Clinton Ducks Reporters, Eleanor Holmes-Norton Fights for Sledding, Netflix Turns on Net Neutrality: P.M. Links

How can the U.S. fight ISIS while still being officially anti-Iran?

|

  • Hillary Clinton
    Hillary Clinton

    Hillary Clinton was in no mood to answer questions about her seemingly unethical email practices as Secretary of State.

  • D.C.'s non-voting Congressional representative, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, is trying to lift the Capitol Hill sledding ban. It's probably the most worthwhile political thing she has ever done.
  • Want HBO, but don't want cable? That will cost you $15 per month.
  • How can the U.S. fight ISIS while still being officially anti-Iran?
  • Netflix might be having second thoughts about that whole Net Neutrality thing.
  • The Daily Caller's Matt Lewis sees the possibility of a "detente" between CPAC conservatives and gays.
  • Rand Paul could have been on Parks and Recreation, but wasn't.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Darren Wilson's Pre-Prosecution Report: It's Good to be a Police Officer

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. I say we boycott commenting until we get our serif fonts back. WHO’S WITH ME?

    1. Hello.

      “A Quebec man charged with obstructing border officials by refusing to give up his smartphone password says he will fight the charge.

      The case has raised a new legal question in Canada, a law professor says.”

      http://yhoo.it/1zQTvy0

      1. The bigger crime would be if he had refused in English.

        1. Oh for sure that would have exploded here.

          Always suckers for stupidities.

          Waste and fraud in the public sector? Spend money we don’t have living off the backs of other wealthier provinces? BAH!

          PARLE MOI EN FRANCAIS!

      2. That’s why my phone password is “fuck you, pigs”. I can prove I gave it and win the civil settlement. I hope my injuries won’t be so permanent that I can’t enjoy the money.

        1. FUPIGS

          nice. possible vanity plate?

          1. Sure, if you wanna be pulled over every time the cops see you…

    2. You just want people to boycott so you can get the first dozen comments in a thread guaranteed instead of just the first, don’t you? I’m on to your game.

      1. Aren’t there extensions that will block Fist?

        1. That’s so silly he won’t dignify it with a response.

    3. Does anyone need serifs on their characters?

      1. Stay off the Road to Serifdom!

      2. Do browsers still allow you to use user CSS to pick a serif-font as your default?

      3. I look forward to the day Reason introduces mono-space fonts so that finally characters can all be equal.

        1. That should be a progressive cause. Someone should troll a lefty website with that demand.

      4. No serifs? I’m out of here, taking a cruise to my private island, San Serriffe.

    4. I say we boycott commenting until we get our serif fonts back. WHO’S WITH ME?

      I also hate the fact you can’t put in a space between paragraphs. That’s enough for me to start a revolution, far more than serifs — but I’ll join you, anything to get good commenting back.

      1. It’s weird, but for me now, the preview doesn’t show space between paragraphs, but they appear once you actually submit the post.
        See?

        1. Argh, it didn’t work this time! I thought it did before.

          Let’s try two returns.

          1. Do break tags work?

            TEXT

          2. There you go.

            And hey, I might be going to this on Saturday: http://www.meetup.com/RonPaulSF/events/220848593/

            1. Looks interesting. Let me see how the weekend schedule works out.

    5. Don’t you mean personcott?

      Check your privilege!

  2. Hillary Clinton was in no mood to answer questions about her seemingly unethical email practices as Secretary of State.

    This taking Hillary down would be like Capone getting hit for taxes.

    1. Well, I hate to judge a man before all the facts are in, but it appears that Mrs. Clinton may have exceeded her authority.

      1. People have fixated on violations of federal record keeping rules, but I find this to be a shocking breech of security.

        1. That was supposed to be a Dr. Strangelove quote but I butchered it.

          1. I missed it. oops

          2. Her IT director never said she wouldn’t get her hair mussed.

          3. I believe she was acting under the provisions of Plan R.

    2. It is a bit hard to understand. Govt officials are not required to record their phone calls or in-person conversations dealing with official business, so why is saving emails such a big deal?

      1. and all those documents too

    3. Subpoena the hell out of her.

      1. Nah. Just subpoena the server in her house.

        1. Yup. And find out who installed, configured, and administered the system. She didn’t do it.

        2. It probably contains secure documents she should no longer have access to, but the only way to be sure is obviously a forensic audit of the physical box.

