A.M. Links: Clinton Email Scandal Widens, Biden Polls Well in Swing States, North and South Korea Exchange Fire

|

  • Credit: White House / Flickr.com

    The Justice Department's inquiry into Hillary Clinton's private email server is likely to widen, according to a number of former government officials. "I think that the FBI will be moving with all deliberate speed to determine whether there were serious breaches of national security here," Ron Hosko, former director of the FBI's criminal investigation division, told NPR.

  • According to a new poll, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with worse honesty ratings than Donald Trump in the key swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Joe Biden, meanwhile, polled as well or better than Clinton in those states when matched against top GOP rivals.
  • Protests erupted overnight in St. Louis after two police officers fatally shot a black teen that they say pointed a gun at them.
  • "South Korea said it fired tens of artillery rounds toward North Korea on Thursday after the North launched a shell toward a South Korean loudspeaker that had been blaring anti-Pyongyang broadcasts, as tension escalated on the peninsula."
  • A candidate named Deez Nuts is officially running for president.

New at Reason

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

NEXT: Why Is Jared Fogle's Viewing of Naked Teenagers a Federal Case?

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. According to a new poll, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with worse honesty ratings than Donald Trump…

    YOU JUST HAD TO WORK TRUMP IN THERE.

    1. Hello.

      Joe Rogan on Caitlyn Jenner:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh5R6XRqELs

      1. Hi Rufus,

        Saw in a post yesterday that you’re from the Montreal area? If so, I have a question.

        I went up there a few weeks ago for the poutine-fest and on my way into town was listening to local radio. I came across a station that appeared to be playing the sound of tires rolling on a road, punctuated by a woman’s voice reciting letter/number pairs in French, then English. It gradually dawned on me that I was listening to radio bingo.

        What the hell?

        1. Ha. No idea.

          That shit is best consumed while drunk.

          1. Like most of Canada. This explains the beer

        2. Are you sure it wasn’t Mille Bornes? Creve!

          1. Mille Bornes was awesome!

            1. It is awesome. Sadly, it appears that there are no current editions in French. At least, not that I’ve seen in the U.S.

              1. There’s a Tintin one on ebay france that I’d love to have.

              2. Coup Fourr

              3. I played often in my childhood. I wish I knew what happened to the deck. Perhaps I should ask my mother.

    2. How does Donald Trump have low honesty ratings? I thought his problem was that he was too honest.

      1. His honesty is only temporary because he keeps changing his position based on prevailing political winds… or whims.

        1. How does Donald Trump have low honesty ratings? I thought his problem was that he was too honest.

          His honesty is only temporary because he keeps changing his position based on prevailing political winds… or whims.

          He’s honest about what’s thinking…except that he’s basically Deadpool. In fact, about half of that “immigration” talk isn’t about even Mexicans, it’s actually just him referencing Mexican food. Dude loves chimichangas!

      2. I would love to know how they measure something like honesty when it comes to politicians.

        1. Electron microscope

        2. That’s easy. Republicans say Hillary is dishonest and Trump is too honest, and Democrats say that Trump is dishonest while Hillary can’t tell a lie.

          It’s all TEAM, all the time.

          1. Ah, they’re using the Tufnel Scale.

      3. He’s making up bad stuff about Honest Hillary.

      4. Having no filters doesn’t necessarily mean you are honest.

  2. A candidate named Deez Nuts is officially running for president.

    Is there really a vas defrens between Deez Nuts and the other dicks running for president?

    1. Paging Swiss. Swiss to the white courtesy phone, please.

    2. Heheh. I see what you did there

      1. Wait till the urologists hear this one.

    3. His support will shrink in the winter.

      /stolen joke

    4. Probably not much. But you never know when one candidate will find themselves in a hairy situation.

    5. Yes, definitively. On the one hand you got Deez Nuts. On the other hand you got Doze Nuts. Clear?

    6. I hate to get trolled by this worthless story, but… can a candidate said to be “officially” running when said candidate cannot legally run?

    7. Deez Nuts has far more balls than most of the Republican candidates.

  3. A candidate named Deez Nuts is officially running for president.

    Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho approves.

  4. BRITNEYYYY

    White America needs to wake up: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders & the unacknowledged crimes of American justice

    Feelings matter for politics. And if “white hearts” don’t change, they are always capable of reconfiguring systems to maintain white hegemony. Moreover, I think when Black millennial voters continue to express their hesitancy about voting, that part of their desire for measures that fully overhaul the current system has to do with a fundamental distrust of white politicians and their white constituents.

    The Black Lives Matter movement engages white people in terms of whether they have personally grappled with their own white privilege. It counts as co-conspirators and allies those white people who are willing to call out the problems among other white people. White people who have not grappled with the ways they are beneficiaries of white supremacy or white people who revel in the singularity of their status as anti-racists (meaning they are unwilling to go back and challenge other white people) are viewed as suspect and, ultimately, as a liability.

    1. “white people who revel in the singularity of their status as anti-racists…are viewed as suspect”

      That’s gonna be a whole lotta white people.

    2. The Shame of Rutgers strikes again. Proof that Peak Derp can never be reached.

    3. I mean, what does Britney want, exactly? She has already been given a professorship at a major university for doing nothing more than spew racist idiocy while no actual scholarship is involved. Talk about fucking privilege.

    4. I suppose that insisting on equally applied rights for everyone is a non-starter.

    5. The Black Lives Matter movement engages white people in terms of whether they have personally grappled with their own white privilege.

      I think one of the fundamental problems with the whole “privilege” complaint is that it starts from the perspective that having one’s rights respected and not being treated like shit is privilege. Yes, the state needs to stop using the police force to oppress blacks. That’s the problem. The problem is not that the state isn’t using the police force to also oppress whites. It’s not “privilege” to exercise my rights.

      1. Yeah, the problem isn’t that white males are privileged. It is that many other groups have historically been discriminated on and had their rights trampled and are still suffering the consequences of that shameful history.

        1. That can be true and it can still be rightly said that few groups have historically had it as bad as blacks in the US.

          1. You are obviously completely ignorant of world history. Or is ‘in the US’ limiting your scope?

            1. It’s just a concern troll concern trolling.

            2. All Bo knows about is the United States. If you try bringing up non-American examples, it gets confused because it has no knowledge of the world outside of America.

              1. All Bo knows about is the United States. If you try bringing up non-American examples, it gets confused because it has no knowledge of the world outside of America.

                I wouldn’t be a horrible foreigner or loyal member of the Commonwealth if I didn’t point out how that’s an obvious result of MURICAN EXCEPTIONALISM.

            3. When we’re talking about a US political movement, why would we shift to world history?

              1. The term ‘historically’ does not generally mean ‘in the history of the US.’ Your clarification is accepted.

                Unless you are trying to express complete agreement with Zeb, your statement fails to make a point.

            4. I’ll be charitable and assume that he meant that few groups in the US have had it as bad as blacks.

              If that’s not it, then he’s pretty wrong.

              1. You don’t have to be charitable, it’s exactly what I expressly said. “few groups have historically had it as bad as blacks in the US.”

                Shifting it to world history is strange in the context of a US political debate. It’s like if someone said ‘the NSA spying is one of the worst abuses of our privacy rights in our history’ and someone tried to deflect it by saying ‘no, the German Stasi was way worse!’

                I’m not a fan of Black Lives Matter because it’s taking all the energy that was there about abuse of police power and making it a racial thing that’s bound to appeal to only a more limited group of people politically. But I don’t think it’s controversial to note that while many groups have had it bad in the US few if any approach how bad blacks have had it here.

                1. Modifier placement, brah.

                  “Few groups in the U.S. have historically had it as bad as blacks” vs. “Few groups have historically had it as bad as blacks in the U.S.”

                  The former limits the universe of groups to groups in the U.S. The latters suggests that we are discussing all groups ever, and comparing them to blacks in the U.S.

                  1. Fair enough

                2. It was ambiguously worded.

            5. You are obviously completely ignorant

              You could have stopped right here.

          2. Quick, name three minorities subjected to genocide!

            LURK MOAR.

          3. few groups have historically had it as bad as blacks in the US.

            If you think it’s tough being black in America, try being black in Africa.

            Always aggravating to see the crap about ‘reparations’ for slavery – the whole argument is that slavery deprived succeeding generations of the ability to achieve middle-class aspirations by robbing the slaves of their own human capital investment opportunities. Take a look at Africa and tell me you would be better off had your ancestors never been slaves brought to America. Would you be better off if your ancestors had immigrated to America and had the same opportunities to prosper that most all the other white immigrants had had? Sure – but absent slavery your ancestors would most likely not have immigrated to America.

            1. Of course, they should be thankful for the slavery and what followed, because it all worked out great down the line!

              1. Nothing justifies slavery.

                But history is complicated and messy and you can’t deny that many things we celebrate today came about in part because of huge historical injustices. One result of the horrible slave trade is that a large number of blacks in the US have far more wealth and opportunity than most blacks that are in Africa.

                1. “But history is complicated and messy and you can’t deny that many things we celebrate today came about in part because of huge historical injustices. ”

                  I’d say ‘despite’ instead of ‘because of.’ In a more just world millions of blacks may have just immigrated here and be met with fair treatment.

                  1. I think “because of” is appropriate because that’s what happened and that’s why the world is what it is today. Of course, other, better things could have happened, but they didn’t.

