Hillary Clinton Promises to Build 500 Million Solar Panels if Elected President, Senate Re-Authorizes Export Import Bank, China Lifts Video Game Console Bans: A.M. Links

|

  • Richard Masoner/flickr

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is expected to give a speech on climate change today, where she'll pledge to have 500 million solar panels built if she's elected.

  • Senior Republicans in the Senate took to the floor during a Sunday session to condemn comments by Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who accused fellow Republican Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, of lying about the Export-Import Bank, which the Senate ended up voting to re-authorize.
  • The Associated Press tracked slaver fishing vessels that escaped capture off the coast of Indonesia to a strait near Papua New Guinea, about 1000 miles away.
  • An Al Shabaab suicide bomber who drove a truck into a hotel in Mogadishu killed nine people, including a Kenyan diplomat and a Chinese embassy guard.
  • The government in China has lifted all its bans on video game consoles.
  • Whitney Houston's daughter Bobbi Kristina Brown died aged 22.

New at Reason.com:

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

NEXT: Self-Funding Cops and Prosecutors, a.k.a. Armed Robbers

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

  1. The government in China has lifted all its bans on video game consoles.

    FPS games are gonna come back to bite them in the coming revolution!

    1. Hello.

      “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is expected to give a speech on climate change today, where she’s pledge to have 500 million solar panels built if she’s elected.”

      …And then she opened her snatch and sucked in all the bad climey air.

      1. Don’t let the snuke out!

      2. You’ve been hanging around SugarFree for too long.

        1. All Canadians are powerless before me.

          1. Canadians don’t kneel….

            We squat.

            1. No, Warty squats. Canadians can’t truly squat, what with all those layers of flannel and hockey pads on their legs.

            2. Canadians don’t kneel….

              until the opening notes of God Save the Queen and then they drop so fast they spill their syrup and poutine.

    2. I’ve been incommunicado recently, so I don’t know if Epi has brought this up yet.

      http://9gag.com/gag/aLQ9jq6/wa…..st-for-men

      Danger5 hints at the existence of a book more disturbing than the Necronomicon.

      1. There are some things which should never be unearthed.

      2. “Danger5 hints at the existence of a book more disturbing than the Necronomicon.”

        It’s probably just an entry from the “Recommended reading” list in the appendix of the Necronomicon. A little known fact, The Necronomicon is like a gateway drug to Evil. The novice user thinks that unleashing the Army of the Dead is the ultimate in Evil, but that’s purely amateur hour that any unthinking oaf can stubble upon.

    1. Rand’s numbers dropped before the Trump surge. Dissing the Confederate flag and its supporters wasn’t a smart move. Whoever advised him to do that should be fired. Rand Paul should learn from Trump’s campaign style like Ted Cruz is doing. Run against the Republican Party in the primary.

      1. “Dissing the Confederate flag and its supporters wasn’t a smart move.”

        Because the one thing the most public libertarian candidate shouldn’t do is diss the flag that flew over slavery!

        1. It couldn’t be because slagging the flag is, like, stupid? A dumb, symbolic hysterical reaction made by and for stupid people?

          Did you not notice what the nonsense has led to? People digging up graves of Conf, Gen., removal of names of people who slaves (Jefferson! Washington you’re next!), the request to take away statues…

          Historical genocide is truly a game for the ignorant.

          Just who are the real hicks, Bo?

          1. Some Democrats are already disavowing Jefferson. It’s no doubt a brilliant move.

            http://www.ctpost.com/news/art…..400544.php

          2. “A dumb, symbolic hysterical reaction”

            Wait, so the supporters of erecting a giant statute to pay homage to their cause and having it maintained with tax money are NOT the ones focused on symbolism? Wow.

            “Historical genocide is truly a game for the ignorant.”

            This of course has nothing to do with ‘historical genocide.’ The main cry of those suggesting removal is to remove them from public property and put them in a museum. And the ones who want removal are all for erecting slave museums and other historical markers, just ones that don’t pay homage to something we all, at least when put to it, repudiate.

            1. Wait, so the supporters of erecting a giant statute to pay homage to their cause and having it maintained with tax money are NOT the ones focused on symbolism?

              Who?

              1. He’s arguing that because the statues in favor of the Confederacy were erected decades ago, arguing against their destruction on the grounds of Anti-Confederacy Year Zero is the same thing as advocating new statues be erected.

                If you don’t support tearing down statues from 70 years ago because the people who erected them supported the Confederacy, he seriously believes that means you’d support spending money to build such a statue today.

                Apparently we should deface major sculptures like those at Stone Mountain because we no longer support the ideas that led to their construction.

                1. That’s what I get out of Bo and it amounts to scrubbing history – hence historical genocide.

                  1. You’ve got a cute phrase and you intend to use it, evidence or logic be darned. Because moving things from public property and stopping public maintenance of it=scrubbing history. The libertarian view is that if government doesn’t do it, it’s erased!

                2. Irish refuses to see monuments as what they are, enduring statements. That’s exactly what they are and what they are intended to be. The very reason you set it in stone is because you want that statement to keep being made across time. For some reason we have to keep making statements that even he says are indefensible because they were set up a long time ago.

                  1. Irish refuses to see monuments as what they are, enduring statements. That’s exactly what they are and what they are intended to be.

                    Bo’s going to Italy to demand the destruction of Roman amphitheaters this October, when the weather’s cooler.

                    1. Those are totally the same thing.

                    2. Those are totally the same thing.

                      If you’re going to speak in broad, flowery generalities, don’t be surprised when someone brings up an example that renders your attempt at profundity into absurdity.

                    3. Those are totally the same thing.

                      If you’re actually being consistent about your loud, vapid emotional appeals in regards to slave-based societies, rather than just having an iconoclastic hissy fit about an aspect of American culture you don’t like, then yes, those are actually the same thing.

                  2. So, at the moment in history that any idea becomes irrelevant we should remove in reminders from the public space and put them into a museum. How does that work exactly? Who decides? Does it just pertain to items on “public” land or would you force someone on private land to remove their “offending” statues from your view?

          3. Rufus, I’m writing this from the former capital of the CSA, and have lived in the south my entire life. Black people here find the confederate flag* really offensive, and understandably so. I have no trouble with private individuals displaying that on their property or on their persons (yes, even in public). The issue of whether governments which were formerly part of the CSA should be flying it over government facilities**, and the answer is “no.”

            Yes, some idiots want to take things to extremes and start digging up graves. Just like some people want to take anti-government views to extremes and blow up federal buildings. In neither case is it appropriate or honest to accuse those with mild views of holding the extreme views. You’re better than that Rufus.

            (*) Technically, the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, not that it matters one bit in terms of the offensiveness of the symbol.

            (**) I can see some use of this at facilities of an historical nature whose only current use is history/tourism, but not over a working statehouse, courthouse or DMV where people have to come to do their business with the government.

            1. “The issue of whether governments which were formerly part of the CSA should be flying it over government facilities**, and the answer is “no.””

              Yes, government buildings shouldn’t be flying the flag. I agree.

              What I don’t agree with is the accusation that anyone flying the flag is a racist, which has the exact same problem of “accusing those with mild views of holding the extreme views.”

              1. I’ll probably be sorry for this, but why should government buildings not fly the flag but they should continue to maintain confederate monuments on government property? I can see allowing both or neither, but what’s the reasoning where the flag itself is offensive and should come down but a giant statute of Bedford Forrest cast as a noble God should stay up?

                1. I’ll probably be sorry for this, but why should government buildings not fly the flag but they should continue to maintain confederate monuments on government property?

                  So should the National Park Service tear down the Confederate monuments on Civil War battlefields?

              2. I’m very carefully avoiding wading into the fever swamp of accusations of racism. That’s very much a sticky trap.

                Just as the state capitol shouldn’t be flying the Union Jack, even though Virginia was once an English colony.

            2. I get all that nuance, Tonio and thanks for that. I have a couple of close friends from the South – well, Florida. And take this mild view. So I understand.

              My point is along the lines of Irish below.

        2. “The flag that flew over slavery”—- Do you mean the US flag too?

          1. Of course there’s an easy way to distinguish between a flag that flew over a country that, among many things over centuries also flew over slavery and a flag that existed for a brief time for a movement with one primary cause, the protection of slavery. Ditto for people like Jefferson and Washington.

            1. Doesn’t matter a bit?has to go. There was a shooting, hadn’t you heard?

            2. You don’t think the US federal government had a history of protecting slavery?

              1. I don’t think the protection of slavery was the primary purpose of the United States through its existence.

                The Founders of the CSA consciously sat down and said ‘we’re concerned that Lincoln and the North will be flexing federal muscle to undercut our institution of slavery, so let’s secede and form a more perfect union that protects slavery.’

                The Founders of the USA did not do that. It’s not like they said ‘we’re concerned England will mess with slavery, let’s form our own more perfect union protecting it.’

                1. The primary purpose of the CSA was somehow different than the primary purpose of every other state that ever existed, because your middle school civics teacher said so. Got it.

                  1. I don’t think the protection of slavery was the primary purpose of the United States through its existence.

                    And with that Bo hand-waves away decades of torture, rape, murder and slavery because it doesn’t help his iconoclastic purge. Good to know that people can still commit atrocities, they just have to not mention them in high school history class as much.

                    It’s almost like Bo has some kind of arbitrary bias towards going after this.

                    DESTROY THE SYMBOLS BO, ONLY THEN YOU WILL BE CLEAN.

          2. That is just plain disingenuous. The US was trying to phase out slavery (admittedly slowly). But the whole raison d’etre for the CSA was slavery. (Please don’t start with the economic bs.)

            1. As much as you may want to assign personal traits to an impersonal institution like a government, it doesn’t work that way. The US federal government had a storied history in preserving, supporting and subsidizing slavery. There may have been people in the government who favored abolition, but that says nothing of what the institution itself actually did. (Please don’t start in with the “they fought a war to end slavery bs.”)

              1. All of the founding fathers, yes even the ones who owned slaves, knew slavery was an evil institution. But felt that it was better to create the United States of America and keep it together with the idea that eventually slavery would be eliminated. If instead, Massachussetts, New York, etc just got together and said no slavery, there would have been no country, and in all likelihood would fall piecemeal back to Great Britain, or France or someother European “Great Power”.

