A.M. Links: Scalia SCOTUS Battle, GOP Prepares for Brokered National Convention, Left-Wing Economists Cast Doubt on Bernie Sanders

|

  • Credit: White House / Flickr.com

    The battle lines are forming in the clash between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans over the successor to late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

  • The Republican Party is quietly preparing for a brokered GOP convention and "a nomination fight that goes all the way to the bitter end."

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

NEXT: Sex-Trafficking Victim Arrested for Selling Sex

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

  1. The battle lines are forming in the clash between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans over the successor to late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

    President Sanders = Justice Hillary.

    1. Or vice versa.

    2. President Hillary=No justice

      1. Hillary – No justice and no piece – Bubba hardest hit

        1. Bubba hardest hit

          If Hillary spackled her junk shut permanently, it wouldn’t make a whit of difference to Bubba’s sex life. When you’ve got his combination of high charisma and low standards, the odds are good no matter how odd the goods.

          1. If Hillary shackled her junk shut, or even if she didn’t, the hardest thing “hit” would still be the lady parts of a 15 year old on Epstein’s private island.

            There, I said it. He’s a pederast.

          2. When you’ve got his combination of high charisma and low standards, and a nine figure bank account

            1. When you’ve got his combination of high charisma and low standards, and a nine figure bank account

          3. How come he has to take the “Lolita Express” to some secret child-rape island?

            1. It always amazes me how that absolutely scandalous story was hushed up. Bill Clinton flew on the plane with Epstein’s 16 year old harem. With no fallout. The media just refused to publicize the story.

              I hope that if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, various Republican SuperPacs hit the air waves hard and heavy with the reported facts on this story.

              Of course we all know why the Democrats and the media have down played this story.

              “In March 2005, a woman contacted Palm Beach police and alleged her 14-year-old daughter had been taken to Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion by an older girl and paid $300 after stripping and massaging him.She had undressed, but left on her underwear.
              Police started an 11-month undercover investigation of Epstein, followed by a search of his home. Subsequently, they alleged that Epstein had paid several escorts to perform sexual acts on him. Interviews with five alleged victims and seventeen witnesses under oath, a high school transcript and other items they found in Epstein’s trash and home allegedly showed that some girls were under 18.A search of Epstein’s home found large numbers of photos of girls throughout the house, some of whom had been interviewed earlier by the police. Papers filed in 2006 state that Epstein installed concealed cameras in numerous places in his property to record sex between prominent people and underage prostitutes for criminal purposes like blackmail.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

              1. And this tells you how corrupt it all is:

                “On June 18, 2010, Epstein’s former butler, Alfredo Rodriguez, was sentenced to 18 months in jail for trying to sell a journal that he said recorded Epstein’s activities. Special Agent Christina Pryor reviewed the material and agreed it was information “that would have been extremely useful in investigating and prosecuting the case, including names and contact information of material witnesses and additional victims.” Epstein allegedly lent girls to powerful people to ingratiate himself with them and also to get possible blackmail information.

                1. Put Rubio drinks water and Romney had binders full of women, so who cares?

                  1. Women in binders? Got pics?

            2. Because the heart, er, schlong, wants what it wants.

    3. Hello.

      “The battle lines are forming in the clash between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans over the successor to late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.”

      Here’s Obama’s chance to make good on his ‘failure’ to make nice in American politics. His olive branch moment so to speak. He won’t take it, will he?

      1. I would laugh all day long if he nominated Ted Cruz.

        1. I don’t fully understand why a bunch of my left of center friends think this would be some political stroke of genius by Obama. Assuming Cruz would accept (and a lifetime appointment to significantly effect law and policy is mighty enticing compared to just a chance at competing for 4 years of the presidency), senate republicans, despite their apparent dislike for Cruz, would have the opportunity to rid themselves of a smarmy thorn in their side and place a conservative ideologue on the Court. Meanwhile democrats in the senate would be forced into a decision about whether to oppose or filibuster a nominee of Obama’s. Texas immediately gets another republican appointed to the senate. Rubio, by far the most electable republican in the general, now has an opportunity to consolidate the non-Trump votes.

          Am I missing something?

          1. It may look like a dozen different kinds of own goal, but that’s only because you can’t comprehend the sublime subtlety of Obama’s five-dimensional chess strategy.

          2. Dang, bro, don’t seriously me! I think it about as likely as appointing Trump. Obama has no interest in winning points for confusing Republicans at the expense of tarnishing his legacy. Sure Republicans would love it, which is reason enough for Democrats to hate it.

        2. I was thinking Andrew Napolitno

    4. I’ve heard to variations of what Obamas ultimate strategy is whether he picks a gushy moderate that republicans wouldn’t have to much to complain about setting about retarded infighting among their ranks or if he picks a hyper partisan black women because he thinks it would charge the base during the upcoming presidential election. Here’s the thing ultimately the republicans are fucked with how they will be portrayed because McConnell already played his fucking hand like a retard.

      1. Janice Rogers Brown is a hyper partisan black woman.

        The Dems stalled her appointment for 2 years, btw.

      2. “Here’s the thing ultimately the republicans are fucked with how they will be portrayed because McConnell already played his fucking hand like a retard.”

        Except no one gives that much of a shit about Supreme Court nomination fights other than people who are already partisan.

        This won’t drive Democratic turnout. This won’t lead independents to vote Democrat. It will not hurt the Republicans one iota. All the talk about Republicans being hurt by a Supreme Court fight is coming from DC pundits who pay attention to these things and refuse to acknowledge most Americans don’t give a shit.

        1. This is probably true.

        2. This won’t drive Democratic turnout.

          It will once the “we’re just one justice away from coat-hangers” commercials start.

          1. It will once the “we’re just one justice away from coat-hangers” commercials start.

            I don’t know how much more anti-abortion you could get than Scalia. While such commercials will likely air, it’s not like it’s Ginsburg who died.

            1. Yeah, it doesn’t have to make sense but they’ll do it and it will work.

        3. Add to that, the Democrats have an incredibly weak hand here. How plausible is it for them to claim that the president’s SCOTUS picks are sacred when he himself tried to filibuster Alito’s nomination? Add to that this little tidbit the fact that Schumer’s quoted as saying:

          We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.

          1. Don’t worry, the debate will shortly shift to this being “unprecedented” and we will be reminded that the Republicans are “obstructionists” and hypocrites besides, because they won’t honor the “spirit” of the Constitution.

            The fact that the Democrats would likely have done the exact same thing if a liberal justice had died close to the end of Bush’s term is going to be swept under the rug.

            1. Yeah, but the “obstructionist” line is already played out. They’ve made the accusation for so long, it’s now just background noise.

        4. Except no one gives that much of a shit about Supreme Court nomination fights other than people who are already partisan.

          Unless it’s a minority candidate being blocked by evil obstructionists. Then it becomes the most important thing, ever. This one really writes itself.

          1. If Obama really wanted to nominate a minority candidate, he would pick Janice Rogers Brown.

            Otherwise, he’s more committed to leftism and/or narcissism.

        5. The only thing that could have a significant impact on voter turnout in my opinion is if Obama made a recess appointment. It would feed right into the “phone and a pen” imperial presidency perception.

    5. Justice Obama. He’s a Constitutional scholar, after all. He just has to find the Constitutional loophole that lets him appoint himself.

  2. Left-leaning economists are raising questions about the costs and practicalities of Bernie Sanders’ expansive government agenda.

    They know put into practice their theories will crumble!

    1. WE DON’T DESERVE THEIR LARGESSE.

  3. Ignore if this has already been remarked upon:

    Alex Pareene from Gawker on Antonin Scalia:

    The Supreme Court has been conservative for a long, long time, and if Antonin Scalia had sat on the court for the last 200 years instead of 30, he would have written a concurrence in Dred Scott, the majority opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson, and a devilishly quotable dissent in Brown v. Board of Education. But he was the embodiment of the new kind of conservative jurist, who sought not just to maintain some favorable status quo, but (ironically) to use the courts to remake society. Before Scalia, the notions that Congress couldn’t restrict political spending, or that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual’s right to private firearm ownership for self-defense, were widely considered absurd.

    Speaking of absurd – THAT THIS GUY HAS A JOB AS A “JOURNALIST”!!!

    Keep in mind, that while Gawker may run a LITTLE hard left, the entire mainstream of the left will be parroting that EGREGIOUSLY STUPID talking point from here on out. Just like the “Reagan actually RAISED taxes!” talking point that they love to bring up….