                2. Perfect example of your point is America’s love today of Irish-Americans (we as a nations swim laps through our own collective vomit each March, clinging to green life preserves, don’t we?), which in return materially and philosophical gave support to the Free State to become fully independent over the past century. And that’s after the waves of Irish immigration that came solely because of England’s determined repeated effects to commit genocide (either through starvation and blockades or the occasional actual mass slaughter as in Cromwell’s adventure) on the Emerald Isle ?even beginning with massive amounts of indentured servitude and actual Irish slavery in the English Caribbean. Even two centuries ago, the idea that 20% of a global hyperpower would be at least partially Irish and most of them proudly so (all “gingers don’t have souls” jokes aside) would sound ridiculous in the telling ?most hearers would be surprised to hear that the people hadn’t been wiped out. And, if that had all been considered a few years ago during the height of “the Celtic Tiger”…

              2. In 1822 abolitionists founded Liberia and started shipping freed slaves there. Are their decedents better off?

                How about the majority of African slaves through history – who lived as slaves in Africa or the Middle East? How did it work out for them? I don’t see to many African people walking around Middle Eastern countries other than Israel.

                1. “In 1822 abolitionists founded Liberia and started shipping freed slaves there. Are their decedents better off?”

                  I think the former slaves who were shipped to Liberia were better off than they were when they were slaves here. I’m not sure what talk of how each sets of descendants who weren’t under slavery turned out is about given that we’re talking about the evil of slavery.

              3. Close enough.

                Blacks in America didn’t have the theoretical choice between being black in America or being white in America, they had a theoretical choice between being black in America or being black in Africa. Sure, things could have been better but we don’t yet have access to time machines that can retroactively improve the past. You can’t deal with ‘what might have been’, you have to deal with what is. Notice how all the poor oppressed black people in America are staying in America and agitating for better conditions for black people in America rather than moving “back” to Africa and being fat and lazy and happy in Africa? Does that not suggest to you that most black people in America think they have a better chance at a better life here than there? That however bad things might be living here it beats the hell out of living in Africa? It suggests to me that most blacks in America recognize they are better off having black slaves as ancestors than by having black non-slaves as ancestors even if having entirely fabulous blacks-who-were-treated-exactly-the-same-as-whites as ancestors would have been even better still. That last one simply was not one of the options on the menu.

                1. I’m not sure what you’re point is. Can’t a black guy say ‘people like me were treated horribly here in the past, and some of that still effects some of us negatively today’ without getting ‘well, why don’t you go back to Africa then, huh?’ in reply?

              4. they should be thankful for the slavery and what followed, because it all worked out great down the line!

                Shouldn’t they? As they had no hand in the matter but were limited to being recipients of the results of the actions of others why not be glad that they turned out in a positive fashion?

                “Damn, I sure wish that slavery had never existed so that I could have been born a citizen of South Africa instead of the United States!” would be completely imbecilic, which is obviously the reason you suggest it.

            2. Wouldn’t the statute of limitations have run by now on any possible claims, anyway? Slavery ended 150 years ago. The SOL on debt in most states is usually around 6-10 years (or less), depending on the type debt, etc.

      2. It (a) assumes the conclusion (that you are “privileged”) based on (b) your skin color.

        It combines the best of both racism and fallacy.

    6. Telling remark from the comments:

      There are 17 GOP candidates with far, far worse-in fact, despicable, policies toward black Americans, 17 GOP candidates who are against everything the protesters stand for, yet they do not attack them.

      Maybe because Black Lives Matter knows that a GOP audience is a lot more likely to actually do them physical harm if they try their shenanigans. They’re going after targets they know they can bully, which is white shitlibs and urban cosmos–not GOP events or people in cowboy bars. They want to push people around, not be martyrs.

      1. Yeah, Trump basically dared them to try to pull their shit at one of his events.

      2. Umm…Rand Paul?

        1. Rand’s got a Pimp Hand and he’s not afraid to use it.

    7. White America needs to wake up

      Is that a weekly column, or just the topic of every other article by accident?

      1. White America needs to wake up

        Five more minutes, Mom…

        /Rolls back over

    8. White people who challenge other white people over imagined racism are technically known as assholes.

  5. The Justice Department’s inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s private email server is likely to widen…

    Just like her ass over the years.

    1. Have you noticed that she dresses more and more like The Love Guru?

      1. Someone needs to do a Hillary/orange is the new black mashup.

    2. That is true, but she’s 68, correct? Cut her some slack! (This might be the first time I have ever stuck up for her)
      Let’s focus on her bad personality or her horrible policies or her lying or her….

  6. 84) Help me understand, re the Ashley Madison leak. According to Slate, “this is the rare sex-related hack to predominantly target men” and “the hackers suggested that women who turn up in the database are probably just one of the site’s many “fake female profiles.” But, but?isn’t a site designed to connect heterosexual partners for affairs useless without genuine female profiles?

    1. isn’t a site designed to connect heterosexual partners for affairs useless without genuine female profiles?

      You use the fake profiles to lure guys in and convince them to pay. You pocket their cash. You have some folks working the fake profiles to make it look there’s a real person behind it by occasionally responding to e-mails but never meeting the guy.

      1. So the whole scheme is more or less a scam, I guess.

    2. It’s a site designed to trick horny men into paying money to hook up with women who don’t exist.

      1. Exactly that. I would be surprised if 10% of the female profiles are legit.

      2. It’s a site designed to trick horny men into paying money to hook up with women who don’t exist.

        And you have to pay $20 to disable your account. So they trick you into buying in and then they extort money from you if you want to leave.

        1. The $20 exit fee is actually going to be very relevant because they promise to delete your info when you pay the fee, which they obviously did not do.

          So they’re about to get sued for fraud.

        2. So they trick you into buying in and then they extort money from you if you want to leave.

          If the target audience is married men, that does sound like the appropriate business model to follow.

      3. Pretty much this. But then those guys are going to pay a lot more if their wives find out they have been using Ashley Madison for a potential hookup.

      4. Crap. You mean there really aren’t dozens of horny MILFs in my area who want to meet me just for sex? But they have live webcam video of horny MILFs in my area right there in the pop-up!

    3. All dating sites are predominantly male. Slate is just doing its normal generalization where it can’t understand that predominantly doesn’t mean only.

      1. If real women sign up, and some do, the site owners point to those profiles when accused of running fake profiles.

        1. I just had an idea for a dating site. It only allows a man to sign up if there are already that number of females signed up. The man who is willing to bid the most gets to be the next one added to the site. Women benefit because all the men who can afford to bid that high will be rich dudes. Gold?

          1. That is a good idea. And you could only let men sign up after they have been vetted by a committee of women. You could advertise that you only let the best men sign up. This would attract huge numbers of women which would in turn attract men who met your standards.

          2. Not a bad idea, but you’d have to spend some money verifying that the women who sign up really exist. People start paying that kind of cash they don’t want to be overrun with spambots.

            1. You would have to call and talk to them on the phone.

            2. You would have to call and talk to them on the phone.

              1. Double confirmation. I like it.

          3. That actually seems like a no-shit good idea. It basically guarantees to the men signing up that there is no numerical male/female imbalance, and guarantees to the women signing up that there are only motivated, serious men willing to pay a premium to be on there. I would bet that could be successful if marketed properly.

          4. It’s a good idea – as already mentioned it would need some type of real verification for the females.

            Also #cisprivilege

          5. As a woman that ~online dates~, fourthing the good idea assessment. I’d sign up. Also think of the lulz that would ensue from the Salon and Slate articles complaining about it.

    4. It’s fake profiles all the way down.

  7. New Jersey woman’s obituary says that in lieu of flowers, please don’t vote for Hillary Clinton

    A New Jersey woman has used her obituary to make a final request to friends and family: Please don’t vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton for president.

    Elaine Fydrych’s (FIHD-rihks) husband says she was a registered Democrat and not “a political person.”

    But he says she grew to strongly dislike Clinton after the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi and believed Clinton’s handling of the matter as secretary of state was “terrible.”

    Joe Fydrych said Wednesday that his 63-year-old wife told him of her obituary intentions a few weeks before her Aug. 13 death.

    1. I can’t understand how a properly calibrated person of sound mind would vote for Hillary.

      1. It’s getting so bad, I’m waiting for Chelsea to come out against her. Hey, family is important, but she has a political career to consider.

    2. Any relation to The Bird?

      1. Yeah, you should have seen the routine she put on just to get into the coffin!

    3. Hillary Clinton let her down one last time.

      Too soon?

  8. officials think is consistent with full employment.

    Thursday’s claims report showed the number of people still receiving benefits after an initial week of aid fell 24,000 to 2.25 million in the week ended Aug. 8

    Can someone ‘splain to me how 2.25 million people receiving unemployment benefits and the words “full employment” are compatible?

    1. There is an assumption that, for various reasons, we can’t achieve 100% employment. That’s the basis for calling 4-5% unemployment “full employment.” The deception lies in the fact that we’re not counting a very large number of unemployed as unemployed.

    2. There is always going to be some normal churn, people who get canned or quit and are in between jobs. Also, it’s funny how when Obama is president, it’s called full employment and when Bush was president it’s called full employment due to McJobs.

      1. They also don’t mention that the labor force participation rate is the lowest its been in at least four decades.

      2. Especially since the incentive now is for part-time rather than full-time jobs.

  9. (Florida) Woman stole clams from Publix, stuffed them in pants, Palm Bay police say

    Debra Marceau, 52, was charged with retail theft in the incident earlier this month.

    Police said Marceau went into the freezer section of Publix on Malabar Road, opened a box of frozen clams and tried to put them down the front of her shorts.
    Quick Clicks

    Marceau also tried to put $45 worth of items in her purse, including a frozen pizza, police said.

    1. Jameis Winston’s future girlfriend?

    2. Bearded clams?

    3. Jameis Winston’s future girlfriend?

      “Fuck the clam right in the pizza!”

    4. If it smells like fish…

  10. Protests erupted overnight in St. Louis after two police officers fatally shot a black teen that they say pointed a gun at them.

    What’s this “they say” shit? If it comes from behind a badge, it’s gospel.

    1. Our heroes in blue would never lie.

      1. I don’t know if he pointed a gun or not.

        Who knows, maybe the cop was having a bad day and was just looking for a black person to kill.

        Or maybe the deceased was one of the *numerous* stupid or desperate criminals who think it’s a good idea to point a gun at a policeman.

