N.J. Senator Faces Corruption Charges, Hillary Clinton's E-mails Under Review, Ferguson Fires Three Employees: P.M. Links

|

  • Get to know me!!!
    Official U.S. Senate photo

    The Department of Justice is planning to bring corruption charges against Democratic New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, according to CNN. He's accused of using his position to push the business interests of a donor in exchange for gifts.

  • The State Department is reportedly looking over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's e-mails to determine what can be released, but is not trying to evaluate whether she did anything wrong when she relied entirely on a private e-mail account to communicate while heading the department.
  • President Barack Obama will be heading to Selma, Alabama, this weekend to observe the 50th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday, the day in 1965 when state troopers attacked civil rights marchers led by Martin Luther King Jr.
  • The City of Ferguson has fired three city employees (CORRECTION: One was fired; two resigned) due to evidence of racial bias and hopes to agree to a settlement with the Department of Justice and promise reforms in the wake of the report this week accusing the city of targeting blacks and running a predatory judicial system designed to line the city's coffers, not fight crime. And the judge who helped oversee this program also reportedly owes $170,000 in back taxes.
  • Rich Russians are trying to move to the United Kingdom in order to escape sanctions against their home country. What about the poor Russians? Oh, who cares about them?
  • In the event you still own any clocks that you actually have to adjust by hand and don't just rely on your computer or smartphone, Daylight Savings Time starts Sunday, so adjust them an hour forward. Unless you're in Arizona.

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

Advertisement

NEXT: Rand Paul Says Sheldon Adelson Told Him That Adelson Is Not Going to Spend Big Bucks to Stymie Paul's Presidential Run

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 give in and accept the new format. Who’s with me?

    1. To the death! Or until we run out of snacks!

      1. Fuck them if they think I’m going to be civil OR on-topic. That’s for websites like Jezebel.

      2. I, for one, welcome our new format overlords.

        1. Now we need improved nesting and a fucking edit feature.

    2. Gone a week and come back to this mess of a format. I guess web designers get paid to change things, not say “it works and it looks fine the way it is”.

      1. Well, you wouldn’t want them to sit around and do nothing, would you? Also, why do you hate the millenearists and their tablet thingies?

        1. Gol-durn millenearianists, always gettin’ polled and playing with their tablets…

        2. The hipsters may not like millennials, but they do like millineries.

          1. +1 your hat looks very fetching

      2. When they change it again in two years, everyone will complain that the way it is right now was better.

      3. It’s all for the sake of the stupid mobile users. That’s the future!

        At least for a year or two.

        1. Just you wait, vintage Cray and IBM mainframes will be all the retro-rage, soon enough..

        2. Wrong, Wrong, WRONG!!

          This site has become nigh unusable on my mobile devices. It’s so bad that not only have I posted just about nothing the week, I haven’t even read the site more than enough to get pisses off that I can’t read it. This is some serious bullshit.

      4. Well I can finally post from my smartphone, so at least the did something right. Too bad I get sent to random other Reason articles (and never the fun ones) if I try to scroll through a page with my phone oriented vertically.

        Reason giveth, and Reason taketh away.

        1. I never had a problem before but it sucks now. And that ridiculous page flipping thing you describe Has. Got. To. Go.

        2. It worked from an iPhone before. Now half the screen is taken up by their non-article bloat: title and site menu at the top and the share this article bar at the bottom. And whatever crap they’re running on the page keeps Safari from hiding the URL bar at the top. End result: suckitude.

          1. And the shitty text size. Are the current crop of web designers blind? Every web site with the new look looks like it’s stuck in accessibility mode.

      5. I guess web designers get paid to change things, not say “it works and it looks fine the way it is”.

        Same as politicians.

    3. I’m with you!
      *whispers: until I stab you in the back.*

      1. Damn your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

    4. Hello.

      It rhymes with Jello.

      Anyway.

      Because we all love theater:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7reSQd3uiA

      1. Brilliant

        1. +1 tripping over a low bar

      2. Would have been better if they had taken their clothes off.

        1. No. HELL no.

    5. This blog needs a nice typeface like Goudy Old Style. Make this place classy and stuff.

      1. Albertus. The typeface of The Prisoner.

        1. The vineyard?

        2. The prisoner rocked, rolling blemange.

    6. Force Font extension for Chrome. Switch to Georgia and read again.

      I WILL CRUSH THE INTERNS

    7. The latest font change has small but readable characters on my work laptop, and almost too big characters on my home computer.

  2. The Department of Justice is planning to bring corruption charges against Democratic New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez…

    Looks like someone is no longer useful to the party.

    1. The State Department is reportedly looking over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s e-mails to determine what can be released

      She’s a public official. Unless it’s classified, it can all be released. If it’s classified, she’s guilty of the same offense General Petraeus is.

      1. But she’s the Right Sort of People so she won’t be charged.

        1. Besides–and this cannot be repeated often enough–Scott Walker dodged a question about evolution.

    2. He’s accused of using his position to push the business interests of a donor in exchange for gifts.

      Wasn’t there just an article here about how sex with a legislator isn’t considered a reportable gift under the ethic rules? Why is this guy getting persecuted for the people he’s screwing?

      1. And how is he different from 80 other senators who do the exact same thing? Not as connected?

  3. The City of Ferguson has fired three city employees due to evidence of racial bias…

    Hopefully they got scapegoat severance pay.

    1. Yep! Now that they’ve fired a few of the people who sent the racist e-mails the DOJ highlighted, there’s no more problems! Nope! None whatsoever!

  4. Can we just end daylight savings? Please? It’s stupid, we’re not an agrarian society anymore that needs it, and I’d rather it be dark earlier in the evening than later in the morning.

    1. I prefer permanent DLS time.

      1. This. I love 8-9 pm sunsets in the summer. Just feels right.

      2. I’m in. How else can I go kayaking after work?

      3. Can’t you just use your rollover daylight saved from past years?

        1. What we need is fusion, then we can simply have fusion reactors fly around us, generating heat and light all of the time, on demand.