    1. The 2A one is really baffling. But I am sure he believes it, because he is ignorant.

      1. It’s got a least a grain of truth. A while back liberal academics had managed to convince nearly everyone that the second amendment didn’t apply to individuals. It was ahistorical nonsense, but they got at least most of the writing to agree with them. Their really pissed that it didn’t stick.

        1. They didn’t manage to convince ‘nearly everyone,’ they managed to convince left-wing academics and attorneys and judges.

          There’s no way you can read the second amendment without concluding it’s an individual right. The militia clause is one example of why we should have the right to bear arms, it is clearly not meant to be held up as the only example. If the first amendment read “A free press being necessary to the exchange of information regarding political figures, the rights of the people to a free press shall not be infringed,” you would have to be an absolute moron to interpret that sentence as meaning “only the exchange of information regarding political figures” is allowed by the first amendment.

          The fact that people in DC concluded this was the case re: the second amendment doesn’t change the fact that a huge number of people never bought that pile of shit.

          1. That it was intended to protect an individual right becomes even more clear if you look at early drafts, notes, and similar State level protections from the time period.

          2. Before the 20th century, it really didn’t even come up to SCOTUS because it was patently obvious. Even US v. Miller in the 1939 stated that the reason the govt could regulate sawed-off shotguns is because they have no military purpose.

            1. Even US v. Miller in the 1939 stated that the reason the govt could regulate sawed-off shotguns is because they have no military purpose.

              … of course, the worst part of this decision being that WWI was only 20 years prior and WWII was only beginning, they had no excuse for such lies. None of the SC justices or government apparatchiks who litigated the case served in the trenches; what a wonder the ivory tower is.

              1. I agree with you. First of all, it is patently false to argue that any weapon wouldn’t be part of a military. Based on the circumstances, anything can become a weapon. Certainly a sawed-off shotgun when faced with urban house-to-house or room-to-room fighting (or frankly, in trench warfare once you could make it to any enemy trench, or if they got to yours!!) could absolutely be a viable weapon.
                Second, the idea that they can regulate (and thus ban) a weapon because it ISN’T a viable military weapon certainly conflicts with why they want to ban “assault weapons” (never mind the already existing limitation on ownership of automatic weapons).

                1. The goal is to find the right combination of lies, misrepresentations, and occasionally outright nonsense that will pass the courts. As the society at large slowly tilts away from gun ownership, so too do the courts.

            2. “… the reason the govt could regulate sawed-off shotguns is because they have no military purpose.”

              Here’s the offer I’d make: I’ll voluntarily turn in every gun of mine that has never been adopted by the US military (which is all of them). In return, I want free-and-clear permission to own anything that the US military uses or has ever used with no special license, permits, or “taxes” required. M249. Full-auto grease gun. Full-auto Tommy gun with a short barrel. Since the 2A is apparently about military weapons, that should be fair.

              Deal?

          3. From the Rhode Island state constitution:

            Section 20. Freedom of press. — The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty;

            It’s perfectly obvious that freedom of the press only occurs under the auspices of the state. Duh.

    2. or that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual’s right to private firearm ownership for self-defense

      Jesus Christ.

    3. Before Scalia, the notions that Congress couldn’t restrict political spending, or that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual’s right to private firearm ownership for self-defense, were widely considered absurd.

      What does he think “absurd” means? The fact that in most states you can, fairly easily, keep a firearm for self defense (and did before Scalia was on the SC) would seem to contradict the “widely”.

      1. Open carry in enshrined in the KY state constitution explicitly.

      2. “What does he think “absurd” means? The fact that in most states you can, fairly easily, keep a firearm for self defense (and did before Scalia was on the SC) would seem to contradict the “widely”.”

        I’d bet the author avoids going to those kind of places or speaking to the kind of people who would own a gun.

        1. I’d bet the author avoids going to those kind of places or speaking to the kind of people who would own a gun.

          The content of the article makes that fairly obvious.

      3. The “absurd” means that this author writes entertainment pieces for left-thinking idiots and is not an actual journalist.

    4. “he would have written a concurrence in Dred Scott, the majority opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson, and a devilishly quotable dissent in Brown v. Board of Education.”

      Given that Scalia consistently agreed with Clarence Thomas, is it Alex Pareene’s contention that Clarence Thomas would have voted in favor of slavery and segregation?

      1. probably, Clarence Thomas isn’t really black, black.

        1. Well he is, it’s just that he’s allowed to live in the big house, while the authentic blacks toil in fields of systemic racism that is real and the only factor in determining outcomes for blacks.

      2. I guess I should note that I feel that Dred Scott was correctly decided….

        1. Yup.

          But Scalia had no issue with the Constitution being amended to solve such a problem. His point was that legislation and amendment are the proper vectors to correcting such.

      3. Nah, it’s just typical a prog ‘anyone who disagrees with me in the slightest is a RacistSexistBigotHomophobe, and probably beats his dog too.’

        It must suck to be angry all of the time, like this Gawker twit.

      4. Yeah, his estate should sure this asshole for libel. “he disagreed with me, so, I’m sure he would’ve backed Hitler.”

        1. Can you sue over subjunctives? It is possible that Scalia commented on one of those cases, either from citing it in one of his opinions, or in comments he made elsewhere, but couldn’t you weasel out of a libel charge by saying Scalia was a public figure and/or the counterfactual established by “if Antonin Scalia had sat on the court for the last 200 years instead” can’t be factually disproven?

    5. There is a difference between writers of opinion pieces and journalists.

      1. Gawker is written by tabloid journalists, at best.

  4. O.T.: I’ll just drop this here from a previous post. Heard this on NPR a couple weeks ago during one of my morning masochism sessions in lieu of inserting needles into my urethra.

    I know when Jessica Blunden, my colleague here at NOAA, told me the number for December, actually, I went into my office and cried, it was so big. So the finish to the year, the last three laps of the race were really in a new neighborhood as far as the temperatures that we’ve seen.

    Deke Arndt, chief, Climate Monitoring Branch, NOAA @ 10:10:04

    You read that correctly folks? Science all the way down. No predetermined conclusions for this government official. It’s the science of feels. This totally isn’t a cult.

    1. So this guy cried because the number was high correct? Hmmmmm, we have had an unseasonably warm winter in Texas so far. It’s really been amazing. I can’t wait to see what our plant life looks like after such a great year.

      1. Let’s not pretend that there won’t be any negative effects of warmer climate and/or weather trends. It’s far from clear whether the negatives outweigh the positives, but it’s good to be realistic. Of course, it’s not a bad thing to make the most of the good parts of things.

        1. Any negatives or possible negatives will be yelled from every newspaper possible. The good things that happened will be swept under the rug. I feel perfectly justified in reminding people how great a year this was for a state that had a seven year drought in the 90’s early 2000’s.

          Also, I feel justified mentioning that this type weather happened the last time we had an El Ninio, and we have historically record of conquistadors running into the exact same weather cycle (years of drought followed up by a year of ridiculous rain).

        2. That is kind of my point.
          Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that global average temperatures are increasing, and that it is primarily due to anthropegenic effects, not a single catastrophic prediction that has been made has come true. Higher CO2 levels, and higher temps both correlate to more plant life. This would seem to indicate longer growing seasons in most parts of the world. Arctic ice may melt, but this doesn’s significantly contribute to any sea level change, as there isn’t much land mass holding the ice up. Antarctic ice could, yet it doesn’t seem to have decreased significantly.
          If we assume a 2 deg. C rise in avg temp by 2100, that represents an increase on the order of 0.6% (since you have to use absolute temperature).
          Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

          1. Yes. As non-expert, my position is pretty much that the world is probably on a slight warming trend, people are probably contributing to it, but there are no reliable predictions being made and it is very unclear just how bad it might be or how the good things balance the bad ones. I mean, plant growth is great, until your whole property is overgrown with kudzu and poison ivy. But extended growing seasons in many places could boost productivity enormously. Some coastal cities will have problems, but coastal cities have always had that kind of problems.

            Which is why I conclude that the best political response is to do nothing at all. People will do what they need to do to adapt to whatever changes come.

            1. Some coastal cities will have problems, but coastal cities have always had that kind of problems.

              And those problems will be developing in slow-mo over the next century or two. That’s plenty of time to adjust, especially since we are rapidly getting wealthier thanks in part to cheaper energy.

