Obama Attempts to Sell His Energy Program, Lawmakers Target Planned Parenthood, Trump Used to Oppose Drug War: P.M. Links

|

  • Trump: It's for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
    Credit: Gage Skidmore / photo on flickr

    President Barack Obama started selling his emissions reduction and energy consumption regulatory plan to the public today.

  • Conservative lawmakers have started their efforts to defund Planned Parenthood with a procedural vote tonight that is expected to fail.
  • Today in Trump: Donald Trump used to be in favor of calling off the drug war back in the day. Also: Gawker published his cell phone number.
  • A cop in Memphis was shot to death after apparently interrupting a drug deal. Authorities seek Tremaine Wilbourn, 29, for killing Officer Sean Bolton Armstrong.
  • A monitoring group estimates U.S.-lead airstrikes over Syria have killed more than 450 civilians in the past year.
  • Thousands of cases of Kraft individually wrapped cheese slices have been recalled as a choking hazard. Apparently it is not because of the involuntary gagging reaction caused when one actually tries to consume the disgusting things, if I may reveal a bias.
  • The jury will continue to keep the death penalty on the table as it determines Colorado theater shooter James Holmes' fate.

New at Reason

How Donald Trump Is Like John Hancock: The complicated political dynamics between rich presidential candidates and poorer ones far predate the 20th century. By Ira Stoll.

Why the U.S. Is the Next Greece: The global economy is in for a "catastrophe of historic proportions," says investor Doug Casey. By Matt Welch & Paul Detrick.

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

NEXT: SWAT Team Liable for Wrong-House Flash-Bang Raid on Grandmother, Teen Girl; Can Be Sued For Their Actions

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. President Barack Obama started selling his emissions reduction and energy consumption regulatory plan to the public today.

    Like he needs their approval.

    1. Hello.

      “A monitoring group estimates U.S.-lead airstrikes over Syria have killed more than 450 civilians in the past year.”

      Fricken Bush.

      1. Well, you’re not totally wrong. I mean, Obama HAD to do it, because Bush.

    2. Does that mean he’ll start scaling back military missions since the military is the largest single source of CO2 emissions on the planet?

  2. Conservative lawmakers have started their efforts to defund Planned Parenthood with a procedural vote tonight that is expected to fail.

    Since the judge ruled no more unplanned transparenthood with those videos, it will.

  3. Kerry Howley profiled a lady hunter on her trip to Africa?before the Cecil shitshow.

    What is it about a pretty woman with a weapon? All of these rape-threat-inducing photos share the contrivance of a woman prepared for the camera ? the highlights, the eyeliner, the bleached teeth ? beside some nakedly majestic beast stripped of its dignity, demoted from natural wonder to photo prop. The male Shockey may well have just crawled from a cave for some prebreakfast bear-tussling, but his daughter’s polish suggests a standing appointment with a salon professional. Does the very artifice demanded of women in a cultural context become, in the wild, grotesque? Does the activity euphemistically referred to as “taking care of myself” prevent women from seeming credibly and sportingly of the wild?

    1. So women who hunt are not supposed to paint their nails? Of all of the stupid things to write about that subject, Howley found the dumbest thing. That doesn’t surprise me.

      1. Why is it off-base to speculate that the contrast puts people off? There’s no question a lot of the hate this woman got was gender-specific.

        1. Really? I think there is a dentist in Minnesota who would disagree. The hate this woman got was for being a big game hunter. The people who hate her hate hunting and hunters. It wasn’t fellow hunters who were hating on her.

          Some things like nothing to do with your sex.

          1. Well, yes, she really did get gender-specific insults. And obviously Howley wrote this before l’affaire Walker. And…no one said fellow hunters were hating on her.

            1. When people want to hate they’ll pick up on any identifying quality to attack. Her supposed femininity in this case. If she were less feminine, perhaps even dyke-ish would the attacks have focused on that? Probably not.

              Pointing out the paradox (her appearance vs. her activity) is a direct way of mocking her pretensions.

          2. Tons of big game hunters get no attention. She got attention for some reason. And the dentist guy gets all the hate for a pretty specific reason that doesn’t apply to her.

            1. She got attention because she looked good on social media. But once she got the attention, they didn’t hate her because she was a woman. They would have hated other hunters just as much. They just never came up on the radar.

              1. Yeah, but she looked good on social media because she was an attractive young woman, I assume.

    2. This makes no sense. A paradox of good grooming vs. the barbarity of hunting?

      Because she likes a good pedicure that means she isn’t allowed to hunt? WTF. We are civilized after all.

      1. Howley might actually be the worst writer reason has ever employed.

        1. We know that isn’t true, Ratfucker.

          1. No. Weigal was just a fake. Howley actually believes the shit she writes.

        2. No. Dalmia is.

          1. Second.

        3. Sheldon Richman.

    3. OMG! A woman doing something I don’t approve of!

      Women are far nastier to each other than we men are to them.

      1. Why do you think it was Howley being nasty rather than speculating about why others were being nasty?

        1. Perhaps people ought to read the article.

          1. No one does that. Clearly.

            1. BOOKS ARE FOR FAGGOTS

              1. I’ve noticed that too.

          2. Excuse me, I will just comment on what I think it says. Thank you.

        2. John is just being over the top…it was a good piece about hunting by someone who knows zero about hunting. It’s amazing that the derpfest that this rag usually prints published this piece. Credit where credit is due.

          Generalizations are stupid.

          My sister in law is 110 pounds soaking wet. 30 years ago my brother bought her a .270 Remington for her birthday, she looked at him like WTF. Now she is the most avid hunter I know. And she’s what most would describe as a perfect housewife, i.e. you could eat dinner off her toilet seats.

          She practiced and became a damn good shot and went from there. She worked a regular job and would come home and head out to her spot behind their house and wait.She has harvested a ton of deer, several elk, a Bighorn Sheep after 2 weeks of hunting some tough terrain and a moose. She has patience , far more than my brother and I and most hunters I know, it’s why she’s a good hunter.

          When I visit for turkey day and Xmas the elk, deer, moose kebabs always hit the spot the night before the traditional gobbler and ham on the holiday in question.

          People that don’t hunt can’t understand what it’s like being out there, with your senses on edge, looking to bring some meat home. It requires focus unlike most day to day bullshit modern people deal with. Hence the urban retards being clueless about this subject and uber retards like PETA pissing up ropes trying to discredit hunting.

    4. Kerry is excellent as always. Perhaps people ought to read the article.

      Also, the comments are a delight.

      william.leavenworth 2 minutes ago
      Trophy hunting is an offense against God and Nature. It is the moral and ecological equivalent of a dairy farmer beefing out his best milkers. Those who think they enlarge their genitals by going to another continent and killing an animal they aren’t going to eat so they can put its head on their wall should lean their heads toward their favorite wall, put the muzzle of their H&H magnum in their mouths, and decorate their wall with their own heads.

      1. I can forgive your defense of ESB. But Howley is terrible. She has always been terrible.

        1. If by “terrible” you mean “completely amazing and wonderful”?

          1. No. I mean boring and never possessing of an interesting idea. Not one ever. Nikki you have doodles that are smarter than her. Seriously.

        2. Even if you hate what she says, you ought to appreciate her just for her writing ability. She’s really an excellent stylist.

          1. maybe. But she is dumb as a post. Style only goes so far. Who cares if the words are nice if the ideas they convey are idiotic?

        3. You’re not just wrong, you’re the wrongest wrong that ever wronged.

        4. You’re not just wrong, you’re the wrongest wrong that ever wronged.

          1. SQUIRRELZ! ::shakes fist in anger::

      2. This woman’s just compensating for her small ovaries.

      3. Those who think they enlarge their genitals

        It’s always genitals with these people.

      4. I’m willing to bet if someone were to make a comment referencing “the bush” at least 5 replies will be about how terrible George Bush was.

      5. Those who think they enlarge their genitals

        Funny how these types ALWAYS seem to bring up the nether regions of the people they’re targeting for Two Minutes Hate. “IT’S THE SMALL PENIS BRIGADE HURR HURR HURR!!”

        I always ask them why the first thing they think of when they see a gun is a penis, and it shuts them up pretty fast.

    5. Everyone is a tuffgai.

      ohn.alexander 4 hours ago
      ” They don’t know anything about me.” This is an insane article to justify the unjustifiable. Quotes like this prove the point. Yes, we do know something about you. You are a rich athletic women who is clueless about the rest of the world. You believe that your excessive wealth provides you unfettered privilege to do whatever you want under rules that you establish. Under the same logic as mentioned regarding being “next to God,” since you are often near other people, why not kill them as well. It is a twisted logic like some serial killers invoke. Or better yet, why not play “The most dangerous game?”
      lemon99, Ediot, and anomie like this.

      1. Wow, I totally missed the part where the Mormon lady wanted to kill God!

      2. I do like the email she got:

        FROM: Stuart.
        SUBJECT: final warning.
        MESSAGE BODY: Normally, Im not for violence against women! However, if I see just one more picture of you with an innocent defenceless creature I’m going to take your fucking eyes out with you still conscious and mail them to your family! I will be getting in touch with several people in UTAH soon to monitor your situation ? You are a malignant cunt.

