A.M. Links: Obama Veto Threats At Record Pace, Snow Not So Much, Shadows on Mars

|

  • NASA

    The White House has issued eight veto threats so far this month, the most since President Reagan began the year 1985.

  • Confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch begin today in the Senate.
  • Boston and portions of New England received up to three feet of snow, but New York City and the tri-state area were spared despite extreme forecasts.
  • New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D) will step down from his post of 21 years as he faces federal corruption charges.
  • The FBI says a bomb threat against an airplane departing Los Angeles is the fourth online threat against a passenger flight in the last week.
  • State police in Michigan say they want permission to use drones for aerial surveillance of crash sites and other emergency situations.
  • Astronomers say they've found rings 200 times the size of Saturn's around a planet orbiting the star J1407. Meanwhile, UFO hunters say a photo released by NASA shows the shadow of a man with an oxygen tank tinkering with the Mars Curiosity rover.

Follow Reason on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here.

NEXT: Rand Paul: Drones Should Be Legal But If They Fly Over My House, "I've Got a Shotgun"

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

  1. State police in Michigan say they want permission to use drones for aerial surveillance of crash sites and other emergency situations.

    Permission from whom?

    1. Hello.

      Gordie Howe showing improvement after stem-cell treatment:

      http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.2933988

      1. And Marty Brodeur officially retires, presumably to spend more time with the sisters-in-law.

        If he had played on the other side of the Hudson, he’d have been praised long ago, instead of having everybody say he backstopped a boring system team.

        1. DEVILS!

          At least the Devils were masters of that system.

          What a career though.

    2. Well, at least they are still at least pretending to go through the motions of operating within the law, or whatever.

    3. Bonjour.

      Broken traffic cameras contributed to massive revenue decline, D.C. police say

      “If we were counting on those dollars,” [Mayor] Bowser said, “we have to make it up somewhere.”

      But all together now: Traffic cameras are about safety, not revenue! For your $afety.

      1. They’re keeping their revenue safe.

      2. It’s not just the cameras. It’s a great deal of the traffic laws, and virtually all of the traffic enforcement.

      3. “If we were counting on those dollars,” [Mayor] Bowser said, “we have to make it up somewhere.”

        Such honesty.

        “Bottom line fellas is we gotta find us some new pelf.”

  2. 21) Back in the early days of the GWB administration there was a big push to reduce the inheritance tax, or death tax, as it was dubbed. While sympathetic to the effort to reduce taxes generally, I remember at the time wondering why the Republicans were so gung-ho about the inheritance tax in particular. Why not reduce payroll taxes, and actually give employers an incentive to hire more people, for example? Or reduce the corporate tax? So yesterday, when Karl Marx’s ten planks appeared on the Morning Links, I was interested to see that the third item was greatly increase inheritance taxes. I’m bemused that I should agree with Marx on anything, but isn’t the inheritance tax preferable to almost any other tax? I mean, the people are dead?why do they care? And their progeny did nothing to deserve the windfall of an inheritance?indeed, in most cases where somebody might receive a large inheritance they’ve already benefited amply from their parents’ largess?raised in posh houses, college paid for, etc. Thinking about myself, I’d rather my parents spent their retirement years enjoying themselves than scrimp just so I could receive something after their deaths. And in a national sense, I would far rather see a higher inheritance tax if it meant we lowered almost any other tax. Am I missing something? Is there some special reason taxing inheritances is especially evil that I’m missing?

    1. Items like small business and family farms have high capital value and thus high inheritance taxes versus their cashflow per annum.

      1. A high internitance tax puts these out of business and forces a sale of an otherwise functional and productive entity for no good reason. Besides, what claim does the government have on the dead’s property? Shouldn’t it be disposed of as they please?

        1. This. Providing for my [hypothetical at this point] heirs is part of my present enjoyment of my property. As for what I’d rather have my parental units do, that’s not the government’s business.

      2. Exactly. Wealthy people don’t actually pay inheritance taxes because their money is put in trusts and other tax shelters that their progeny borrow against, so they never pay tax on it. The inheritance tax actually hits family farms and small businesses because they have a lot of value tied up in land and other assets, but not cash or investments.

      3. OK, in those cases an inheritance tax would be a problem. But it should be possible to separate out family businesses from simply real estate, stocks, etc., right?

        1. Why? On what basis? It all come s down to the deranged belief that the government is more moral than the wealthy. To the best of my knowledge there is scant support for that in human history.

        2. Jatnas,

          It’s wealth that someone earned/made/accumulated and it’s wealth that is theirs to do with as they please as long as they don’t violate Constitutional laws.

          It doesn’t belong to any government or the rest of us.

      4. Which is one of the main reasons we have the life insurance industry as it exists. Let’s say you have a dry cleaning business and you used your savings over the years to buy a few retail rental properties. Say the net worth is 12 million bucks – you did well with the timing of the real estate market.

        Now you’ll need a $5million life insurance policy to allow your son (who is currently managing your businesses) to take over after you are gone. There goes a couple grand a month for the rest of your life, siphoned off for insurance. So, how hard do you think the insurance industry lobbies to ensure high inheritance taxes?

        Warren Buffett makes a ton off of estate planning. Why else do you think a guy like that would be on the side of higher estate taxes? There is a whole wealth management industry of lawyers, tax accountants, financial planners, insurance agents, etc. who make their livelihood helping people avoid estate taxes with things like living trusts and insurance.

        In short, it isn’t just anti-aristocracy ideology that drives the desire for high estate taxes.

    2. “And their progeny did nothing to deserve the windfall of an inheritance?indeed, in most cases where somebody might receive a large inheritance they’ve already benefited amply from their parents’ largess”

      I disagree on two levels. One, as we speak, my wife and I are setting things up for our daughter. Part of the equation of being a parent (in our view) is to take care of our children financially if possible. Being dead has nothing to do with it. If a parent chooses to hand off their wealth to their family and this is where my second point comes in, it’s no one’s damn business.

      1. But it’s no one’s damn business about your income taxes, either, and that’s still taxed. Which would you rather be taxes, your income, or your estate after your death?

        1. That’s not the choice that’s on offer. The income tax is not going away. So the choice is tax your income once, and then tax it again when you die, or only tax your income once.

        2. I would rather see a much more stringent standard applied to the Government’s expensive Bright Ideas. As matters stand The State is doing a great deal to much, and most of it badly. To say “Which would you rather see increased; income tax or estate tax” is a false dilemma. The issue is, which would we rather see; increased taxes or vastly decreased Government.

        3. I defer to Cyto below.

          But the question is a little complicated to answer because I’d be forced to set myself up with all sorts of mechanisms to ensure my daughter doesn’t feel the pinch of death taxes anyway.

          So even if I ‘choose’ income taxes, there are ways around the latter – which is not right.

          We shouldn’t be penalized for success. We took the risks. We made it work. So it should be up to us to decide where the money we earned fairly and dutifully paid taxes on goes.

      2. I agree. Your money, you spend it how you like. Bill Gates has famously said he doesn’t intend to burden his progeny with great wealth like the dysfunctional heirs of the super-wealthy of a century ago. Hence the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I suppose he’s got quite a few billion left to hand out. And that’s his call too.

        I think it is a fundamental rights issue. Your property is yours to dispose of as you wish, whether you are still living or not.

        1. I’ll believe the “million-dollars-per-kid” thing when I see it. A lot of the wealthy people who donate all their money, historically, have been without heirs.

      3. And their progeny did nothing to deserve the windfall of an inheritance

        In sharp contrast to the IRS?

        Here’s the burden that the pro-estate taxers can’t carry:

        Showing that the federal government has a superior moral claim to an inheritance than the heirs.

        The heirs have a moral claim: the desires of the (former) owner, which should be carried out absent some competing and superior claim.

      4. “Part of the equation of being a parent (in our view) is to take care of our children financially if possible. Being dead has nothing to do with it. ”

        ^This.

        Secondly, it is my property and I will dispose of it as I see fit.

        It is highly immoral to violate someone’s property rights, and equally evil to prevent someone from caring for their children. This is what used to be termed ‘taking food from my children’s mouths’. We used to shoot people like that, and for good reason. Granted, now there is little chance of anyones child starving because of it, but that does not mitigate the immorality of it.

        In what way can you justify the state laying claim to the fruit of a person’s life? This nonsense; “You didn’t build that”? Anyone who has ever built anything will laugh in your face. I can tell you from experience that if you want to build anything you must do it in spite of government.

        How about this: Stop looking at what other people have and then trying to figure out ways to steal it from them. Go make your own.

    3. Because that money has been taxed multiple times already. At least payroll tax you can say it is new money that hasn’t been taxed yet (not an argument I care for). As to your parents enjoying retirement, it is their money. They can burn it in a hole for all I care but it is their choice, not the government or the greater goods.

