Amtrak Derails Outside Philly, Pentagon Staff Expense Strippers, Uber Helicopter Is Here: A.M. Links


  • At least six people were killed and more than 100 injured when an Amtrak train on its way from Washington, D.C., to  New York City derailed outside of Philadelphia Tuesday night. "It is an absolute disastrous mess," said Philly mayor Michael Nutter in a press conference. "Never seen anything like this in my life." 
  • This is Amtrak's second fatality-causing accident in less than a week. Last Sunday, a train collided with a truck in Amite, Louisiana, killing injuring two train passengers and killing the truck's driver. 
  • Defense Department personnel expensed $952,258 at casinos and $96,576 at strip clubs in fiscal year 2013-2014.  
  • "Traditional" marriage is the real outlier, writes Cato's Trevor Burrus, exploring the institution's history at The Washington Post.  
  • Welcome to the new Facebook, "where you won't be able to escape your second cousin posting lifestyle features about kale." 
  • Private prisons "diversify" in the face of criminal justice reform. 
  • Uber helicopter hits Cannes. 
  • The U.K. continues slouching toward dystopia. 

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

NEXT: Veronique de Rugy: Big Data, Big Business, and Big Government

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

  1. At least six people were killed and more than 100 injured when an Amtrak train…

    Notice that no one is saying if the train cars were adorned with pictures of a certain prophet.

    1. They were, however, driving too fast for the track they were on from all evidence currently available.

      1. If only we had high speed rail…

        1. Damn your nimble fingers!

          1. high speed fingers!

      2. This is why we need high-speed rail.


          Let’s spend a lot of money on it [or at least shovel a lot money through our cronies in the name of it].

        2. This is why we should read Atlas Shrugged.

      3. No shit, on SiriusXM’s POTUS channel, they had a Congressman from Oregon on and IMMEDIATELY he started blaming the “lack of willingness to fund infrastructure” for the derailment.

    2. Buon giorno.

      Defense Department personnel expensed $952,258 at casinos and $96,576 at strip clubs in fiscal year 2013-2014.

      Nothing left to cut! Mindless austerity! Government avoids the inefficiency inherent in the private sector!

      1. Taxpayers didn’t have to pay for excursions to strip clubs and casinos because the 1.6 million holders of Pentagon travel cards must pay monthly bills themselves while seeking reimbursement for authorized expenses such as hotels and meals, according to the Defense Department.”

        This speaks more to the decaying morale, and ethical standards in DoD than waste of taxpayer money.

        1. Less morale decay, more increased stupidity. This stuff was always around. Employees used to be smart enough to make sure it didn’t show up on reports where the public could read it.

        2. And not for nothing, but Army Recruiting has a Brigade HQs in Las Vegas, and most decent hotels there also have casinos.

          So there are plenty of valid reasons to have casino bills.

          The strip clubs are different, but that’s why it’s 10 times less.

        3. Taxpayers didn’t have to pay

          WRONG. Interchange fees.

          1. I don’t think so…

            The travel cards are issued directly to soldiers/employees by Citi-Bank.

            The government is not actually ‘on the hook’ for any of the transactions.

            Intrechange fees are between Citi and the hotel’s bank.

            1. You’re right.

        4. Yeah but given the size of the Defense Department and the number of personnel they have the real headline there should be “Amazingly Defense Department personnel only spent $1 million at casino’s and strip clubs last year”

          I mean there has to be at least 50,000 soldiers/contractors with one of those cards, a million dollars means an average of just $20 each

      2. Key fact:
        “Taxpayers didn’t have to pay for excursions to strip clubs and casinos because the 1.6 million holders of Pentagon travel cards must pay monthly bills themselves while seeking reimbursement for authorized expenses such as hotels and meals, according to the Defense Department.”

        These ridiculous stories come out every year, despite the fact that these credit cards are effectively personal credit cards. The scandal is the amount of time the government spends investigating how these cards are used.

        1. THIS and Swiss’s comment. Underneath the scandalous headline, there’s nothing there.
          Plus, if the govt tells me I have to get a credit card in my name, it’s incumbent on me to not abuse it, make late payments, etc since I’m on the hook for the bills and my own credit rating; big brother breathing down my neck doesn’t add too much value.

    3. Hello.


    4. Cue Ayn Rand to tell us why those people deserved to die.

      1. Do you think Robben and Ribery could have made a difference in the tie against Barca?

        1. David Alaba could have made a difference in the first leg, I think.

        2. Two of their top 3 strikers were MIA. Bayern didn’t stand a chance.

    5. 300+ comments and no one has yet made a crack along the lines of “Who let Biden drive the train?”

      This place is going downhill…


        /half a loaf for Pope Jimbo

  2. Apparently, Old Mexican, Heroic Mulatto, and I are on the H&R micro aggressee list.

    I apologize for micro aggressing anyone by leaving them out of the list.

    According to a new report released by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, just “walking into or sitting in” a classroom full of white people is a microaggression in itself.

    1. Why are these white people so sensitive, anyways?

    2. Can you imagine how microaggressed Frederick Douglass must have been getting invited to a room full of white government employees by Abe Lincoln?

      1. I’m betting Douglas would tell today’s yutes to grow some balls.

        1. And then slap them when they started to cry about his questioning their sexual equipement.

          1. I’ve always thought of micro-aggression as aggression committed by someone with a micro pen1s.

            1. It’s when Tyrion Lanaster rapes a hooker.

              Wait a sec.. is it rape when it’s a hooker? Or is it more like shoplifting?

              1. Where do whores go?


              2. Apparently, Tyrion’s stones and pillar are not proportional to his height, just ask Roz or Shae…oh, wait…

    3. I’ve been meaning to talk to you guys about this in the presence of an H&R diversity officer. Your witty banter and nice demeanor are making me feel awfully insecure about my status as a white, emotionally stunted troglodyte.

      1. Stop giving us white, emotionally stunted troglodytes a bad name.

        1. I’ll be in my cave – I mean safe space – if you need me.

      2. H&R diversity officer

        I nominate Bo.

        1. I nominate STEVE SMITH!

          Diversity of species.

          1. As if HR wasn’t already enough of a pain in the ass.

    4. So, what they are saying is that white people shouldn’t invite minorities to join their groups at all (unless it’s as massive group of all-minority newbies)?

      1. Well, in a campus environment the people truely left out are those who cannot be microagressed against and the fact that they can’t be in and of itself is a microagression. So aren’t white hetro males the true victims here?

        1. So aren’t white hetro males the true victims here?

          Lights Bo signal

          1. Lights sarc meter

            1. Oh, I know you were being sarcastic.

    5. I’m going to repost what I posted in another thread yesterday, because I think it’s worth repeating.

      I’ll add to my previous comment that not only are the progs creating a lot of anti-white, anti-christian, etc hatred, but they are also creating the opposite as well. How long do you think a white kid growing up today can listen to this type of garbage they teach in his schools, and in his colleges, before he lashes out and joins one of the many neo-nazi groups out there because they think they’re the only groups standing up for him?

      1. Spot on. Sh1t like this can only increase racial animosity.

        I read that article, and yes, there are things that were very inappropriate and downright insulting. But everything is not about race or gender.

        I’ve had condescending stuff said to me. Should that be interpreted as racist microaggression when said by a white person, or just condescension? If you turn the tables and I say that the same condescending stuff to, say, a woman, is that me being a d1ck or is it sexism?

        I think hypersensitivity and interpreting everything through the lens of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. is a big problem.

        1. Your i key is microaggressing me.

        2. Sh1t [sic] like this can only increase racial animosity.

          That’s their goal.

        3. there are things that were very inappropriate and downright insulting

          Not to be a cynic… but I have to wonder how much of that was “shit that didn’t happen”.

        4. “Sh1t like this can only increase racial animosity.”

          That is the purpose of it.

    6. Know who else had a problem with….

      ….fuck, wait.

      Someone help me.

      1. 1 tiny moustache of hostility

    7. I always wonder what would happen if you worked with these students to change how they perceived the world. If you gave them therapy that helped their first thoughts when they aren’t called on in class not to be about race but about any one of the other dozens of reasons that they might not have been called upon. Would the students stop feeling as uncomfortable in groups full of people with different skin colors? Would they report more happiness? Would their interracial friend groups increase?

    8. When I was in UIUC, I was microaggressed constantly. The squirrels on the quad try to steal your food and give meaningful looks if you don’t give in. It was like squirrel gaze rape. Mortifying.

      1. Cripes, they did that when I was there in the 1980s…

  3. 53) OK, this TNS is going to sound especially cranky. I happened to notice this morning at work there are about two dozen handicapped spaces in the parking garage, of which I have never seen more than three or four occupied. I started wondering why that is?I mean, why so many? What a waste of space, especially since the garage often fills up by 9AM! I poked around online and figured out this is set by the US Department of Justice under the ADA of 2010 (which is stricter than the similar 1991 law). That’s right, this issue is so critical to our national life that it can’t be left up to states or localities to figure out how much handicapped parking their establishments might need. Moreover, every single commercial establishment with parking must provide a handicapped space. It doesn’t have to be specifically marked as such unless the business has at least four spaces (how generous!)?but it still has to be handicapped accessible. So your tiny business with three spaces must go to the expense of making one space handicapped-accessible, including wider space (what if you don’t have room?) and grading it so it’s level. And people wonder why fewer small businesses are opening up nowadays!

    1. What irks me as well is all these special spaces reserved for mothers and veterans and all these other special classes.

      1. “Parking For Irish Only”

        1. (Irish parking is located at the bottom of a lake outside of town)

        2. LIquor stores all have that.

      2. You can park in those.

      3. *perks up* Veterans?

        We have handicapped and “expecting mothers” parking reserved where I work.

