Trump Says He's a Messenger of Americans' Anger, Car Bomb Kills 34 in Ankara, Gunmen Storm Hotels in Ivory Coast: A.M. Links

|

  • ABC

    Donald Trump cancefled a rally in Chicago after demonstrations and clashes between protesters and supporters. Trump rejected the idea he was inciting violence, saying he was a messenger for Americans' anger, and blaming Bernie Sanders and his supporters for violence in Chicago.

  • Prosecutors with the Department of Justice have declined to pursue charges in 96 percent of cases brought to them about alleged civil rights violations by police in the last 20 years.
  • At least 34 people were killed after a car bomb went off in Ankara, the Turkish capital. Meanwhile gunmen in the Ivory Coast stormed three hotels, killing 16, with an Al-Qaeda affiliate claiming responsibility.
  • The Islamic State (ISIS) reportedly forces birth control onto its sex slaves to keep them available.
  • Hundreds of thousands of anti-government protesters in Brazil demanded the president's resignation.
  • The bracket for the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament was leaked yesterday before CBS' Selection Sunday show.

NEXT: From Regulating Uber to Subsidizing It

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. Donald Trump cancefled a rally in Chicago after demonstrations and clashes between protesters and supporters.

    Cancel and fled. I like it.

    1. Hello.

      Big day for terrorist psychos I see. The world and climate change made them do it, right?

      1. No, it was Trump’s dangerous rhetoric.

        1. Yeh, that story is getting ridiculous.

          People storm his rallies to protest, get a beating and I’m supposed to care or blame Trump.

          GTFOH.

          Posted elsewhere:

          CNN was interviewing some douche from Ohio named DiTamasso who rushed a Trump stage during a rally. I forget the details because the guy infuriated me and changed the channel.

          Combined with CNN’s attempt to make the guy look like a hero he went on with some bull shit excuses on why he rushed the stage spewing off stupidities about Trump being racist and violent and all that crap.

          YET HIS OWN ACTIONS WERE A FORM OF VIOLENCE.

          1. I wouldn’t be surprised to see more of this. The people that think the government is there to give them free stuff are freaking out over the prospect – prospect – of somebody getting into office that might try – might try – to do something about it.

            Wait till they find out they are actually going to get nothing.

            1. Nobody is freaking out abut Trump cutting off the supply of free stuff.

              They’re freaking out because he’s a boor, is a popular boor, is threatening the canadicy of their queen (#Itsherturn), and because you getto signal your superior SJW bona fides by hating on Trump.

              But they have basically nothing on him, he is functionally identical to Cruz/Rubio/Clinton/Sanders – pro-whatever-gets-him-elected, including being pro-war, pro-protectionism, pro-big government, pro-police state.

              The only thing that he has to stand out is that he says outrageously stupid shit and will insult his rivals openly – not their positions, *them*.

              1. ^^ this exactly.

          2. CNN was interviewing some douche from Ohio named DiTamasso who rushed a Trump stage during a rally.

            Was surprised to see little mention of this in the media (including here).

            Instead we’re talking about Chicago again. The hell?

    2. Watching Bolsheviks clash with Fascists gives me an old-timey feeling.

      1. “We can use the Nazis to get rid of the communists and then we can control them.”

        1. Or vice versa!

          1. Fasceviks and Bolscists??

            1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

          2. It’s all good, bro.

        2. There’s a fundamentalist Christian writer who believes the Catholic Church created the communists who then betrayed the church. So the Vatican then created the Nazis to get rid of the communists.

          1. And then the snakes will get rid of the Nazis, and then the gorillas will get rid of the snakes….

      2. Bolsheviks are fascists Drake. It is all the same toxic stew. And Trump is not a fascist by any reasonable definition.

        1. He wants to change libel laws to make it ridiculously hard to discuss public figures in the media and he’s repeatedly said positive things about Putin and the Chi-Coms while also criticizing Gorbachev for being ‘weak’ when he was trying to implement reforms in the USSR.

          Trying to stop the media from legally being allowed to criticize you while attacking liberal democracy as ‘weak’ and speaking positively about all manner of authoritarian dictatorships may not make you a fascist, but it’s good enough for government work.

          1. He wants to change libel laws to make it ridiculously hard to discuss public figures in the media and he’s repeatedly said positive things about Putin and the Chi-Coms while also criticizing Gorbachev for being ‘weak’ when he was trying to implement reforms in the USSR.

            That is just untrue. He wants to overturn NYT v. Sullivan, which created the public figure doctrine out of thin air. All he would do is make libel the same for everyone and get rid of the idea that you have to prove reckless disregard for the truth if the plaintiff is someone the court deems a “public figure”. That may or may not be a good idea, but it is not fascist. It would just be going back to the common law standard.

            That meme is just false.

            1. LOL, bullshit. According to Trump, all criticism of him is lies and slander. He just got through impugning Michelle Fields’ credibility because he refused to admit her claims were accurate.

              (Incidentally, wouldn’t that make Trump guilty of libel under the laws he wants to create, since his campaign ‘libeled’ Michelle Fields and tried to damage her career? Weird…)

              And if you think someone who praises the ‘strength’ required to put down the Tienanmen Square protests is going to stop with overturning NYT v. Sullivan, that’s absolutely laughable.

              1. Look, Irish, just because he already brags about bringing baseless lawsuits just to tie up his detractors with legal fees does not mean there’s anything wrong with Trump’s position on libel or slander.

                1. Do you have a citation for that Nikki?

                  1. Yep:

                    Trump said in an interview that he knew he couldn’t win the suit but brought it anyway to make a point. “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”

                    1. Read the Article Nikki. Pay particular attention,

                      In any case, Trump was unable to show that O’Brien had acted with “reckless disregard” for the truth, the standard for sustaining a libel claim against a public figure.

                      Trump didn’t prove reckless disregard. Note that the author at the Post didn’t say Trump couldn’t prove that what the guy said was lie. He said he couldn’t prove reckless disregard. Considering that this is a negative piece on Trump, if what the guy said was true, the Post would tell us.

                      What do we have here? The guy lies about Trump’s wealth and Trump sues and still loses because the standard for him, being a public figure, is reckless disregard not falsity. If you are public figure in this country, people can print lies about you and there is nothing you can do about ti as long as they can show they didn’t know it was false.

                      Maybe that is the way things should be. But the fact that a public figure who doesn’t like it and thinks they should be entitled to the same protection you and I are doesn’t make them a fascist.

                    2. Go ahead and ignore Trump’s own words, John. They say exactly what I claimed.

                    3. I am not ignore his own words. Trump lost the case because of the public figure doctrine and took solace in at least making the person who lied about him miserable. That is not nice, but I fail to see how that makes Turmp anything other than human. It doesn’t make him a fascist.

                      Why do you want to believe Trump is a fascist so badly? Why isn’t thinking he is just another political hustler good enough for you?

                      You never seem to have much of anything bad to say about Sanders and he is a real socialist who spent his youth working for the interests of the USSR. Meanwhile, you will go to any lengths to convince yourself an ordinary populist is really a fascist.

                    4. I am not ignore his own words. Trump lost the case because of the public figure doctrine and took solace in at least making the person who lied about him miserable.

                      You clearly are ignoring his own words, because they do not indicate he “took solace” in this fact, but that it was his explicit reason for filing the suit, which he knew he could not win.

                    5. Do you really think attacking Donald Trump by claiming that he’s not telling the truth about his net worth should be an offense that gets you nailed with libel laws?

              2. According to Trump, all criticism of him is lies and slander.

                Really? Can you show me where he ever said that? Do you have a citation? I have never seen him say that.

                He just got through impugning Michelle Fields’ credibility because he refused to admit her claims were accurate.

                Okay. What does that have to do with libel laws? And maybe her claims are not accurate? I don’t see how disagreeing with Michele Fields makes him a fascist.

                And if you think someone who praises the ‘strength’ required to put down the Tienanmen Square protests

                And that is another bullshit meme. Go read what he actually said in context. He was talking about how weakness in foreign policy causes more not less conflict and makes things worse. He said what the Chinese did was horrible but they ended up having to do that because they were weak and let the protests get out of hand. He never praised their “strength” or took the Chinese side. It was a dumb example, but it doesn’t mean what you claim.