          1. We have them, there’s just a size and distance issue. And the planet gets in the way.

            1. Probably about 20 more years.

    2. ^This. DST was implemented during WW2 to reduce electricity consumption. After the war they were going to can it but the retail merchants lobby put the kibosh on that.

      The argument I always use towards people who like this is what’s to stop the government from seasonally changing things like weights and measures (ie, the definition of a mile) to suit its needs?

      1. Or the value of a dollar, which definitionally is 416 grains of standard silver.

        1. This reminds me of one of the reasons that was given as to why Andrew Jackson should be replaced on the twenty dollar bill. He was opposed to paper currency. And I’m thinking, he was right to do so.

        2. Why not have the time float in value like currencies?

          Maybe have sunrise at 6:30 every morning of the year and simply adjust the length of the days?

          1. I’m long on time futures.

            1. I lost my shirt on the TIMEX

          2. Railroads.

            Seriously. Time standardization didn’t matter all that much until the agent of the railroad. Suddenly it mattered that the towns along the line kept the same time, or people would not be able to meet the train when it arrived.

      2. Actually, DST was first introduced in the US in WWI, and some cities continued to use it afterwards.

    3. If we’re a 9-5 society, I’d like that it be light later in the evening than earlier in the morning.

      1. Same here. I don’t like going home after work in the dark.

        1. I prefer it, but my drive home is due west into, especially during “Fall” and “Spring”, a setting South Florida sun. Which can be quite blinding.

        2. Me neither – it’s depressing. And I’m half asleep on my way to work – who cares how bright it is?

        3. I like DST, too. I can drink until sunrise one hour more.

      2. Fuck that. I’m a morning person. Way rather have the early light.

        Looks like a tie. We are going to have to break out the Rules of Oppression and figure out who is the most oppressed and therefore wins the argument.

        1. As libertarians on the Koch payroll (are there any other kinds?), we’re all oppressors and thus our opinions should mean nothing.

        2. Why can’t the Light Bringer bring us perpetual light?

        3. Fuck that. I’m a morning person. Way rather have the early light.

          Well FUCK YOU morning person. I’m right and you’re wrong.

          I have a right to later sunsets!

          1. Francisco, you can’t just go with logic (no matter how sound the reasoning you displayed above is). That is why we figure out who is the most oppressed and they win.

        4. Seems like a pretty even split, so why don’t we do this: half the year we’ll have the sun come up early, and the other half we’ll have it set later.

        5. You’ll still have morning light.

          Without Daylight Savings, the sun would rise at 4 am in the summer time. At least where I live.

    4. Convenient apocryphal Native American story: Upon being told about DST, a chief laughed and said “Only a white man would think you could cut off the top of a blanket and sew it back on at the bottom to make it longer.”

      1. I wonder what tribe that guy belonged to, because Arizona is an enlightened land free from the barbaric scourge of daylight savings, apart from the Navajo reservation.

      2. *”Only a white man would think you could cut off the top of a blanket and sew it back on at the bottom to make it longer.”*

        That doesn’t even make any sense, but it’s one of those tropes that leftists trot out to make these stone age peoples look more intelligent than the people who invented the wheel, steam powered locomotives, etc.

        1. So much hate…

          1. So much tulpa…

      3. Well, their inability to understand concepts like that is what kept them a stone age culture…

    5. But we’re winning the war on darkness!!!

      1. RACE fucking IST!

      2. Triggered!

    6. Can we just end make daylight savings permanent? Please?

    7. Totally down with you on this one.

      One of the most depressing moments of the year. It is just starting to get light in the morning as I drive to work and now it is going to go back to being pitch black again.

      Also, I’m fucking sick and tired of having to apply all sorts of wonky rules to GMT timestamped data in order to display it in local time.

      1. I never minded it when it was at the end of the month. But doing it this early is idiotic.

        1. Not to mention that I had to go through a lot of old servers and apply patches to update the stupid date change a few years back.

          It is another of those stupid rule changes that they claimed were going to save us even more money, but failed to take into consideration the cost of converting. And I doubt anyone has ever measured whether the extra weeks of DST does actually save energy.

          1. I remember seeing a report on ABC’s nightly news finding people to complain about the change in DST rules, figuring it was down to bitching because the rules were introduced by BOOOOOOOOOSH.

          2. I seem to remember a study coming out of Australia that showed that extending DST actually increased the utilization of electricity. Something about people needing to be able to see their clothes when they get dressed in the morning.

        2. Yeah, I hate that. Wait until there is more daylight to save. It just makes it dark in the morning.

    8. I’ve always found mildly humorous the attitude some libertarians have of “OMG How can you be libertarian if you like DST!”

      1. Well, Teddy, it is kind of an example of the government exercising arbitrary power over the very fabric of our daily lives…

        1. Clock face-ism.

      2. Weights and measures is one of the few things the government does that they have the constitutional authority to do, and that I have no problem with them doing.

      3. If you have a problem with DST, then you should have a problem with standardized time zones too, I would think.

        DST was implemented for all kinds of weird and wrong reasons, but overall, I think it works out well.

        If your employer and people you know will put up with it, you could stick to whatever time you like, I guess. I’ve often thought of just sticking with daylight time, btu I just can’t resist the extra free hour. Did you know that during that hour, nothing is illegal?

        1. So tonight is Festival?

    9. Why do people think it has to do with agriculture? The sun comes up when it comes up.

  5. …Daylight Savings Time starts Sunday, so adjust them an hour forward.

    Who is the federal government to tell me what time it is?

    1. Don’t forget the “official” starting of the seasons.

      1. F that official time BS. I say it’s 5 o’clock all the time and I’m having a beer.

        1. My grandparents refused to recognize DST, and stuck to what time it “really” was. This annoyed my parents, because it made scheduling anything with them more difficult.

