A.M. Links: Primary Elections Today in Ohio and Florida, Suspected Car Bomb in Berlin, Vermont Legislature Mulls Marijuana Legalization

|

  • Credit: CNN

    Election 2016: Voters head to the polls today in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, and Missouri.

  • Ted Cruz may be finding "new allies in the GOP establishment he rails against."
  • "An economist at the Congressional Budget Office suggested on Monday that the federal government could start charging people based on how far they drive in order to generate more government revenues to spend on highway projects."
  • Vermont may become the first state to legalize marijuana via its state legislature. Previous state legalizations have occurred as a result of voter initiatives.

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

NEXT: Reason Nominated for 6 Maggie Awards

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. Voters head to the polls today in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, and Missouri.

    IN A MASSIVE WASTE OF TIME.

    1. Hello.

    2. Daylight Savings strikes again.

    3. That would be me.

      Ned Yost or Andy Reid write-in? Coin toss at the polling place.

      1. Big Red for the win!

        Which he’ll then throw away while mismanaging the clock.

        1. You ain’t whistlin’ Dixie. *hrmph*

      2. Yost has won a championship, Reid hasn’t.

        1. And in grand, showy fashion, too!

      3. Moriah, I’ll vot for Ned.

        GO ROYALS!

  2. Ted Cruz may be finding “new allies in the GOP establishment he rails against.”

    The poison is in the dosage.

    1. I didn’t read the article but isn’t this to be expected? Even Trump is going to have to work with the establishment if he gets the nom. The question is how strong their respective positions are when they start talking price.

  3. 152) If Trump is elected president, he wouldn’t be the first populist demagogue to be a US president. I wonder how he’d compare to someone like Andrew Jackson, a bigoted blowhard with a decidedly mixed legacy?the Indian removals and a coarsening in political discourse on the one hand, but a deepening of democracy, founding the modern Democratic Party, and rooting out political corruption on the other? Or would he be more like Theodore Roosevelt?

    What do they all have in common? I see it as a charisma that allows them to mobilize public opinion and bypass traditional political channels, manic energy levels, and a determination to remake the government for their own ends. Unfortunately, Trump appears to me to lack a genuine public-spiritedness that I believe animated Jackson and Roosevelt.

    1. One man’s “genuine public-spiritedness” is another man’s “intrusive busybodying fuckery.”

      1. No doubt. I’m in no way defending Jackson or Roosevelt. But I do think a Trump presidency would look even worse than those two in the rear view mirror.

        1. Maybe. Maybe not. We won’t know for certain until afterwards.

          Remember all the hopey changey feelings going into the Obama presidency? Didn’t play out that way. I suspect a Trump presidency would play out the same way. The herd is always wrong.

          1. The herd is always wrong.

            ———————————————-

            Sounds like an endorsement for socialism to me… the herd need shepherds …. as a coincidence I recommend me.

            1. You can be my Second in Command…I just think the herd should largely be ignored and if you have to run with it, stay on the edges so you can bail when it starts going over a cliff.

            2. “The herd is always wrong.”

              Not in trivia

        2. The only reason the Roosevelt presidency doesn’t look like a complete and utter disaster of epic proportion, forever destroying the idea that the USG being in charge of anything is a good idea is because of revisionist history and WW2.

          1. He was talking about TR, but that fits too.

          2. FDR followed up on the Liberal Party initiative to repeal the prohibition amendment after Herb Hoover used it to completely destroy the economy. The liquor traffic in 1929 was $4 billion, the size of the federal tax income and about 4% of the national economy.

            1. The 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act were enacted by Congress with veto-proof majorities. The same is true of the 21st Amendment and the Blaine Act.

              To assign blame and/or credit for either event at the feet of the Presidents is meaningless. And it was the Wilson administration that pushed for Prohibition; the Coolidge and Hoover administrations were enforcing the law as enacted by Congress.

    2. “If Trump is elected president, he wouldn’t be the first populist demagogue to be a US president. I wonder how he’d compare to someone like Andrew Jackson, a bigoted blowhard with a decidedly mixed legacy?the Indian removals and a coarsening in political discourse on the one hand, but a deepening of democracy, founding the modern Democratic Party, and rooting out political corruption on the other?”

      Well, I don’t think a ‘deepening of democracy’ is necessarily a good thing. And founding the Democratic Party is definitely not a good thing since they spent the next 130 years oppressing black people before eventually morphing into the whiny socialists we all know and love today.

    3. Or FDR – another populist blowhard who used a crisis to seize ever more power.

      Or Wilson or Nixon.

        1. Either way, it sucks?

          1. Not enough for my satisfaction.

    4. Ended the 2nd bank of the US was his big acheivement.

    5. nukes

    6. The Fedgov was tiny under those 2 presidents, comparatively speaking.

      1. The federal government under Republican prohibitionist Herbert Hoover reached double its usual consumption of the nation’s GNP. Adam Smith said something about hands… not the invisible hands, but the unproductive hands…

  4. Ted Cruz may be finding “new allies in the GOP establishment he rails against.”

    Hypocrisy makes for awesome bedfellows, which is against the Bible, by the way.

    1. It’s hypocritical to allow certain people to support you?

    2. “Thou shalt not have awesome bedfellows” was on the 11th tablet, which Moses tossed as he was walking down the mountain and saw Issiah picking out a thorn from his sandals.

  5. At least one person is dead after a suspected car bomb exploded in Berlin.

    Must be that gosh darn Bader-Meinhoff Gang getting back together again.

    1. I bet it’s Christian terrorists.

      1. Fucking Luther. Will his depredations never end?

        1. The Jews keep wondering about that too.

          1. Jews have been making an Exodus out of Mohammedan France lately, just as they fled Vichy France in the heyday of Christian National Socialism.

            1. Yes, the Nazis were all about “Christianity”.

              After all, as long as you say “hey, we represent Christianity” then you’re a Christian. Just like people who say “hey, we represent Atheism*” are Atheists.

              *By this I of course mean the Soviets.

                1. Neither positive nor Christian*. They utterly failed to co-opt Christianity for their own nefarious schemes.

                  Again, there is a much better argument that the Soviets were representing Atheism than that the Nazis were representing Christianity.

                  *The word literally means “little Christ” or “Christ follower”. I don’t think many would even make the argument that any Nazis were acting like Christ, right?

        2. “Fucking Luther. Will his depredations never end?”

          I hope not. Idris Alba is killing it.

        1. That’s teebeuteleintauchenliebhaber to you.

    2. If they weren’t so mean to Muslim refugees, the problem would just go away.

    3. After the car bomb explodes, is it really still just a suspect? Or is the dead guy only suspected of being dead?

  6. I’m the ambassador of murder weapons
    From the moment I arrived, I was struggling to explain that in America, guns are an inevitable part of life

    Before Nick can respond, I jump in with, “Technically, no, we can’t legally kill other people. But there are many loopholes.”

    A couple of students aren’t sure what a loophole is, so I briefly explain before launching into the differential treatment of violent offenders based on race; the fact that Trayvon Martin’s murderer, against all reason, still walks free; the fact that protesters are attempting to claim basic human rights for black people within a society rife with military-grade weaponry in the police force and ridiculous number of guns circulating through private sales.

    As I speak, I’m aware that students are surprised that my voice slips from neutrality to a more clipped, urgent tone. I know that I have breached the barrier of cool professionalism expected between student and teacher.

    “So, does that mean, if I am on your land and you tell me to leave and I do not hear you, you can shoot me?”

    1. Blind leading the blind

      1. Claiming Martin was murdered disqualifies the individual from claiming any expertise related to the law.

        1. I could understand calling it a murder; saying Zimmerman is free “against all reason” is the ridiculously stupid part.

          1. Martin attacked George from behind and was pounding his head into the sidewalk when he was shot. That is not murder.

        2. Guys, it’s a Salon article. It’s pure propaganda.

    2. The summer I worked construction in Frankfurt I well remember explaining to my fellows workers how in America unemployment benefits were only for a few months and were well below the actual salary level a worker had had. They seemed amazed by this.

      1. We had a consultant from a German firm doing install work on an application. He got confused when I told him we could not expect any given customer to have an e-mail address, stating that the German government issues them to all citizens (then sends official notices there*). He went quiet when I said no one was going to pay for that here.

        *Which immediately made me think of kafka-esque outcomes of such a situation.

        1. Would make the NSA’s job a lot easier, no?

        2. the German government issues them to all citizens

          That’s not unsettling at all.

          1. It’s having them tattooed in the fore-arm that’s the unsettling part.

            1. GOD DAMMIT!

              ‘on’ the fore-arm.

              1. Yeah, the tattoo is definitely on the fore-arm. The chip goes inside, of course.

              2. Yeah, the tattoo is definitely on the fore-arm. The chip goes inside, of course.

    3. “So, does that mean, if I am on your land and you tell me to leave and I do not hear you, you can shoot me?”

      That explains why deaf people in America have such a short lifespan.

      1. Dead people do not live much longer either.

    4. An Argentine university student in his mid-20s leans forward earnestly as he asks the question. My co-presenter Nick and I immediately exchange a look?how to tackle this one?

      You tell him that the homicide rate in Argentina is 40% higher than it is in the United States, you dumb twats.

      1. Dammit, you got there before me!

        Yeah, South America is the most violent continent on the planet now. It’s actually surpassed Africa because some South American countries have homicide rates 15-20 times the American rate.

        How can someone on the same continent as Venezuela and Colombia think America is violent?

        1. An Argentinian that doesn’t know squat about the US? I get that. It’s the wholly inaccurate and uninformed concern trolling on the part of the proggie dipshits that makes me question our future.

        2. It’s all those guns pouring over the border into Mexico and beyond. They should build a wall.

      2. But then they can’t get their Peronist jollies by feeling superior to the Yanquis. Don’t deny them that small pleasure.

        1. They love themselves some Evita, primarily because she didn’t live long enough to prove the failings of her own brand of socialism.

          Argentina is a cursed country. Beautiful place that alternates between shitty governments.

    5. In response to the last question: Yes. How could I possibly jusge whether you heard me or not?

      1. “I err on the side of you dissing me.”