                And I agree that the Union didn’t necessarily (at least at first) only fight against slavery. It fought to preserve the United States (rightly or wrongly).

                But the ONLY fucking reason that the CSA seceded was over the issue of slavery. All else was window dressing. Read the “Cornerstone” speech of 1861. The declarations of reasons for secession for SC, TX, MS and GA all explicity state that slavery was the primary reason for secession. The Missouri compromise, bleeding Kansas was all about trying to create slave states vs free states. And NOT one free state seceded. There were no farmers in Michigan, or Pennsylvania or Maryland (a slave state which chose not to secede) that maybe felt that tariffs or taxes were too high?

                1. Thank you, Bear, but Free Society is basically a time-waster.

                2. All of the founding fathers, yes even the ones who owned slaves, knew slavery was an evil institution.

                  That’s a bold claim, and demonstrably false.

                  If instead, Massachussetts, New York, etc just got together and said no slavery, there would have been no country,

                  No, those states didn’t need to get together to ban slavery within their sovereign borders. They needed to get together to impose such on other sovereign entities. And you think that there “wouldn’t have been a country” if all 13 colonies weren’t part of the same confederation?

                  But the ONLY fucking reason that the CSA seceded was over the issue of slavery.

                  Primary but not only. And regardless, the Civil War was about secession, not slavery. Both of which were ostensibly legal in United States pre-Lincoln.

                  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Maryland didn’t secede because it was basically the unofficial seat of power for the US federal government from which the rest of the slaveholding states were seceding from.

                  1. Jefferson, Madison and Washington all owned plantations and slaves. However, all of them also wrote about how it eventually needed to end. Perhaps EVERY is a bit strong. But my point was even the majority of the “big name” founders who did own slaves knew the institution needed to eventually end.

                    And are you actually saying that the 13 colonies would have been better served as completely independent states? I guess the Articles of Confederation just gave the central government too much power.

                    And the war was about secession yes. BUT SECESSION WAS ABOUT SLAVERY. FUCK why are so hell bent on defending this?

                    And I used Maryland as an example. You still didn’t get to the point that no free states seceded, and even 4 slave states chose not to (KY, MD, MO and DE, and then even West Virginia became a seperate state). Where there any free states that had parts vote to join the Confederacy?

                    1. And Washington, for one, was known at the time as a particularly unscrupulous slave-owner whose slaves were treated harshly and kept in horrid conditions as compared to other slave owners.

                      And are you actually saying that the 13 colonies would have been better served as completely independent states?

                      Yes. Smaller governments are more conducive to liberty as their ability to enact far reaching tyranny is necessarily limited by the ability of it’s tax cattle to move away and it’s trade policies must necessarily be lax as the division of labor is necessarily less under the thumb of a single political entity like a powerful national government that spans most of the habitable parts of the continent.

                      I guess the Articles of Confederation just gave the central government too much power.

                      No that was the Constitution. The Articles were thrown out with such ease that it makes the case that it was not designed to be an indivisible union.

                      You still didn’t get to the point that no free states seceded, and even 4 slave states chose not to (KY, MD, MO and DE, and then even West Virginia became a seperate state). Where there any free states that had parts vote to join the Confederacy?

                      Whats your point? I’m not making hay about the peripheral economic factors, you are. I said the Civil War was about secession. I didn’t say that secession was not about slavery.

        3. I thought that Nikki Haley got it right. There is a respect for the history that should not be washed away, but it certainly has no place flying over a working governmental building. Removing it entirely from historical monuments etc could also be seen as a way to ‘cover up’ that racist history, which would be wrong.

          1. ^^THIS! I agree with her (and you). I certainly don’t want to revise history. And I have alot of respect for a number of Southern leaders (Robert E. Lee, JEB Stuart). But then I even have respect for a few Wehrmacht leaders (Rommel for one). Doesn’t make the cause they were ultimately fighting for right.

            Obviously keep the monuments. Talk about the people who were involved. But flying the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia (Is this correct enough for you CSA fans?) over a state building is just inappropriate.

            1. And when I said ‘dumb’ above it was not in correlation to what you write here which I agree with. It’s with the excessive aspect that comes with it.

              If they want to remove it from government buildings and stop there fine. But it won’t stop there.

              It will go on right until they hit literature as they did. Which leads to a path of scrubbing.

              1. Something something past something future.
                Something something present something past.

        4. Because the one thing the most public libertarian candidate shouldn’t do is diss the flag that flew over slavery!

          Since when do libertarians diss the Stars and Stripes? OH, you don’t count that flag flying over slavery because you are a disingenuous cunt.

  2. Ted Cruz has improved his standing with me.

    1. I had ZERO to disagree with him on his excoriation of McConnell.
      I applaud him having the balls to go on record and tell it like it is. He gets my vote if he gets the nomination.
      But so would Rand or Scott or Marco.

      1. He had fantastic fund raising numbers recently, too.

  3. 76) Here’s a Washington Post opinion providing a refreshingly reasonable view of sunlight exposure. The author makes the point that in our misguided attempt to avoid the rarely fatal disease of melanoma, we are not getting enough Vitamin D, which plays a role in protecting against dozens of other types of cancers and diseases. Basically, his recommendation is to go in the sun daily but to avoid sunburns. Personally, I’ve always wondered why people think that humans, a species that evolved on the African savannah, would be especially vulnerable to sunlight.

    1. I’m not sure what to think about that. I’ve heard people who seem to know what they are talking about go both ways. I don’t think it is really a settled issue. I suspect that for light skinned people there is reason to avoid too much UV exposure. It certainly doesn’t help to maintain youthful looking skin either. We did evolve on the Arfrican Savannah, but with much more pigmented skin.

      1. Should we be talking about this?

        1. WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT?

          1. The weather.

        2. “Should we be talking about this?”

          Humanity, Meet Lucy. She’s Your Mom

          1. DON’T TALK ABOUT LUCY!!!

          2. NO! She’s my mom:

            http://bit.ly/1LNAmXu

            Revisionism is fun!

          3. STEVE SMITH FIND LUCY TERRIBLE IN BED.

      2. I have seen some dermatologists now starting to acknowledge that moderate tanning (the key being “moderate”) is healthy. But that people who tan should get periodic skin cancer screenings. I have also read studies that indicate that a high percentage of the population has some vitamin D deficiency.

        1. As in vitamin Dolezal?

          1. Oh, very good sir, yes, quite.

          2. Give this man an award.

        2. That’s the theory I operate on. I’ll wear sunblock if I am going to be out long enough that a burn is likely, but otherwise I’ll let myself tan.

        3. Things can have benefits and drawbacks at the same time? That if someone tells you “never do this!” or “always do that!” they ate probably full of it.

        4. Lizards don’t tan…just sayin’. Could lack of vitamin D be the downfall of our Reptilian overlords.

          Sunscreen on face and neck, cycling tan everywhere else.

      3. Check your pigmented primate privilege.

      4. Where it concerns skin color, “we”, whites and North Asians, evolved in cold climates moving as far north as the receding glacier would allow. Being inland, we weren’t getting vitamin D from our diet like coastal peoples, so over time our skin lightened to be more receptive to vitamin D from the sun.

        1. And there was no longer any evolutionary advantage to the body spending all that time and energy producing melanin. Also, a quibble with your phrasing “over time our skin lightened to be more receptive” – you make it sound like that change was deliberate, like there was some guiding force. The people with lighter skin enjoyed better health because of higher vitamin D levels.

          1. The mutation occurred shockingly recently, too. It seems that light skin became advantageous when people switched to farming and eating a low-quality grain-based diet. When they were cavemen eating tons of meat and fish, they got plenty of vitamin D in their food.

            1. Grain bad.

              1. Meat good.

            2. Thanks, Warty!

              1. Here’s where I got the link. Fascinating stuff.

          2. Also, a quibble with your phrasing “over time our skin lightened to be more receptive” – you make it sound like that change was deliberate, like there was some guiding force.

            I quibble with your quibble. I didn’t say we made our skin lighter, or that it was part of some plan, I said that “it lightened to be more receptive” with passive voice no less, because it did lighten and that’s exactly why it lightened.

            1. *TWEET* violation. Double quibbling.

  4. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is expected to give a speech on climate change today, where she’s pledge to have 500 million solar panels built if she’s elected.

    What difference would that make?

    1. Well, it should just about cover the electricity production needed for Al Gore’s mansion.

    2. Well, if you are a crony capitalist in a favored industry, quite lot.

    3. A lot, since she plans on using them to cover the entire state of Utah.

      1. They sure as hell aren’t going in the back yard of anyone with last name of Kennedy.

    4. Great! The electric chair will now be a carbon-neutral, sustainable option for the death penalty.

      1. Yes but only on sunny days. Gives a whole new meaning to “praying for rain”.

  5. …where she’s pledge to have 500 million solar panels built if she’s elected.

    Yeah, no need to follow that money trail.

    1. More like a 4 lane highway

    2. Goes to one stop past the happy trail.

    3. Goes to one stop past the happy trail.

  6. where she’s pledge to have 500 million solar panels built if she’s elected

    How many private email servers will that power?

  7. Whitney Houston’s daughter Bobbi Kristina Brown died aged 22.

    Drugs are great. Drugs are fun. But don’t do drugs in the bathtub.

  8. Whitney Houston’s daughter Bobbi Kristina Brown died aged 22.

    They named their daughter Bobbi Brown?

    1. Some egos cannot be encompassed by the understand of a mere human mind.

      1. Or the conventions of English grammar.

        1. I have gerundphobia. It is a real and cripple condition.

            1. Can I have a trigger warning next time?

              1. You mean a trigger warn.

                1. No! Look what you’ve done to me! I’m melting!

                  1. Cool, now I can wear your killer kicks, and once I off your sister the flying monkeys are ALL MINE

      2. Turns out personal legacy ruined that investment in personal legacy.

    2. Cocaine is a helluva drug!

    3. Watch me now, I’m going down.

    4. Why can’t it be Kardashians offing themseles?

  9. The Associated Press tracked slaver fishing vessels that escaped capture off the coast of Indonesia to a strait near Papua New Guinea, about 1000 miles away.