        I suppose these sorts of factual disputes should resolved the American way – by seeing who is willing to riot the hardest.

    2. Well, at least now the protesters who started shit in Ferguson can stay home in North STL and protest there for a change.

  11. South Korea said it fired tens of artillery rounds toward North Korea on Thursday after the North launched a shell toward a South Korean loudspeaker

    How many times I’ve wanted to do this to my next door neighbor who keeps blaring hip-hop at top volume.

    1. North Korea shot out South Korea’s porch light.

      1. Then TPed the presidential palace.Soaped the windows and egged the limo. The horror, the horror.

        1. Sounds like SK responded with the burning bag of dogshit, then tipped over Un’s outhouse.

  12. Pregnant devil statue appears over Vancouver

    The Canadian city briefly graced by a sexually-aroused Satan statue last year has a new naked devil sculpture, this time a pregnant female.

    The statue, which some have labeled the “wife” of the erection-sporting red devil statue that briefly stood in a park near Vancouver’s Clark Drive SkyTrain station in September of last year, was spotted Thursday on top of a building in the eastern part of the city.

    The statue, colored white and apparently pregnant, was removed after only a few hours, but city officials said it was not taken by municipal workers.

    1. I remember when Satanism was more than just a fraternity prank.

      1. Even evil is superficial and whiny these days.

      2. Well,… the best satanism involves sororities.

  13. Joe Biden, meanwhile, polled as well or better than Clinton in those states when matched against top GOP rivals

    Crazy “Gaffer” Joe is often seen as being too honest. Is this just a classic overcorrection? Is he the anti-Clinton like Obama was supposed to be the anti-Bush?

  14. If the bias incident is in progress or just occurred: ALWAYS CALL 911 IMMEDIATELY

    The question is: Is the Santa Clara University administration so stupid they don’t know what might hapen when a hysterical snowflake dials 911 to report the most heinous crime imaginable or are they so evil they know full well what might happen but don’t have the stomach for donning the jackboots and picking up the truncheon themselves?

    1. Pro tip: If you’re going to call 911 because you feel assaulted by a guy shooting a sideways glance at your ass as you go by, you’ll get a much faster response out of the cops if you go heavy on the ‘assaulted’ and ‘shooting’ and maybe not mention the rest of that stuff. Of course, the cops might respond much more violently as well as much more quickly, but, hey, that’s not your problem. And eye-rape is still rape, isn’t it?

      1. Since calling 911 for something that is not an actual physical emergency is illegal in most cases, the university is actually encouraging wide-scale breaking of the law by encouraging students to call for “speech” they don’t like and other “microagressions”.

        1. They are basically encouraging SWATting for hurt feelings.

          1. Yup, the left’s greatest desire is to shut down anything they don’t like with the overwhelming force of the State.

    2. Not to mention that the school is telling students to misuse 911 by reporting things that are neither crimes nor emergencies.
      I think that you overplay the danger a bit.

  15. TW: Salon

    Thomas Jefferson’s urgent lesson for America: The less force we wield, the more powerful we become
    The U.S. military hasn’t had a meaningful victory since 1945. We’d be wise to heed the words of our founding father

    Two centuries ago, Jefferson’s points were plain and clear, and they remain so today: while this country desired peace, it had to be prepared to wage war; and yet the more it avoided resorting to raw military power, the more it would prosper.

    Have America’s military officers and politicians learned these lessons? Obviously not. In the twenty-first century, the U.S. unquestionably ranks number one on this planet in its preparations for waging war ? we got that message loud and clear ? but we’re also number one in using that power aggressively around the globe, weakening our nation in the process, just as Jefferson warned.

    Of course, the world today is a more complex and crowded place than in Jefferson’s time and this country, long a regional, even an isolationist power, is now an imperial and global superpower that quite literally garrisons the planet. That said, Jefferson’s lessons should still be salutary ones, especially when you consider that the U.S. military has not had a convincing victory in a major “hot” war since 1945.

    1. I guess white slavers from over 100 years ago can be good for something after all.

      Of course, the Barbary Wars…

    2. “Of course, the world today is a more complex and crowded place than in Jefferson’s time and this country, long a regional, even an isolationist power,”

      Lord, the condescending arrogance packed in that ignorant assertion.

      Wow.

      1. Of course, the world today is a more complex and crowded place than in Jefferson’s time and this country, long a regional, even an isolationist power

        Yes, there was nothing whatsoever complicated about globe spanning colonial empires.

        1. They didn’t have iphones, facebook, artisinal mayo, and they shit in holes in the ground. Practically cavemen.

        2. It’s like they’ve never played Risk.

          1. Ukraine is game to you??

        3. Ther was notjing complicated about foreign policy during the Napoleanic Wars.

          1. The whole balance of power thing leading up to The Treaty of Westphalia and beyond is remarkably complex. Jefferson knew damn well what he was doing.

            Human nature when it comes to power, war and intellectualism is pretty much a constant thing. This notion we’re somehow smarter is dumb. Yeah, we have made progress but the universal themes remain.

            1. Jefferson as President was walking a knife’s edge trying not to get embroiled in the general European conflict, despite Britain still being our best customer for our goods and our political ties with France from their help during the revolution. Still, the embargo was a huge mistake for his Presidency.

        4. Yes, there was nothing whatsoever complicated about globe spanning colonial empires.

          This attitude that the world was simple and people were stupid in the past needs a name. I’m thinking ‘modern elitism’. Because it really just betrays how utterly ignorant these people are in regards to history.

          The Greeks figured out the earth was spherical through the angles of shadows and mathematics and calculate its circumference over two thousand years ago. I’d like to see a Salon writer do that.

      2. “Of course, the world today is a more complex and crowded place than in Jefferson’s time and this country, long a regional, even an isolationist power,”

        Who was it again we were having overseas skirmishes with again back then?

        The Parbary Birates or something like that?

        Arbary Iratespay?

      3. It was harder then, moron. Jesus. You try living in Virginia during the summer without A/C.

        1. I cannot figure out how Texas was settled pre-A/C. It does not compute.

          1. Not only settled, but people fought a war over the right to settle there.

          2. Hasn’t there always been a link between super hot and humid environments and slavery? Who the fuck could stand working in those pre-AC conditions unless they were forced?

          3. And people were living in hot places and not wearing shorts and t-shirts. In fact, many of them wore wool. Ye gods.

          4. That was pre-global warming.

            1. That’s true. The average summer temperature in Florida then was like 60? F.

            2. Supposedly we were in the middle of a “little ice age” when the eastern seaboard was settled. That is the only explanation I can think of to explain why people settled anywhere south of New Brunswick.

          5. In Search of: 19th Century Messican Butt Sechs.

          6. I grew up in SE Texas without a/c either at home or at school. It was miserable. Unlike the grumpy old man, I won’t say we liked it.

            1. At UF, I had a summer course in an un-air conditioned building. In the mid-1980s. And Central Florida totally sucks in the summer–none of that nice sea breeze.

    3. The U.S. military hasn’t had a meaningful victory since 1945. We’d be wise to heed the words of our founding father

      I think there are some South Koreans and Kuwaitis who might disagree.

      1. Pfft, like those victories were “meaningful”.

      2. Yeah, the military routinely crushes any opposition forces, it’s the occupation and nation-building bullshit that generally fail.

      3. I think there are some South Koreans and Kuwaitis who might disagree.

        And some hot coeds if I learned anything from Heartbreak Ridge.

    4. Of course, Jefferson’s preferred courses of action were trade embargoes that hurt the US economy more than anything.

      1. So, from reading Trump’s suggestion on dealing with Mexico, he sounds…Jeffersonian?

  16. Folks in Poland claim to have found a lost Nazi treasure train

    Could two treasure hunters have found a legendary Nazi train packed with gold that vanished 70 years ago? It’s a question authorities in Poland’s mountainous southwestern Walbrzych district are taking seriously.

    The train reputedly went missing in 1945 at the end of World War II, when the Soviet Red Army was closing in on the forces of Nazi Germany.

    As legend has it, it left Wroclaw, then part of Germany and known as Breslau, for Walbrzych — but never reached its destination.

    1. Fascinating. Since it’s almost certainly gold looted by the Nazis I’m curious about ownership issues if it turns out to be true.

      1. I’m sure the Polish government will figure out how to work a FYTW angle into any dispute over ownership.

      2. WHAT?! WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME?!!!

      3. I thought the Swiss had all of the Nazi gold. Must belong to them.

    2. But they won’t reveal the train’s location without a guarantee that they will be awarded 10% of the value of the treasure

      You glorious bastards!

  17. Victim Wants Charge Dismissed In Dildo Attack

    The Florida woman who was allegedly hit in the face with a dildo during an argument with her girlfriend has asked a judge to dismiss a domestic battery charge due to the “indescribable” humiliation caused by media coverage of the incident.

    In a July 29 letter to a Circuit Court judge, Gamze Capaner-Ridley described defendant Annette Kielhurn, 57, as a “kind, compassionate human being” who “truly doesn’t deserve to suffer more than she already has.”

    Capaner-Ridley, 47, wrote that she did not seek to have a criminal charge filed against Kielhurn, a convicted felon who served nearly three years in prison for cocaine trafficking.

    1. Mushroom tattoos are not usually seen on lesbians.

  18. Oh it’s delicious reading some of the NPR comments trying to tu quoque the Hillary scandal with the usual ‘but Bush!’ Bush didn’t do what she did. End of story. There are also others going off on tangents about taxing the rich and stupid things like that.

    Thankfully there are some sane and responsible comments as well.

    How does Hillary’s actions differ when measured against Snowden and Manning?

    1. How is it similar?

    2. The “Yes, but” are all over the place today. And Karl Rove! 22 million emails! Blargh!

      1. Wasn’t that a clerical error or something anyway?

    3. I seem to remember some outrage when Dick Chaney used a private email address for some official business.

  19. TW: Salon

    When the people lead the leaders will follow: Can activists reverse Obama’s disastrous Arctic drilling decision?