      2. I don’t think you’ll get off on self defense if you shoot someone simply for being on your land (unless they are being overtly threatening somehow). In your home is another matter.

        1. That varies by state. In mine, you are correct.

          Unless the person on your land is attempting to set your barn on fire. IIRC, that is one of the specific exceptions.

        2. Texas. On my land after dark, I don’t have to give any warning. I’m not looking to get my gun off, so I probably wouldn’t just shoot someone who wasn’t holding a long gun. But still, the guy was trying to enter my home, I announced my intention to shoot, he didn’t change his behavior, and I shot him? Probably won’t even be taken to the grand jury. Its a highly dependent on circumstance situation.

          1. Trying to enter your home, you definitely have the right to shoot. I was thinking more of someone outside of your immediate curtilage.

        3. It’s all about proportionality. A simple trespass is not grounds for shooting someone. Persistent, malicious and/or violent trespassing, or trespassing in order to commit other (actual) crimes, is another story.

          1. Of course. You absolutely have the right to defend your home and to stand your ground on your own property. I was thinking of someone simply being on your land, not obviously causing any trouble and not right near your house.

        4. In California, if they attack you, you can actually pursue them and then shoot them (from the California jury instructions):

          A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.

    6. Of course the “barrier of cool professionalism” was breached. Because it was a pretense that it was even there in the first place.

    7. What a douche. Argentina has armed police and an (shitty) army and murdered investigators who got too close to the Peronists. Guns and shooting ranges aren’t that mysterious to them.

    8. Wait, this douchebag is in Argentina? Has the Dirty War gone down the memory hole already, then?

      1. Don’t expect proggies to learn any history. They’re just here to parrot their lines.

    9. Jesus fucken Christ.

    10. “”Sorry if I am just not understanding, but is it legal to kill people in the U.S.?”

      An Argentine university student in his mid-20s leans forward earnestly as he asks the question. My co-presenter Nick and I immediately exchange a look?how to tackle this one?”

      Argentina’s homicide rate is 7 per 100,000 as opposed to 4.5 per 100,000 in the US, so I think this kid in his mid-20s might be retarded.

      1. Maybe he’s just really, really, really privileged.

    11. No he wasn’t.

      I can hardly believe that even Argentine university students would ask ‘is it legal to kill people in the US’ unless previously prompted by an American looking for something to bitch about America about.

      1. It could have been a foreign exchange student, an American. I know had I been there I might very well have asked the same question, but it would have been more like “Wait, are you seriously suggesting that you think it’s legal to just kill people in the US? Are you out of your mind or just retarded?”

    12. protesters are attempting to claim basic human rights for black people within a society rife with military-grade weaponry in the police force

      Is he talking about Argentina here?

      Because US police forces aren’t actually rife with ‘military-grade’ weaponry – they’re certainly over-armed but there are actually very few fully-automatic weapons of any caliber. Most of our overmilitarization comes from surplus armored vehicles that sit in a garage and excessively agressive training and procedures that would result in large amounts of violence even if the cops were armed with 22LR and pistols only.

      1. Perhaps, but the author feels otherwise, and isn’t that what really counts?

      2. Most large police forces have a semi-automatic rifles in the trumk of their squad cars now. These appear to be military grade to people who aren’t gun users.

    13. How has no one mentioned the hilarious picture at the top where they black out peoples’ eyes like they’re trying to hide their identities but you can still totally see what they look like?

      1. I black out their eyes so they can’t steal my soul.

        Some people claim it makes my back-issues of Playboy kinda creepy, but better safe than sorry.

      2. Oh, I thought was the cover to Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap…

    14. “So, does that mean, if I am on your land and you tell me to leave and I do not hear you, you can shoot me?”

      Well I can shoot you, however unless I had some solid evidence that you posed a specific threat to my life I would still be charged with and convicted of murder of some variety, the specific charge would vary with the exact circumstances and which state it occurred in.

  7. Rational Male: Plan B
    …It’s important to pick this apart from the get go here because, like most female written articles that describe unflattering facts about female nature, the narrative must be shifted to be the burden of men. You’ll notice the presumption here is that the ‘Plan A’ lover is always a woman’s preferred choice ? thus pre-confirming women’s blamelessness from the outset ? and that a ‘Plan B’ should only ever be considered if the ‘Plan A’ man somehow screws up in contenting a woman’s sexual strategy.

    The entire article is founded on the principle of Dread ? remember, the sort that when men use it are considered evil manipulators? However it should be noted that dread is always an element of any relationship, it’s just that since women’s imperatives are the socially correct ones today, only women can be held blameless in instituting it…

    1. …You can read the rest of the article and pick up on the blatantly entitled male-qualification perspective and a bit more “you better not fuck things up” dread signaling, however, I think the last three stats are the most salient here. At least half of the men involved knew of the Plan B man, 1 in 5 was a friend of his, and 1 in 10 of the Plan B’s had already made an attempt to jump ladders to be intimate with her.

      A couple of things make themselves apparent here: in a social order that is made of at least 80% Beta men women can get an ego boost in real time from the default dread they can inspire without really trying. And second, in generation Beta a default form of soft Beta cuckolding is not just known to them, but apparently it’s become normalized for them…

      1. Jesus fuck, what is this shit.

      2. But if you max out your Charisma perk, you’ll get a +15 buff during combat and trading. So there’s that.

        1. Which one of those is sex?

          1. Both.

            /Johnny

          2. Dudes who read Rational Male don’t have that.

            1. Some of us go there from time to time to brag. And lord it over the unfortunates.

              1. +100, this is why I love reading the comments.

        2. “If only women had cheat codes!”

          1. bb.ignoregameplayunlocksentitlement

          2. The only way to win is not to play?

      3. Deeeeeeerrrrrrrrrp

      4. Is a box of chocolates every now and then really that much to ask? 😉

        1. Yup.
          /continues stuffing maw with Ghirardelli

        2. No but among my people we throw the chocolate in a spread to deflect an enraged female

          1. Which explains why lizards have survived so long.

          2. With your people, a box of mealworms might be more appropriate.

      5. The fuck is this supposed to mean?

        1. That chicks who you are dating already have your successor picked out, and one of them (or more) may be your best buds. And that’s it’s OK for some chicks to let you know about this.

          Side note: my husband and I – when first married- worked at the same place. And my boss -female- mentioned to him that he was her “second stringer” in case the current boyfriend plan fell through.

          1. Did you explain to here that he was already taken?

            With a knife?

            1. I was cool with it, I guess. Just surprised a bit at the brazen quality of telling him. I think that’s why she hired me, though, oddly enough.

              1. That story would be better if you embellished it a little (lot).

                “I never thought this would happen to me…”

          2. Christ, I read the entire thing as a bizarre, abstracted meditation on birth control. Plan B was the literal Plan B pill and Plan A was her preferred method of contraception.

            Thanks for clearing that up, I think.

      6. Ummmm…Ax Body Spray?

        I haz confuse.

      7. soft Beta cuckolding

        Nice album name.

      8. TL;DR: Men want to have sex, with some men being more aggressive about it than others. Women know this and use this knowledge in choosing a mate and setting the terms of their relationship.

        Oh. the. horror.

        1. You sound like a beta cuck, bro

          1. I probably am. Of course, I have a wife who loves me and three gorgeous kids. It hasn’t worked out too bad for me.

            The saddest thing about the rise of feminism is the rise of these counter cultures among men. It reminds me of the forums for MMO games. Users of Mages complain that the Warrior is too overpowered and needs to be nerfed. Warriors complain about Assassins. Assassins complain about thieves. And everyone is too concerned with the other guy and not concerned with making the best out of the hand they were dealt.

            When wooing my wife, there were many potential suitors. In some cases I just waited for them to implode. In others I actively cock-blocked them. I knew who I was and what I wanted, and worked to my strengths. I never once wished to be someone I’m not, or to play by someone else’s handbook.

  8. “An economist at the Congressional Budget Office suggested on Monday that the federal government could start charging people based on how far they drive in order to generate more government revenues to spend on highway projects.”

    A commentor at the Reason blog suggested on Tuesday that government economists should be fed to the woodchipper.

    1. The last time I checked, people are already paying based on how far they drive now. It’s called the gas tax.

      1. But that does not tell the government where you have driven, a nice GPS in every car reporting to the government would.

      2. I would call that a tax on gas consumption, not how far one has driven.

        1. Well it is on how far you drive…the farther you drive the more gas you need for a given mpg.

          1. Not if you are driving an electric car. Which is the whole point behind the idea. As more people buy electric cars (which the government heavily subsidizes), the revenues from gas taxes fall.

            IE The government created problem A with regulation X and is trying to create another regulation/tax to fix it.

        2. Cute.

      3. What a great gig the feds have.

        1. Collect gas taxes under the need for roads and bridges
        2. Spend revenue on everything but roads and bridges…light rail, bike stuff, give to cronies
        3. Say there is still a problem with roads and bridges
        4. Raise taxes
        5. Repeat 1 thru 4

        It is in a way racketeering

        1. Quebec is discovering – SHOCK! – that the revenues derived from the carbon tax are not being used for anything related to the environment but probably ending up in deadbeat corporate welfare bums like Bombardier.

          All scams and racketeering.

          1. wrong top. men.

          2. Haha who would have thought! Carbon taxes and cap n trade is to help the green moguls while it has no effect on the environment.

          3. The same with the settlement with the tobacco companies, I was up in NY State at the time and the county I was in spent the money they got on new cars, office furniture, computers etc

        2. How about when the city pays $5.1M to build a fancy bike bridge across a busy street. Only to then break in high winds which stopped auto traffic and light rail lines while it was fixed?

          I think that is about as good an example of wasting gas money on idiot bike shit as you will find.

          * I like biking, but Jeebus the cyclist lobby is able to loot shit tons of money somehow.

          1. I like biking, but Jeebus the cyclist lobby is able to loot shit tons of money somehow.

            ^This. And you should hear the whining if you suggest their bikes ought to be taxed and registered, and operators licensed as a way to pay for this all. Granted, I know that any additional taxing, licensing and registration is un-libertarian but it’s a good talking point about the nature of taxes, licensing and registration. And free stuff.