    Upon confronting the slavers, did the reporters tell them to fuck off?

    1. You know what will help? Banning GMO aquaculture.

    2. Just wait till Danerys Targaryan hears about this

  10. The Associated Press tracked slaver fishing vessels that escaped capture off the coast of Indonesia to a strait near Papua New Guinea…

    It was flying the Confederate flag.

    1. Fist, if that was true the boats wouldn’t have just been tracked. They would’ve been destroyed by the massive energy generated by widespread prog social signaling.

      1. destroyed by the massive energy

        Generated thru a focused hashtag campaign?

        /#StopUnlicensedFishing

    2. slaver fishing vessels that escaped capture

      Are we talking slavee fishing vessels here? I has a confuse

      1. I think the article is worth a read. Hundreds of men are forced to serve on these fishing vessels for months or perhaps years and load their catches onto larger ships which transport the combined catches to a central facility. Some of the seafood ends up on our own shelves.

        “Reporters followed the slave-caught fish back to Thailand and linked it to the supply chains of major U.S. food sellers, such as Wal-Mart, Sysco and Kroger, and American pet food companies, including Fancy Feast, Meow Mix and Iams. The businesses have all said they strongly condemn labor abuse and vowed to take steps to prevent it.”

        1. How did I guess without looking that this was somehow all my fault?

          1. Well, Jerryskids, you should have guessed that something was fishy when your trawler captains told you their crews didn’t want pay because they just wanted to serve out of the kindness of their hearts.

            1. Like I would ever talk to my trawler captains – I have orphans to do that for me. And I get my fish from Walmart anyways.

        2. I’ve been hearing some grumbling about this from prog friends. It is apparently a real issue involving real involuntary human servitude. As much as I hate to ally with proggies on anything, this is a good PR opportunity for libertarians to come out firmly against slavery.

          1. What the fuck? Don’t Asian warlords deserve to have their monocles polished just like the rest of us heartless slavers?

  11. Senior Republicans in the Senate took to the floor during a Sunday session to condemn comments by Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who accused fellow Republican Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, of lying about the Export-Import Bank, which the Senate ended up voting to re-authorize.

    HOW DARE YOU BE CORRECT!

    The Associated Press tracked slaver fishing vessels that escaped capture off the coast of Indonesia to a strait near Papua New Guinea, about 1000 miles away.

    Um, fuck off, slavers?

    1. More like “HOW DARE YOU PULL BACK THE CURTAIN!”

      1. Yeah, I think that fits better. We need to get Cruz a small dog to call Toto.

    2. Jesus Christ, the Republicans are useless. One time Ted Cruz is unequivocally, 100% in the right and that’s when they decide to attack him.

      Actually, Cruz always seems to get attacked by other Republicans when he’s doing the right thing. They never seem to care much when he does something legitimately ridiculous.

      1. The Senate does have this tradition of decorum thing they’re probably reacting too, but I can imagine that’s not going to seem important here.

        1. Sure, but Harry Reid called Tea Party members terrorists and anarchists. Meanwhile, Cruz called McConnell a liar and that apparently crosses the line.

          Going to go out on a limb and say this has approximately nothing to do with ‘decorum’ and has to do with a general sense of party uber alles.

          1. Well, and a sense that no outfit cares much for a junior member talking that way about senior members.

  12. Senior Republicans in the Senate took to the floor during a Sunday session to condemn comments by Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz…

    The party where Mitch McConnell is sacrosanct is in real trouble.

    1. PRetty fucking funny and so true. When you make it known on the record that you are standing up for a poor, defenseless SENATE MAJORITY LEADER because somebody accurately described what he did (which was flat-out lie), then what moral currency do you have? Cruz rightly insulted McConnell the worst way he could – by calling him a copy of Harry Reid.
      Doesn’t get much uglier than that, as comparisons go…

      1. “I am not a copy of Harry! I still have two working eyes.”

        /Muppet Mitch.

  13. “where she’s pledge to have 500 million solar panels built if she’s elected.”

    I’m betting it’s that she’ll pledge to have us (taxpayers) build them. She’s free to buy as many solar panels as she wants now and that’s not much worthy of announcement.

  14. “where she’s pledge to have 500 million solar panels built if she’s elected.”

    Ugh.. Why? Who the hell supports this? Why is this considered a good thing? Seriously what the fuck?

    1. Because global warming climate change.

    2. Solar panel makers support this wholeheartedly.

      1. Solar panel makers in China support this wholeheartedly.

        So the Hildebeast wants to send still moar jobs to China?

        1. China’s been good to the Clintons.

    3. The solar panels will be assembled into giant pyramids in the desert and after her death her mummified corpse will be buried inside.

      1. Do we have to wait for to actually kick it before stuffing her mummified corpse in there? I mean in the Mummy movie Imhotep was mummified alive. It could be a worthy investment.

        Speaking theoretically of course, this is in no way a threat, and it certainly doesn’t involve woodchippers.

        1. Plus she already looks like a mummified corpse so I could see someone getting confused…

          1. If you’re going to entomb her in a pyramid, don’t forget to bring along the roped press for the retainer sacrifice. After all, they’re eternally loyal.

            1. Yes they can continue to serve her in the afterlife, a fate worse then Hell I suspect.

            2. “One final to duty for you to perform, Begala.”

            3. first woodchippers, now solar powered pyramids. Is there anything we can’t get subpoenaed for?

      2. This will make a landing pad for her alien race

    4. The makers of solar panels support it. Oh, and ERMAGERD!!! we are killing the planet – why do you hate planet Earth, Holzhacker?

    5. Do you even science, Bro?!?

    6. How many solar panels are installed on her various properties currently? Don’t worry, I’m sure the watchdog press is right on that.

      1. Well, there might be a solar-powered calculator on one of the estates.

        1. You permit your accountants onto your estates? How gauche.

    7. The millions of screaming morons who thought that Solar Frickin Roadways were a brilliant idea.

      Don’t confuse yourself, just because you know better there is a huge portion of the country who thinks that Solar Power is an unabashed good thing and the only thing holding it back is lies being told by the Kochs and other Oil Billionares. Those morons might not be a majority but they probably are a majority in enough states to win the Presidency

      1. there is a huge portion of the country who thinks that Solar Power is an unabashed good thing

        … even though they haven’t installed them on their own houses because it’s too darned expensive.

        1. Lol no, most of them don’t own a home. Sure there are a few who do, and most of them have installed them or have some other “good” reason why they havn’t but most of these morons are apartment dwellers who have basically no hope of ever owning a home.

  15. This guy is going away any minute now, really!

    “Donald Trump has surged to the lead in the New Hampshire GOP presidential primary and virtually erased Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s advantage in the Iowa caucuses, according to new NBC News/Marist polls released Sunday.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/…..z3h63dvdsS

    1. As soon as the Donald is confronted with a few questions he will be seen for the clown he is.

      1. And Rand Paul will not get a single one of the Donald’s former supporters.

        1. It’s too bad about the term limit thing, or else they could vote for a True Libertarian like Barack Obama, eh?

  16. So my wife and I got dinner w/ one of her former doctorate program classmates, who now works for the Secret Service, in a behind the scenes type of role. Anyway, after a few drinks, I get the classmate to share some stories about her job, and I ask her if she has met Obama. She says that unfortunately, yes she has, numerous times. Here are some quotes from her about the Lightbringer:

    1. “He’s the most arrogant person I have ever met in my life.”
    2. “He is such an asshole. He treats everyone like shit. It doesn’t matter if they are White House staff, Secret Service members, staff of foreign dignitaries, they are all beneath him.”
    3. “But the worst thing he did, is he didn’t show up for the event for the 150th anniversary of the Secret Service being founded. Every other living President, and even Nancy Reagan, showed up to the event but he just didn’t want to go. That pissed off everybody in SS.”
    4. “His trip to Kenya? What a fucking disaster. SS didn’t want him to go. But Obama insisted and it took 3 years of planning to get it up and running. 30 man detail, too.”

    This brought me such joy. And confirmed for me that Obama is a narcissist.

    1. Great. Now there’s going to be a Salon article about racist Secret Service officers. I hope you’re happy.

    2. Oh, and I asked her about other folks, such as Joe Biden and if there were SS staff members there from the GW Bush and Clinton administrations. Here we go:

      “You mean Uncle Joe Biden? That’s what everybody calls Biden is Uncle Joe. He knows everybody in the White House by their first name. He is a great guy. He will take the time to talk with you and see how you are doing and the SS guys really like him.”

      “The SS staff got along w/ GW Bush. Bush definitely wanted to follow etiquette, he was very proper in how he was addressed but the SS staff liked him because Bush respected them and appreciated what they did, unlike Obama.”

      “The SS staff wants Hillary to be President just so Bill is back in the White House. The SS staff that is still here from the Clinton administration really misses Bill. He was the best.”

      1. I guess it confirms my own personal perception of Black Potsie being an insufferable prick.

        It’s one thing to be a true smart leader with depth and substance (which I don’t think he has) and one who thinks they believe they’re the smartest guy in the room.

        I just listen to him speak and see he’s all fluff and puff. Like those little Lucky Charms that float around in the bowl aimlessly.

        1. You’d confirm something about anything from a second hand anecdote from a single anonymous internet commenter?

          1. YUP.

            Know why?

            Because it’s a casual place to converse and we’re not writing, you know, FUCKEN TERM PAPERS OR ARTICLES FOR A NEWSPAPER.

            1. It’s just amusing that at one point you think to judge my occupational skills from the same board at the other you’re saying things like this.

              1. I judged your occupation skills?

                Oh that? You didn’t like my Goldblum gag?

                I thought it was humorous.

              2. Fuck, Bo. It’s because you tout you occupation as an appeal to expertise when some of the things you write betray it.

    3. Did you ask about Michelle Turnip?

      1. Yup. She said that Michelle is actually very pleasant in person. She treats the White House and SS staff well.

        1. Nice to hear.

        2. See this is the kind of thing that makes me prone to believe your anecdote. If it was all negative on only Dems or everyone in the Obama administration I would be thinking confirmation bias on bad source. But if your saying they like Michelle, then it way more probable to be a real story.