          1. The ignorant masses have no idea what it means for her to have a private server stuffed in a closet in the house.

            1. The ignorant masses don’t watch the news or read newspapers or online news either. I’m sure over 70% of America has not heard about this and doesn’t care. Now, if it had been something about Kim Kardashian, that would be important!

              1. They’ll take notice once they find all those Fappening images on her server.

              2. Kim Kardashian has a server in her butt? Who knew?

            2. Monica is stuffed in her closet?

        3. Actually, do you think that Bill had an address on that server/domain too? Fuck think of the dick pics in his sent folder!

    4. Or her husband getting impeached for getting a blowjob.

      1. Her husband was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. But of course you knew that.

        1. “But of course you knew that.”

          Don’t be so sure.

        2. “Perjurious statements” about a blowjob (it wasn’t perjury as it didn’t affect the case at hand) and obstruction of a fishing expedition precipitated by said blowjob.

          1. The so-called fishing expedition was not precipitated by said blowjob. The said blowjob became testimony/evidence much later.

            You know that, therefore you are lying douchebag.

        3. In other instances, libertarians decry charges of “obstruction of justice” or “lying to investigators” resulting from investigations that found no underlying criminal activity.

          1. Give it up, dude. He lost his law license for five years over this. The bar does not do that casually.

          2. Well, that’s a vague charge, Saggy. Which libertarians, where? What investigations?

            Libertarians do consistently hold that the actions of public officials are subject to much greater scrutiny than those of private persons, especially when those persons are being investigated for things which libertarians don’t think should be illegal anyway.

          3. Sagittarius A*|3.5.15 @ 5:04PM|#
            “In other instances, libertarians decry charges of “obstruction of justice” or “lying to investigators” resulting from investigations that found no underlying criminal activity.”

            In very few instances, lefty ignoramuses post anything worth reading. Unfortunately, I read this first before it became obvious this wasn’t one of them.
            But it is amusing to see what Clinton-lickers will excuse.

        4. Oh, who gives a fuck? It seems to me that the smart thing to do is just assume that every politician is lying to you on a regular basis and lied when they took the oath of office. So excuse me if I don’t give the least bit of a shit that Clinton lied under oath when he was being investigated over stupid crap.

    5. Unethical? Isn’t is just illegal?

  3. Hillary Clinton was in no mood to answer questions about her seemingly unethical email practices as Secretary of State.

    That’s no mood.

    1. mood is for cattle and love play

      1. I’m sorry, Gurney.

        1. SORRY!?

          *triggers shield and pulls knife*

  4. How can the U.S. fight ISIS while still being officially anti-Iran?

    The enemy of our enemy is still our enemy?

    1. I know, right? Can Reason’s foreign policy stupidity can get any deeper?

      1. Uh oh.

        #TFT

      2. What foreign policy do you propose, Wise One?

        1. Don’t avoid smart wars.

          1. What the heck is a smart war? Never heard that jargon before.

            1. I was countering state legislator Obama’s maxim that we shouldn’t start stupid wars.

            2. Mary?

              1. Dunno, but stupid for sure.

    2. Binders full of enemies.

      Its enemies all the way down.

      What difference, at this point, does it make?

  5. Want HBO, but don’t want cable?

    I WILL NOT HAVE THE COMMONERS ACCESSING THE SAME HBO I HAVE.

    1. Here’s the thing, cable only costs me $40/month if you unbundle the Internet. $15/month withOut being able to watch sports is a little steep.

      1. Cable with HBO? I’ve never seen that. Basic cable almost cost $40/month.

        1. Without the bundle. I pay $80/month for Internet, cable and HBO (not including about $20 in “fees”). I figure good internet runs about $40/month.

          1. HBOGO login info from relative’s account. No $15 for me.

  6. Rand Paul could have been on Parks and Recreation, but wasn’t.

    They probably wouldn’t let him wear his tactical turtleneck.

    1. If ever there were a situation for the tacttleneck…

    2. In that case, he should be a regular on Archer.

  7. The Daily Caller‘s Matt Lewis sees the possibility of a “detente” between CPAC conservatives and gays.

    Detente? That’s a French word. AKA GAY.

    1. I thought it was the proper way to serve pasta.

    2. I snorted. Of course you have to expect shit like that from Gay Paree

    1. Brilliant

    2. The guy has a great voice, but it lagged a bit at the end.

    3. Thanks for posting this; I’d not heard of this guy before. His video on the minimum wage is also quite good.

  8. “Hillary Clinton was in no mood to answer questions about her seemingly unethical email practices as Secretary of State.”