          2. I’m a cyclist and don’t use bike paths. First of all, they’re terrible. Second, they’re filled with dipshit, hipster bikers who don’t understand basic road etiquette. Third, you can’t go fast because of said hipsters and people strolling along BIKE paths with baby strollers. It’s a nightmare and dangerous to boot.

            Nah. Give me the secluded country roads. Peace of mind and better riding.

          3. Bike lanes should be paid for with taxes on bicycles. Because fairness.

      4. Fuel efficiency enters into the amount that people pay in gas taxes.

        1. It should be pretty good analogy for road wear as heavier vehicles get worse mileage and cause more road wear.

          1. But the Hybird HUGE SUVS DERP DA DERP!

      5. The tax plight of raising the CAFE standard.

      6. This layperson’s solution: Spend the all of the federal gas (user) tax revenue on fixing the roads instead of half.

      7. There are also tolls.

    2. Metaphorically, of course. *Looks over shoulder.

    3. Proposals like that have been around for a while. One is a simple odometer tax. The other involves GPS tracking to determine not just where people drive, but in what jurisdiction, to send the money to the localities where people drive, not just the ones where they live. Those silly loonytarians are fretting over something called “privacy.”

    4. Here’s a Reason think-tanker explaining how tolls based on miles driven would work:

      http://reason.org/news/show/wh…..n-fuel-tax

      1. Thank you for proving my memory is not completely shot.

      2. So we get a tax on miles with all new equipment and bureaucracy and keep taxes on gas along with its bureaucracy since I don’t think the government is going to get rid of that tax

        1. Yup. What’s the problem? It’s not your money – you are just using it temporarily.

        2. The gas tax would be a relatively easy on to get rid of. Everyone cares about gas prices and notices them all the time. Getting rid of gas tax would be very popular.

    5. I thought – no kidding – that the Reason Foundation was okay with that as long as the data were anonymized as to where you drove. Am I misremebering the mileage tax flyer I got from the RF?

      1. as long as the data were anonymized as to where you drove

        What could go wrong?

        1. I said the same thing as I crumpled it up and threw it away.

    6. I was reading an article where california proposed this…i think it was in la times mid 2014 or something. Refreshing to see the majority of the comments trashing the state government for being wasteful and greedy

    7. Oh, FFS: road damage is caused by large trucks. Full stop. Wear due to automobiles is basically a rounding error, at least according to the CivEs I’ve talked to. If there’s a shortfall in the highway fund, 1) stop borrowing from it to fund every other idiotic project that the Legislature wants to fund, and 2) raise the road diesel tax.

      The end. No 1984-esque, ‘where are you going, Winston?’ inquiries needed.

      1. Yeah, iirc, damage is proportional to weight squared. So motorcycles cause no wear, and cars are a small fraction.

      2. What about small car diesel?

    8. ” in order to generate more government revenues”

      Fuck you, cut spending.

  9. Previous state legalizations have occurred as a result of voter initiatives.

    Electing legislators is kind of a voter initiative.

    1. And it’s sort of embarrassing for “most pot-friendly presidential candidate, ever” that crunchy green Vermont is still a prohibition state and icky, libertarian-leaning Colorado is a freel state.

  10. HALF of women have a fall-back partner on standby who has always fancied them, in case their current relationship turns sour
    …The survey of 1,000 women also found Plan B is also likely to be someone whom she has known for around seven years, who will be ‘ready and waiting’ because of ‘unfinished business’….

    …Furthermore, around one in ten women said their Plan B had already confessed his undying love, while one in five said they were confident he would ‘drop everything’ for her, if she asked him to.

    Slightly more than four in ten said they had got to know the man whilst they were with their partner, while a similar percentage said he was ‘on the scene’ long before.

    Around one in four women who have a back-up plan have feelings as strong for him as they do for their other half.

    1. Incredibly, 12 per cent went as far as to admit their feelings were ‘stronger’ for Plan B, and close to seven in ten admitted they are currently in contact with him.

      But despite the secrecy involved in having a close friend or ex to turn to, around half of the women who took part in the poll said their other half was aware of the ‘third party’.

      Of those, one in five said they were able to joke about it, but one in three said their man was ‘uncomfortable’ discussing him.

      One in four admitted their current partner had met their Plan B, while one in five admitted he was a friend of the man in her life….

      1. If I’m combining all of those ratios correctly it sounds like I have a 100% chance of either being the Plan B or being with a woman who has a Plan B.

    2. Is the Plan “B” for beta? I’m not one of those guys who talks about Alphas and Betas and all that nonsense, but it’s pretty hard to avoid in these cases. They just assume Plan B isn’t going to move on to something better?

    3. This is one of the single biggest uses of Facebook by the way: for women to cheat or potentially cheat on their husbands with old flames.

      Guys, if your woman is spending what seems like a little too much time on Facebook, look out.

      1. Look out for what? You don’t own your wife. If she wants to leave, let her go. I’m not going to spend one minute being paranoid.

        1. The issue is less the wife and more the half your shit plus lifetime subsidy payments she takes when she leaves.

          1. My wife has an education and income. I doubt if she is cheating the judge is going to award much.

            1. Then you don’t know Family Court judges.

              1. My cousin use to work for a divorce lawyer. Usually the guys getting screwed had kids and a wife that didn’t work. I don’t have kids and my wife has the same educational level that I do. I’m fine splitting everything down the middle. I can always make more money. My sanity and self respect is more important than stuff.

                1. ^This. It’s the kids. Even if she doesn’t get a cent of alimony, those jacked-up child support payments will have you living in a box under a bridge.

                  1. Tonio is exactly right. Some fucking bullshit about the children not having to suffer a drop in income and status. Guess fucking what – everyone loses in a divorce. By what rational explanation should a father have to bear the brunt of the suffering?

                    1. Um, as a Father I say they shouldn’t.

                      In the event that my wife and I ever split up I fully intend to contribute at least 2/3rds of my income to see to it that my children do not have to bear an undue burden as a result of our failure and that is regardless of what the court orders.

                      I fully agree that Fathers get fucked over in divorce court wrt to visitation and making sure the woman lives up to the terms of it but I got no sympathy at all for guys who whine about how high their child support payments are. As their Father you have an obligation to those kids and just because things didn’t work out with their mother they should not be the ones who have to suffer for it. You pay every dime in child support that you can, even more than the court orders if there is any way you can afford it because you owe it to THEM. If you are worried your ex is not using that money appropriately you take that issue up with the courts you don’t withhold the money or whine because it costs you too much.

                    2. you take that issue up with the courts

                      …and get nowhere. You also assume that the mother is actually spending all that money on the kids, or on housing for them.

                    3. Well, as a divorced dad, I respectfully disagree.

                      As their Father you have an obligation to those kids and just because things didn’t work out with their mother they should not be the ones who have to suffer for it

                      Yes. I agree. Does that include an iPhone 6S when it comes out?

                      you pay every dime in child support that you can, even more than the court orders if there is any way you can afford it because you owe it to THEM

                      Yes I do. But what is deemed ‘necessary’ for support is, frankly, a joke. If I am so bereft of means that I can’t afford a place within an hour drive of my kids, or can’t afford a place where they will be comfortable, then my kids are being DEPRIVED of their father. What’s worse?

                      you take that issue up with the courts
                      That’s cute. You think father’s have actual rights that will be enforced by agents of the state. Good luck with that.

                      you don’t withhold the money or whine because it costs you too much I don’t withhold and I suck it up. So with all do respect, until you have walked a mile in my shoes, go pound sand.

                    4. And implicit in that is that kids always end up with the mother unless she’s incarcerated or in drug treatment (and even then….)

            2. You’re commenting on the wrong site, buddy.

              1. I got no place else to go!
                /sobs in rain

              2. He’s not your buddy, pal.

        2. You don’t own your wife.

          Trump is going to change that.

          1. Really? I am now voting for Trump.

            I assume that all I need to do then is simply sign the title for my wife and send it to Trump? He’ll then file it with the local govt title office and then he’ll be responsible for her.

            1. Yeah, but he’s bring back the droit du seigneur with it.

        3. Did I say that a man owns his wife? No, I did not. A woman of course is free to step out the door and get a divorce whenever the hell she wants to.

          It’s just a warning sign of something for men to look for is all. Furthermore, it usually means that the woman isn’t happy, quite often because the husband isn’t paying enough attention to her. Rarely is only one partner entirely to blame for these things.

      2. If my wife wants to go live with one of those meme-pasting morons, she knows where the door is.

      3. “This is one of the single biggest uses of Facebook by the way: for women to cheat or potentially cheat on their husbands with old flames.”

        My mom mostly shares cat pictures.

        1. Um, I think you have a big talk coming with your dad, Irish.

          1. She said ‘pussy’, not ‘cat’ pictures.

      4. Hey, if my wife wants to go have a fling with an old flame I got no issues with that because at the end of the day I know she’s coming back home to be with me because I’m the one she wants to be with.

        I’ve never understood those men who were so insecure about their sexuality and skills in bed that they live in terror that their partners might be interested in someone else. At the end of the day if she leaves me for someone else it isn’t because they were better than me it is because I wasn’t meeting her needs.

        Monogamy and especially jealousy are for the weak of mind. I prefer freedom for both parties in the relationship.

        1. Perhaps she can bring you another baby to raise or maybe pay child support for if one day you divorce when she comes back.

    4. Just half? I think this is closer to ALL.

    5. This concept is totally foreign to me, but I also grew up in a culture that actively punishes such behavior (Heavenly Father disapproves, which is enough), I don’t pay much attention to anything going on around me, and I never had a whole lot of friends, female or otherwise. I don’t have room in my brain for other people.

      But my husband has all sorts of female besties on FB. Does that mean he’s somebody else’s Plan B?

      1. Everyone is someone else’s Plan B. Didn’t Eddie Murphy do a stand-up bit about this years ago?

        1. My plan B is to buy land and become a hermit.

          1. It’s not so bad…

      2. Welcome to the small contingent of female contributors on HandR. We meet as a ladies auxiliary each month and plan parties where the menfolk aren’t invited. Huzzah! A new member!