    4. He simply doesn’t give a flying fuck about anyone or anything except his fellow Alinskyite commies and whitey-haters.

      I kind of wish that Biden had resisted the urge to act so nutty. I’d take him over Hillary as president in a heartbeat.

      1. Yeah, she said that BO surrounded himself with a bunch of Yes Men. They have to do what he and Valerie Jarrett wants. And she confirmed for me that Jarrett does run a lot of the show, especially when BO is gone. And Jarrett is a huge bitch as well, which I figured anyway.

    5. I would treat the SS like shit too in light of their behavior and lack of decorum over the past few years.

      1. Perhaps that’s due to low morale as a result of being treated badly by the President? Hard to do your job well when you know you’re ‘boss’ doesn’t respect you or treat you professionally.

  17. From the Clinton article:

    Clinton also called for a major increase in other renewable-energy sources, saying she wants every U.S. home to be powered by clean energy within a decade, reports Reuters.

    Which I’m sure that would in no way be forced upon everybody through a mandate. Also, that this has nothing to do with trying to get Tom Steyer’s cash.

    1. You don’t start with a mandate, you start with a tax credit or a subsidy and work your way up to a mandate.

  18. Ending of True Detective last night was… interesting.

    1. No spoilers, please!

      1. he just said it was interesting…too late

        1. I’m a bit upset with myself about coming back to watching it after that tease at the end of episode two…

          1. that’s nearly a spoiler.

            #spoilersfortheebutnotforme!

  19. “Every other living President, and even Nancy Reagan, showed up to the event but he just didn’t want to go.”

    Important golfing trip?

    1. She said he just didn’t give a fuck about it. He was too busy doing whatever else. Again, huge asshole, which I suspected all along and has now been confirmed for me by somebody who is around the White House quite a bit.

  20. Confederate flag flown around the world:

    http://www.businessinsider.com…..-us-2015-6

    1. It’s almost like, stay with me here, the meaning of the flag depends on context and the desires and thoughts of the person flying it and it isn’t inherently a symbol of slavery and oppression.

      1. Post-modernist Irish!

        1. For example, when Hulk Hogan referred to blacks as ni**ers, me and Irish just take that to mean ‘upstanding fellows,’ and that controversy goes away as well!

          1. No because in context Hulk Hogan was using it as a racial slur.

            For example, if a black person says ‘nigger’ in a rap song, that’s okay because in context it’s not a racial slur.

            Or do you support banning Huckleberry Finn because it contains the n-word? Be careful – if you say we shouldn’t ban Huckleberry Finn, I’m going to call you a postmodernist because you think the word ‘nigger’ is only offensive based on context.

            Tread lightly, dipshit.

            1. And in the context of a statute that portrays a Confederate leader in full regalia, noble pose and praising inscription, what’s going on there? According to you we can just interpret it as a symbol of how mistaken the Confederacy was on slavery.

              1. You’re being an asshole. One for deliberately shifting the context of the article and two for not addressing Irish’s (correct) point.

                You can’t control what becomes of symbols and what it means to people not just around you but around the world.

                But you know, progs. Presumptuous, pompous and projectionist in their world view so it’s natural they don’t understand.

                1. Symbols are not infinitely malleable either, that really is the post-modernist view, that it’s all infinitely malleable.

              2. Okay, I understand you’re autistic and don’t understand arguments about historical monuments or about the context in which a Confederate flag is flown or about the fact that a symbol can have multiple meanings. Everything is literal to you, there is no comprehension of contextualization.

                Since you’re clearly just following me around to be a contrarian on every subject (see – Ted Cruz nonsense upthread and the fact that you argue with me even when I say something you’ve agreed with in the past) you’re blocked and I will no longer be responding to you.

                Troll elsewhere.

              3. I’ve got neither the time nor desire to have a thirty post boxing match with you, so let me just conclude with this. Can context matter in interpreting a statement (make no doubt about it, monuments are meant to be enduring statements of something)? Sure. But 1. there are limits to what context to do (see Stanley Fish’s famous essay about how there’s probably no one ‘correct’ interpretation of what a Faulkner story is ‘saying,’ and no interpretation could probably totally be ruled out, but how many interpretations are much more plausible than many others, such that a gigantic homage to a Confederate leader with matching inscription can only become a symbol against slavery by some incredible act of mental transmutation that ignores the evidence of the very senses and knowledge of the meaning of language) and 2. the context here is against your interpretation, everything from the casting, the placement, the dedication ceremonies and the inscriptions make the context very clear: this monument is here to pay homage to the Confederate cause.

                1. tl;dr

                2. I’ve got neither the time nor desire to have a thirty post boxing match with you

                  Citation needed. Everything you do and say is premised on the hope and desire to pull some unsuspecting soul into a thirty round boxing match. If you weren’t interested in boxing matches, you wouldn’t go down the entire thread picking nits wherever you can find them.

        2. Unless you think the Swedes are supporting slavery, I’d have to say you’re retarded and have no actual point.

          You’re going to be the worst lawyer of all time. Also, I hear you think the Saudis are supporting the idea of the Iranians enriching their own Uranium, so your stupidity apparently encompasses all conceivable subjects.

          1. It’s like when Obama did not fly the flag at half mast, me and Irish just interpreted that as paying respect and that lowering it would be actually disrespectful.

          2. They should make a law comedy show with Jeff Goldblum starring as Bo where he loses every single case and it always ends with him at his desk saying, ‘I can’t believe I lost…AGAIN!’

            It would have a ‘Three’s Company’ feel to it.

            1. I think those I’ve represented would say I’ve done quite well for them, thank you.

              1. They avoided the death penalty?

              2. I would have used John Ritter but you know…

                1. I think Chris Burke would be best.

      2. Seems to be mostly a symbol of Southern Rock and redneck pride around here.

        1. Just like how T-shirts with Che on them are certainly more about ‘stick it to the Man!’ to those who wear them. That doesn’t mean that they’re not paying homage to a murderous supporter of tyranny.

          1. That doesn’t mean that they’re not paying homage

            Point to the area the bad T-shirt touched you

            1. I’m not sure that pointing out that Che shirts are, wittingly or not, paying homage to a murderer has as much emotional baggage as you’d like to suggest.

      3. Kinda like how the US flag is literally a rebel flag? (Yes, I know, it’s pretty sad to have to point out that Washington and Jefferson and all their buddies were not actually patriots when they, you know, overthrew the legitimate government of their own country.)

        1. Technically, that was a different American Flag.

    2. “Yankee Go Home”

    3. I see they included Ukraine. That flag has nothing to do with the Confederate flag. It’s a Russian Navy flag adopted by the separatists in east Ukraine. I guess this bullshit will now be repeated forever.

    4. Yeah, and in India the swastika is merely a religious symbol. Flying it over the Reichstag today would be a very different context.

    1. As Crusty says…would

      1. She’s built like a Russian doll. Gorgeous face, wide base.

      2. We gonna have to start calling you “Slammer the Pig Fucker?”

        1. Serious storms need serious ports.

    2. Is there anything in Australia that doesn’t want to kill you?

        1. That seems to be the correct answer.

    3. “At the hospital, it was such an incredulous thing – no one has ever heard of it happening.”

      What kind of yuppie hospital did she go to? Boar are proper dangerous, that’s why hog dogs wear Kevlar.

      1. Yeah, apparently a medical degree doesn’t convey simple common knowledge. Any animal with four-inch razor sharp tusks shouldn’t surprise anyone as dangerous.

        1. Any animal with four-inch razor sharp tusks and an attitude that makes ‘ornery cuss’ look docile in comparison shouldn’t surprise anyone as dangerous

          FTFY

          1. They’re not surprised a boar is dangerous – they’re surprised a boar is running around suburbia. That’s why “no one has ever heard of it happening” – this is in suburbia, not the bush.

            1. Nailed it! Yuppie hospital.

            2. Look, you face one direction from suburbia, there’s the city. Turn around, and there’s the rural landscape – the kind of place wildlife might just wander. Wildlife gets into suburbia with a great deal of regularity. In New York it’s Whitetail deer and black bears. In Australia it’s eldrich abominations and anything mean enough to survive alongside them. The hospital should not be surprised to see wildlife attacking someone in suburbia.

              1. Turn around, and there’s the rural landscape

                Oh for heaven’s sake, I know that. I grew up in that city on the edge of suburbia, backing onto farmland. Wild boars are pretty unusual in that region, so it’s not surprising the doctors hadn’t come across one. They’re more familiar with kangaroo attacks and other eldritch abominations (which I am totally swiping)

              2. Don’t forget coyotes in suburban NY.

    4. Well isn’t she cute. I’d gore it.

  21. she’s pledge to have 500 million solar panels built if she’s elected

    Told you peanuts the buy was FSLR…grblbrgll Booooosh! King Dollar!

  22. Echoing Orrin Hatch, Obama calls for parties to show “a sense of seriousness and decorum and honesty.”

    Pres Obama expects both Dem and GOP candidates to show “a sense of seriousness and decorum and honesty.” Says that’s what voters expect.

    1. This from a man who has neither decorum or honesty.

      If the leader lacks both, how would all those below them follow his requests?

      Easy.

      They don’t.

      Have you ever followed someone who thought full of shit or doesn’t deserve respect?

      I know I haven’t.

    2. I’m guessing that seriousness and honesty means respecting whatever the leader says, even if it is a lie.

  23. Gawker’s slow autocannibalization continues to amuse.

    Nick Denton paced up and down the office. “I was so scared of Hulk Hogan. He’s so big and strong, and he has a scary face. I was afraid of being suplexed by him. The Hulk could probably pick me up with one hand and spin me around like a pizza. Last night I watched WrestleMania VI. And when I saw the Ultimate Warrior get punched, and thrown around, I was crying. Why is the Hulk so mean? Why is he suing my company? Why is he being so mean to the Ultimate Warrior? But then he dodged an elbow drop from the Hulk and came back and pinned the Hulk to the ground, and won. I saw hope. I saw a way for Gawker to win. We have to be nice and strong, like the Ultimate Warrior.”