                1. “Really? Can you show me where he ever said that? Do you have a citation? I have never seen him say that.”

                  Have I ever seen him specifically say ‘all criticism of me is lies and slander?’ No – I inferred it from the fact that he treats all criticism of him as lies and slander and blatantly lies about his record in order to claim his critics are libeling him. For example, he wanted to file a libel suit against the Club for Growth because they’ve used HIS OWN WORDS about his past tax positions in ads against him.

                  They were telling the truth about Trump and he still claimed they libeled him, but you won’t admit I’m right unless I find a quote where Trump says ‘ALL MY CRITICS SHOULD BE JAILED FOR LIBEL!”

                  Please.

                  1. Have I ever seen him specifically say ‘all criticism of me is lies and slander?’ No – I inferred it from the fact that he treats all criticism of him as lies and slander and blatantly lies about his record in order to claim his critics are libeling him. For example, he wanted to file a libel suit against the Club for Growth because they’ve used HIS OWN WORDS about his past tax positions in ads against him.

                    So in other words it is not true. And show me a citation to the Club for Growth issue. He never filed the suit. So, I fail to see what the big deal is. Moreover, maybe they took what he said out of context? I don’t know. And even if he didn’t, that just makes him thin skinned and litigious, hardly something that is rare today or indicative of him being a fascist.

                    And you say they were telling the truth, Trump disagrees. I don’t know who is right. But I can’t see how your objection amounts to anything more than “I don’t like Trump”. That is fine and maybe you shouldn’t. That, however, doesn’t make much of a case for him being any different than the 90% of other politicians that you don’t like.

                    1. “So in other words it is not true.”

                      You have to be kidding me.

                      Here.

                      Trump WANTS to be able to sue over things like this. The fact that he didn’t sue is because he had no hope of winning. We’re arguing over what Trump wants regarding libel laws, and what he wants is the ability to silence his critics.

                      I know they were telling the truth because the ad consisted of CLIPS OF DONALD TRUMP SAYING THINGS.

                    2. John, let’s also not act like the threat of litigation – particularly by a party with vastly more resources than another – doesn’t have a chilling effect on speech. Trump wants a system by which that intimidation becomes easier to effectuate.

          2. Irish- Bernie wants to make it illegal to criticize politicians, and speaks approvingly of bread lines and communist dictators

        2. Trump is as fascist as *all* of them are.

          He wants unilateral power to determine the course of the nation – because he believes he knows what’s best and you had by god better go along. Because if we don’t hang together you can be sure as shit certain that he’ll hang you separately.

          1. He wants unilateral power to determine the course of the nation –

            How so? That is a curious charge to make about someone whose main talking point is about he is a “deal maker”.

            because he believes he knows what’s best and you had by god better go along.

            Isn’t that just another way of saying he supports policies you don’t like? And more importantly, aren’t libertarians doing the same thing when they claim things like open borders and free trade are moral issues such that anyone who objects is immoral?

            1. Yeah, a ‘dealmaker’ in quotes is correct.

              This is the guy who said he ‘walked away’ when he ‘couldn’t come to an agreement’ with Vera Coking.

              The agreement he couldn’t come to was ‘give me your house for barely what its market value is, then pack your bags and get the fuck out or I’ll sick the government on you’. And he did. And he ‘walked away’ from the deal only when the freaking Supreme Court told him to pack sand.

              This is a man who has a vision – a vision of a world ‘managed’ by Trump. Not a world of people peacefully cooperating but a world full of busy little bees humming around doing the hive’s bidding.

              But its the same vision as the other candidates have.

              C’mon man, seriously – I know you’re a republican and all but if you hang out *here* its got to be because you realize that most of those guys are bullshit. Pay attention to what the man has *done, not what he says – certainly not to what he says he *will do*.

              1. I mean Sanders says he’ll end racism. Clinton says she has the interests of the middle class foremost in her mind.

                Both of them are lying. Not even delusional – just flat out lying to get votes.

                Don’t vote for the *characters* they are putting up on the podium during debates and speeches, watch what they’ve done and you’ll know what they will do.

              2. Of course I realize these guys are full of shit. I just don’t see how Trump is any more full of shit. I honestly can’t see a single objective reason why Trump would be any worse than any of them. And he would likely be better since he would not command the loyalty of his own side in Congress.

                1. ?

                  Don’t need to argue that with me. A Trump or Sanders presidency would suit me just fine (if I had to pick one side or the other). Neither would be able to get anything done against the pushback from *both* sides of the aisle.

                  1. As such, I think I just made the libertarian argument for a Trump/Sanders ticket.

            2. And more importantly, aren’t libertarians doing the same thing when they claim things like open borders and free trade are moral issues such that anyone who objects is immoral?

              No, for the reason that we’re talking about negative rights. I’m not being pedantic, it’s an important distinction and it’s the common thread linking all libertarian policy platforms.

              When libertarians say we support unhindered free trade, we’re saying that no one has a right to interfere with the individual’s right to engage in trade with anyone else. Claiming that the government has a right to establish a “protective tariff” to save American jobs or whatever is the same as saying that Bob has a positive right to a particular job, which necessarily conveys an obligation on other people, i.e. you, to ensure he has that job.

              Free trade is a moral issue to the extent that it’s a manifestation of individual liberty. If trade is free, then you are free to not engage in trade with anyone. Everyone has equal freedom in that regard. The alternative, where trade is regulated, means that someone’s interests are being valued above everyone’s rights, which is to say that the liberty of all is being curtailed to serve the interests of some.

              1. No, for the reason that we’re talking about negative rights. I’m not being pedantic, it’s an important distinction and it’s the common thread linking all libertarian policy platforms.

                You are just begging the question. You think free trade is great and moral. Others disagree and you are perfectly willing to tell them to sit down and shut up while you do what is good for them and society. The rest of it about how you are stopping them from infringing on others’ rights is just rationalization. Yeah, it makes wonderful sense to you. But that is because you start from the assumption that free trade and open borders is a moral issue. Other people start from different assumptions. All you are doing is imposing your moral view on them.

                You of course think it is different than what Progs do, but that is just because you think you are right and they are wrong. Both sides are equally undemocratic and utterly certain of their moral world view and the need to impose it on society regardless of other people’s objections.

                1. Others disagree and you are perfectly willing to tell them to sit down and shut up while you do what is good for them and society.

                  Which is total bullshit nobody is advocating. Free trade means you have a fucking choice not someone forcing you to trade.

                  1. Which is total bullshit nobody is advocating.

                    You are totally advocating that. Your whole position is that their position is immoral and illegitimate and deserves no consideration in the public square. It doesn’t matter how much harm may come to them as a result of free trade or open borders, they have no legitimate moral standing to object to it or expect their interests to be heard much less respected by the government.

                    1. Your whole position is that their position is immoral and illegitimate and deserves no consideration in the public square.

                      Again, this is total bullshit. Nobody is advocating that protectionists be silenced no matter how stupid they or their arguments are.

                    2. It doesn’t matter how much harm may come to them as a result of free trade or open borders, they have no legitimate moral standing to object to it or expect their interests to be heard much less respected by the government.

                      Did you, like, just discover what libertarianism is actually about or something?

                    3. No Nikki. I know exactly what it is. And it is in many ways as Utopian and elitist as socialism.

                2. With all due respect, John, I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

                  In advocating for free trade I’m saying that neither you nor anyone else has a right to tell me or anyone else how I may dispose of my time, labor, or property. This is a facet of the higher point, which is the maximization of individual liberty within the confines of the NAP. It’s the idea that each person’s rights are limited only by the extent of the rights of others, and that “positive rights” do not exist. Individual liberty can only be maximized when all individuals are equally free, and that situation cannot exist in the presence of positive rights. Therefore, any situation other than completely free trade necessarily means that some individuals are being favored over others, a situation by the way which can only exist in the presence of a coercive state.

                  As I say, maybe you disagree, and believe that there are situations where that sort of thing is justified. That’s fine. It too is a moral position, and it makes perfect sense if you’re approaching the issue with different priorities. I approach it from the position that the highest moral goal is maximizing liberty. It’s perfectly reasonable to have different priorities and arrive at different conclusions.

                  1. n advocating for free trade I’m saying that neither you nor anyone else has a right to tell me or anyone else how I may dispose of my time, labor, or property.