        1. Wait you mean you don’t take Beta’s along with you as servants?

          1. The first rule of HandRLA (that’s Hit and Run Ladie’s Aux, for the acronym- disabled) is: don’t talk about the HandRLA to the menfolk.

            1. HA! You ain’t foolin me!

              You’re all Tulpa!

        2. Thank you! I pop in every so often and comment on a few threads then am forced back into to real life.

          I can certainly make time for a ladies auxiliary kegger high tea, though!

  11. uh…yeah…

    Doctor Anal’s butthole-massaging days are over

    A Swedish doctor has been shown the back door following his use of wildly inappropriate massages to treat common medical conditions, such as headaches and back pain.

    Sweden’s Medical Board of Responsibility last week revoked the medical license of the quack, dubbed “Doctor Anal” by the Danish press, after years of warning him about his unconventional treatments.

    The unnamed doc claimed to have attained “very good results” with the massages, performing up to 1,000 rubs a session, according to The Local.

    1. Bound to get fingered eventually.

        1. Just trying to get the ball rolling.

          1. What can brown do for you?

            Sorry.

            1. Dr Anal’s out of business?

              I think there’s a song for that?

        2. Hey, why don’t you go see Dr Anal for that narrow eye condition, I’m pretty sure in just 1 session he can get them opened right up

    2. But if patients were happy with the treatment what’s the problem?

      1. She described the procedure as “an incredibly offensive encroachment”

        but curiously effective.

        1. Like Altoids

          1. Ah. I was wondering about your grin.

      2. Indeed. The plot twist is that his patients didn’t even have a legitimate problem in order to go see him.

    3. Jesse was just offering to treat my humors through a similar process last week. Same guy?

    4. Is this different from prescribing a course of leeches?

        1. Obviously Elspeth was referring to anal insertion of leeches.

          1. That’s a terrible way to treat hemorroids.

            1. +1 ASSMAN

    5. Bend over. I’ll show you a massage.

      No, seriously. Bend over.

    6. Proctologists everywhere indignant.

    7. Obviously the guy was a quack. It isn’t like he came up with this treatment on his own after a long period of studying.

      No, I think he just stuck his finger into the wind and chose to become a practitioner of the trendiest treatment out there.

      1. But was the wind broken when he stuck his finger in it?

    8. I love that the Danes have a special name for a Swedish doc. The Swedes couldn’t come up with Doctor Anal on their own?

  12. the federal government could start charging people based on how far they drive

    What about robot cars? I hate to think what kind of response to taxation without representation they would have.

    1. Tossing actual Bostonians into the harbor?

      1. Feature, not a bug. Massholes deserve it.

      2. But how does a robot car dress up as a Native American?

        1. It doesn’t, it just claims 1/32 Jeep Cherokee ancestry.

          1. +1 cheekbones/fenders

  13. “Russian forces have begun withdrawing from Syria.”

    Putin: I told you I’d pull out in time, baby.

  14. Russian forces have begun withdrawing from Syria.

    It will not prevent pregnancy, it will just get Syria’s belly all sticky.

    1. Oh God, OMWC and I think alike.

      1. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

      2. Be afraid.

      3. Oh god, JATNAS and I think alike.

        1. They have an organization tailored to your needs – NAMBLA.

  15. “An economist at the Congressional Budget Office suggested on Monday that the federal government could start charging people based on how far they drive in order to generate more government revenues to spend on highway projects.”

    Mandated self-driving cars and in-car cameras (for safety) will help enforce this. Driving is a privilege and not a right, after all, and no one needs to have their own vehicle. Plus, it’s safer. You don’t hate children, do you?

    If you had nothing to hide, you wouldn’t be up in arms about “privacy,” anyway.

    1. Maybe I’ll just buy my tracking equipment from the local cop shop surplus store. After all it isn’t like that shit works very much.

  16. Meanwhile in Canuckistan…

    Prince George RCMP arrest suspect fleeing on ice floe

    With Prince George RCMP in hot pursuit, an accused thief fled the scene of her alleged crime Sunday on an ice floe.

    RCMP Corporal Craig Douglass says the 25 year old woman floated two kilometres down the frigid Nechako River atop the piece of ice before a police dog tracked her down.

    “She was located on a piece of ice on the Nechako River, which, at the best of times, is a dangerous place, much less in the winter with all the ice,” said Douglass.

    That’s when things took an even stranger turn.

    1. I look forward to news photos of the future that show a Mountie on his horse on a rapidly diminishing chunk of ice berg.

    2. It wuz Eliza Harris seeking her freedoms!?

      1. Ha. That’s the first thing that popped into my mind.

  17. Clinton: ‘We didn’t lose a single person’ in Libya

    Hillary Clinton on Monday defended the intervention in Libya that she championed as secretary of state, telling MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that the United States “didn’t lose a single person.”

    “Libya was a different kind of calculation. And we didn’t lose a single person. We didn’t have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO,” the former secretary of state said during an MSNBC town hall on Monday night.

    Clinton may have been referring strictly to the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, which indeed saw no loss of American lives and cost just around $1 billion. But her comments ignore the 2012 attacks at the U.S. mission and CIA outpost in Benghazi, which killed four people including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

    1. So Chris Stevens has been officially unpersonned, then?

    2. YouTube lost people in Libya.

    3. Those weren’t people. Those were subjects, to be disposed of at their better’s whim.

    4. Jesus that’s tone deaf, even for her.

      1. I know I have a low EQ, and often lack empathy and compassion. I honestly don’t understand how someone like her could be a mother. Most of the interactions I see her have with other people, when she should be trying to seem friendly and empathetic, are just horribly awkward, and she comes off as cold. I think the only other person I know that just can’t relate to most people that way is my great aunt, who doesn’t actually like anyone in my family aside from one niece (my aunt).

        1. It really does show a complete lack of empathy on her part, almost autistic

        2. The only thing it takes to be a mother is working lady parts, and some semen.

    5. Not “a single” person. C’mon guys, we’re dealing with a Clinton here.

      1. All four of the casualties were in relationships at the time.

        1. And many of them were in groups.

      2. Exactly. And she has always believed this.

      3. And we didn’t lose them. We know exactly where they were killed and where they’re now buried.

    6. Gays and IT experts aren’t people.

    7. According to the comments, she was referring to the Khaddafi operation. Everything else doesn’t matter!

      Which of course is NOT what the article was saying. It’s amazing people actually defend this vile miscreant named Hillary.

    8. ‘We didn’t lose a single person’ in Libya

      Well, I hate to break it to you Hillary, but Libya lost a hell of a lot of people and didn’t get much in the way of any benefit from US mucking around.

    9. What a cunt

  18. The incident was initially treated as a criminal rather than a terror investigation, with authorities looking into possible underworld links by the driver.

    Thank goodness!

  19. Ex-Flint manager says he was ‘grossly misled’ on lead crisis

    The state-appointed emergency manager who oversaw Flint, Michigan when its water source was switched to the Flint River says he was “grossly misled” by state and federal experts who never told him that lead was leaching into the city’s water supply.

    Darnell Earley says in prepared testimony for the first of two congressional hearings that he was overwhelmed by challenges facing the impoverished city and relied on experts from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to advise him.

    He and other Flint leaders “were all totally dependent” on analysis and expertise provided by state and federal officials, Earley said, adding that “it would have been unreasonable … to reject their guidance and attempt to make independent rulings on a highly sophisticated and scientific subject matter.”

    For months after the April 2014 switch he believed information he was receiving – some of it scientifically complex – was accurate, Earley said.

    1. And the poor EPA was misled too. They just believed the mean old (Republican appointed) Director of Michigan’s environmental agency. If the EPA can’t currently conduct their own water sampling and analysis, they need to fire about a thousand climate change experts and hire water testers.

      1. The EPA knew about the lead for months, and did nothing.

        1. Tht’s not what the article in the WaPo says they testified before the committee. I think they’re a bunch of lying assholes who lack feck. But the WaPo made sure to heap aspersion upon the Republicans.

          1. Tht’s not what the article in the WaPo says they testified before the committee.

            Seriously? EPA regional administrators had to resign over this; how the fuck could they deny it happened?

            1. Sure, mistakes were made. They should never have trusted those evil Republicans. Its all anload of blame passing. I have the most sympathy for the city emergency manager who was getting bad information from experts. That’s not a lot of sympathy. It was his responsibility.

              1. Yeah, they were used by those evil Republicans running the Flint government…oh, wait….

                1. It happened while Flint had a state appointed emergency manager. That the Flint government had previously voted for that course of action is a by-the-way. The decision to change wasn’t necessarily horrible — although it does seem to have been a crony deal — it was the failure to implement proper abatement procedues that are de rigour.

          2. who lack feck

            They also lack ruth.

        2. Why would they care? They’re still getting paid.

    2. CSPAN is currently covering the hearings on Flint – I wish one of the first witnesses was their own Congresscritter from Flint, you know the one who inherited the job from his uncle and was actually a Genesee County Commissioner at the time this shit was going down and has been remarkably quiet about what exactly he knew and when he knew it.

  20. When Bernie Sanders Thought Castro and the Sandinistas Could Teach America a Lesson
    …In the 1980s, any Bernie Sanders event or interview inevitably wended toward a denunciation of Washington’s Central America policy, typically punctuated with a full-throated defense of the dictatorship in Nicaragua. As one sympathetic biographer wrote in 1991, Sanders “probably has done more than any other elected politician in the country to actively support the Sandinistas and their revolution.” Reflecting on a Potemkin tour of revolutionary Nicaragua he took in 1985, Sanders marveled that he was, “believe it or not, the highest ranking American official” to attend a parade celebrating the Sandinista seizure of power….

    …But despite its aversion to elections, brutal suppression of dissent, hideous mistreatment of indigenous Nicaraguans, and rejection of basic democratic norms, Sanders thought Managua’s Marxist-Leninist clique had much to teach Burlington: “Vermont could set an example to the rest of the nation similar to the type of example Nicaragua is setting for the rest of Latin America.”…

    1. Sandinistas? Bernie Sanders was the front man for Rage Against The Machine?

    2. Well, it would have been an example.

    3. You just can’t have this POS who never held a job as leader.

      The last thing we Canadians needs is Captain Vogue who loves dictators palling around with Sanders-nista.