        2. It’s always 5 o’clock somewhere on Earth.

      2. I think that is just an observation of physical reality. Unless there is some arbitrary “official” start that doesn’t coincide with the equinox or solstice.

    2. Does anybody really know what time it is?
      Does anybody really care? [about time]

      1. +1 Horn section

      2. Really tool time?

      3. Only when i wake up with a hangover and I’m late for work (only once or twice a week).

    3. Doesn’t Article 1, Section 8 allow Congress to establish standard weights and measurements?

      1. “The law of gravity is what I SAY it is!!!”

        /Congressman Randomeasure

      2. Who is the Constitution to tell the government what it can and can’t do?

        1. Are you Obama?

        2. Something something old, white, dead, slavers, something something over 100 years ago..

      3. Just because it’s allowed doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. Also, the intention was for the government, supposedly a neutral authority, to establish standards. The merchants would like nothing more than a 15 oz pound, and the public would love them some 19 oz pounds.

        1. Second example should have been 17, but you all know what I mean.

          1. I’m a strong proponent of the 19oz pound. Now my BMI is awesome! Also, it makes fewer firemen overweight.

        2. I always divided my pounds up into 17 1-oz bags and distributed it ‘at cost’, the 17th being the vig.

          1. “Nobody ever checks a yardstick to see how long it is.”

            -Tin Men

      4. That’s why I’m an anti-Federalist!

  6. …but is not trying to evaluate whether she did anything wrong when she relied entirely on a private e-mail account to communicate while heading the department.

    The Justice Department can handle that, so hold your breath.

  7. Anti-semtism at UCLA.

    WHAT? UNPOSSIBLE!

  8. Prog-Man flips out after recognizing James O’Keefe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvyLTE9-Pb4

    1. Can you caption this for those of us who can’t access YouTube/video?

      1. How do I do that?

        1. By caption, I meant give us a short description. I’ve since listened to it (no vid, just a title card and subtitles) and it was teh awesome.

      2. It’s already captioned if you can play it muted.

        Basically, after O’Keefe admits who he is:

        “Fuck you, you’re a race-baiting animal”
        “You’re an asshole, you might get this a lot right?”
        “You’re a douchebag who got, you know that organization that was helping people in trouble, so that all I have to say to you, fuck you”

        O’Keefe: “What about what they were caught on tape doing?”

        “They weren’t caught on tape doing anything, a lot of them told you guys to fuck off, you guys weren’t dressed like you wer purported to be dressed”

        O’Keefe objects that neither of these claims are true

        “Fuck you and I am glad Andrew Breitbart is dead, I would dance on his grave”

      3. Here’s one caption: Liberal douche acts pretty much as expected when recognizing O”Keefe.

    2. If nothing else, that guy is the greatest real life troll ever.

  9. President Barack Obama will be heading to Selma, Alabama…

    You can just bet he’s going to find a way to inject race into this, too.

    1. I used to joke at work, around Christmas time: “Can’t we have ONE holiday a year where we don’t inject religion into it?!”

      I received stares, not laughter.

      1. I laughed just now. So take that and put it in your pocket.

      2. Festivus and Groundhog Day.

    2. Do we have to mark the 50th anniversary of every fucking event from the 60s?

      1. Forget it, Ted, it’s Boomertown.

      2. “Do we have to mark the 50th anniversary of every fucking event from the 60s?”

        Sure, in 5 years. That’s when the 60th anniversary’s start.

      3. You don’t have to. Some of them are kind of significant.

  10. The Department of Justice is planning to bring corruption charges against Democratic New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, according to CNN. He’s accused of using his position to push the business interests of a donor in exchange for gifts.

    90% agreement with the totalitarian dictator Obama isn’t enough; Menendez disagrees with him on the communist Castros and the Iranian terrorists, so he has to be destroyed. That’s what it means to be a totalitarian: it means either you’re with the Supreme Leader 100% of the time or you’re an Enemy of the State.

    I swear to God, I’ve never seen a more ruthless, Machiavellian son of a bitch in my life than this cretin in the Oval Office.

    1. I swear to God, I’ve never seen a more ruthless, Machiavellian son of a bitch in my life than this cretin in the Oval Office.

      You can’t have “Machiavellian” and “cretin” in the same sentence. That’s an oxymoron. Just sayin’.

        1. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!

            1. +1 Bart

            2. No, it’s called a double-bind. My ex-wife employed them often.

              1. “Kinkyyyy!”

        2. No, he made proper use of quotation marks.

      1. He’s just a regular old moron. Nothing oxy about it.

        1. Oxy as in methylene diOXY-methamphetamine?

    2. So lets whip the ranking member from the committee on foreign relations?

  11. Hey, there, Old Man With Candy:

    You asked for my views on adultery.

    OK, here they are:

    I have no *philosophical* objection to prosecuting adulterers (including hookers). Nor should libertarians have philosophical objections, unless you use “consenting adults” to mean “the consent of two out of three relevant adults” – which is like two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

    On the *pragmatic* level, I’m not sure about prosecuting adultery criminally when (a) there are civil remedies (public nuisances, alienation of affection, criminal conversation), and (b) we can’t trust the cops to be evenhanded in their enforcement of such criminal statutes (in other words, a city councilman may find himself arrested for adultery an hour after he votes to cut the police budget).

    So…any more questions?

    1. That is absurd. Since when does marriage mean giving consent to your spouse? If I commit adultery, I have betrayed my spouse. My spouse, however, gets no say in whether I do it. I am free to do as I like and she is free to act accordingly. To say that she is a non consenting third party is to make cheating on her the same as raping her.

      1. “My spouse, however, gets no say in whether I do it. I am free to do as I like and she is free to act accordingly.”

        In many states, “act accordingly” means the right to sue for alienation of affection or criminal conversation.

        Or, as these causes of action are contemptuously dismissed, “heartbalm actions,” as if the *only* harm caused by such betrayal is to the feelings of the betrayed individual.