      1. Yes, in an abstract sense taxes are always an injustice, and people should be able to do what they want with their money. But if you must have a tax, isn’t an inheritance tax better than an income tax?

        Also, I get the argument about taxing a flow of money multiple times, but like you see, I’m not sure that’s very meaningful. In a tax system as complicated as ours, practically any money is subject to multiple taxes.

        1. Honestly I came to this site a libertarian and day by day I slip farther into the anarchist camp. I’m to the point where I believe all taxes are wrong. If you want to offer a government service it should be opt in and fee based.

          1. As I age I’m becoming more and more philosophically intolerant of taxes as well.

            It drives me nuts to read ONE crony getting obscenely wealthy through government-corporate scams.

            THAT’S where our concerns should be. Not taxing people on their inheritances they EARNED.

            1. Also, by far the worse ideas from the left camp is their demands to increase capital gains and dividend taxes.

              Do they not understand this is a key way to achieve wealth for ALL CLASSES of people? I personally feel there should be no taxes on RISKS an investor takes. But like the good legal mob that they are, the government wants it cut of your blood and sweat.

              1. http://www.whoownsbigoil.org

                Yeah that one kills me. The largest investors in oil companies are pension funds. Primarily public sector union member’s pension funds. The people who voted for O’dumbles are cheering him on while he calls for raising taxes on their retirement and jacks up their medical expenses.

                It is like a three-ring circus of idiocy.

                1. Cool link.

        2. Nothing abstract about the hardships caused.

      2. That too. They can burn it or hand it over.

        Either definitely not the government’s business and certainly not the business of progressives.

        Again, that they support an inheritance tax points to their ‘zero-sum’ views of economics. They assume that because the money (already taxed income) sits in trust for an ‘undeserved’ family member (to them, it’s all undeserved. Never mind some kids can be responsible and work diligently and responsibly in a family business…that doesn’t count) it’s ‘lost money’ for them to take.

        The expanding pie where wealth keeps growing doesn’t factor in their envious calculations.

      3. Yes.

        Fuck you for trying to take the half I got to keep when I earned it.

    4. What Florida man said. And understand the really wealthy, as in those with tens of millions of dollars, don’t pay estate tax. They just set up trusts and let Junior live by borrowing against the trust. Since the property passes only to the trust and not to the heir, they never pay inheritance taxes. Inheritance taxes just hit the middle and upper middle class and farmers and small business owners especially because they don’t have enough money to make a trust work.

      1. If you have something physical such as a farm, the family gets hit particularly hard by this tax.

        1. Warren Buffet has made billions buying profitable small businesses from families who couldn’t afford to pay the inheritance tax. His support for a higher inheritance tax is of course because he cares so much not because he is a greedy blood sucking bastard hoping to use the force of law to make more money or anything.

        2. They are killing rancher/farmers in Florida. The rising property value is being placed on agricultural land and the taxes are exceeding the revenue of the business. Every time I drive through Ocala I see all these beautiful horse ranches for sale. I’ve got to believe it is mostly related to the tax burden.

          1. The good news in Florida at least is no state estate tax.

        3. Yes, they have to sell of pieces of it to pay the tax. Which is a major reason family farms are nearly a thing of the past.

          1. Absolutely, plus the fact that many older farmers (like my dad) are retiring, and renting out the ground they still own to larger farmers. My family got lucky in that we have a great relationship w/ the farmer who is now farming our land, rather than having some huge corporation just tear the shit out of everything.

          2. Yes. To make farming work, you have to have a lot of land. But families can’t accumulate a lot of land because they always have to sell some of it to pay the inheritance taxes. As a result, the corporations own most of them now.

            I hate leftists.

      2. “Inheritance taxes just hit the middle and upper middle class and farmers and small business owners especially because they don’t have enough money to make a trust work.”

        I’ve always been against inheritance taxes on principle, but I never thought of it this way. It definitely makes it more insidious. Progressives are evil.

    5. “…their progeny did nothing to deserve the windfall of an inheritance…I’d rather my parents spent their retirement years enjoying themselves than scrimp just so I could receive something after their deaths.”

      OK, but I don’t think it’s about if the kids deserve it. It’s about whether the parents (or grandparents, etc. as the case may be) should be able to provide something for their children. And working to benefit your kids might incentivize you more than working to support the government, or even more than working just so you can be richer after retirement.

      1. The government did something to deserve a lifetime of labor?

        1. Are you missing the thrust of my comment?

          1. Nope. I’m amazed that anyone would think the State is deserving of a person’s life savings.

            1. Are you imputing that view to me?

              1. I think he’s trying to give you an, “Amen, Brother!” Awkwardly.

                1. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    6. All taxes are bad, because they are the first step to allowing government to build roads, and then schools.

      There’s also a concept of associating taxes with the “services” they are to fund. For example, payroll taxes go to funding the government telling you you will receive social security and medicare benefits while they do everything they can to piss your payroll taxes away and ensure you receive nothing. And corporate taxes fund, um, government preventing you from doing business by regulating you to death.

    7. Inheritance taxes are inherently unjust because it is a form of DOUBLE taxation. That income was taxed already when it was earned – why does it have to be taxed when it is given to someone else?

      1. Because inequality…blah blah blah… haven’t you read Thomas Pickety’s book that I myself didn’t read? No wonder you don’t see the justice of it. /progderp

    8. The obsession on the left with inheritance taxes is left over from leftist thinking that originated in Europe, where inheritance was based more on illiquid, land-based wealth than it was on liquid, sweat equity wealth. Since the illiquid wealth was passed down to the eldest progeny it was never made available for the public at large to utilize. Liquid wealth is a different story.

      Large pools of liquid wealth are critical to the function of any capitalistic economy. Without those large pools of liquid wealth you wouldn’t have any high-risk investments made in promising but unlikely to succeed ventures.

      Leftists of course don’t see it that way. To them it is a big pile of money that isn’t doing anyone any good, except the beneficiary, which obviously isn’t true.

      I’d also point out that the inheritance tax was hitting small family-owned businesses much harder than it was anyone else, since a one-generation fortune like you have seen with Sam Walton, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc. is the vast, vast exception, and with those fortunes it doesn’t matter what the inheritance tax is, the progeny will still be rich.

      And lastly, if you believe remotely in any libertarian principles whatsoever, what you do with your property is absolutely no ones business but your own.

      1. The problem in Europe was that the courts allowed restraints on alienation. So people could prohibit their heirs from ever selling the land and ensure it never left the family. England and the US didn’t have the problem and adopted the Rule Against Perpetuities.

        Like everything the Left says, this concern of theirs is nothing but a lie and projection. The single biggest threat to the Rule Against Perpetuities is corporate ownership in the form of charitable trusts buying land and keeping it off the market forever. The Nature Conservancy is nothing but a new form of Aristocracy creating new King’s Forests all over America. The Left of course thinks this is great.

        1. Great points, John.

          1. Interesting from both of you.

        2. I’ll still take Nature Conservancy and other private conservation organizations as a good thing. There is considerable value to having undeveloped land around, especially mountains with forests without which many rivers would be utter disasters.
          Nothing is really perpetual. If that land becomes essential to use for some other purpose, the law can be changed (or ignored).

          1. Like everything, it is a matter of degree. And there isn’t a law that causes it. It is just the nature of corporate ownership. Since the corporation never dies a natural death, the land never changes hands.

            I don’t view them as a bad thing in moderation. I would limit corporate ownership of property to say 100 years. Make them sell the land every 100 years and see if someone wants it more than the environmentalists.

            1. Seems like a reasonable rule. A lot can change in 100 years and everything should probably be re-examined from time to time.

        3. It’s not just out and out ownership but conservation easements that prohibit full use of the land by future owners. And the current owners get a tax break.

          1. Conservation easements should be illegal. That is a restraint on alienation.

            1. Shorter John: Damn corporations!

              1. I mean, they’re not real people! How can they own land? How can they make campaign contributions?

                1. First, conversation easements are a different issue than corporate ownership. Second, as long as the corporation is a for profit corporation, there is not an issue, because they can’t hold onto the land forever if selling it is the best economic decision. The problem is not “corporations”. The problem is non profit corporations that are set up specifically to take land off of the market, economics be damned. I don’t care about Exon owning land because if the price gets high enough, Exon will sell to someone who values the land more. I care about the Nature Conservancy owning because they are not set up to make a profit and will hold it forever regardless.

                  Lastly, an easement is different. It is me telling future owners of my property what they can and cannot do with it. That is bullshit. If I sell the property, the full rights to it should convey or if I retain some of the rights to it, those rights should die with me or convey with my estate. Conservation easements don’t do that. They just remain as a permanent restraint on alienation.