                    Which is just another way of saying “my side is moral”. And that is fine. But understand that you are just talking past your opponents. If someone doesn’t share that assumption, none of your conclusions follow.

        3. I believe the Bolsheviks were committed to international communism while the Fascists had their own special blend of nationalism and socialism brewing.

          They were certainly siblings and nothing is worse than a family fight.

        4. I thought Bolshies were commies!?

          1. My vague recollection is that the Bolsheviks believed that the Marxist idea of history could be accelerated by revolutionary actions.

          2. They were. But communism and fascism are just two sides of the same evil coin. The biggest difference between them is that the fascists were national socialists and believed in socialism based on national identity and the Bolshies were international socialists and believed in socialism based on economic class and the need for an international socialist revolution.

            1. And fascists had no desire to own the means of production, they just wanted to direct it. The communists wanted to own and operate the means of production.

              1. True. But the fascists believed that all action should be directed by the state. So that becomes a distinction without a whole lot of difference.

              2. Its the sort of distinction that says that fascists are *slightly* better than communists.

                1. But the end result is the same. A group of ‘elites’ is controlling commerce and intruding on freedom.

                2. But the end result is the same. A group of ‘elites’ is controlling commerce and intruding on freedom.

            2. All socialism – communism, fascisms, democratic socialism – sprang from Romanticism of the early 1800’s. Romanticism was a “humanist” movement endeavoring to make a “better man in a better world”. It was born from the extra free time people had on their hands due to the industrial revolution – less time eking out a living leaving more time to ponder The Big Why. So slices of the public decided that they could self-license themselves as know-it-alls, in touch with some ethereal fifth-element, and could use Force against peaceful and productive people to usher in that better world. Of course the lack of co-operation by other huge slices led to millions of corpses. And, so, that slice of people such as myself – secular, humanist, materialist, who oppose socialism of any kind as it requires Force, which leads to dead people and massive economic misallocations – will be on the wrong side of the razor wire regardless of which tribe of Romantics wins the day. Any notion that I should toss my hat in the ring to control the engine of Force is a non-starter, because I have little doubt I’d be another Robespierre before any successful build-down could occur.

              And trying to talk a Romantic out of their cultism is like trying to talk someone out of their religion.

              1. You are dead on Toolkien.

              2. Nail on head.

              3. Rousseau led the charge

        5. Trump is just a crony capitalist and a draft dodger.NTTAWWT. For the last few Presidents it’s kind of a requirement.

    3. Portmanteaus are the literary device of the moment.

      1. Do your have any anecdata to back that up?

          1. You’ll be cross-eyed soon!!!!

    4. After I been earnin $8768 this-past/five weeks and-a little over, $10k lass-month. it’s realy my favourite work I have ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $87… p/h. I follow
      this website,
      =============== http://www.PathCash30.com

  2. The bracket for the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament was leaked yesterday before CBS’ Selection Sunday show.

    A two-hour TOUR? a two-hour TOURnament show?

    1. They deserve it.

      Just fucking get to the point. People can and will find what they want before two fucking hours.

      Sorta like how the local news broadcasts tries to lure viewers by saying, ‘Clouds forming. Details at 11!’

      Yeah, like I’m gonna wait two hours. Not with Google there.

    2. Reality TV at its best. 10 minutes of content milked into 2hrs.

    3. Anyone setup the H&R bracket yet?

    4. Don’t care. I’m not a Negro worshipper.

      1. Except for Jimi Hendrix.

        1. No Robert Johnson, Fats Domino, Chris Rock?

  3. Trump rejected the idea he was inciting violence…

    Everyone simply caught Trumphobia! Trumpanoma. Myocardial trumpfarction.

    1. Trumpanoia will destroy ya!

    2. Look, saying shit the left doesn’t like to hear incites them to violence. Everyone knows this.

      1. So *that’s* what they have in common with Islam.

    3. Trumpilis, Trumporrhea (both caused by dry Trumping), the Trumps, Trump-back, Trumpaiasis, Trump-foot, ConTrumption, Trumptheria…
      [hold him in your arms and you can feel his disease….come together!]

      1. Trumpazuma’s Revenge?

      2. Trumpalalia

  4. The Islamic State (ISIS) reportedly forces birth control onto its sex slaves to keep them available.

    But is it covered?

    1. It’s Government Provided!

      1. Dammit, we are always a couple steps behind those guys.

      2. Everything not forbidden is mandatory!

    2. See, even ISIS is better on Womyn’s Health than the Rethuglikkkans!

      1. When will Sandra Fluke move there?

        1. So you want to destroy ISIS by sending them Sandra Fluke as a sex slave….?

          That might just work!

          1. [applauds wildly]

          2. Well, if it weren’t a violation of the Geneva Convention.

    3. Is this a burqa joke?

        1. Nicely done, I thought so.

    4. Bill Clinton is envious.

    5. Barefoot and not pregnant.

  5. A random comment regarding a dead thread – the correct collective noun for a group of Bureaucrats is an “Obstruction”.

    Change of topic. With Total Warhammer delayed a month, I have some more time to muse on design decisions that left me a bit confused.

    According to currently available information, each faction has three ‘Legendary Lords’ from which you pick one to start with and end up recruiting the other two as the game progresses. Also if one falls in battle they are ‘wounded’ and will return later on. This means you’re stuck with all three, even if you don’t want one of them.

    Since there are only three, that means Chaos gets screwed again. I would have expected a choice of a champion from each of the four Chaos gods that would play differently due to alliegences. My second thought was that with only three, Slaanesh gets pushed into the background to keep the age rating down. But no, one of the three advertised is a Slaaneshi champion. Another is Archaeon the Everboring. I really wish he wasn’t in this, he’s less intimidating than Failbaddon the Harmless, and thrice as forgettable. (What is it with GW and creating pitiable champions of Chaos Undivided?)

    Now I’m confused as to how they picked the Legendary Lords, as it seems my two favorite Chaos gods have no champions (Grandfather Nurgle and Tzeentch).

    Ah well, at least I’ve been able to suppress my annoyance at the lack of Skaven (My actual favored race).

    1. If you are worried about those specifics, you are bound to be disappointed no matter what. Rome II was unplayably bad given the excruciating strategic game. Too many turns where you just click “Next turn”” as you wait for shit to be built. ugh.

      1. I’m not ‘worried’ about those, I’ve just had too much time to think.

        My ‘worry’ is that they’ll still be using the limited number of armies from Rome II and I’ll have huge swathes of territory where I can’t reinforce the garrissons because my generals are needed at the front. (Along with ‘allies’ suddenly declaring war on me, this is my biggest gripe about that game)

    2. What is it with GW and creating pitiable champions of Chaos Undivided?

      Because the only thing less likely than the Emperor rising from the throne, or GW lowering prices, is them allowing the story-line to progress.

      They would, literally, rather destroy the setting than do that – and they did.

      Unfortunately the way to bet is that the Slanesshi champion will be of the boring ‘seeking perfection’ aspect with none of the ‘sex, drugs, painful sex, painful drugs, painful sex while on drugs’ bits.

      http://tinyurl.com/hsfbbyq

      1. Unfortunately the way to bet is that the Slanesshi champion will be of the boring ‘seeking perfection’ aspect

        Yes, you are correct (that information was already on their promo material).

    3. I always thought that the collective noun for bureaucrats was “clusterfuck”.

      1. No, that’s the spoor left behind when the obstruction has done its work.

  6. Man with 10lb PENIS says life ‘feels great’ and says silicone boost has left him ‘ready to play’

    A man who lives with a 10lb PENIS has shared all about living with an enormous member – and he says “it’s great”.

    Micha Stuntz, as he is known, lives in Berlin, where he says his big package has helped him free himself from established roles and ideas about sex – and left him “ready to play”.

    The 45-year-old has revealed that his penis is 9in long and 5.5in wide.

    Thanks to silicone injections, it weighs roughly 9.5lb, or the weight of an average-sized cat.

    1. When he gets gangrene and it falls off, it should make a decent thud.

      1. I wonder how much load it shoots off.

        He should demonstrate. Better yet, challenge Peter North to a cum-off.

        1. Maybe his balls are extra tiny?

    2. Seriously, a ten pounder would tie up a significant amount of his blood supply during an erection. No need for the kind of shit that killed Carradine.