      4. I used the “mother’s” spot at the grocery store all the time when my son was an infant.

        1. you motherfucker

      5. Yes but those are not required by law. Companies reserve those voluntarily on their own

    2. It’s a small price to pay to have the number of fully-employed lawyers we have in this country.

    3. Same problem with me. The city gave me nine spots (for a daycare of 60 kids) but one had to be reserved for handicaps. The thing is, it doesn’t give an advantage since all the spots are pretty close to the door thus making it a waste of space. I also have three ’15 min’ spots across the street. So it ‘can’ get pretty hectic at times but luckily most of my clients have highly flexible jobs and so don’t all come at the 5pm or some other same time.

      One time an asshole cop gave a ticket after circling my daycare like a shark a few times. Everyone thought he was looking out for the place or was looking for traffic violations. Nope. He was looking to pinch one of my parents/workers.

      My sister called the chief of police and let him have it. So far they haven’t been back.

      1. They’re too busy planning the forthcoming raid.

        1. +1 satanic cult daycare

          1. Libertarian indoctrination will not be tolerated!

          2. Ayn Rand School for Tots? They don’t stand for pacifiers!!!

        2. I think it all depends on whether his sister berated the police in French, or filthy English.

    4. This is one of the reasons I’ve considered getting a handicap sticker. I qualify for one even though I don’t need one, and I feel guilty sometimes taking up regular people spaces that could be used by someone else.

      1. “… and I feel guilty sometimes taking up regular people spaces that could be used by someone else.”

        I know it was you, Illocust….

        You broke my heart. Your broke my heart!

    5. , of which I have never seen more than three or four occupied.

      You must live somewhere where they’re stingy with the parking passes. All it takes here in KY is a Dr’s note, so ‘fat and lazy’ is good enough to get you a parking pass.

      I use one for sometimes transporting my 83 yr old in-laws, and often times find that the handicap parking fills before the regular parking.

      1. Here in The People’s Republic the handicapped placard gets you unlimited free parking at meters. Unsurprisingly the numbers of people using them has exploded. I see what appear to be completely able bodied people pulling up to handicapped spots or parking at meters all the time now.

  4. Woman claims she was fired for disabling/uninstalling an app on her company phone that tracked her whereabouts 24/7.

    Her lawsuit is based on the app tracking her when not on company time. Her managers bragged to employees that they knew what roads they took, where they went, and how fast, even after work hours. SLD, I think it’s a shitty practice, and I believe she has a legitimate complaint (especially if she was expected to carry the cell phone after hours). She isn’t complaining about being tracked on company time.

    1. Why not just leave the company phone at home once you are off working hours?

      1. Well, some companies require you to carry it 24/7. I worked for one, years ago.

      2. Yeah, I think this depends on the nature of her job (to determine reasonableness of condition of employment) and whether she is alleging it was an intrusion of privacy in her personal life. If the latter, your question is pretty critical.

        This may also completely hinge on the age of the judge/jury.

        1. She is alleging intrusion of privacy in her personal life based on her manager bragging that he could (and did) follow her every move when off the clock.

          1. If she was an “on call” employee and carrying the phone was a condition of employment, it looks like she certainly has a case then.

      3. Or leave the company…for another company that doesn’t insist on tracking you all the time?

    2. If my boss did that I’d slip my phone into the lining of his wife’s purse.

    3. I had an idea the other day for an app that was a universal remote control on your phone. Don’t know how feasible that idea would be but I think it would sell.

      1. A great idea, Idle, but the one technical limitation is that most consumer electronics I’ve seen use infra-red signals. Not sure that phones have those. Also, you might run into patent infringement with the Harmony remote.

        FWIW they do sell bluetooth devices which allow you to turn household lights on and off with your phone.

      2. My phone has that.

        You enter in the brand name for the device and it finds the frequency. It also stores the settings for your varous devices by room name.

        1. Quick Remote App

      3. My LG G2 has an app that controls my tv etc. I keep forgetting I have it. It uses the Fed’s bout in IR transmitter.

        1. Ugh. G2’s built in IR transmitter.

      4. They already exist for Samsung phones at the very least

    4. They care about her!! Sounds like a sweet company. Almost like a big brother! Oh, wait…

  5. The U.K. continues slouching toward dystopia.

    Pop culture has taught me that they’re tailor made for it.

    1. This is the UK slouching toward dystopia.

    2. This was so disillusioning. Some of the Tory rhetoric is refreshingly pro-freedom and pro-business and as I’ve said here, the Brits actually cut YOY government spending. But now they want to combat extremism by locking up anyone who says anything “extremist” in some vaguely worded statute. Why the Brits happily bend over for these totalitarian govt incursions into their behaviour is beyond me.

      1. and as I’ve said here, the Brits actually cut YOY government spending.

        Once, and from the numbers I’ve seen spending is higher than ever.

        1. Right, well it depends on what the standard is. If it’s the US, I think they’re doing all right. I believe they cut the deficit to a new low % of GDP, that’s not bad either.

      2. Because all of the good Brits have already left?

        1. In any case, I’m not in the mood to defend Britain on a day when they’re having a bloody train strike.

        2. My wife watches a lot of silly tv shows. I notice that the shows are chock full of limeys. I asked her, rhetorically, the other night “Whats with all the goddamn limeys on tv?”. Her answer: “If you lived there wouldn’t you try to leave?”

  6. “This is Amtrak’s second fatality-causing accident in less than a week. Last Sunday, a train collided with a truck in Amite, Louisiana, killing two train passengers and the truck’s driver.”

    Quick! Everyone write about how this tragedy confirms your worldview!

    1. Why do we only hear about these disasters when they happen in the northeast?

      1. Because that place, and that little fiefdom out west are the only places that matter ever.

      2. Probably because you could blow up and completely incinerate and entire Amtrak train anywhere outside of the NE and you still wouldn’t have 6 deaths.

        Think how embarrassing it would be if there was a major Amtrak derailment in Montana and they had to report that there were only 2 paying customers on it.

        1. I’ve been cross-country twice and there were at all times way more than “2 paying customers”. I know you guys enjoy making fun of choo-choos but no need to make shit up.

          1. Lighten up Francis Rhywun.

            I used to take the train a lot when I was in the service. Several trips from Memphis to my hometown and out to CA.

            Yeah there were more than 2 people. But every time I rode, you could look around and say “no way they are even coming close to paying for the costs of this trip with this few people.”

            1. Out west, absolutely. In fact, I would love to see better service in my area (the NE) and I greatly resent how much they waste out west.

      3. Louisiana is neither North nor East by US standards.

    2. Well clearly this would have never happened if those Teathuglicans weren’t opposed to High Speed Rail projects.

      1. Yeah, this would be better if the train were going much faster!

        1. It would have made it to the wreck quicker!


      1. For Infrastructure!

        The Stimulus was way too small!

    4. So maybe the problem with all the oil transport derailments are also with the driving not the transport.

      1. Are you saying we need to transport north-eastern commuters through pipelines?

        I like the cut of your jib , and will gladly subscribe to your newsletter.

        1. We could give the pipelines a cool name like hyperloops.

          1. And if you chop the commuters into small enough pieces, a smaller pipeline reduces infrastructure impacts.

            1. “…small enough pieces…”


            2. Fuck you and your smaller pipelines Bob. You are the goddamned Comcast of people pipelines.

              You probably want to charge me more because my fat blobby body is going to take up way more of your pipeline capacity than some skinny fuck.

              I demand that the government create Pipeline Neutrality rules! I should only pay as much as a marathon runner does.

  7. Welcome to the new Facebook, “where you won’t be able to escape your second cousin posting lifestyle features about kale.”

    Just in time for the next presidential election.

    1. I deactivated at the beginning of this year.

      It’s been a great decent year so far.

      1. I quit checking after my ex quit sending long miserable messages begging to get back. That and the occasional electoral schadenfreude were the only reasons I had to keep the account.

  8. Grover Norquist’s version of prison reform is a moral disgrace: Why America’s bipartisan fetish shouldn’t obscure its sins
    Here’s why the libertarian right’s silence on prison rape is a bad sign for comprehensive criminal justice reform

    None of this means, of course, that Norquist and his fellow conservative reformers (like the Koch brothers) want to see Star and people like her subjected to violence ? sexual or otherwise. My point here is not to say that Norquist is happy that Star has suffered as she has. Instead, the problem with the libertarian approach to reform he espouses is that the wellbeing of Star and others is utterly irrelevant; whether they spend their time rehabilitating or in agony doesn’t matter so long as it has no effect on the bottom-line. That may not be a problem in the early stages of reform, when the low-hanging fruit of sparing non-violent offenders from incarceration is still within reach; but the early stages, while currently far from over, will nevertheless come to an end sooner than you may think.

    1. Well, except for prominent libertarian blogger Radley Balko. Does he not count?

      1. And virtually all prominent libertarians who talk about prison reform as well as libertarian leaning Republicans like Glenn Reynolds.

        Once again, Salon doesn’t read their opponents’ arguments so they then assume the arguments they haven’t bothered reading must not exist.

        1. Why would they? Libertarians only care about business profits and conservatives only care about profits + Jesus. Any facts that deviate from this narrative are to be discarded.

    2. I don’t know about Norquist’s position but this seems to be a rather ridiculous mischaracterization of the general libertarian attitude towards prison reform.

      1. Norquist’s position is completely reasonable and Salon is pretending it’s not because Salon is run by idiots who can’t bring themselves to admit libertarians are actually better on prison reform than most supposed ‘progressives.’

        This reminds me of when Megan McCardle made the point that prison reform would save us money and was simply trying to argue that this was yet another reason to do it. Leftists (including, I believe, ESB) proceeded to claim McCardle was evil because she was using savings as a reason for reform rather than talking about the people it would help therefore she’s just some Randroid libertardian who only cares about PROFITS! This completely ignored the fact that if you make one argument on behalf of something it doesn’t mean there aren’t other reasons to favor it so McCardle pointing out cost savings in no way meant that she didn’t also care about the people being harmed by the system.

        Basically progressives are really stupid.