            2. Manhattan island continues to grow, so I am not sure coastal cities will have problems.

              1. Both Rotterdam and Amsterdam continue to be viable 400+ years after expanding to cover a significant fraction of below sea level land.

                1. I’ve seen an argument for Holland as the largest man-made structure on earth.

                2. Right. And they have had huge problems because of that and they pretty much fixed them. That’s my point. Other places can do that too. The Netherlands is one of the more prosperous countries in the world and they’ve been facing these problems that are supposedly going to ruin everything for ages.

              2. Some definitely will. New Orleans and Venice come to mind. If sea levels rise a bit (and whatever you think of the state of climate science, that is a thing that happens), I could see some problems for New York and some other low-lying east coast cities. I’m not saying they are sinking or have to be abandoned, but more flooding seems likely.
                And as some guy said, it happens gradually. So unless people persist in the fantasy that we are going to fix climate and make it just right, there is plenty of time to adapt.

    2. “The Hottest Year in Recorded History” sounds so much more interesting than “Maybe the Hottest Year in 35 years”, doesn’t it.

        1. Hence the “maybe”. It’s always maybes with these guys. They’re almost as bad as measuring as they are at predicting.

        2. Huh, interesting point about an El Nino resulting in lower property damage during the year.

    3. Don’t worry, they’ll adjust those temperatures down in 20 years when they need to prove that 2035 was the hottest year on record.

    1. They really should not have hired Warty as an exhibit consultant.

    2. Now there’s a Simpsons moment.

    3. Why on earth would they choose another octopus for the mating rathe than a shark?

  5. Left-leaning economists are raising questions about the costs and practicalities of Bernie Sanders’ expansive government agenda.

    Why don’t they just look at Facebook? There’s all sorts of charts showing that Bernie has the whole thing figured out and it’s all paid for.

    1. REVENUE NEUTRAL.

      1. No, there was a guy on the radio a couple days ago who explained that this actually decreases the size of government. He prefaced his remarks by claiming to be “a politician and a mathematician.”

        It was on the radio, so it has to be true.

        1. REVENUE POSITIVE.

          /hits Venus Flytrap gong.

          1. …as God is my witness, I thought unicorns could fart….

            1. Yeah, it’s called sunshine.

        2. Yeah, see, universal healthcare naturally gets rid of all the regulations and subsidies and mandates currently plaguing the healthcare and health insurance markets. So government gets smaller. Duh.

        3. There are a lot of mathematicians who blindly accept dogmatic premises as axiomatic and then “correctly” deduce the consequences of them. The fact that deductive reasoning doesn’t apply to the real world is lost on them; if it works on paper, it should work in real life!

    2. It will be easy for him to pay for his policies because none of them will ever be enacted. Complaining about obstructionist rethuglicans is pretty much free.

  6. The Republican Party is quietly preparing for a brokered GOP convention and “a nomination fight that goes all the way to the bitter end.”

    And it still won’t be interesting.

  7. Donald Trump says he is “very seriously” considering suing Ted Cruz.

    I could never have predicted this is where this primary would lead us but at the same time I could imagine no other destination.

  8. Why do the Brits love to capitalize that way?

    Have SEX to ward off dementia ? especially if you’re an ‘older man’ scientists claim

    The men who were sexually active scored 23 per cent higher on the word tests and three per cent higher on the number puzzles.

    But it wasn’t just the men who benefitted from a healthy sex life. Sexually active women also scored higher on the tests.

    Researchers believe sex hormones, like dopamine and oxytocin, which are linked to the part of the brain responsible for reward, could help cognitive function.

    1. Why do the Brits love to capitalize that way?

      Because nobody will have sex with the average British person, obviously.

      1. They’re talking about old people sex.

    2. “The men who were sexually active scored 23 per cent higher on the word tests and three per cent higher on the number puzzles.”

      More blood flow to the head.

      1. Which head?

    3. Maybe they’re having more sex because the ladies like the crossword studs.

      1. That’s my plan for retirement!

      2. When the crossword studs hook up with the word jumble sluts, LOOK OUT!

        1. “Hey, Julia, what’s an anagram for ‘KCUFSTEL’?”

          1. Isn’t that a palindrome?

          2. Huh?

            Why would Clef Tusk get Julia hot? Oh, you meant Suck Felt didn’t you?

    4. Correlation vs causation, it could be that men and women with all their faculties intact are better at convincing someone to have sex with them.

      1. Or people who are in generally good enough physical condition for more sex could be more likely to be on the ball mentally as well.

      2. While there is definitely something to your explanation, I think I am going to go ahead and stick with more sex = better mental health!

  9. The Republican Party is quietly preparing for a brokered GOP convention and “a nomination fight that goes all the way to the bitter end.”

    So they’re framing this as a YA dystopian thriller. Smart.

    1. When Rubio wins, it will be a bigger letdown than the 3rd book of The Hunger Games.

      1. He’s Gale to Trump’s Peeta!

  10. Exclusive: Whistleblowers Warned Top Spy About Skewed ISIS Intel

    The analysts have said that they believe their reports were altered for political reasons, namely to adhere to Obama administration officials’ public statements that the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS is making progress and has put a dent in the group’s financing and operations.

    Administration officials have denied that the intelligence reports came under political pressure. But Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates have questioned whether the public is being given an honest account of what effect hundreds of U.S. airstrikes have had on ISIS. The allegations of skewed intelligence have come up in several congressional hearings and figured in an early Republican presidential debate.

    1. That’s so dumb. Yes, you alter the reports you give to the public, but everyone involved is a fucking moron for altering reports that decisions of what to do next are based on.

      1. In government, that’s the incentive: placate your moron boss, and don’t worry about results. You almost certainly won’t be held accountable.

    2. more evidence that BHO44 is not usefully different from GWB43

    3. Steve Hayes has been writing about this for awhile. Also, the retired DIA general has been all over the place saying the same thing. It has been ignored, though, as I assume this will be.

    4. One word

      Plausible deniability

  11. Why you should never date a ‘gunsplainer’.

    We’ve all met mansplainers, but have you ever met a similarly dreadful gunsplainer? He’s the type of guy who will attempt to hit on you by calling you “schnookums” and, like the mansplainer, he will condescend to you about why you’re safer in a world where guns are easier to buy than Sudafed, or how a good guy with a gun is the best antidote to a bad guy with a gun.

    1. Guns should not be easier to buy than Sudafed. I should be able to just run into the Walgreens on a whim and purchase either of them.

      1. Guns should not be easier to buy than Sudafed. I should be able to just run into the Walgreens 7-11 on a whim and purchase either of them.

        Walgreens closes at night.

        1. There are plenty of 24 hrs walgreens.

          In my college years, I worked for an inventory company, we did walgreens. Trust me, I know all the varieties (circa 1988-90).

        2. I guess i’m spoiled, Walgreens near me is open 24-7.

    2. Who uses a political wedge issue in a pick-up line? Really, what kind of person is that obsessed? It’s not healthy.

      1. well the writers at cosmo seem to be

    3. Why slammer? It’s a beautiful day. Why bring me this?

    4. What is the author think the best antidote to a bad guy with a gun would be, if not a well-armed defender?

      1. A whistle and the tears of your betters at your subsequent funeral.

      2. An arm’s length, silly. Do I have to do everything around here?

      3. best antidote to a bad guy with a gun?

        A pile of dead bodies to stand on afterward, to show how bad gunz are.

    5. Oh, she is horrible. Half-witted, little journal entries get published? I need to dust off ol Hello Kitty. Check out this one she wrote: Instead of Telling Women to Take Cabs Together, How About Telling Cab Drivers to Stop Sexually Assaulting Women?

      1. Because we already tell cab drivers not to do sexually assault people by making it illegal?

      2. Instead of asking feminists to use anything resembling reason in their arguments, how about their skeptics pretend that feminists aren’t retards with no redeemable value?

        1. “redeemable value”

          Last I checked, about $160/body (chemically)

    6. She’s using that word wrong. People ruin perfectly good words.

      1. I know right?

        Dirty Harry was a real gunsplainer.

    7. Boy are the comments destroying that tart.

      Seriously, wtf is Cosmo doing writing about guns and joining the SJW madness?

      1. Tard sells. It used to be “sex sells,” but the tards ruined that too.

        1. sex sells

          Yeah, but think how happy John is that “body positivity” is now a thing.