                  1. So I shouldn’t be able to sell the mineral rights on my land?

                    1. Also, I really like the Johnism “conversation easement.”

                      “I want to buy the perpetual right to talk about your property!”

                    2. I like how Citizen Nothing can’t understand the difference between mineral rights and an easement. I can’t tell you the number of column inches I have spent trying to explain to you dumb asses how property rights actually work. And none of it ever sinks into your thick fucking skulls. For people who claim to love property rights, you have almost no understanding of what that term actually means.

                    3. Of course you can. But you shouldn’t be able to decide that no future owners can ever mine the land. No. You can retain the mineral rights and then those rights will go to someone else when they die. That is not a conservation easement. A conservation easement never vests in anyone’s ownership. It is just you saying “since I own this land, I am saying that no one in the future may ever mine it”. That is totally different.

                    4. So I shouldn’t be able to sell the mineral rights on my land?

                      Serious question. Is this clause that hard to understand?

                      if I retain some of the rights to it, those rights should die with me or convey with my estate. Conservation easements don’t do that. They just remain as a permanent restraint on alienation.

                      I can’t believe you could have read and understood this clause and then came back with mineral rights as a response. Did you not read it or is the sentence just that hard to understand?

                    5. Don’t the rights to a conservation easement vest with the person (or entity) who buys those rights?

                    6. That’s a serious question, by the way. I was under the impression that a conservation easement could be transferred, resold, rebought, inherited, just like mineral rights. Is that not so?

                    7. Don’t the rights to a conservation easement vest with the person (or entity) who buys those rights?

                      No. They are the government paying people to essentially renounce the right to develop land. That wouldn’t be so bad except that the renunciation applies to all future land owners. They are basically cash for clunkers for land. They actively and permanently destroy property rights. Just because they compensate the current land owner, doesn’t undo the long term damage.

                    8. But private entities can also buy conservation easements, John. That’s the whole point. Governments, too, can buy mineral rights.

    9. Thinking about myself, I’d rather my parents spent their retirement years enjoying themselves than scrimp just so I could receive something after their deaths.

      And what would your parents prefer? And more importantly, you don’t get to force your preferences on everybody else’s parents.

      Plus, all that wealth has already been taxed.

    10. The compliance burden is huge, it is essentially a wash compared to the revenue raised.

      It is an extremely inefficient way to raise tax revenue.

      1. I didn’t realize this. Thanks for pointing it out.

    11. And their progeny did nothing to deserve the windfall of an inheritance…

      Oh, my…

      1. The estate planning attorneys however…

    12. “I’m bemused that I should agree with Marx on anything, but isn’t the inheritance tax preferable to almost any other tax?”

      No for several reasons.

      1. If I make money my whole life in order to provide for my posterity, what right to you have to steal that money that is meant to help my children, my grandchildren, and my broader family?

      2. People underestimate how important inheritance is to long-term capital accumulation. Differences in inheritance across cultures has a massive impact upon those cultures and how their wealth accumulates. Inheritance allows for wealth to increase generation by generation as it gets passed down and allowing the government to intercede would damage the next generation to fund today.

      That’s incredibly selfish, in my opinion.

      1. I’m a little surprised at how vociferous the response how been to this one. I’m sympathetic to your #1, but I’m still not sure how I see that stealing your money via inheritance tax is different or worse than stealing via income tax or corporate tax or any other tax.

        #2 is something I had not considered. Similar to the family farm argument, but with a bigger view over time.

        1. Yeah it all comes down to consumption versus capital investment. People with a lot of wealth tend to be good at making capital investments that create even more wealth. If someone inherits a lot of wealth and isn’t good at making those capital investments, then he will quickly lose that wealth anyway. I’d rather let the (free) market handle such disbursements than the government.

          Of course, just about every argument against the inheritance tax is also an argument against income taxes.

        2. You touched on a hot button topic for us.

          Personally, I come from a family where my father left another country and worked like an effen dog to amass a small fortune of properties. My parents live off that but their plan all along was to hand it off to us. But the government makes it so hard it’s almost immoral – tax wise. My father did make one mistake – not putting it in trust so we’ve have to make other arrangements.

          As for me, I opened a business and again, the way taxes are collected are of very big concern to me. The left guilts me into believing it’s the ‘price for civilization’ but I don’t see how raiding the fruits of my labor is any of their business on ANY level.

          By determining, without a damn shred of proof, it’s undeserved and going up the noses of some snotty rich kid (which probably happens) only points to their lame ass projections and envy.

          It’s not rational. It’s an emotional ploy on their part.

          1. “The left guilts me into believing it’s the ‘price for civilization’…”

            Plus, it’s not very good for civilization. Being able to pass on the fruits of labor between generations is about as bedrock as it gets in terms of import domestic functions that spill over as huge benefits to society, such as the delayed gratification of savings, family cohesion, long-range planning, etc. Incentives matters.

            1. I see most of this has been covered below in so many words. You people don’t need me. (sob)

        3. My dad married my mom in June of 1978. In November 1978, my mom’s dad died and he did not do enough estate planning. He owned over 2,000 acres of farmland in Illinois and guess what? My mom and dad had to sell half the acreage to pay Uncle Sam. My dad still laments the situation to this very day. Luckily for my dad and our family, we have done everything legally possible to ensure that we won’t have to sell half the damn acreage when my grandmother and my parents pass away. Hell, my intent is to buy more ground to offset the upcoming losses but w/ farmland selling for $14k/acre back home, that’s almost impossible to mortgage now.

          1. Similar scenario happened to my cousins with their family cattle ranch. They still haven’t recovered fully a couple of decades later.

    13. If the children have been raised well, they will invest their inheritance and add more value to the economy. The government, OTOH, will merely waste the assets. Nonetheless, it is none of the government’s (or anybody elses for that matter) business what people do with their estate.

    14. Inheritance tax is the primary reason that successful businesses stop being family run concerns and get taken over by The Suits. Before I back any rise in the inheritance tax I would want to know;

      Will it actually raise any significant amount of money?

      On what basis do we decide that it is a punishable offense to want to leave your life’s work intact for your children?

      What is the govrnment going to do with the money that is more useful or entertaining than a rich man’s son blowing it on wine, women, amd fats cars?

    15. Sure, once you’re dead you don’t care about anything, but up until you are dead that money belongs to you and is yours to do with as you please. If you want to pass it on to your kids, then why does the government have any more say in that decision than they should in your decision to spend it on hookers and blow, or donations to a children’s hospital?

      Furthermore, what if you just spent the last 20 years of your life dutifully caring for a disabled parent and that parent wants you to have the inheritance? You may think that you have done a great deal to deserve that money and your parent may agree. Even if you’ve been a terrible child, your parent might think you have earned the money. Love is weird like that. Why should anyone else get to override that decision?

      1. Excellent point

    16. Fuck inheritance tax with a stick.

      Why cannot a deceased distribute his wealth as they sees fit – helping their progeny buy better homes, get better schools for their children, and generally make their lives easier.

    17. A great idea, if you hate families.

    18. Is there some special reason taxing inheritances is especially evil that I’m missing?

      Umm…it relies on the threat of aggression, up to and including deadly force, upon peaceful people?

    19. And their progeny did nothing to deserve the windfall of an inheritance

      Who are you to decide what they deserve? And deserve has nothing to do with it anyway.

    20. so you’re one of the fuckers who thinks this way?

      What the fuck, man? HOW does the government have a right to that money? HOW?! What justification? It drives me crazy that just because there’s a lump of money somewhere and the dude who owned it is dead that it’s cool to pilfer from those he gave it to.

      1. “so you’re one of the fuckers who thinks this way?”

        I know I’m way late but I’d like to clarify that many of these little comments I make are more to clarify my thinking and see what other people have to say, rather than an absolute assertion of my actual opinion.

        1. Hope we clarified things. /smile.

  3. The White House has issued eight veto threats so far this month…

    “Present.”

    1. Hey, he’s a divider not a uniter.

    2. Make me your senator and I’ll vote Kilroy.

  4. Gee, you guys found a great cause, there.

    Activists from FORCE: Upsetting Rape Culture and the Free Marissa Now campaign have teamed up to ensure that when Alexander arrives for her sentencing hearing at the Duval County Courthouse in Jacksonville, she’ll be greeted by messages of solidarity from other domestic violence survivors across the country.

    “350 quilt squares containing stories from survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault will blanket the Duval County Courthouse lawn to let Jacksonville and the world know Marissa is NOT ALONE, ” the Facebook page for the Monument Quilt explains. “The Monument Quilt display at Marissa Alexander’s trial will continue to draw attention to the deep injustice she has experienced, first as a survivor of domestic violence and second as a victim the of the racist US legal system.”