    President Obama’s historic Climate Action Plan, which was announced on Aug. 3, focuses on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants 32 percent over the next 15 years, promising real leadership heading into the U.N.’s Climate Summit in Paris this December. And then on Aug. 17 the president permitted Shell Oil to begin exploratory drilling in the Arctic Ocean.

    It’s hard to understand the logic by which this administration aims to reduce carbon outputs while encouraging massive new inputs from oil development, not only in the newly opened waters of the Arctic Ocean (opened by sea ice loss linked to fossil-fuel-fired climate change) but also along the crowded Atlantic seaboard. These are two high-risk enterprises; in the case of the Arctic, there’s a 75 percent chance of a major oil spill in the future according to a study by the Department of Interior, which is nonetheless permitting Shell’s drilling.

    1. opened by sea ice loss linked to fossil-fuel-fired climate change

      LOL The butt hurt is delicious.

    2. By people, do they mean “Random idiots who thought hanging off a bridge or going kayaking would solve the problem”?

    3. in the case of the Arctic, there’s a 75 percent chance of a major oil spill in the future according to a study by the Department of Interior

      That can’t possibly be true. Of the thousands upon thousands of drilling operations everywhere in the world, what are the odds of “a major oil spill”? How any of those operations could be approaching a near certain disaster and still get insurance, I’m not sure exactly. But something tells me these survey takers know even less, because they’re ideologues masquerading as scientists.

      1. I love how much attention environweenies put on our oil companies and operations while studiously ignoring the massive problems in places like the Niger delta and Siberia. Al Jazeera America had a couple pieces last night about Russian oil firms basically either ignoring or dumping sand over huge freakin’ spills in the taiga and Siberian rivers.

        Al Jazeera, once again embarrassing US news outlets and hypocritical greenies.

  20. “South Korea said it fired tens of artillery rounds toward North Korea on Thursday after the North launched a shell toward a South Korean loudspeaker that had been blaring anti-Pyongyang broadcasts, as tension escalated on the peninsula.”

    War upcoming or more bluster?

    1. It’s bluster. It’s all bluster.

      Until it isn’t. But I honestly can’t see a war starting unless it’s almost by accident. We are probably stuck with North Korea until their population finally puts the Kim family heads on pikes.

      1. The average Nork handed Kim’s head ain’t wasting a chunk of meat like that by putting it on a pike. Them’s good eatin’.

      2. You never know. I can’t see something like that going on forever. At some point either North Korea is going to blow and attack the South or collapse. It can’t last forever.

        1. I think if NK changes it will be like Cuba: some member of the family will just reach out and start normalizing things.

          1. No. It is totally different than Cuba. Much worse and much more dangerous.

            1. I’m not disagreeing about that, just talking about how North Korea could possibly open up.

        2. Actually, the most likely scenario is for it to start to crash and then to start a war in an effort to galvanize the population back into supporting the regime.

          Either way, I look forward to the day when the North Korean regime is bulldozed into the ocean. But it’s it going to be awful to get to that point.

          1. the most likely scenario is for it to start to crash and then to start a war in an effort to galvanize the population back into supporting the regime.

            See also: China

        3. It can as long as Uncle China keeps giving them an allowance.

      3. We are probably stuck with North Korea until their population finally puts the Kim family heads on pikes.

        Not happening any time soon. The peasantry love Dear Leader

    2. It’s been bluster for nearly 70 years. No reason to think that is changing now.

      1. The south doesn’t want a war because Seoul will be severely damaged and the north doesn’t want a war because they know they will be crushed. So it ain’t gonna happen.

        1. I think a well stocked buffet of food items that are easily acquired in S. Korea, stationed just south of the DMZ, will quickly end a N. Korean invasion.

          1. Oooh, like Korean barbecue!!!

          2. Possible, and in fact that might work. However, there is historical precedent otherwise. Read Ivan’s War and note the reactions of Red Army soldiers when they saw how rich the Germans were and how well-stocked German stores were compared to the Soviet Union.

          3. I have always advocated this, I call it the “Rifles for Bi Bim Bop Strategy ™”

          4. There’s a documentary on the Winter War on YouTube that’s worth watching. It’s amazing how poorly the Soviets treated their troops. They were starving and would drop their weapons to partake of Finnish food.

            1. Was that the one where Bucky Barnes was rescued by the Soviets after the bomb went off, and was brainwashed into being a master-assassin that they cryogenically froze and only used for super-elite missions.

              I’m usually not down with retcons, but that was a pretty good story.

            2. Yes, which the Finns took advantage of.

              There also wasn’t the hate between the Red Army and the Finns like there was between the Red Army and the Germans.

              1. I have to disagree with this – I know a few Finns, and any that had been in the war HATE Russians (Soviets). A few minutes before the end of the war cease fire took place, the Russian unleashed the largest artillery barrage of the war – catching the Finns leaving their positions and killing lots of them. Believe me, there is still lots of hate….

      2. It’s been bluster a proxy for the conflict between China and the West for nearly 70 years. No reason to think that is changing now.

    3. One theory I have is – should the NorKs get so out of hand that region begins to destabilize the PRC will announce that the Kim regime sent the PRC an urgent request for military support against a large-scale, internal military coup. After the Chinese send in their crack troops (hours later) they will announce that they got there tone late to save Kim and are staying to stabilize the situation.

      They’d be doing us all a big favor.

      1. He is at least a big of a pain in the ass to the PRC as he is to the US. The Kims are the PRC’s asshole brother-in-law that you have to be somewhat nice to.

        1. That’s why I am hoping they will send in troops, take him out and shoot him, then make up a story about it so the rest of the world doesn’t have to give them shit about it.

        2. “North Korea: The Roger Clinton of East Asia”

  21. According to a new poll, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with worse honesty ratings than Donald Trump in the key swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

    Wow. At the risk of making predictions about the future, I think I’m finally jumping on the “she’s done” bandwagon, as far as the campaign goes. She is going to start hemorrhaging donors soon and inner-party support. Which will leave…Biden? Warren? Jesus.

    This election may very well be the epitome of giant douche vs turd sandwich, and that’s saying something.

    Nowhere to go but up, though, right? Guys?

    1. The election is over a year away. By this time next year, the emails will be “old news” and the electorate has a very short memory.

    2. Al Gore’s triumphant return.

    1. I have to hand it to them, they are really creative.

    2. “Drug smugglers will try anything to move their product — even scuba diving in an underwater tunnel,” U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy said. “The ingenuity of the smugglers is matched only by our determination to thwart it, as we have done in this case.

      I laughed.

  22. “I think that the FBI will be moving with all deliberate speed to determine whether there were serious breaches of national security here,” Ron Hosko, former director of the FBI’s criminal investigation division, told NPR

    Deliberate speed you ex-emperor

  23. Gaze into the abyss of endless sorrow that is Everyday Feminism:
    an article written in standard English about why standard English is not important

    http://everydayfeminism.com/20…..n-english/

    1. I’m afraid the abyss will gaze back at me

    2. The most common critique: “This is America, and in America, you speak English.”

      Oppressive much?

      The word ‘oppressive’ officially has no meaning anymore.

      Let’s just get this out of the way: The USA has no official language! There is no federal law that states that citizens must speak English.

      However, as evidenced by the negative backlash to the “America the Beautiful” commercial, many insist that to be American is to speak English.

      This, of course, is a bizarre ? not to mention oppressive ? assertion because English doesn’t even come from the USA. It comes from England!

      This is amazing.

      1. That’s gotta be a spoof site, right? I mean, nobody can seriously be that fucking stupid.

      2. I would question what language she would propose as an alternative but my GAF meter seems to be frozen at zero.

      3. *shrugs*

        Everything he wrote is pretty much correct concerning what linguistics (dialectology, to be specific) defines as a “prestige dialects”. Just with a little tweaking, that essay could accurately reflect, say, a Southerner’s complaints concerning prejudice against their accent, and so on.

        Yes, it is retarded to make assumptions concerning a person’s social class, level of education, etc. just based on the way he or she talks; however, research has also shown that it’s human nature from all the way back to the monkey times. Complaining about it is just raging against the wind.

        1. Then she said when she speaks Spanish, people around her who don’t speak Spanish step back and stop smiling at her. HOW PRIVILEGED OF THEM!

          1. He….and I think it has more to do with the fact that he looks like a coke dealer.

            1. A male feminist? What is that I can’t even.

              Oh god… another of his articles:

              “7 Questions Latinxs Who Don’t ‘Look Latinx Enough’ Get (And Why They’re Harmful)”

              “This one weird trick can get you into all the best SJW parties!”

  24. Florida poll: Trump beats home-staters Bush, Rubio

    For Republicans, Florida is Trump Country right now. And for all Florida voters, it’s no longer looking like Clinton Country.

    Donald Trump has risen to the top of the GOP pack in a new Quinnipiac University poll of Florida voters that shows him pulling 21 percent support to former Gov. Jeb Bush’s 17 percent. With 11 percent support, Sen. Marco Rubio ties fellow Floridian Ben Carson for third place in the March 15 winner-take-all primary. None of the other GOP candidates gets double-digit support.

    “Trump obviously has struck a chord with a certain type of Republican voter who’s anti-Washington,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the poll. “There’s a certain amount of help he has gotten from his past as a TV star.”

    1. Why go third party when you can just win the nomination?

  25. Penn and Teller did this first

    The first version used a rich homemade chicken stock and was accompanied by a nondescript card stating the ingredients.

    In contrast, the second version used bouillon powder diluted with plain old tap water.

    However, chef Charles Pelletier then personally introduced this version, informing diners at each table in turn that the dish was inspired by a treasured childhood memory while explaining the provenance of each ingredient.

