Election 2016

"Penn Jillette Is Against Clinton and Trump—and Dying While His Kids Are Young"

In his new book Presto!, he explains how he made 100 lbs. disappear and chows down on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

|

Last week, Reason TV released an interview with Penn Jillette, who talked about the 2016 election, his admiration for Bob Dylan and Lou Reed, and how the hard-core libertarian magician lost over 100 pounds by following a plant-based diet.

I can't recommend Presto!: How I Made Over 100 Pounds Disappear and Other Magical Tales, Penn's just-published diet memoir, enough. As with all of his writing, it ranges far and wide from the putative topic in ways great and small and is immensely entertaining. And if you have any taste for extremes, especially when it comes to food, you will not be disappointed. Penn's chronicle of his nutritional regime and farewell to the "Standard American Diet" (or SAD) as directed by heterodox guru Ray Cronise is endlessly compelling, inspiring, and exhilirating.

As I write in a new column for The Daily Beast, Penn is a relentless seeker who is constantly inquiring about new things, new ideas, new ways of being in the world. In this sense, he's a lineal descendant of Jack Keroauc (just as Dylan and Reed are in their own ways), but with a life wish rather than a death wish:

Presto!…is a convincing brief for a nouveau-Beat sensibility of extremism in the pursuit of health and longevity, a 21st-century version of Jack Kerouac's hosanna to the "mad ones," the "ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars." The main difference is that Kerouac drank himself to death before reaching 50 while Penn, now 61 and a life-long teetotaler, is trying to live as long as he can both because as an atheist he believes there's nothing after this life, and because he has two kids whom he doesn't want to have "to deal with [him] dropping dead of fat when they're just teenagers."

After decades of chowing down on what he derides as the "Standard American Diet" or SAD—think huge, Cheesecake Factory-sized portions of everything fried, battered, sweetened, fried, and salted—Penn was not only obese but depressed, constantly winded, and on multiple blood-pressure drugs. His descriptions of his pig-out sessions—buttered steaks, movie theater popcorn covered in oil and Milk Duds, Cinnabons chased by sweet drinks, and hunks of cheese slathered with peanut butter—would give Dr. Oz vicarious diabetes. Penn's come-to-Jesus moment (if an atheist can be said to have such an epiphany) came when he had a stent put in his heart and his doctor told him he either needed to lose a ton of weight or get stomach-shrinking surgery within six months.

Having been given "official permission to go crazy" in pursuit of dieting, he soon found himself under the care of Cronise or "CrayRay" (short for "Crazy Ray"), who put Penn on a two-week regimen of only eating potatoes as a way to reset his cravings and taste buds. Slowly after that, Penn started adding back other vegetables and whole grains, small amounts of hot sauce, and eventually fruit after hitting his maintenance weight. His medical problems disappeared along with the flab but, ever the skeptic, he repeatedly cautions his readers about taking advice from a "fucking juggler whose only higher education was Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Clown College." He is, he admits, only "a zealot wearing a broccoli suicide vest to Burger King."

Whole Beast col here.

Throughout Presto!, Penn reminds the reader not to take diet or life advice from a guy whose last brush with education was a stint at clown college (literally). Maybe, maybe not. But reading Presto! reminded me of what people said when they heard the debut LPs of the Velvet Underground, the Ramones, and the Sex Pistols: They made you want to start your own band. Presto! is like that. Whether you want to start eating like Penn (or John Mackey of Whole Foods) or not, this book will make you want to get busy being born in some new and interesting way.

Here's the Q&A we did:

For a full transcript of the interview, go here.

Advertisement

NEXT: When Is Daddy Coming Home?

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. Firstest, rat fucking baggers!

    1. Penn Jillette Is Against […] Trump

      Oh, sure, another anti-Trump article.

    2. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $4800 for a week, pretty cool. working from home saves money in several ways.I love this. I’ve recently started taking the steps to build my freelance Job career so that I can work from home. here is i started.. Go this website more info work… http://bit.do/oMaVAv

  2. He should use his magic to replace the presidential candidates with ones that respect liberty.

    1. We had one of those. The voters used their magic to replace him with the ones we have now.

      1. Yeah, the voters will regret rejecting Jeb Bush, if that’s who you’re referring to.

        /sarc

        1. Goddammit.

          *laughs*

  3. I hate to say this since he’s working so hard at it… but he looks a little unhealthy.

    1. He looks like someone who just lost 100 lbs. All that weight changes your skeletal structure and your skin. If you lose the weight it makes you look a little funny. Give him a few years and he will return to normal if he can keep the weight off.

      Swimming (he is too old to be jogging) and scarfing down the occasional steak and potatoes would help.

      Lately I have been waking up at night after dreaming about cooking certain meals. I dreamed up a menu for the coming week.