        There’s an easy way for Stuart to not see one more picture of her with a dead animal.

        1. There’s an easy way for Stuart to not see one more picture of her with a dead animal.

          By contacting his brother-in-law’s militia (which consists of him and three other fat guys)?

        2. FROM: Stuart

          Dammit….because he’th good enough, and thmart enough, and gosh darn it people like him…..

        3. “….with an innocent defenceless creature…”

          Typical fucking Canuck threatening our way of life.

      3. Funny…I often think the same thing about the TOP MEN who rule us. “Their excessive power provides them unfettered privilege to do whatever they want under rules that they establish.”

        I’m surprised to find I actually agree with this guy — just not about the same issue (power, not wealth) and not about the same targets (government, not private individuals).

      4. Good point, dipshits like this urban hipster should be called out for the idiots they are. I bet this pussy would piss his pants if he viewed a .22 pistol.

        That’s not a very good sign about the state of the electorate.

    6. Shouldn’t have worn that skirt, whore.

      celia.montgomery 5 hours ago
      Sorry. I do not pity this woman on any level. Let’s draw a necessary and very real distinction between bullying and social protest: Bullying is when a person is unfairly abused for something that makes them different – whether it be their appearance, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation, or even their fashion sense. Social protest is reserved for people who openly invite attention to their horrible behavior. These “Hunters” and I use that term very loosely, because I think the more appropriate term is “Vicious Killers”, seek out attention with their grotesque kill-selfies — which they themselves post to the web. On some level, they want the negative attention and I say, let’s oblige them.
      Ediot and myles.delfin like this.

      1. Sooooo…according to Celia’s logic, since I find fat people wearing mumus posting selfies on the internet offensive, I’m obliged to give them negative attention, right?

        Got it.

    7. gc11530 5 hours ago
      Oh, look, what a brave “lady” killing an animal with a fancy, high-tech bow! You want to really hunt, you coward? Go after the animal with your hands, fight the animal with what you’ve got; if you kill it, it’s yours fair and square. But I know who would win that battle!

      1. There’s just no reaching some people.

      2. She is hunting the animal with the pne significant physical advantage she has: her brain, which enables her to both procure tools from others through social interaction and operate said tools in a manner which makes them lethal.

        1. THIS IS WHY SHE”S NOT A MAN!!!

      3. “Why don’t you go to the supermarket where the meat is made like nature intended, you stupid whore!!!”

  4. Hi Rufus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Even the new guy is more polite than the nuttos here.

      1. Stuff it, Canukistani, I’m still at work.

        1. See?

          Animals.

          I can’t tame them. Especially the deep dish tribe.

          1. *sharpens deep dish pizza*

            WHO SHALL TAME WHO THEN?

            1. Has anyone ever brought up St. Louis style thin pizza? Cuz’ I’m a fan of that and deep dish…

        2. How do you know he was talking about you, Nutto?

          1. It’s about politeness and I’m UnCivil.

        3. You’re on the government payroll. That’s not work.

          1. Fine, you come over here and try to keep the applications running while moving a datacenter through the bureaucracy.

            1. I don’t want the apps running. I want the bureacracy smashed.

              1. It’s what I’m paid to do.

  5. WHERE’S HUMUNGUS??!! HE’S THE ONLY OTHER PERSON IN THE WORLD WHO KNOWS ABOUT BE BOP DELUXE!

    1. They’re the gold at the end of my rainbow, Almanian!

    2. wow what where?

      *wakes up from gin stupor*

      actually I’ve been mixing vodka and tonic, with a healthy dose of lemon juice from one of those yellow plastic lemons

      1. Try rhubarb bitters. Great alternative to lemon juice

  6. WHERE’S HUMUNGUS??!! HE’S THE ONLY OTHER PERSON IN THE WORLD WHO KNOWS ABOUT BE BOP DELUXE!

    1. Bill Nelson’s about 40 years ahead of the rest of us. BBD were fokin’ BRILLIANT, mostly him.

  7. Conservative lawmakers have started their efforts to defund Planned Parenthood with a procedural vote tonight that is expected to fail.

    Cecil and Cecile: Humaneness, but Not for the Human

    Cecil the lion gave the Left a great gift: The death of the African apex predator at the hands of Dr. Walter Palmer, an American dentist, has driven the North American apex predator ? Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood ? off the front page for a moment. Not all harvesting is equal in the eyes of the American chattering class.

  8. Conservative lawmakers have started their efforts to defund Planned Parenthood with a procedural vote tonight that is expected to fail.

    If the effort becomes inconvenient, they’ll abort.

  9. Donald Trump used to be in favor of calling off the drug war back in the day.

    And now?

    1. He’s in favor of not calling it off.

    2. I knew there was some reason he was attractive to libertarian activists back then. All you had be was for legalizing drugs, & people getting rich (which he exhorted people to do), and to a NYC radical libertarian, you looked very good. Who knows what he’s really about?besides himself, of course, but that part is pretty much the case for anybody who’d run for president.

      Meanwhile, look at the Monmouth U. poll just out, linked from the link article, & it seems Trump’s front running status is no humbug. Yes, it’s still early, but someone as far in front as this, & stretching it out, this early usu. does get the nomination. The number who view him negatively has dropped far below the positives, and his support is spread across the spectrum of voters. The bandwagon’s too fast to stop easily now. I wouldn’t’ve believed this a few weeks ago,

    3. I knew there was some reason he was attractive to libertarian activists back then. All you had be was for legalizing drugs, & people getting rich (which he exhorted people to do), and to a NYC radical libertarian, you looked very good. Who knows what he’s really about?besides himself, of course, but that part is pretty much the case for anybody who’d run for president.

      Meanwhile, look at the Monmouth U. poll just out, linked from the link article, & it seems Trump’s front running status is no humbug. Yes, it’s still early, but someone as far in front as this, & stretching it out, this early usu. does get the nomination. The number who view him negatively has dropped far below the positives, and his support is spread across the spectrum of voters. The bandwagon’s too fast to stop easily now. I wouldn’t’ve believed this a few weeks ago,

  10. Also: Gawker published his cell phone number.

    I don’t have to start liking them, right? It’s like hatefucking, we’ll both get what we want and get it out of our system.

    1. Actually, it was an old number.

      It used to be his number but isn’t anymore

  11. Apparently it is not because of the involuntary gagging reaction caused when one actually tries to consume the disgusting things, if I may reveal a bias.

    APPARENTLY AMERICAN CHEESE DOESN’T GO WELL WITH THE WINE THEY SERVE AT COSMOPOLITAN NIGHTS OUT.

    1. Actual cheese, which Kraft still sells or Pasteurized Process Cheese Food?

      1. The arguably-cheddar-flavored wax squares.

      2. The latter, which are quite a bit better than their off-brand competition. But I still don’t see the need to buy it considering that they make Velveeta slices.

    2. You know what else triggers gag reflexes?

  12. President Barack Obama started selling his emissions reduction and energy consumption regulatory plan to the public today.

    “Mr. President, have you ever held a for-profit private sector job?

    No?

    What were you? A community agitator?

    What?

    You said community organizer?”

  13. Spot the Not: US-Mexico border barrier proposals

    1. landmines

    2. electrified fence

    3. moat filled with alligators

    4. a new Berlin Wall

    5. drones, heat and motion sensors, & more armed patrols

    6. sniper towers

    1. #3, you mammals would never debase yourselves like that

    2. #4 – New Berlin is way too far from the border to be an effective spot for it.

    3. #3. I’ve heard all of them except 1 and 3, and 1 sounds just stupid enough for somebody to have proposed.

    4. #4 – Building a Berlin 150 miles into Mexico to serve as a place to fight over seems so unnecessary?

      1. Yes, but cheaper than all the other options. And we could call it Busch Gardens Mexico*

        *this is a reference that only old tampa bay residence will get

    5. I think the United States has not signed the landmine treaty. So that’s still on the table. I think alligators would work around Big bend too. The snipers are probably the not. There’s something about human agency in death-dealing that we get all squishy about.

    6. A new Berlin Wall would be in Germany, so I’m not sure how that would accomplish anything on the US-Mexico border.

    7. 6 is the Not, although snipers are already guarding the border and they sometimes shoot people.

      Tom Mullins wanted landmines, Herman Cain wanted a lethal electric fence, Joe Walsh wanted a moat & gators, Bill O’Reilly wants a wall, and Jeb Bush wants more of the same.

    8. I thought #3 was a joke Obama made.

  14. The tree-dwelling small mammals seem to be strong today

  15. What would we ever do without government employee unions!

    I won’t be shedding any tears if Scott Walker becomes POTUS and abolishes federal government employee unions.

    Don’t Blame Medicaid for Rise in Health Care Spending

    Health care benefits for public employees and retirees, not Medicaid, account for a majority of the growth in state and local health care spending. Adjusted for inflation, spending for those health care benefits rose 447 percent between 1987 and 2013. Medicaid spending rose a great deal as well, but not as much, 386 percent.