    “And that’s why we’re changing our name from Gawker to The Ultimate Nice Website.”
    Afterwards, he told us if we didn’t like the new name, it’s because we’re too mean and probably love the Hulk and have Hulkamania, and the Hulk is mega racist anyways, and racists aren’t nice, so we should be fired for being mean. Nick then chugged a Hot Orangie Coke, said “by the way I’m a millionaire, I know what I’m doing, oh god I hope the Hulk doesn’t suplex me in court, that has to be illegal right”, and left the room.

    1. Once again, the authors throw a hissy fit and ignore the decent comments:

      sunburninator Leon
      7/25/15 1:00pm
      You do understand that what you’ve just posted is basically a public tantrum, right?

      The Editorial Board has a good point about editorial freedom, but the editorial board does not seem to understand that you need to be solidly confident that you made confident, logical decisions, and the Conde Nast Outing/Hooker Protection Program was not the piece of “journalism” to use while making that stand. You chose a strange hill to die on.

      For the editorial staff to now publish what is basically a burn book page about their boss… What is your intent here? What do you hope to achieve, other than venting? If venting was the only thing you had in mind, then did you consider the downsides of publicly posting something that looks like the rant of a high school newspaper editor who’s just been told he can’t constantly refer to the football team as “The SeMen”, even though yes our new head coach is named Gregory Se?

      Get your heads out of your asses and start thinking about context and impact. It’s truly hard to think of another professional organization that would allow this sort of self-pity partying.

      1. the downsides of publicly posting something that looks like the rant of a high school newspaper editor

        Sums up 90% of Gawker articles pretty accurately

  24. We had to euthanize one of our dogs last night.

    It really sucked.

    1. Ugh, sorry to hear. That always sucks.

      1. How was the party? I am so sorry I had to miss it.

        1. Good, got to meet a bunch of commenters I hadn’t met before, plus some folks from the Boston meetups. You were missed; we decided on trying for another meetup soon to pull in you and Auric (who is off on another hiking adventure I think).

          1. Nope. I’m in Albuquerque for work. I did consider trying to hike up the Sandia Crest, but my flight got in a bit late for that yesterday. Then the tram thing was broken when I drove over to try that instead.

            My next hiking thing doesn’t start till August 22nd (with my return flight timed to get me back in time for football).

            1. Ah. Well you missed meeting 2 millennial libertarians.

              You’re still the youngest, though.

              1. Well you missed meeting 2 millennial libertarians.

                But I need more information before knowing how big a loss that was…

                You’re still the youngest, though.

                I’m almost to the point where I’ve been on this board for a decade. Weird to think about. Plus there’s no way of getting around the “late” 20s now.

          2. Yeah, sorry I couldn’t make it but I am in the process of moving at the end of the month and the entire weekend was spent packing

            1. We’ll get you next time, ras.

      2. It was a nice little party. Thanks again to hamilton for hosting.

        Sorry about your dog, tarran.

        1. Yes. Good party and thanks.

          And sorry tarran about your dog.

    2. Sorry man. That is really sad.

    3. Sorry bud.

    4. I feel your pain. Our dog is almost 17 with a crippled leg and has lost 35% of his weight in the last 9 months. It’s just a matter of time. We are hoping he dies peacefully in his sleep but the difficulties of taking care of him are starting to wear. My wife’s dog and her decision to make.

    5. That sucks…condolences.

    6. Sorry for your loss, T.

    7. Sorry tarran, that’s awful. Have some virtual Scotch on me

    8. Sorry.

    9. Been there, sorry brother.

    10. Sorry, T. But thank you for doing the best thing.

    11. Sorry man. It goes with the territory, but it fucking sucks. Just remember that it sometimes is the best thing for them.

    12. Sorry to hear. I’m dreading that moment.

    13. One of the hardest decisions you’ll ever make. There comes a point where it’s really bad and will only get worse and will never get better. That’s when it’s time. And even though you know there’s no hope and that euthanasia is the only thing that will relieve the suffering, it wrecks you emotionally. At least that’s the way it was for me when I had to say goodbye to my dog suffering from cancer.

  25. Another Mass Homicide But Guess Why You’re Not Hearing About THIS One?
    On Wednesday night, while all the news was ablaze with a shooting that killed several people and injured more in a movie theater, another heinous mass murder that claimed five lives was taking place. In the small community of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, eighteen year old Robert Beaver was killing almost every member of his family. He murdered his three siblings and both of his parents.

    The question is, why has this not made the mainstream media with the same furor as the theater shootings? The answer is simple.

    The murderer used a knife, instead of a gun!…

    1. Dude, you know they’re gonna get around to banning knifes, right? The discussion started in Britain and in Canada.

      And that guy. What a loon.

      1. They already ban certain knives. The ballistic knife that was common in the East Bloc is banned her in the states, because it’s supposedly a “cop killer” weapon or some such nonsense.

      2. Who really needs a knife with a sharp point?

    2. That guy def. has a certain look about him.

    3. It’s also a bit difference when someone kills family members within a single home as far as the media is concerned.

    4. But did the knife have the thingy that goes up?

      1. Do you mean an up-turned point? Those are scary!

        1. It was an automatic assault knife. It can chop 500 onions in a minute.

          1. No one needs that many onions.

    5. And his name is Michael? There was a guy in NJ I think ,killed 7 people a couple weeks ago.Not much press on that either.

    1. The latest shpiel on Planned Parenthood is that the videos are: a) Entrapment b) Sensationalized

      Planned Parenthood chief slams ‘sensationalized videos’

      If Planned Parenthood can’t be 100% defunded, I for one, call for a dollar-for-dollar match of federal funds to the NRA.

      You know. For sh1ts and giggles.

      1. The video creates no waves outside the most ferverent anti-choicers because it’s so obviously selectively edited.

        1. I am pro-choice until viability, and support completely defunding Planned Parenthood.

          It has created waves for me, and I am usually not focusing on the abortion issue.

          1. If you look at it unedited it seems to be talking about donating these parts for medical use. I’m not sure why that’s anymore controversial than doing the same thing with the stem cells from abortions.

            1. Yes, donation. But with haggling over shipping and storage costs.

              1. Sure, what’s so bad about covering expenses on that sort of thing? They’re not supposed to go out of business in the donating.

          2. You’re not real!

        2. I love the left babbling about editing when we’ve seen it from NBC and Michael Moore.

          Only then it was ‘truth to power’.

          1. Punch UP!
            Punch DOWN!
            Punch Sideways!
            Punch your left foot out
            and shake it all about.

        3. The video creates no waves outside the most ferverent anti-choicers because it’s so obviously selectively edited

          Yeah, because it’s not like they released the whole video or anything.

          “Planned Parenthood’s got the baby body parts you’re looking for! And for a limited time, when you order a liver, heart, and two legs, you get a second set of legs for half price! We guarantee our baby body parts are up to 90% less crunched than our competitors!”

  26. So any guesses on what Trump’s end game here is? There is no way he’s actually going to win, he must realize this, and it seems like politics would alienate some of his customers, so what is he actually trying to accomplish?

    1. He’s a troll. Probably didn’t want to do Apprentice anymore, so he entered IDGAF mode.

      1. He is an attention whore feeding his enormous ego. Entertaining, though.

    2. Disagree with most of what he says, but for some reason my dislike of Trump is no where near my white hot hatred of Jeb or Hillary. Wonder why that is.

      1. I think it has to do with the fact that those two are being mendacious to get power and he’s being blunt to the point of rudeness. It’s a change of pace from the mealy-mouthed media-manipulated cravens we usually see.

        1. Wonder if the pollsters will ever take a poll on the reaction people have candidates’ sanitized pollster approved responses. “Sir, some bad news. We have proven ourselves unnecessary.”

      2. Trump doesn’t pretend to care about you or anything like those dopes do.

        That’s why people think or feel he’s authentic.

        /runs away from Matt.

      3. Trump is a huge crony,he’s steal your grandma’s land.Maybe he did that? I hate his type.

        1. He’s a classic jerk but his rattling of the cage is resonating if but temporarily.

    3. My prediction is he continues to gradually say more and more outrageous things until everyone has finally had enough. He doesn’t really want to be the president; he just loves this attention.

    4. I’m on board with the “Trump’s A Clinton Mole” theory

  27. Spot the Not: excerpts from Saudi textbooks

    1. The plentiful oil in Muslim lands is proof that God has blessed us.

    2. Every religion other than Islam is false.

    3. It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam.

    4. Activity: The student writes a composition on the danger of imitating the infidels.

    5. The Jews and Christians are enemies of the believers, and they cannot approve of
    Muslims.

    6. Jihad in the path of God — which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it — is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God.

    1. 7. The greeting “Peace be upon you” is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others. The Prophet said, “Do not greet the Jews and Christians with the words ‘Peace be upon you.’ If you encounter one of them on the road, force him to the narrow part.”

      8 Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________

      9. A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion.

      10. Freemasonry is covertly Jewish. It puts forward general, humanist slogans, and non-Jews may rally to its cause. It is a secular, atheist, secret movement that serves the Jews indirectly. It is the secret power that creates circumstances and conditions for the Jews. As such, it helps Zionism to achieve its aims.

      11. The First World War: The Jews played a role in starting it.

      12. International Lions Clubs. “Lions” means lions. These are Masonic clubs based in
      America and they have secret agents all over the world.

      12. It is part of God’s wisdom that he made the clash between truth and falsehood continue until the Day of Resurrection. As long as this clash endures, jihad continues. It is not limited to a specific time. As long as there is falsehood, error, and unbelief, the jihad continues.

      1. “International Lions Clubs. “Lions” means lions. These are Masonic clubs based in
        America and they have secret agents all over the world.”

        This is hilarious but wouldn’t surprise me. Hamas’ charter contains a conspiracy theory involving Rotary Clubs.

        “The enemies have been scheming for a long time, and they have consolidated their schemes, in order to achieve what they have achieved. They took advantage of key elements in unfolding events, and accumulated a huge and influential material wealth which they put to the service of implementing their dream. This wealth [permitted them to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there. They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations. They also used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein.”