        As the fatherless children, and the people robbed or stabbed by misguided youths raised without fathers, whether the effect of sexual betrayal is limited to one person’s feelings.

        1. Are you fucking stupid? Fatherless youth aren’t caused by adultery, they are caused by out of wedlock sex. Are you going to make that illegal too? By your logic we should. If fatherless yutes justifies adultery being illegal, then it certainly justifies making out of wedlock sex illegal.

          Beyond that, yes my wife can sue me. Her being able to sue me does not make adultery a crime against her consent or the sex I had anything but an act between two consenting adults.

          1. “Are you fucking stupid?”

            Well, I’m arguing the SoCon position on Reason’s H&R blog, so yes, I suppose maybe I *am* a bit stupid.

            1. That’s not SoCon, that’s authoritarian. Social conservatism and libertarianism are not exclusive, it’s the role of government that’s up for discussion.

              1. Social conservatism and libertarianism are not exclusive

                YES YES THEY ARE RON AND RAND PAUL ARE EXTREME SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES NOT LIBERTARIANS ALL HAIL HILLARY RUAH!!!1!1*foams at the mouth*

                /Michael Hihn

              2. Theoretically, no, Scruffy, but in practice SoCons are authoritarians at least to the degree that they wish to impose their morality on others.

            2. And that position is idiotic. I am not defend adultery. I will, however, say the spouses who are victims of it need to make better decisions in who they marry and it is not the government’s job to save them from their poor ability to judge character. Sometimes life needs to be hard or people won’t ever get any smarter.

              1. “spouses who are victims of it need to make better decisions in who they marry and it is not the government’s job to save them from their poor ability to judge character. Sometimes life needs to be hard or people won’t ever get any smarter.”

                Yes, if only the betrayed spouse had dropped by the Department of Pre-Crime to find out of their partner would cheat on them!

                You see, John, as much as you hate to admit it, we’re not so different, you and I.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH0YPXb49q0

                You and I would both let the betrayed spouse go to civil court to seek damages. Yet you balk at the fact that I – at least on the philosophical level – would add criminal fines or a nominal prison term to the humongous civil damages which both of us (apparently) find acceptable.

                Is this really a great gulf of principle between the two of us?

                1. You’re trolling.

                  1. No shit.

          2. “an act between two consenting adults”

            All I’m saying is there’s a third adult involved who probably didn’t consent.

            1. Unless its a threesome, there is no “third adult” involved in the act.

              1. Adult 1: “Yes, you may have sex with me, though you’re not my wife.”

                Adult 2: “Yes, you may have sex with me, and never mind who your wife is, I don’t care.”

                Adult 3: “You did *what* with the baby sitter?”

                1. I like this game. Go on…

                  1. Thanks Rufus, I almost choked to death on a Sprite Zero – that is a fairly ignominious way to go.

                    1. I second Swiss’s statement.

          3. Are you fucking stupid?

            Let me answer that.

            Yes. Yes he is.

            1. Remember this thread the next time someone accuses me of being some big SOCON.

              1. Glad to be of service.

              2. There are degrees to everything, but Eddie makes Socons look like hedonists.

                Eddie is to Christianity what the Taliban is to Islam.

                1. Well, in that case, why don’t you just stand next to that stone wall while I have the wall lowered down onto you.

                2. Except I am not a SOCON Fransisco. Some day I will get you to understand the idea that you should defend the rights of others and not just people like you.

                  1. Some day I will get you to understand the idea that you should defend the rights of others and not just people like you.

                    ?????

                    Sarcasm?

                    Joke?

                3. No. And damn you, Francisco, for making me defend Eddie, but he’s truly bush league (!) compared to certain sects of Christianity. I consider Eddie to be a fairly MOR SoCon but his libertarian leanings are a bit atypical for that sort. I can’t vouch for what he actually feels, or what he’d do in a more SoCon-dominated society.

                  [Kicks at nearest orphan and bellows]

                    1. Yeah, yall give gkc too much credit. He’s just as much of an asshole as tony, just on the other side of the aisle.

                    2. At least he is funny sometimes. And can take abuse with some grace.

          4. John hasn’t read the rules so clear, so bright.

            BE FUCKING CIVIL!

          5. Keeping a mistress is the bedrock of keeping European society civil and sophisticated.

            1. Damn straight, It’s just sex, for god’s sake.

              1. But…but…SACRED VOWS. [faints]

                /Eddie

        2. As the fatherless children, and the people robbed or stabbed by misguided youths raised without fathers, whether the effect of sexual betrayal is limited to one person’s feelings.

          Don’t ever change, Eddie.

    2. Should it be illegal to break a contract? By your logic it should be.

      1. Uh, it *is* illegal to break a contract. I happen to have a preference for civil rather than criminal enforcement (criminal conversation, alienation of affection), because that puts the initiative in the hands of the betrayed spouse, not the cops who may have other agendas.

        1. Only a pragmatic preference I note.

        2. No its not. I don’t go to jail for it. If you call being able to be sued for breach it being “illegal”, then adultery is illegal too, since my wife can sue me for divorce.

          Marriage falls into the civil sphere. It has no place in the criminal sphere. If you think adultery should be or even could be legitimately criminal, you are a fucking moron who doesn’t understand the role of government.

          1. That’s as may be, but let me put this to you…try to get the divorce bar (especially in New York) to lobby to repeal the criminal statutes against adultery. They find it useful that their clients get to take the 5th when asked about extramarital adventures. Take away the (largely theoretical) criminal penalties for adultery, and their clients suddenly may be forced to be a lot more talkative about their social lives.

            Now, if I had to choose between being prosecuted criminally for adultery, or being dragged through lengthy civil litigation, I might volunteer for the criminal prosecution.