    “So another version of the risotto, very small changes but important ones,” Pelletier tells his diners. “Iranian saffron, Japanese rice, French licorice — this is the licorice [he holds it up]. It looks like a stick of wood, we would use it as candy as a kid and suck it — it’s weird but it’s good! Bon appetit, merci beaucoup.”

    1. Most people don’t have a palette that is refined enough to pick up on subtle differences like that. And the ones that do may very well be full of shit.

      1. Absolutely. I have a large and varied bourbon bar, but to me, the biggest difference between a $35 bottle and a $150 bottle is the story. And, yeah, I’m sometimes willing to pay for the story, at least for one bottle’s worth, when the story is true. (But I don’t go for the Pappy craziness.)

        1. I will say that there is clearly a difference in what you pay for with Tequila. Matt’s booze rule is if you’re sipping it, use the good stuff, if you’re mixing it save the money.

          1. Even though I’m a big bourbon fan, I admit that other liquor — scotch, tequila — show a far bigger differential between top and bottom bottles. I think that’s because there really is NO bad straight bourbon.

            1. Agree. We do a tasting with friends and bring in the local booze expert from a restaurant near us. We’ve done whiskey/bourbon/scotch and tequila so far. Scotch, by far, was most interesting in history and varied in taste. He put up a map, gave the history on each bottle, and showed how to actually taste it correctly. I know enough now that if I’m in the mood for a particular flavor, I can just ask by region instead of distiller.

              And we’re recalibrating Private Chipperbot to not use Matt’s name since we liquidated him.

              1. I find a difference in how bad the next morning feels when mixing with poor quality Tequila. At least go with a nice Reposado.

          2. If you’re putting ice in it, save the money.

    2. America’s Test Kitchen did a blind tasting of various canned stocks and bouillon cubes as well as homemade stock, and found that the “natural” stocks were almost always rated worse. The winner was that “Better than Bouillon” paste that you keep in a refrigerator after opening. The moral of the story is that high sodium is key to taste.

      1. One of the chefs who trained me always said that the primary faults of home cooking were insufficient heat, insufficient butter, and insufficient salt.

        1. This is true. The reason food tastes so good in a good restaurant is a combination of skill, good ingredients, and lots of salt and fat.

      2. I prefer homemade stock mainly because I don’t like all the salt.

      3. Better Than Boullion is great stuff. And doesn’t have much more salt than canned broth.

    3. I guess that whole “saving face” thing has been discarded from Chinese culture.

  26. launched a shell toward a South Korean loudspeaker that had been blaring anti-Pyongyang broadcasts, as tension escalated on the peninsula.”

    Sounds like someone can’t find the remote.

    1. If it was a non-stop car alarm, I would have cheered the Norks on…

  27. Japan can’t afford gifts for centenarians.

    Every year since 1963, citizens turning 100 have received a commemorative silver cup. When the tradition began, Japan had 153 centenarians.

    Fast forward five decades and that number has exploded — 29,357 turned 100 in 2014 alone. Japan has the oldest population in the world — more than a quarter of people are over 65.

    Each silver cup costs 8,000 yen ($65), adding a whopping 260 million yen ($2.1 million) to the state budget, said Akira Yanase, an official at Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. The government is now considering less expensive options.

    1. I hear 120 is the new 100.

  28. Welfare Cards Are Buying Drugs ? and Maine Is Doing Something about It

    On a muggy day last summer, agents from the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency and local police raided the home and office of Herman “Rusty” Hoffman. They’d been investigating him for months, and what they found didn’t disappoint: 500 capsules of bath salts, a handful of Suboxone strips, drug ledgers, three firearms, several motor-vehicle-inspection stickers that had been reported as stolen ? and seven Maine electronic-benefits-transfer (EBT) cards.

    EBT cards, which allow welfare recipients to withdraw cash benefits, have repeatedly appeared at drug busts in Maine, where they are being used as currency, new state records show. Fortunately, the data also suggest that recent reforms are effectively curbing such abuses.

    1. That’s been all over the local news. In my mind the solution would be quite simple: put the recipient’s photo on the card and require businesses to check it. But we all know that will never happen.

      1. I don’t sign my personal or business credit cards and in 10 years have been asked exactly once to show my ID for a purchase. It’s depressing.

        1. Yeah. I write “SEE ID” on the back of my debit card. I’ve been asked maybe a half a dozen times in the last ten years.

      2. IDs are racist!!!!

  29. I figured it out: Shaun King is Herbert Kornfeld.

    1. He faked his own death and went on to live the dream.

  30. Questions Every Planned Parenthood Supporter Should Have To Answer

    Question: Would you be okay with a government-subsidized company performing vivisections on a baby panda? You know, cutting one of those adorable things open, taking parts out of them while their hearts were still beating? What if we could make a few bucks while, maybe, sorta, using those organs for scientific study?even though several other methods are available to researchers? Is that acceptable?

    Obviously, I can only guess how people would answer that question. But after reading about how thrilled many Washingtonians were that National Zoo officials had spotted a fetus in the giant panda the very same day I watched a video about Planned Parenthood and how “cool” it is to see a human fetus’ heart pumping after his face was ripped open ? well, the question just popped into my head.

    1. Your typical pro-abortion progressive is completely inconsistent on these types of things.

      1. What’s inconsistent? A pro choicer can respect a embryo or fetus value as a potential life without thinking it has rights.

        1. Nothing says respect like sucking something’s brains out while its heart is still beating.

        2. The inconsistent part is when they care more about animals than they do a fetus. Regardless of where you stand, you have to admit that at some stage of development a fetus surpasses most animals in terms of intelligence, ability to feel pain, awareness, etc. To be clear, I care about animals, too. And I see inconsistency on the anti-abortion side in the opposite direction, too — dismissing concerns about animal welfare in the case of the small number of animals that are probably more developed than a human fetus or even infant.

          1. It’s not just fetuses though.

            Balko pointed out in his book that people tend to get more pissed off about puppycide than when cops kill an actual person. We’re a warped species sometimes.

            1. I think that’s because, probably, we’re conditioned to believe the person was somehow in the wrong. After all, why would a police officer hurt us, right?

              Animals aren’t human and as such they can’t communicate ergo killing them is outrageous; even in cases where they actually do attack.

              1. Animals are seen as morally innocent or neutral, so when a cop kills one they’re easily seen as the bad guy, but when a cop kills a human it’s assumed the human was up to no good.

                1. Isn’t that, more or less if not awkwardly, just said?

          2. at some stage of development

            Ah. Here’s yer problem.

            1. Agreed, but a lot of (most?) people don’t even get that far.

          3. I’m not sure it’s inconsistent. I can value an embryo as something that might be important and still think my dog is more worthy of moral consideration. It’s a much more complex creature in ways that suggest moral consideration (capacity to feel pain, awareness, etc).

            1. He’s right. It’s not inconsistent to place animal life at the same level as human life as long as you’re fucking insane and anthropomorphize your pets.

              1. you’re fucking insane and anthropomorphize your pets.

                You realize who you’re talking to, right?

              2. That’s a nice conflation there. I’m talking about animal life at a certain stage of development and human life at another. You really think a one celled embryo is more valuable than your grown dog?

            2. In the earliest stages of development you might be able to claim that consistently. But at later stages a fetus is every bit as aware and capable of feeling pain as your dog. My point is that a lot of people don’t even stop to consider that.

              1. At the later stages you’re right, at least about feeling pain. I read one animal rights theorists, Regan I think it was, that said that the animal rights movement is going to have to come to grips with the idea that late term fetuses meet the criteria that animal rights supporters use to claim moral consideration to many animals.

    2. Awesome trolling.

    3. Pandas? Why not go for puppies? Lol

    4. Considering Dr. Safari DDS got literal, no-shit death threats over killing a lion…

      (Not to open that topic again, but still)

      1. Just like some people place enormous value on day old human embryos some place value on more complex beings like lions. I don’t find that remarkable.

        1. What would be truly remarkable is if the actual point ever saturated that grey matter of yours.

          Note the comment was on the death threats… the valuation of animal life (a lion) above human life (a dentist, who is an asshole, which isn’t a capital crime)… the possible parallels in other areas of ethics…

          1. People make ‘death threats’ about some pretty petty stuff, especially anonymously online. It’s a bit silly to be worked up about it.

            And people don’t just make death threats over embryos, some even try to make good on them!

            1. So did you take the bar this summer, Bo? Just asking because my son did and is awaiting results. (You recently graduated law school, no?)

              1. Earlier than the summer, I finished in the Fall/Winter but walked in the Spring commencement, so I could take the earlier one. What state is your son in? I hope he gets good news soon!

                1. He’s clerking for a federal judge in Ky, but took the Ohio bar — he wants to end up back home eventually. He’s actually in Costa Rica for a couple weeks with some chick whom I’ve only met at graduation. (They worked on the law review together.) It’s his first chance to relax in three years. Guess you know how that works.

                  1. “It’s his first chance to relax in three years. Guess you know how that works.”

                    I wish, I went right to work after school (my job is law related but doesn’t require my being licensed).

            2. I have no idea why on earth I thought you wouldn’t offer a defense for threatening people with death over one of your pet issues. Or that the defense wouldn’t entail some variation of two wrongs making a right. You really are a piece of shit.

              1. My, but you’re nice this morning! Going to go death threat soon?

                Look, it’s not a defense of death threats over animal life to note that 1. a lot of ‘death threat’s’ are anonymous, online ‘I hope that hunter gets put into a wood chipper’ stuff and 2. people make, and try to actually carry out, pro-life motivated death threats. To the extent that someone actually threatened the hunter’s life over killing the lion they should be condemned and if appropriate prosecuted for such a threat, but that doesn’t change my point that people make death threats over much less complex creatures sadly regularly. I assume you’re all worked up over their inconsistencies’ too?