      1. Actually, since most of that mass is inert silicone, I seriously doubt it’s using up much more blood than normal.

    3. . . . his big package has helped him free himself from established roles and ideas about sex . . .

      Uhm, wat? *Dude* gets himself a 9 inch cock and that is supposed to ‘free’ him from established ideas about sex rather than confirming his place within them?

      1. He injected a neonate’s worth of silicone into his meatus. It doesn’t look like critical thinking is his strong suit.

      2. Well, to be fair, one “established idea” about sex is that one’s partner is not expected to flee in abject terror at the sight of your equipment so I guess he’s got that going for him.

        1. Is uncontrollable giggling considered a normal reaction, though? Asking for a friend.

          1. I wouldn’t know.

  7. Prosecutors with the Department of Justice have declined to pursue charges in 96 percent of cases brought to them about alleged civil rights violations by police in the last 20 years.

    For curiosity’s sake, I wonder what the “decline to pursue charges” rates are for other things.

    1. 100% for classified email servers in closets!

      1. +1 Wipe it with a cloth

      2. 99.999% of police malfeasance cases.

    2. FTA, twenty-three percent.

      1. Looks like I duped at least one person into reading the article!

        1. Krayewski should probably get the hat tip there.

  8. Devout Christian has buttocks mauled by LIONS after charging at big cats to ‘prove God’s power over animals’

    Alec Ndiwane, who has been described as a “prophet” in African media, was on safari at the Kruger National Park in South Africa when he confronted the pride.

    Determined to prove to fellow tourists that God would save him, Ndiwane is said to have gone into a trance and started speaking in tongues before opening his car door and charging at the lions.

    Just moments before reaching the pride, Ndiwane came to his senses and turned around, sprinting back towards the safety of his safari van.

    But the lions were quick off the mark and bit him viciously on the backside as he clambered into the vehicle.

    A warden managed to scare the big cats off by firing a gun in the air.

    “I do not know what came over me,” Ndiwane told GhanaWeb.

    1. “I do not know what came over me,” Ndiwane told GhanaWeb.”

      Delusional retardation?

      1. Spiritual pride?

        1. What you did…I saw it.

          1. Seriously, though, talk about a situation where it behooves one to tow the lion.

            1. -1 rump roast

      2. Cultural appropriation?

      3. A big-ass lion?

    2. It was likely the running away that triggered the attack, as that causes a predator’s prey drive instinct to kick in. This is why you never run from a dog, it triggers the instinct to pursue prey.

      1. It’s also why you don’t run from the cops.

        1. Exactly. Any small-brained primitive predator will react pretty much the same.

          1. You impugn the entirety of Order Carnivora by comparing them to cops?

            1. Sorry, that was a low blow.

            2. “You impugn the entirety of Order Carnivora by comparing them to cops”

              Cops trying to even the score?

    3. The existence of God does not mean that he gives a shit about you.

      1. Alternatively, one could argue that God gave humans a brain to protect themselves, and by disregarding the warnings and advantages given by that brain, he had turned his back on the protection he was given.

        1. Like the devout Christian who was at home when a massive flood struck town. He climbed to the roof and prayed for God to save him. Someone came by in a canoe to rescue him and he said “No thanks, God will save me.” Then someone came by in a power-boat to rescue him and he said “No thanks, God will save me.” Then someone in a helicopter offered to rescue him and he said “No thanks, God will save me.” Finally the flood washed his home away and he drowned. In Heaven he asked God “WTF?” and God said “Well, I sent you a canoe, a power-boat, and a helicopter. What did you expect?”

          1. Good one.

          2. Should be a Christian scientist, more accurately

        2. Right. We cannot have free will and a God who will constantly micro-manage every decision you make, freeing you of negative consequences.

          I’m not a religious guy, but I grew up going to Sunday School. If you don’t internalize the fact that your God (if he exists) is merciful because he let’s you choose and experience the consequences, then your life is going to be very confusing.

          1. Cocaine makes you feel that way sometimes. Especially if you do consume large quantities.

    4. Isn’t there something in the Bible that says that yes, faith will protect you – unless you actually try to *test* that. Then God gets pissed that you’re testing him and he’ll fuck you up?

      1. +1 heroin overdose

    5. “I thought the Lord wanted to use me to show his power over animals. Is it not we were given dominion over all creatures of the earth?” he added.

      …yeah, about that “dominion” thing…I’d keep that under my hat were I you.

      1. Just more proof that J Moses Browning was an agent of the LORD. He gave us great guns to shoot any animal challenging out dominion.

  9. Meanwhile gunmen in the Ivory Coast stormed three hotels, killing 16, with an Al-Qaeda affiliate claiming responsibility.

    Killings in Africa? Al Qaeda hasn’t figured out how to capture western media attention yet?

    1. Killings in Africa are massive. They put a major scare on Western tourists who are dying to enjoy the continents amazing offerings in spite of the omnipresent scarier-than-ISIS dictatorships.

      1. “Come for the crushing poverty, stay for the tropical diseases!”

        1. That…is…fucking…hilarious. You really should work for a tourist bureau.

  10. At least 34 people were killed after a car bomb went off in Ankara, the Turkish capital.

    So, the so-called “Arab Spring” has now come to the heart of the Ottoman Empire. This’ll be good.

    1. But most Turks aren’t Arabs…

      1. Ironic, isn’t it?

        Erdogan has sown the wind, so now he gets to enjoy the reaping of the whirlwind.

      2. Meanwhile, back in the bathhouse…

        1. Sharif don’t like it.

      3. No they were just conquered by Arabs, took their religion and some of their culture. So… Arab “in spirit” or something.

  11. I’m sitting in the doctor’s waiting room being reminded how much I hate country music.

    Entertain me.

    1. My girl done left me and took everything I had.

      1. Before or after you done killed your dog ‘neath the wheels of your pick-up truck?

        1. I was drunk the day my Mom got out of prison…

          1. She told me I could keep the kids and she was moving out…

          2. Did you go to pick her up in the rain?

            1. I did, but before I could get to the station in my pickup truck, she got run over by a damned ole train!

    2. I don’t think the room is ready for Nirvana, but I applaud your attempts.

    3. Do the experts have any predictions for what will happen in golf in 2011?

      1. Woman’s Day didn’t cover it, but I do know how to make a killer tuna casserole now.

      2. Arnold Palmer will pick you up when you’re hitchhiking.

    4. I’m going to the Trump rally in Tampa. If I do it right I will be properly drunk. You fucking mammals are insufferable when I’m sober.

      1. Do reptilians gain pleasure from experiencing human suffering? I can’t imagine why you’d-

        Wait. Trump is one of you, isn’t he? I knew it!

        *tears off sheet of tin foil, fashions dapper trilby*

    5. What happens when you play a country song backwards? Your dog comes back, your girl comes back, and your truck starts running again. /the vault of my dad’s jokes.

      1. And you’re not drunk anymore…
        /similar dad

        1. That sucks. Guess I’ll have to switch to Oxycontin.

      2. Shouldn’t you tell it in Glaswegian, if it is one of Lord Morrison’s jokes?

  12. 10 pounds of bat feces found above secretary’s desk

    Ten pounds of bat feces were found Thursday in the ceiling above the desk of Department of Business and Professional Regulation Secretary Ken Lawson, located in Northwood Centre.

    The find comes amid a surprise effort by the Florida Legislature to move 1,500 state employees out of the building this summer following reports of mold and other environmental problems. Pending Gov. Rick Scott’s signing of the budget, employees will begin moving out in the coming weeks and months. Budget language states lease payments must stop by July 1, the beginning of the fiscal year.

    “Please let the secretary know his office is off limits until the 10 pounds of bat guano is safely removed from the area directly above his desk,” said toxicologist David Krause in a Thursday night email obtained by the Tallahassee Democrat. “This poses an unsafe condition and he is advised that no one should enter the room or go above the ceiling tiles without respiratory protection.”

      1. They’re quite talkative actually, even more so than seagulls

    1. Bats are filthy little bastards. You definitely don’t want them in your attic.

      1. My yard could use some bats, though. Between April and October we have to run between the house and the car or else get exsanguinated by mosquitoes.