    1. All they want is for the right to murder men whenever they choose. How could you object to that?

    2. Stand your ground for women, but not for white Hispanics?

      1. All animals are equal, but ….

      2. IIRC, not an actual SYG situation.

        1. Neither was the white-hispanic?

    3. Yeah, those people aren’t doing her any favors.

      And the support for her here has been lukewarm at best. She was not in her own home and actually left the dwelling to return with a weapon.

      1. She was also violating a restraining order. And she went back and punched him two days later.

    4. First of all, if what this woman is accused of happened, she is essentially guilty of attempted murder.

      Secondly, if you’re complaint is that the prison sentence is going to be longer than she deserves, then that’s the fault of leftists for enacting all of these laws which require longer prison terms for gun crimes.

      Why don’t you try to repeal those laws instead of whining when they work in a way you didn’t intend?

      1. But…but…[head asplodes like the Martians in “Mars Attacks”] /feministing

        1. I apologize for using that imagery since it’s clearly fantasizing about real violence against real women for the crime of speaking out about the injustices of a racist, patriarchal system.

          1. Good… but 500 lashes are still called for!

            /Jezzie

  5. UFO hunters say a photo released by NASA shows the shadow of a man with an oxygen tank tinkering with the Mars Curiosity rover.

    That’s clearly the drone’s own arm. Seriously, that’s the best you ufologists have got?

    1. Seriously…and why oxygen tank? Why not a creature that breathes CO2…or sulfur?

      1. Plus they’re going to have to take off the oxygen mask when they start drinking from that moonshine jug they’re clearly removing from the rover.

      2. It looks like Starlord to me. I wonder what he’s listening to right now.

        1. “B-A-B-Y” by Carla Thomas

    2. No, it means we already have people on Mars! Thanks, Obama!

      1. I TOLD Pro L to stay out of camera range, dammit!

        1. I thought that was Warty “accessing” the fleshlight port on the Curiosity.

          They put that port in to provide some sort of relief for the secret astronauts they flew there.

          Warty is the contractor for building the dungeon basement in the secret base.

        2. That wasn’t me. Why would I need an oxygen tank when we’ve already terraformed the planet?

    3. I see the shadow of a man, baby, making you blue.


      1. I see a little silhouetto of a man
        Scaramouch, scaramouch will you do the fandango

    4. Pareidolia isn’t a thing. No, not at all.

    5. Seriously, that’s the best you ufologists have got?

      Not by a long shot:

      http://www.projectpegasus.net/

      From the welcome page:

      Andrew D. Basiago brought his truth campaign about the US time travel and Mars cover-ups to Maui for the first time when he lectured at the Temple of Peace in Haiku, Hawaii on July 23-24, 2011. During his talks, Andy linked President Barack Obama to the US Mars visitation program, revealing that Obama was his classmate in a Mars training program held at The College of the Siskiyous in 1980, and vowed future revelations about the US time-space program.

      1. So why wasn’t that the link instead of the weaksauce? That’s funny.

        1. Because the fucking feds are hogging the time machine so Ed can’t go back and correct the link. Duh!

      2. Fuck! They have time travel already? That really blows my retirement strategy.

        http://www.timetravelfund.com/

        Looks like I just wasted $10.

      3. There’s a town called Haiku?

    6. I want to know what the “moon landings were faked” people have to say about this. Is there a name for those people like “Truthers”?

      1. The moon doesn’t lessen economic inequality so it must be fake.

  6. …but New York City and the tri-state area were spared despite extreme forecasts.

    Brought to you by Mountain Dew.

    1. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho?

    2. Ah, if you had said Surge, I’d have to buy a newspaper to ensure I didn’t travel back to ’97.

  7. Meanwhile, UFO hunters say a photo released by NASA shows the shadow of a man with an oxygen tank tinkering with the Mars Curiosity rover.

    So if they’re on Earth (which is one claim from the UFOlogists), why do they need an oxygen tank?

    1. To make us think it’s on Mars when they screw up and release the photo — DUH!!

      1. Space selfies are the worst.

        1. Wait, so it is a picture of nicole???

          1. Space Nicole is the space worst.

  8. Last time I promise:

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..ves-arbys/

    Remember a couple of days ago the cops that killed a girl with a gun in their lobby. This CITIZEN managed a good deal more than that with a good deal less:

    “This guy went above and beyond the call in terms of avoiding violence. Upon returning to the restaurant he confronted the deranged robber and ordered her to cease and desist. In the initial encounter ? probably hoping that the woman was aware of the rule about not bringing a knife to a gunfight ? he didn’t even draw his weapon. He just showed her the butt of the weapon. Rather than complying, she she kept her knife and approached him, causing him to then draw his weapon.

    Even then, with every justification to take the shot, he chose to grab her arm and take away the knife. When police arrived he set down his weapon and gave them all the details as they took her into custody.”

    1. That man is a hero. He took a risk, but it paid off.

      This incident and similar just emphasizes how much fucking armored cops with plenty of non-lethal options at their disposal shitting their pants over teenagers who may/may not have a weapon make me sick.

  9. Confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch begin today in the Senate.

    Let’s see if she stands by her testimony.

    1. Isn’t that Tammy Wynettch?

      1. And when she runs for AG she’ll get the same joke.

    2. “Let’s see if she stands by her testimony.”

      Loretta can stand by Her testimony, Kacey Musgraves, or whatever/whoever she wants, as long as Tammy stands by the jams: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPjggN-KByI

      (Rhinoceros horns and red hooded cloaks and submarines – oh my!)

  10. Astronomers say they’ve found rings 200 times the size of Saturn’s around a planet orbiting the star J1407.

    I recommend Saturnest as the new planet name. I’m not fluent in l33t speak anymore so I’m having a hard time deciphering it’s current name.

  11. New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D) will step down from his post of 21 years as he faces federal corruption charges.

    He may have been a more efficient worker in jail.

  12. Astronomers say they’ve found rings 200 times the size of Saturn’s around a planet orbiting the star J1407.

    Standards for engagement rocks set to rise.

  13. What’s the difference between a chubby noodle and a fat noodle?

    Not much, according to the owners of two Chubby Noodle restaurants in the San Francisco area. They filed a federal lawsuit last week against the owners of a forthcoming competitor, Fat Noodle, contending that the name and logo of the soon-to-be restaurant is “confusingly similar” to their own.

    Article here http://www.abajournal.com/news….._noodle_is

    1. Gives new meaning to the term ‘Chubby Chaser’

      1. Angel hair pasta is chubby to sarcasmic.

    2. John would have sex with either of them.

      1. Somebody beat Sarcasmic to the punchline, and he has a sad. :-p

        1. You can stop sucking my dick now.

          1. Is it like a Fat Noodle or a Chubby Noodle?

            *flees room*

    3. If they don’t know the difference between a chubby and a fattie then god help them.

  14. The FBI says a bomb threat against an airplane departing Los Angeles is the fourth online threat against a passenger flight in the last week.

    Which obviously means the internet is a threat that needs to be reined in.

  15. It’s about damn time.

    Wikipedia votes to ban some editors from gender-related articles:
    Online encyclopedia’s highest court votes on more than 10 editors deemed to be breaking the site rules amid Gamergate controversy

    Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, the highest user-run body on the site, has voted to ban editors from making corrections to articles about feminism, in an attempt to stop a long-running edit war over the entry on the “Gamergate controversy”.

    The editors, who were all actively attempting to prevent the article from being rewritten with a pro-Gamergate slant, were sanctioned by “arbcom” in its preliminary decision. While that may change as it is finalised, the body, known as Wikipedia’s supreme court, rarely reverses its decisions.

    The sanction bars the five editors from having anything to do with any articles covering Gamergate, but also from any other article about “gender or sexuality, broadly construed”.

    Mark Bernstein, a writer and former Wikipedia editor, said that, “This takes care of social justice warriors with a vengeance ? not only do the Gamergaters get to rewrite their own page (and Zoe Quinn’s, Brianna Wu’s, Anita Sarkeesian’s, etc); feminists are to be purged en bloc from the encyclopedia.”

    1. That’s very interesting.

      Wonder how those idiots will react.

      Like they’re victims or something.

    2. It’s about damn time

      My thoughts exactly.

    3. Wikipedia is shit. Anyone who takes that as a serious source is delusional. It can have some good links to primary sources, however.

      1. I’ve found it to be generally reliable.

        1. It’s okay for things that don’t have a political component, but total shit for anything that does.

          1. So, an accurate reflection of society as a whole.

            1. Well, there is this Canukistaner ER Doc who shits all over the Wiki eCig articles …. so .. um .. yeah.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…..arette#.23

              Stupid ass Doc James.