        1. The Nots are from this document. The section on Jews is…interesting.

          link

          Protocols of the Elders of Zion

          These are secret protocols believed to belong to the above-mentioned Bal conference.
          They were discovered in the 19th century. The Jews have tried to deny them, but there are many proofs of their veracity and their origin among the elders of Zion.

          The following points summarize the protocols:
          1. Undermine the foundation of the existing international community and its systems
          to enable Zionism to gain sole control over the world.
          2. Eliminate Christian nationalities, religions, and nations in particular.
          3. Work to increase the corruption of existing governments in Europe. Zionism
          believes in the corruption and collapse of these governments.
          4. Gain control over the means of publication, propaganda, and newspapers; use
          gold to incite unrest; and exploit people’s desires and spread depravity.

          The decisive proof of the veracity of the protocols and the infernal Jewish plans they
          contain is that the plans, plots, and conspiracies they list have been carried out. Whoever
          reads the protocols — and they emerged in the 19th century — will realize today how
          much of what they described has been implemented.

      2. My guess is 7

    2. The Not is #1. I made it up.

      1. I didn’t even play because I had no clue how to distinguish among all the crazy on this one.

  28. The Federalist has a new Injun-hyphenated-American writer, and he is 2A friendly!

    The Australia Gun Control Fallacy

    Democrat Leaders Support Gun Confiscation

    Not all gun control proponents prevaricate. Some are forthright about their intentions. After Sandy Hook, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) stated she was considering legislation to institute a mandatory national buyback program. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also expressed an interest in confiscation, at least for assault weapons. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option ? keep your gun but permit it.” Ultimately, New York did not institute confiscation, but did require registration of existing assault weapons and banned all sales of new and existing ones within the state.

    Gun buybacks remain a popular policy with the Left because it is the only way of achieving what the Left regards as the only acceptable gun-control solution: reducing the number of guns in America. Matt Miller of the Center for American Progress proposed such a program after Sandy Hook. Conceding that anything mandatory was unlikely to pass Congress, he pitched a gun buyback program as a form of economic stimulus: give people cash for guns, which they can then spend on other things.

    1. And f*** you, John Howard

      The Australia Plan Would Require Coercion and Conflict

      Australian-style gun control, in other words, would require government force and coercion on a massive scale. Now, progressives don’t understand the nature of coercion, so maybe they would not see police action to enforce gun confiscation as coercion. Or, perhaps, they actually do understand that their ideal form of gun control requires it, which is why they keep speaking in code and talk about “Australia” and not “wholesale confiscation.”

      In an op-ed for the New York Times written after Sandy Hook, John Howard, the prime minister who oversaw the passage of Australia’s current gun laws, implored Americans to consider his nation’s example.

    2. So,needing a pemit to have your rights is ‘common sense’? These peple are fascist.

      1. They are also totally on board with government permit requirements to get birth control or abortions.

  29. Relaxation of China’s one-child policy hasn’t brought the hoped-for surge in birth rates. It’s just one more unintended consequence of a vast human experiment

    more

    1. I think they may lack enough women .

  30. Photos: Dick Cheney Kicking Back, Watching TV Coverage Of 9/11

    http://gothamist.com/2015/07/2…..hp#photo-1

    Caption: “How can we pin this on Saddam?”

    1. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

  31. 6. because it doesn’t sound as overtly violent, or paranoid.

    1. How did this end up down here?

  32. http://www.slate.com/articles/…..t_for.html

    Driverless cars are still in their infancy?Google’s cute little vehicles don’t go faster than 25 mph. Nevertheless, courts around the country are currently deciding the future privacy rights of self-driving car owners. The opinions that judges write today will determine whether the police searching your car 20 years from now will be able to see everywhere the car has ever driven you, how long you stayed there, possibly who was with you, your communications from the car, etc. Think about all the places you travel in your car or the conversations you have in your car. How easily do you want that information available to a search?

    Police won’t need a search warrant. Cars will be required to report all movements at all times.

    1. There is no expectation of privacy since you are in public and connected to the net. Driverless cars are going to be a massive threat to privacy and a huge expansion of government control over our lives. But that won’t stop the more simple minded Libertarians from embracing them.

      1. I expect that automated cars will be required to broadcasts the position at all times, just like aircraft.

          1. And all tolls and pemit fees will be taken from your bank account or on your credit card.I’m sure the government will keep that information safe.And then there’s the mileage tax.

        1. Yeah. I know from experience that it is very difficult to manage a fleet of robots like that if you don’t have some sort of a central server that allows them to know where each other are. And there is about zero chance that that won’t be abused and used to track and monitor people.

      2. Yeah. This is why I’m not terribly excited about driverless cars. In principle it’s a fine idea. But in the world we live in today they will inevitably come with tons of regulation and invasion of privacy. And I’ll bet that you won’t be allowed to be drunk in one if you are the only passenger. Which really defeats the main benefit.

        One of the great things about cars is that it is yours and you can modify it, work on it yourself, etc. And you are in control.

        1. Nope. See OEMs suing car owners for copyright infringement for merely reading the computers in current generation cars.

        2. Nope. See OEMs suing car owners for copyright infringement for merely reading the computers in current generation cars.

          1. Oh, yeah, there is that. I hate new cars. Do you know if many of those suits have been successful? Seems like some bullshit. If they don’t want people to change the computers, they should figure out how to make it more difficult.

        3. Driverless cars are a huge techological leap that are far more complicated than their promoters are letting on. Right now the only news we are getting is from invested parties (Google and Musk) that are vastly over-simplifying the issues with them.

          “Contrary to Musk and many of the most prominent advocates of autonomous cars, Shladover insists that so-called Level 5 vehicles?robocars that require no human input?are not on the horizon. “I tell adult audiences not to expect it in their lifetimes. And I say the same thing to students,” he says. “Merely dealing with lighting conditions, weather conditions, and traffic conditions is immensely complicated. The software requirements are extremely daunting. Nobody even has the ability to verify and validate the software. I estimate that the challenge of fully automated cars is 10 orders of magnitude more complicated than [fully automated] commercial aviation.”

          http://www.automobilemag.com/f…..z3h6RRYaAO

          1. I’ve said repeatedly that fully-autonomous cars are not going to happen in my lifetime. But adaptive cruise control and lane following are very doable right now.

          2. Yes, exactly. I work in robotics and it is hard enough to get 20-50 robot vehicles not to crash into each other or create traffic jams in a fairly well controlled indoor environment. In the far more complicated situation of a highway with hundreds of vehicles it is going to be very difficult to get it to work reliably enough to be as safe as it needs to be. Especially without a centralized control system that would require the cars to always broadcast their location.

            1. I don’t see why that’s a given. Flocks and schools operate with a central guiding authority. It’s just another case of emergent order. And given that a phased deployment of self-driving cars is the only practical way of implementing them, and since you will lack info on the surrounding non-autonomous cars, you will need some local decision making anyway.

              Now if Roomba is any indication of where we’re going it will be centuries before we have self-driving cars–or at least ones that don’t spontaneously launch themselves into guardrails.

              1. 1st with=without

  33. English Lord (life peer, ex-Labour, not a hereditay peer) was caught snorting cocaine off the breasts of a ?200-a-night prostitute. He’s resigned and faces police probe but he can still claim ?300-a-day allowance. Not only was he secretly filmed, the chump paid with a personal cheque

    safe for work, probably

    1. By the Standards of British Parliment… that’s downright tame and normal.

      1. I know, not nearly enough little boys in this story for it to be believable.

      2. E: Right. Now all we have to do is fill in this MP application form. Name:
        `Baldrick’. First name…?

        B: Er, I’m not sure.

        E: Well, you must have some idea…

        B: Well, it might be `Sod off’.

        E: What?

        B: Well, when I used to play in the gutter, I used to say to the other
        snipes, “Hello, my name’s Baldrick,” and they’d say, “Yes, we know.
        Sod off, Baldrick.”

        E: All right, right right right right, `Mr. S. Baldrick’. Now; distinguishing
        features… `None’.

        B: Well, I’ve got this big growth in the middle of my face.

        E: That’s your nose, Baldrick. Now; any history of insanity in the family?
        Tell you what, I’ll cross out the `in’. Any history of *sanity* in the
        family? `None whatsoever’. Now then; criminal record…

        B: Absolutely not.

        E: Oh, come on, Baldrick, you’re going to be an MP, for God’s sake! I’ll just
        put `fraud and sexual deviancy’. Now; minimum bribe level…

    2. He paid more for the blow than he did for the table.

      1. No shit, ?200 is like $300 american. That’s in neighborhood of paying to catch crabs.

        And with that much blow, he could get a skank for free no additional cost.

  34. Court sides with state on Plan B sales

    A state mandate for pharmacies to sell all prescription drugs doesn’t discriminate against religious believers, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

    The decision overturns a trial court’s ruling in favor of two pharmacists and Ralph’s Thriftway, an Olympia grocery store and pharmacy, who objected on religious grounds to selling emergency contraception.

    But the court found Washington’s mandate is rational and applies to all drugs and pharmacies in a neutral way.

    1. I say Whole Foods should have to sell GMO foods too then.

      1. Is Whole Foods part of a state-backed food cartel?

        1. As part of the wookiefood initiative, all grocery stores with more than one location are to be nationalized. The rest are to be regulated out of existence.

    2. Forcing businesses to sell something they don’t want to sell. Sure, sounds legit.

    3. This is fucking bs. If a pharmacist works for CVS and CVS says we carry Plan B and therefore you have to sell it, then the pharmacist should either do it or find another place. But if the company decides not to offer it, that is their choice. This whole fucking idea that businesses exist solely for the convenience and whim of the customer is insidious.

      Someone (a nice person, but a fucking prog moron) posted something on FB last night. It was a hand written sign that said “If you open a business to serve people, you should have to serve EVERYONE. If you don’t want to serve everyone, you shouldn’t have gotten into the service industry.” It is like Sowell says Stage 1 thinking. It feels good. So much for freedom of association, or private property.

      1. If you open a business to serve people, you should have to serve EVERYONE.

        CVS quit selling cigarettes, this would seem to be a violation of that principle.