    Ahem. Allow me.

    AT THIS POINT, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

    1. It’s pathetic that we’ve reached this point where a public official commits an obvious crime and ethical violation, and it’s a debatable issue. And the chances of her being prosecuted, let alone convicted, are low.

      Our standards for government officials should be higher, not lower, than for everyone else.

      1. It’s especially wonderful that one ambassador was removed, during her tenure, for running his own email server. Or at least that was part of the reason.

        1. Another diplomat was “removed”, during her tenure, because he was stuck in Benghazi.

        2. Rules are for people who serve the Clintons, not the Clintons themselves.

      2. It’s also pathetic that we have to consider whether the greater pragmatic good is to let her off the hook for this rather than face the possibility of President Warren.

        1. I won’t go there. I don’t care if it’s Rand Paul–this sort of blatant criminality needs to be punished. There is no legitimate reason for her to have done this. Besides, if Warren can get elected, then we’re done, anyway.

          1. Yeah, I don’t think the country is so far gone yet to elect a lefty schoolmarm.

  9. I think I just started a FB war with a lefty friend of mine. He posted a picture that said, “Looking forward to the day when you ask Which President Clinton.” My response was, “As in, Did you hear about the latest Clinton scandal?”

    1. I like it.

    2. Troll level “Sean Davis” achieved. Well done.

    3. I honestly don’t understand how people can’t see how duplicitous and amoral the Clintons are. Holy smoke, that’s one cynical bad news family.

      Could you imagine the SKELETONS?

      I know. Assume the position…BUT BOOOOSSSSHHHH!

        1. Holy crap, that’s timeless…

          1. Yes it is, if by timeless you mean topical.

    4. “Clinton is a shameless liar”?

      1. Which Clinton?

          1. +1 NYC grid

    5. LOL. That was awesome.

    6. Next he responded with something about Republican haters trying to destroy everything, then I said, “I know, that’s why I don’t vote for either major party.” Then silence. I think people in general have a hard time understanding that you don’t have to be on one of the two teams.

      1. Hence the recent messaging-point surge of “you’re all just the unwitting stooges of THE KOCHTOPUS.”

  10. When Indiana Jones gives assignments, do you think he keeps a flexible schedule in order to heal from his wounds?

    In The Last Crusade, he said “X never marks the spot.” But later, he realizes X does mark spot sometimes.

    So, if he asks “Does X mark the spot” on the exam, what should the student put down?

    1. The student should just paint “love you” on her eyelids.

    2. Why did it have to be snakes?

    3. Chi marks the spot, not X.

    4. There is no J in Latin.

    5. Always carry a bullwhip.

    6. Never trust a Nazi, no matter how well she’s built.

    7. Bad dates.

    8. Masturbate, Aviate, navigate, communicate.

      Oops! Indiana down!

  11. Hillary Clinton was in no mood to answer questions about her seemingly unethical email practices as Secretary of State.

    To be fair, her use of personal email is understandable. How would you like it if every email you sent or received was analyzed and stored away by the government for use against you at a later date?

    1. Doubleplusgood.

    2. She was forced to be Sec of State at gunpoint?

      1. Sag is here as the official Clinton-licker.

  12. “How can the U.S. fight ISIS while still being officially anti-Iran?”

    As per my comment yesterday = my view is that the ostensible US ‘negotiations’ with Iran re: the nuclear program is just as much about Iraq and Syria and Irans influence in both places.

    I suspect there’s a lot of horse trading being done, suggesting that the US is acknowledging their de facto control of certain regions while getting them to agree on where they draw the line.

    The fact that Tikrit is being besieged by Iranian-backed shiite militias* (note: NOT the ‘iraqi army’), sans any comment by the US, is notable. They’re going to fucking burn the place to the ground to ensure that Sunnis leave and don’t come back.

    1. And probably Iran’s support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is why Netanyahu doesn’t like the negotiations.

      Not that you can blame him. Hezbollah are a big probably for the rest of the Lebanese people, too.

      1. I think a ceasefire in Tikrit would be a peace of shiite.

        1. ouch. that was puntastic

    2. As per my comment yesterday = my view is that the ostensible US ‘negotiations’ with Iran re: the nuclear program is just as much about Iraq and Syria and Irans influence in both places.

      Absolutely. Obama needs Iran to fight ISIS – nobody else can.