      2. It’s not a serious source, but it has its uses in case you want to look up something quickly. Also, because of systemic bias, it’s better on some subjects than on others.

      3. So you’d rather have a reference work written and edited by Top Men?

    4. The Guardian article is inaccurate and was published prior to final decision-making by Wikipedia authorities.

      1. So did they reverse the decision

      2. Damn. But the article definitely looks different today. It even uses the Cathy Young articles as reference material.

    5. Wikipedia is part of the patriarchal rape culture@!@#!!

  16. Meanwhile, UFO hunters say a photo released by NASA shows the shadow of a man with an oxygen tank tinkering with the Mars Curiosity rover.

    Was he grunting, using Binford tools, saying “more power!”, and making fun of someone named Al?

    1. STEVE SMITH RAPE MARS ROVER!!!

  17. What? You don’t want to fight it out in court? Divorce model program in Denver.

    It’s a holistic approach that is gathering interest among some law theorists who note that many so-called legal problems are not solvable solely by the legal profession.

    Families never enter an actual courtroom. If they’re successful, their divorce or separation is granted by a visiting judge in a comfortable room on the university’s campus?a feature that’s more important than many people ever realize.

    Article here http://www.abajournal.com/maga…..to_divorce

    1. Is it next to the Cashier’s Office or the Castration Lab?

      1. What is the difference?

  18. “Ms Lynch, if confirmed will you prosecute your predecessor to the fullest extent of the lHAHAHAHA!! Oh, couldn’t quite get it out!”

  19. It kills me that you probably could never do this in America now.

    Awesome firework festival

    The Beehive Fireworks are essentially multiple launchers of bottle rockets. These rocket forts are actually thousands of bottle rockets arranged row atop row in an iron-and-wooden framework.

    1. I think this might be appropriate.

    2. Holy fucking shit!

  20. New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D) will step down from his post of 21 years as he faces federal corruption charges.

    Don’t forget that Cuomo is reportedly running scared and terrified that this will lead to his doorstep.

    1. Well, Silver is the keeper of the skeletons for the party…

  21. Tony|1.27.15 @ 10:27PM|#

    John hasn’t had sex in probably 30 years. No regular here has sex. Nobody who believes the shit you people believe and possesses the laughably misplaced narcissism you people posses has sex with anyone you’re not paying.

    He told us! (7 hours after the article was posted.)

    1. When you consider that to Tony only forcible sodomy counts as “sex”, he wasn’t technically lying here. He just has a different definition of the term than the rest of us.

      1. I was busy yesterday so I was reading through what I missed and noticed this comment. Then I noticed the time stamp. Nothing like corpse fucking a thread.

        1. Nothing like corpse fucking a thread.

          A Tony standard.

    2. Hahahaha. This is like when MNG resorted to mom jokes.

    3. ‘Tony’ continues to fuck the corpses of dead threads just to get the juvenile thrill of the last word.

      1. Krugman is the same kind of sociopath that Weigel is.

    4. I don’t understand what he’s trying to imply. Is shitbird insinuating that only liberal-socialist type people get regular, consensual, and “free” sex?

      1. I thought conservative Christian types bred like rabbits. Are they somehow doing that without having sex?

        1. It’s quite simple, in addition to his fashionable antisemitism and racism, Tony is your stereotypical homosexual misogynist. He views all “white-bread, breeder” marriages as just another form of “prostitution”. As a sociopath with the inability to imagine that others possess inner mental lives different than himself, Tony cannot comprehend that people of opposite genders could authentically love one another and wish to express that love through entering a marriage relationship.

          1. Like everything with people like him, it is all about projection. At heart Tony knows he is some kind of deviant idiot deals with it by projecting it on to everyone else.

      2. Budding, John, budding.

      3. “I don’t understand what he’s trying to imply. Is shitbird insinuating that only liberal-socialist type people get regular, consensual, and “free” sex?”

        It’s especially laughable given that the people who get the most consistent sex are actually monogamous married couples.

        Tony once again shows that he has a very poor grasp of things like ‘proven facts.’

    5. What a petulant little baby he his.

        1. ‘Ow kind of you!

          1. That reminds me, I have an appointment during my office hours with one Miss Doolittle. Probably to complain about her phonology quiz.

            1. Want to make a bet?

    6. Tony is so disturbed it’s actually become immensely entertaining.

      It’s especially brilliant that Tony, who thinks he’s the smartest person the world has ever known despite the fact that every time he tries to make an argument he provably gets all of his facts wrong, is trying to claim we’re narcissists.

      1. That’s my fault. I taught him that big boy word years ago.

      2. The quality of his trolling has declined over the last year or so. It’s like he doesn’t even try anymore. He just lets the hate flow.

        1. The original Tony might have died. We might have a Dick Sargent / Dick York situation. Tony is still a dick, just a slightly different kind of dick.

          1. Maybe you’re right. I mean, you are the expert on Dicks from what I hear.

            1. What was meant to be a reference to your peculiar brand of fiction. After a re-read I figured I should probably make that clear.

              1. Dick Dale is awesome. Moby Dick was a swell read. Dick Clark was on television for a long time, so that is how you know he is good.

              2. No, I’m all about Dicks: actors and members; behavior-based and otherwise.

  22. How do the NY wing of the community here feel about DeBlasio shutting down the city because of the storm?

    It’s unheard of here. Although in 1998 during the ice storm the Premier had no choice but to reluctantly ask people to stay home because, well, we were paralyzed with no electricity among other things. That was something else I tell ya.

    1. I think he’s a Moron.

      Oh, and he made a bad call on issuing a shutdown order.

    2. The only problem is that DeBlasio didn’t shut it permanently. F NY

    3. I live near Albany. Even with a forecast of heavy snow, no one here expected anything to be closed. But we all know that 3 inches of snow or more will basically cripple NYC because that place is panicky by nature, and despite the tough rhetoric, everyone there is a wuss in real life. (I think the tough rhetoric comes from merely surviving in a place that is such a pain in the ass to live, not. But merely surviving that doesn’t make you tough. Try telling them that and they get all bent out of shape. Real thin skinned and full of irony.)

      1. Provincial bigots too, and they think they’re the tolerant and broad-minded ones.

      2. You’d panic too if you ate three meals a day out and suddenly you couldn’t get dinner delivered!

      3. This is so very true.

        I live 60 miles north of NYC. A few weeks ago we had 1-3 inches of snow (I would estimate it was much closer to the 1 inch side, and the snow was finished by the time most morning commutes occurred). One of the main thoroughfares to the city, the state thruway to the Tappan Zee Bridge, was so backed up with traffic that most commuters had to add an extra 60-90 minutes to their drive time. For 1-3 inches of snow.

    4. I was amazed that I didn’t have to go up on the roof to clean off the internet satellite.

      (Yes, I live in the middle of nowhere and satellite internet is the only high-speed internet I can get.)

    1. Covered yesterday.

      Also, if I was looking for a pretext to regulate toy/hobby drones this would be tailor-made for that.

      [Tears off tinfoil, passes roll to Switzy]

      1. *molds fashionable Alpine hat from foil*

        1. Sehr sch?n!

    1. I’m just spitballing here, but maybe His Holiness wanted to respect the poor guy’s privacy?

      1. or gal

    2. He’s fishing for a wedding invite. Devil throws good parties.

      1. So a guy dies and goes to hell where he meets the devil.
        Devil: why so glum?
        Guy: I’m in hell.
        Devil: do you like cigars?
        Guy: yeah, I died of lung cancer.
        Devil: well your gonna love Monday. We get all the best cigars and smoke all day, plus you don’t have to worry about dying.
        Devil: do you like to drink?
        Guy: yeah I was an alcoholic!
        Devil: you’re gonna love Tuesdays. We get all the best booze and drink all day, plus no hangovers cuz you’re already dead.
        Devil: do you like being sodomized?
        Guy: No.
        Devil: oh. You’re going hate Wednesdays.

        1. +1 Wednesday is *your* turn in the barrel.

    3. The Vatican is not actually known for transparency, nor does it represent itself as such.

    4. Pope Francis has met a Spanish transsexual and his fianc?e at the Vatican,

      He really only watched All About My Mother.

      (That having been said, if you haven’t seen the movie, I can strongly recommend it.)

  23. Curious to know how many bomb threats actually turn out to be a bomb. I know, better safe than sorry. But I would think if a person was serious about blowing something up, and went to the trouble of getting a bomb on a plane, they’d want to keep it secret.

    1. Very Few. And if terrorists haven’t figured out that they can cause more harm by flooding the system with threats than they can by setting off all but the largest actual bomb, I would think they soon will.