      1. “Sanders-nista” is good. I’m stealing that.

  21. Rogue hen goes on wild joyride across central Maine

    Police had a little fun explaining the capture on their Facebook page.

    “Augusta PD immediately summoned our Resident Steve Irwin and newly appointed Community Resource Officer Brad “El Burro” Chase. After a tactical assessment of the search area, Officer Chase channeled his inner poultry and honed in on the obvious destination for a bachelor bird, the automotive department of Sears. With the speed and swiftness of a Canadian Lynx, Officer Chase sprang into action and located the bolting bird in the tire aisle, quickly apprehending the haughty hen, despite it donning a fake mustache, sunglasses and an whistling a unassuming, jaunty tune,” the post said.

    The hen was reunited with its owner at the Augusta police station.

    har.

    1. El Burro? Racists!

  22. How to Steal a Nomination From Donald Trump

    All three of Trump’s Republican opponents are now convinced (even if some are loath to concede it publicly) that the current front-runner is the only candidate in the field who still has the chance to win the 1,237 delegates that would ensure his nomination in Cleveland. But if Trump is unable in the remaining primaries and caucuses to line up the necessary delegates, the convention will be deadlocked on its first ballot and then have to vote again?and possibly again and again?until a majority emerges.

    That could offer mainstream conservatives and party regulars the opening they would need to take the nomination from a candidate who almost certainly will have accumulated more delegates and possibly millions more popular votes than his rivals. Of the other candidates, only Ted Cruz is focused on trying to finish ahead of Trump in the delegate count, even if neither gets the majority; Marco Rubio and John Kasich are resigned to the reality that they will be playing from behind.

    1. Followed by a Trump 3rd party run. Hello, President Hillary!

    2. There are reports that Little Marco Rubio is actually telling his supporters in Ohio to vote for Kasich.

      It’s just about the most pathetic thing I’ve ever seen.

      1. Lil’ Marco? Narco Rubio? Marco Lubio? Foamboi? Cuban Jeb?

      2. Not only is he advising his backers to vote strategically (which isn’t a terrible idea, from the anti-Trump perspective), but Kasich refuses to return the favor in Florida, where he doesn’t stand a chance.

    3. It’s not really “stealing” two-thirds of Republican primary voters support not-Trump.

      Nonetheless, if Trump has a plurality and the delegates vote the nomination to a non-Trump candidate, Trump will throw a tantrum, insist that he was not treated fairly and use that as the basis to renege on his promise not to make a third-party run.

      Congratulations, President Clinton Biden

      1. You had it right with Clinton.

        1. I still think that Justice is waiting for her to secure enough delegates to prevent Bernie from winning the nomination, and will then drop the hammer, allowing Uncle Joe to ride into the convention and save the day.

          1. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this either. Hopefully these shenanigans cause both parties to fracture and reorganize under new management. Then maybe we can finally break out of the retarded political faux dichotomy we’ve been stuck with for most of living memory.

            1. Then maybe we can finally break out of the retarded political faux dichotomy we’ve been stuck with for most of living memory.

              Yeah, sure.

              1. More likely, we’ll just get someone louder, angrier, and more authoritarian next time around.

          2. Clinton will absolutely not be indicted. Obama’s DOJ will never hold the Democratic front runner accountable at this point.

          3. allowing Uncle Joe to ride into the convention and save the day.

            When you consider how Obama was elected to the State Senate, dirt revealed about opponent just prior to election, and then his nomination for Senate, the same shenanigans, I don’t think that this is a set up for Uncle Joe. There is another woman who has had lots of White house “experience” and she is all black not just half. Get used to saying President Obama.

            1. Much Hell Yo Mamma!

      2. The rules are – and plainly have been – that you need a majority of the delegates to win, but Trump has already staked out the position that the candidate with the biggest plurality should win and that following the rules is unfair. Ted Cruz has agreed with this – perhaps because he seriously believes A) he’s going to be the candidate with the biggest plurality and B) Trump is then going to feel bound by this argument. If Trump is not the nominee, this is proof positive to Trump that he has not been treated fairly by the GOP and he’s going to file a lawsuit to force the GOP to declare him the winner. No way in hell Trump supports anybody else.

        Trump 101 – only adhere to the terms of a contract when it is beneficial for you to do so. (Actually, that’s Machiavelli 101.) Trump’s word ain’t worth spit and any attempt to defend yourself from the screwing he’s planning on giving you justifies in his twisted mind the pre-emptive screwing.

        1. Didn’t his promise not to run third party rest on the assumption that the GOP party leaders wouldn’t dick with his nomination should he get the necessary delegate count?

      3. Would he be able to start a third party run as late as September? Would he be on ballots?

  23. Oil prices ease over uncertain supply picture

    Oil prices fell for a second day on Tuesday, as concerns emerged that a six-week rally may have fizzled after OPEC doused hopes for a speedy erosion of a global overhang of unwanted crude.

    The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries said on Monday demand for its crude would be less than previously thought in 2016 as supply from rivals proves more resilient to low prices, increasing excess supply in the market.

    To tackle the surplus, Saudi Arabia and non-OPEC member Russia, the world’s two largest oil exporters, along with Qatar and Venezuela have proposed major producers freeze output at January levels.

    1. As gas prices have been dropping – $1.89 near me in NY and $1.62 on a recent fill-up in NJ – I’ve been periodically posting pictures of the prices on Facebook and complaining that the Settled Science of Peak Oil is killing me. I know it kills my proggie FB friends but they have no response.

  24. SOCIALISM, THE NIGHTMARE THAT NEVER DIES
    …The United States within nearly a century of its founding became the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind. It accomplished this without an income tax, free university tuition, universal health care, or even Social Security. In Bernie Sanders’ lifetime, he witnessed the fall of National Socialists, Soviet Socialists, and more benign iterations of the collectivist ideology. But he imagines the command economy, rather than the free market, as our savior….

    …”The struggle under the competitive system is not worth the effort,” a dejected J.A. Wayland ? who first serialized The Jungle, once provided winter lodging for Mother Jones, and transformed Girard, Kansas, into America’s unlikely Socialist Mecca ? wrote five days after his friend Eugene Debs’ six percent finish in 1912. “Let it pass.” The publisher of one of America’s most-widely read weeklies then wrapped a bedsheet around his rifle, and let loose a muffled shot that ended his life…

    1. Dude, it became wealth through exploitation, genocide, white privilege, the patriarchy and beef jerky. C’man.

    2. Would that all socialists would realize the futility of their struggle and follow the fine example set by JA Wayland.

  25. Trump Gets Zero as Fed Employees Bestow More Money on Democrats

    Trump, who accused Fed Chair Janet Yellen in October of keeping interest rates low as a favor to President Barack Obama, hasn’t collected a single donation from Fed employees, according to a review of Federal Election Commission data. Senator Ted Cruz has received $2,000, while Senator Marco Rubio has taken in $750. Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate, has received $18,239 this election season.

    Twelve years of data show more than $435,000 in donations from Fed staffers, which skewed heavily to Democrats well before this election cycle, have shifted even more firmly in that direction in the 2016 campaign. While the amount of money from Fed employees is down compared with the same point in the 2012 race, contributions to Republicans have dropped to $6,500 from $23,151.

    where did I put my shocked face?

    1. How much did Rand get? LOL

    2. Don may blow little bubbles, but this Yellin Ho has bigger lungs.

    3. Wonder what the numbers look like when you throw in companies that do a large portion of their business on federal contracts…

  26. “An economist at the Congressional Budget Office suggested on Monday that the federal government could start charging people based on how far they drive in order to generate more government revenues to spend on highway projects.”

    That economist is much too limited in its thinking! The federal government could start charging people based on how far they bicycle in order to generate more government revenues to spend on bike-path projects, and could start charging people based on how far they walk in order to generate more revenues to spend on sidewalk and shopping mall projects.

    1. If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street
      If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat
      If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat
      If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet

      1. ‘Cuz you’re working for no one but me….

  27. A King in His Castle: How Donald Trump Lives, From His Longtime Butler

    The king was returning that day to his Versailles, a 118-room snowbird’s paradise that will become a winter White House if he is elected president. Mar-a-Lago is where Mr. Trump comes to escape, entertain and luxuriate in a Mediterranean-style manse, built 90 years ago by the cereal heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post.

    Few people here can anticipate Mr. Trump’s demands and desires better than Mr. Senecal, 74, who has worked at the property for nearly 60 years, and for Mr. Trump for nearly 30 of them.

    He understands Mr. Trump’s sleeping patterns and how he likes his steak (“It would rock on the plate, it was so well done”), and how Mr. Trump insists ? despite the hair salon on the premises ? on doing his own hair.

    Mr. Senecal knows how to stroke his ego and lift his spirits, like the time years ago he received an urgent warning from Mr. Trump’s soon-to-land plane that the mogul was in a sour mood. Mr. Senecal quickly hired a bugler to play “Hail to the Chief” as Mr. Trump stepped out of his limousine to enter Mar-a-Lago.

    1. “It would rock on the plate, it was so well done”

      Monster!

      *runs away sobbing*

      1. That is seriously worse than everything else loathsome about Trump.

        1. Yes, that is a crime which is unforgivable.

        2. I bet he puts ketchup on it too. Hunt’s ketchup.

        3. And the man had the gall to sell steaks. Inexcusable.

      2. Well I can’t support him now.

      3. As Larry Bird would say, “Roont.”

      4. I’ll not vote for anyone that would do that to a steak.

    2. how he likes his steak (“It would rock on the plate, it was so well done”)

      He lost my vote.

    3. I don’t think Trump will lose votes – at least not *Republican* votes – if voters think he’s living some Robin Leach fantasy. They’ll be like, “sounds like fun – and maybe he is rich enough not to be bought.”