      So Obama has to pay the Iran-geld; in this case clear their path to a nuke.\

      He’ll be out of office before they test their first one,* anyway, so what does he care?

      *You can be damn sure that’s part of the (unwritten) deal.

      1. Absolutely. Obama needs Iran to fight ISIS – nobody else can.

        Yes, but the problem is that he made that abundantly clear at the very beginning. A half-way decent negotiator would turned the problem around, by making it clear to Iran that if it doesn’t give up its nuke quest, the US would stand by as ISIS wrecked havoc in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Instead, our president of smart diplomacy gives everything to Iran at the very beginning like a sucker.

        1. He learned the “open negotiations by giving the other side everything they want” move from Boehner.

      2. Obama needs Iran to fight ISIS – nobody else can.

        I don’t understand what Iran can do that “nobody else can”. They don’t have any special influence over ISIS or ISIS supporters (who despise the Shia) and are not any stronger militarily than the Saudis, for example.

        Also, Iran is much more threatened by ISIS than we are, so how we need to give them a sweetheart deal to get them in the fight is beyond me.

        1. I think it’s more that Iran is willing and able to do what others aren’t – as in they will send in boots and they will lay down law and they will not care about collateral damage.

  13. “Hillary Clinton was in no mood to answer questions about her seemingly unethical email practices as Secretary of State.”

    She should have just said “I’m going to have punt on that…To me, this is a classic example of why people hate Washington and, increasingly, they dislike the press…The things they care about don’t even remotely come close to what you’re asking about.” People here would have applauded, right?

    1. Asking politicians uncomfortable questions is not why people dislike the press.

      1. I know, right?

        1. Are you still holding to the claim you’re not supporting the Democrats?

          1. Finding Walker’s punts and his supporters defense on them pathetic should not be taken as any defense of Clinton and her weaselly ways.

            1. Bringing him down to her level is very supportive of Clinton.

              1. I didn’t bring him down, he did.

                I’m a Paul supporter. I’m happy to see Clinton and Walker look bad.

                1. I’m a Paul supporter

                  Don’t make me change my mind about supporting Rand.

            2. If you hear that reporters are grilling Hillary Clinton over gross violations of open government laws and your first thought is “Scott Walker”…

              You might be a Democrat.

              1. You’ve missed a bit of commenting history here that might supply another explanation.

            3. Then it’s kind of weird that you brought up Walker at all.

              1. You’ve missed a bit of commenting history here that might supply another explanation.

                1. Do provide it. This should be entertaining.

                  1. We’ve had quite few discussions about Walker not answering question here, you’re welcome to search for them and catch up.

                    1. I GET THAT. What I don’t understand is why you’re resurrecting that discussion.

                      I mean, you brought it up. In this thread. About Clinton. Not about Scott Walker.

                      So if it’s not intended as some kind of lame tu quoque, what was the point? Are you as obsessed with Walker as Shriek is with Bush?

                    2. You don’t get why I’m resurrecting a discussion about politicians dodging questions during a discussion of a politician dodging questions?

                    3. Right, I don’t get it. Again, you brought it up and then said “oh, but this isn’t to defend Clinton”.

                      Either you’re trying to draw some parallels or you aren’t. If you aren’t, then it’s a separate discussion that you’re resurrecting because you like to talk about it, but you’re pretending it’s relevant. If you are, then make the comparison. Don’t imply it and then back off.

                      In truth, the only comparison is that they both dodged questions. Shall we bring up other instances of politicians dodging questions, and then just let them hang there?

                      Hey, remember the time Bill Clinton said “it depends on what you mean by ‘is’?” Remember when Reagan said he couldn’t remember? Let’s talk about that stuff too. Anybody have any good Ollie North quotes?

                      PS To be honest, I do get it. What you’re doing is called “trolling”. It’s quite popular.

                    4. “Either you’re trying to draw some parallels or you aren’t.”

                      You’re getting warmer. I’m saying Walker is as bad as Clinton, not that Clinton is good.

                      I also love exposing double standards.

                    5. You’re still missing the point.

                      Your first reaction was “hey, remember when Walker dodged a question?”

                      That is the act of a troll.

                    6. And you haven’t exposed any double standard, unless someone was arguing that it’s OK to punt on any question, and now they’re not applying that standard here.

                      I believe it’s wrong for a politician to punt on some kinds of questions, and not others. You may disagree, but that doesn’t make it a double standard.