          1. “I can’t find your vagina… can I just do one of your folds?”

            1. use some flour and hit the wet spot.

              You didn’t go to high school ?

      2. Because for some reason the Comso morons think the women who read Cosmo for retarded sex and fashion tips also want retarded political advice. I doubt it goes well.

        1. Hey, if you had to constantly come up with fresh and original ways to restate “men like it when you touch their junk,” you’d go crazy too.

          1. “Surprise him by dressing up in your sexiest sheer lingerie, put on some sexy Motown instrumentals, and then put his dongle in your mouth.”

            1. I thought you were going to link to Big Jim Slade

            2. *steps 1 and 2 optional.

              I assumed Cosmo’s problem is the same as all the other east coast rags. They let hard-left Ivy Leaguers run the places. That’s why most of them are in the process of going bankrupt.

    8. ::hovers over link::

      Wait, this isn’t Salon or Gawker?

    9. a world where guns are easier to buy than Sudafed

      I like the sound of this world. How do I get there?

      1. I like the sound of a world where both guns and Sudafed are easy to buy.

      2. Since there is a bill in our state Senate requiring a doctor’s prescription for ephedrine, it may actually be easier to buy a gun than Sudafed.

        *SIGH*!!

        1. First of all, requisite “fuck off slavers!”. Second of all, (pedant alert!) ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are related but not the same drug. Ephedrine has long been used by herbal types for much the same reason (congestion relief and airway relaxation), and is a primary ingredient in some non-prescription asthma meds like Primatene. Pseudoephedrine is the primary ingredient in OTC decongestants, but you have to show ID to buy it, and there are limits in how much you can buy at a time (I believe this is now federal law, not just state, but I am not 100% sure). Ephedrine has also been traditionally used as part of the ECA stack that bodybuilders, powerlifters and even wrestlers use to help cut weight, and give energy. So I am not sure if your state Senate if trying to require a prescription for both?

          I know that is probably more than you care about this stuff.

    10. I am not sure that I knew what mansplaining was defined as until I saw the Triumph the insult dog sketch on last week’s H and R.

      1. I am not sure that I knew what mansplaining was defined as until I saw the Triumph the insult dog sketch on last week’s H and R.

        You should have asked a man to explain it to you.

    11. He’s the type of guy who will attempt to hit on you by calling you “schnookums”

      Nobody does that. Come on.

      But yes, people who want to bring their political hobby horse up at every possibly opportunity are obnoxious.

      Where does this “guns are cheaper than Sudafed” come from? That’s just idiotic. The form for a gun is much longer and you have to wait for a response from the background check thingy. Even in private sales, you are supposed to write up some kind of bill of sale, which takes more time than getting Sudafed from the pharmacist. Then there is the fact that guns cost 100s or thousands of dollars.

      1. She’s talking about government putting rules on your ability to get Sudafed because other people use it to make meth.

        1. Obviously. But it’s as if she thinks that you just go to a gun store, grab a gun, pay and walk out. Restrictions on Sudafed are dumb and a pain in the ass. But for buying a gun it is more onerous and invasive.

          1. I’ve seen tons of comparisons like that. I don’t remember where this was, but one progtard writer was whining about how Wal-Mart sells guns, and he said, “do we really want people walking into Wal-Mart and buying guns as easily as dinnerware?”

            They seem to think that because Wal-Mart sells guns, you can just pick up an AR-15 and take it through the self-checkout. They don’t understand that it’s essentially just a federally-licensed firearms dealer located inside of Wal-Mart.

            I guess we shouldn’t really be surprised if people don’t understand the gun buying process when they have never gone through it nor discussed it with people who are familiar with it. They just choose to believe that it’s the “Wild West” and a 12-year old can just waltz into Wal-Mart and buy ‘ssault weapunz.

      2. I’m not clicking on that link either, but she said easier to buy, not cheaper. Which ignores current laws but also cost which is a difference of orders of magnitude.

        1. Cheaper things, all else being equal, are easier to buy.

        2. Oops. I screwed up initially. I had meant to write “easier to buy” not “cheaper”.

  12. The battle lines are forming in the clash between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans

    Just wait until the President hears about this!

    1. Does he get cable news on the golf course?

  13. “Airstrikes that hit two hospitals in northern Syria have killed at least 22.”

    Just leave Syria alone. It’s neighbors will get off their asses and start defending themselves if we don’t keep doing the work for them. Saudi princes like their hedonist lifestyles. Start making them truly think they are risk of losing it and they’ll fund the destruction of ISIS.

    It’s not like we have anything worth protecting over there right now. We are more than self-sufficient in oil, and honestly our financial industry would probably breathe a sigh of relief to hear that none of our local big oil businesses are going to go under.

    1. Just leave Syria alone.

      We pretty much are, as far as I can tell.

      1. Other than the bombing and Special Forces.

        1. Trivial, compared to what the Russians are doing.

    2. Just heard a news bit on Syria from NPR (driving home from the rink at the end of an hour, when both sports stations are in marathon commercial mode), and the Syrian man-on-the-street said, “Fighting will continue as long as there is still conflict between the US and Russia.”

      Interesting take.

      1. If that is really the man-on-the-street view in Syria, then we are doing ourselves no favors in even remotely helping those supposed “non-ISIS” rebels (hint, they essentially don’t exist). Either ISIS is not a threat, in which case, stop bombing and sending in any special ops troops, or decide that ISIS is a significant threat (and obviously a bigger threat than Assad due to the expansive nature of ISIS as opposed to 1 dictatorship) and back Russia’s play in trying to take out ISIS, and use that to leverage concessions from Putin and Assad. And before we do anything, decide what victory looks like, and do whatever it takes to achieve that.

    3. It’s not like we have anything worth protecting over there right now.

      We must protect our humanity! Who can live with themselves after not needlessly involving themselves in a regional conflict and bombing men, women and children along the way? You perhaps? Monster.

      1. I would be absolutely happy if we stayed the hell out of Syria/Iraq at this point altogether. However, i do think there could be some geo-political benefits from assisting Russia in fighting against ISIS. Leverage on Assad to stabilize Lebanon, finally give up his ridiculous claims on the Golan heights, etc. (I know that Iran is really the money behind Hezbollah, but Syria is the funnel). In addition, we could probably develop a better relationship with Putin from a position of strength. He may not be Thomas Jefferson (but then, who the fuck is anymore?) but Obama has as much blood on his hands drone striking civilians willy-nilly as Putin does. And like it or not, Putin is very popular in Russia. He is who we have to work with. And he respects strength.

        1. However, i do think there could be some geo-political benefits from assisting Russia in fighting against ISIS.

          It really makes no sense for the US to be so prone to conflict with Russia. Yes Putin is a big meanie to former Soviet states that exist on it’s immediate borders. Yet Obama is so committed to the idea that Russia’s sphere of influence should stop at the Russian border while the US sphere should stretch around the world to the other side of Russia’s border, that he’s willing to instigate a mini-Cold War. A standoff that is going to be much cheaper for Russia to wage against the US than for the US to wage against Russia.

          So instead of working with arguably the second most powerful military in the world towards US military objectives in the middle east, Obama would rather work at cross purposes and continue his charade that Assad is the real problem in the region, not the Islamists. Because we’re supposedly not at war with Islamism.

          He is who we have to work with. And he respects strength.

          And Obama projects nothing but dithering weakness. Well, I will correct myself, he also projects gross incompetence.

        2. American Exceptionalism means that the US government must interfere in such conflicts AND that other parties, like Russia, cannot do so unless coordinate with the US.

          His tactics are different and his vision is different, but Obama is no less an American exceptionalist than his predecessor.

          1. coordinate = subordinate

  14. Donald Trump says he is “very seriously” considering suing Ted Cruz.

    Already queuing up the 3rd party run.

    1. What good news. I was worried there for a while that I’d only have 2 horrible choices in the next election. Now with Bloomberg and Trump running independent campaigns, it looks like I will have 4 horrible choices.

      If that ain’t the free market at work, I don’t know what is.

      1. Good to know the R’s are hard at work losing an un-lose-able election.

        I swear a Republican could lose a one-horse race sometimes.

    2. I’m 98% sure he’s just trying to stay in the headlines with the 3rd party stuff – but for that other 2%, I’m super confused why he would want to play that card when he’s now the clear favorite and the party is actively trying to take down his top competitor and replace him with a guy who lost to Jeb Bush in New Hampshire.