            1. Those laws are unconstitutional. There is no way in hell they would stand up to challenge. There is no way ass sex is a constitutional right but adultery can be criminal

              1. “There is no way ass sex is a constitutional right but adultery can be criminal”

                You got me there.

                Of course, the premise is not something I would necessarily agree to, but since the federal courts have bought into it I suppose I just have to lie back and enjoy it.

              2. ass sex is a constitutional right

                And do I get my choice of partners? Interesting…

            2. I happen to support treating adultery as a crime in the military, given how it is currently prosecuted.

              Because of the unique nature of military, your boss can also be your prosecutor.

              Adultery is currently only ever charged when it also violates that special trust between leader and lead. Nearly all charges of adultery are against senior officers.

          2. If you think adultery should be or even could be legitimately criminal, you are a fucking moron

            DING DING DING DING DING

    3. Yeah, do you prefer to be whipped, bound, or both?

      1. I’m arguing with people on H&R, aren’t I? That would classify me as a major masochist, so I guess the answer is both.

        1. Eddie, if my friend cheats on his wife in Vegas, should I snitch?

          1. Is he rich?

            1. He does well.

              1. What does his wife do when he’s in Vegas?

        2. I’ve got it. You are Mel Gibson, aren’t you?

    4. “I have no *philosophical* objection to prosecuting adulterers (including hookers). Nor should libertarians have philosophical objections, unless you use “consenting adults” to mean “the consent of two out of three relevant adults” – which is like two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.”

      LOL, you think libertarians should have no philosophical objections to throwing people in jail for violating your personal religious beliefs.

      Goddammit, Eddie.

      1. Try again.

        1. I double checked my post and see nothing in there that is inaccurate.

          1. He wants to throw people in jail for breach of contract, even people who have no contract with either the breachee or breached, it has nothing to do with his personal moral compass. Purely market driven contract enforcement here, whats not for a libertarian to like?

            1. Except that marriage licenses do not have contractual language that would allow for a breach. What are the damages? How do you quantify them?

              Unless people start signing pre-nups that say ‘in the event of cheating you owe me X dollars’ there is no way anyone can declare cheating to be breach of contract.

              1. Both Jews and Muslims sign marriage contracts as part of their wedding ceremonies. Muslim jurists are divided as to whether a man needs the consent of his first wife before marrying his 2nd. I don’t believe American courts should rule on interpretations of sharia as much as I don’t believe the should on Church Canon Law.

            2. Throwing a person in jail for breach of contract would be one.

              1. Well how else are you gonna enforce contracts? Without the threat of rape cages or summary execution, you can throw your civil society right out the window.

                1. Good name

      2. Indeed, Clearly he’s just as serious and sincere as can be, but I can’t take Eddie seriously. Because goddammit, Eddie.

    5. “the consent of two out of three relevant adults”

      So NGKC is down with threesomes. Nice. How’s the wife feel about this?

      1. She wasn’t relevant to his decision.

        1. I’ll bet you are FUN at parties.

          If you don’t have a sense of humor, perhaps you can rent one.

          1. Deadpan sarcasm isn’t your thing, is it. On the plus side, I bet you could get disability for that.

      2. So NGKC is down with threesomes. Nice. How’s the wife feel about this?

        Eddie? Married?

        HAHAHAHAHA!

        There is batshit crazy, but no one is THAT batshit crazy.

        1. ESB is. So maybe Eddie is Matt Bruenig trolling us.

          1. I’m pretty sure he has said that he isn’t married.

    6. Sleeping with another person in private is a “public nuisance.” Nice!

    7. So…any more questions?

      Does whining about other people enforcing their social norms onto you while actively wanting to prosecute people who don’t follow your social norms ever make you feel like a massive hypocritical cunt?

      1. Does whining about other people enforcing their social norms onto you while actively wanting to prosecute people who don’t follow your social norms ever make you feel like a massive hypocritical cunt?

        That’s unfair. I don’t see that he’s massive.

    8. So…any more questions?

      How do you live with yourself?

    9. So…any more questions?

      No, I’ll just turn myself in to the Organ Banks for harvest.

    10. So…any more questions?

      Where were you hit on the head?

      (Obviously, I’m asking about which part of your skull, not where it happened, although I’m also curious about the context in which you received your head injury.)

    11. Alienation of Affection has been abolished in most of the states. Only Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah still allow them.

    12. Wait, an unmarried party to an adulterous interaction is an adulterer? Is this really something people believe?

      And unless you are admitting that you are indeed a theocrat who wants to impose his religious beliefs on people by law, how can you justify applying such a law to people who tolerate or accept some activity outside of the marriage? How is anyone wronged (besides your sensibilities) by an open marriage?

      1. I’ve mentioned my skepticism about using the criminal law against adulterers (however defined).

        I would certainly retain the dismissively-styled “heart balm” actions – civil actions like alienation of affection and criminal conversation, but in an open marriage, naturally nobody’s going to file a suit of that nature.

        So I don’t see an open marriage, at least in its pure form, getting the attention of the authorities, even under my “theocratic” ideas.

    13. Here in Taiwan, adultery is a criminal offense. It’s usually enforced on females, rarely on males and their mistresses. That sucks, except that husbands are afraid to “lose face”.

  12. The Department of Justice is planning to bring corruption charges against Democratic New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, according to CNN. He’s accused of using his position to push the business interests of a donor in exchange for gifts.

    By gifts, do you mean underage girls?

    1. And then there’s the reports of Hillary raising money for the Clinton Foundation while at the State Dept….

    2. “By gifts, do you mean underage girls?”

      Well, to be fair.. he didn’t get to keep them, sooo..

    3. Or boys. It depends on your (wide) stance.

  13. The City of Ferguson has fired three city employees due to evidence of racial bias and hopes to agree to a settlement with the Department of Justice and promise reforms in the wake of the report this week accusing the city of targeting blacks and running a predatory judicial system designed to line the city’s coffers, not fight crime. And the judge who helped oversee this program also reportedly owes $170,000 in back taxes.