                    7. HE DOESN’T EVEN HAVE A DEGREE MAN!!!! WHY CAN’T ANY OF YOU SEE THAT!!!!!

                2. It’s OK; I don’t judge. Besides, it’s also possible you’re Mrs. Walker.

    2. Or she could have just pointed out that this is the most transparent administration in history.

      1. We can see right through them.

    3. Wonderful point. A politician saying ‘discussions about evolution are none of a politician’s concern’ is exactly the same thing as a politician refusing to respond to accusations that they broke the law while serving as Secretary of State.

      I see no difference between those two situations.

      1. Well, pick some of the many other punts Walker has done if that one doesn’t suit you. In at least one he basically said ‘the people of this country are concerned about jobs and the economy, that’s what they ask me about, not this stuff you the press is worried about.’ She could have done that one.

        1. Care to share the question he was asked in that instance, Bo?

          1. I’m not sure, there were so many…Was it the gay marriage one? The abortion one? The evolution one? The Guiliani one? The ‘Obama as Christian’ one?

            1. And there’s no difference between asking if Obama is a Christian, and asking the Secretary of State why she kept a personal email server to do government business in violation of law and policy.

              None at all.

              Nope, an answer that is appropriate for one question must, ergo and ipso facto, be appropriate for every question.

              And you wonder why people write you off as a pretentious asstroll.

              1. “an answer that is appropriate for one question must, ergo and ipso facto, be appropriate for every question.”

                Well, it’s Walker who seems to use it over and over and over and over and over…

                1. It’s Walker who happens to be asked irrelevant questions about abstract concepts and other people he has nothing to do with over and over.

                  Why do you think that is?

                  1. Same sex marriage and abortion policy are abstract concepts?

                    1. Go back and reread the comment you are responding to.

                    2. Go back and read my response to Irish then.

            2. I’m not sure, there were so many…

              So not only do you not have a link for the Walker quote, you also don’t even know the context. Tell me again why I should take you seriously?

              1. Ok, here’s one (I think he’s given a similar answer to others too of course)

                http://www.jsonline.com/multim…..9361679001

      2. Don’t waste your time. It’s Botard.

        1. Haha, that stance boomeranged rather quickly, didn’t it?

    4. *Troll level 97 is unlocked*

    5. Unless and until Hillary Clinton is required to answer specific questions that would insult the religious beliefs of potential supporters, I’m happy to applaud that.

      I can come up with lots of questions that would require just that.

      1. I’m curious, what are some?

        1. I mean, I bet she’s going to be asked about gay marriage. According to conservatives all blacks, who are a big part of Clinton’s potential base, are against gay marriage. Do you think she’ll say ‘that’s a gotcha question, I’m going to punt!’?

          1. “According to conservatives all blacks, who are a big part of Clinton’s potential base, are against gay marriage.”

            [citation needed], Botard.

            1. So you’ve never read conservatives about how blacks are socially conservative, how they did in Prop 8, etc.?

        2. For example, Hillary Clinton is not a Muslim. She therefore should have to answer the question, “Not being a Muslim means you don’t think that Mohammed was really a prophet. How do you account for the fact that Mohammed specifically claimed to have received the Koran as direct dictation from an angel? Was Mohammed a liar, or was he crazy, or was he visited by a demon?”

          “Joshua 10:13 says that Joshua stopped the sun in the sky. Do you have a scientific explanation for that, or do you think whoever wrote the Old Testament made the whole thing up?”

          “is there a scientific basis for Jewish dietary laws?”

          “Do you think that religious icons have miraculous powers to intervene in personal and world events?”

          “Do you think that reincarnation is real?”

          1. Walker wasn’t asked if some theological claim was true or false, he was asked if a currently accepted scientific claim was true or false (or rather whether he ‘believed’ or ‘accepted’ it). Do you have something like that?

            1. How about, “Mrs. Clinton, do you believe jobs are created by businesses or by government?”

            2. Walker wasn’t asked if some theological claim was true or false, he was asked if a currently accepted scientific claim was true or false (or rather whether he ‘believed’ or ‘accepted’ it).

              This is an utterly false distinction.

              There are no a priori Linnaean distinctions between categories of facts. The entire concept of a “scientific” fact as opposed to a “theological” fact is highly contingent. You’re already making a philosophical judgment when you try to divide statements of fact up that way.

              There are people who do not accept evolution as a theory for religious reasons.