        1. You live in Skeeterville? (actual place in Suffolk)

          1. Nope, Norfolk. Turns out it’s not that great of an idea to build a city in a sea-level marsh.

            1. Larchmont for the win

              1. A friend of mine recently bought a house in Larchmont, despite my advice. Turns out the place has an indoor swimming pool if it rains while the tide is high.

          1. My neighbors have one. I have never seen a bat in the neighborhood, though.

            1. We had one at our old house. You could see them all huddled together during the day. They only used it for two seasons, then never came back, though.

          2. My wife just got one and we’re about to put it up. We’ve got ridiculous numbers of mosquitoes (Annapolis, MD) especially where we are right close to the water. Spraying only works for a day before the rain washes it away, and my wife won’t let me put up a bug zapper.

    2. Holy Shit, Batman!

      1. Holy batshit, man!

    3. Bat guano is valuable shit.

      1. Nauru had it a plenty. Built their entire economy around it and wound up going to shit themselves.

        1. And now they’re helping statist Australians incarcerate refugees. It’s a beautiful story. Disney should buy the rights to it.

      2. Not sure if we even bother to synthesize guanidine or just mine it.

    4. Bumble Bee Tuna, Bumble Bee Tuna…..

    5. Bob Dylan says he’ll clean it up for free.

  13. The most common reasons that prosecutors cited for declining to bring civil rights cases against officers were weak or insufficient evidence, lack of criminal intent and orders from the Justice Department, according to the Tribune-Review.

    Must be nice being a cop. They are considered innocent until proven guilty, and mens rea actually applies to them.

  14. Merkel’s party suffers drubbing in German state vote

    YOUR BROWSER IS NOT SUPPORTED.

    Please upgrade to watch video.

    Voters punished Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives in three German regional elections on Sunday, giving a thumbs-down to her open-door refugee policy and turning in droves to the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD).

    The result is a big setback for Merkel, who has led Europe’s biggest economy for a decade, and could narrow her room for manoeuvre as she tries to convince her European Union partners to seal a deal with Turkey to stem the tide of migrants.

    Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) lost ground in all three states – Baden-Wuerttemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate in the west and Saxony-Anhalt in the east – which were together widely seen as offering a verdict on Merkel’s liberal migrant policy.

    1. You sure like telling us about your unworthy browser.

      1. IT IS TAUNTING ME

    2. She overplayed her hand big time; especially with her (arrogant?) demands that Europe follow her lead.

      http://www.spiegel.de/internat…..81820.html

    3. You know what other German leader suffered a big setback? (Sorry, I had to Godwin something!)

      1. Boris Becker?

      2. Gregory VII?

        Although he came back from it.

    4. Its not exactly surprising.

      1. She let in a bunch of immigrants – into *Europe* which is not the most welcoming of foreigners at the best of times – that were viewed suspiciously by the German people right from the start.

      2. There was an *inevitable* clash of cultures because even though European states are xenophobic, they *insist* on multiculturalism for those that do get in. Which means a) ghettoization and b) people from a sexually repressed cultures don’t know or learn how to behave in one that’s a heck of a lot more liberal.

      3. Then, the cherry on the cake, they got mad *at their own electorate* and told *them* they needed to change their ways to accommodate the refugees! If my neighbor’s house burned down I’d invite him to stay with me for a while until he got back on his feet. If he then said that he didn’t like the decor of my living room and demanded I should redecorate to his taste the answer would *not* be ‘OK’.

      1. If my neighbor’s house burned down I’d invite him to stay with me for a while until he got back on his feet. If he then said that he didn’t like the decor of my living room and demanded I should redecorate to his taste the answer would *not* be ‘OK’.

        A closer analogy of what happened in Germany is that of some guy from the wrong side of the tracks looked at the shitty place he was living, walked over to your house uninvited, made himself at home, ate your food, fucked your children and told you to change the decor to suit his tastes.

  15. Speeder apparently did have to use the bathroom

    A speeder who told a Lake County Sheriff’s deputy he was racing home to go to the bathroom ended up urinating and defecating in the back of the officer’s patrol car, according to an arrest affidavit.

    But that was only after 24-year-old Carlos Adonis Ramos-Erazo refused to get out of his vehicle, drove off after hitting the deputy’s arm with the vehicle and had to be chased down and shot with a Taser.

    Ramos-Erazo was charged with fleeing, battery on a law enforcement officer, aggravated assault with a motor vehicle on a law enforcement officer and resisting with and without violence. He was released from jail after he posted an $18,000 bail.

    When you gotta go you gotta go

    1. That’ll show ’em.

  16. Hundreds of thousands of anti-government protesters in Brazil demanded the president’s resignation.

    It doesn’t work that way.

    1. It does when they storm the office and rip the president apart with their bare hands. They’ve got the numbers to overpower his security.

    2. That’s Mister President’s resignation to you!!!

  17. Trump protester says he meant no harm

    Thomas Dimassimo, 22, told police his actions were not spontaneous, according to a Dayton police report. He gave his keys to his girlfriend to take his car home before the rally, according to the report.

    “? I’m unafraid,” Dimassimo said, during a CNN interview on Sunday. “If I can be unafraid enough to go take his podium away from him, then we all can be unafraid enough to not let this man walk into the White House.”

    Dimassimo told police he planned to run onto the stage, take the microphone and yell, “Donald Trump is a racist.”

    Dimassimo, using the Twitter handle @younglionking17, announced his plan on social media and said he was trying to “snag the mic” from Trump and “plead his case” in front of Trump supporters.

    Dimassimo also denied he had any connection to ISIS during Sunday’s CNN interview.

    “I have no known ties to ISIS,” Dimassimo said. “I’ve never been out of the country. I only speak English.”

    1. “I have no known ties to ISIS,”

      What in Hell?

      1. He’s not terribly bright

      2. What really happened:
        INTETERVIEWER: Sir, you seem underdressed for such an important protest. This isn’t exactly casual Friday.
        DIMASSIO: I have-a no suit, I have-a no ties. [raises fist to sky] To ISIS!

    2. Dimassimo told police he planned to run onto the stage, take the microphone and yell, “Donald Trump is a racist.”

      Isn’t it the contention of most anti-Trump people that this is pretty much what Trump does every time he grabs the microphone?

      1. Yeah, I’m really not sure what they hope to accomplish. But I can say that about the great majority of people who think it is worth their time to go around protesting things.

    3. If you look at the video The Trumpster turns and moves toward Dimassimo in an aggressive manner when he realizes he is being rushed. When the SS guys show up to get between them Trump, Trump half tries to brush them aside.
      I have no doubt that if Dimassimo had gotten close The Donald would have kicked his ass.

      That video would be one for the ages.

      1. It would be the political version of Nolan Ryan beating up Robin Ventura.

      2. Yeah, it did actually look like Trump was looking to punch him in the face.

      3. If you look at Trump while he’s speaking it’s obvious he wears body armor. Word is he carries as well.

    4. No wonder he supports Sanders….after pulling stunts like this and the thing back in 2015, no one is going to want to hire this guy unless it is a progressive think tank or media outlet

      1. I hear MSNBC is looking for a host in the mid-day spot.

    5. This is what democracy looks like!

    6. Is cancifled a new verb?

  18. Having to do something I really, really don’t want to have to do. The neighbor’s kids (ages 4 and 3) were in their SUV laying on the horn at like 8 in the morning. One kid is naked, the other in PJs. Went out to see what the hell was the matter; kids don’t know where their parents are. The doors of their house are all locked, blinds drawn, no one answering knocking the doors, ringing the bell, or calling their cells. All their cars are here. I can’t see much through the windows, but nothing looks amiss. Have the kids with us for now and calling the cops.

    1. That sucks

    2. Wow. Not much choice. A 4-year-old should be able to talk.

      Any house-key or garage opener in the car?

      1. No, it would be unwise from a liability perspective to enter the house if it’s locked up, even if you can find a way in.

    3. You’re calling the cops and you’ve got a naked neighbor’s kid with you? Are you kidding me? Jesus, man.

      1. Honestly, almost chose to not do anything because the last thing I need was some other neighbor looking out, seeing me grabbing a naked boy, and calling the cops herself.

        1. But if you do nothing?

          Maybe call the cops while keeping an eye on them as they sit in the car?