    The main source of the problem is growing spending on health care for state employees. Health care spending for retired state employees and their beneficiaries grew 61 percent in the past six years. The Pew Charitable Trusts predicts that over the next 40 years spending on health care alone will surpass that for all other state and local government services. Coverage for public-sector retirees accounts for much of state and local health care spending, even though Medicare pays most of the costs once those retirees reach 65.

  16. The Moorish Nation strikes again.

    “Every time they say it’s a phony license plate,” he said. “First of all it’s not a license plate. On my private conveyance, I can put anything I want on it.”

    1. He makes some good points.

      1. “Bey, who went by Ben Stevens before joining the Moorish Nation about eight years ago, lives in Far Rockaway and spends his days driving around looking for tires which he repurposes as flower pots.”

        I (Heart) NYC

        also, they’re probably going to throw him in prison with rapists. which totally makes sense. Because those tire/flower pots probably aren’t up to code either.

        1. I love this guy.

          1. The Brits realized long ago that eccentrics are usually harmless and lovable. Too bad we can’t.

            1. Harmless, lovable child molesters, apparently. All of ’em.

      2. The Moorish Nation is pretty awesome.

    2. Back in my youth, I remember a high school art teacher getting busted because she didn’t like her license plate colors, so she repainted them.

    3. I’m sorry, it’s the Moopish Nation.

      1. Dammit! I need to scroll down moar!

    4. He said he doesn’t believe in the DMV because it is breaking the law by “forcing people to have licenses” when they are driving their cars for non-commercial reasons.

      But if it’s commercial, well, then it’s all legit!

  17. “Thousands of cases of Kraft individually wrapped cheese slices have been recalled as a choking hazard. Apparently it is not because of the involuntary gagging reaction caused when one actually tries to consume the disgusting things, if I may reveal a bias.”

    (Narrows gaze, suspects Scott of being a closet-communist)

    Kraft Singles are as universally loved by Real Americans as Bud Light, Ketchup, and Steely Dan

    1. Kraft Singles are as universally loved by Real Americans as Bud Light, Ketchup

      UNCONTROLLABLE VOMITING

      Thank God I’m Canadian!

      1. don’t pay attention to the whooshing sound just over your head

      2. Don’t puke up your Sleeman’s Cream Ale or your feckin’ mayonnaise covered “chips”.

  18. But! But! he made a comment about men switching to being gay while in prison, and becoming straight when they get out. So he CAN”T EVER be president.

    Ben Carson Has Way, Way More Small Donors Than Any Other Candidate (Including Bernie)

    Some 49,200 people have given $10,000 or less to Carson’s candidate committees, super PACs, and candidate leadership committees, which is by far the largest number of small (or small-ish) donors associated with any candidate. Compare Carson, for example, with the Democrats’ surgin’ grassroots phenom, Bernie Sanders: [5,900 people]

    The only other candidate who even comes close to having half of Carson’s small donors is Clinton, who has 23,300.

    If you’re curious, as I was, how Carson’s totals compare with Obama’s famous small-donor base in the 2008 election, here’s a New York Times article from April 2007 that says the Obama campaign claimed approximately 100,000 direct donors (i.e., those who gave directly to the campaign and thus were limited by law to individual donations well under $10,000) in the first quarter of that year alone. (The Clinton campaign said it had about 50,000 donors in that period.)

    1. “But! But! he made a comment about men switching to being gay while in prison, and becoming straight when they get out. So he CAN”T EVER be president.”

      That’s controversial? I figured it could be dismissed as a ‘when in Rome’ phenomenon

      And NTTIAWWT

      1. My reading of it is that the correct interpretation is that homosexuality is never a choice, you’re just born that way. That’s why it is perceived as outrageous.

      2. Yeah, Carson’s comment was less about situation homosexuality and what situational homosexuality says about people who come to it by means other than having their teeth knocked out by a bulkier inmate who wants a blowjob, but doesn’t like how toothy you are.

        1. You mammals are so complicated. Just hop on top, bite the back of their neck, and hope for the best. Your STEVE SMITH understands this concept.

        2. Not everyone in prison is raped. Some people actually go gay while they are there. Same thing on ships at sea. Rum sodomy and the lash was actually true.

          The fact is that when deprived of the opposite sex for long periods, a good number of otherwise straight people enjoy sex with the same sex only to go back being straight when the opposite sex becomes available again. That is completely at odds with the idea that being gay is genetic. The other thing that is at odds with it is how homosexuality is accepted and practiced differently. There have been a few societies where male homosexuality wasn’t frowned upon. And in those societies, the men partook. How do you explain that? Were the Spartens just all genetic gays? Did they not really enjoy it?

          If being gay were genetic, sexual orientation would be a lot more uniform and consistent than it actually is.

          1. That is completely at odds with the idea that being gay is genetic.

            Not really. And very few people claim that there’s no social component to how people define their sexual orientation. The people who come out as gay are further over on that spectrum than the people who just blew each other in boarding school/prison/the navy and then married women. The existence of situational homosexuality just points to a broader range of possible sexual expression in a larger portion of the population than straight/gay dichotomy implies. If society is more permissive of same sex behavior you’ll see more people dabble. We already see the same thing with women in college.

            To claim that it negates that there are people with very strong preferences that aren’t readily socially conditioned away is retarded.

            1. . And very few people claim that there’s no social component to how people define their sexual orientation.

              So what? If being gay is “genetic”, then what does that mean if not that something about your genes cause you to be attracted to the same sex. Well, some people who are otherwise straight are attracted to the same sex. So, do they have the gay gene or not? And if they don’t, then how do we know what gays actually have the ‘gay gene’, assuming there is such a thing, and how many of them don’t but have for whatever reason chosen to be so?

              To claim that it negates that there are people with very strong preferences that aren’t readily socially conditioned away is retarded.

              No. What is retarded is to claim that if you really have the preference it must be genetic but if you sort of have it or have it but not a lot, you don’t. That is not how genes work. More importantly, if is not behavior works. All you are doing is dismissing the cases that don’t support your theory. That is convenient but it doesn’t help your case.

              1. Why don’t you punch that argument from the mid-90s a little harder John.

                That is not how genes work.

                Please, John, tell us how genes work. I hope you spend ample time explaining the latest research in epigenetics and how environmental factors can alter genetic expression.

                1. John doesn’t need book lernin’. That’s for homo liberal faggots. He gets his science from Breittard and Rush, like a real Merican.

                  1. Breittard

                    Please stop that.

                2. Why don’t you punch that argument from the mid-90s a little harder John.

                  So that makes it wrong? What does that have to do with anything?

                  Please, John, tell us how genes work. I hope you spend ample time explaining the latest research in epigenetics and how environmental factors can alter genetic expression.

                  Why don’t you explain to me how you can square your “gay gene theory” with actual human behavior. Again, what does it mean to “have the gay gene” if not that some people because of their genetic makeup are only and forever attracted to the same sex? Okay, lets say that is true. How then is it also true that there are lots of people who are just sometimes attracted to the same sex? You say “well there are other factors involved.”

                  If there are other factors, why do genes have to be a factor at all? There is no evidence of it. Just conjecture.

                  1. Why don’t you explain to me how you can square your “gay gene theory” with actual human behavior.

                    John doesn’t know what he’s talking about, gets called out, puts out transparent diversion that is actually a strawman built with his ignorance, which is a consequence of talking about something he has no understanding of. What will we call this full circle, this human centipede of argumentation? The Red Toney something something?

                    1. Yea Cytoxic, I ask Jesse to square the theory explaining behavior with actual observed human behavior. That is a real strawman there.

                      It is not so much that you are stupid, it is that you are such a narrowmined toady to popular opinion that you believe amazingly stupid things. You literally are incapable of thinking for yourself.

                  2. Umm, you’re continuing to have an uninformed argument with a theory that hasn’t been salient in about 20 years, and which I’ve clearly expressed that I don’t believe.

                    You’re also ignoring a bunch of people who are better informed on this topic, who are trying to explain that you’re embarrassing yourself by getting in a fight with a long-dead theory of the origins of homosexuality.

                    1. No Jesse,

                      Genetic makeup doesn’t mean one gene. All you are doing is saying ‘well its not one gene”. Big fucking deal. So its a hundred genes. The bottom line is does a certain combination of genes make someone attracted only to the same sex and if so, how then do you explain people being attracted to the same sex just some of the time? How do you explain that?

                      If environment and choice explains people being gay in some circumstances why not all?

                      Sorry Jesse, you are gay because you choose to be so. Good for you and I wish you happiness with it. I really do. But you are not some mutation who has no choice.

                    2. Your willful ignorance is breathtaking to behold, John.

              2. No one thinks there’s a single gene acting like an on/off switch. Did you not get that jesse was talking about a sexuality spectrum?

            2. We already see the same thing with women in college.

              Go on…

            3. There is also the fact that something can be involuntary and not genetic.

              A lot of stuff happens to the brain as it develops- including sexual predilections. That’s why, even among heterosexuals, there are vast differences in prefered body types, hair color, etc.

              Is it genetic? Probably not- but so what? If this is the way you were built at conception or at some later stage of development, who cares?