      1. I’m 98% sure that he will not run 3rd party. He certainly knows that’s for losers.

        Rather, I predict that he’ll drop out if he loses on the first ballot at the convention, and endorse Hillary … or Bloomberg if he actually runs. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the strategy all along.

  15. Another secret Canadian!

    Opening Shot In Rubio’s “Morning Again In America” Ad Appears To Be Canada

    “It’s morning again in America,” a calm narrator says as an idyllic scene of a boat crossing a harbor plays in Marco Rubio’s latest ad ? a darker riff on the classic Ronald Reagan ad.

    Based on a quick internet search, though, the boat scene in the “Morning Again” adappears to be Vancouver, Canada.

    1. It’s a subtle reference to Cruz.

    2. Fine, “It’s morning again in America’s hat.”

    1. If I were a hooker, I would not trust Hillary.

    2. Great – people who sell their bodies (NTTAWWT) supporting someone who sold her soul.

      1. How do you sell something, and still get to take it home with you when the transaction is concluded? Always wondered how that worked.

        1. How do you sell something that you’ve never had?

        2. Like a reverse mortgage?

      2. The whole “sell your body” way to describe prosititution kinda grinds on me.

        They aren’t selling their bodies. Title does not change hands.

        They are providing a service.

        1. Yeah. I would be more concerned selling my soul to work on Hillary’s political campaign.

        2. They sell their body to the night.

          1. *gives stinging glare*

            1. You don’t care if it’s wrong or if it’s right.

              1. I wish Swiss were here to police things.

                1. *narrows gaze*

                  Sorry, busy morning.

                  1. You don’t have to put on the red light.

            2. De do do do de da da da, is all want to say to you.

        3. At most they are renting their bodies.

          The fact that I work with my hands and not my genitals doesn’t mean I’m selling my body any more or less than a whore.

          1. THIS! I can understand an appeal to emotional happiness with trying to convince pros that they aren’t going to be happy in the long run, or that they will regret it later in life. These things are obviously debatable and subjective, but at least arguable. But just going with “selling your body” angle and human trafficking stuff is just plain stupid. And demonstrably wrong.

            1. an appeal to emotional happiness with trying to convince pros that they aren’t going to be happy in the long run, or that they will regret it later in life

              I tried that my whole college career in PoliSci, I don’t think I convinced a single one of those public administration majors. (I may have mentioned here getting into an argument with one of my profs who didn’t approve of my “humor” in suggesting that good council to an aspiring public administrator would be “go become a crack whore and be more of a benefit to society”. It took a while for him to realize I wasn’t joking and become convinced I was crazy.)

          2. The nice Vietnamese lady at the local massage place also works with her hands.

        4. The gag doesn’t work without that particular phrase. Yeesh, tough room today.

          1. If we didn’t pick out something tangential to your point and take it on a drunken joyride down the highway, how else would you know you are loved?

  16. Left-leaning economists are raising questions about the costs and practicalities of Bernie Sanders’ expansive government agenda.

    Yeah, Sanders is the wrong kind of left-leaning for most of the established democratic power structure in the country. He might shake things up *too* much.

    1. Cronies gonna crony

  17. Hillary Clinton got unusually riled up at a rally in Reno, Nevada, today. So much so that she barked like a dog.

    Does she really want to further the “bitch” narrative?

    1. She might be trying to induce a “Howard Dean” moment so she can get out of the race.

      1. Are you kidding me? The only thing keeping her out of jail is the fact that she might be the next president.

        1. Yes, I’m kidding. But the barking did bring back fond memories.

    2. If she lifts her leg, get out of the way.

      1. You can’t outrun the fumes.

  18. If the GOP are smart, they’ll make the election a national referendum based on the prospective nominees. Get H-Rod and Bernie on board with an anti-2A candidate that is for Affirmative Action, against free speech and is a huge fan of the Kelo decision.

    And then beat the likely nominee over the head with it for months.*

    *it’ll be Hillary, but get Bernie on the record just in case she gets indicted.

    1. If the GOP was smart, Trump would not have a double digit lead in the polls.

  19. Conspiracy theories swirl around the death of Antonin Scalia

    “You have a Supreme Court Justice who died, not in attendance of a physician,” he wrote. “You have a non-homicide trained US Marshal tell the justice of peace that no foul play was observed. You have a justice of the peace pronounce death while not being on the scene and without any medical training opining that the justice died of a heart attack. What medical proof exists of a myocardial Infarction? Why not a cerebral hemorrhage?”

    It is almost like an autopsy was purposely avoided to fuel the conspiracies.

    1. Or avoided to keep from confirming them?

      *adjusting tinfoil hat*

      There is too much motive here and too many questions around this. It will be worse than the grassy knoll.

    2. their would be conspiracy theories even with an autopsy, the whole thing is stupid.

        1. Of course! Don’t hate on my appreciation of the stupid.

      1. It is unthinkable that a 79 year old man could just die like that!

    3. As I understand it, the woman who signed off on cause of death put myocardial infarction to indicate that his heart stopped, not that he died of a heart attack. That’s what she was quoted as saying, I would have to dig through many, many weekend articles to find it though.

      1. In an interview with The Washington Post, Guevara has said she rebutted a report by a Dallas TV station that Scalia had died of “myocardial infarction.” She said she meant only that his heart had stopped.

        1. Teach me the ways of your google-fu, wise master.

          1. It was from the article that I linked, lazy bones.

            1. LOL.

              I so funny.

                1. Go on then. I’ve been bad.

        2. Pretty much describes all dead people, no?
          Glad I didn’t waste any money on Med School, this shit’s easy.

      2. HE’S A REPUBLICAN SO HE HAS NO HEART.

        1. The lump of coal then, whatever

  20. Search for unmarked grave that holds bloody secrets of 1776 Battle of Brooklyn: Author calls for memorial to bravery of hundreds of Washington’s men who were slain trying to protect New York

    A campaign is growing to find the scores of bodies of Maryland soldiers who died in a bloody battle during the Revolutionary War so a monument can be erected in their honor.

    It is believed that hundreds of bodies of men killed during the Battle of Brooklyn are buried in what is now the borough’s Park Slope neighbourhood.

    They died, along with hundreds of others during the battle in August 1776, in what is also know as the Battle of Long Island.

    According to some accounts, more than 250 out of what became known as the ‘Maryland 400’ died in the fight at a farmhouse, although the exact number killed remains murky. Their burial place has never been found.

    1. Why bother? A few of them might possibly have owned slaves, therefore they should be forgotten.

      Or better yet, their graves should be excavated and their corpses defiled by any BLM activist that wants to get in on the action.

      1. Or better yet, their graves should be excavated and their corpses defiled by any BLM activist that wants to get in on the action.

        No justice, no pee?

      2. They are buried in Brooklyn. Any further defilement would be gratuitous.

  21. Airstrikes that hit two hospitals in northern Syria have killed at least 22.

    They should have just unleashed Britain’s NHS on them.

  22. “The Republican Party is quietly preparing for a brokered GOP convention and “a nomination fight that goes all the way to the bitter end.”

    They are gonna make Jeb the nominee, aren’t they?

    The stupidity is just breathtaking.

    1. Possible. More likely Romney (they never learn) or Ryan.

    2. The “Stupid Party” moniker is not unearned.

  23. Rubio surges back to electrify South Carolina
    After stumbling badly in New Hampshire, the Florida senator is dazzling crowds as ‘the comeback kid.’

    Marco Rubio carried a message to South Carolina: He is “at peace” with his failure in New Hampshire.

    He doesn’t mean it casually, as though he has simply come to terms with what happened Feb. 6, when Chris Christie commanded the debate stage and turned Rubio’s own rhetorical brilliance into a withering caricature of a robotic, scripted young senator that sent him spiraling to a fifth-place finish.

    He means it, Rubio told a supporter shaken by the knock-down of his preferred candidate, as a Christian.

    “The concept of peace in Christianity is not simply peace, like, no-war peace. It is the peace of being at peace with whatever God decides,” Rubio told Don Pendleton, a retiree who’d taken the microphone and told Rubio that he was disappointed after the 2016 contender’s dismal showing in New Hampshire until seeing the swell of support in the room.

    1. He’s going to Romney this thing. Just you watch.

    2. “It is the peace of being at peace with whatever God decides.”

      Is that the “Peace that passes all understanding”?