              There are people who believe that Mohammed received direct dictation from an angel for religious reasons.

              You want to consider them two different types of fact-statements, but they really aren’t. They’re both ultimately questions of history, before they are questions of science or theology. Events either unfolded in a given way, or they didn’t.

              The icons question is a question of history: was Constantinople saved, over and over, by icons – or was it not? The Joshua question is a question of history: did the sun stop, or not? And so forth.

              So if we’re going to demand that Walker give an answer that will alienate many (sadly deluded) fundamentalist Christians, why shouldn’t every non-Muslim politician be required to give an answer that will alienate many (equally deluded) Muslims?

              1. fluffy, this is just idiosyncratic understandings you have. Most people can differentiate between a religious claim and a scientific claim.

                The questions you put forward are questions about whether certain aspects of religious Scripture ‘actually happened’ (did the sun stand still as described in Scripture, did an angel dictate to Mohammed as described in Scripture).

                The question put to Walker was whether he believed in a currently accepted scientific theory or claim. Now, he may have a religious belief that makes him hesitant to do so or not, but the question itself is not about his religion (note that many Christians are fine and dandy with evolution as a scientific claim).

                1. The equivalent would be ‘do you agree with the heliocentric theory that the earth revolves around the sun?’

                  And if Clinton was worried that her literalist followers who deny that theory because of the verse in Joshua would be upset by her saying yes and therefore punted, then you’d have an analogous situation (a claim about a currently accepted scientific theory that a person might, for religious reasons, resist accepting).

                2. fluffy, this is just idiosyncratic understandings you have. Most people can differentiate between a religious claim and a scientific claim.

                  Witness this paragon of critical thinking! When challenged on his assertion, he replies with “Aw, c’mon, Fluffy, everybody knows the difference!”

                  If it’s so simple and obvious that everybody knows it, you should be able to describe it for me. Precisely. Right?

                  Here’s the thing, dude: if the Koran actually was dictated by an angel, there would not be a difference between a religious claim and a scientific / historical claim. They’d be one and the same. It’s really no different a question from, “Did the Union win the battle of Gettysburg?” or “Were dinosaurs wiped out by an asteroid strike?” In fact, the only reason to place the question in a different category is if you’re already conceding that it’s a myth (and false).

                  Now, he may have a religious belief that makes him hesitant to do so or not, but the question itself is not about his religion

                  The point is not that you may or may not be asking him about his personal religion. The point is that you are asking him to ritualistically insult the religious beliefs of potential supporters. You are asking him to go on record saying that some people’s religious beliefs are stupid.

                  Well, if that’s what we’re going to do here, let’s spread that around a little.

                  1. I would gain every bit as much understanding about what type of President Clinton would be from my questions as anyone can gain about Walker from the evolution question. Particular the question about the Koran, since answering it would require her to demonstrate both the ability to recognize the logical implications of a premise, and demonstrate a willingness to not pander to Muslim religious sensibility.

                    The question to Walker can ultimately be translated as, “Governor, can you prove to us that you’re not a panderer by ritualistically insulting the beliefs of evolution deniers?” If you think that’s a good question – and hey, it probably is! – then asking Hillary a different form of the same question can’t be a bad question.

                    1. “If you think that’s a good question – and hey, it probably is! – then asking Hillary a different form of the same question can’t be a bad question.”

                      Like I said, I’d be all for a question like the one I supplied. You can even put it to her at a black church and say ‘Ms. Clinton, many black Christians think God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman. Do you think marriages between the same genders should be prohibited or allowed?’ That would be a totally fair question, and if she dodged it (much like Obama did when Warren asked him about abortion) I’d love to laugh at her cravenness.

                  2. Well, yes fluffy, when everyone else understands words to mean something and you have a strange technical sense of them not shared by others then that is kind of what idiosyncratic means. Ask the next person you run into whether they think a ‘religious claim’ is the same thing as a ‘scientific claim.’ Insane asylums are full of people who lament that the rest of the world just has the wrong understanding of things and they have the correct one.

                    Walker was asked if a current scientific claim was true or not, not whether a religious claim was. Do you have something like that to ask Clinton? If so, I say fair game.

                    1. Well, yes fluffy, when everyone else understands words to mean something and you have a strange technical sense of them not shared by others then that is kind of what idiosyncratic means. Ask the next person you run into whether they think a ‘religious claim’ is the same thing as a ‘scientific claim.’