              1. There is also the fact that something can be involuntary and not genetic.

                In a sense all of our preferences are invuluntary. You don’t choose what you like. At the same time, we still judge others on how they act. I can’t help it, I would like to punch my boss in the nose. If I do, can I claim that I didn’t choose to be that way? No.

                If being gay is not genetic, then it is not the same as race. And no believed such nonsense that it was until the gays figured out that saying it was genetic was the way to get in on the CRA gravy train. That is it.

                What is funny about this whole conversation is that a bunch of Libertarians who claim to believe in personal responsibility and moral agency are arguing against free will and agency. If being gay isn’t a choice then pretty much every other activity isn’t a choice either. I don’t think you are going to like where that road leads.

                1. Man, I think you are reading a lot of things into this argument that are pretty confused.

                  First of all, the whole “It’s not my choice to be gay” thing is a reaction to all sorts of stuff- some people wanting CRA protection, others trying to counter the religious narrative around how people who practice sodomy are depraved and sinking to sin. And still others are just describing a (pretty compelling) theory about the way sexual attraction works.

                  We aren’t questioning whether you act on your preferences or not- that is a separate issue. We are talking about how you react to a person who is that way with or without their control. Sure, non-genetic gayness is not like race. But it might be like intelligence disabilities or disorders. They are that way through no direct action on their part. And we certainly react to people who have preferences involuntarily (whether genetic or otherwise) differently than people who are acting with forethought. When I ask my buddies for help moving a couch, I will react differently to “Hell nos” from fit friends than I would to someone with a muscle disorder.

                  1. Sure, non-genetic gayness is not like race. But it might be like intelligence disabilities or disorders. They are that way through no direct action on their part. And we certainly react to people who have preferences involuntarily (whether genetic or otherwise) differently than people who are acting with forethought. When I ask my buddies for help moving a couch, I will react differently to “Hell nos” from fit friends than I would to someone with a muscle disorder

                    Maybe but I doubt it. Even if that is the case, then why isn’t every other sexual fetish or preference the same way? I think they have to be. And if we have to consider people who are into BDSM or being a furry or being gay as having some kind of “disability” or “disorder”, then how is the term even meaningful? Everyone has some kind of sexual preference. What makes being gay or liking BDSM a “disorder” but liking the opposite sex and regular sex not a “disorder”?

                    1. And if we have to consider people who are into BDSM or being a furry or being gay as having some kind of “disability” or “disorder”, then how is the term even meaningful?

                      I don’t consider them a disability or disorder, because as far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong (for society) to have people who- through no discernable fault of their own- prefer their sexual partners dressed as bugs bunny. This is why I use the term “involuntary”.

                      I think most people here would agree with you that the CRA is one of the big reasons this is all coming to a head. I personally wish people wouldn’t discriminate against people just because they have odd sexual fetishes, but I also strongly discourage talking about sex at all in my workplaces. And I think it is improper for the government to start getting into the mix of this (via CRA or in other ways). That said, it doesn’t change whether or not sexual preference is involuntary or voluntary.

                      Government interference aside, it is important to recognize that these preferences are involuntary. It is important to me because I don’t like people who try to punish someone who is acting on these preferences and not hurting a damn person. I don’t want to see someone fired because it gets out that they have a thing for women dressed as ewoks. And it helps to create a culture where we understand that some preferences are just inherent and it isn’t their fault.

            4. This.

              And even the ones who are very far over on the gay side of the Kinsey scale are probably not that way due to some gene. More likely it has to do with chemical changes in the womb.

              1. Damn squirrelz! This was in response to a post from Jesse way up above.

          2. The fact is that when deprived of the opposite sex for long periods, a good number of otherwise straight people enjoy sex with the same sex only to go back being straight when the opposite sex becomes available again. That is completely at odds with the idea that being gay is genetic.

            Because no two people can ever have different reasons for doing the same activity.

            1. Okay Nikki. So some people have the “gay gene’, which no one has ever found or explained and others don’t. How do we tell? How do we tell that this gay guy is genetic and this other gay guy is just faking it.

              Moreover, if you can still be gay without the gene, then how is the gene even relevant? How is there a “gay gene” if people without it can still be gay?

              I swear to God you people will believe anything if that is what is culturally fashionable.

              1. That’s pretty retarded John.

                Maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, the guys on the ships or in prison aren’t gay (in other words, sexually and emotionally attracted to other men) and are, wait for it, just fucking whatever hole they can get their dick in to relieve their sexual desires.

                Thus you could have people some people who have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality and some people who don’t have any qualms about filling their sexual desires with whatever human being might be available at the time.

                1. Maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, the guys on the ships or in prison aren’t gay (in other words, sexually and emotionally attracted to other men) and are, wait for it, just fucking whatever hole they can get their dick in to relieve their sexual desires.

                  And that is shown to not be true. Guys in prison or living in Spartan communes or on ships are actually gay in that they find each other attractive. Sorry but the whole “Its not gay if its away” is just a lie they tell their wives when they are on shore.

                  People’s sexual preferences change through time and in reaction to different environments. That means it is something besides some genetic disposition.

              2. The guy who didn’t choose the most cutest bungalow on the travel channel is faking it.

              3. “I swear to God you people will believe anything if that is what is culturally fashionable.”

                Bingo. Probably about 90% of the people who support the gay agenda do so for this reason. If you ever want to test them start naming off fetishes and ask them their opinion about that.

                Are people born with say a foot fetish, or born liking BDSM, or born furries? If not then why is the gay thing any different?

              4. So some people have the “gay gene’, which no one has ever found or explained and others don’t.

                Has anyone ever found the “straight gene”?

                1. Has anyone ever found the “straight gene”?

                  No because that doesn’t exist either. And even straight people can be gay sometimes.

                  1. Seriously though if being gay is genetic then why aren’t every single minute sexual fetish, and personal preference also genetic?

                    1. Seriously though if being gay is genetic then why aren’t every single minute sexual fetish, and personal preference also genetic?

                      That is a fabulous point. And the answer of course is that they would have to be. And I don’t see anyone here claiming to believe that because it is not true just like being gay isn’t genetic.

                    2. I think that everything about a person and their lifestyle is a combination of genetics, culture, and environment.

                      Is there a gay gene? Fuck if I know. I wonder if there’s an ass sex gene? Aren’t the greeks supposed to have lots of ass sex? Maybe they have an ass sex gene. They also sort of invented democracy, so obviously, we wouldn’t have democracy without an ass sex gene!

                      And we’re always just talking about Mexican ass sex around here. Is that because we hate Greeks and don’t want to give them their rightful place in the history of ass sex and democracy?

                    3. I think that everything about a person and their lifestyle is a combination of genetics, culture, and environment.

                      I think you are right about that. The problem is that it is impossible to untangle what about the behavior is genetics and what is the other stuff. So saying “it is genetic” is utterly meaningless. For all practical purposes, it is a choice.

                    4. Well if everything that has a genetic component to it is no longer a choice then I guess nothing is. I guess you can’t hate Obama for being a socialist, he was born that way right?

                    5. A priori, if you had to hypothesize in the absence of evidence as to the causes of sexual preference, it’d be pretty damn clear that if there were genes for homosexuality, they’d be extremely strongly selected against, hence unlikely to persist in the popul’n. There are ways that genes can still be propagated wherein their maximum expression leads to a fitness of 0, but they’re all of the least likely means of selection. Indirect means of selection would have to be very strong to overcome the handicap. So unless somebody presented very strong evidence for alleles for homosexuality, betting against their existence would be a good bet!

                      Plus, nobody has even established a good case for any human behavior’s being an instinct. And there’s no obvious way sexual preference is learned in most cases either, for that would require most people to be trying various types of couplings to see what they like best.

                      Looks to me like sexual preference is acquired like other preferences, by obscure means.

                  2. Jerry: I wanted to talk to you about Dr. Whatley. I have a suspicion that he’s converted to Judaism just for the jokes.

                    Father Curtis: And this offends you as a Jewish person?

                    Jerry: No, it offends me as a comedian!

                    John, every time you start talking about anything vaguely related to science, I reflexively cringe. It doesn’t offend me as a libertarian, it offends me as a scientist.

                    1. Then why don’t you stop cringing and make a fucking point? You don’t seem to have one. So you are a pretty sorry scientist. You don’t know much other than any opinion you don’t like is “cringe worthy” whatever that means.

                    2. It’s cringeworthy because it lacks even the tiniest semblance of understanding of biology, or the state of genetic research. If feeling like people should have a reasonable background in something science-related before popping off opinions about it makes me a “sorry scientist,” then yes, I’m a sorry scientist.

                      You seem to have learned your biology from Ann Coulter books.

                    3. Come on old man, is it safe to assume you have no position other than you believe whatever people tell you?

              5. Hmm. How do you explain that some guys are bald due to a “baldness gene” and other guys shave their scalp because they like that look? Does it mean that this whole “male pattern baldness” thing is just nonsense?

          3. You have an oddly black and white view on this.

            1. That’s because John has no idea what he’s talking about. None.

            2. No. I have a very nuanced view of it. The black and white view is that being gay is genetic. If it is genetic than you either are or you are not. And clearly that doesn’t match up to observation.