        1. Agreed. So, to sum up, basically any rationale for doing something – no matter how logically sound – is evil unless it involves THE FEELZ.

          1. – is evil unless it involves THE right kind of FEELZ.

        2. I think the word you are looking for is ‘liars’.

        3. The existing justice system — with its WoD and its abysmal prison system — is both evil and stupid.

          Norquist’s line of attack, according to the article, argues that system is stupid. There is nothing wrong with this argument, and it does not inherently deny that the system is also evil.

          Of course, most progressives are too stupid to understand this. I don’t know whether the Salon writers are so stupid; they may very well be so evil at to be intentionally deceiving their readership while fully understanding the motivations of Norquist and Koch.

      2. ridiculous mischaracterization = alternate spelling for Salon

    3. I have never encountered a libertarian who was “silent on prison rape” or anything other than a stalwart proponent of criminal justice reform.

      However none of us were done any favours by perpetual douchebag Charles Murray who both calls himself a libertarian and wrote an op-ed called Keep Locking Em Up.

      1. It’s a stupid title, but mostly not a controversial article; it’s quite clear that he’s focused on crimes with victims, and I think most of us have little sympathy for murderers and rapists. My primary point of disagreement is his implication that increased rates of incarceration for earlier offenders committing more minor property & violent offenses creates a chilling effect on the overall crime rate.

      2. I never heard anyone complaining about prison rape until I started looking more closely at libertarian views. It was always a joke; an extra punishment for someone who committed a crime.

        1. Given that the PREA information collected over the last decade indicate that guards perpetrate a significant fraction of all sexual assaults in prison, its fucking horrifying.

        2. It is a matter of fact that a certain progressive attorney general of California openly expressed his fantasy about seeing to it that Enron executives were prison-raped.

  9. Private prisons “diversify” in the face of criminal justice reform.

    diversifying? You mean like changing the racial composition of their prison population?

    1. According to Universities, diversity means adding more minorities. That means prisons are the most diverse institutions in the US!

      1. More ass sex than San Fran! Diversity!

  10. “Traditional” marriage is the real outlier…

    Sure, when you bring history into it.

    1. The article cites Nero marrying his male slave as evidence. Yes, Nero, one of the most notoriously debauched people in history, is cited as ways marriage used to be different than it is now.

      1. But I assume they got the requisite government certificate of approval and accompanying benefits, which is the most important thing in determining what marriage is.

        1. “We, as Emperor, have decided that we get all the benefits of whatever we want!”

          1. Was Nero fiddling with his male slave as Rome burned?

      2. The whole point of Nero (at least according to the Roman historians) was that he expressed his contempt of the laws and mores of Rome. For example, he is “credited” with killing his mother. That doesn’t mean that the taboo against matricide is some historically-contingent rule which varies over time.

        1. You can’t judge the past through a moral telescope, man. Morality is all relative. Wait, Romans? A *Western* culture? Have you read Ovid? Yeah, font of evil and all that.

          1. I told my professor that Ovid triggered me, so I got to read The Adventures of Paddington Bear instead.

            1. Mr. Simpson of the cartoons: “Now you’re triggering me!”

    2. “Some primitive peoples still believe this.”

    3. “Historically, marriage has been about finding good in-laws and securing economic advantage. And marrying for love is a thoroughly modern invention.”

      Why on earth is this relevant to the question of the sex-binary nature of marriage?

      The *motives* for men and women getting married are quite variable over time (of course, nowadays nobody ever marries for “economic advantage”! /sarc). That doesn’t change the nature of marriage.

      1. “It is somewhat perverse, however, for conservatives to argue that the general lack of same-sex marriages over “millennia,” to use a word from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s question during oral arguments, somehow underscores the value and necessity of “traditional marriage.” For “millennia,” a church/state alliance marginalized and oppressed homosexuals via the law, including many laws, such as bans on sodomy, which the Supreme Court has struck down.”

        I seem to recall the Supreme Court saying that legalizing sodomy wouldn’t necessarily lead to SSM. I suppose that was just for the rubes.

      2. The other thing the article did was discuss how men & women behaved differently, within & outside of a marriage. It reminds me of how my students would submit a paper purporting to address a certain Q, but the paper is full of irrelevant stuff in the same subject area.

        You know whose articles around here remind me of that style of writing? Stephen Chapman. (Yeah, well, also Hitler, but that’s a given.)

    4. If you look at the article, practically none of it is about “marriage” per se. Rather, it discusses the reasons people have married & the roles assumed by the spouses.

    5. If you look at the article, practically none of it is about “marriage” per se. Rather, it discusses the reasons people have married & the roles assumed by the spouses.

    6. “Traditional” marriage is the real outlier…

      Sure, when you bring history into it.

      How about when you bring prehistory into it? Am I the only one looking at clades including H. sapiens for evidence of conserv’n of marriage behavior?

  11. “Traditional” marriage is the real outlier, writes Cato’s Trevor Burrus, exploring the institution’s history at The Washington Post.

    This is how you slow-play the “should we swing” conversation.

    1. Thank you for this. I desperately needed a good laugh this morning.

  12. Obama, McConnell missteps undercut trade pact in U.S. Senate

    President Barack Obama and Senator Mitch McConnell have seldom worked together and it showed on Tuesday, when the political odd couple failed to persuade the U.S. Senate to move forward with a Pacific Rim trade treaty they both favor.

    By hitting the brakes, at least for now, on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) at the center of Obama’s legacy-defining foreign policy pivot to Asia, Senate Democrats put the president and Senate Republican Leader McConnell on notice.

    Despite losing control of the Senate in November’s elections, Democrats showed they can and will block legislation that they dislike as effectively as Republicans did for years, ending a brief, recent run of bipartisan achievements.

    1. Simply because the contents are secret the vote should have been unanimous ‘No’. Anyone who votes for a secret agreement should be sent to a Nork labor camp.

      1. They aren’t voting on the agreement. They are simply voting to finalize the language before the real vote. This is standard on trade pacts.


      2. And it is not “secret”. All of Congress has access to it.


    2. The Squaw really pissed me off by stirring up the Emo-Progs and opposing Obama and his free trade agenda.

      The stupid wingnuts on Bratbitch and other sites are siding with the Emo-Progs and Tea-baggers (who oppose the TPP because OBAMA MUSLIM!) while the sane GOPers are with Obama on this.

      1. Just out of curiosity, is it possible for you to refer to any other person whatsoever by a non-pejorative term?

        1. Forget it, Just, it’s Plugtown.

          1. Ever since I got fascr, I put him on mute. I know I’m not missing anything.

            1. But it’s so cute when he talks like an 8-year-old.

              1. An 8-year-old who is neglected by its parents, and stayed up way too late watching South Park.

        2. It’s neural net tries to maximize the responses it gets. Pejoritive words have a much higher weighting because they tend to produce the most responses.

          Remember, it’s not sentient; it has no idea what the words it uses mean. It’s merely harvesting responses like an ant rubbing the belly of an aphid to harvest its secretions.

        3. Just out of curiosity, is it possible for you to refer to any other person whatsoever by a non-pejorative term?

          I’m a cynical bastard.

          And I call myself a “buttplug”.



        1. My very own Ed McMahon!

          Put a “here’s” in front once.

          1. Fuck you, shriek.

    3. I dunno, maybe if Obama took some time over the last 6 years to actually meet with Senators and Representatives on a more frequent basis and discuss legislation instead of going to the golf course or having the IRS come to the White House every week, he might have been able to get more things done w/ Congress’ help. But what do I know?

      1. Oh come on. Right after he was elected, he had the Republican leadership come to the White House so he could let them know that he had a mandate and they could go fuck themselves.

      2. I really have no issue with Obama golfing, because otherwise he’d use that time conceiving new ways to “improve” my life.

        I really think every president should be Golfer in Chief.

        1. I have the same feeling about the Deblasio Prog Tour of America.

    4. Obama’s legacy-defining foreign policy pivot to Asia

      What’s this, now?

  13. Defense Department personnel expensed $952,258 at casinos and $96,576 at strip clubs in fiscal year 2013-2014.

    So what you’re saying is that they’re not very good gamblers.

    1. and pathetic tippers.

    2. But apparently pretty good tippers.

      1. We apparently have a conflict!

  14. Putting such charges on a government credit card could serve the purpose of keeping them off a personal card shared with a spouse.

    *Very* clever!

    /Uncle Sam

  15. “Defense Department personnel expensed $952,258 at casinos and $96,576 at strip clubs in fiscal year 2013-2014.”

    Those F-35s aren’t going to pay for themselves.

    1. Please, that wouldn’t finance one bomb on one aircraft.

      1. What if you put it all on 00? What about that?!?!?

  16. Last Sunday, a train collided with a truck in Amite…

    Rail travel ain’t all Biden thinks it’s cracked up to be. Amirite, people?

  17. I’m Christian and happy that atheism is on the rise: America’s right-wing theocracy needs to chill

    I live my life according my values and spiritual beliefs. I have in my neighborhood a community that includes my local church, a place that gives my family and me support and personal satisfaction, and that I hope we in turn can contribute something meaningful to. We also live in a bigger world, full of people who are different than we are, who believe ? and disbelieve ? different things. Diversity: it’s just plain common sense.

    We at a moment in American history when issues that should be pretty basic rights ? you know, like access to reproductive health service and the freedom to marry the person you love ? are being thrashed around on entirely religious grounds. As Think Progress reports just this Tuesday, “More than half of Texas have faced at least one barrier to getting the reproductive health services they need.” We are still, right now, dealing with teachers in public schools peddling a Noah’s Ark version of life sciences. That’s all about inserting God, in particular a very narrowly defined vision of God that a diminishing number of people believe in, into public policy. It’s stupid; it’s dangerous and it’s patently unpatriotic.


      2. Because stating that “access to reproductive health service” is a “pretty basic rights” sounds real Libertarian doesn’t it?