                      Again, it’s so obvious that…you can’t actually explain it.

                      I didn’t ask you whether you thought they were the same thing, or whether “the average person” would nod their head when you said they were different. I asked you to specifically explain the difference. I assume you can’t do that, because you’re (as usual) an idiot child who doesn’t really understand the meaning of the words and concepts he parrots.

                      Insane asylums are full of people who lament that the rest of the world just has the wrong understanding of things and they have the correct one.

                      You haven’t communicated any definition at all, Bo. So I have nothing to lament.

                    2. Please define for me the difference between the statements:

                      1. “Caesar’s army won the battle of Alesia.”

                      2. “The Koran was dictated to Mohammed by an angel.”

                    3. Walker was asked if a current scientific claim was true or not…

                      An irrational question. There are only those scientific theories that have not yet been falsified.

            3. How does that figure in with his job?

              1. Does Wisconsin have public schools that teach science classes?

                1. Is the governor expected to dictate that they teach his personal beliefs in all public schools in his state?

                2. Has Walker tried to intervene in how public schools teach science?

                  1. So he might think this is not true yet he oversees spending his taxpayers moneys to mandate its teaching?

                    1. Right, which is more or less like asking Clinton about the possibility that she may have committed a serious crime when she held a government position of no small importance.

                    2. I think I’ve answered this several times friend…

                3. Give it up, Bo. As Fluffy and others have pointed out above, Walker (as a Republican) is getting certain kinds of questions that Hillary and other Democrats do not. You can stretch and claim that because evolution gets taught in schools, it’s an appropriate question for a politician, but such “let’s put ’em on the spot with part of their base” questions are rarely if ever asked of Democrats. How many have been asked about GMOs or the health benefits or organic food? How about this: “If poverty and injustice and racism account for the high level of black crime, why was black crime much lower back in the bad old days when there was inarguably more poverty and injustice and racism?” Have Obama or Holder ever been asked that?

                  Asking Clinton about her record-keeping and email security practices is totally relevant, much more so than her views on evolution or what she thinks of something someone else said about Obama.

                  1. Hillary Clinton has been asked and answered about GMOs. Democrat pols have been asked about vaccines recently. You’re suffering from conservative media persecution complex.

                    1. For what it’s worth, Clinton, contrary to the deeply held beliefs of many of her potential supporters, gave a fairly strong endorsement of GMO’s.

                      http://timesofsandiego.com/pol…..eral-help/

                    2. When they ask Hillary how many genders there are, I will believe you.

                  2. Someone should ask her how old a fetus has to be before it’s OK to kill it.

                    1. I mean young, not old.

                    2. Walker dodged that question, and Obama did too. It’s plenty fair to ask them and Hillary then, given pols have a say on abortion policy.

                    3. Really? They were asked that question, in those words?

  14. “The Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis sees the possibility of a “detente” between CPAC conservatives and gays.”

    (narrows eyes)

    “That there’s a french word fer something dirty, aint it”

    1. I thought it was a word for the little pins that hold my AR-15 together…

      1. It is the spring and bearing that keeps the pins from falling out.

  15. What the hell is a “generalization gap”?

    *in reference to the Hillary Q&A link

  16. Workplace Discrimination Runs Rampant = Elephants Fired from Ringling Bros Circus

    Similarly = woman fails to succeed in career where 1 out of 100 actually do. SUES EVERYONE

    I had a buddy who worked at a silicon valley VC. 5 years. It was murder and like most, he left after learning some good skills and developing a network. The only people who make a life-career out of it are the very few, very lucky, very committed people. OMG but not enough of them ar wimmin?

    1. Phew, I was getting concerned that the identity politics well was going dry after 11 hours.

  17. “The Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis sees the possibility of a “detente” between CPAC conservatives and gays.”

    Quit going to their site. Takes forever to load and nearly as long to close the damn thing.

  18. “Want HBO, but don’t want cable? That will cost you $15 per month.”

    I recall when HBO was stand-alone back in about 1978. It came via a cable, but the cable provided no other channels.

    1. Even if you have cable, HBO costs about $15 a month.

      1. Mine’s 10 if you don’t get it bundled with cinemax, 15 if you do. Plus they have 3 months free promotions for adding HBO all the time and I just cancel and then resign up for it.

    2. I remember the cable had a clean signal of all the local channels and you could pay extra for HBO.
      A few of the kids at my HS houses had “cable TV ” but most didn’t have the HBO. I came from a B&W rabbit ears family.