  28. Don’t Tell Bernie, But Capitalism Has Made Human Life Fantastically Better
    …5) Finally technology has lowered the cost of essentials, raising disposable incomes and creating new demand and jobs. In 1871, there was one hairdresser for every 1,793 English and Welsh citizens; now there is one for every 287. In 1948, a Freed-Eiseman 16-inch TV cost $795 in the US, roughly a quarter of the average annual salary, or roughly $12,000 today. A top of the range TV can be bought today for less than $1,000. On a quality-adjusted basis, the decline in prices is even more pronounced. US CPI data show that the price of a TV has fallen by 98% since 1950….

    1. Bernie knows this. He just doesn’t care. He’s got gullible leaches to swindle.

      1. I’m not sure Bernie does know this. He really seems to be a completely demented old fool.

    2. Do people need TVs when children are starving?

    1. Man, that’s gonna confuse the narrative.

      1. Nuh-uh.

        #BlackLivesStillMatter

        1. Its the #BlueLivesMatter that are gonna have a confuse.

          1. The cop who died was off-duty at the time, and attempted to distract the shooters so that the on-duty cops would gain an advantage. I guess someone did not hear the entire plan.

    2. They identified the suspect who shot at the building as 22-year-old Michael Ford. … Ford’s injuries are not thought to be life-threatening. … Prince George’s County Police Department

      Here’s my shocked face.

  29. Election 2016: Voters head to the polls today in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, and Missouri.

    I strongly recommending heeding the polls and staying home.

    1. The question is, Who will FLORIDA MAN vote for?

      1. Florida Man is not registered to vote…you know, cuz of all the felonies.

        1. Like that’s ever stopped anyone in Florida. Florida Man will vote for the highest bidder, of course.

          1. As many times as necessary.

  30. Anybody else out there that wants to stop Donald Trump from speaking to his supporters?

    Well now there’s a way to do that!

    MoveOn.org is sponsoring a petition to stop Donald Trump from speaking to his supporters at UIC.

    http://petitions.moveon.org/si…..s-rally-at

    So, here’s my question for the day: What’s worse, trying to prevent people from speaking through a petition or punching someone in the face for interfering with speech?

    Surely petitions meant to prevent others from speaking are an attempt to violate their freedom of speech.

    If DonaldTrump.org put up a petition asking for ruffians to punch protesters in the face, how would that be different from what MoveOn.org is doing?

    1. MoveOn.org is sponsoring a petition to stop Donald Trump from speaking to his supporters at UIC.

      Well, if MoveOn is petitioning Trump I imagine he’ll just say no.

      1. It’s not Trump. It’s the people who rent out the arena.

        “To be delivered to Chancellor Michael D. Amiridis, Provost Susan Poser, and Kevin Scheibler, UIC Pavilion Director”

        1. We’ve got to make the world a safe space for democracy.

          1. Yeah, and that’s what MoveOn is all about, keeping the people from using their voice?

            I thought they were supposed to be the voice of the people.

            Is the voice of the people really screaming, “STOP TRUMP FROM SPEAKING!!!”?

            I guess that’s when they’re not screaming for more illegal aliens and more Muslim immigrants.

        2. So, “Nice little arena youse got here ….”?

        3. Pretty sure that UIC cancelling his speech would be a First Amendment violation. Certainly would not be a content-neutral sort of thing.

          1. Yeah, that’s an issue. But it’s not about the government violating their First Amendment rights.

            It’s about one private party stifling another private party’s freedom of speech.

            When a Trump supporter punches someone in the mouth for speaking, MoveOn says that’s terrible.

            When MoveOn.com actively seeks to violate the free speech rights of Donald Trump and his supporters, that’s okay, why?

            Some people find violence abhorrent. Other people like watching hockey and MMA.

            Private parties seeking to violate other people’s free speech rights isn’t substantively different if one of them punches someone in the face and the other uses a petition.

            We’re just talking qualitative distinctions here, not difference.

            1. The progressive left has been actively trying to shut down speech it disagrees with for years now. Perhaps their newfound openness about it will convince people how dangerous these would-be tyrants are, but I’m not optimistic.

    2. I’m sorry but they aren’t petitioning the government. They are petitioning the owners of an Arena, saying “Don’t rent your place to these guys.” Gathering a crowd to convince an owner not to do something isn’t the same as using force to prevent someone from speaking.

      (However, isn’t a person trying to speak out of turn and disrupt a private event engaged in trespass?)

      1. Yeah, and the guy who punched a MoveOn protester didn’t punch the government in the face either.

        Individuals can violate each others’ rights, too. And preventing people from speaking through a petition is also trying to stop people from speaking.

        . . . just like punching a protester is trying to stop someone from speaking.

        In other words, using the government to stifle speech is wrong, but individuals stifling other people’s speech is wrong, too.

        How can MoveOn.org complain that Trump supporters are stifling people’s speech rights when they themselves are actively trying to stifle speech?

        1. …Punching a protestor is assault. That’s the harm, not the attempt to stop him from speaking.

          1. If assault is a real crime, it’s because one person has violated another person’s rights.

            Denying someone the ability to speak is also violate someone’s rights.

            Maybe you value not getting hit more than other people value not having their freedom of speech violated. Maybe other people care more about their freedom of speech than they do about not getting hit.

            Either way, we’re talking about violating other people’s rights, and MoveOn.org is at least as guilty of of it as the guy who punched a protester for speaking out.

            The guy who punched a protester may be able to argue that he was trying to defend his free speech rights from an organization that was actively working to violate them. What’s MoveOn.org’s excuse for trying to violate the rights of Trump supporters?

            1. Denying someone the ability to speak is also violate someone’s rights.

              No, it is not. Rather, agitating to revoke someone’s opportunity to speak (as in this case) is not a violation of rights. They are not cutting out Trump’s vocal chords or banning him from every public venue.

    3. Well now there’s a way to do that!

      MoveOn.org is sponsoring a petition to stop Donald Trump from speaking to his supporters at UIC.

      Are you retarded? That’s the rally he cancelled last week. This isn’t exactly a new petition.

      1. I don’t understand why that’s relevant.

        Why doesn’t that lend more support to my argument?

        MoveOn claimed Trump supporters were violating protesters free speech rights (with violence).

        . . . even while MoveOn was actively seeking to violate the free speech rights of Trump supporters.

        How’s that work?

        P.S. People are still signing the petition, and MoveOn.org is still hosting it. I doubt the event will be rescheduled seeing as the Illinois primary is today, but who knows?

        1. It’s relevant because you think you found something exciting but you’re so clueless you don’t even know where last week’s failed event was going to be held.

          1. I absolutely knew it was the same location.

            Other than that irrelevant observation, did you have anything else to add?

      2. Maybe you’re storming in to suggest that if Trump supporters were violent in Chicago, then they may have been acting in defense of their free speech rights against an organization that was out to violate them?

        I had no idea you could be so open minded about Trump supporters and the appropriate use of violence, Nikki!

  31. Bernie Supporters’ Hatred Of Work Is Why Trump Supporters Are So Mad
    …But if there’s another piece of advice here that absolutely disqualifies Clinton for the presidency, it’s “do what you love.” The truth is, that is simply not an option for most people. When it’s 39 degrees and raining in February, do you think the guy who picks up your trash is staring at your acrid, bacteria-laden refuse at 6 a.m. and saying, “Thank God, I love what I do”?

    Indeed, it is precisely this cultural disconnect about the value of work that explains why there’s an open revolt in both parties and the future seems so uncertain….

    …Many Portlanders like their lives that don’t contribute much, and if they could just get free health care?the governor who created the failed Oregon Health Plan and screwed up the state’s Obamacare exchange to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars was just run out of office on corruption charges in his fourth term?and erase their absurd college debt, they could afford the harissa-spiced Bloody Marys at the trendy new brunch spot and slide by selling colorful hemp guitar straps on Etsy without having to make any difficult or unselfish choices….

    1. I also hate the old trope that “anyone willing to work hard should be able to succeed in America.” No. Hard work is meaningless if it doesn’t create value.

      1. Yes. A critical distinction.

    2. do you think the guy who picks up your trash is staring at your acrid, bacteria-laden refuse at 6 a.m. and saying, “Thank God, I love what I do”?

      That guy is probably pulling in six figures with OT, gets free health care, and will retire with a pension far better than his customers.

      So “yes”.

  32. Needed after Donald Trump: A Grand New Party

    This may be the funniest election article I’ve read all year.

    It says the Republican party needs to break away from authoritarian populism. Forge a new party of real conservatives, and all those truly interested in limited government. Invite the libertarians, they’re our friends! Have a platform about freedom and optimism and the nobility of the American spirit. And we’ll use Jeb Bush’s platform as a starting point!

    *record scratch*

    Just a hilarious twist I did not see coming at all.

    1. Wasn’t “Jeb Bush’s platform” proven to be authoritarian unpopulism?

    2. The problem with conservatives is that they can’t seem to understand that all of the arguments they make against protectionism apply equally to immigration. And all of the arguments they make about the societal harms of immigration outweighing the economic benefits of open borders apply just as well to free trade in goods. Libertarians don’t have this issue because they just appeal to their principle that individual liberty is the ultimate end of government and move on. Conservatives, because they are not libertarians can’t do this. Nor can conservatives explain why regulating illegal drugs or private sex is required but regulating big sodas or transfats is not.

      Conservatives of this type have become a confused and stupid form of libertarian. Any marriage between them and actual libertarians is not going to end well.

      1. I have long argued on sites like National Review that using wages as support of Immigration Restriction is a form of protectionism like tariffs and subsidies. If they succeed in using that justification for restrictionist policies, they open the door for all sorts of similar liberal tropes that meddle with markets.

        But at the end of the day, Conservatives aren’t about setting a foundation of rules. They are about supporting a specific culture they find preferable. And if that is your main premise, then any means can be justified from it.

        1. You are right. Conservatives are not libertarians. And there used to be a set of conservative principles. As a libertarian, you no doubt disagreed with them, but they were consistent principles. Over the last 30 years conservatives got seduced by two utterly incompatible movements, libertarian economics and conservative social policy.