      1. Sesame chicken over rice (rice cooked in chicken stock, butter and seasoned with basil is delicious enough to eat by itself)

      2. Spicy chili /cumin/ bellpepper/ onion/ garlic seasoned ground beef wrapped in wontons then fried to a crispy golden brown and served with salsa and sour creme

      3. Thin ribeyes served with red wine sauce / Asparagus wrapped in bacon topped with mornay sauce

      4. Pineapple sauce (pineapple juice/soy sauce/brown sugar with a touch of bitters) pork chops over coconut rice topped with pineapple slices and cherries

      5. Zuppa Tuscana – A cream based soup with bacon, italian sausage, spinach and small red potatoes – delicious

      Ok, now I am hungry.

      *I don’t have an extra ounce on me, but then I move all the time and only eat once per day

      1. SQUIRRELS ATE MY COMMENT, THEN LOGGED ME OUT 3 TIMES! At least they have an appetite.

        I came home w groceries Wed. to the news about the house sale, so lost appetite. To keep them from rotting, last night I cooked the spare ribs on the stove w fresh pineapple, garlic, Spanish onion, carrots, red bell pepper, ketchup, and, of all things, a banana (because they’re getting over-ripe). Separately I boiled jasmine rice w frozen peas. Maybe should’ve thrown scallions in one or the other, but held back. Ate a little, but it should last me days at this rate.

      2. It just occurred to me that Jillette will probably read this. I hope I haven’t ruined his diet by listing off all of those super-delicious recipes.

        Stick to the Tofu Penn. I will take care of those pesky pork chops.

      3. Thanks for the ideas. Sound good.

      4. He’s also 61. The fat can keep you looking younger, so he suddenly looks a lot older.

    2. Have to agree. 2 lb/wk is the maximum for healthy weight loss over long periods. 100 lb in six months is double that, a cure worse than the disease — surprised he didn’t get really sick.

      1. Yeah well, the thing is Gillette is pretty wealthy – he can afford someone to ‘direct’ his weight loss program along with monitoring his health as he does so.

        If you can afford that then 100lbs in 6 months isn’t so dangerous.

        The rest of us schlubs who are subsisting on Obamacare need to be a bit more circumspect in the war on fat.

        1. That might help…. but 100 lb in 6 months requires running an average daily energy deficit of 2000 calories. Every flipping day. A starvation diet of 1000 cal and moderate daily exercise to get your expenditure up to 3000 cal would do the trick, but I can’t imagine anybody’s body is going to tolerate that for six months. The human body is engineered to protect fat reserves at all costs, including making you sick when you lose it too fast.

      2. About 30 years ago, I worked in a hotel in Lake Geneva, WI, a fairly swank resort town for Chicagoans. There was a young man who ran a boat excursion service across the street from the hotel. He was about 20 and must have been about 300lbs. Over the course of just a few months, he slimmed down to probably about 170-180. He died a month later of a heart attack. Doing it too fast isn’t recommended, even if you have expensive “professional” help. For a fee, there are people who will stick on or take off anything you want, stretch your face so you look like an alien, or anything else silly you can think of. You might as well do it the old fashioned way. What’s the hurry? You’re still you – warts and all – when you’re done. You just get up the stairs easier. If you think you’re going to move up a notch in the dating game, fine, but you’d better make the deal with yourself you won’t go back up, or you’re cheating who you land.

  4. “After decades of chowing down on what he derides”

    I don’t really know what it is about that sentence, but it pisses me off for some reason.

  5. Yep, sounds like a good read. Think I will go out and buy this one! Penn’s zest for living life is so much more interesting than constantly whining that someone has violated your “safe space” on campus, or spending your life unemployed in mom’s basement playing video games all day long and never talking to a girl.

    Yet for some reason, when Clint Eastwood (who never allowed himself to get fat in the first place) says many of the same things, he’s a bad guy to bird-brain here.

    1. Speaking of safe space violations: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08…..share&_r=3

      Who knew that actions could lead to consequences.

      1. Somebody say safe space? I got your safe space right here.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3Bdih42h_0

        Austrian MP Ewald Stecker, a brilliant stump speaker, welcomes the visit of the Ambassador Kadri Ecvet Tezcan of Turkey to his state parliament in 2010.

        The ambassador had just given an interview griping will about the treatment of Turks in Austria.

        Stecker responds by recounting the murders and beheadings throughout Turkey of Christians including a Catholic Archbishop, by Moslems shouting “Allahu Akbar,” along with copious other atrocities.

        He doesn’t mince words. The ambassador squirms.

        1. A lot of Muslims have internalized the left’s rhetoric–going back a long time.

          When postcolonial “liberators” like Gaddafi and Mugabe came to power, they could sound just like the left on postcolonialism.

          Same thing with social justice warriors today.

          The left can support the PLO, bringing refugees to the West en masse, and religious beliefs they would rail against coming from Christians. If Islamists speak like the victims of capitalism, Christianity, and Republicans, the progressives will go down on them like submarines.