        1. No, it doesn’t.

          But I read that as “access to contraceptive/abortion services” which the fundies are trying to outlaw.


          2. “More than half of Texas have faced at least one barrier to getting the reproductive health services they need

            Until that glorious day when condoms magically appear when desired, I’d imagine that everyone will face at least one barrier to getting the reproductive health services they need.

            1. “Dammit, baby. Just let me run down to the convenience store!”

          3. Not paying = blocking access.

            1. Not giving = taking.

    1. “Diversity: it’s just plain common sense”

      I’m a little rusty on my Progspeak, so does anyone know what this is supposed to mean? Is diversity some sort of public policy she’s advocating for?

      “We at a moment in American history when issues that should be pretty basic rights ? you know, like access to reproductive health service”

      I don’t think she knows what rights are.

    2. More evidence that Salon does not have any editors.

    1. What’s up with the State Dept. approval of foreign speeches?

      Does every spouse of a Secretary of State need to get their overseas engagements approved? Or does this apply to purely private citizens, as well?

  18. “”Traditional” marriage is the real outlier, writes Cato’s Trevor Burrus, exploring the institution’s history at The Washington Post.”

    This article cites Nero marrying his male slave as evidence. As if Nero, one of the most notoriously debauched people in history, widely despised by his contemporaries and historians alike, could be considered typical of anything.

  19. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.

    Koch brothers can now join Michael Savage on the banned from the UK list.

    1. “Whereas previous recoveries have enabled monetary and fiscal policymakers to replenish their ammunition, this recovery ? both in the US and elsewhere ? has been distinguished by a persistent munitions shortage. This is a major problem. In all recessions since the 1970s, the US Fed funds rate has fallen by a minimum of 5 percentage points. That kind of traditional stimulus is now completely ruled out.”

      King notes that this far into the recovery, there’s a lack of “traditional policy ammunition.” For instance, treasury yields have not risen, the budget deficit is not falling, and welfare payments are still on the rise.

      1. the budget deficit is not falling

        The writer must read


        2. So the chief economist for the world’s third largest bank in a wingnut. Yeah…

          1. No. He just should know the deficit has fallen a lot (like 2/3) since 08-09.

            Maybe he means deficit projections call for no decreases.


            2. Looking ahead, CBO now projects that the deficit will continue to narrow until fiscal 2016, when it will again begin widening, as more and more baby boomers retire and become eligible for Medicare and Social Security.

              That means the nation’s fiscal problems are far from solved. The core challenge involves trimming federal health-care costs enough to bend the curve of ever-rising Medicare and Medicaid expense.

              “The fundamental federal budgetary challenge has hardly been addressed,” writes CBO chief Elmendorf.


              1. Yes. Deficits have fallen about 2/3rds but are due to rise again because of entitlements – mainly SS/Medicare.

                1. And yet perhaps, being in the business world, he has viewed deficits through GAAP accounting whereby the expansion of liabilities not yet paid out has continued to grow well over the money collected from these entitlements to such a degree whereby his assertion that deficits have failed to decrease is actually true.

                  But Buttplug Barbie says “Accounting is teh HARD!”


    2. He makes some interesting points and I think that China’s economy has to take a hit in the near future. They are running up debt at an alarming rate. And I think they have a housing bubble that’s going to pop soon, too. Shades of 2007-2008 coming to China in the near future, folks.

  20. Who deflated the Colts’ balls?

    1. You know who else deflated balls?

      1. Amanda Marcotte?

        1. I thinks she’s more of a ‘punctured balls’ kinda girl.

      2. Candie Evans?

        1. Rufus goes old school… FTW!

      3. The Good Masters of Astapor?

        1. +1 -2

      4. I know of one leader who only had one ball – or so the song went.

        1. It was Franco, not Hitler.

      5. Volker?

      6. Pelosi?

    2. Ironically enough, the Patriots, for the entire second half of the AFC title game. Fuckers.

    3. Fluffy are you a Patriots fan per chance?

      1. Yes, but I am a frontrunning Patriots fan who became a fan only because he moved to Boston and married a Patriots fan.

        This would be my perfect opportunity to show my fair-weather ways and ditch them.

        But I was just enough of a fan to be just interested enough to read the report. And then I got annoyed, and “someone is wrong on the internet” took over.

        You guys know how I am about people being wrong on the internet.

        1. It’s one of your best features.

          1. That, and the dimples.

            1. I really have a thing for butt cheek dimples.

              1. Fluffy’s got dimples just everywhere. Dude looks like a golf ball.

        2. Usually you can resolve that with a lengthy post written in all caps.

        3. Yea from what I understand the report was bullshit. I will say this on the subject I think the Patriots deflated the balls, Brady knew, other teams doctor the ball as well so nobody thought this was a big deal, the report is bullshit, and the NFL came down on Brady simply because ESPN hates Bill Belichick because he doesn’t dance.

          1. I’ve been predicting exactly this sort of overweight punishment from the league this whole time. I can’t believe people are acting like they didn’t see it coming.

            The NFL came down on the Pats and Brady because they’re highly visible, everybody hates them, they have a reputation, and the NFL is trying to institute some institutional control that (in their mind) has been steadily reduced over the past 15 years or so, leading to its diminished reputation. I’m sure the league is sick and tired of all the negative headlines swirling around it, and with this controversy over a silly procedural violation they saw their opening to grab some control and took it.

            1. Every Team has a history and the Pats are just middle of the road when it comes to cheating…


              1. Oh, joy. A combination bitter Pats fan / PED scold site. The Jets get as many points for the Revis tamper as the Pats get for Spygate? Perhaps there are some context clues for this.

                VICTIM: New York Jets (META-VICTIM: Goodell’s ego; he bristled at the Pats’ perceived challenge to his authoritah!

                Oh, I see. And such obsession over Robert Goodell’s internship gig, as if it’s at all relevant.

                Fun fact: 7 of the 9 Pats-specific alleged cheats (which I’m sure are undercounted after perusing the rest of the site) have happened in the Belichick era. I’m sure that means nothing.

          2. They came down hard on them because this is in keeping with a pattern of systematic ways of breaking NFL rules to gain a competitive advantage that New England has employed throughout the entire duration of the Belichick/Brady era.

            1. Except the still havn’t come anywhere near proving that any cheating occurred.

              The Wells report is basically bullshit, they couldn’t find any evidence and they methodology was so flawed including ignoring basic scientific facts (like temperature fluctuation being able to explain the deflation for all but 1 ball, that ball just happens to be the one which was in the Colts possession for an extended period of time)

        4. I married a Patriots fan once. She cheated (imagine my surprise). Now I loathe them and their cheating ways in every conceivable fashion.

  21. U.S. Set to Rip Up UBS Libor Accord, Seek Conviction

    The U.S. Justice Department is set to rip up its agreement not to prosecute UBS Group AG for rigging benchmark interest rates, according to a person familiar with the matter, taking a new step to hold banks accountable for repeat offenses.

    The move by the U.S. would be a first for the industry, making good on a March threat by a senior Justice Department official to revoke such agreements and putting banks on notice that these accords can be unwound if misconduct continues.

    UBS is among the five banks that are poised to reach settlements with U.S. regulators over allegations that they manipulated currency markets, people familiar with the situation have said. Four of them — Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Barclays Plc and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc — will likely enter pleas related to antitrust violations, people familiar with the talks have said.

    1. Not sure how the US has the authority to prosecute for rigging the LONDON interbank offered rate. I guess the US banks agreed to something once.

      Yes, I know it is a widely used US benchmark.


    2. Only central banks are allowed to manipulate currency markets.

    1. Someone on another forum mentioned a California restaurant that was no longer serving ice water with their meals. Water crisis solved!

      1. That’s the kind of shit the progs are pushing here on the east coast too – because everyone has to be as miserable as they are.

    2. Two cars, one cup

        1. In anger or curiosity?

      1. *retching*

    3. The nearly waterless wash will set drivers back $35 for a full service.


  22. Harriet Tubman wins poll to be first woman on $20

    On Tuesday, the grassroots organization Women on 20s released the results of its 10-week-long online survey to determine the woman who?it hopes?will be the new face on the $20 bill. Over 600,000 votes were tallied, and a victor declared: Harriet Tubman.

    The group is marching its petition on Washington, at least electronically: Tuesday morning, it dispatched both written and video forms to the attention of the chair and executive director of the White House Council on Women and Girls (Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen, respectively), and the treasurer of the United States, Rosie Rios.

    There is a kind of logic in the voters’ choice to replace the face of President Andrew Jackson, a slaveholder, with that of Tubman, a woman born in slavery, who became a towering abolitionist. (The other three finalists were Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Wilma Mankiller.) It might seem fitting, too, if an American banknote were changed to display an African-American woman during the tenure of the country’s first African-American president.

    Last month, inspired by the Women on 20s group and New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen, introduced the official Women on the Twenty Act to Congress. If the legislation passed, it would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to convene a citizen panel on the question.

    1. Poll of who?

      Also, why are they targetting the guy who only has one denomination instead of trying to take one of the duplicates? George and Abe have two denominations each.

      1. “Poll of who?”


        On a serious note, I agree with replacing President Jackson’s image since it’s rather an insult to have him on any Federal Reserve Note given how well he fought against having a central bank. It’s not that I like Jackson, he was vile in many ways.

    2. Unfortunately, HARRIet TubMAN.

    3. I say put Ginger Lynn on the $20 bill.


    4. Could be worse. Eleanor Roosevelt was on the list as well.

      1. Yeah, if we really want to go out of our way to put a woman on a bill Tubman is probably right up at the top of the realistic choices

    5. Wilma Mankiller?

      Finally got fed up with Fred’s shit, did she?

  23. “It is an absolute disastrous mess,” said Philly mayor Michael Nutter in a press conference. “Never seen anything like this in my life.”