          Conservatives used to be classical liberals. And classical liberalism affirms the sanctity of the home and the privacy of the individual. Government could regulate the spaces between us and the common areas. Government functions as more than anything an arbiter of disputes and interests. It is not strict libertarianism because it views things like stability and security as competing values with individual liberty. So you could tell someone they can’t show porn in a public theater but would never tell them they can’t watch it in the privacy of their own homes. You would have things like vagrancy and public intoxication laws but would never support regulating what someone does in their own home, provided it doesn’t harm anyone else.

          The same is true of economic issues. “Free trade” isn’t an end in itself. It is just another policy to be considered according to its benefits and costs.

          Conservatives have lost touch with all that. And have taken bits and pieces from the Libertarian and SoCON movements with no regard to consistency or any sort of underlying principles.

          1. THREE incompatible movements: libertarian economics, conservative social policy, and neo-conservative foreign policy.

            Also, AMERICAN conservatives used to be classical liberals because the AMERICAN status quo was approximately classically liberal. The original advocates of Prohibition, censorship, apartheid, eugenics, etc. were, by and large, Progressives, not conservatives.

    3. Recall the Daily News is like the the NYT only more union-democrat rather than progressive democrat.

      Meaning, their political recommendations are the same thing as when Jackand Ace or Tony accuses people of not being “Real Libertarians” by endorsing more moderate, centrist, sensible leaders who will be more generous to us about pot if only we would abandon things like gun rights and the first amendment.

      1. Recall the Daily News is like the the NYT only more union-democrat rather than progressive democrat.

        Except they’ve gone stark-raving mad on guns. Like every single day the cover is some anti-gun screed.

  33. You raging communists have convinced me to put in a bit on a massive 0.09 acre estate with a palatial 728 sq ft abode upon it.

    I hope you’re happy.

    1. Too good to squat? Bro…

        1. Sounds more like a Brazilian patch.

          1. Just because I could manage the whole lawn with a weed-whacker and not have to buy a mower doesn’t mean anything.

            1. Don’t waste money on a weed whacker. Buy some scissors.

              1. Duct tape and orphans. What are you, new?

                1. I’m not a libertarian – so no orphans.

                  1. You could always adopt the OMWC position vis-a-vis orphans. No libertarian cred required.

    2. You’ve been watching tiny house nation, haven’t you?

      1. No… I’m just not that rich.

        1. I saw part of it last night. It actually makes sense. Most people don’t use all the space they have, so why pay for it? Then again I’ve always been obsessed with efficiency.

          1. Do you know who else was obsessed with efficiency?

          2. Do most people not have kids or hobbies?

          3. If we honestly didn’t have 2 kids and 3 dogs, I would be all over a much smaller house. Granted, not one where the shower and toilet are basically the same space, but something around 800-1000 sq ft.

    3. I’ll bet you’ve got really narrow, steep stairs don’t you?

      1. No stairs, unless you count the two steps to the front door.

        Basically, take a two bedroom apartment out of the apartment building and that’s this house.

        1. Frivolous luxury! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture. Half the floor was missing; we were all huddled together in one corner for fear of FALLING!

          1. WE used to live in a shoebox in the middle of the road!

            1. oh, sure, you got to be alive……………….

  34. Mark Zuckerberg And The New Progressive Plutocrats.
    …But tyrannizing his employees isn’t the worst thing Zuckerberg’s done.

    That would be his Orwellian pandering to the German government, whose disastrous immigration policies he recently praised as “inspiring.” Under Zuckerberg’s leadership, Facebook has become Germany’s lapdog, acting as the terrifying new Stasi of Angela Merkel, who is desperate to contain her citizens’ anger at her failed immigration policies. Facebook has promised to work with her government to monitor “anti-migrant hate speech” on the platform, which is another way of telling ordinary Germans that, once again, someone will be looking over your shoulder if your conversation gets too politically inconvenient.

    Here’s what’s more troubling: Zuckerberg isn’t just doing this to appease an overbearing government: he wants to do it….

    1. Anyone aware of the tyrannizing his employees part? Would be interesting as i thought he was always seen as the cool and hip good billionaire.

      1. Citation needed, I’ve never seen any redition of him other than the smug, thieving asshole type.

        1. No i am not saying he is cool and hip. Sorry for the confusion. I do think he is the smug, thieving type….i was saying he is seen by the proggies who hate billionaires as one of the good ones

        2. For example he pontificates about maternity leave and brags about facebook, and the progs fawn all over him.

          I didn’t know he was a prick to his employees

      2. Most of these internet billionaires have insane work ethics and can’t really understand why their employees don’t all have that same drive. I’ve heard the same about Musk, Gates, Allen, and Jobs. It often comes across as unreasonable, tyrannical demands.

        1. Yea. I can’t stand when they get on their high horse and tell the country what they need to do/offer. The problem is they assume every company can just give out 4 months of maternity leave no problem for example.

          1. Maybe pregnant women should be unemployed and unemployable those businesses shouldn’t be in business if they can’t afford refuse to pay for such luxuries basic human rights.

        2. Imagine having a family and working for those assholes.

          See, to me, for all their humanitarian rhetoric and deeds, if they can’t respect the fundamental need to take care of one’s family (ie attending to a sick child and so on), that makes their acts that much less impressive.

          Years ago, my sr. partner said something that was eye-opening for me. He asked, in trying to gauge my commitment to his operation, if my wife were sick at home what would I do? I knew what he was driving at and I didn’t bite. I told him the truth. I’d be a dead-beat idiot for not going to take care of her if I determined it was necessary. Besides, we’re lucky enough to have an extremely stable and mature book of business that permits us this luxury.” He was surprised and actually told me, ‘I wouldn’t.’ I replied, ‘That’s you and I disagree.’

          I left soon after to start my own business reflecting my values.

          1. That and they can’t understand that no one is going to work as hard for someone else as they will for themselves. I have no problem with business owners who sell out every other aspect of their lives in the single minded pursuit of success. Its people like that make civilization work. The problem arises when they expect people working for a paycheck who will never see the benefits of their extra work to do the same.

            1. I agree. You need people like that.

              My father worked 15 hours a day as a small business owner and still found time to take me and my brother to sports events, our sports games and vacation. He wasn’t much of a father figure but that was his way of giving back.

            2. That and they can’t understand that no one is going to work as hard for someone else as they will for themselves.

              So basically, you just fuck off at DHS.

              1. I think it’s human nature. An entrepreneur has to be motivated by more than just money to work so long for so little. If you’re working for someone else, you’re primarily motivated by money. If you’re motivated by more, you usually go it alone because working for someone else constrains your ability to execute your ideas.

          2. I once worked for the opposite. The guy would call a meeting and tell us all how his project was absolutely the most important thing ever. Nothing should stop us from working 60 hours a week in order to make him look like a super star for delivering it on time. Then he would close the meeting with “By the way, I will be on vacation all next week. Cell phone coverage where I’m going is spotty, so I may not get back to you right away.”

            He did this several times.

            What made it tolerable was the fact that the guy wasn’t nearly as important as he thought he was, so we were able to blow off his demands with little repercussions. It also became a joke line to the rest of us.

            “This is super important and we have to finish it.”

            “How important? Like real important or go on vacation important?”

            1. Nothing worse than a boss who thinks he is doing you a favor by letting you work for his benefit.

            2. My partner was the exact same fucking way which is why I didn’t take him seriously. Constantly golfing and playing golf. Know why? The book of assets was extremely stable and we were very conservative turning the book over at a .7 clip. It was asinine for him to bring it up. Startling really. ESPECIALLY considering he didn’t even hustle to build the book ($380 million at the time) by his own admission. ‘Right place at right time’ he told me.

              1. playing squash.

                1. Who plays squash? Did you work at Downton Abbey or something Rufus?

        3. Maybe he’s a hard worker and maybe he’s a genius when it comes to social media, but he’s no genius in general: he threw away $100 million on a government school system.

      3. I think the cool factor allows employers to get away with more crap with their employees. I worked for a few places like that when I was younger (on a smaller scale than Facebook obviously). One manager admitted she would get prospective employees to do just insane, elaborate projects as part of the interview process even when she knew she wouldn’t hire them because, her words, it was entertaining. They were college students desperate for a minimum wage job and it was one of the cooler shops in town.

        1. After working a few places like that, I now actively avoid cool companies and I’ve enjoyed much better work environments since then.

    2. …But tyrannizing his employees isn’t the worst thing Zuckerberg’s done

      No, that would be inventing the Facebook, followed by being an insufferable douche.

  35. Ted Cruz may be finding “new allies in the GOP establishment he rails against.”

    From Camille Paglia a few days ago:

    Cruz’s lugubrious, weirdly womanish face, with its prim, tight smile and mawkishly appealing puppy-dog eyebrows, is like a waxen mask, always on the verge of melting.

    Thanks Camille, I couldn’t put my finger on that. And his devotion to the supernatural.

    1. his devotion to the supernatural.

      Is Super

      And Natural

      I’m voting Trump today. What is my prize?

      1. I donno, the voodoo curse he placed on Rubio seems to be working.

  36. African-Americans for Trump!

    What it was like at the Chicago rally that wasn’t.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ags62-VvwEY

    These people’s rights were violated.

  37. Russian forces have begun withdrawing from Syria.

    Have GOPers called Putin “weak” and “feckless” yet?

    1. Did you have a bet to pay or somethin’?

      What was that all about?

      1. I paid $20 to Reason for going long too early on oil/gas stocks.

        The ignominy!

        1. Wa was dat? You went long too early on soiled ass cocks?

          1. He claims to have paid via money order, yet he cannot produce a receipt.

            1. Meh, life well lived and all that, right? Would?

        2. Liar – you never produced any proof, like you were supposed to. Not surprising.

        3. Hey Weigel!

          Say, how many total delegates is Jeb Bush up to now by the way?

  38. The proposed VT law legalizing pot, at least the last time I checked, denies the right to grow your own. Gotta make sure the state gets their tax vig.