      1. Just tell him that God decided to build a mosque in his town.

        1. Vox Populi, Vox Dei

    3. Sure, his personality module is running at 110% power, it might short out at any time.

  24. The Consider this Fair Warning Department: To Kill a Mockingbird will be adapted to Broadway.

    http://www.abajournal.com/news…..r_broadway

    Le sigh!

    1. “To Kill A Mockingbird,” but with Sorkinisms? Good God. If Lin-Manuel Miranda was at the helm I would buy tickets right now.

    2. Atticus Finch was a rape denier!!11!!!!!

    3. If not for “To Kill a Mockingbird”, I’d never know what a chifforobe is.

      1. I actually didn’t read it until after law school, because I didn’t have the time and also because law school made my ability to read fiction disappear for a while. The thing I liked best about the book was that it recaptured that childhood imagination feeling . . . and how unstructured time used to be when one was that age.

        1. ^This!!!

          I’ve always wondered why I loved this book so much. You nailed it — the book even outdoes Tom Sawyer in capturing the *feeling* of being a kid.

    1. If Bernie had said “Iceberg – full steam ahead!”, it would have been spot on.

  25. Rubio: ‘Gang of 8’ immigration bill never meant to pass

    As a member of the so-called “Gang of 8,” the Florida senator negotiated an immigration compromise between Republicans and Democrats. But the bill never made it past conservatives in the House who complained it provided a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

    Rubio has taken criticism from fellow GOP presidential candidates for his role in the immigration package. On Monday, he suggested the bill was for show and he never expected House Republicans to go through with it.

    “The Senate immigration law was not headed towards becoming law,” Rubio said Monday at a campaign appearance in South Carolina, according to NBC News. “Ideally, it was headed towards the House, where conservative members of the House were going to make it even better.”

    1. It is a very short piece, but I don’t think Rubio meant what The Hill is arguing. He didn’t say the legislation was “:for show”. He said in the Senate he helped broker a compromise so that it could get to the House knowing that the conservative members of the House would likely modify it, and then when it made it to conference committee, then the Republicans would get more out of it, than the Senate version alone.

      Agree or disagree with the bill, or with the tactics. But, they are just making shit up.

    2. Sorry, but “I supported a shit bill because I thought someone else would fix it later” is not exactly helpful.

      1. Considering how the house and senate actually function, it is a plausible strategy. It’s also a plausible excuse for getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

  26. Prosecutor: Most Cologne New Year’s Suspects Are Refugees

    The crimes, described as unprecedented by authorities, sparked uproar in Germany and a heated debate about the country’s ability to integrate almost 1.1 million people who sought asylum there last year.

    Cologne prosecutor Ulrich Bremer said 73 suspects have been identified so far ? most of them from North Africa. A total of 1,075 criminal complaints have been filed, including 467 alleging crimes of a sexual nature ranging from insults to rape.

    “The overwhelming majority of persons fall into the general category of refugees,” Bremer told The Associated Press, saying recent reports describing only three of the suspects as refugees were “total nonsense.”

    1. I’m shocked. Shocked!

      Ok, I’m not that shocked.

    2. I think the term is “migrants” would be more accurate.

      “Refugee” is a term of art, meaning someone who “owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

      1. I think you misspelled ‘invaders’.

        Goddamn, it doesnt even start with the same letter.

    3. …including 467 alleging crimes of a sexual nature ranging from insults to rape.

      Germany has never before faced such widespread atrocities against their fellow humans.

      1. You know who else committed widespread atrocities against their fellow humans in Germany?

        1. Kraftwerk?

          1. +1 Fun Fun Fun on the Autobahn

        2. The Kaiser?

        3. None of you people understand what the word “unprecedented” means, obviously.

        4. Hitle…..ss Eurovision songfest losers?

        5. Marcus Aurelius?

        6. Andrea Merkel?

        7. Arminius?

        8. Rammstein?

        9. The Hoff?

    4. “The overwhelming majority of persons fall into the general category of refugees.”

      “However, in a sense, aren’t we *all* refugees?”

      1. Kumbaya, my Lord. Kumbaya.

      2. Somewhere, somehow, somebody must have kicked you around some.

    5. Asylum? Are they insane?

  27. Donald Trump’s peregrinations on gun control (“The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.”)

    And health care (“We must have universal healthcare”).

    1. He favors a salt weapon ban.

    2. Let me know when the NRA gets the Brady Bill repealed and I can buy a gun without a background check again.

      1. The NRA has advocated the instant background check for about twenty-five years. I don’t think it ever opposed background checks per se, only unnecessarily cumbersome and lengthy background checks.

  28. Paul Ryan for President!

    In this year’s race, you have a front-runner that GOP regulars don’t just detest but think could literally destroy the party, while perhaps his strongest rival (Ted Cruz) has a style that grates severely on a large number of his fellow politicians. One can imagine a case where Trump and Cruz control 60 to 70 percent of the vote between them, and neither one will budge, and no other candidate or boss will consider helping either one. Then it will be time for a respected and inoffensive candidate to offer a contrast to all the strong personalities in the Republican race, and Ryan is nothing if not Mr. Acceptable. Far-fetched, perhaps, but what in this cycle so far hasn’t been far-fetched?

    1. “…has a style that grates severely on a large number of his fellow politicians.”
      If that is the objection to Cruz, then the GOP leadership really is as bad as the rank and file think. While libertarians have cause to both support and argue against Cruz, what can the GOP really argue is wrong with him from a policy or ideology stand point? Because he can be a dick? Holy shit, Christie is a real prick sometimes, and from what we hear about Kasich, he is a first class asshole. Carson seems nice, but he is not at all presidential material. Trump? Obviously the man is a ‘uuuuuuuge egotist and narcissist. Rubio seems nice as well, but it seems like he doesn’t have the nerve for it.

      1. Ya, I don’t get all the Cruz hate that is based purely on stylistic objections.

    2. Ryan’s hopes for higher office this cycle died when he greased the skids for the Dem wish list in the last budget bill.

      I haven’t heard that anybody is going to primary him. I sure hope so. And I hope he loses.

  29. Those progressives in Washington apparently care more about the cop unions than the regular joes.

    Shocking, I know.

    1. FTA: The result of this law is that over the past decade?there have been 213 killings by police officers in this state, according to an analysis by the Seattle Times?only one officer has faced charges. No one has been convicted.

      Chicago is jealous.

    2. As usual, they blame the obstructionist Rethuglicans.

      (I note that the GOP does suck on this issue but that is no reason for Democrats to suck on it as well)

    3. Cops can’t be charged for wrongful deaths in Washington. You have to prove evil intent. So a cop is fully within the law if he shoots you because you look like the suspected murderer, or if he goes in guns blazing into a convenience store and shoots 3 bystanders along with the perp holding up the store. There will be civil fines and payouts, but the cop can’t be charged unless you can prove that he planned to go into the store and kill 3 innocent people.

      Nice work if you can get it.

  30. I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

    UN: Stopping Zika may require genetically modified insects

    Next week, WHO chief Dr. Margaret Chan will travel to Brazil to discuss Zika and microcephaly with the country’s health minister and other officials, spokeswoman Fadela Chaib said on Tuesday.

    In a statement, WHO said its advisory group has recommended further field trials of genetically modified mosquitoes, following trials in the Cayman Islands to fight dengue, where sterile male mosquitoes were released to mate with wild females.

    “Given the magnitude of the Zika crisis, WHO encourages affected countries…to boost the use of both old and new approaches to mosquito control as the most immediate line of defense,” the agency said in a statement.

    1. What if the genetically modified insects genetically modify the food?

      1. I thought genetically modified insects were genetically modified food.

    2. Don’t these people remember all those “big bug” movies?

      Them! (giant ants)
      Empire of the Ants
      Tarantula (giant tarantula, obviously)
      Arachnophobia
      Swarm
      The Bees (think Swarm, but with John Saxon!)
      Bug
      The Deadly Mantis
      Mimic
      They Nest
      Kingdom of the Spiders (SHAT’S FINEST WORK! Outside of The Devil’s Rain of course)

      Won’t we ever learn?????????

      1. How could you forget Charlton Heston’s finest work, The Naked Jungle?

        True, the ants weren’t giant, but there were a lot of them, and they ate some Mexican extras.