                1. I assume you’re all worked up over their inconsistencies’ too?

                  By your own logic, that wouldn’t really be an inconsistency since pro-lifers all (ostensibly) think every sperm and ovum has full human rights. It’s insane, but not inconsistent. If Scott Roeder had stopped off after shooting George Tiller to take out a veterinarian who performed an abortion on a pregnant cat or something, then you’d have the red herring moral equivalence you’re groping for. Which still wouldn’t have anything even tangentially to do with the topic or the point, which is that some people (like you) are so out of their goddamn minds anthropomorphizing animals that they actually think killing an animal could somehow justify killing the person who killed the animal. “A life for a life”.

                  1. You don’t get it. Some people see animals, especially at a certain stage of development, as having considerable moral value, and therefore they have considerable enmity to those who would wantonly take it. You can call this ‘anthropomorphizing’ in a dismissive way if you like, but there’s a bit of truth there that you’re not getting, that for many people mere human DNA is not that considerable of a moral criteria. So there’s nothing more ‘inconsistent’ in someone who values a grown lion more than a early embryo showing such enmity towards someone who kills it than a pro-lifer showing the same towards someone who kills the embyro. For you the human DNA is a big deal, but if you mature a bit you can see that it’s not for some people and that doesn’t make them unreasonably inconsistent.

                    1. Of course, the original post was about vivisection on a baby panda, and its ethical comparison in the public consciousness to organ harvesting from live late-term fetuses, but if it wasn’t a mendacious red herring, it wouldn’t be a Bo post, now would it?

                      I’m well acquainted with your magic vagina theory of personhood and your bugfuck nuts interpretation of animal rights, but it wasn’t really the topic under discussion.

                    2. Wow, you really can’t wrap your head around the idea that someone could think a grown lion or dog is worth more moral consideration than a one day old human embryo. It’s sad because a good part of the population has this view you think is so magical and crazy.

                    3. No, you’re just having a made-up argument with yourself (as is your wont) because you are a mendacious cunt. The topic under consideration was not a 1 day old human embryo compared to an adult lion, it was a baby panda vs a late term human fetus.

                      Also, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy even when it’s true. 33% of Americans support your view of animal rights and .

                    4. Actually, this part of the conversation is about your comment about how crazy it was that the dentist got death threats. My reply was it was no crazier than when pro-life people threaten those who kill embryos or fetuses. Your reply was predictably: you think animals are more important than humans, think of teh BABIES!!!!

                      And as to your link: “Nearly one-third of Americans believe animals should have the same rights as people” That’s not my view, and it’s hilarious that you can’t see that.

                    5. To further elaborate and/or belabor the point, my original reply was intended to convey that, if people were willing to threaten to kill a live, conscious, grown-up, non-embryonic, post-fetal, adult human man over the death of an animal, I wouldn’t expect them to be particularly swayed by the comparison of the baby panda to a human fetus. You’ve gone about demonstrating that aptly while the point still eludes you.

                    6. “people were willing to threaten to kill a live, conscious, grown-up, non-embryonic, post-fetal, adult human man over the death of an animal”

                      And lots of people threaten to kill live, conscious, grown-up, non-embryonic, post-fetal adult human men over the death of an embryo. Worse, some actually have carried or tried to carry it out! That was my point, which you’re trying so very, very hard to deflect, because you’re sympathetic to those people on some level I imagine.

                  2. Guys. Guys. You’re arguing abortion with Bo. Go do something productive, like porn or cat videos or cleaning your toenails.

                    1. Damn..my toenails were really dirty and needed clipping. Thanks for the heads up, Hamster!

                    2. Hamster is good. Hamster is wise.

    5. There’s a sign that reads ‘I love choices.’

      Funny that since progs, generally, support policies that restrict choice. For the children. Usually.

      1. My body my choice, unless you want to take drugs, eat transfat, or get a potentially life saving treatment that hasn’t been blessed by the FDA.

    6. So … vivisection on pandas is bad, but vivisection on chick embryos (like every student does every week in any decent college developmental biology course) is bad? Check your cute privilege, fool …

    7. They would say that the human species is not endangered.

  31. http://pjmedia.com/diaryofamad…..s-to-lose/

    Roger Simon goes all in for Trump. There is one thing about Trump winning, it would kill PC forever. If Trump won everyone would know that no one gives a shit about what the PC police think and all you have to do is stand up to them.

    1. I’m guessing it would cause a backlash and the PC crowd would try even harder.

      1. This is what I would expect, as well

      2. Better than just the lash we’re getting now.

        1. So which would be next? Rum or sodomy?

          I’m just asking so I know whether to get the ice or the condoms,

          1. Always bring both. Best to be prepared for whatever scenario.

    2. No, a Trump presidency would show that a large number of right-wing voters are just xenophobic bigots that think all objections to their xenophobia and bigotry is “PC” and therefore they’ll support a crazy asshole with no coherent political positions.

      It’s shockingly brainless and isn’t going to make things any better than they are now.

      1. Probably not. But I am not sure what would and the butt hurt it caused from people like would be fucking delicious. You need to stop writing things like this or you are going to make voting for Trump awfully attractive. The country as a whole doesn’t deserve a Trump Presidency but people like you certainly do.

      2. No, a Trump presidency would show that a large number of right-wing voters are just xenophobic bigots that think all objections to their xenophobia and bigotry is “PC”

        I think this has already been proven given the collective freakout over an alleged illegal immigrant crime wave that doesn’t appear to exist and which conservatives claim to exist based on like three murders committed by illegal aliens.

        1. So that woman in San Fransisco wasn’t really murdered? That was faked? I never heard about that. Is it “freaking out” thinking that someone convicted of a felony should “gasp” be deported? The point is not that illegals are more or less likely to be criminals. The point is that the ones who are should be deported and never allowed to come back and we are not doing that.

          1. What you heard:

            So that woman in San Fransisco wasn’t really murdered? That was faked?

            What I said:

            which conservatives claim to exist based on like three murders committed by illegal aliens.

            That’s one of those three murders they’re flipping their shit about. The point is that you can’t make sweeping declarations about a group based on anecdotes and the #cuckservative crowd appears to think a few examples of individual homicides are proof that the Messicans are slaughtering and raping our white women.

            1. No. But you can sure as hell make judgements about how the system is working and it clearly isn’t. And those three murders were not the only ones.

              We can’t even have a conversation about deporting murderers without the open borders people screaming RACISM. And you wonder why people are tuning it out and supporting Trump. Take the issue seriously and offer some solutions to the problems that exist rather than screaming RACIST at anyone who points out the problems.

              1. If Trump were only talking about deporting violent criminals then I would say more power to him (well, I’d be OK with keeping them in American jails and then deporting them once their sentence is up, too).

                But that is not all is he talking about. You know that. But you refuse to engage with actual criticisms of Trump or the restrictionist crowd.

                1. The fact that Trump is not just talking about that doesn’t excuse open borders advocates from offering solutions to the problems Trump is capitalizing on. Just because you don’t like what he is saying, doesn’t mean you can’t offer solutions rather than attacks. The attacks are just alienating people and causing them to embrace Trump more.

              2. If Trump were only talking about deporting violent criminals then I would say more power to him (well, I’d be OK with keeping them in American jails and then deporting them once their sentence is up, too).

                But that is not all is he talking about. You know that. But you refuse to engage with actual criticisms of Trump or the restrictionist crowd.

        2. OK, let’s assume that 90% of the crimes listed by the GAO (other than immigration itself) were committed by SCAAP persons in state and local institutions. That would mean illegal aliens committed 22,558 murders over four years. That is a rate of 5,639 per year, or over 15 per day. (For reference, Rep. Steve King reported a figure of 12 per day. A sheriffs’ association is reported to estimate it at 25 per day. I don’t know how reliable these values are, but they are not totally out of line with the GAO’s data.)

          That would give a murder rate for illegal aliens of 52 per 100,000 (5,639 in a population of 10.8 million) ? about 10 times that of U.S. citizens.

          http://www.americanthinker.com…..ns_do.html

          1. You are messing with people’s religious faith Lord Hummungus. That kind of thing never goes over well. Illegal aliens are less violent, harder working and in all ways superior to the lazy welfare sucking natives. If you don’t think so, you are just a racist xenophobe. Got it/

          2. I, and many others, have supported background checks for incoming immigrants.

            We have also pointed out that by giving low-skill workers a viable path to immigrate legally, you can much more easily identify the criminals. As it stands, we don’t give low-skill workers a viable path to immigrate legally, so they sneak across the border, making it impossible to do any screening.

        3. “right-wing voters are just xenophobic bigots”

          Why is it just right-wing voters? Sanders is just as opposed to immigration as Trump. In fact, Sanders explicitly says that open borders is a right-wing, Koch-brothers position.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

      3. I’ve long given people the benefit of the doubt on immigration, choosing to believe that they weren’t motivated by xenophobia and bigotry. I still think that’s true for lots of people.

        But if Trump can be as successful as he is among the conservative base by appealing to xenophobia and racism while completely eschewing what conservativism is supposed to stand for, then it’s going to be pretty hard to argue that the people supporting Trump aren’t xenophobic and racist.

        1. Why? Because they want criminals deported? Because they want the government to assert it’s sovereign right to control the borders?

          By your definition is anyone who is against immigration automatically xenophobic and racist? If so, why is that? And more importantly, if the best you can do in response to a demand to stop immigration is scream “RACIST”, what does that say about your actual reasons to object to that?

          1. “Because they want the government to assert it’s sovereign ”

            Nothing says small government like going on and on about the importance of assertions of government sovereignty.

          2. No, because they are willing to toss out conservative values to support a guy who wants to turn the USA into East Berlin and who appeals to xenophobic stereotypes against Mexican immigrants. Trump isn’t out there offering nuanced policy on immigration that is also restrictionist. He is appealing to the worst tendencies of people by just blathering whatever restricionist policies he can come up with. And it’s working with some segment of the population.