              The people who claim being gay is genetic are the ones who are black and white. They are claiming some people are born gay and will never be anything else no matter what. You can’t get more black and white than that.

              1. I have a very nuanced view of it.

                BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

                They are claiming some people are born gay and will never be anything else no matter what.

                Pretty sure most people here acknowledge that bisexuality exists.

                There is no evidence that sexuality is chosen, period. End of story. We don’t know how much of gayness is genetic, but it is biological.

                1. There is no evidence that sexuality is chosen, period. End of story.

                  Except all of the evidence of people going gay in prison or for certain periods of their life and for societies like Sparta where it was accepted and widely practiced. Except all of that evidence.

                  Are you this stupid or just that delusional? Or both?

                  1. That does not say what you think it does. It just demonstrates that putting a whole bunch of horny men together will get them to do weird shit.

                    1. It just demonstrates that putting a whole bunch of horny men together will get them to do weird shit.

                      So being gay is “weird”? Or is it just weird if you don’t have the gay genes?

                      No, it says your sexual preference is a product of your environment and your psychology not your genetic makeup. If you had grown up in ancient Greece, you would have found other men attractive and enjoyed having sex with them.

                    2. If you had grown up in ancient Greece, you would have found other men attractive and enjoyed having sex with them.

                      Quick gloss on this John because I have to get some stuff done before end of work today.

                      Bisexuality is currently massively underrepresented because of social stigma against same sex attraction. There are people who are close enough to truly heterosexual or truly homosexual that having sex with the non-preferred sex is just too gross to contemplate.

                      If we look back at ancient Greece and Rome we can actually see historical figures who rejected prevailing sexuality because they were so intensely against the trend of normative bisexuality. There is some kind of innate/biological (I’m not using the term genetic so take a deep breath before you respond) and an environmental component to the construction of sexuality and while we aren’t sure exactly what that matrix is yet, we can see it by studying how sexuality plays out in our own culture and cultures in different times and places.

                      Arguing for or against a purely biological OR purely environmental construction of sexual orientation is a dead end.

                    3. If we look back at ancient Greece and Rome we can actually see historical figures who rejected prevailing sexuality because they were so intensely against the trend of normative bisexuality.

                      A few did. But so what? That proves my point even more. There is nothing genetic about it. It is about social norms and how the person reacts to such. There are always some people who reject social norms. That is what makes them social and not genetic.

                      Arguing for or against a purely biological OR purely environmental construction of sexual orientation is a dead end.

                      Okay. If it is both, then how can you ever untangle when a person’s behavior is genetic and when is it environmental? You can’t. And that means we can never tell if a person is choosing to do it or is compelled by biology. And that means it is effectively a choice. What else could it be?

                      The end result of that is that being gay is just like any other behavior in that there is no clear way to explain it. And that means it is not like being black or being a woman or any of the other things we protect under the CRA.

              2. No, John, it’s your view on the genetic aspect of it that is oddly black and white. There are lots of things that are genetic that express themselves as tendencies. The sharp gay/not gay distinction is part of the problem, I think, as jesse discusses below.

                If it is genetic than you either are or you are not.

                Is simply not true unless someone is claiming that a gene exists that every gay person ever carries and no straight person does. And I have yet to encounter anyone making that claim.

                I have no idea if there is something genetic about sexual orientation.

                Anyone can choose to participate in any kind of sexual activity. But being sexually and romantically attracted to people of the same sex does seem to be an immutable (or close to it) characteristic in a lot of people.

                I don’t know what people get up to at sea or in prison, but I suspect that most of the people in those situations who indulge in some homoerotic activities are more looking for a hole to fuck than for a romantic partner.

                1. There are lots of things that are genetic that express themselves as tendencies. The sharp gay/not gay distinction is part of the problem, I think, as jesse discusses below.

                  And that means being gay is just like every other behavior. Do we sit around and worry if people who like BDSM or like hard rock instead of opera or who enjoy stealing are “born that way”? No Zeb we don’t. That is because once you admit that it is a combination of factors that may include genes, you can’t untangle that or explain someone’s behavior in any meaningful way other than to say “they liked doing it” or “they choose to do it”. And that ends the debate.

                  I have only made this point like six times in this thread. Do I need to make it a 7th?

                  1. You are right that a lot of behavior may be some combination of biological, environmental, and social factors. This makes things complicated. If you study neurobiology, you even hear of cases where brain injury leads to violent behavior. In my mind, that does not negate any moral agency, and it does not mean all violence is the result of earlier brain trauma.

                    It is interesting that you mention stealing right after a fondness for hard rock over opera. See, that’s where my libertarian ethics get involved. Stealing harms others. Liking certain bands does not. If you prefer your own sex, why should that bother me in the least, so long as you are not forcing me to do the same? It’s not about sorting out the tangled mess of biology and choice. It doesn’t matter. I haven’t been fooled by someone’s agenda. I just leave people alone and expect to be left alone so long as no one is being hurt.

                    1. If you prefer fucking your own sexdaughter, why should that bother me in the least, so long as you are not forcing me to do the same?

                      That dude probably was just BioSocioGenetically born that way… we should just let them get married.

              3. If it is genetic than you either are or you are not.

                That’s amazingly cringeworthy. Where did you study biology? Could I please know so that I can give your teachers a proper thrashing for profound enstupidation of their students?

                1. We are talking about behavior old man. What is cringeworthy here is idiots like you claiming that “it is a combination of genetics and other things” and then pretending that means something. If you can’t untangle what it is, then it is just like any other behavior and claiming it has a “genetic component” is meaningless. Every behavior has a genetic component. And we still hold people responsible for their choices and don’t say “it was their genes”.

                  I don’t know here you learned to think Old man, but you need to get your money back from whoever taught you. And so do most of the other people on this board.

                  1. Yes, John, no one here knows anything about biology except for you.

                    1. Zeb|8.3.15 @ 6:22PM|#

                      Yes, John, no one here knows anything about biology except for you.

                      What did I say that was wrong and why? If you can’t do that zeb shut the fuck up and admit you have lost the argument.

                    2. What did I say that was wrong and why?

                      Start with the line I quoted. Then go pick up a fucking introductory biology textbook and read the goddam thing. Your lips may get tired from time to time, but it’s the price of education.

                    3. His mommy told him he was real smart so he didn’t actually have to learn anything for his opinions to be meaningful.

              4. In my experience people who are truly confused about the “being gay is not a choice” argument are talking from their own personal experience. They believe their argument strongly, because in their own personal experience the idea that one could choose between gay and straight is not bizarre and impossible.

                So when you hear someone talking about gay people choosing their sexuality and choosing not to be gay, don’t think they are being intellectually dishonest. Because not everyone experiences their sexuality the same way. Sure, most people are born heterosexual and nothing else would ever seem “normal”. And a small percentage of people are born homosexual and for them that is the only possible normal.

                But there is another possibility out there. Some people are born with varying degrees of attraction to both sexes. These bisexual people do indeed get to choose how they will live out their sexuality. They might choose to deny their same sex attractions and live a heterosexual life. Or if they are mostly homosexual they might choose that orientation. Or they might swing back and forth depending on the circumstances.

                For these people it would be very hard to believe that nobody else gets to choose their sexuality, because that is not their experience. In the same way that we often see the loudest anti-gay politicians having gay flings, I think you’ll find that those most loudly protesting “born that way” are on the bisexual spectrum.

      3. Yes it is controversial. You see being the GAY is supposed to be in your genes. If guys can go gay and not really be THE GAY, then being gay isn’t like being black and we can’t relive the 1960s by making sure Trannies get to use the women’s bathroom or something.

        1. …what?

          1. Yeah I’m not sure either. I think he’s saying we’re all gay and time travel isn’t possible. But if we close our eyes and pray really hard we can have a promising future.

        2. You know that EVERYONE is aware of situation homosexuality, right?

          It’s not actually a big secret that THE AGENDA is trying to hide from the public?

          The contention with Carson over his statements was his implication that prison inmates were somehow a good model for understanding same sex attraction in the broader population. If feminists were saying that men committed a ton of rape because look at the stats on prison rape you’d absolutely lose your shit.

          1. I think John’s just scared that if he ever went near you, you’d capture him with your gay rays and he’d start loving men. That’s the true gay agenda, right?

            1. John’s way too old for the true gay agenda.

              1. I think you are nearly as old as I am. You are middle aged Nikki. At this point the couple of weeks or months or even years between us, really don’t matter.

                1. You are middle aged Nikki

                  Ouch.

                  1. RBS,

                    I think Nikki is right at 50 or a couple years older. I am not sure where this “John is old meme” came from but all of the people who keep using it are older than I am. Its very odd.

                    1. Dude, I was making a “gays are pedos” joke, not calling you old. Unless you consider over 20 “old.”

                    2. Okay Nikki. My mistake.

            2. I think John’s just scared that if he ever went near you, you’d capture him with your gay rays and he’d start loving men.