    Actually, Mr. Mayor, all you have to do is drive across the bridge from Philly to Camden, NJ, and you will see an absolute, disastrous mess.

  24. Cate Blanchett: I’ve had ‘many’ relationships with women

    The Oscar winner stars in “Carol,” a film adaptation of Patricia Highsmith’s novel “The Price of Salt,” which is set to compete for the Palme d’Or at this year’s Cannes Film Festival.

    The 1950s-era drama follows the titular character as she embarks on a secret relationship with a female department store employee (Rooney Mara).

    In an interview with Variety about the film, she was asked if the movie role was her “first turn” as a lesbian.

    “On film ? or in real life?” Blanchett replied.

    When asked if she’s had offscreen relationships with other women in the past, she said, “Yes. Many times,” but did not provide further details.

    But Blanchett, who recently adopted a baby girl with her husband Andrew Upton, did clarify that like her character, she doesn’t require labels to identify her sexual orientation.

    “I never thought about it,” the 45-year-old actress said. “I don’t think Carol thought about it.”

    Blanchett and Mara’s characters have a charged love scene in the film, but the star said that viewers shouldn’t expect anything too racy.

    1. “”Yes. Many times,” but did not provide further details.”

      This interviewer needs to be fired.

      1. The natural follow up question should have been:

        ‘Go on…’

        1. +1 horny old man

    2. Galadriel on Arwan action anyone?

      1. No. Galadriel on Toriel or GTFO.

        1. Why not a threesome?

          1. Your jib, I like the cut of it.

      2. Arawen, not Arawan.

        Get your Tolkien right loser 🙂

        1. Isn’t it just Arwen?

          1. Crap I think you are right.

            I must now exile myself to the Mines of Moria as pennance

      3. Er, you do know Arwen is her granddaughter, right?

        1. So Aragorn is her Cousin

          1. Yes, but something around 1st cousins 36 times removed.

    3. Nice.

      And she’s married to such a weird-looking dude. With one of them funny Aussie accents.

  25. I was listening to TuneIn Radio yesterday while mowing the lawn. I kept getting two PSA commercials repeating that 1 in 6 Americans are going hungry and that autism has increased by 30% in two years.

    1. I don’t believe 1 in 6 Americans are going hungry in any reasonable sense of the word.
    2. There is no fucking way autism has increased by that much in two years. In a few years every single child in in the country would be autistic.

    What the hell?

    1. 1. Doesn’t seem to align with obesity statistics

    2. What with autism and Alzheimer’s, there’s going to be no one left to run the country.

      1. and noone right to run it either

    3. A recent study in Denmark shows that nearly the entire increase in autism rates there is due to changed reporting practices:…..rting.html

      I strongly suspect the same would hold true in the United States.

      1. That’s been known for awhile. They changed from a strict definition of autism to the ‘autism spectrum’ as well, which resulted in a lot of disorders that formerly weren’t considered autism now being included.

        1. And a lot of children who were formerly diagnosed as being “mentally retarded” or any number of other ailments are now diagnosed as “autistic”.

          1. It’s only a matter of time before autistic is the new retarded, isn’t it? “You can’t just call someone autistic, Karen!”

        2. Ex wife was a “special needs” teacher. I would stop by her classroom from time to time and some of the children that were diagnosed as autistic-spectrum were so fucking normal it was infuriating knowing that this racket continued.

          My eldest brother, born in 1977, was diagnosed autism/MR at the age of 3. I grew up my whole life knowing what autism was and how debilitating it can be. Seeing kids that are normal being given the scarlet letter was deeply disturbing.

    4. 1 in 6 Americans is on a diet?

    5. 1. I don’t believe 1 in 6 Americans are going hungry in any reasonable sense of the word.

      That number appears to be based on something the USDA refers to as “food insecurity”. Low food security means your food intake doesn’t change, but the person has reduced their food quality or variety due to lack of financial resources. Did you eat ramen in college and wish you could have had steak? You were experiencing food insecurity that year.

      Very low food security affects around 5% of households (not 5% of people – if Dad skips a meal, one meal in a year is all it takes, to make sure the kids have enough to eat then the household is counted as having very low food security)

      Food secure: meaning that they have access at all times to enough food for an active,
      healthy life for all household members.

      Low food security: Do not have access at all times to enough food for an active,
      healthy life for all household members.

      Very low food security: the food intake of one or more household members was reduced
      and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household
      lacked money and other resources for food

      1. Questions Used To Assess the Food Security of
        Households in the CPS Food Security Survey

        1. “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.” Was that often,
        sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?


        (from page 3 of the document to which SRVol linked)

        Not to seem callous but the first question asks whether they were worried about food running out, not whether it actually had. Big Difference.

    6. the 1 in 6 is basically bullshit. It is based on a made up statistic called “food insecurity” which basically calls a theoretically random sample of Americans and asks them if at any time in the last 6 months they have had to wonder where they were going to get money to buy food.

      You can literally be in the top 10% of income earners and qualify as food insecure because of a short term liquidity crunch in your budget. To qualify as “hungry” according to this metric you don’t have to ever have missed a meal nor do you have to be facing an imminent certainty of missing them, just have a vague fear that you almost did or might soon miss a couple of meals and you’re officially “hungry”

  26. What?

    Men have their man caves, and now women are getting their own special spot: She Sheds.

    The idea, which has been gaining steam across Pinterest as the weather warms up, is that women transform backyard sheds into a hideaway where they can escape the daily grind. And for several women, the escape is making a major difference.

    I guess if my wife wants to sip wine next to the lawn mower, she can get crazy.

    1. gaining steam across Pinterest

      There is thought and there is action. Pinterest seems like neither

    2. Jesus Christ – the reason “man caves” started in the first place is because the whole rest of the house was already a “she cave”.

      1. ^^^This.

      2. Right. What is the purpose of the living room, then? Or the den? Or the master bedroom? Or the dining room, or the master bathroom, or…

    3. So essentially, women with actual hobbies are setting aside space to pursue those hobbies. Okay?

  27. What happens in Vegas doesn’t stay in Vegas.

    I’ll try to remember this excuse next time.

  28. New Horizons probe snaps picture of all of Pluto’s elusive moons

    The New Horizons probe, heading for its historic flyby of Pluto in July, has now caught sight of all the known faint moons of the dwarf planet.

    They have been revealed in new images downlinked from the Nasa spacecraft, which is still some 90 million km from reaching the distant world.

    Hydra and Nix were seen previously, but New Horizons can also now resolve Kerberos and Styx.

    Pluto’s fifth known moon, Charon, is much larger and brighter.

    Pluto has a diameter of about 2,300km; Charon is half that. Hydra may reach over 100km.

    But the girths of the other three are probably just a few tens of km at most, and getting their faint forms to appear in the pictures from New Horizons’ Long-Range Reconnaissance Imager (Lorri) means over-exposing Pluto and Charon.

    The probe is due to make its flyby on 14 July. Launched in 2006, the spacecraft has crossed some five billion km of space.

    It is travelling so fast that it will not actually be able to get into orbit around Pluto when it arrives, and will have to grab as much data as possible as it races past.

    The rendezvous will complete the reconnaissance of the “classical nine” planets of our Solar System. New Horizon’s flyby will mean all have been visited at least once by a space probe.

    Still a planet in my heart.

    1. will have to grab as much data as possible as it races past.

      When do we expect New Horizons to leave the solar system?

      1. It’ll be neck and neck with Voyager, we need another probe out there to take the photo finish shot.

      2. When don’t we?

    2. but New Horizons can also now resolve Kerberos and Styx.

      New Horizons is sailing away….

    3. Still a big ass comet in actuality.

  29. re: the train crash.

    saw this on CNN:

    The area of the crash in Philadelphia, known as Frankford Junction, was the site of one of the nation’s deadliest train accidents; the Congressional Limited crash of 1943 killed 79 people.

    “It’s an extremely heavily used stretch of track,” transportation analyst Matthew L. Wald said of the area. “They have trouble keeping it in a state of good repair.”…..erailment/

    1. Crumbling infrastructure!

      Abolish the Dept of Ed and put those people to work on the rails and highways!

    2. Has anybody checked Samuel L. Jackson’s alibi?

  30. Hawaii’s $205 Million Obamacare Exchange Implodes

    Despite over $205 million in federal taxpayer funding, Hawaii’s Obamacare exchange website will soon shut down. Since its implementation, the exchange has somehow failed to become financially viable because of lower than expected Obamacare enrollment figures. With the state legislature rejecting a $28 million bailout, the website will now be unable to operate past this year.

    According to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser the Hawaii Health Connector will stop taking new enrollees on Friday and plans to begin migrating to the federally run Outreach services will end by May 31, all technology will be transferred to the state by September 30, and its workforce will be eliminated by February 28.

    205mil? What is this, a SAP implementation?

    1. I don’t understand what you could spend that kind of money on.

      They had to build a website and some database structures and some web services, or maybe some ETLs.

      And the state exchanges spent BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars, and still failed.

      1. You could build a decent sized basketball arena for $205 million dollars. I bet the entire operating budget of Amazon and Ebay are not any more than that. The only conclusion I can make is that they just stole the money.

    2. I donno, it could have been PeopleSoft.

      1. PeopleSoft and gubmint contractors turned DIMHRS into a billion dollar suckhole of wasted time, money, and resources…

        These hawaiian exchange guys are mere pikers.

    3. “I have been to Hawaii!”-John Gustafson Sr.

      “Which island?”-Francesca Ragetti

      “K’mon I wanna Laya!”-John Gustafson Sr.

    4. SAP is just Germany’s way of getting back at us

      1. Seriously. Every time I fill out my timesheet I think that we nuked the wrong country.

        1. WeveHav vays of wasting unt man hours…

        2. *points and laughs* Even New York State wasn’t fool enough to buy SAP for that.

          No, we had the cronyist option with Bruno’s buddies at CMA (The funny thing is, the product actually works. It’s not great, but it does work).