  24. Before you read this comment, make sure you have a diaper on because shit is about to get real.

    Mars rover.
    M-A-R-S R-O-V-E-R is a phrase that has 9 letters.
    9, obviously refers to the 9/11 attacks of 2001.
    Do you see it?
    Yes, the Information Awareness Office was established in the wake of the September 11th terrorists attacks.
    What does that have to do with anything, you ask?
    This was the logo of the IAO.
    In the logo, the position of the Eye of Providence in relation to the Earth could only come from an “aerocentric” or Mars-orientated orbit.
    The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) was inserted in an aerocentric orbit on March 10th, 2005.
    What is the significance of that date, you ask?
    On March 10th, 1876, Alexander Graham Bell successfully made the first telephone call.
    The invention of telephony was the foundation what would become the modern surveillance state.
    The word “telephone” has 9 letters.
    9 divided by 3 is 3.
    A triangle has 3 sides
    MARS IS ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED

    1. Dafuq? Who slipped LSD into my coffee?

      1. *grabs Drax’s coffee – chugs – rereads Mulatto’s post*

    2. A triangle has 3 sides

      Half-Life 3 confirmed.

      1. I never thought of that before /adjusts tinfoil hat

    3. Sounds legit.

    4. 9 divided by 3 is 3.
      A triangle has 3 sides
      MARS IS ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED

      NO! Half-Life 3 confirmed!

  25. EXCLUSIVE: Plus size model Hayley Hasselhoff speaks to FEMAIL about dealing with ‘bad body days’, facing her critics – and why she’d love to work with dad David

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..David.html
    For you chubby-chasers, you know who you are!

    1. Hayley and a number of her fellow fuller-figured models have come under fire from critics who claim that many of the women who are featured in campaigns for larger clothing ranges are not actually large enough to be considered plus size.

      Is that what she means by having a — I am not making this up — “bad body day”?

      1. My guess is that it refers to those days where she is less positive about her body image.

        1. Or maybe when she’s bloated or something.

      2. She’s a shapeshifter and lost cohesion?

    2. I think she looks pretty good. But in 10 years with another 40-100 lbs…no thanks.

      The problem is there are way too many women, let alone people, who are 2-8 times the size of Hayley. Sorry land manatees, you aren’t attractive, you don’t deserve sex with skinny people simply because you breathe, and you shouldn’t expect to realistically represented in something that has an implicit sexual component (underwear, lingerie, etc.).

      That said, I need to lay off the beer and do a couple dozen push ups an hour.

      1. you aren’t attractive

        Not normatively, but even the very big big girls have fans.

        you don’t deserve sex with skinny people simply because you breathe

        Has anyone outside of CL personals actually ever asserted that?

        1. An ex of mine. It’s funny in hindsight. Tragic at the time. Unfair all around.

          It might be more of a personal anecdote than anything else, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is more widespread. Regardless, I need some alcohol now.

        2. And you’re right Tonio. I was throwing out my own “shallow” view of beauty as if it was a universal truth that applied to everyone. I was definitely wrong in that regard.

          1. Tonio has some unorthodox views on beauty and sexiness. :-p

            1. Why yes, yes I do.

          2. I agreed that your view was normative. I didn’t assign a value judgement, ie “shallow,” to that.

        3. Has anyone outside of CL personals actually ever asserted that?

          Everybody at jezebel?

          1. Srsly? The actual writers or the commentariat there?

      2. “you don’t deserve sex with skinny people simply because you breathe”

        Eh, a lot of people think they deserve sex. You probably just notice that attitude more coming from women you find unattractive.

        1. Well plenty of men think that as well. Like that asshole psychopath who killed all those blonde girls in California last year. He specifically thought he deserved sex with with tall, buxom, blonde women. When he couldn’t get it, he snapped. Although, that might not have been his entire motivation.

          I certainly don’t deserve shit let alone sex simply because I pull air into my lungs. That’s basically a tenet of freedom right? You have your life, and that’s about it. Don’t expect much else unless you work for it.

    3. why she’d love to work with dad David

      Would it involve sitting drunk on the floor and eating cheeseburgers?

  26. You have to see this saw! Incredible 45,000-ton machine has blade the size of a four-storey building

    The 45,000 ton piece of machinery can be found at the Bogatyr Mine near the city of Ekibastuz in Kazakhstan
    Monster saw, known as a bucket wheel excavator, is so big 27 miners are needed to operate it at any one time
    Diameter of saw component alone spans 12 metres while a single machine can cost up to ?66million to produce
    Although it can only travel one mile every three hours it is capable of scooping out 4,500 tons of coal in 60 minutes

    That’s one heck of a machine.

    1. That’s one heck of a link.

      1. stepping on Ted’s schtick

  27. Legal Marijuana Sales Grow 74 Percent in 2014

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…..t-in-2014/

    What wouldn’t you give to put your money in a business that grew 74 percent in one year? There is such a business, the fastest-growing business in the nation: selling marijuana legally.

    1. Its all fun and games until DOJ seizes your bank account.

      1. Just put all your money in hash-coins like Ricky from Trailer Park Boys.

    2. Not much of a surprise. The legal market (outside of medical) has grown infinity percent since 2012. I don’t think you can expect that kind of growth in the future.

  28. Who cares about Loretta Lynch? Have some Marshawn Lynch:

    Seattle Seahawks running back Marshawn Lynch constantly repeated “I’m here so I don’t get fined” for five minutes before leaving the podium at Media Day.

    I’m glad somebody finally treats these press conferences as the joke they are.

    “So, what do you guys need to do to win out there?”
    “Well, we uh, need to play hard and score points and stuff.”

    Not that I care about millionaires in tights chasing a ball around anyway.

    1. I love it. He has also turning it into endorsements. I saw a Geico Commercial this morning where he is doing an interview and answering every equation with “yeah” until the guy asks him about insurance and then he goes on about how great Flo and Geico are. It is brilliant marketing.

      1. Flo? Really?

        1. Its a Geiko commercial. What do you expect him to do?

          1. Oh, I don’t know … Maybe go on about how great the Gecko or Maxwell is?

            1. Flo may not be easy on the eyes, but I will take watching her over a cockney gecko and a talking pig any day. I wish they would retire Maxwell by filming a commercial of Flo roasting him on a spit.

              1. I wish they would retire Maxwell by filming a commercial of Flo roasting him on a spit.

                I smell Clio Award! Or is that bacon?

              2. I hate that goddam lizard. I’ve always fantasized about a commercial where some country kid impales him on a hook and tries to catch a fish.

                1. I hate it too. I would take that or a house cat catching and eating him.

          2. Flo is Progessive, not Geico.

            1. Oh. then maybe it was a Progressive ad. I don’t know. You get the idea though.

            2. Of course she’s Progressive, She’s female.

          3. Flo is Progressive

            1. Won’t you exsanguinate if your “flo” is progressive?

    2. It’s kind of funny (but not really) that Bill Belischmuck does basically the same thing Lynch does when it comes to trolling the media, but never gets threatened or criticized because he’s white, an employee of Goodell’s frat buddy Kraft, and a “genius” (aka unrepentant cheater).

      1. When black men stand up for themselves, it scares douchey white liberal sports writers.

        1. And fascistic, out of control commissioners.

    3. Loretta Lynch is a name for a country singer, not an AG.

  29. Now THIS is who you’re gonna call! Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones lead Ghostbusters all-girl reboot

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..eboot.html
    Why?

    1. Who you gonna call? Social Justice Warriors!

    2. Melissa McCarthy? How in the hell does she continue to get work? Some people can pull off the “HEY I’M SO FAT AND WACKY LOOK AT ME!” schtick, but she isn’t one of them and it’s all she has.

      I have no idea who the others are, but this movie is doomed.

      1. Because she is fat and unpleasant and once did a scene where she shit in a sink and that is really funny or something.

        Bridesmaids was one of the most unwatchable movies made in the last twenty years. And in a movie full of unwatchable characters, McCarthy stood out as being the most unwatchable.

        The only way I can explain it is that feminists view giving her parts as some kind of cultural stand against the patriarchy or something.

        1. “Bridesmaids was one of the most unwatchable movies made in the last twenty years. And in a movie full of unwatchable characters, McCarthy stood out as being the most unwatchable.”

          Bridesmaids is terrible and its popular makes no sense.

          The reason McCarthy is popular is because she’s a fat woman doing the sort of thing fat men have done for years – being a goofy, bouncy fat person in a comedy movie.

          The problem is that she’s not actually very funny or good at her shtick. It’s just that she’s a woman doing what men used to do, therefore she is a warrior for great social justice and gender equity.