              How do you know I don’t now? This is how pathetic you people are. Anyone who questions anything the gay rights activists say must really be terrified of being gay.

              Maybe I understand that sexual preference is not set in stone because mine changes. If there is anyone here who is terrified of maybe being gay, it is the people like you who are claiming you can’t be because you genes are wrong.

        3. I don’t know anyone who claims with certainty that sexual orientation is entirely genetic. And if it is partly genetic, it’s not like eye color or something where you are either one thing or the other.

          1. Also, something can be biologically ingrained without being genetic. John once again is talking about something he knows nothing about.

          2. In John’s defense in the heady early days of genetic research people speculated there might be a single “gay gene” but that idea peaked 20 years ago along with belief that we’d find genes for all sorts of other things. Since then we’ve learned the important lesson of “it’s not that simple.”

            1. Since then we’ve learned the important lesson of “it’s not that simple.”

              Which is another way of saying we have no proof. That is all that means.

              1. This is hilarious coming from the guy who thinks that prison rape supports the notion that sexuality is chosen.

                The onus is on you to provide proof. Switching the onus is your fave move.

                1. Well they weren’t all gay before entering prison, obviously they made a choice.

                  1. But does engaging in same sex relations under extreme circumstances where you have no access to the opposite sex mean you are gay? I don’t think it really does. It’s a preference, not a specific activity.

                    1. But does engaging in same sex relations under extreme circumstances where you have no access to the opposite sex mean you are gay?

                      Assuming you are not raped and choose to do it and enjoyed it, why wouldn’t it? And not every circumstance is “extreme”. People’s sexual preferences seem to be pretty mailable depending on the person and the environment. That is not consistent with being gay being the results of genes.

                    2. I was thinking of prison and being at sea with “extreme”.

                      If I ran the world, it wouldn’t matter. People should do what they want and it is irrelevant whether it is an inherent personality trait and not simply a choice.

                      But even choice is never that simple. Our choices don’t come from nowhere. Some people would never choose to do gay sex because they hadn’t seen a woman for a year. Some people do.

                      People’s sexual preferences seem to be pretty mailable depending on the person and the environment. That is not consistent with being gay being the results of genes.

                      I still just don’t think this is true. Why can’t some tendencies that are not necessarily expressed in specific behaviors be genetic? I don’t know how you can rule it out.

                      Again, I have no idea if it is genetic and if it is how that works. I don’t think anyone really does. But I don’t think you can rule it out that easily.

                    3. I still just don’t think this is true. Why can’t some tendencies that are not necessarily expressed in specific behaviors be genetic? I don’t know how you can rule it out.

                      Maybe we do Zeb but who the fuck cares then? Yeah you are right, being gay is like every other behavior. That is the entire point. It is a behavior and it is not a genetic quality like being black.

                      You are right, we can’t explain why people are gay. And it is not just genes or just environment. It is a combination of things. That is because it is a behavior. Behaviors are like that.

            2. We use “gay” as a noun, like It’s a type of person not a behavior. We don’t describe people into feet, or BDSM like that. I think John has a point here. If we say people should not be ridiculed for behavior, or they should be protected then we are in some wild territory. Being black, or a woman are actually out of the control of the person, but not being gay any more than any other behavior.

              Unless we assume that hating gays is also something people are genetically disposed to, which you would have to. Along with being a socialist, or being an asshole, or being a thief or anything else.

          3. Lesbianism seems to follow Mendelian inheritance patterns while male homosex does not.

            1. How can lesbianism follow Mendelian inheritance, when lesbianism doesn’t make babies?!

  19. A monitoring group estimates U.S.-lead airstrikes over Syria have killed more than 450 civilians in the past year.

    Thwarted 450 potential ISIS agents, you mean.

    1. And 15,000 actual ones. Booyah!~

    1. German success of a North American invasion was even more remote than Russia. I believe Hitler did have a plan to invade though.

      “In addition, everybody had guns. One commonality among the nations conquered by Germany is that private firearms ownership was heavily restricted or simply banned.”

      I think he just made a defense of the 2A.

      And in Canada they would have been pelted with pucks. Other than that, Canada were bad ass in WWII.

      1. Makes me want to watch 49th Parallel again.

      2. Hitler actually thought it would be one of his successors that would lead the eventual invasion of the United States. Some time in the 1980s. At least according to his unfinished book they found.

    2. … they’d have had no supply lines, and run out of fuel & ammo in a few days?

    3. They would desert en masse to sleep with our beautiful women and integrate in German-American communities?

  20. As a fan of larger than average noses, can we import some Greek women so that at least our soon-to-be failure looks good?

    1. This Greek failure looks pretty terrific

      1. Classic greek beauty?

        1. Nothing a little waxing couldn’t fix.

          1. Nothing a LOT of waxing couldn’t fix.

            The body hair that would go with that would be STEVE SMITH like.

            1. There is nothing wrong with body hair, you big ol meanie.

  21. Thousands of cases of Kraft individually wrapped cheese slices have been recalled as a choking hazard. Apparently it is not because of the involuntary gagging reaction caused when one actually tries to consume the disgusting things, if I may reveal a bias.

    Isn’t it a “processed cheese food” the way Bryers ice cream is now Bryer’s Frozen Dairy Dessert?

    1. Breyer’s: at least it’s not Turkey Hill!

      1. Hmm, no apostrophe, apparently.

    2. Cheese Food. It’s what cheese eats.

    3. I think it is “pasteurized process cheese food”.

  22. They Hate Your Guts:
    Democrats and their voters. – By P.?J. O’ROURKE

    I would like to address myself to the poor, the huddled masses, the wretched refugees teeming to America’s shore, the homeless, the economically, socially, and mentally tempest-tossed. Also, I’d like to address the young, the hip, the progressive, the compassionate, and the caring. I’d like a word with everyone who votes for Democrats.

    Democrats hate your guts.

    Democrats need your vote and they’ll do anything?no matter how low and degrading?to get it. They hate you the way a whore hates a john.

    1. Believe me, I know why you don’t vote for Republicans. You see the Republican candidates and they look so .??.??. Bush-League, Dog Walker, Rubio Rube, Get-Outta-the-Carson, Hucka-Upchuck, Ap-Paul-ling, Cruz Control, Fat-Fried Christie Crispy, Son-of-a-Kasich, Dingleberry Perry, Flee the Fiorina, Sancta-Santorum, Graham Cracker, and Nervous 7/11 Night Shift Manager Jindal.

      And never mind the busted flush Trump Card who should be spray-painted with Rust-Oleum primer, have a squirt gun super-glued to his hand, and kicked through the front door of the Ferguson, Mo., police station.

      But no Republican understands the virtue of killing a baby too innocent to be born while sheltering and feeding a murderer until he gets fed up and tunnels out of Dannemora.

      A fetus is an individual who might grow up to be anything, even a Republican. Meanwhile convicts are a group that is fully dependent on government. (And in Vermont, felons in prison can vote by absentee ballot, which may explain Bernie Sanders.)

      1. A fetus is an potential individual -FTFY

        1. A fetus Cyto is a potential individual

          FIFY

      2. P.J. is always good.

        1. I actually think the nut was this bit =

          “Republican politicians stink. This is because real Republicans don’t go into politics. We have a life. We have families, jobs, responsibilities, and it takes all our time and energy to avoid them and go play golf. We leave politics to our halt, our lame, and our feeble-minded. Republican candidacies are sinecures for members of the GOP who are otherwise useless and/or retired.

          Democrats, on the other hand, are brilliant politicians. And I mean that as a vicious slur. “

  23. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..-gold.html

    British finally realizing open borders is not so fabulous, even if the migrants do vote labor.

    1. “Finally”? Really?

    2. Skimmed it. Not a single piece of evidence to substantiate that migration causes problems for Britain. Another pol seizes a fake crisis to spend more money and get more power.

      1. There are angry mobs at Calais trying to burn the place down and force their way into Britain. But hey, there are no problems. Just let everyone in. God you are a fucking idiot. No one can be this fucking stupid. You have to be a troll act.

        1. The problem is that they are not being allowed into Britain (with a brief security and biosecurity check). Much like drugs, all the problems with immigration come from those who interfere with it.

          Sorry, but the facts are on my side, not yours.

          1. Yeah, that is the problem. If Britain just lets them in, they will become hard working libertarians who drive for uber and own a taco truck.

            1. Squirrels eating muh posts!

            2. The data is clear that they are much more productive after entering a first world country. Libertarian? Not any less that the pop at large.

          2. All those Rotherham pimps and rapists were let in. Maybe you don’t consider their actions a problem…?

            1. A small price to pay for open borders.

              If Britain just lets them in, they will become hard working libertarians who drive for uber and own a taco truck.

              Doubt they will become libertarians, but the data is clear that their productivity certainly increases.

              1. What sort of magical process exists in your mind that turns violent criminals into responsible productive workers? You know if you just said “yeah, open borders lets in some violent people…but eggs..omelet, etc” then people might have more respect for you.

                1. I don’t know where that came from but it is clear that at least in America immigrants-legal and illegal-are under-represented in prison and commit less crime than natives.