          1. It’s not so much that SAP doesn’t work, as it is seemly designed to make everything you do at 10X more difficult than it needs to be.

            For example, why does it think I have a 24-hour workday? OK, sure, I guess it was some idiot upstream that clicked the wrong box, but why is it even an option? Who the fuck has a continuous 24 hour workday? (or even if there are, why is it seemly the default option?)

            1. “For example, why does it think I have a 24-hour workday?”

              Uh, SF, we DID already establish that SAP is Deutsch, ja?

              1. Yeah, yeah, arbiet macht frei

                It doesn’t help that our hours and benefits guy is a fucking redneck douche. I have to get my wife to remind him every few months that she can destroy him if he fucks with me too much.

                When he first figured out we were married, he licked my boots for over a year.

            2. Your time off is benefit your employer generously gives to you. Just like the IRS lets you have take home pay.

              Or “golem” is the default employee.

            3. SAP was originally designed for continuous process plants that have, as you might expect, continuous 24-7 operations.

          2. I worked with a customer – big billion dollar company – who had SAP. They were shocked to find out that our ERP system could automatically import EDI; they were printing out that data and then hand-entering it into their system.

            I’m sure SAP has that capacity but in this case it was never implemented.

            1. … Even we can process EDI files automatically, and we’re a state IT shop. What sort of yahoos did they have working for them?

        3. Be grateful you don’t have to use iPoint, another German software abortion designed for demonstrating compliance to an American set of regulations (“Conflict Minerals”). I’ve probably wasted 300 hours in the past year trying to do something simple that could be handled in Excel in about 5 minutes..

    5. I can’t imagine more blatant corruption than spending eleventy zillion taxpayer dollars on a freakin’ website which then fails to work. It is plain as day what they are doing and they don’t give a shit if we know it or not. Maybe Obumbles does want us to know it and know nothing can be done about it because Fuck You.

      This administration is doing nothing but looting the treasury and passing out bushels of cash to cronies. That is all they have done from day one. Well, that and SWAT people that oppose them or just plain did not support them. I vaguely remember Steven Chu complaining that all he did all day long was write checks and pass them out to the ‘right people’.

      These fucking pieces of shit can’t be gone soon enough to suit me.

      1. 60 minutes on the $150bn in handouts made by the DoE, and why none of it actually turned out to be “good investments” (shocker)

  31. The wettest Hilary slurp job for today: Hillary ‘Rewrites’ the Economic Debate

    One reason Hillary Clinton is a formidable politician is that she’s very smart and very comfortable with ideas. Another reason is an uncanny ability to ignore the past, and its mistakes.

    Both assets are now on display in the highly public effort by economist Joseph Stiglitz to “rewrite” the economic policies of the past 35 years, all in the name of reducing income inequality and revitalizing an economy that works for everyone.

    1. “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

      Isn’t all that new…

    2. “[A]n uncanny ability to ignore the past…” is one way to put it.

      1. You know who else ignored the mistakes of the past?

          1. +1 Super Bowl Shuffle (god I’m getting old)

        1. Tiger Woods?

          1. Ha!

            1. I contend he’s learned very well from the past. He knew he was at his best when he was getting some strange on the side. Why not try again to see if that gets his golfing mojo back?

        2. Viserys Targaryen?

        3. The Eagles, demonstrated by them signing a quarterback that had to be taught to throw a spiral.

          1. It is a tradition. See Jim McMahon.

      2. “Ignore” or “Cover up”.

      3. Another reason is an uncanny ability to ignore the past, and its mistakes.

        At this point, what difference does it make?

        Something about “those who ignore the past are doomed…” really belongs here.

    3. One reason Hillary Clinton is a formidable politician is that she’s … very comfortable with ideas.

      Like the idea of running the State Department on her private server.

  32. My bikini has nothing to do with you!!!

    3 Bullshit Reasons People May Think I Wear My Bikini

    1. My Bikini Allows Me to Flaunt My Body

    My body is my body. My body is obviously a female body. I have boobs. I have a butt. I have hips.

    The existence of my body in a bikini does not mean I’m “flaunting” it.

    My decision to wear a bikini has nothing to do with how I feel about my body. Just because I wear a bikini does not mean I’m trying to show off my body.

    2. I Wear a Bikini Because I Care About Men’s Opinions of My Appearance

    Maybe you wear or used to wear a bikini because you liked the attention men gave you. Or maybe you wore a bikini hoping men would notice you.

    Maybe you like looking at women who wear bikinis. Maybe you assume women wear bikinis solely for your viewing pleasure.

    Your thoughts and feelings on women in bikinis have nothing to do with me and my bikini.

    Ladies, we are not all the same. We do not all do the exact same things. If we do, they’re not all for the exact same reasons. Your motivation for wearing a bikini is completely unrelated to why I wear one.

    Men, including my husband, my bikini isn’t for you. Yeah, you might notice me, but as long as you don’t harass me, I don’t care.

    Wow, she sure sounds like someone who doesn’t care what other people think!

    1. Why does she go out of her way to insult her husband in public? Poor guy.

      1. It’s his own fault for putting up with that shit.

        1. They’re married and can’t get divorced without offending their god. Why shouldn’t she go ahead and treat him like shit?

          1. I imagine he could try for a divorce – a divorce from bread and board. All the benefits of a modern American divorce except the right to remarry. But given his bad judgment in wives, this may be more of a blessing than a curse for him.

    2. Founder of Christian feminist blog Belle Brita. Fueled by hot tea & mimosas. Smashes the patriarchy in a dress & heels.


      1. I read this and laughed. Out loud.

    3. What’s wrong with flaunting your body or hoping members of the opposite sex notice you?

      I’m starting to have a problem with the cult being built up around authenticity. (Rand was part of the problem here, so it’s not just an artifact of the left.) Everyone seems obsessed with demonstrating (or at least asserting) that everything they do is some kind of expression of their pure self, and is not in any way being done so that other people will notice it.

      And you’re right, in practice we end up with people who seem to really care about making sure that you think…that they don’t care what you think.

      1. People are weird. Same way people wear low cut shirts, have huge boobs and bitch about the attention they get.

      2. “What’s wrong with flaunting your body or hoping members of the opposite sex notice you?”

        That’s what I said, but they still ordered me off the beach. Something about whales.

    4. “Men, including my husband, my bikini isn’t for you.”

      It must be a joy to be married to her.

      1. Which is why he’s probably fucking someone else on the side. Who is fine w/ wearing a bikini for him.

    5. The female Andy Rooney.

    6. So why *does* she wear it?

      1. It was on sale?

      2. Well, I’m just glad she’s established that it’s not to get people to look at her. Because one look at that amorphous, pasty mass of biscuit dough was enough for a lifetime.

    7. Well perhaps she shouldn’t wear something that was likely designed by a dude. And no I have no citation. However from last trip to the beach it was evident that one of our fellow patriarchy had been doing amazing things for the world.

    8. Her cries about it not being for others would hold a lot more weight if the bikini wasn’t a terrible bathing suit. Seriously, it only exists to grab the attention of others. If she didn’t care about others she’d be wearing a one piece, you know the bathing suit that doesn’t have the concern of falling off.

    9. I think someone needs to check her thin privilege and stop rubbing it in on fat women and women with body issues.

      1. I bet you typed the phrase “rubbing it in on fat women” with one hand, huh?

        1. NICE!

    10. My motivation for looking at women in bikinis is unrelated to your reasons for wearing one, and whether or not you are trying to show off your body does not change the fact that you are doing just that

  33. For the guy who said he would miss the morning links but wanted this posted – here you go:

    Company builds a storage shed for boys’ baseball team. The company does it for free. But this is at a public school, so…

    “That’s when officials with the Clark County School District showed up at the school and demanded that the storage shed be torn down. They said it violated Title IX….

    “It doesn’t seem to matter one iota that the girls softball team never asked for a storage shed….

    “…The school district took every single penny of the booster club’s money….”…..latestnews

    1. Just turn it into a she shed

      1. This is just a matter of he shed, she shed.

        1. Pitches be crazy.

          1. They’re just ball-busters.

            1. Pitching for both teams.

              1. They swing both ways?

                1. But they can’t even get to first base.

    2. The high school I went to had nowhere near the same spending on girls’ sports as on boys’ sports because it only spent booster club funds on them, or at least a large proportion. So I think they are wrong about the law here.

    3. Goddammit, you’re going to make me agree with Todd Starnes on something?

    4. Thanks Eddie, you da man

  34. Artificial intelligence experts are building the world’s angriest robot. Should you be scared?

    “The disagreements among human values is almost unimportant in comparison with the difficulty of specifying this value sufficiently so that it can be coded. You have to solve all of moral ethics in computer code.”

    if (subject !== “The Prophet”) {draw(subject);}

  35. Links Addendum: I think you guys will like this…..or-change/

    1. ‘You guys’?

      I don’t like your micro-aggressive and presumptive tone.

      1. She clearly just understands that everyone here is a manarchist dudebro.

        1. “Manarchist, dudebro ?. These are terms that are typically employed as a cudgel against the left by centrist Democrats.”

          The other thing I’ve noticed is the nauseating trend of progressive liberals appropriating the term ‘useful idiots’ and applying it to conservatives/libertarians.

          The term was and is exclusively used to describe liberal naifs; you know, the type who love communists and speak so highly of places like Cuba.

      2. What about the women (all two of them) that visit H&R? And the asexual aspies?

        1. Oh come on, “you guys” is totally gender neutral. Would y’all prefer y’all? [“Gentleman, Hazel, & Hey Nikki”?]

          1. And Hamster of Doom and Kaptious Kristen and Lady Bertrum and Susan M!

            There are at least a half dozen women here, I’ll have you know!

            1. And Busab Agent and Invisible Furry Hand and Illocust! Gentlemen, we’re almost up to 10! If Stormy Dragon were a woman instead of a man with a confusingly effeminate name, we’d already be into the double digits.