    Tell me again, why is this SOB still wearing robes?

    Does anyone here know if Social Security and government pension checks are docked for non-payment of back taxes?

    1. I know the feds can garnish your wages for back taxes. I don’t know about SSI. Also, don’t know if the states can go after federal salaries and benefits.

    2. Tell me again, why is this SOB still wearing robes?

      Because FYTW.

      1. Because he can masturbate while on the bench. NTTAWWT.

  14. So the DoJ will be settling with me and other US citizens for all the violations of our civil rights by the FedGov on a daily basis, right? RIGHT?

    Hey – anybody got some 5.56? Anybody? “Shall make no law – doesn’t say the President can’t….” *wields pen and phone*

    I believe there’s a special circle of hell reserved for people like Holder and Obama, and I hope I’m right.

    1. If I remember my Dante correctly, there are several places in the 8th Circle of Hell that they’ll fit right into.

  15. Charges dropped against Sunset Park teen after videos show cops lied

    Prosecutors dismissed charges that 17-year-old Enrique Del Rosario assaulted a police officer on June 8. Cops pinched Del Rosario last summer as he filmed them arresting revelers during Puerto Rican Day festivities on Fifth Avenue in Sunset Park. They beat Del Rosario and then tried to make him look like the aggressor, his lawyer said.

    During the melee, one officer accidentally hit another cop with a baton, but when prosecutors brought charges against Del Rosario, they claimed he had done the damage, said Dennis Flores, head of police watchdog group El Grito de Sunset Park.

    Video evidence shot at multiple angles contradicts prosecutors’ claim, according to Heinegg and Flores. One video shot at the scene shows a high-ranking officer tell the person filming that doing so is illegal. It is not.

    Who are you going to believe? The ever-honest, overworked, underpaid thin blue line against drugs/chaos/terrorism? Or some lying videotape, probably shot from the worst angles, by anti-cop, bigorati scum?

    1. And the cops are going to jail for perjury right?

      Right?

      /crickets

      1. You gonna trust me or your damn lying eyes?

      2. In nearly every jurisdiction in the United States, there’s some statute, or at the very least a court rule, that states “criminal complaints may only be filed by the district attorney/state’s attorney/county prosecutor/WTFever.”

        Who’s going to hit them with the perjury charge? The piece of shit prosecutor who called them to testify and likely knew they were lying? His office who knows there will be sandbagging in future cases and/or retaliation from the boys in blue?

        Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

    2. You forgot “selectively edited” and “doesn’t show the whole story”.

      1. And “public policy,” and “there is no clearly established right under the Constitution to not be framed,” and “force continuums,” and “totality of the circumstances,” and “reasonably feared for their safety,” and “FUCK YOU THAT’S WHY.”

      2. Totality of circs!

    3. New police slogan:

      FUCK YOU PAY MY PENSION! WHACK!

    4. Lying about their actions at a parade? Dumbasses.

      1. Who are you going to believe “ethnic” anti-cop bigots or our underpaid heroes?

    5. During the melee, one officer accidentally hit another cop with a baton

      It was mentioned in the Ferguson report that 9 out of 10 of the people who were the target of police use of force where balck and people were joking that 1 white guy was someone the police hit accidentally while swinging at a black person…

  16. just rely on your computer or smartphone

    This is a thing? I have at least three I have to set by hand, including my alarm clock and a microwave oven.

    1. My alarm clock ($13, bought from WalMart 20 years ago), my microwave and my car are the only devices I own with clocks that I need to set by hand.

    2. Seven offhand that I can think of. No, make that eight; I forgot that the coffee maker has a timer so you can have coffee already brewed when you wake up.

      That doesn’t include the timer on the light over the garage or the one for the hot water heater.

      1. Don’t forget your thermostat or you may be walking on a very cold bathroom floor.

  17. The State Department is reportedly looking over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s e-mails to determine what can be released, but is not trying to evaluate whether she did anything wrong when she relied entirely on a private e-mail account to communicate while heading the department.

    This is SO wrong.

    Ordinary people can’t use Lavamail or Hushmail, because the Feds go after those providers for the heck of it. And someone in power does it, it’s all okey-dokey.

    What a f***ing joke.

    1. State can pretend it’s all legal all day, but I’m pretty sure Congress won’t. I don’t know what’s left of the special prosecutor laws, but we’re way past needing a general investigation of shenanigans in this administration.

  18. I got this link from Iowahawk’s twitter feed:

    House Dems vow to protect Boehner from a conservative coup

    1. Replacing him with a Tea Party Speaker, they say, would only bring the legislative process ? already limping along ? to a screeching halt.

      Other Democrats suggested they would side with Boehner for one simple reason: They’re hoping to move bipartisan legislation this Congress and see Boehner as a more moderate leader with a penchant for compromise

      Kulak wrecker-hoarders! Obstructionists!

      Gotta love how “elections have consequences” but only when the Democrats win.

    1. I think this is gonna end up like Michigan. Those fuckers (meaning union pukes) are going to rue the day they poked the bear. Shit’s coming home to roost in MI this year as the automakers’ contracts and others come up, and RTW goes into full effect.

      I watch in utter, gleeful joy.

      1. I said to my pastor before ask that went down that MI passing RTW world be like Mordor passing an anti-orc law..

      2. Nice. You see, here’s a good example of anti-leftist naming and messaging. They are often good at it (e.g. “marriage equality,” “social justice,” etc. etc.) but “right to work” is a good one. If the GOP and Libertarians had any sense, they’d put more effort into coming up with terms to help sell their positions.

        1. We really fucked up on Net Neutrality. The low-attention-span Buzzfeed dipshits couldn’t make it past those two words.

          1. Net neutrality: treating 911 calls and DDoS attacks equally

          2. True. That was a killer bit of positioning.

        2. Hmmm?

          How about?