          1. They weren’t going to stay in the car and I wouldn’t have a good view of them there had they remained. If they exited out the driver side we’d have never seen it. We’ve known these kids for almost a year and they have not taken a level in “stay in one place for 5 minutes”. “Run into street bare-assed,” though is something they have a demonstrated habit of doing.

      2. Yeah, i’d have left them in the car and just stood by in case there was a problem while waiting for the cops. Sucks to have to call them. Hope one of the rare ones shows up.

        1. ^This is, of course, the safest thing from a perspective of limiting your own liability. I don’t know if I’d have been able to ignore that, though. If you have to interact with the kids, have a woman present. Particularly good if you can involve another neighbor.

    4. That doesn’t sound good.

      Keep us updated. I need closure.

    5. Call your attorney and have him call the cops.

      1. Shit, may as well call your batman, tell him to tell the butler to have one of the orphans take the sedan chair over to your solicitor’s office and have the man call the police.

    6. Looks like a case of ‘no choice’. It doesn’t sound good but hopefully it’s nothing. Good luck.

      Wow.

    7. Let us know how this turns out. Of course calling the cops is the last thing you want to do, but is appears that you’ve done everything you can to avoid it and come to no other alternative. I’m sure that you have places to be and it wouldn’t be right to abandon the kids without anyone to help them. Make sure that your dogs are secured in the house before they show up.

    8. Tragedy averted, for now. Sheriff arrived and entered the house. The parents were apparently passed out in their room after a night of… something… and the kids sneaked out this morning couldn’t get back in. They’re in a very animated discussion with the deputies. I’m going to feel a little bad if CPS gets up in their business but at the same time their kids were under-dressed and undressed, unattended and loose in their neighborhood.

      1. Don’t feel bad. There are rare instances where CPS should intervene, but sadly this sounds like one of them.

        1. That was my thought too.

      2. Damn, I’m glad all my neighbors are adults. I wouldn’t want to be in that position.

        1. Finding adult neighbors in that state might lead to something interesting. But you never shit where you eat.

      3. Thanks for the update.

      4. Things are going to be awkward at the next block party.

      5. At least SOMEBODY got laid last night!

      6. I think you did the right thing.

        I considered calling code enforcement recently for a garage in an alley – the thing’s roof was being propped up by a shipping pallet on its edge inside, and somebody had cut a doorway through the crumpled door with a sawz-all. I didn’t want some kid going in there and getting crushed. What I did was call the realtor that just sold it and asked if the buyers knew about it; he said yes. They scraped the thing last week.

      7. That brings back memories of my childhood. Good times.

  19. Ten-Year Anniversary of the Duke Lacrosse Rape thing. When I first realized that college professors and administrators had completely lost their minds. I watched the first half of the 30 for 30 on it last night – pretty good. Seeing the parents talk about it was painful.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..rosse-case

    1. I forget. Was it piece of shit Jesse Jackson or piece of shit Al Sharpton who jumped on that like opportunistic pieces of shits?

      Fucken assholes.

      1. Fucken assholes.

        I love Shakesperean English.

        1. What’s a Shakespeare?

          1. …and can I use it for the grill?

          2. *Shakes spear* RACIST!

            1. I always loved that scene from KFMovie: ‘Savage!’

          3. A fancy cocktail?

    2. KC Johnson covered it closely back then. Fascinating and horrible.
      http://www.mindingthecampus.org/

    3. That was the 21st Century American version of the Dreyfus case. And unlike France, we didn’t learn a single thing from it.

    4. I recommend watching the entire 30 for 30. It was outstanding.

      1. I recorded that. I am pleasantly surprised ESPN took that case up and told the truth. The SJWs there must be livid about that documentary. I am still amazed they haven’t run Jay Bilas off for demanding the President resign over it.

        1. Well, some things are so clearly false that even SJW’s can’t maintain the narrative in the face of the facts.

          1. Maybe. None of the gang of 88 who signed that petition seem to regret it or in any way admit they were wrong.

            1. Look comrade, there’s objective truth and there’s revolutionary truth. We will let you remain here in this asylum to ponder which is more important.

            2. There are always some who will give it a good try, I guess.

  20. Just in case you forgot today is Pi Day, Pizza Hut has a math contest for free pizza*.

    TW – Yeah, it’s free pizza from Pizza Hut so I’d think twice about entering that contest.

    1. I’m getting free pizza from management because we finished our Data Center Migration (finally)

    2. * “pizza”

    3. In Italy, pizzas are often square. What’s the square root of pi?

      1. Pizza was the result of a fusion of Italian tomato pie with the eclectic tastes of the New York immigrant communities. After WWII, Pizza was introduced into Italy, who bastardized it as much (if not more so) than those bastards in Chicago, then tried to claim it as their invention. Americans, who attribute their own culinary traditions entirely to foreigners (except for those we did not create, like apple pie), aided and abetted this.

        And the square root of pi is somewhere around 1.772453851…

      2. So does that mean that pi=4 in Italy?

      3. Your mom.

      4. a cunt hair? (Must not press submit…..ah, why not?)

      5. Square root of 69 is eight…something.

  21. Prosecutors with the Department of Justice have declined to pursue charges in 96 percent of cases brought to them about alleged civil rights violations by police in the last 20 years.

    Look, the DOJ has limited resources and must prioritize what they go after. I mean, there are medical marijuana dispensaries to raid because they don’t adhere to their states laws, from a certain point of view, if you squint hard enough when looking at the sun.

    1. I have a friend whose cousin did year year in federal prison for insider trading. She was a secretary at some big Wall Street firm and made a few thousand dollars. The largest banking collapse in the history of civilization did not result in a single prosecution but the FBI and DOJ was happy to go after some secretary.

      1. A secretary in prison?…

        Go on…

      2. Fuck the jury that actually convicted her.

        1. It was a plea bargain. One of those, admit to our bullshit charge and only get a year or let us go to trial and risk getting ten years, kind of thing.

          1. Fuck the d.a., then.

            1. The handgun enhancement is more than the original charge. I’m familiar with that.

      3. Have you either seen the Cato presentation or read the book by the prosecutor (can’t remember her name right now) who was originally part of the team that went after Arthur Anderson? She claims it was mostly a fabricated case but it was then used to get people at Enron to roll on upper management. I don’t think it was as empty of value as she claims but the prosecutorial abuses were epic.

        1. I haven’t read the book but I have read a fair amount in the media about the Enron case. And the abuses were epic from what I remember. DOJ is completely out of control. They need to fire every attorney who works there and start over.

          1. Fire as in burn at the stake.

      4. My neighbor had an interesting story about how his brother-in-law ended up in federal prison…

        This guy was a fairly successful stock trader, and he started investing sums of money on behalf of his family and close friends. But the word got out and he started doing this for more and more people. He eventually posted it on his church bulletin and was soon handling investments for several hundred individuals. This was all done as an individual, not as a business.

        But he eventually lost money – as all stock traders inevitably do – and he didn’t want to tell all these people that they took a loss. So he just convinced more people to sign up so he could pay the original participants with the money from the new participants… In other words, a Ponzi scheme. At some point, the entire scheme came crashing down, and he’s now near the end of a seven-year sentence for a variety of charges including the violation of a licensing requirement for stock brokers.

        I just found it interesting how this guy never set out with the goal of enriching himself by ripping everyone off, but he nevertheless ended up running a giant scam. I guess it’s just one more case of good intentions paving the road to hell.

  22. “The Islamic State (ISIS) reportedly forces birth control onto its sex slaves to keep them available.”

    This is like the least bad thing ISIS has done to its sex slaves.

    1. I’m guessing it’s better than what Mohammed and his bros did with the off-spring of their sex slaves.

      1. Man, you just made a bad visual. A fatwa on you for making me depict The Prophet.

    2. I’m not taking that birth control. You rape me and the least you can do is knock me up.

    3. This seems shortsighted. Where will the next generation of sex-slaves come from?

      1. It is a short sighted ideology dependant upon continuous expansion and plunder.

        1. That sounds suspiciously like the American Way?

    4. Stops the muzzies from breeding, so I’m cool with that.

  23. Ben Shapiro and Michelle Fields resigned from Breitbart. Breitbart came back with this pithy response. Google Cache because they deleted it, but fuck Breitbart.