      2. Hey what about Ice Spiders…great movie.

    3. What if we just sprayed shit-tons of DDT and GM’d eagle’s to lay thicker eggs?

    1. I am not a racist test.

  31. Military Tells Congress It Can’t Send Gitmo Detainees to U.S.

    Just as President Barack Obama is planning to send Congress his plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison this year, leaders of the military say it will not transfer any detainees to the U.S., unless the law prohibiting such transfers is changed.

    Lt. General William Mayville Jr., the director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said as much in a letter to Congress last week, which I obtained. Mayville’s letter gets to the heart of a knotty constitutional issue on Guantanamo: Does President Obama have the authority to close the facility without the consent of Congress?

    Writing to 16 House members who served in the military, Mayville writes: “Current law prohibits the use of funds to ‘transfer, release or assist in the transfer or release’ of detainees of Guantanamo Bay to or within the United States, and prohibits the construction, modification or acquisition of any facility within the United States to house any Guantanamo detainee. The Joint Staff will not take any action contrary to those restrictions.”

    1. Sounds like Mayville is bypassing his boss. I’d like a followup on the fallout.

    2. So like just about everyone here, I agree that we shouldn’t have the legal authority to lock up people indefinitely, with no recourse to some sort of legal proceedings. If they are indeed POWs then what are the conditions in which they could be repatriated? Legitimate POWs have certain protections under the Third Geneva Convention (Though it could be argued that since the enemy not only isn’t a signatory to the Convention, but has specifically acted in contravention to its conditions, that the US is NOT required to obey these provisions).
      However, they in general do not meet the Third Geneva Convention requirements to be considered legitimate POWs
      that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, specificall:;
      –that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance; and
      –that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
      There is a provision in Article 5, that states that when in doubt, treat them as POWs until their status is determined by a competent tribunal. But there I honestly don’t think there is any doubt that the men detained at Guantanamo Bay are not POWs. They may be unlawful combatants, or they may be civilians wrongfully imprisoned, but there is no way they meet the definition of POWs.

      1. How do we determine if they are unlawful combatants, in which case they are only entitled to basic humanitarian care; or if they were non-combatants and therefore should be detained any longer than necessary to determine their status.
        Why not just have the military tribunals for every person down there. It wouldn’t necessarily required “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, but a “preponderance of evidence” standard, and determine all of their status. If they are determined to be non-combatants, repatriate them immediately. If they are determined to be unlawful combatants, frankly, we can do whatever the hell we want with them (except torture and summary execution, though they legally could have been executed on the field of battle).

      2. We’ve had 15 years for the best legal minds in the country to figure it out, and the only thing we’ve heard is FYTW. It’s inexcusable.

  32. http://fox4kc.com/2016/02/16/k…..-invasion/

    My neighbors. I wasn’t home overnight so I’m unclear if it occurred next door or across the street.

    Hello comment section, you people intrigue and terrify me. Always enjoy my visits.

      1. Go on my son….

    1. “…you people intrigue and terrify me.”

      Sack the fuck up. You are going to die. Decide which way you want your toes pointed when that happens.

    2. Who the hell answers a knock on the door at 3:30 except the kind of people who ought to know better than to answer a knock on the door at 3:30?

  33. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it. Wow.

    http://www.Anon-Net.tk

  34. Larry Summers: It’s time to kill the $100 bill

    Harvard’s Mossavar Rahmani Center for Business and Government, which I am privileged to direct, has just issued an important paper by senior fellow Peter Sands and a group of student collaborators. The paper makes a compelling case for stopping the issuance of high denomination notes like the 500 euro note and $100 bill or even withdrawing them from circulation.

    I remember that when the euro was being designed in the late 1990s, I argued with my European G7 colleagues that skirmishing over seigniorage by issuing a 500 euro note was highly irresponsible and mostly would be a boon to corruption and crime. Since the crime and corruption in significant part would happen outside European borders, I suggested that, to paraphrase John Connally, it was their currency, but would be everyone’s problem. And I made clear that in the context of an international agreement, the U.S. would consider policy regarding the $100 bill. But because the Germans were committed to having a high denomination note, the issue was never seriously debated in international forums.

    1. What an evil little shit Sumners is.

    2. Fuck you Larry.

      This isn’t about terrorism, it’s about governments wanting to shut down cash markets.

      1. govs. and banks.

    3. if you wanna see 90% of people pissed off and raise the amount of participation in elections, this would be one way to do it.

    4. Already thanks to inflation, $500 in today’s dollars is worth less than $100 was in 1969 when the $500 bill was discontinued. And this fuckstick wants to get rid of the $100 bill. God, they are so transparently against people bettering themselves that it’s sickening.

      1. They do want you to better yourself through the proper government channels so they can control tax help you along the way.

        1. They want to better themselves and will gladly see you impoverished to do it; they will then deign to hand you some of the scraps, unless you get uppity.

      2. Or, to put it another way, outlawing the $100 bill today would be like outlawing the $20 bill in 1973.

        Related: I was in Sarasota a couple months ago and merchants were checking bills, down to and including five dollar bills, for counterfeiting. What’s up with that?

        1. I don’t know about what’s going on in Sarasota, but if you were a counterfeiter and knew that $20 and larger bills were generally given extra scrutiny, wouldn’t you start working the lower denominations? Of course, merchants can adapt, too.

    5. Isn’t this jerk off one of the architects of the economic collapse no so long ago?

    6. Yeah, when I’m traveling, $100 notes are the only way to go. Much less bulky and often a better exchange rate for bigger notes (don’t ask me why).

      1. often a better exchange rate for bigger notes (don’t ask me why)

        y = mx + b

        At small x, b dwarfs mx

        1. When the moneychanger deposits his swag in his dollar account, he doesn’t get less credit for $20’s vs. $100’s.

          1. They moneychanger has business expenses that do not vary with the amount being exchanged.

            1. Yes. So if I exchange $500, there should be no reason to give a different rate based on different note size.

              There must be some other factor that makes $100 x 5 more attractive than $20 x 25, I just don’t know what it is.

              1. Are you seriously stumped as to why handling more bills is more expensive?

                It takes longer to count them, it takes more space to store them, …

                1. ‘They moneychanger has business expenses that do not vary with the amount being exchanged.”

    7. I wish we had a $500 bill. It would make carrying cash so much more convenient.

      1. Which is why it doesn’t exist.

    8. Harvard’s Mossavar Rahmani Center for Business and Government, which I am privileged to direct, has just issued an important paper

      Not as important as the paper the U.S. Treasury issues, Larry.

  35. Whales have regional accents.

    Whales talk to each other using patterns of clicks called codas, and a new study suggests those codas vary significantly depending on which ocean a whale is from. In other words, patterns of communication between whales vary depending on what region they inhabit: Just like people, whales have accents.

    1. I imagine whales speak like Yoopers
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..42423.html

      1. Nice looking area down der.

    2. ‘Ho, brah. Get plenny krill li’ dat.

      /Maui district

    3. Regional variations/dialects have also been heard in orcas and humpbacks.

      What I’d like to know is whether the “accents” render one group of whales incomprehensible to another.

      1. Cetacean needed.

        1. My name is Jacques Cousteau and I approve this pun.

      2. That’s one theory as to why captive orcas go psycho – they’re separated from any kin they have and put in a pen with foreign orcas who they can’t communicate with.

        1. An analogy for Syrian refugees in Germany?

          *hides*

  36. Peyton shoves his balls and asshole on someone’s face.

    Excitable boy they all said.

    1. +1 Zevon.

      The current information is from her side about an event that happened close to twenty years ago, but fuck him if he went out of his way to ruin her future reputation.

      1. That’s the part of the story that will get very little play.

        Fuck the Mannings if they went out of their way to ruin a life.

        There are no heroes. Just assholes who build cages with bones.

        1. Plus, she took hush money more than a few times. However, the focus will be about the nuts on the head (seriously, what a piece of shit he is for that), and how attractive she is.

          1. This? A 20-year-old case?

            Does she have to pay back the settlement for running her mouth?

            http://profootballtalk.nbcspor…..n-manning/

            1. Yes, this is all over the internets. There are no winners, of course. I think she is allowed to release information because he violated whatever settlement gag order he had regarding the case. He did it once before, paid her more then, and then violated that settlement again. Something like that.

      2. Nobodys gonna give a shit, they’re all going to be chasing and frothing about the Manny Pacquiao versus the gayz

  37. Is that the only picture we have of Obama and Scalia together?

    1. I’m sure SugarFree has some dirt on ’em.

      1. There’s a reason Obama wouldn’t let them do an autopsy. He wanted him intact and room temperature.

        1. *reaches for fork to stab himself*

        2. “Go on ?.” is *too* written in an English script.