        1. And guns. If you open a business, you should not be able to not serve gun owners and conceal and carry permit holders.

        2. That principle does not apply to everyone who like icky things (cigarettes top that list).

    4. Coury says state can force you to provide what goofs and srvices it deems ethical.

  35. Poll on lingerie finds most men prefer push-up bras and thongs on their woman

    Not surprisingly, most men preferred women in push-up bras and thongs, however, bralettes and cheeky briefs were both close seconds.

    While some of the results were hardly shocking — it looks like most men have literally no idea how much a bra costs — other responses left us pleasantly surprised. One question asked men, “If a woman’s lingerie wasn’t to your liking, would it ever be a deal breaker during a hookup?” And thankfully, a whopping 92 percent said no. Another asked guys, “Why would you buy lingerie for a woman?” and 68 percent of men responded “to make her feel sexy.”

    One pollster took the words out of our mouths when he responded to the survey by saying, “I’m happy when she is happy. Women are such wonderful creatures. It’s all about letting her know she is worshipped.” PREACH.

    The survey was conducted on AskMen.com from July 8-16, 2015 and the number of respondents varied between 2, 797 men and 2,830 men per question.

    Of course it depends on your woman’s body shape.

    1. Call me provincial, but I think a woman looks best when she’s just completely naked.

      1. I’ve never got all the attention over lingerie. You’re just going to be taking it off as fast as possible.

        1. How fast can you get your lingerie off?

        2. Well I can only imagine that when people see a fake lawyer in drag, they avert their male gaze.

        3. Not only that but her wearing one of my oversized T-shirts or dress shirts and nothing else is by far sexier than 99% of lingeree

      2. +5 nothing to remove.

      3. Yeah, I’m with you.

    2. I bought my wife some lingerie once. I had no idea her bra size, so when the saleslady asked me what it was, being the idiot I am, I said, “a little bigger than you”.

      1. Love it!

        I’m gonna try that.

    3. Those poll respondents don’t follow my popular fashion tumblr

    4. Does AskMen.com not realize that non-pushup demi bras exist? Fuck this. Fuck pushup bras. Fuck VS and their constant pushing of pushup bras.

      1. We like push-up bras because we like boobs. The thong is the real issue. I don’t know why you’d want a turdcutter rubbing your asshole all day. Seems like it just makes for a irritable girlfriend.

        1. thongs suck too

      2. I hate pushup bras too. They shouldn’t even exist in sizes above C

    5. “I’m happy when she is happy. Women are such wonderful creatures. It’s all about letting her know she is worshipped.”

      What a cuck.

      1. Maybe he was trying to get the question taking to go along…?

  36. Spaniard accused of killing Zimbabwe’s most popular lion

    Authorities in Zimbabwe are trying track down a Spaniard who allegedly paid park guides ?50,000 for the chance to kill Cecil, one of Africa’s most famous lions, who was the star attraction at the Hwange national park. The creature was found skinned and headless on the outskirts of the park.

    The 13-year-old lion was wearing a GPS collar as part of a research project that Oxford University has been running since 1999, making it possible to trace its last movements when it was tricked into leaving the park and shot with a bow and arrow. The hunters then tracked the dying animal for 40 hours before they killed it with a rifle.

    Bait, in the form of a freshly killed animal, was used to tempt Cecil out of the park, a technique commonly used so that hunters can “legally” kill protected lions.

    “Cecil’s death is a tragedy, not only because he was a symbol of Zimbabwe but because now we have to give up for dead his six cubs, as a new male won’t allow them to live so as to encourage Cecil’s three females to mate,” said Johnny Rodrigues, head of the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force. “The two people who accompanied the hunter have been arrested but we haven’t yet tracked down the hunter, who is Spanish.”

    I’m fine with big game hunting for constructive reasons, but fuck this guy.

    1. The Spaniard should be lured to a private island where he can “legally” be killed, skinned, and displayed for educational purposes.

    2. Using bait to get him off the reserve and onto private land is not fair chase. Fuck that Spaniard. Hang em high.

      Now all that bullshit about the cubs dying is natural selection. Cecil probably killed several cubs when he took over the pride. The new alpha lion will waste little time impregnating the lionesses.

      Also, male lions relax in the shade all day while the women hunt and provide. That he was lured away from the pride makes me think he was already disposed as alpha. And he was 13 years old. That’s ancient for a lion. Double ancient for alpha.

  37. So any guesses on what Trump’s end game here is?

    I’m leaning toward mundane narcissism and performance art. He’s like a ventriloquist’s dummy who blurts out the things polite people keep to themselves, which is why I think people like him.
    That, and the fund raising.

    1. What Brooks said, with the added possibility that he’s serving as a stalking horse for one or more of the other TP candidates. Trump raises the issue in the most extreme way possible, then if that message resonates, other candidates can pick it up later but frame it less extremely once Trump has exited the race.

  38. Hey, random question for everyone. Last week someone mentioned Archduke von Pantsfan with an “RIP” after his name. Did he die, or merely go inactive here or retire that handle?

    1. No one knows what happened to him. I don’t think he’s posting under another handle because he had a distinctive style I’d recognize. It’s possible he just stopped posting.

      1. Maybe he got a polite letter in the mail from a state prosecutor…

      2. Thanks, Irish.

        When I retire I’m going to do something about the history of H&R, with charts of who was active during what periods, who gave us our various catchphrases and rallying cries.

        1. FTR, …and Hilarity ensued? when tagging Clinton’s 2016 run is mine.

  39. My god. De Blasio was just on CNN saying that NYC is going to spend a billion dollars on “retro-fitting” government buildings over the next 10 years — to fight global warming!

    You’d think a nut like that would want more horses on the streets, not fewer.

    1. So much for Cuomo’s tax friendly plan for businesses!

    2. It’s fun to play with other people’s money, isn’t it?

  40. Sorry, print or pay version, but moonbeam gets questioned on his ‘leave 1/3 of the oil in the ground’, notices that if CA does that, why, CA sill have to bring more oil into the state!
    Hmm, how does this work anyhow? I mean he made the statement, that should do it right? After all, he means well!

    1. Email me please. sugarfreejay @ gmail.com

  41. “Hillary Clinton Promises to Build 500 Million Solar Panels if Elected President”

    Awesome, all that time spent doing construction work would mean less time available for her to fuck up the country

    1. It shouldn’t take much for a reporter to see if West Chester County/Chappaqua issued a permit for solar panels for the Clinton home. If they can’t afford them (I know, I know, they are dead broke) or don’t want them messing up the architectural style of their home, then why the heck should the rest of us heed her on this matter?

      1. They could hire some minorities to put up the solar panels and let them live in the garage. Maybe that might get Obama’s Ministry of Correct Housing Quotas off their back.

  42. http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2…..d-it-work/

    PJ media takes apart Dalmia’s article on why government marriage is so great. Since Reason hasn’t published any counter point to her article, we can now say that the conservatives at PJ media are now more Libertarian about marriage than Reason.

    How can you in one breath insist that government allow “the freedom to marry” for gay couples, and in the next breath insist that government “set the outside parameters of marriage”? If government holds some compelling interest in defining marriage, then the gay marriage argument loses its core merit.

    1. This strikes me as the same thing as the argument that property is theft, since the state will punish people for stealing.

      1. His point is that the only way you get to gay marriage is to say that the individuals involved define marriage, not the government. And if you say that, the government has no compelling interest in marriage. It is Dalmia who is silly not the writer of the article.

        1. You could also get there by deciding that gay couples are similar enough to straight couples that the same societal interest is served by gay marriages as is by straight ones.

          That’s not the argument I would make. But it seems about as good as the one that justifies government defined straight marriage.

          1. That is an argument that gay couples should be included not that they must, which is what Dalmia is saying.

            1. OK. There is really no libertarian argument for why government must recognize any marriage at all.

              1. Yes. But Libertarians stopped seeing it that way when the gays decided they wanted government marriage.

                1. I don’t think that is quite exactly true. But I can only speak for myself. Whatever.

    2. In other words…this is silly.

    3. In fairness, Dalmia has no guiding principles outside of “I like X, I don’t like Y, therefore X should be legal and Y should not.”

    4. One could argue that since gay couples have families and all that that the governmental interest in marriage is the same in that case.

      Personally, I reject the notion that government has any compelling interest in defining marriage at all and i think it is entirely an equal protection question.

    5. There’s an impulse within the libertarian left to rail against the libertarian right.

      It’s sort of like how the New Left in the ’60s hated liberals in the Democratic party almost as much as they hated conservatives.

      I think Dalmia is generally correct on the issues–it’s her justifications that are sometimes off. If she’d written an article about why it’s better for libertarians to lay the gay marriage issue to rest–from a pragmatic perspective–it would have been better.

      I don’t doubt Dalmia’s libertarian credentials, and I don’t doubt her sincerity. I think it just goes to show that once libertarians agree that we should all be free to make choices for ourselves, we don’t have to agree on anything else.

      1. Dalmia is saying that we shouldn’t be free to make choices for ourselves. Under the current system, you don’t determine the terms of your marriage, the government does. This is why Libertarians have always supported a contract based marriage system.

        I totally doubt her sincerity. She is nothing but a lefty culture warrior who thinks government coercion is great, as long as it benefits her side. She even admits it in her article.

        What all of this suggests is that privatizing marriage can’t sidestep the broader questions about who should get married to whom and under what circumstances. In a liberal democracy, those who want to expand the scope of marriage have no choice but to fight ? and win ? the culture wars by slowly changing hearts and minds, just as they did with gay marriage. There are no cleaner shortcuts.

        That paragraph is about not Libertarian as you can get.

        1. “In a liberal democracy, those who want to expand the scope of marriage have no choice but to fight ? and win ? the culture wars by slowly changing hearts and minds, just as they did with gay marriage. There are no cleaner shortcuts.”

          This is very much like what I wrote above about how politicians are neither the cause of nor the solution to our problems.

          Our political problems are caused by our fellow Americans and what they think, and positive libertarian change can not occur without addressing that.