          1. Bridesmaids is terrible and its popular makes no sense.

            This sentence describes 99% of everything Judd Apatow has been involved with.

      2. If this movie is not a success, it’s because of the white cis shitlord PATRIARCHY!!

      3. I have no idea who Melissa McCarthy is, but she looks like she imagines herself as some sort of American Dawn French, who manages to be brilliant without even relying on her fatness as a big part of her comedy.

    3. The possibility of this being good, even if it had the original cast with a resurrected Harold Ramis, are slim to none. And slim blew his brains out last week.

          1. +1 Heart of Darkness

    4. They are ticking off the boxes: fat girl, black girl, lesbian, and Wiig, whom I assume will be transitioning half-way through the film.

      If only one the boxes to tick off was “funny.” (Although I do like Jones’ SNL rants so far.)

      1. If I were a fat, black lesbian, I would be doing a stand up act and hitting the audition circuit. Someone like that could have a very successful career without any need of being funny or having any talent. Just get up and talk about how you are a fat black lesbian and how awesome that makes you and how horrible everyone else is.

        In fact, an over weight black women could do a long con that would make Andy Kauffman envious. Just dress as dykey as possible and go on stage and start insulting the white people in the audience. They would eat it up.

        1. Hasn’t worked for Lindy West so far.

          1. For whatever reason I know her name. So it hasn’t failed either. Would you or I even know who she was if she wasn’t a fat black lesbian? She seems to be making some kind of living, which is more than she would be doing if she wasn’t fat or black or a lesbian.

            1. Oh, that’s right. Lindy West isn’t black or a lesbian, just really, really fat. And unfunny. Sorry for the mix-up.

              1. She just isn’t special enough. She is cursed with white privilege. If she were black and a lesbian, it wouldn’t matter if she were funny. White people’s guilt would cause them to feel the duty to find her funny even as she insulted and abused them.

                1. I’d love to see her browser history. I bet “why doesn’t my boyfriend want to have sex with me” has been searched for dozens of times.

        2. I’m not so sure. There are a lot of aspiring comedians. I’m sure there is plenty of competition even for a fat, black lesbian. With a bit of talent, though, I think you are right that it would be much easier for such a person to get their own show or something like that. Pretty much what happened with Margaret Cho.
          And who knows what is funny to other people? There are plenty of white dude comedians who get on TV and seem quite unfunny to me.

  30. 2 Chainz Announces Plans To Run For Mayor Of Hometown

    Don’t know anything about his views outside of marijuana, but his smackdown of Nancy Grace was epic.

    1. What version of his name will be on the ballot?

  31. A new Cracked list:

    5 Things You Should Know If Accused of a School Shooting Plot

    http://bit.ly/1wxOXef

    1. So if anyone who actually called the cops on my Robert Smith-wannabe ass is reading this: good job, you were right, and if more kids followed your lead, we might not hear about any more Newtowns or Millard Souths.

      Ah, so that’s why uber-prog Cracked editor David Wong saw it fit to print.

      1. Cracked actually used to be somewhat funny, but now it is really inundated with leftist preachy bullshit.

        1. Yeah, I used to be a regular reader, but I’ve just not seen the quality there lately.

    2. Holy shit that was a strange article.

      As I read it, the kid was just an alienated teen who wrote some bad poetry right after Columbine and got ratted out by the pussies at his school.

      But he seems really miffed because the police and principal at his school merely talked to him. He thinks they should have water boarded him just to make sure he wasn’t going to shoot up his school.

      If you were a cop and charged with investigating whether or not some kid was the insane shooter anonymous tipsters were making him out to be, what steps would you take? Intense questioning of the suspect? A meeting with his parents? Maybe obtain a warrant to search his house for weapons? Check back every couple days for signs of mental deterioration? Nothing at fucking all? If you picked that last option, then congratulations — you’re fit to police teenage misfits in small-town suburbia.

      WTF? The cops took a look at his punk ass and decided he was no real threat and this guy is pissed?

      1. And thinks that the police should harass you continually for writing something. I don’t know about anyone else, but if anything, that would make me more likely to murder some people.

        1. the police should harass you continually for writing something

          And this, coming from a professional writer and editor.

    1. Its deficit neutral. It was the only way to bend the cost curve. It is a big nothing but also the greatest legislative achievement since Johnson!!

      Shreek told me so.

      1. The CBO was telling the truth when it said Obamacare was revenue neutral, but it is totally lying now because Bush.

    2. The law will still leave ‘between 29 million and 31 million’ nonelderly Americans without medical insurance

      “Oh, very well. Make it $100,000!”

      1. I thought there were 30 million uninsured before this started. Are we going to have more uninsured after it’s done pissing money away?

        1. All those numbers were just made up, anyway. What difference at this point does it make?

          1. Its insurance “created or saved”.

            That way, you get to take credit for no improvement.

    3. It also includes income from a controversial medical device tax, which some Republicans predict will be eliminated in the next two years.

      If they’re right, Obamacare’s per-person cost would be even higher.

      So there’s that…

      Also, how much of the reduced revenue was due to various executive branch decisions to illegally delay implementation of key parts of the law?

  32. ‘My phone isn’t ringing off the hook with great parts’: Drew Barrymore, 39, explains why she stepped back from acting to focus on Flower Beauty

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..mpany.html
    I wonder why. No, actually I don’t.

    1. she was cute in her Playboy pix. Holy shit that was a long time ago.

      /feeling old.

      1. She’s 39, and has been for years!

  33. Senate Republicans have also invited Catherine Engelbrecht, who was subjected to numerous federal investigations and repeated questioning by the Internal Revenue Service after she sought tax-exempt status for her voter ID advocacy group, True the Vote, in 2010.

    Among the agencies who began suddenly probing Engelbrecht’s business were the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, which are part of the Justice Department.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer……le/2559341

    Fake Scandals.

    1. And this

      Lynch is likely to be confirmed.

      Fuck the GOP. Fucking cowards. They should refuse to confirm any Obama nominee. Let the Civil Servants run things for two years. That jackass has abused the system long enough. No more political appointees and no more judicial nominations of any kind.

      1. They are pussies. Stand up for yourselves and fuck w/ Obama for a couple of years. He deserves it.

  34. Seattle government now going through citizens’ trash for public shaming, revenue

    Next up in Socialist Seattle: the Sewer department goes through citizens’ excrement to make sure they are eating enough organic, locally-sourced broccoli and not McDonald’s french fries made by non-living wage workers.

    1. The bright red tag, posted on a garbage bin, tells everyone who sees it that you’ve violated a new city law that makes it illegal to put food into trash cans.

      *** rising intonation ***

      I think I see a great prank ….

      1. Yeah, totally. Start with the elected officials and move on to appointees and managers. Make sure their cans are flagged every trash day.

        1. I don’t think that’s going to happen.

          Some what related:
          http://www.wweek.com/portland/…..bish_.html

          1. “Portland’s top brass said it was OK to swipe your garbage–so we grabbed theirs.”

            Nice.

    2. This makes me want to move to Seattle and eat at McDonalds and throw the trash from it away every single day. I would dearly love to have the government come buy and put a big red “go fuck yourself you ignorant foodies” sign on my house every week.

    3. Wait, so McDonald’s is hiring zombies now? Or is it vampires?

    4. These fuckheads really have nothing else better to do. This is exactly why it’s better if a bureaucrat sits around DOING NOTHING while soaking up stolen loot instead of actually doing something. At least when they do nothing, the damage (theft) is not compounded by busy-body bullshit.

      The sadistic bastard in me would try to fill my trash with swiped medical waste, razor blades, partially eaten aborted babies, and the hearts of my enemies from the negative zone. But that’s too much work. I would probably just take a couple dumps in the bin before trash day.

    5. So the problem, they say, is rotting food in landfills producing methane. But does rotting food produce rainbows and gum drop smiles as long as it’s not in a landfill?

    1. Get bullied by the media and the various “right thinking people” and roll over probably.

    2. Although they should probably do nothing, they will attempt to patch the law.

      1. We can only hope for gridlock, which is a real possibility. You are right, they should do nothing and make the country and the Democrats live with the law as it was written.

        1. Absolutely they should. But they won’t. They’ll roll over and pass legislation allowing the subsidies anyway. They’ll tell themselves that they will get credit with the voters for “fixing” the Dems mistake. They think their base will buy the line that it is only a temporary fix while they wait to take the White House in 2016. Obamacare will be unchanged and will be with us for at least a decade, until some new Congress decides to make things in the health market even worse.

          1. They’ll roll over and pass legislation allowing the subsidies anyway.

            Thereby claiming partial ownership of the entire clustefuck, and throwing away one of their best political levers.

            The silver lining? Maybe it will accelerate their demise.