                  1. They commit less crime than blacks, but more crime than whites.

                  2. “legal and illegal”

                    Same thing really.

              2. A small price to pay for open borders

                And a great argument for “quick trial and up the rope.”

        2. I love being called a ‘troll act’ by someone who expounds on genetics and biology while making it painfully clear that he is fucking clueless on those subjects, and has seriously stated that if homosexuality is genetic then so must all sexual preferences be.

        3. There are angry mobs at Calais trying to burn the place down and force their way into Britain

          Odd thing to happen if you have open borders.

    3. Well, gee, I wonder where they got those ideas from?

      1. Dumb economically illiterate fear-mongering idiots.

    4. We must be relentless in our pursuit of those callous criminals who are encouraging vulnerable people to make this journey in the first place.

      What? Barak has been over in Europe doing this there also?

    5. The British do not have “open borders”, they have controlled borders in the hands of leftists.

      1. Arbitrary borders, better?

        1. Ooh, I like it (the name, that is).

  24. Thousands of cases of Kraft individually wrapped cheese slices have been recalled as a choking hazard…due to the possibility that a thin strip of the individual packaging film may remain stuck to the slice after the wrapper has been removed.

    Just repackage them as condoms!

    1. And they’re pre-smegmaed!

  25. A monitoring group estimates guesses U.S.-lead airstrikes over Syria have killed more than 450 civilians in the past year. -FTFY

    The report by Airwars, a project aimed at tracking the international airstrikes targeting the extremists, said it believed 57 specific strikes killed civilians and caused 48 suspected “friendly fire” deaths. It said the strikes have killed more than 15,000 Islamic State militants.

    HOLY SHIT that’s a lot of dead bad guys. Keep up the good work!

    1. Well, when you define every male (or is it every person) over age 12 as a “militant”, your numbers can be a bit skewed.

      1. That number is from the SAME GROUP that reported on the dead civilians.

    2. Obviously the solution is to let all of Syria move to the UK, where according to Cytotoxic-Bizarro logic, they will cause no problems if they are just let in peacefully.

      1. according to Cytotoxic-Bizarro logic, they will cause no problems if they are just let in peacefully

        To give “credit” to Cytotoxic, I think his solution to the ones who cause problem is to shoot them.

        1. HOLY SHIT you’ve done it. You’ve exhibited more critical thinking skill in a sentence than Papaya could ever in his life.

        2. However if the entire population of Syria has already moved in and are causing problems then that solution becomes a lot more difficult.

  26. So after five days of Total Nerd Madness, I’m back, and so is the series on Accomplished Female Athletes of Eastern and Central Europe. Today we go back to Russian Olympic female curling team captained by Anna Sidorova (bonus link repost).
    I present Alexandra Saitova.

    Sadly, her team did not do well in 2014, but they are young and will hopefully be back stronger!

    1. They should curl in heels. There, I said it.

  27. Apparently it is not because of the involuntary gagging reaction caused when one actually tries to consume the disgusting things, if I may reveal a bias.

    No more donations, ever.

    1. They’re a vital part of Grilled Spam and Cheese sandwiches.

      1. ::vomits into trashcan::

        1. Clearly you cooked them wrong.

          1. Much better with the spicy spam!

          2. As much as i would like to enjoy SPAM, I’ve never been able to however it is prepared.

  28. Gun Control

    Momentum has grown to restrict toy guns over the past year, set off in part by the death of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy who was playing with a toy gun when he was shot by a police officer in Cleveland in November. In 2015, lawmakers in Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, Ohio and Washington introduced legislation to create or amend toy gun laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Half a dozen states, as well as Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., already have laws on the books, according to the organization.

    Mr. Schneiderman’s office said the enforcement actions have two goals: cut down on crimes that involve toy guns, like robberies, and help prevent split-second mistakes by the police that can end in death. Since 1994, there have been at least 63 shootings in New York State because of toy or imitation guns, according to the attorney general’s office, at least eight of them ending in fatalities.

    “One of the problems we have is there are so many guns in our society that it makes people jumpy, including law enforcement,” said Leah Gunn Barrett, the executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. “Even the most well-trained people can make mistakes, and we want to minimize the chance of that happening.”

    It’s the toy gun’s fault.

    1. I’m really glad I didn’t grow up in the modern environment. I wouldn’t have survived.

      (My daughter loves everything pink and frilly and princess and lovely. Maybe she can shoot a pink gun when she’s older. Do they have pink guns?)

      1. Do they have pink guns

        Yes.

        1. A few.

    2. It also allows another fucking state AG to grandstand.

    3. How about parents teach their idiot children not to point toy guns at people who aren’t directly involved in their play (or not at all). If someone gets shot trying to rob someone with a toy gun, they were asking for it and had it coming.

  29. Tales from the Derp

    I have to get a blood test tomorrow to prove to the Army that I don’t have high blood sugar. First they told me to get tested for malaria, which I had in the Peace Corps. While I was getting blood drawn, the doctor said might as well check blood sugar too as I have a family history of diabetes. I said OK. I had a big breakfast right before the test, so my blood sugar was a bit outside the normal range. I read you’re supposed to fast beforehand. So now I have to get retested. It was normal this morning. I know someone with a home test kit and I checked it that way. But that isn’t good enough. It has to be on an official looking form.

    They also wanted to see records from a shoulder injury I had 13 years ago. As you might expect, I could not find them. I did find a note from a doctor saying that it was not dislocated, and that should be enough.

    So many hoops to jump through. Hopefully this is the last one.

    1. Hopefully this is the last one.

      Ah. Let me explain how the military works, son…

        1. I read Skippy’s list ages ago. My favorite is “I will not sing ‘teddy bear, teddy bear, turn around!’ as a cadence.”

          1. The sheep. Hands down, the sheep.

            It’s so hard to choose when this is the competition.

            58. The following words and phrases may not be used in a cadence- Budding sexuality, necrophilia, I hate everyone in this formation and wish they were dead, sexual lubrication, black earth mother, all Marines are latent homosexuals, Tantric yoga, Gotterdammerung, Korean hooker, Eskimo Nell, we’ve all got jackboots now, slut puppy, or any references to squid.

            1. I’m an eskimo, looking for a Korean hooker to marry
              Gonna screw a corpse while I eat calamari

              Gotterdammerung
              Ring of the Nibelung
              Stomp on some slut puppies
              With our jackboots on

            2. I did an Elvis jody once….and was sorely tempted to do the prison work song from Les Miserables.

              1. I don’t know but I been told
                (I don’t know but I been told)
                a big-legged woman ain’t got no soul
                (a big-legged woman ain’t got no soul)

                All I ask for when I pray
                (All I ask for when I pray)
                steady rollin’ woman gonna come my way
                (steady rollin’ woman gonna come my way)

                Now we’re all screwed
                (now we’re all screwed)
                Facing a copyright suit
                (facing a copyright suit)

      1. The last hoop for getting medically cleared, that is.

        1. I’m still baffled they wanted a malaria test. Do they think I’ve been walking around with malaria for the past 6 years?

          Stupid, stupid, stupid

    2. The doctor should never have done the test after you had a full meal. What a dipshit.

      Although I’m sure it’ll be fine, good luck.

      1. It was a spur of the moment thing. I told him I had eaten, but he said might as well check anyway. I hadn’t been to the doctor in the last 5 years.

    3. Perhaps they triggered on “Peace Corps”?

      1. I looked up the rules for that, and I’m good. It’s in Army Regulation 600-214, section 3-2 , d.

        http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r614_200.pdf

        I’m going for linguist, and ex Peace Corps aren’t allowed to do that unless they’ve been out for 4 years. I’ve been out for 5.

        1. I was being sarcastic – I’m ex-Navy and my husband ex-Peace Corps.

          Good luck to you!

        2. I still know many things of this Army of which you seek….if you need immediate pointers, that is.

    4. When they ask you to list all the booboos you’ve ever had you’re supposed to lie. They don’t fucking know, and they don’t really want to check anyway.

  30. Posted this earlier, posting again.

    In a recent academic paper, my coauthors and I compared economic freedom scores with immigrant populations across 100 countries over 21 years. Some countries were majority immigrant while some had virtually none. We found that the larger a country’s immigrant population was in 1990, the more economic freedom increased in the same country by 2011. The immigrant’s country of origin, and whether they came from a poor nation or a rich one, didn’t affect the outcome.

    A state’s population of immigrants, illegal immigrants, Hispanics, Asians, ethnic or racial diversity caused by immigration, or any combination of the above did not affect the size of welfare benefits. Larger populations of immigrants or more diversity didn’t decrease welfare on the state level, but they didn’t increase it either.

    http://www.cato.org/publicatio…..mmigration

    Illegal and legal immigrants do not threaten your rights. Immigration restrictionists do threaten our rights.

    1. Hasn’t the economic freedom of the United States decreased since 1990?

      Not that perhaps immigrants were really the cause for this change.