          Right to Garden: Legalize front yard gardening and also legalize marijuana plants

          Right to Migrate: Immigration reform

          Honest Cop Law: Protect honest cops by sending the dishonest ones to jail

          1. “Food freedom” is good. I still say that the GOP and Libertarians should use that as a wedge issue to split foodies off from the Democratic party. It may not work 100% of the time, but wedge issues rarely do. It can’t hurt.

            And something like that to use against Obamacare. “Medical freedom” isn’t quite it. “Healthcare innovation”: maybe. But something like that. “Healthcare diversity”?

            1. Too many foodies don’t want food freedom. They want people to eat the right kind of food.

              I don’t know what would be good for healthcare. But the left doesn’t have much either. I guess embracing “Obamacare” was a pretty good move on their part. But one that could yet backfire.

    2. Things that pass on a party line vote are totally illegitimate. Right?

      1. Well……. that depends.

        /Team Blue

  19. Rich Russians are trying to move to the United Kingdom in order to escape sanctions against their home country. What about the poor Russians? Oh, who cares about them?

    Why the U.K.? Do they think they’ll feel more at home since Great Britain is literally becoming Airstrip One?

    1. How dare you compare modern day politics to 1984!

      Now, if you’ll excuse me, Rand Paul’s on the TV again. Time for Two Minutes’ Hate!

  20. Going home. You guys have fun with Eddie.

  21. Man, that ESB thread ended up being as awesome as I hoped. Thanks to everyone who shared her crazy articles. There were one or two I hadn’t read before, and I’d long assumed that there was no ESB clusterfuck that I didn’t know about.

    1. She and her husband are real pieces of work. I used to follow her on twitter because I am a masochist, but she blocked me when I said something along the lines of “I thought you’d be intellectually honest, because the ten commandments forbids lying.”

      1. It’s too bad that a face that cute got stuck with a soul that dead and gangrenous. And yes, I know she looks 12 and has a dead tooth.

        1. Her soul’s not dead, she just made the mistake of promising it to two different men – Jesus Christ and Karl Marx.

  22. What in the ever-loving fuck is with this font?

    1. What is the issue with the font that everybody is bitching about?

      1. Viewed on a non-millenial reading device, it seems to have been resized for the walk-in-bathtub crowd.

        1. Looks about right to me.

          *closes door, sits on heated bench, turns on water*

  23. Wo, Syracuse.

    http://espn.go.com/mens-colleg…..holarships

  24. Man burned by fajitas while praying can’t sue Applebee’s

    “Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.” — Psalms 23:5

    1. “My cup runneth over with HOT COFFEE GODMOTHERFUCKINDAMN MY LAP AAAAAAAUGH I’M SUING!!!1!!!11!”

    2. BAN HOT FOOD AND PLATES!

      EVERYONE MUST WEAR A HELMET IN RESTAURANTS!

      WHY WON’T ANYONE LISTEN TO ME?!

      1. They were eating at Applebee’s. If that does not incur Dad’s wrath, I don’t know what would.

        1. Sure, Josh, rub it in that you’re Dad’s favorite.

    3. I get a special kind of heebie-jeebies when I see people saying grace or praying in a restaurant. It’s one thing to thank sky daddy when you cooked it, I guess, but doing it for some shitty Applebees garbage is bizarre.

      1. Meh. I grew up in the Bible Belt, so I’m used to it, but it’s still embarrassing, as in, I’m embarrassed for them that they can’t even eat a single meal without grovelling before their god, but whatevs.

  25. Is it just me, or does Sen. Menendez look a little like the evil Nazi guy from Raiders of the Lost Ark?

    1. THIS EXACTLY!

      I couldn’t place it – thanks for the help.

      Do we get to see a GIF with his face melting later?

      1. SF the link?

        1. No, it works.

  26. Fucking folks at Slate decide that because disabled people make the best of the bad hand their dealt that there is nothing wrong with being disabled. I want this author to get a spinal injury then come tell me how it’s not an objectively bad thing to be disabled. Maybe the son of a bitch would get some empathy then.

    Nothing makes me want to grab a baseball bat faster than proggies weighing in on disabilities. The feminists cry about how terrible it is that some men have fetishes for disabled women, because god fucking forbid I ever suffer through the tragedy of having a partner who actually considers my disability a plus. It’s only okay to want to date the disabled if you nobly overlook their problems, showing how super enlightened you are because you would date a cripple. Then you get the idiots progs who are so kumbaya accept yourself just the way you are that they actually have the nerve to try and say the disabled are just as well off as the non-disabled, and that only the unenlightened would dare to want to do something as crass as fixing someones body.

    Okay rant over. As you can tell this might be a touchy subject. Here’s the link.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut…..ology.html

    1. I wanted to read it to understand where you’re coming from, but my eyes glazed over when I saw the word “Bioethics.”

      1. That’s really all you needed to read. It’s the same crap as always. We can’t make peoples lives better because that would hurt their religion of ‘diversity’. Fuck them.

    2. Sparrow is constructing a narrow argument in response to a well-known 2012 paper by feminist disability scholar Rosemarie Garland-Thompson titled “The Case for Conserving Disability,” which presents a counter-eugenic focus on the cultural and material contributions that disability provides the world rather than disability as an unequivocal liability.

      Wha…what?

      1. I get the feeling the word “disability” was redefined while I wasn’t looking.

      2. That is some staggeringly sick shit. As a legally blind person I can tell you that having a body with an important part that doesn’t work very well is a burden I would correct in a hot second, any my disability is mild compared to many others. What a disgusting point of view. That’s not just wrong, it’s fucking vile, evil.

        1. I remember a controversy in the world of deaf people some years back: some argued that curing deafness was a bad idea.

          But this is all standard modern progthink. “It’s not a disability that she weighs 300 pounds! Everyone should celebrate it!”

          1. some argued that curing deafness was a bad idea.

            That’s SOP at Gallaudet.