  19. Remind me one more time how that global warming is working out in the northeast these days.

    1. We’re so close to a record.

      A trace of overnight snowfall did not budge the city’s snow total from 105.7 inches, which is 1.9 inches shy of the record 107.6 inches, weather service data showed.

      1. Seems like a shame to have to go through all that mess and not get a record out of it!

    2. Weather is not climate.

      1. Still sucks though.

        Last months average temp 8.

      2. not sure if serious…

        1. Saggy’s the new lefty troll. Presume stupidity.

  20. Did we really just enact 300 pages of legally questionable, enormously costly, transformative rules just to help Netflix in a trivial commercial spat?

    WE didn’t do anything, but yes the FCC did.

    1. That’s not really what it’s all for, of course. It’s about progressives getting control of the internet. George Soros didn’t put nine figures into this because he cares about Netflix.

  21. To any DC cop that would interfere with a kid sledding in the snow?get the Hell out of my country, you worthless bag of feces. You belong in Caracus or perhaps Havana.

    1. …because there’s no snow there, and hence he wouldn’t be a danger to sledders?

  22. Eric Hoffer Was Right = True Believers are All The Same

    “‘The ideologies that once motivated Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Orell could hardly be more different. Yet strip away ideology and what emerges are two strikingly similar tales of radicalization, militancy and, in the case of these two men, deradicalization.

    Both had grievances that eroded their self-esteem and made them angry. Both were seduced by a narrative that put them at the center of a greater cause and offered them what they craved most: a sense of belonging and a plan to act on their resentment”

    1. From comments:

      “This article speaks to the truism of how fanatics are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. I am now doubly confident in President Obama’s statement that what we fight is violent extremism. “

      1. How does it happen that some comments are displayed on the yellow background with reasonable, like Rufus’s above?

        1. And now it’s not yellow anymore.

        2. I suspect its like the Greasonable “highlight”, which puts an orange box around new comments? which vanishes on refresh

          1. With Chrome/reasonable new comments have the pink background. But this is yellow.

            1. Well, he’s canadian.

              So there’s that.

            2. I get that every now and then, just one comment in an entire comment section is bright yellow, almost like Reasonable determined it was the ‘thread winner’. But there never seemed to be anything unusual or distinctive about the yellow comment.

              I’ve wanted to ask before but always forgot. Thanks for bringing it up, two R’ss and two Z’s grrizzly. Maybe we’ll get an answer.

  23. Shikha had better make sure her domos don’t have relatives…

    http://www.courthousenews.com/…..llegal.htm

    Mathai worked for the family until 2011, when a son in India contacted a human trafficking hotline, concerned that his mother was being exploited. Federal authorities removed her from the home.
    Mathai later testified that she worked 18-hour days with no time off and slept in a closet.
    Annie George was indicted in 2012 on one count of harboring an illegal alien for private financial gain, but was convicted after a five-day trial of harboring without the private-gain enhancement.
    She was sentenced to eight months of home detention, five years’ probation and was ordered to turn over the mansion.
    On appeal, George challenged the instructions given to the jury at trial on the meaning of “harboring,” particularly in light of the 2nd Circuit’s 2013 decision in U.S. v. Vargas-Cordon that clarified the crime involved both sheltering an illegal alien and also preventing his or her detection by immigration officials.

  24. Thank goodness the pubs took over congress. Now we can stop wasting taxpayer $ to fund stupid shit.

    Apparently, House Republicans like railroads, too.
    In a bit of a Washington surprise, the GOP-dominated House of Representatives late yesterday overwhelmingly approved a bill to authorize continued spending on Amtrak. The measure calls for spending $1.4 billion for the passenger carrier each of the next four years?

    http://www.chicagobusiness.com…..ing-amtrak

    1. For a moment I thought it was $1.4 billion for each passenger.

      1. Yes, in approximate discretionary spending.. round up to an even $1.5 gigabux..

  25. You heard it here first: the 2016 presidential election will be Huckabee/Rubio vs Clinton/Castro.

    According to my simulations based on models and data and stuff. The science is settled.

  26. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… ……

    http://www.wixjob.com

    1. Make it $8013.50 a month, and you’d have a deal.

  27. “Hillary Clinton was in no mood to answer questions about her seemingly unethical email practices as Secretary of State.”

    Uh, that hag worked for ME when she was S/S; I want answers and I want them NOW.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.