              1. ESB probably at least lurks.

              2. Does kibby still count?

              3. “If Stormy Dragon were a woman instead of a man with a confusingly effeminate name, we’d already be into the double digits”

                Hell, dress Warty up as a girl, and we could even put on a performance of the Mikado

                And I resent this insinuation that there’s too many dudes in the comments. How about the *writers*? We got ENB on the regular…. shikha, cathy, pinch-hitting… and the occasional Lenore Skeneezy(sp)… but for all practical purposes, ENB is still the only hen in the coop.

                And why no mexican writers, Welch? Reason be all like, “Hurr Durr, immigrations!!”, but where’s Jose when morning links rolls around? Don’t even get me started on the Dwarf shortage @ Reason.

                So we’ll have no more of this slandering the commentariat, you…. you….. white people!

            2. Thanks, man. And IFH and Bronwyn.

              1. Riven is also a lady.

                1. “Riven is also a lady.”


                  1. +1 pair of panties flung on the stage

              2. I just wasn’t okay with them negating your existence. I have it on good authority that erasure is one of the worst forms a microaggression can take.

                1. “I have it on good authority that erasure is one of the worst forms a microaggression can take.”

                  Oh, god, its horrible

            3. I thought those were just Alt’s.

              1. SugarFree is a busy…uhhh…

                whatever kind of thing it is.

            4. There are at least a half dozen who claim to be women here, I’ll have you know!

              Because TANLW.

          2. Oh come on, “you guys” is totally gender neutral.

            Yes, it is, but believing so is why you are history’s greatest monster /Valenti.

          3. The preferred form is “youse”.

            1. Yinz.

          4. “Would y’all prefer y’all?”

            Why yes, yes I would.

          5. Hazel is actually a guy, using the name of a character from a Heinlein novel.

            1. ???

              Pretty sure I saw a pic that was distinctly female

        2. Do I have to comment every time someone mentions women? (I have to, I feel obligated to represent)

          Maybe some of us chicks just get popcorn and like to watch “you guys” battle it out. 😉

    2. LOL.

    3. Manarcho-brocialism is my new favorite political philosophy.

      1. Where is the “cialism” in “brocialism” coming from? I hope it’s not from socialism.

        1. Well, ok. It’s just my new favorite NAME for a political philosophy.

    4. Hacky garbage getting defended on political grounds is a contagion for today’s progressives.

      Ya don’t say.

    5. freddy the boor. discovering his peers are all intelllectuallly dishonest children who use the same bs rheorical methods to attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with them

      Manarchist, dudebro ?. These are terms that are typically employed as a cudgel against the left by centrist Democrats. (*Wut?) They argue for dismissing a particular political argument by presuming that a certain set of people makes that political argument.”

      gasp! you dont say? i am shocked. when did you first discover this rare phenomena?

      “It’s a contest in shamelessness: who can be more brazen in reducing race to a pure argumentative cudgel? Who feels less guilt about using the fight against racism as a way to elate oneself in a social hierarchy?”

      newsflash = progressive experiences brief moment of self-awareness : horrified trauma ensues

      he seems like a cuckolded husband – always the last to know

      1. Freddie has been writing this same sort of thing for at least 8 years.

        1. 8 years of shock and surprise that such “good people” act like such idiotic dicks?

          he seems to be missing the point entirely

          he seems to think that the intellectual laziness and childish narcissism is something “holding progressives back”, rather than being its core defining feature

      2. DeBoer’s been talking about this problem for a while so it’s not like he just figured it out. The real issue with DeBoer is that he fully realizes how intellectually dishonest and lazy the people on his side are, yet he never considers that their total lack of curiosity and unwillingness to defend their positions might be evidence that they’re wrong.

        He still believes all the various left-wing ideas, he just wishes people on the left would be more willing to intellectually defend those ideas rather than running and hiding and calling people names when they’re not capable of explaining why they’re right – which, for most progressives, is virtually always since they’ve been so ensconced in a leftist bubble they’re now incapable of arguing any of their positions and don’t even know why they believe them.

        If DeBoer really thought about this, he’d eventually have to conclude that the total dishonesty and anti-intellectualism of the modern left might, just might, be evidence not only that they’re unwilling to debate honestly, but that their positions are actually incorrect.

        1. yet he never considers that their total lack of curiosity and unwillingness to defend their positions might be evidence that they’re wrong.


          my impression of the guy only worsens if people say he’s been trying to play “life coach” for progs for most of a decade. at some point you’d think he’d connect the dots and realize that progressivism’s primary appeal is to satisfy people’s vanity – not actually “fix the world”. they dont ever give a shit about policy results… only intent and feels and power

        2. From a tactical standpoint, I’d rather have people like deBoer who, as an academic lefty insider, can reach people that we can’t. Once again, people are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, purity be the enemy of practicality, etc.

          1. I have watched him try and talk sense to people at Jezebel. I’m not sure what I witnessed was necessarily “Reaching People”.

            And while I can commend FDB for his higher-degree of self-awareness and candid acknowledgment of the most glaring flaws of the left…

            … there’s no “good” here being opposed.

            At best, he’s trying to get lefties to be *less petty*, and more practical-tactical in their efforts to achieve their goals

            Goals, which despite their feelgood marketing, require a top-down redistributive economy, and a far more invasive and activist regulatory government.

            Which are fucking horrible.

            he deserves credit for being a shade smarter than the average prog, and less hopelessly dogmatic… but he’s still a kool-aid-drinking true believer despite that.

            The best he offers are bleating appeals to his fellow travelers to stop being dicks

            e.g. re: Jon Chait’s criticism of the left’s recent ‘political correctness’-revival

            “Jon Chait is an asshole. He’s wrong. I don’t want these kids to be more like Jon Chait. I sure as hell don’t want them to be less left-wing. I want them to be more left-wing. I want a left that can win, and there’s no way I can have that when the actually-existing left sheds potential allies at an impossible rate.”

      3. I’m surprised there isn’t an official Griefer Chart, with point values assigned depending on how oppressed you are. It also feeds into the credential fetish most leftists have.

        That’s why when you see an op-ed, it will often start out with something like “I’m a black Cuban genderqueer lesbian Muslim who was raised by two Hispanic men in Liberty City”. That’s gotta be, like, a jillion griefer points, so we should definitely listen to this person!

        1. Have you looked into Intersectionality? It’s certainly moving in that direction (if it hasn’t hit it already)

        2. KK, why don’t you put something like that together. Preferably as an interactive game we could all play on here, similar to “you know who else” and Derpy’s “Spot the Not.”

    6. “Do we still have the capacity, as a political and intellectual movement, to argue in a way that’s not entirely based on associating with race or gender in a totally vague, unaccountable, and reductive way?”

      Well, this all depends on what you mean by “WE.”

    7. I read the list of “Books White Men Own” and looked at some of the comments. It was exactly like he said. It was just a list of books and everyone in the comments went nuts about it. There was even a “I need to get a divorce” as if owning some popular 20th century books makes you a terrible person.

  36. Facebook claims that this great leap forward in publishing will help cut out that annoying lag when you click on a link to an article and wait for it to load on your phone.

    *puts on tin foil hat*

    My initial reaction is that every image, video, article, etc. burns up a little more of your data plan with each megabyte loaded. If you don’t have an unlimited data plan, wouldn’t this send you spiraling over your limit in no time flat – raking in fee after fee for cell phone carriers?

    Unless I totally missed something….

  37. One for all you Illinoisans…or those who just love Chicago!

    Chicago Bonds downgraded to Junk

    1. Why would anyone love chicago?

      1. For its deep dish pizza?

        1. That’s not pizza. And he said “love”, not “despise”.

            1. Uh, Switzy, bro, you might want to be careful with that “Grrr” since it’s a come-on, wolf-whistle, flirt-line in the gay bear world.

              Got your six, bro. 😛

    2. What kind of a nut loans money to the City of Chicago? I don’t care how high the return, who is buying these?

      1. Probably the pension fund managers of other states. Soon to be followed by the Federal Reserve.

      2. Hitler?

  38. Capitals going to win or lose tonight?

  39. Capitals going to win or lose tonight?

    1. Two posts? Are you going to bet on the game and then bet on the instant replay?

    2. It’s the Capitals. It’s game 7. They won last round because they were playing a team more incompetent in Game 7s than they are. What do you think?

      At this point, it’s “Go Lightning” for me, by default, since I despise the Rangers and am sick of Anaheim and Chicago winning.

      1. We’re def. going to lose. I wouldn’t mind seeing Anaheim winning, but Tampa would be nice as well.

      2. Anaheim has won once. In 2007.

        Just saying.

        1. Yes, but they’re always up there. .

          (don’t mind me. I’m a bitter Flyers fan. We’ll win something eventually. Maybe. I don’t know. ::cries::)

      3. What does it say about my beaten-down fanhood that I consider our getting out of the first round playing with house money?

        1. Same here. I was shocked that they managed to get into round 2.

          They’ll win if I don’t watch the game (I happened to tune into the first series where they were tied in OT, and not 10 seconds after I tuned in, the Islanders scored the game winner).

          1. I wasn’t shocked.

            They had the #1 power play and the #1 penalty kill.

            Holtby was on fuego.

            Playoff hockey is about special teams and defense.

            And rest for a goalie is ammunition.

            Holtby has had plenty of rest.

            Let’s go, Caps!

          2. At least with the Wiz I can say “well, no John Wall.”

            1. Yea, I’m fairly confident they would have won the series already if he was playing.

      4. I think you have to give the edge to the Rangers because it’s in New York.

        The best bet is that it’s probably going to overtime.

        P.S. Lifelong Caps fan here.

      5. Sick of Chicago winning?!

        HEY PAL, I HAVE HAD TO ENDURE 3 decades of shite to get to this point…I want one or two more Cups.