  35. Breakfast meeting… and an avalanche of work. Everyone have a good Wednesday.

  36. I wonder if Silver being taken down will finally weaken the SEIU stranglehold that was keeping the UFC from staging events in New York.

    Why I imagine they don’t have the next five ranking democrats in their pocket is beyond me…

    1. They probably do, but I doubt Silver is going to be the only one indicted.

      1. I doubt Silver is going to roll over on anyone, or even face any jail time. A bullshit conviction, maybe a substantial fine, and Bharara gets to act like he did something useful.

        1. For a guy like Silver any conviction means losing power and that is a fate worse than death. I bet he rolls.

    1. Teach me about the little man in the boat?

      1. We’re here for you Crusty. Just post all your personal questions here and we’ll answer them in a supportive and non-judgemental fashion.

        1. What is love?

    2. Someone used to maintain a list of all the things (often directly contradictory) that have been attributed to AGW, including citations. Does anyone know if that blog is still being maintained or have a link to it?

        1. Link timed out for me. Guess that answers both of my questions. Thanks.

          1. It’s working for me. You can use archive.org too, BTW.

    3. Weather isn’t climate! Unless that weather can possibly, in any way at all, reinforce preconceived notions about man-made climate change.

  37. Pictured: Homemade ‘stinger’ that took out THREE police cars as they answered emergency calls on New Year’s Eve

    Emma Sheppard is a known environmental activist in and around Bristol
    She hammered nails into plywood to make three homemade ‘stinger’ traps
    Sheppard placed them outside a Bristol police station on New Year’s Eve
    The traps punctured the tyres of three patrol cars responding to call outs
    Conviction is the first for a police team set-up to combat anarchist crimes
    In 2009 she was among a group arrested for breaking into a power station

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..s-Eve.html

    1. I was expecting a surface-to-air missile.

      1. Me too. That article was really disappointing.

  38. KOCHOCALYPSE NOW!

    “Koch brothers’ cash will wash over California, experts say”
    […]
    “”It will change the tenor, the narrative of the debate and what we talk about,” Levinson said.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/nation/a…..044288.php

    The HORROR that the narrative might be changed!

    1. Of course Russian and Saudi oil money funding green groups to stop fracking it of course totally okay.

      1. How about the taxpayer money Steyer gets from his “green” investments which he then uses to sort of prime the pump for more subsidies?
        Hey, when you live next door to that hag Pelosi, you can do no wrong!

        1. It is not the same when they do it. Only dirty conservative money is bad. Their money is wonderful.

          1. Principals, not principles.

      2. Money from George Soros to fund left wing crap is fine, too.

  39. Gay Alabama lawmaker: I’ll ‘out’ adulterous officials fighting same-sex marriage

    State House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R) called the ruling “outrageous” in a statement, vowing that the legislature would appeal the ruling.

    “We will continue defending the Christian conservative values that make Alabama a special place to live,” Hubbard’s statement read.

    Todd took to Facebook to voice her disappointment with Hubbard’s statements and issue her threat.

    “I will not stand by and allow legislators to talk about ‘family values’ when they have affairs, and I know of many who are and have,” she wrote. “I will call our elected officials who want to hide in the closet OUT.”

    nice

    1. Jesus did love football; he says so on page 38 in the bible.

    2. If you are going to defend this guy, then you need to also defend Bill Moyers trying to out closeted gays in the Goldwater campaign. It is the same tactics in each case. I don’t like it either way.

      1. Unless the gays in Goldwater’s campaign were being hugely hypocritical in some way, I’d defend this guy over Moyers. In this case, the people being “outed” are actually doing something that they themselves claim to believe is immoral.

        1. Considering the attitudes of 1964 America, I am quite sure those Goldwater workers towed the line in public on homosexuality being wrong and a perversion. That makes them just as big of hypocrites as these guys.

          This is just another case of Libertarians liking gays and thus thinking it is okay when gays do something they would never tolerate from someone they don’t like. That is bullshit. Either you believe in privacy or you don’t. I don’t think we should be settling political disputes based on which side can dig up the most dirt on the other side. And shame on anyone who thinks otherwise, I don’t care what their politics.

          1. Considering the attitudes of 1964 America, I am quite sure those Goldwater workers towed the line in public on homosexuality being wrong and a perversion.

            I hate to be that guy, but I’m gonna need something more than your assurances that the Goldwater guys pushed legislation based upon “family values” while contending that homosexuality also violated those same values.

            1. It was 1964, sodomy was a crime. Exactly what legislation could they have pushed? And both major parties and the public was very anti gay. Indeed, that is why outing them was such a threat.

              Beyond that, the whole thing is nothing but ad homonym. If the legislation these guys are pushing in Alabama is bad, it is bad and whether they are good husbands or not has nothing to do with it. Think of it this way, Andrew Sullivan, Mr gay marriage himself, was outed by some leftist gays back in the early 00s for running personal ads looking for NSA sex with other HIV sufferers, Sullivan was in a committed relationship at the time. By your logic, that was a valid attack on gay marriage since Sullivan was being a hypocrite. I say Sullivan’s personal morality has no relevancy whatsoever to the validity of his positions.

              I don’t want public debates in this country settled on the basis of which side is most pure or can dig up the most dirt on the other. And embracing these tactics does just that.

              1. It was 1964, sodomy was a crime. Exactly what legislation could they have pushed?

                Something that conflicted with their stated values on the subject. Which is what happened here.

                Andrew Sullivan, Mr gay marriage himself, was outed by some leftist gays back in the early 00s for running personal ads looking for NSA sex with other HIV sufferers, Sullivan was in a committed relationship at the time. By your logic, that was a valid attack on gay marriage since Sullivan was being a hypocrite.

                So Sullivan was pushing for gay marriage that would be rendered invalid by unfaithful partners? You’re reaching like slenderman here, John.

                1. Something that conflicted with their stated values on the subject. Which is what happened here.

                  There wasn’t anything to push. The law was already there. That is the point. They sure were not objecting to it were they? The point is who cares. You are a hypocrite is an insult not an argument.

                  So Sullivan was pushing for gay marriage that would be rendered invalid by unfaithful partners? You’re reaching like slenderman here, John

                  No Coeus you are missing the point. Sullivan was being a total hypicrite. He pushed for gay marriage because he said gays need to be more moral and stop being on the outside of society. He thought marriage would allow them to do that.

                  The broader point that you continue to miss is that it doesn’t matter what Sullivan did or did not do. That is his business. We shouldn’t settle policy debates on who is the biggest hypocrite.

                  I get it, you like gays and don’t like the other guys so you think this is great. Get past that and think a little harder. We should be better than progs and not endorse bullshit tactics because “its okay when someone we like does it”.

                  1. There wasn’t anything to push.

                    Exactly. Not equivalent at all.

                    You are a hypocrite is an insult not an argument.

                    It can be. See my final comment at the bottom.*

                    No Coeus you are missing the point. Sullivan was being a total hypicrite. He pushed for gay marriage because he said gays need to be more moral and stop being on the outside of society. He thought marriage would allow them to do that.

                    Then that lends weight to the theory that his argument for gay marriage was invalid (the moral part, that is). And I agree. It is an invalid reason for gay marriage.

                    We shouldn’t settle policy debates on who is the biggest hypocrite.

                    *It seems that you don’t want it pointed out at all. There is no better way to show that government should stay out of people’s personal lives than to demonstrate that the values they are pushing through legislation are unsustainable even to themselves.

                    Pointing out hypocrisy is an incredibly valuable tool for the spreading of libertarian ideals.

        2. I draw a distinction between (elected) public officials and people who are cashing private paychecks, even if it is to work on a campaign. I’m more tolerant of publicly humiliating public officials than I am of publicly humiliating even campaign workers, who are typically either amoral and soulless, or spittle-flecked partisans.

          1. What does it have to do with anything? Do you really want political issues settled on the basis of which side’s politicians are most pure or which side can dig up the most dirt on the other? If not, then why does this kind of thing matter?

  40. Taxes are evil, but given that we are going to have them for the foreseeable future, the debate about what form they take is completely legitimate and important to have.

    1. My position is that they take the form of a fart in the wind.

      1. So you want them to escape Shawshank prison?

  41. Up to I looked at the check for $4922 , I didnt believe that…my… friend was truly bringing in money parttime from there pretty old laptop. . there great aunt haz done this for under thirteen months and a short time ago paid for the dept on there cottage and bought a gorgeous Honda .
    have a peek at this web-site ????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  42. Start a new lucrative career. Our firm is looking for 10 people to represent our services?.
    You will have business coming to you on a daily basis
    Check Here Don’t Miss Golden Chance
    .
    read review ?????? http://www.netpay20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.