    1. VT is a proximity fuse for a bomb.

  39. Yesterday I test drove a used 2008 Acura TL with only 70k miles – nice engine but the steering felt really dead and unresponsive. Perhaps Honda was trying to deaden the torque steer from the FWD setup, but the car felt as responsive as a ’81 Malibu station wagon with the power steering belt missing.

    Or maybe there was something wrong with the car. Nonetheless I was disappointed. Interior appointments were nice and the car was old enough that it didn’t require the touchscreen to turn on the heat/stereo.

    1. Did you check to see if the power steering belt was missing?

    2. Haven’t driven a car with decent steering in years. I loved my old Prelude. It was unassisted rack-and-pinion until you got below 10 mph, then the power kicked on to help you park.

    3. I am with Ken. Either the belt is broken or the power steering pump is broken. That car should have tight steering.

      1. It could be – but with only 70k miles on the clock I wouldn’t expect many issues with such a reliable brand. The tires, however, were pretty bald with one bad flat spot on the front driver’s side.

        The steering was tight… just felt really, really dead. It took a lot of muscle to move the car at low speeds, more akin to manual steering (I’ve had a few cars like that) but still with some assist. My own guess is they were trying to emulate the “feel” of German cars, like my ol’ BMW, but failed miserably.

        Even the gas pedal felt kind of wooden – though when you punched it the engine really woke up and the car started to move, provided you watched the speedometer. Meaning the car was cushioned enough that it was hard to tell you were actually accelerating hard. My wife said it felt like a senior citizen car.

        Not a driver’s car.

        1. Ah, okay. The Germans have their issues. Their cars tend to either run forever and be bullet proof or blow up for no apparent reason. But all of them, BMW, Merc and Porsche, know how to make fabulous steering and handling.

        2. My wife said it felt like a senior citizen car.

          Perfect for you, then.

          I use a panel van, myself. My ride.

          1. The blood-stained hand prints are a nice touch.

      2. If that car had a broken PS pump or no belt you would barely be able to turn the wheel unless going pretty fast.

        It would be obvious it wasn’t a design factor.

  40. 101% of all women prefer platitudinous men who aspire to treat them like objects.

    1. I guess I’m a beta, but I treat my wife like a rational thinking being with her own valid ideas, goals and beliefs. And yet I still have regular sex. Did I just get lucky?

      1. Depends on how ugly she is. Cute girls are NEVER grateful.

      2. Your obviously engaged in some form of cuckoldry.

      3. The negging thing completely shocked me. I’ve never had trouble with women by being polite.

      4. *Give Brett L the beta fist-bump* (limp-wristed)

      5. I’m in the same boat.

      6. And Nicki accused me of virtue signalling yesterday. What’s the saying, Find a woman that can keep you happy, one that can keep a good conversation, one that can do magic in the kitchen. The key is to never let them meet.

        1. Kings had harems for a reason straffinrun. It is good to be king.

      7. I am a bit suspicious of negging as pick up tool, but men neg each other all the time. It’s a ritual to thicken your skin and make you part of the team. I neg my wife and she usually has a shattering come-back. If that’s not the way it’s supposed to be I must be doing it all wrong.

        1. That’s not really negging if you’re just teasing each other.

          A neg is supposed to lower someone’s self-confidence subtly so she’s more willing to sleep with an obese, bepimpled weirdo whose ideas about gender relations come from the Red Pill subreddit.

          1. Irish, I like your shirt, but it looks tighter than usual.

            1. You’re so pretty. I’ve always really liked bigger girls.

        2. I am a bit suspicious of negging as pick up tool

          Back when I worked as a cook I negged my way into several hot waitresses’ pants.

          1. I am pleased to note that my dear mom was never a waitress at a greasy spoon.

            1. I’m not that old.

            2. That old is when call your mom by her first name. My mom was very late in life when I started doing that. I regret not doing it sooner. All the bitterness goes away when you do this. It’s common for daughters to take on this informality, less so for sons.

        3. All negging really is is treating women like you treat your friends, not fawning all over them or being obsequious. It’s the shocking technique by which you treat a woman like she is a fellow human being.

          1. You mean sad, desperate and lonely are not attractive features? Who knew?

          2. Negging is only ok if it’s funny. Some fawning is mandatory if she already likes you, but it doesn’t make her like you.

            1. Guys need probably twice as fawning as girls. It’s anti feminist to acknowledge but a girl can keep her man pretty happy by not criticizing him and complimenting him frequently. You all have fragile egos, but it’s part of your charm.

      8. No, Brett, you just haven’t found out who the Plan B is yet.

        1. That’s why I move us every couple of years.

    2. Don’t forget to demean them.

    3. You are correct Crusty. The biggest lie the feminists ever told was that women don’t want to be objectified. Bullshit. They all want to be objectified. They just don’t all want to be objectified by every guy, just the right guy.

      The women who claim otherwise are either homely women dealing with their anger over being ignored by pretending it is something they don’t want or young women who take the privilege of men desiring them for granted and are angry the wrong men have the nerve to do so.

      1. It is no surprise that most of the men on this thread are beta pussies.

        1. What’s a ‘beta pussie’? Can we at least stick to Greek alphabet as we measure up other men? I am going with theta. It’s roughly toward the beginning, sort of like ‘g’.

          *thumps chest*

      2. The biggest lie the feminists ever told was that women don’t want to be objectified. Bullshit. They all want to be objectified.

        I’ll bet you have one happy marriage.

        1. It’s like the old feminist said, ” I used to hate the cat calling until it stopped”.

  41. “At least one person is dead after a suspected car bomb exploded in Berlin.

    Merkle confirmed that the driver was a 43-year-old male of “a migrant background,”

    I am sure this will do wonders for the stupid bitch’s chances of re-election. Her party will probably sweep the next round.

    1. Something something price we pay for progress.

    2. Do you know what other German leader didn’t have children?

      1. Does the answer involve a micro penis and a single testicle?

        1. And one of them grew up to be a scientist for ISIS!

    3. “Ich bin ein Migrant.”

    4. It was some Puerto Rican guy

    5. Given their view of canines, you could forgive them for not knowing “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”

    6. Migrant background?

      Damn Messicans.

  42. In Fort Worth the police are above the law. Some voters preferred initiation of force, and got what they wanted.

  43. Gooey suns nap in cackleberries.

    1. Cankleberries, I assumed. Then regretted.

    2. *twists decoder ring*

      Orange people are targets for dispeptic crows.

    3. Red-flagged canoe rolls on doghouses.

      1. What is this, BBC France in the early 1940s?

    4. Yankee. Hotel. Foxtrot. Yankee. Hotel. Foxtrot.

  44. the federal government could start charging people based on how far they drive in order to generate more government revenues

    Of course that just requires tracking the movement of every person in America. I guess they should include that in their demands to Apple.

    never mind that every economist (should?) knows that distance-based vs. per-use fees reduce usage and dramatically curtail behaviors and reduce economic activity. Which is why london is a huge sprawling place made up of cloistered neighborhoods with local economies, despite a far older ‘public transit’ system – and why NYC became the fastest growing city in the world after implementing a one-fare system, which basically incentivized people in the outer boroughs to travel to the city-center to work

    Its possible this economist knows this and is just one of these social-engineering types who thinks government should destroy commuting and force people to crush into city centers to begin with, being easier to control and more likely to vote democrat.

    1. Its possible this economist knows this and is just one of these social-engineering types who thinks government should destroy commuting and force people to crush into city centers to begin with, being easier to control and more likely to vote democrat.

      There’s a 50-50 chance that either (1) you are correct or (2) this “economist” is just a stupid statist true-believer who thinks this is a brilliant idea that will have no unintended consequence. The Obama administration has a good combination of both types.

    2. I am constantly amazed at how economists buy into the virtues of user fees and mileage taxes. There is that old story about the engineer and the economist seeing an overused bridge and the engineer thinking about how to build a bigger bridge and the economist thinking about how user fees could reduce traffic on the bridge that is there.

      I have heard economists tell that story as an example of how how much smarter they are than engineers. The fact that people might be going across the bridge for good reason and preventing them from doing so might have negative economic consequences never occurs to them. Somehow economists have decided “efficiency” rather than wealth and standard of living is the ultimate end of any economic system.

      1. User fees as applied by private property owners makes economic sense. User fees as applied by the government is just another excuse for control and additional revenue to be added to the heaping mound of wealth already stolen in order to pay for the goods and services in question.

        1. Yes. And the entire point of building something using tax money, versus having the private sector do it and pay for it with user fees, is so that people can use the item at no marginal cost. Putting user fees on a publicly funded road or bridge defeats then entire purpose of the government building it. And it just becomes as you point out, another excuse to steal money.

          1. We’re talking about people who literally suggest that there is an economic benefit to paying people to dig holes and then fill them back up again. Of course to them, forcing people to pay twice for the same product is twice the “economic benefit”.

  45. Hey, I threw away my vote on Rand Paul today.

    1. It’s a bit galling that the potentially dangerous nature of their line of work places extraordinary demands on the public to tolerate encroachments on privacy, violent responses to ordinary incidents, and occasional abuses, but the public isn’t allowed to demand excellence and professionalism in their conduct as a condition for their license to commit violence. These men are touted as being heroes and showing “incredible restraint” for not peppering the entire neighborhood with bullets LAPD-style, even while one of their own died to friendly fire.

      1. Refraining from shooting indiscriminately into crowds and buildings should be the bottom floor in terms of negotiation performance expectations. Actually hitting the suspect they’re gunning for should be another low rung to clear, with perhaps some consideration given to killing him. It’s a pretty basic tenet of gun ownership. And not hitting your buddy with stray fire, again, this seems like basic SOP.

        Instead we’re treated to the unqualified endorsement of these officers’ heroism and conduct. It’s a chocolate rations-standard of accountability.

        1. They are not increasing the ration AGAIN are they?

  46. Has anyone heard from Suthenboy since he posted the pics the other day ?

    Interstate I-10 at Orange Texas is closed due to flooding and I just heard the Sabine River hasn’t crested yet. No traffic into or out of La.

    That’s pretty much 2 to 3 hours south of where he lives.

    It’s the highest level for the Sabine at Orange since 1884.

  47. 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.