      6. Chicago may be a horrible clusterfuck of fiscal mismanagement, but we’re foisting the cup again this year.

    3. They are the Capitols, blowing 3-1 leads and losing game 7s is what they do. It is their move. They wouldn’t be the Capitols anymore if they won tonight.

      1. But, Ovechkin guaranteed a win!

      2. They’re playing a whole lot different than they have in past seasons.

        And making it to game 7 in the quarter finals isn’t exactly a failure.

        The Caps partially suffered from playing in the easiest division (prior to realignment). They used to be favored all the time because their record looked so good playing against so many crappy teams in their own division. People’s expectations were way too high, and they were inevitably let down.

        The biggest threats in the post season often barely squeak in. It’s just a different game playing against the same team seven times in a row–over and over again. The Caps are built for the post-season now. Trotz is on a mission.

        No one but Trotz expected them to make it this far.

      3. They wouldn’t be the Capitols anymore if they won tonight.

        They’re not even the Capitols now, even before game 7 starts!

        Now, the Capitals, on the other hand…

        1. That’s autocorrect for you.

          I almost feel sorry for Leafs fans posting from their phones.


          1. That’s autocorrect John for you.


  40. Holy crap, the Cato guy has gone around the bend. Let’s recognize same-sex marriage because…Nero…and Japanese emperors and their concubines…and now we have “Friends with Benefits!” Add an obligatory dig at *Ozzie and Harriet,* a plea for conservative to “go with the flow,” and you’re devised an airtight argument!

    And to what end? He’s only going to expand the scope of government. Under the old regime, private companies could decide for themselves whether to recognize same-sex relationships by their employees and customers. Now, they will be given no such choice. And of course what we need right now is for the government to formally abandon the idea that marriage is in some way linked to childrearing. Broken families will certainly contribute to limited government!

    1. Yes, G.K.C. We know. The government should constrain marriage, and everything else, to what it says in the Bible.

      1. …and in Confucius, and in pretty much anything written before the last few decades.

        But other than that, yeah, the Bible pretty much invented the sex-binary definition of marriage and Christians imposed that definition by force on the gay-friendly paradises of the ancient world/


        1. Now, if Christians had indeed invented the sex-binary definition of marriage, I would be boasting about it as an argument in Christianity’s favor.

          But all I am able to say is that American Christians are in the front lines of defending the sex-binary definition, just as they’re in the front lines of voluntary charity for the poor…again, Christians didn’t *invent* concern for the poor but they have a commendable militance about carrying out that concern.

        2. David and Jonathan were just good pals.

          1. Then it’s a sad world when the only reason two men form a strong friendship is because they want to buttfuck each other.

            1. If you want to complain about the sadness of the world, take it up with Jehovah.

              1. Manna for Jews, tornadoes for goy, CN.

              2. Jehovah limited male friendship to sodomitical relationships?

                1. If you want an example of a strong male friendship, consider Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton. They could finish each others’ sentences, ha ha.

                  1. Okay, I chortled.

      2. Well, Polygamy has more historical precedent than two of the same.

        1. So does first-cousin marriage, yet it being banned in most states is not the HORRIBLE MORAL OUTRAGE that two unrelated guys who won’t breed a Hapsburg jaw baby is, for some reason.

          1. How do YOU know they won’t breed a Hapsburg jaw baby, all with their nefarious homosexual wiles???

            In all seriousness, Hapsburg Jaw Baby would be an excellent name for a band.

            1. Jaw Baby is a good band name.

          2. Those things are actually illegal. You can go to jail for having multiple spouses or banging a close relative. In contrast, you are perfectly free to move in with Tony and call him your wife. Better still, you can leave him without going to court and the state will not mandate the terms of your relationship.

            Explain to me how government sanctioned gay marriage is a freedom issue? We improve freedom my making sure the government dictates the terms of gay relationships?

            1. Your evident concern for gay relationships is duly noted, John.

              1. Consider that so far the results of SSM tend to be the opposite of what the activists promised – remember “how does my marriage affect you”?

                So would it be too far-fetched to worry what will happen to the activists’ promise that SSM will help gays into a fuller life?

              2. I have no concern for gay relationships. Regardless, my question still stands. How are thy being make more free by government sanctioned gay marriage?

                You only give a snarky answer I assume because you have no real answer.

                1. Again, I don’t know if state-enforced SSM will enhance the quality of life for gay people. I suspect it will only enhance quality of life for those who get a charge out of punishing dissenters from their lifestyle – and I can’t believe that all gay people are into that kind of thing. The media reports gay couples who sue bakers, and the non-suing gays get short shrift.

                  My point is that given the bad record of activists’ promises on SSM, there’s no reason to suppose their promises about gay quality of life will come true either.

                  Recall they promised that it wouldn’t affect straight people, but now dissenters are being sued into bankruptcy.

                  Recall that they promised there would be no affect on straight marriages, and now the same folks run articles about the benefits of adultery for straights.

                  Recall that when Massachusetts passed its Equal Rights Amendment, they were indignant at the suggestion that it would legitimize gay marriage.

                  Recall during the debates on DOMA and the marriage amendments, they said there wasn’t any danger of states exporting their gay-marriage laws to other states.

                  Remember when the Supreme Court promised that constitutionalizing a right to sodomy wouldn’t entail gay marriage, which was a Totally Separate Issue?

                  Remember the assurances here that the I Want Cake movement operated on a totally separate track from the SSM movement and the former not be sstrengthened by SSM laws?

                  Now they’re telling us how great these laws will be for gays!

                  1. Actually, Scalia said that homosexual marriage was the inevitable consequence of the SC decision that sodomy is constitutionally protected.

                2. No, I give a snarky answer because you aren’t interested in anything remotely resembling an honest discussion on this subject. Just like your buddy Eddie and his religious-driven bigotry.

                  Your concern is fake and you are just trolling.

                  1. Don’t get your rape-tentacles in a twist, SugarFree, people don’t have to agree with you to be honest.

          3. Went to my cousins wedding last week. His cousins from the other side of his family were there as well. So, his cousin is smoking hot, and I’m chatting with her at the bar. The conversation turns uncomfortably sexual. I grabbed my drink and went back over to my wife.

            I don’t know if marrying your cousin is okay. But i definitely believe you should be able to bang your cousins’ cousin.

            1. This is way too late for a.m. links but,


        2. True, & even polygamy involves marriage between 1 man & 1 woman. Polygamy just means that a single individual is part of 2 or more concurrent marriages.

          Hardly ever has polygamy been conceived as plural marriage, i.e. the bonding of 3 or more persons at once, each considered a spouse of each of the others.

    2. “Under the old regime, private companies could decide for themselves whether to recognize same-sex relationships by their employees and customers. Now, they will be given no such choice.”

      For some of them, I think that’s going to bite them in the ass.

      For those companies, they could extend benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees, but if you’re an unmarried heterosexual living with your boyfriend or girlfriend in a state that recognizes same sex marriage, then your company is effectively discriminating against you for being a heterosexual.

      Eventually, I’m sure these companies will start requiring same sex couples to be married in order to qualify for benefits–either that, or they’re going to have to start extending benefits to the boyfriends and girlfriends of non-married employees. And in a world where health insurance costs are still a major headache, it’s probably an easy bet to guess which way the wind’s gonna blow.

  41. So, Obama wants everybody to get together here:
    “WASHINGTON ? President Obama on Tuesday called for liberals and conservatives to break through their decades-long disagreements about how to confront abject poverty in America,[…]”

    And then we see what ‘everybody’ really means:
    “[…]Mr. Obama lamented what he said was a refusal by his Republican adversaries in Washington to put their concern into practice.[…]”

    And here’s an example of how those evil R’s want to starve the poor:
    “[…]The president said his unsuccessful effort to raise taxes on hedge fund managers was an example of the refusal by conservatives to compromise for the benefit of the poor.[…]”……html?_r=0

    I’m beginning to think that turd is actually Obo’s speech-writer.

    1. And with an anti-aircraft gun.

      1. I can think of worse ways to go. That would be instant death.

        1. Everything always has to be so flashy with this Un guy.

          1. That’s what you get when you cross a penis with a potato and put it on an ocean liner.

          2. dick-tater-ship

            *runs away*

            1. Yeah, you better run.

        1. that sort of behavior doesnt fly around here

      2. That’s what you get for giving Un flak.

    2. Good luck to all North Korean narcoleptics.

  42. I don’t think they should put up posts about strippers and then use a picture of a train derailment like that–that doesn’t have anything to do with strippers.

    I mean, what’s the point of having a post about strippers–if you’re just going to waste a photo opportunity like that a on a train derailment?

    Incidentally, this feminist’s ass has a mind of its own.


    This is what criminal government looks like.

    1. They can’t outlaw guns, but if they ban banks from doing business with gun dealers…

      1. +$5000/bullet ammo tax

    2. “”It’s a slap in the face,” Peggy Craig, owner of Michael’s Pawn and Gun in Fruitland Park, Fla., told The Daily Signal in an exclusive interview. “It affects my livelihood, it affects how I feel, and I think it’s total bias and discrimination“”

      Oh, the hilarity of identity politics being used by *everyone*.

      Something the progs naturally never really consider – that when one group starts claiming to be systematically victimized, that eventually everyone else starts to do the same.

      A commenter =

      “I don’t see why this should receive any less attention than declining to bake a cake for a gay wedding – another case of discriminatory refusal of services The press should be all over the issue.”

      Well, there’s a slight difference between a pizza place refusing to cater your events (while still perfectly willing to do business with you)…

      ….and institutions like Banks – which are fundamentally necessary to conduct business legally – telling you that they refuse to transact with you because of pressure from the FDIC and the Justice Department

  44. This is Amtrak’s second fatality-causing accident in less than a week. Last Sunday, a train collided with a truck in Amite, Louisiana, killing injuring two train passengers and killing the truck’s driver.

    Wouldn’t this be the fault of the truck driver, not Amtrak?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.