    1. Good for her for resigning if she didn’t feel they backed her up. My only issue with her is that she should have filed a police report. What she alleges was a criminal assault and it is a very big deal to accuse the campaign manager of a major party front runner of criminal assault. You should not make such allegations unless you are willing to go to the cops and put them under oath. In fact, you have a duty to do so. What is the point of saying anything if you are not going to file charges? Not filing charges just ensures your allegation muddies the water. She should have either called the cops and filed charges or never said anything.

      1. She did file a police report.

        http://abcnews.go.com/Politics…..d=37568558

        1. I didn’t know that. She did the right thing. The question is why hasn’t the guy been charged? I would be curious to hear why.

          1. Last I heard, nobody saw anything – including the Secret Service who were there and the running video camera. Maybe it happened, but the proof doesn’t seem to be out there. Video shows the guy reaching for her and missing.

            1. It was just a little nipple pinch.

          2. It takes time. I think this all blew up last week.

            In the case where my ex falsely accused someone of sexual assault; the cops had their man within 48 hours, but he didn’t see the inside of a courtroom for three months. They didn’t arrest him, just issued a summons to that hearing were the cops petitioned the court to charge him.

            1. True. But if charges are never filed, then I think people should disregard the entire incident, unless there is reason to believe the cops or DA are corrupt. Even if there were no witnesses and it was just her word against his, that still is enough to warrant filing charges, unless there is some reason not to believer her.

              1. unless there is reason to believe the cops or DA are corrupt.

                I generally assume that in all cases.

                1. Yes. But they generally are not corrupt to let people off. They are corrupt in that they will prosecute anything.

              2. Her is a she. That’s enough to disbelieve her.

            2. Did you know she falsely accused someone?

              Curious.

              1. I don’t at least. But, if there is something to her accusation, charges should result. If they don’t, either the DA is corrupt and think the Trump campaign should be free to assault people or her story is not credible enough to put in front of a jury.

                1. The one thing that may be holding it up is that tomorrow’s the primary… guessing they wouldn’t want to deal with the political/media fallout if they were to arrest him one day before the primary.

                2. Again – Trump has a Secret Service detail now. They didn’t see it – nor did the camera rolling on them. I think she’s lying.

              2. If that’s aimed at me, yes. I am 100% certain.

                Basically, by the time the defense attorney was through with her, it was pretty clear she had made the whole thing up. The accused was simply guilty of nothing more than being an honest man who had been in the wrong place at the wrong time and as a result knew a sordid secret my ex wanted to bury.

                Naturally, even though the investigating detective was happy to go forward with the application despite having serious doubts as to my ex’s claims; after she was shown to be a bald-faced liar, she was not charged with filing a false police report or perjury (yes, she blatantly perjured himself).

          3. The whole thing feels like a setup to me.

            I’m smelling another left-wing infiltrator/agitator trying to stir shit up.

            1. You said exactly the same thing when your mom stood you up for brunch that time.

              1. Your mom made me feel a lot better about it later on though.

                1. Did you come up with a stupid nickname for her too?

                  1. I have to admit I do like Shit Flopney.

            2. I like that we’ve gone from ‘she’s a filthy whore seeking attention’ to ‘this Breitbart writer, Fox News personality, and former Reason and PJTV employee is a secret leftist.’

              Apparently she’s been engaged in a long con just so she could smear The Donald who wasn’t even a major political figure at the start of her career.

              She’s Machiavellian as fuck.

              1. Your ex-girlfriend is probably the one that masterminded the whole thing. It’s a feminist plot.

            3. The whole thing feels like a setup to me.

              She asked a guy a question, and he grabbed her arm and pushed her to the ground. How could that possibly be a setup?

              1. She’s supposedly standing next to the most famous guy in the world at this moment – in public, with cameras rolling, with Secret Service protection and cops everywhere. And NOBODY saw it or filmed it.

                I’m filing this in my bullshit drawer alongside the Duke and UVA rape cases.

                1. And NOBODY saw it or filmed it.

                  You mean except for the guy who said he was a witness from the beginning?

                  Or the video footage that’s been uncovered since Lewandowski claimed it never happened?

                  Or maybe the first witness is Lewandowski himself, since he admitted it happened. Before denying it.

                  1. Link to the video of her being pushed down please.

                    1. Drake,

                      Who benefits from this hoax, and how do they benefit?

                    2. A very junior reporter gets a whole lot of publicity and perhaps leverages it into a full-time Fox gig.

                    3. A very junior reporter gets a whole lot of publicity and perhaps leverages it into a full-time Fox gig.

                      Saying a person pushed you to the ground is a sure way to take over for Shep Smith? Ok.

                    4. “Ah’m Shephard Smith, and ah come from a small town full of secrets.”

                2. A Washington Post reporter saw it and wrote about it. There is also audio.

                  I object to fighting out what happened over Twitter, or characterizing it as an assault. However, it is pretty clear that someone grabbed her and pushed her down, which is pretty bad, and the Trump campaign’s response was pretty bad, too.

                  1. I want a sworn affidavit from him, or his testimony under oath. The fact that he’s a Washington Post reporter, as if they never ever lie, carries pretty much no weight with me.

                    How many months and months did the scum in the media tell us that “Hands up, don’t shoot” happened, when the whole time it was total unadulterated bullshit?

                    1. You are right, this reporter saying that a guy who worked for the Trump campaign grabbed her and pushed her to the ground strains credulity. Who could believe something like that?

                  2. Crusty,

                    When it comes to these kinds of things, unless you have video, I think you have only believe what people are willing to say under oath. It is so easy to slander people and exaggerate. I am not and no one should dismiss this woman’s allegation. I just don’t think anyone should make any conclusions until we see what people say under oath.

                    1. When it comes to these kinds of things, unless you have video, I think you have only believe what people are willing to say under oath.

                      I completely disagree. Again, why would she say that a person grabbed her and pushed her to the ground? How in the world does that benefit her? She cooked up a scheme in order to slightly embarrass the Trump campaign? She is in cahoots with Roger Ailes in order to get a little more airtime? Occam’s Razor apparently doesn’t exist in Trumpland.

                      The reaction of the Breitbart, the Trump campaign, and Trump supporters has been telling, though.

                    2. It’s certainly possible that they’re telling the truith and this happened exactly the way they say they did.

                      But anyone who just automatically believes that anything printed in the Washington Post is the unquestionable gospel truth the way that Crusty obviously does is either a leftist, or a complete dope who somehow never learns anything from the past.

                3. She can still sue the guy.

                  why does she not?

                  1. She can still sue the guy.

                    why does she not?

                    If she’s already filed charges, there’s no point in suing him yet until after the criminal complaint is sorted out. If no criminal conviction is actually produced, then she might go after him in civil court at that point.

                    The hard part is going to be proving what was claimed. None of the videos so far actually show her getting thrown to the ground, just brushed aside and even those are pretty ambiguous as to the severity. All they have at the moment is audio of someone saying “Wow he threw you to the ground” and a shot of a bruise on her arm. None of that is actually a smoking gun without pics or a video of the incident, and that’s going to be a big deal because there’s cameras and video all over the place–both what we’ve seen and stuff that hasn’t even come out yet.

                    Unless they can produce that smoking gun, Lewandowski will tell her “bring it” and Trump’s army of lawyers will manage to get the charges dropped entirely if she can’t produce it.

            4. I’m smelling another left-wing infiltrator/agitator trying to stir shit up.

              Oh, come on. This is the same woman who got stumped by MATT DAMON’s word salad on Reason’s own web site a couple years ago. If she wasn’t bright enough then to turn that back on him, what makes you think she is 1) a left-winger; and 2) sophisticated enough to come up with some “Better Call Saul”-style blackmail scheme?

              1. Did you watch the YouTube video linked to further down? If you haven’t, you should.

                This is a total fucking joke.

                  1. You got taken in by the media yet again, you dope. This is mother of all nothingburgers, and you know it.

                    1. You are so cynical that you do not believe what this woman said, or the Washington Post reporter, or the audio tape he released, but you know for certain that his video shows the truth?

                      I need to learn from you.

                    2. C’mon Crusty, the gig is up. You’ve been outed as a brain-dead leftist. Leave while you still can.

    2. LOL. That reads like Commie’s in the 30’s drumming those who are insufficiently revolutionary out of the party.

      Dirty capitalist wreckers!