            I and many others have, over the past week, given you more than enough detailed explanation of why we oppose Trump’s plans and what we would do, both in an ideal and practical world, to deal with immigration and people’s concerns over it. You completely and utterly refuse to engage with it. So what does that say about your objections to immigration?

            1. No, because they are willing to toss out conservative values to support a guy who wants to turn the USA into East Berlin and who appeals to xenophobic stereotypes against Mexican immigrants.

              No. That just means they consider immigration the most important issue and are willing to vote for the only person willing to address their concerns. If Bernie Sanders were saying he was going to end the drug war, would you vote for him? I could see why you would and if you did, it would not mean you were a socialist or not really a Libertarian. It would mean you consider ending the drug war to be more important than economics, which is not an unreasonable position and wouldn’t necessarily mean you don’t value economic freedom. It would just mean you considered ending the drug war more important.

              It should surprise me that Libertarians don’t understand why otherwise conservative people would be willing to ignore Trump’s non conservative views. Libertarians are as a group incapable of compromise, strategic thinking or single issue voting. They want it all or nothing and of course nearly always get nothing.

              Are some of Trump supporters racist? Probably. Not all of them are, however. Most of them view immigration as a really important issue and are willing to compromise on other issues to get something done about it. If there were a conservative candidate willing to take a stand on immigration, they would support them.

              1. No. That just means they consider immigration the most important issue and are willing to vote for the only person willing to address their concerns.

                You’re missing the point. He is addressing their concerns with xenophobia and fear, and the solutions he is proposing are patently non-conservative. For the Sanders argument to make sense I’d have to be willing to vote for him when he was not only proposing to end the drug war for totally unlibertarian reasons but also proposing to accomplish it with totally unlibertarian policies. And if that were the case you could reasonable assume that I didn’t really care about libertarianism when it came to the drug war.

                1. He is addressing their concerns with xenophobia and fear, and the solutions he is proposing are patently non-conservative.

                  Says you. What is not conservative about enforcing the law? You are just playing not a true Scotsman here. No real conservative would want to enforce the law or believes in national sovereignty.

                  Once again, you are just dismissing anyone who thinks the country has a right to control its borders and determine who gets to come and live here and who doesn’t is just a racist. Everything you say is just dressing that same assumption up.

                  1. The uncoservative part is where we we spend billions of dollars, create a police state, and propose to deport American citizens along with illegal immigrants. Again, this has been pointed out to you many times and you refuse to engage with. “Conservatives” are embracing policies they fought against when it was used by oppressive communist regimes.

                    By your “logic” I’m dismissing myself as racist for proposing that we should conduct background checks and health screenings and for being OK with requiring a job offer or sponsor.

          3. If Trump were appealing to people with the arguments about the welfare state or the political direction of the country that more thoughtful anti-immigration people around here use, I wouldn’t assume bigotry and xenophobia. But I don’t see that.

            1. You think ‘we have to restrict people’s voluntary actions because those people might vote wrong later on’ is ‘thoughtful?’

              1. I think it is wrong and unlibertarian, but also more thoughtful that “dirty Mexicans are raping and killing our women”

                1. I guess. I see it as based on a massive collectivization and one that fails to realize how dynamic the real world is. Saying ‘the Mexicans are going to come in and vote for socialist Democrats’ is like someone in 1920 saying ‘those Irish are just going to come in and vote for socialists!’ Mexicans and Irish are big groups and they change over time.

                  1. like someone in 1920 saying ‘those Irish are just going to come in and vote for socialists!’

                    You mean like all those Irish votes controlled by Tammany Hall that gave control to the Democrats in New York, and also heavily influenced national politics? Like that? The votes of the Irish immigrants and the power they gave to the Tammany Hall Democratic political machine is actually an example of the point you seem to be trying to argue against.

                    1. And those Irish who later went for Reagan? Stop thinking so statically.

                    2. Yes, and what about those future Latinos who may vote libertarian 100 years in the future? Even you can’t seriously be that ridiculous. Never mind that you ignore the actual point that your example actually illustrates the opposite of what you were arguing. But I already know better than to expect anything better of you, so I will go back to ignoring you now.

                    3. Yes, we must restrict basic human rights because of a collective judgment of how people will vote (something that’s contingent on so many things, one perhaps being whether your party continues to demonize the group) in the future. We survived the Irish and their voting habits in the past, we might do so with Latinos too without becoming a police state.

                    4. Welcome to Botardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully with this book, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the Botard doesn’t rule the night. He don’t rule it. Nobody does. And he don’t run in packs. And while he may not be as strong as an ape, don’t lock eyes with ‘im, don’t do it. Puts ‘im on edge. He might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all he hears is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: Bo does. Bo always wants cake.

                    5. Bo is right on this one. An ideological purity test for immigrants is horrible idea and one that should frighten anyone suspicious of government power.

                    6. I never argued for an ideological purity test. I merely pointed out that Bo’s example re: the Irish immigrants actually illustrated the opposite of what he was arguing. A point he can’t seem to grasp.

    3. “There is one thing about Trump winning, it would kill PC forever”

      That would be nice, but if Venezuela can’t even kill communism then I doubt it.

      1. If someone who said all of the wrong things was still elected, what power would it have? The other thing Trump winning would show is that the unthinkable really can happen. That things really do change and don’t go on forever. You wouldn’t like how they changed sure. But if they can change one way, they can change another. One thing is for sure, things are never going to get better until someone from outside of the current political class takes over. The great weapon the political and media class has is its ability to just write things it doesn’t like out of the debate. Libertarians are a common victim of this. For example, it doesn’t matter how compelling the case against the drug war is because you can’t make the case. The political class just dismisses it out of hand, like they do with pretty much every other libertarian idea. They are trying to do the same thing to Trump on immigration. First it was “you can’t win if you offend the Hispanics” and now it is “you can’t secure the border and deport 11 million people”. No debate just dismissal just like they do when someone suggests legalizing drugs or kill off the EPA and the FDA and any other federal department. If he were to win it would so that arguments can’t just be dismissed anymore. That would necessarily be a bad thing.

        1. If Obama wins, it will kill racism forever.

          1. How is that analogous? It sounds clever but makes no sense when you think about it. The whole point of the PC mob is its perceived power to destroy people and make certain viewpoints unacceptable. If they are unable to do that to a national candidate, their power would be shown to be a bluff.

            Maybe that is not true. Whatever it is, it is completely different than saying if we just elect a black man no one will be racist anymore. The two assertions are in no way analogous.

        2. You would probably be interested in the link I posted down below. He does represent a new campaign style, which could have some unintended benefits, but there will always be a delusional/ idealistic part of society that resents people tampering with their popular myths and continues to hold on to them like a security blanket.

      2. “There is one thing about Trump winning, it would kill PC forever”

        Are you kidding me? It would drive the PC crowd into overdrive, they would moan and whine for his entire term about how horrible he and America is (and by the way, they’re not wrong if you morons elect Trump for any reason except morbid curiosity). It would be Bush-bashing combined with ‘Harper is a dictator’ times Hitler. You’d be giving the groups who have spent the past year trying to eat each other a common, easy target.

    4. Hate to tell you this, but Steve Jobs is still deader than PC.

      1. So PC is alive?

  32. Industrial grade derp: I advise watching it in small chunks. Behold the strawmen and projection!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D80ZP_c4MuI

    1. I made it to 2:05.

    2. well, he’s pretty in makeup

  33. Today in amusing etymologies:

    “patrol” comes from a French word that means crawl through mud or paddle through dirty water.

    “pollution” comes from the Latin word for mud.

    I’ve looked up the etymologies of a few thousand words as a hobby.

      1. But the harsh rays of the sun will scorch my alabaster skin!

        1. From the Latin “alabastros”, perfume vase.

  34. NH State Trooper helps a driver change a tire. No arrest, tazing, beating, or shooting.

    I’ll guess this is why:

    A woman was driving through a traffic circle when she noticed a state police cruiser had pulled over another vehicle. When she looked closer, she realized the trooper was actually changing a tire for a young woman.

    1. A New Hampshire state trooper was caught on camera — performing a generous act.

      I thought that was some pretty good snark.

  35. Cops urinated off because they are tossing cases where they waited until after the happy ending before arresting the working gal.

    http://www.startribune.com/pro…..322314011/

    Maybe most infuriating though is that the city has decided that since due process is hard, they will simply use city licensing to fuck over local businesses.

    Meanwhile, a city spokesman said Wednesday that Minneapolis’ new massage license ordinance may offer a civil regulatory path to reducing prostitution that wouldn’t require building cases for criminal prosecution.

    The new rules, which were passed by the City Council in 2013 and went into effect in July, require home businesses to pay an annual licensing fee of $50 and larger massage businesses to pay $140. The new rules also outline a variety of “unlawful acts” that could result in a citation or revoked license. The ordinance is aimed at making it harder for prostitution rings and other illegal outfits to thrive under the guise of the massage business.

    1. On the bright side, all of the comments to the article thought it was in poor taste and reflected the double standard of the left (e.g., what if it had been an Obama head).

  36. There is one thing about Trump winning, it would kill PC forever.

    Yeah, just like Obama’s winning ushered in America’s Great Post-Racial Era.

  37. I’m increasingly of the mindset that Sanders’ campaign is actually in coordination with Hillary. He runs knowing he won’t beat her but keeping someone like Warren who could out.

    1. And in return he gets? I like the thought, but I have a hard time coming up with something that Hillary might have that Bernie wants. (Except for really gross stuff.)

      1. He gets some attention. What else is he going to get?

    2. I have no doubt Warren could beat Hillary in the primary, but the GOP could run a dead muskrat or possibly even Donald Trump against Warren and then, holy shit, would the Mexicans have to build a fence to keep out the hordes of illegal immigrants flooding into their country.