  38. Donald Trump has invented a new way to win

    It’s a blue-collar ritual, with clear rules ? overtly insulting, sure, but with infinite subtleties. It can be a test of manliness, a sign of respect, a way of bonding and much more.

    Rule No. 1: You can wince, but don’t squeal.

    Rule No. 2: Bust right back, if you can.

    Not knowing how to play is no excuse. And not getting it shows you have no idea how a huge swath of America lives ? the Americans whom Trump has made his base.

    From the start, Trump targeted the (mostly) white working class, which happens to be 40 percent of the country. And he’s done it not just with issues, but with how he talks ? the ball-busting, the “bragging,” the over-the-top promises.

    1. Except most of the white working class isn’t some Italian from Brooklyn.

    2. the ball-busting, the “bragging,” the over-the-top promises.

      He actually did it by calling Mexicans rapists and drug dealers. People suddenly forgot the guy is a big-time interventionist and crony. That shows you the not-so-pretty picture of what the base of the Republican Party looks like.

      Not that the Demo-rats are any better. It just shows you that people should not have the right to vote unless they can pass a basic logic and economics test. Or demonstrate they own land.

      1. Or demonstrate they own land.

        People demanded the right to vote without owning land, and begged to be taxed to get it.

    3. The Trump Act is the one interesting thing about this whole election cycle. He’s recycling “never complain, never explain” with some theatrical scowling, and he’s likely to win because the rest of the field is so weak and Creepy Ted Cruz still hasn’t managed to swing the establishment over to his camp.

      Doesn’t hurt him any that his act is the perfect antithesis of the Obama act arriving at the peak of Obama fatigue. It’s to the point that I’m beginning to give the thesis-antithesis-synthesis schtick a second look.

  39. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for anyone… Start working for three to eight hr a day and get from $five-$ten thousand each month… Regular weekly payments… You Try Must…………

    __ http://www.alpha-careers.com

  40. Why Your Children’s Television Program Sucks: PAW Patrol

    PAW Patrol takes place in a (Canadian) town called Adventure Bay that apparently has no functional fire department, police department, or local contractors. So whenever someone around town has a problem, they have to go crawling to a volunteer squad of seven puppies (not even grown dogs!) and one (Canadian) boy, all of whom work out of the town’s space needle. This is what libertarianism looks like, people. Think about that the next time you read an Ayn Rand book.

    Now we’re being blamed for Paw Patrol.

    1. At least it’s not that fucking cartoon about the barnyard animals. The bull has an udder. I don’t even want to know why.

      1. Paw Patrol is also probably better than Mickey Mouse’s Clubhouse.

    2. I didn’t know in a libertarian world we’d have magic puppies that fix our problems.

    3. IT IS SCARY TO HAVE TO RELY ON YOURSELF!

      1. I also don’t have a problem with the existence of fire departments, but whatever.

        Apparently all libertarians are anarchists.

        1. All libertarians think exactly like Ayn Rand, which is why we have chosen her to be our leader. All libertarians agreed on everything. That is what makes us exactly those who are the subordinates of party politics.

        2. I’m an anarchist that doesn’t have a problem with fire protection services. Also don’t have a problem with security, law and pizza delivery. And lots of other goods and services as well!

          I draw the line at extortion and racketeering services.

          1. Fire departments are a huge waste of money (first hand experience)/

            1. Most fire departments have grown out of proportion to the needs of the community and have become make-work programs for “public safety” unions and related industries (everything from firetruck manufacturers to CPR instructors).

              The old adage about the fire department getting cut first isn’t relevant in places where nothing gets cut anymore.

              1. The old adage about the fire department getting cut first isn’t relevant in places where nothing gets cut anymore.

                It’s not certain what will get cut first back when cuts were a thing. What is almost certain is that pensions will be cut last.

              2. city of 40,000. 10,000 homes. 2 structure fires or less in a year. FD budget 55,000,000. You do the math.

                1. Yeah, that’s my argument against FD’s.

                  I’m betting the FD you are citing didn’t even “save” those 2 houses in the end, which makes it even less cost effective.

                  However, many cities have EMS and FIRE combined so the break down can be a bit more involved.

    4. My kids watch Ben and Holly’s Magic Kingdom. It’s actually really good children’s programming, there is basically no political correctness or ethnic pandering. And I think my kids are slightly smarter for watching it. Trying to find more episodes on the torrent sites, I’ve seen them all.

      1. Was recently at a Cambodian beach town.
        There was a bungalow/restaurant complex called “Blame Canada”.

    5. Why are all kids shows Canadian?

      1. The fact that Caillou still exists is reason enough to invade Canada.

        1. The fact that Caillou still exists is reason enough to invade bomb Canada to the stone age.

        2. My wife banned Caillou about six weeks ago, and we are both happier for it. The kids seem okay with Tumbleleaf and Daniel Tiger on Amazon Prime.

    6. Never seen it, but I imagine that everything works out in the end. It’s a libertarian success story!

      This is what libertarianism looks like, people.

      He should frequent the comments here if he really wants to be appalled.

  41. Proof that enviros really are interested in the common good:

    “I knew that low oil prices were bad because we’d be less likely to look for alternatives, but I hadn’t considered the more indirect environmental impact.”
    http://pandce.proboards.com/th…..z40LLq9Ygd
    —————————————-
    And he’s referring to this fore-lock-tugging by the NYT:

    “Skid in Oil Prices Pulls the Recycling Industry Down With It”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02…..ngine&_r=0

    Wherein, the always questionable value of recycling is now clear to all; but GAIA!

    1. Recycling is simply subject to the commodity boom/bust cycle. The only economic misjudgement is to assume that it isn’t.

      1. It’s almost as much of a complete scam as manmade “global warming”. It’s all about filling leftists with unjustified feelings of superiority and trying to make normal people feel guilty about wealth and capitalism.

        1. Only when subsidized.

          For example, there are private companies that offer reduced trash collection rates in exchange for being able to pick up the recyclables. They absorb the risk of the commodity prices in exchange for offering the service at a lower rate. They’re using the economies of scale to do what is individually fiscally impossible.

    2. In Plaquemines Parish, just south of New Orleans, Republic Services decided to double the fees it charged the local government to collect and process recyclables. The cost was too high, and the parish said it would end its recycling program at the end of this month, only to reverse course after a public outcry led by energetic seventh graders.

      We are so fucked.

      1. I’m honestly impressed that Plaquemines Parish was recycling and not just hosting the dump.

      2. You know, I think everything would make a hell of a lot more sense to me if I learned that the entire country was being run by energetic seventh graders.

        1. They do tend to believe in the magic power of unicorn farts and rainbows.

        2. Anybody who is familiar with seventh graders, knows that they are the closest thing to shit flinging monkeys in this hemisphere.

          By all evidence, everything IS being run by enegetic seventh graders.

      3. Inform the seventh graders that they’re personally on the hook for the expense and see how energetic they are afterwards.

    3. This comes as a surprise to exactly no one. When one religion begins to die, another will spring up to take its place, and there’s no guarantee it will be as relatively benign as the one preceding it.

      Serious environmentalists have always openly lobbied for a lower standard of living. The back-to-nature uber-romanticism crowd openly opposes modernism and the material wealth of the world and calls for increased poverty (to the extent that they even understand the importance of thinking on the margin).

      1. I used to think people would wise up when those masks fell off, but instead they seem to be doubling down.

  42. “In other news, Nobel Laureate Barack Obama adds 22 more civilian souls to his kill-count, bringing him to the top of the leader boards, just under Mother Theresa.”

    USA! USA! USA!

  43. til I saw the receipt that said $6460 , I did not believe …that…my mother in law woz like they say actualy earning money in their spare time from their computer. . there aunt started doing this for under thirteen months and recently cleard the depts on there mini mansion and bourt a great Aston Martin DB5 . go to this website…

    Clik this link in Your Browser

    +++++++++ http://www.Wage90.com

  44. til I saw the receipt that said $6460 , I did not believe …that…my mother in law woz like they say actualy earning money in their spare time from their computer. . there aunt started doing this for under thirteen months and recently cleard the depts on there mini mansion and bourt a great Aston Martin DB5 . go to this website…

    Clik this link in Your Browser

    +++++++++ http://www.Wage90.com

  45. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  46. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.