            1. Yup. I dated a girl who was a freshman there who had cochlear implants and she caught a massive ration of shit from the cripples for it. She also got tons of shit for “seriously” dating somebody who didn’t have hearing problems. She was treated like dirt by professors, even told that she had to remove the device to attend some of her classes and harassed to the point of fear by other students that she eventually transferred to Temple. We carried on for a while long-distance, but it wasn’t really workable.

              Too bad too, she was really bright. She’s now making some serious coin as an actuary for Alliant Health.

              It’s truly bizarre that people have created a “culture” out of being cripples.

        2. Messiah heal thyself.

  27. “The State Department is reportedly looking over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s e-mails ”

    They’re looking over those emails *that she chose to give them*.

    Wake me when they’re looking over *all* her emails.

  28. “The State Department is reportedly looking over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s e-mails to determine what can be released, but is not trying to evaluate whether she did anything wrong when she relied entirely on a private e-mail account to communicate while heading the department.”

    Scouring through Hilliary’s emails looking for evidence of misbehavior is like trying to find Satanic messages in Black Metal records by playing them backwards. Seriously, no need to read those emails backwards–what’s we’re looking for is right in front of our faces.

    Hillary Clinton was accepting donations from foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, while she was the Secretary of State.

    As far as I can tell, that is completely unprecedented–and the truly unusual thing about this example of corruption is that it happened right in front of our eyes.

    1. Do you suppose those donations had anything to do with how she handle Benghazi?

      Or the current warming in US-Iranian relations?

      1. There’s no way to know, but Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.

        I keep reading this stuff and thinking, “not this again”, and I can’t be the only one.

        This is the same. exact. shit. the Clintons’ did when they were in charge of the White House.

        If she can’t stop herself–even when it’s in her own best interests to do so–how can we trust her to look out for the interests of the American people?

      2. Not necessarily. Given the way most of the world works, foreign potentates may have thought they were buying access or favors, but why should the Clintons do anything for them later? Just take their money with a hearty “Thank you” and use it to hire friends and cronies, promote your ideology, and expand your political power. And I believe the Clinton Foundation has a nice little pied-?-terre that they can use for trysts (but not with each other, of course!).

        1. There’s a question of leverage.

          If you’ve got dirt on a President, like agreeing to do a quid pro quo and associating it with a public donation, and you’ve got whatever evidence that such an arrangement was agreed to by President Hillary…

          You’ve got leverage.

          Why wouldn’t you want leverage?

          Governments spend billions building up their militaries to get more leverage.

          Hillary may have been giving away leverage at a steep discount–just tens of millions of dollars.

  29. Do Hillary’s defenders have any idea how stupid they look?

    The only people in the world that look dumber than Hillary right now–pretending that neither the governments in question nor Hillary herself thought they were getting anything in return for their $25-80 million in “donations”–are the progressives out there who are sticking their necks out for her.

    How stupid do you have to be to pretend that the Secretary of State accepting money from foreign governments is perfectly okay? At best, it shows that Hillary is completely incompetent. Is she going to continue to accept donations from foreign governments once she’s elected President? If it was okay before, why not in the future?

    If there isn’t a law against the President being on the payroll of some foreign government, it’s only because that shouldn’t be necessary. We shouldn’t have to tell the Secretary of State not to eat people’s children either.

    P.S. Al Gore says there’s no controlling legal authority.

    1. Florida?

  30. PS – look, you see that I have a masochistic willingness to answer even the toughest questions about my heretical views, but as a reciprocal gesture of fairness, I’d like to point out some factors which mitigate my heresies.

    Specifically, I have strong pragmatic doubts about prosecuting adulterers, johns* and hookers in the criminal court system. It can be philosophically justified, but practical historical experience shows that handing such power over to cops and judges allows for massive corruption and blackmail. It’s not that I think there’s a right to adultery/prostitution so much as that I distrust the real-world procedures for criminalizing such behavior.

    *Lowercase “j”

    1. How do you live with yourself?

      1. In a giant sex dungeon which makes yours look like a Disney World attraction.

    2. Specifically, I have strong pragmatic doubts about prosecuting adulterers, johns and hookers in the criminal court system. It can be philosophically justified, but practical historical experience shows that handing such power over to cops and judges allows for massive corruption and blackmail.

      If someone kept telling you, “you know, I’d really like to murder you and dump your body in the woods, however I refrain because even though I’d totally enjoy it, practical experience suggests I’d probably get caught”, would you still be willing to accept an invitation from them to go camping?

      1. No more calls, please, we have a winner…Stormy Dragon wins Most Ridiculous Analogy of the Year!

        Come on down…

        1. Stormy’s comment was excellent. Spicy, yet insulting.

    3. I’d say adultery is a civil matter, not criminal. You’ve breached a contract. Prostitution is, in itself, a victimless endeavor and therefore should be no matter for the state.

      We’ve handed too much power to law enforcement by allowing legislators and regulators criminalize everything thrice over.

      1. I’d say adultery is a civil matter, not criminal. You’ve breached a contract.

        In 2015 you have no basis for that statement.

        Marriage does not contractually imply or require sexual performance of any kind.

        If your wife decides not to have sex with you any more, you get to shut up and like it.

        The existing family court case law where sexual infidelity was seen as superior grounds for divorce reflects an antiquated world view that assumes its conclusion.

        “Marriage means you have to be sexually continent!” Says who? That understanding comes from the pre-legal marriage form, which has nothing to do with marriage as a civil contract. Marriage as a civil contract is about joint property ownership and the parentage of children, and nothing more.

        The civil contract of marriage has the content we assign to it. That’s it.

        An understanding of that civil contract that compelled sexual performance would run into serious 13th Amendment problems under existing peonage case law, a nice summary of which can be found here:

        http://chicagounbound.uchicago…..l_articles

  31. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.wixjob.com

  32. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail

    ?~?~?~?~?~~~~~~~ http://www.jobsfish.com

  33. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.go-review.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.