girls of Tri-Delt

    1. *mute button*

      Ahhhhh, that’s better.

      1. Fuck off about your remote privilege, cislorde!

  53. Lets Roll with the punches dude. WOw.

  54. The mob must love NYC.


  56. hi-jo silver… dobbs

  57. So Kennedy is huffing nitrous?

  58. Meta-irony?

  59. This is not television.

  60. so this aftershow thing…does commentary take place here or on the actual fb live stream site?

    1. I dont think the latter exists.

      the former is sporadic.

      1. I thought I was the only one left.

  61. This discussion is too domestic for my taste. Soccer mom stuff.

  62. So… Kennedy just called Jedidiah a slut?

    1. Holy fuck, Jedediah’s on? Time for the live stream.

      Just so you guys know, if Jedediah Bila were on every show I’d watch more often.

      1. Who’s Jedediah?

          1. That don’t look like my former neighbor Jebidiah. Hmm…

  63. “I host < i The Independents on Fox Business.”


    1. So many red flags!

  64. What is this aftershow thing? I just watch the feed on Comcast and then it ends and the DERBZ appears. How do I see this aftershow?

    1. There is a link at the bottom of the article above that no one reads.

      1. The ‘this page’ link? Sons O fucking bitch, guys, thanks. I am watching it now.

  65. What’s with the ‘less than’ symbol and LC “i” in front of The Independents in some posts?

    1. Malformed HTML (“i” standing for italic. Though I’m an “em” guy myself.)

      1. CSS, that is all.

        1. that is all

          Not necessarily. IMHO, CSS doesn’t really make sense for a lot of cases where italics are used, such as italicizing foreign words / Latin (e.g., i.e.) or movie, book, and album titles. Some span class=”italic” (or worse, inline styles) nonsense is obviously much, much worse than using i or em. There is a sense in which span class=”foreignword” is “better” but really, who does that, even if perhaps they “should”? Especially since the future-proofing it gives you (being able to change from italics from something else without affecting other types of italicized content) is unlikely to be used.

          1. CSS always makes sense. I don’t ever see a reason not to use it if there is not a specific reason not to.

            Remember CSS can be used inline. I always use it as a matter of habit.

            So, what’s superior about using the html “i” tag to?

            I’ve been developing web sites for almost 20 years, and I don’t get the point.

            Anyway, does ’em’ work with any browsers besides IE? I don’t know since I never use it. I have clients using FireFox and Chrome.

            1. So, what’s superior about using the html “i” tag to?

              You can remove the italics from i later on if need be. This becomes all the more useful with selector combinators. With inline styles, you’re stuck.

              Anyway, does ’em’ work with any browsers besides IE? I don’t know since I never use it. I have clients using FireFox and Chrome.

              Yes, it does.

          2. FWIW, I was just looking on MDN and they recommend using cite for the titles of works. #TIL

  66. Uncivil Servant said this on another thread about Royal Surnames
    Or Godwinson, the last King of England?

    That’s a patrynomic, not a surname (see Iceland) and I’m not sure if Godwinson is a creation of the historians?

    1. I mean I’m not sure if Godwinson was a name created by historians rather than something Harold himself used at the time.

  67. I’m feeling this thing where the 2% of neanderthal genes that we have, have showed up in a higher percentage in Penn Jillette than they have in most of us…


  68. So the Plantagenets, Romanovs, Hapsburgs and so forth didn’t actually have those names?

    I was speaking mainly of English Royalty but royalty do not use surnames. “Elizabeth II” not “Elizabeth Windsor”. There are house names but no surnames. “Windsor” is a just a House name chosen because “Saxe-Coburg-Gotha” was too German in 1917 and “Saxe-Coburg-Gotha” itself was just the name of the two German duchies Prince Albert’s father ruled rather than an actual name. Oh and “Hanover” was the common name of the Electorate ruled by George I since that was the capital rather than the name of his actual domain (properly Brunswick-L?neburg) or a surname.

    And Plantagenet was not a name used by those monarchs themselves. It was a nickname of Henry II’s father and was adopted by Richard of York during the Wars of the Roses (the term “Wars of the Roses” was mainly created by Walter Scott is a reference to Shakespeare’s Henry VI part 1) that was applied retroactively by historians.

    The closest the English monarchs had to real surnames were the Tudors.

  69. Massie is such a nerd, but I love the guy.


    Five days later, Duffin said he inexplicably received an email titled “About You” from Haven, the man allegedly behind the alleged sexual assault. (When CNN tried the email address, the message came back “undeliverable.”)

    “It was from Haven Monahan … and it looked like Haven had written, ‘You should read this, I’ve never read anything nicer in my life,’ with a page worth — an essay — that Jackie had written about me,” Duffin said. “Which seemed really weird to me, even at the time, because here’s somebody who allegedly just led a brutal sexual assault on a friend of mine, and now he’s going to email me this thing about me?” …

    Jackie and her three friends drifted apart long before the Rolling Stone article, though her friends believe something bad may have happened to her that September night.

    “I think it’s very possible, yeah,” Duffin said. “I still think it’s extremely, extremely possible. If only because the reaction she had on that night seemed so strong, and seemed so genuine, that I still think it’s difficult to believe that she would have been acting.”

    Wandering around campus for 5 hours on a Friday night pretending to be on a date strikes me as “something bad.”

  71. So what do people think about the Sony hackers threatening terrorist attacks on theatres showing the Interview?


    1. Do you think the Norks did it?

      1. Either them or really really pissed off Rogen and Franco haters.

      2. Also theatre chains have started to pull the film and the New York premiere has been cancelled.

      3. The Norks or people hired by them, sure. Motive, means, opportunity.

  72. My best friend’s step-mother makes $66 /hr on the internet . She has been out of work for 10 months but last month her payment was $12188 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    have a peek at this site —–

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.