    3. Best part is them angrily linking to a Buzzfeed article as evidence of Shapiro’s vile betrayal and the Buzzfeed article starting like this:

      “Breitbart’s Inheritors Battle Over His Legacy
      “A happy cult” no more as internal friction stresses the conservative website. “I think he would detest what it’s become,” says one staffer.”

      So Breitbart published an article proving Buzzfeed’s claim right.

      1. If they did not back her up at all then she did the right thing to resign. This will hopefully be the end of the relevancy of that website.

        1. Or, they knew better than to back her up.

          1. Shapiro was like their top shitweasel. If that place is too much for him…

    4. There’s a fresh, unambiguous, video showing she grossly exaggerated what happened. I don’t like Trump one bit but he was right to stand up for his guy in this instance. Take a look on YouTube because it’s sure not getting play elsewhere.

      1. I guess that would explain the lack of charges.

        1. Looks like that “rape” of Souad Faress by the guy who walked past her in the London Underground.

        2. That’s it?? That’s the extent of this brutal assault?

          This is a total fucking joke. Another typical day for the so-called “mainstream media”.

      2. There’s a fresh, unambiguous, video showing she grossly exaggerated what happened. I don’t like Trump one bit but he was right to stand up for his guy in this instance.

        Is it usual to stand up for people by lying about what happened?

        1. Please explain.

          1. Now that there is video evidence of at least some level of arm-grab on Lewandowksi’s part, their defence is “it wasn’t that hard.” But on Friday, he denied ever doing it–after admitting to it earlier in the week.

            1. What it looks like to me is an arm grab and move (not harsh) so that he could keep up with Trump who was walking away.

              Ben Terris is a moron, btw. “He just threw you down.” ???

            2. Brushing past someone in a crowd, even moving them out of your way a little is hardly throwing someone down. That video does not show a crime. It barely even shows rudeness. I don’t see how a denial that he assaulted her is a lie. And yes I know the technical definition of both assault and battery, but I’d hate to have to argue that that level of unwelcome contact constituted either in the circumstances.

  24. Paramount Claims Crowdfunded ‘Star Trek’ Film Infringes Copyright to Klingon Language

    After the Star Trek rights-holders sued producers, led by Alec Peters, who put out a short film and solicited donations with the aim of making a studio-quality feature set in the year 2245 ? before Captain James T. Kirk took command, when the war with the Klingon Empire almost tore the Federation apart ? the defendants brought a dismissal motion that faulted Paramount and CBS with not providing enough specificity about which of the “thousands” of copyrights relating to Star Trek episodes and films are being infringed ? and how.

    Ask and ye shall receive.

    On Friday, Paramount and CBS filed an amended complaint that responded in a few ways.

    To the argument that because the crowdfunded film hasn’t actually been made yet, the lawsuit is “premature, unripe and would constitute an impermissible prior restraint on speech,” the plaintiffs point to defendant’s Facebook post that mentioned a “locked script.” They also note a press interview that Peters gave on Feb. 1 where he said, “We violate CBS copyright less than any other fan film,” as an admission he indeed is violating copyright.

    1. It’s almost like all entertainment media lawyers are overly aggressive dullards

    2. I’m still pissed at this one. What I saw so far looked like it might be the first decent content for that franchise in a long time.

  25. Sanders supporters have shown me that college is a big scam and making it free is a waste of taxpayer funds. For being college educated, they sure come across as idiots who can’t think critically or more than scratching the surface regarding their preferred policy proposals…feels only required if you will.

  26. Sanders supporters have shown me that college is a big scam and making it free is a waste of taxpayer funds. For being college educated, they sure come across as idiots who can’t think critically or more than scratching the surface regarding their preferred policy proposals…feels only required if you will.

    1. Academia is remarkable in that respect. Anyone who publishes in their field will read massive amounts of background and context and pore over documents/data before publishing. In most cases, their conclusions will be full of caveats, exceptions, and mitigating circumstances.

      But when it comes to contemporary politics, if they hear it on NPR or a Democrat says it, that settles it for them. I have one academic friend who regularly offers “proof” on his FB page of local Republican incompetence or corruption. His links are invariably to the homepage of the local Democrat running for office.

      1. I feel like a lot of their social science studies and grants end up just as studies that don’t really go anywhere. They get published and that is the end. It reminds me of having certain meetings at work where it is really just check the box but no one actually plans on taking away anything. Seminars too.

        1. A lot of it is about getting tenure or promotion after tenure.

  27. Trump is what he has always been a crony capitalist. What he will become as President is the finally nail in the death of freedom. Clinton on the other hand may be a theif, a liar and an enabler of a rapist but as a country we can survive that. Everyone thinks Trump is so smart but if you have enough money and ambition you can buy your way to success. Washington D.C. and New York City have one thing in common. Everything and everybody is for sale.The sad thing is Trump’s statement that he loves low educated voters and they all think he talking about the other guy. By the number of people supporting Clinton and Trump that is well over 50% of the population. So the next time Trump makes that statement if you look to the right or left you will find your fellow supporters looking at YOU.

    1. Everyone thinks Trump is so smart but if you have enough money and ambition you can buy your way to success.

      Isn’t that better than marrying your way to success or being born into because your parents were politicians?

      And given that Trump would command little or no loyalty from either party in Congress and Hillary would command night of the living dead loyalty from Democrats and the media, wouldn’t Hillary be a much more dangerous President/ Trump could actually be impeached and removed from office. Hillary would never be removed from office no matter what she did because no Democrat in the Senate would ever vote to convict her.

    2. Sanders is what would worry me since he is a true believer suffering from the crab bucket syndrome.

    3. Thing is, the media will give Hillary a pass on everything she does as president, while the same media will critically scrutinize every breath Trump takes. This will allow Hillary to get things done with fawning praise, while Trump will have a much more difficult time accomplishing anything. I definitely fear president Hillary more than president Trump for that reason, but it’s still a choice between a giant douche and a shit sandwich.

      1. Exactly sarcasmic. And the Republicans hate Trump and would happily throw him out of office if they had a good excuse to do so. Hillary could murder small children and cook them in the White House kitchen and the Democrats in Congress and the media would claim she just had an eating disorder.

      2. Also, under President Trump (or any Republican), the Democrats in Congress will at least pretend to care about civil liberties and ending poorly thought-out wars again.

  28. “A man who’s building the hyperloop claims it’s going to be cheaper to ride than the subway”
    […]
    “…”L.A. to San Francisco, you are at a $30 price ticket, so then we have recovered our initial cost after eight years. Inside the city, we are cheaper than a subway,” Ahlborn told the crowd. “But it’s really about figuring out your business model.”…”
    http://www.sfgate.com/technolo…..887877.php

    Thirty bucks a pop once Elon figures out which gummint faucet to use.

    1. “While its high seed travel”

      You have to get your sperm count checked before riding?

      1. Nah its just really bad weed.

    2. 19th century technology!!!1!one!

      His company, which is unusual because it doesn’t pay any of its workers in exchange for stock equity

      LOL dumbasses

      1. Oh, shit! I thought you wanted REAL money. Stock you say? Here you go. Everything except the IP and physical assets is in this offering. Those are preferred assets.

  29. New video demonstrates that Michelle Fields lied about being thrown to the ground.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6NoMPxomjiw

    And the preponderance of evidence is that the entire story was a fabricated smear of Trump.

    http://www.dangerandplay.com/2…..rump-hoax/

    1. CUCKSERVATIVES GO DOWN AGAIN!

      1. If you had a brain in your head instead of a dung heap, you’d learn not to just blindly believe the first thing that you read in the papers all the time.

        Doing so will only make you look like a complete fool again and again and again and again and again.

        1. He’s probably not gonna learn unless you make up a shitty nickname for him.

          1. Cranky Jiggler?
            Crying Judger?
            Creepy Junior?

      2. Michelle can’t be lying because she has big titties.

        Besides, white knighting her is part of my fantasy of fucking her.

        1. White Knights don’t get the girls.

  30. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

    1. How does this square with your Trump for the lolz campaign?

      1. I’m no fan of Dominionists. They are not funny. They don’t inspire significant pants shitting. Except for Rick Santorum.

  31. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.