    2. I’m not an immigration restrictionist, but I am skeptical of this article.

      The worst thing is that I couldn’t locate a link to the study. However, there are several items that stand out: 1) Cato has been telling me for years that the US is sinking in the Freedom Index. This leaves me to believe that they are just using rankings which would hide an absolute loss of economic freedom. 2) Indeed, it appears that they are cherry picking. They admit that first generaton immigrants favor more government involvement in our lives, but then say that’s ok, because they don’t favor higher taxes or more welfare- that is way off base for me. As we all know, a lot of regulation (food regulation, anti pollution laws, FDA, etc) are major business killers. And many people hold opinions that will most certainly increase taxes ( more money for schools, more money for renewable energy, etc) but still claim to not want an increase in taxes.

      In sum, before I use this as evidence in any discussion, I want to see the data itself.

    1. Well, bagger, what about Cuba, huh? Huh? Best healthcare in the world! And what about Venezuela?, best economy in the world! You’re just jealous, bagger!

    2. Good but forgot the funnest part: in 1990, right as the USSR came apart, so did Sweden. If I recall correctly the central bank had to raise rates to 500% for a few minutes. Sweden and its Scandi neighbors have been moving away from socialism gradually but consistently since then. If only Argentina would move that way. I guess the difference in what their central banks are willing do and the cultural attitudes motivating those central bankers has something to do with it.

    3. Wow, and he didn’t even mention their pervasive racism

      People seem to think that the Swedes, because they’ve been fairly welcoming to immigrants, are some kind of polyglot social-experiment success-story.

      Instead, they’re still over 90% ethnically swedish/finn….and the tiny, growing minority of non-swedes has made a large swath of the rest of the country so upset that they have former neo-nazi parties consistently winning ~10-20% of the vote

      I love how the left will chastise America as a ‘White Supremacist’ nation while touting scandinavian nations that are so xenophobic they even consider their lilly-white nordic neighbors “unwanted foreigners”

      1. Progressives do not understand demographics. Or pretty much anything at all. They just get these warm fuzzy feelwings and imagine things the way they think it should be.

    4. Why doesn’t Bern ever go into details about who pays for all these programs and where the funds come from? Why it is the vibrant middle class! I think one nordic country has a 60% tax rate after 60K or so…yikes. I suspect the disposable income (after tax) is lower and purchasing power is lower… and but i suspect this is what the progs want, the vibrant middle class is just a ruse.

    1. PB told me this was his disguise.

      1. There’s no possible way I could have seen that one coming.

    2. Wow, that’s some crazy shit, you know who else…ah, ah…darn, can’t think of anything.

  31. “President Barack Obama started selling his emissions reduction and energy consumption regulatory plan to the public today.”

    I know some suckers who’ll swallow it whole, so long as they don’t have to pay for it, right Mr. Gore?

    1. “President Barack Obama started selling his emissions”

      As a democratic fund-raiser?

  32. Party: Democrat
    Position on Gun Control: Unknown
    Lawmaker charged after shooting out ex-wife’s tires

    Howard was elected to the Alabama House of Representatives in 2005. He holds a degree in criminal justice from the University of Alabama.

  33. There’s a new documentary about Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal insulting each other. Looks fun.

    1. More punchable face? Vidal or Buckley. I’m voting for Vidal.

      1. Definitely Vidal. Buckley just looks slightly upper-class twit-ish

  34. I did find a note from a doctor saying that it was not dislocated, and that should be enough.

    “Can you do a pull-up salute? You’re hired.”

    1. Maybe I could fast tracked if I told them I was a trans-sexual?

    1. I love this. This is my United States of whatever.

    2. There sure are a lot of fucking assholes up here in the northeast.

      1. Buncha cunt bastards they are

    3. That’s super-interesting

      Mainers call everyone bastards.

      Southerners call everyone bitches.

      Midwesterners…. say, “Darn” a lot.

      Oh, and “Douche” sometimes. They’re not complete dorks. well, mostly.

      Also, its interesting that “Faggot” is so strongly clustered around California, where you’d think it
      would be considered most-inappropriate (and maybe that’s the point?)

      ….while the so-called homophobic South seems to avoid using the word entirely… but does indeed love to refer to “Pussy”

  35. BTW, WIH is it with the web and “dirty little secrets”?
    I get ads for “dirty little secrets” regarding insurance, mortgages, foods to eat or not eat, celebrities, cars top buy or avoid, everything but damn fishing holes.

    1. But they’re just telling you the things “THEY” don’t want you to know about?

      (who are they?)
      (you know… they.)
      (they’re… bastards.)

    2. Don’t do it! They’ll HATE you for it.

  36. Tales from the Derp

    A while back at PT, we were running and singing cadences.

    Sgt: And when I get to heaven…

    Us: And when I get to heaven…

    Sgt: The Devil’s gonna say-hay…

    Us: The Devil’s(?) gonna say-hay….?

    Sgt: Damn it, I messed up the cadence. And when I get to heaven…

    Us: And when I get to heaven….

    Sgt: St Peter’s gonna say-hay…

    Us: St Peter’s gonna say-hay….

    Sgt: How’d ya make ya livin?

    Us: How’d ya make ya livin’?

    Sgt: How’d ya earn ya pay-hay

    Us: How’d ya earn ya pay-hay

    Sgt: I reply with a whole lotta anguh…

    Us: I reply with a whole lotta anguh…

    Sgt: Made ma livin’ as an Airborne Ranguh…

    Us: Made ma livin’ as an Airborne Ranguh…

  37. North Dakota Hemp Law Goes into Effect, Nullifies in Practice Decades-Long Federal Ban

    HB1436 not only sets up the framework to effectuate a commercial hemp farming program in the state, it expressly rejects any need for federal approval before growing hemp in the state. It reads, in part:

    “A license required by this section is not conditioned on or subject to review or approval by the United States drug enforcement agency.”

    1. I’ve noticed more of these kinds of state laws lately. This could be the start of a really good trend. We take it back until the Fed Gov decisions apply to DC and DC only.

      1. “We”?

        Did you emigrate, Canuklehead?

        1. It’s the socialist “we”.

          Whereas Royal “We” means “I”, Socialist “We” means “you”. As in, “we all need to make sacrifices”.

    2. I was unaware that anything except for sagebrush and arctic lichen would grow in ND.

      1. ND is actually very lush and beautiful in the summer

        1. You mean in August, right?

  38. Speaking of guns…
    Texas woman arrested in NYC for possession of gun at 9/11 memorial. I suspect she saw a “NO GUNZ” sign, because she apparently asked a nice policeman if there were lockers where she could check her gun(s) while she admired the World’s Largest Urinal.

    1. What’s dumber, NY’s gun laws or gun owners that don’t check local gun laws?

      1. The woman, for telling a cop about it.

      2. Is it actually possible to know all the laws you might be in violation of at any moment? I mean if the Supreme Court says a police officer doesn’t have to know the laws they enforce, then what can be expected of the rest of us?

        Her only mistake was being honest and trusting.

        1. “Is it actually possible to know all the laws you might be in violation of at any moment?”

          That’s the point. The neverending push for MOAR LAWZ is about allowing the government to throw anyone they want in jail.

  39. Welcome to Mr Rodger’s neighborhood.

    The point of all these examples? That state and federal laws routinely act in the interest of public safety at home and abroad. Yet now, an emerging technology poses a serious threat to Americans — and Congress and our government have failed to address it.

    Technology companies are creating encrypted communication that protects their users’ privacy in a way that prevents law enforcement, or even the companies themselves, from accessing the content. With this technology, a known ISIS bomb maker would be able to send an email from a tracked computer to a suspected radicalized individual under investigation in New York, and U.S. federal law enforcement agencies would not be able to see ISIS’s attack plans.

    1. If they know the guy wants to plant a bomb, why don’t they just go and arrest him? Why do they have to see the attack plans?

    2. The horror!!!!!11!!!!

      1. It is a great piece of slight of hand sophistry. The example assumes the police already know who the terrorist is and ignores the fact that finding that out is the whole point. If we know who the terrorist is, just get a warrant and arrest him. If we don’t know who the terrorist is, the ability to listen in on everyone’s conversations and read their emails is worthless because we don’t know whose to listen to.

        1. It’s obvious that you just want the terrorist to win. Using your logic and reason to say we don’t need to listen in on everyone’s emails.

          Why do you hate the children John? Why?

  40. Do you think progs were coddled their entire lives? And now want it to continue with daddy GOV?

    1. Most of the really activist ones tend to come from upper middle class and upper class white neighborhoods and then wind up on Ivy league campuses because their parents can afford to pay for that. They’re obviously entitled and have never had any real worries or struggles. So they listen to these uber left wing professors and they feel they are now part of something. As I said, they’ve never themselves faced any type of hardship, so they had to invent micro-aggressions so that they can feel a part of all this great injustice perpetrated onto the world by their evil ancestors, the great white patriarchy.

      The poor progs really don’t know what’s going on, but punishing the evil rich to get free shit sure does sound good.

  41. Thousands of cases of Kraft individually wrapped cheese slices have been recalled as a choking hazard. Apparently it is not because of the involuntary gagging reaction caused when one actually tries to consume the disgusting things, if I may reveal a bias.

    Why do you hate rubbery cheese-food like products, Shackford?

  42. This ls like the worst chatroom ever.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.