          The way I read that paragraph is that she’s saying our rights may not be a popularity contest–but since we live in liberal democracy, the extent to which the government will respect our legal rights is to some extent a function of how the constituencies that elect politicians see things.

          If the Republican party was a bunch of libertarians, Jeb Bush would be promising to abolish the income tax, legalizing marijuana, and privatizing marriage as a contract between individuals.

          I understand that Dalmia is coming from libertarian stage left, and I agree that I often don’t agree with her justifications for her libertarian positions. That being said, I still think she’s entirely libertarian.

          1. REad the paragraph. She is saying that the point is not just to get the right to be left alone, but to fight and force people to accept it. And that is most certainly not Libertarian.

            We can argue over semantics all day. I do not however see how someone who thinks that using the courts and powers of government to “change the hearts and minds” of people and forcing them to accept something they don’t want is in any way a Libertarian. Dalmai thinks freedom does not extend to anyone who objects to the things she likes. Dalmia is a leftist who happens to share your personal tastes.

            1. If “using the courts and powers of government” is what she means by “changing people’s hearts and minds”, then you have a point.

              But I’m not clear that’s the point she’s making. When I say we need to change people’s hearts and minds, using the courts and the powers of government to do that sure isn’t the what I’m talking about doing.

              I’m talking about changing people’s hearts and minds–in order to change the courts and powers of government–and I think that’s what she’s talking about there, too.

              Maybe there’s more to it than what you quoted.

  43. Is it possible to get a law enacted that if a elected offical does a 180 on his/her campaign promises that they can be dragged from the house/senate floor and immediately shot. I am so sick of polticians lying to get elected.

    1. I hate all politicians. Half of them lie all the time and the other half don’t.

      1. “If I were to ask the that other politician which policy was the correct one, what would he answer?”

    2. Get on the wood chipper train dude.

    3. Change doesn’t come from politicians. It never has, and it never will.

      When change happens, the politicians are always the last on board.

      Martin Luther King didn’t protest because politicians got rid of Jim Crow.

      Politicians got rid of Jim Crow because people like Martin Luther King changed the minds of their constituencies. That’s the way we want it to be.

      George Wallace went from “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” in 1963 to renouncing segregation in the early 1970s. The libertarian politicians of tomorrow are already in Congress today. We don’t have to elect different politicians. We have to change the minds of their constituents, and once we do, the politicians we already have will fall all over themselves trying to out libertarian each other and assuage their libertarian constituencies.

      Having politicians that will reflect libertarian values is the goal, but electing politicians is not the means to that goal. Politicians are neither the cause nor the solution to our problems. The cause and the solution of our political problems is our fellow Americans.

      1. Very true…but we do need to identify those politicians whose ears and minds are, or will be, most open to the libertarian values expressed (eventually, one hopes) by their constituents.

        1. Like I said, there wasn’t anybody more publicly committed to segregation than George Wallace, and he changed with the polls.

          Some people look at the 95% plus incumbency win percentage, and they think that shows that politicians can no matter their stance on the issues. Dig into those numbers, though, and what you’ll find is that those incumbents win on flip flopping. They flip flop all the time.

          It would actually be more disturbing if our politicians never changed on the issues no matter what their constituents thought. You know who else never changed on the issues no matter what his constituents thought?

          1. “Some people look at the 95% plus incumbency win percentage, and they think that shows that politicians can [win] no matter their stance on the issues.”

            Fixed!

    4. It’s a tempting idea, but I think that any law restricting what a legislator can say is a very dangerous precedent.
      And occasionally politicians do switch positions to a better one. I wouldn’t want to punish, for example, someone who runs on a bunch of redistributionist nonsense, but later realized that it is a bad idea that won’t work.

      1. Maybe just a short spell at a re-education center. Not for being wrong in the past. But for being a legislator in the first place.

  44. “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is expected to give a speech on climate change today, where she’ll pledge to have 500 million solar panels built if she’s elected.”

    The odds that Hillary Clinton either owns stock in solar companies or has taken large donations from solar companies are far greater than 50/50.

  45. In answer to an earlier comment government whether federal state or local has no business making laws about marriage. The laws were written to keep races from inter marrying and to generate revenue. If you enter into legal agreements as a couple then common law should apply period. Get all government out of private lives. And as far as black lives matter movement if you truly believe that then stop killing each other or shut up.

  46. So I’m trying to figure out how it is that CNN is running with this story. Thursday night some guy fearing for his life after a traffic incident shoots and kills aother guy and the cops have already arrested the guy and released the 911 tapes and the guy has already been charged. Now last time I saw a story about a guy fearing for his life after a traffic incident shooting and killing a guy, the cops said they couldn’t comment on an ongoing investigation, it took ten days for them to actually even release the name of the shooter, it took a court order for the 911 tapes to be released and it took 6 weeks for an investigation to determine that there was no reason to charge the shooter with any wrong-doing whatsoever, given that he feared for his life. I just can’t quite figure out what the difference between the two stories is, why one seems to be such a clear-cut straightforward story of murder and the other takes so long to worm out all the nuance and details to determine it was a good shoot. It’s a puzzle.

    1. S.A. Clark ? 2 days ago
      These uncivilized gun addicted cowards, with more guns than teeth, are allowed to have free rein in this country to kill and maim. It is absolutely disgusting that we stand by and let anybody and everybody shoot and kill every time they get their panties in a bunch.

      We need to get some lawmakers with guts, and laws with teeth because 30,000 people dead by guns yearly is absolutely unacceptable! Guns need to be treated like cigarettes, nas-ty things with equally horrible consequences. Cigarette smokers are treated with disdain: gun addicts need to be treated like the rabid rats that they are. Mock them for their cowardliness and their classlessness and their ignorance.

      Do whatever it takes. A mass murder a week is entirely too many. Nearly a hundred people a day dead by guns is beyond unacceptable. Other countries think we are uncivilized. Well, they are right.

      Oh.

      1. Wait, is “S.A. Clark” talking about cops?

      2. That guy’s kind of an asshole.

      3. Guns need to be treated like cigarettes

        Oh, it’s performance art….

      4. “These uncivilized gun addicted cowards, with more guns than teeth, are allowed to have free rein in this country to kill and maim. It is absolutely disgusting that we stand by and let anybody and everybody shoot and kill every time they get their panties in a bunch.”

        Yeah, that’s exactly what the Second Amendment says, too. It says that we’re all free to indiscriminately shoot each other.

        Actually, the Second Amendment just gives us the right to choose to own a gun. People are thrown in prison for life every day for shooting and killing other people because they got their panties in a bunch.

        P.S. Why are we quoting trolls from other sites. Don’t we have enough of our own already?

        1. I don’t get it. I went shooting this weekend and never once did I feel the urge to kill or maim. Quite the opposite – aside from driving a car and being a parent owning a gun is one of my biggest responsibilities. Not only that, my gun didn’t even try to act on its own accord. Where do people get these guns that cause all the problems?

          1. Didn’t they install the self-awareness module when it was shipped from cheaperthandirt.com?

      5. In most other countries you’re not allowed to defend yourself – and we’re the uncivilized ones?

        1. Maybe those other places are too civilized. I’m not so sure civilization is always and in every case the best thing for the individual. Obviously, civilization allows humans to achieve their potential by collaborating on a large scale. But it also tends to involve a certain amount of collectivization and yielding some rights to governments.

      6. Yeah, let’s treat guns like cigarettes. You can buy as many as you want to with no background check or other limitations as long as you can demonstrate that you are 18.

      7. “Do whatever it takes.”

        Nice.

        1. A wonderful time to remember that when you pass that law, you’re giving someone permission to the state to kill an individual who breaks that law.

          Of course, a bodycount racked up by legally authorized jackbooted thugs is a win for the progtards.

    2. I don’t see how the guy was fearing for his life. The other guy never got out of the car. There is no indication he had a weapon. The first guy was just pissed off and shot the guy.

      And this is not stand your ground. There was no physical altercation. The guy who got shot was an idiot. You don’t follow people back to their homes. But the guy who shot him is a lunatic who lost his temper and needs to go down for 2nd degree murder.

      1. This. It appears that a pair of fucking idiots found each other.

      2. Are you saying you know for a fact that this guy wasn’t an off-duty police officer? Because it’s my understanding that once you utter the magic words “feared for my life” it causes weapons to discharge and that’s nobody’s fault but the perp.

        1. Yes. I am assuming this is a case where the defendant is not above the law or possessing of a license to kill.

  47. See OEMs suing car owners for copyright infringement for merely reading the computers in current generation cars.

    I am willing to believe a case could be made for blocking access to software while the car is under warranty. There are apparently issues of “chipped” cars being presented for warranty repairs (after having been restored to factory specs. How common this might be, I have no idea.
    Once the car is off warranty, there should be no resriction on owner mods.

    1. It goes further than that. Try fixing some POS exhaust/cooling system in a modern diesel with aftermarket (and higher quality) parts. If you have a failure anywhere else and take it back to the dealer, they will remove all of the aftermarket parts, replace them with the OEM crap, and bill you for it. All at the behest of the manufacturer.

    1. If they wear it, they will certainly sweat off a few pounds.

    2. Like that will work.

    3. Like that will work.

    4. Some chicks wear skorts that go down to the ankle to keep their pubic hair from showing.

  48. Cigarette smokers are treated with disdain: gun addicts need to be treated like the rabid rats that they are. Mock them for their cowardliness and their classlessness and their ignorance.

    .
    Don’t shun me, Bro.
    I don’t think I could survive the “mockery” of such an intellectual powerhouse. The very thought makes me want to throw all my guns into the nearest blast furnace.

    1. I would pay good money to walk up to this person and blow a huge cloud of cigarette smoke in their face.

      1. I’ll do it for free

  49. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is expected to give a speech on climate change today, where she’ll pledge to have 500 million solar panels built if she’s elected.

    Do Clinton supporters who hear nonsense such as this actually believe it? Are they aware of how things are funded in our form of government?

    Clinton loves promising to give shit away though. Her commercial during her last run where she had a bunch of Christmas presents representing all the stuff she would “give” to the American people almost made me vomit.

  50. Am I the only one here who on reading “Al Shabaab”, hears & mentally pictures El Kabong?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.