      1. I’m not convinced Warren would be so bad in the general. People don’t necessarily hate that free stuff line she sells, she can play the ‘make history and elect a woman card’ and she comes off as much more energetic than Clinton. There’s also the near inevitability that the GOP will run someone terrible against whoever the Democrat nominee is.

        1. Contrary to what you would believe from the increasingly vocal progtards on the Twitter and other social medias, Bernie doesn’t have a prayer in the general. America will never elect a socialist.

          1. That’s my point. I don’t think he has a prayer in the general or the nomination. His function is to protect Hillary’s left flank, so to speak. His candidacy fills the role that would beg filling by someone like Warren who would have a prayer against Hillary.

  38. Rich Lowry: Yes, Pander to Trump on Immigration

    Amid the bar-stool bombast about deporting all illegal immigrants already here (a logistical, economic and humanitarian impossibility) and other characteristically Trumpian excesses is the core of a program that is more sensible than the “comprehensive” solution offered by the political establishment.

    What Trump offers is an entirely different framework for considering the issue. It is populist rather than elitist, and nationalist rather than cosmopolitan. It rejects the status quo rather than attempting to codify it. It puts enforcement first and dares to ask whether current high levels of legal immigration serve the country’s interest. In short, it takes a needed sledgehammer to the lazy establishment consensus on immigration.

    lol.

    1. Trump has it easy because he’s talking in the land of wishes. Since you’re talking about things that won’t ever really be workable why not go, like Trump does, wherever you want with that?

  39. Shoot Cops! *With a Camera*

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/las…..t-violent/

  40. The inside scoop on the lady Rangers: a general was brought in to grade them

    Army wanted 200 of the most badass women from the army, guard and reserves to start ranger school in April. The deal was they had to pass RTAC to get a slot.

    138 women attended several RTAC classes and 20 passed

    The 20 women were put in their own unit to train exclusively for Ranger school in the months preceding their start date. 1 quit before school started.

    19 women started Ranger School in April.

    11 failed in the first 3 days: pt test, land nav and road March

    All 8 failed patrols and were inserted into Darby the following class.

    All 8 failed patrols again. 5 were sent home and 3 were offered day 1 recycles.

    Nearing the end of their third attempt at Darby, all three had 2 failed patrols, and General Scott Miller (movement excellence commander of Ft Benning) showed up to be their guest walker. [As far as I know, no officer above the rank of colonel was ever a walker or lane grader. When I went to Ranger School, I believe the graders were all either NCOs or captains or majors. I do not even believe that any officer associated with the school was a general including the commandant of the ranger school. I think he was a LTC or Col.] All three passed.

    http://www.johntreed.com/ranger.html

    1. Equality at long last.

    2. I assumed that they had been given lower standards and/or special treatment in order to get them through. This just confirms it. The military is no fucking place for Affirmative Action.

      1. When did you start hating the wimens?

        1. That’s “womyns” you cis shitlord!

          1. Uhh it was a test…. You passed.

    3. Of the guys I’ve known who failed Ranger school most were dropped due to injury. To a man they were physical specimens bordering on freak-of-nature. None were given a second chance.

  41. I’m normally sick of reading about Trump but Scott Adams wrote a pretty good analysis of his campaign style. Basically, he asserts that Trump is the only candidate who is negotiating.

    Trump sees immigration as a negotiation. His opening offer is an anchor. This is how world-class negotiators work. The first offer has no purpose except to create contrast to whatever you eventually agree.

    For example, Trump’s plan has two ridiculous ideas that will never happen. One involves a change of the constitution to remove the right of citizenship for people born in this country. The other involves rounding up 11 million aliens and shipping them home.

    Not going to happen.

    If Trump were a goal-oriented thinker, or a politician, he would be setting himself up for failure. His plan has zero chance of success as it stands.

    But Trump is a systems thinker. He plays the long game. Every move is a negotiation.

    It seems plausible. It also reconciles his stated plan with his much more moderate political views from the past. It’s all a game to him.

    1. I forgot the link: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1…..-candidate

    2. Adams is a bright guy and I think he is onto something. The virtue of starting with a radical position is that it makes what you eventually settle for seem moderate by comparison. Lets say you and I are negotiating for me to buy your car. You want $10,000 for it and see anything below $9,000 as insulting. I am willing to pay &8,000 for it. It would seem we can never make a deal. Indeed if I come in up front and say $8,000 take it or leave it, we won’t. But if I start at $4,000 and the negotiation goes on long enough $8,000 will eventually seem like a good deal.

    3. Trump wrote a book about it.

      You know who else wrote a book?

        1. Heinze Guderian?

          1. I actually read that book.

            1. You magnificent b*stard!

  42. That Everyday Feminism site is a goddamn goldmine.

    5 Effective Ways People with Thin Privilege Can Fight Fatphobia

    There is a huge difference between skinny shaming and fat shaming ? and it’s a difference of scale and systemic power dynamics. Body shaming against all bodies is damaging, including microaggressions against skinny people.

    However, the difference between feelings being hurt and discrimination, dehumanization, and denial of rights on a systemic level is vast.

    Body terrorism against people who are fat is insidious, and it’s openly practiced in the halls of our society’s most central institutions ? hospitals, schools, the legal system, and the workplace.

    Body terrorism.

    1. In another study, 54% of doctors reported that they believe physicians should have the right to withhold treatment from “overweight” or “obese” patients.

      You read that horrifying sentence correctly: Of these professionals who have taken an oath to heal, more than half think that it’s perfectly all right to deny healthcare to people seeking healthcare!

      Unmentioned is the reason for this:

      Some 54% of doctors who took part said the NHS should have the right to withhold non-emergency treatment from patients who do not lose weight or stop smoking. Some medics believe unhealthy behaviour can make procedures less likely to work, and that the service is not obliged to devote scarce resources to them.

      So the reason 54% of doctors in Britain think service should be denied to fat people and smokers is because it would take money out of the socialized medical system. I eagerly await the Everyday Feminism article decrying the fat shaming innate to government healthcare.

      1. At least the doctors will certainly not be allowed to refuse to bake these people cakes.

        1. What if it’s a Christian doctor and the fatty wants it for her lesbian pizza wedding?

          1. Then he should be whipped, flogged and shackled to a radiator until he completes the perfect gay fatfuck wedding cake.

      2. Welcome to free health care.

        Americans who want single payer don’t know what they’re talking about.

        Seriously.

        It leads to all sorts of creepy crap. Not to mention horrible service sometimes.

        1. I mighta mentioned this but I need to get a screw removed from my knee. My doctor referred me to a hospital who, as it turns out, have an ‘indefinite waiting list’. That was a new one.

          So I had to go back to my doctor, get that stupid referral again and track down the original surgeon.

          I’ll find out soon how long that will take.

        2. Welcome to free health care.

          Americans who want single payer don’t know what they’re talking about.

          Seriously.

          It leads to all sorts of creepy crap. Not to mention horrible service sometimes.

          Especially where it concerns the allotment of resources. All things are a scarce to some degree. Medical supplies and services are more scarce than most necessities. At some point, decisions need to be made about the use of those resources and since those resources are distributed politically, those resources will flow towards politically favored groups and away from the disfavored.

          It’s functionally the opposite of what the socialists want; free and unlimited healthcare resources provisioned to whomever needs them. But socialist theory doesn’t accurately describe scarcity and so socialism in practice always leads to much higher scarcity than would otherwise be the case.

          No shit they don’t know what they’re talking about, they are cognitive cripples. It just amazes me that the ideology exists to the extent that it does, it’s just so obviously unworkable. But there is no peak stupid….

          1. You give them too much credit. The allotment of resources won’t even be based on science or utilitarian calculation, as evil as that is. It will be based on politics and bullshit. It is just a horror show.

            1. ^This.

            2. For the record I did say it was based wholly on politics…

      3. Doctors are evil assholes many of them. The other kick in the nuts about that statistic is that it has no scientific basis. Doctor’s have grasp onto the idea that losing weight can cure your health problems the way medivials believed in leeches.

        And don’t be too hard on the Brits. American doctors are just as bad. It is virtually impossible to get a doctor to pay attention to someone who is overweight. They tell them to fuck off and lose weight as if that is going to cure anything.

        1. What did the mean doctor say to your wife?

          1. That she was too thin. And I am as fine with insults as the next person. But you really think insulting people’s wives doesn’t cross a line? I don’t recall ever crossing it myself. Why do you feel the need to do it?

            1. Because humor. Would it be better if I said “your mom”? Take a fucking a joke, John.

              1. Yes. It would have been better if you had said my mom. And fine, its a joke.

            2. And you’re not fine with insults to any extent. Nearly every time a fat joke gets cracked in your general direction you get pissy.

              1. It just gets old. Come up with a new one.

                1. It gets old for you, but I’ve probably only made 2 or 3 “fat women+John” jokes in my commentariat carrier. We’re just getting started!

            3. John saying his wife was accused of being too thin (whether true or not) and his hissy fit defending her honor is the best laugh I’ve had on this board. Thanks, John.

        2. Well the good thing is you’re still free to not come see us, John.

    2. Why are you not embracing this attempt to change how people determine what is attractive? Keep yourself unbrain washed and say, “yeah, she only weights 105, but dammit, I love her.”

  43. Jesus fucking Christ!

    If I am reading last nights Tulpastic thread correctly?!?

    The reason sending Dutch jews to the concentration camps was bad was… the Nazi’s didn’t have legal jurisdiction over Denmark?!?!?

    He’s like a character from that old Harper’s article: Who would go Nazi?

    1. I’m reading it now, and you are correct.

    2. and “LAWFLEERS!”

    3. He went like 9.2 on the Tulpa scale.

    4. My favorite part was when he referred to Seinfeld as a “cesspool of criminality.”

      1. That’s how you can tell he’s trolling.

    5. Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, whatever.

      1. Point taken, sir.

        I blame the my hypocaffenaited state.

  44. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.homejobs90.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.