          Again, progressives are fixated by what people say. It makes them easy prey.

          Easy like bangin’ a philosophy major.

          1. And in the end, the leftists will be the first heads on the chopping block of Sharia. That’s how stupid they are. There is no possibility you can just leave these people alone (the left) to do whatever they want to and it won’t lead to their own destruction. Want to destroy the left? Just let them have their way on everything. Of course it will lead to the destruction of Western civilization also, but it’s almost worth it as this point, there’s not much left to save. Which would be worse, living under Shariah or living under a totalitarian leftist secular tyranny? Well I doubt you could tell much difference. The apparel would be different.

    2. You know what else is less interesting than Penn’s work? Spending your time constantly whining on a libertarian forum about Millennial strawmen and coming up with shitty unfunny nicknames.

      1. Shut up and go back to your own time period!

        /joking

  6. Throughout Presto!, Penn reminds the reader not to take diet …advice from a guy….who was once really fucking fat

    You ever go to a bar and sit down next to someone who recently quit drinking?

    Imagine that conversation lasting 200 pages. Sounds like a best-seller in the making.

    “Diet” (as opposed to food) seems to take on near-spiritual levels of importance for certain strains of people. often athiests. Not surprising – it serves similar function. “Do it correctly”, and you will live longer and more fulfilled and others will see you in a better light. And then there’s the benefit of telling everyone about it.

    1. Telling yourself that you’re better than you used to be never gets old. You can do it all over again in 5 minutes.

      1. Zeal Of The Convert…

        I used to be that way – start a new diet, new exercise regimen, a new course of study. But then I changed and, I guess, I grew up a little and I don’t do it anymore. I highly recommend it, I think everyone should learn that lesson. You’ll feel a whole lot better about everything.

        1. “and I don’t do it anymore.”

          You did it just now. 🙂

          1. wink wink, nudge nudge…

            1. I suspected you might be doing that deliberately.

        2. Zeal Of The Convert

          Yep, and always all too willing to spread the gospel to the ignorant masses.

          I always love it when someone comes up to me, beaming like the sun, and says ‘Did you see how much weight I’ve lost?!’. Oh, you don’t know what I know, me and [fill in the blank person] are feeling and looking great these days, so I have to tell you!’. *talks for hours, invites you to join pyramid scheme*

    2. Eating delicious food is one of the true joys of life and makes life more fulfilling. I say that as someone who loves cooking for people who appreciate it but when it is just me I get by on baloney sandwiches.

      See my menu above: Cooking all that for my wife, my son, my daughter in law, my stepson and his wife. The stepson has two children but they are a bit young for foods that sophisticated. The little ones prefer mac n cheese, spaghetti-Os etc.

      I am an atheist but not one of the evangelical kind. I also don’t much give a shit how long I live as long as it is a good life. I have a pretty good perspective of my own importance: Somewhere in my closet is a t-shirt that says “I am special and unique” on the front and “Just like everyone else” on the back.

      Oh, look, I am telling everyone about myself. Never mind then.

    3. It’s the Smug Diet. People think their food choices are more virtuous, and want everybody to know.

      1. It has extra levels of smug when you can attach it to a grand scheme of powerful people sabotaging you, and now you’re on to them. GMOs and Monsanto poison your food and that makes you fat! Or corporations push unhealthy things like hamburgers and ignore salads. Food deserts in urban areas make inner city kids both starve and be fat! Now that you’re on to them, you can eat extra pure food, or local food, or food like grandma made.

    4. “Diet” (as opposed to food) seems to take on near-spiritual levels of importance for certain strains of people.

      Or even actual spiritual levels of importance. Kashrut (Kosher), Halal, Hindu and Chinese Buddhist vegetarianism, etc., etc.

      1. We have little control over certain aspects of our lives that are pretty vital. Those are the things that inspire the most superstition. Food falls in that category because it is so vital and for the majority of our existence was in pretty short supply. I would bet that since the first humans we have prayed over our food.

    5. But enough about commenters here and Taubes…

  7. OT: Anyone who wants to see the beauty of Rio should check out the cycling. I don’t think it’s on tv, but you can see it online. The German rider Trixi W lost her kidney in a crash earlier this year and is in the top 5 right now. Amazing.

    1. You have to actually be there to really appreciate it. I highly recommend Corcovado late afternoon around sunset. Also highly recommend staying away during large events like this.

      1. Indeed. It does give you a nice sense of the Floresta da Tijuca. But of course nothung like being there. I once climbed up to Corcovado from the Jardim Bot?nico. Awesome. Not as awesome was getting mugged at knife point by a 12 year old on the walk down.

        1. There’s a guy there we know who’s a driver and we just get him for an entire day or two. Speaking of Floresta, I call the botanical gardens Jurassic Park without dinosaurs, some of the trees there look prehistoric.

          1. Next time there check out Cachoeira do Macaco. You can get there with a 15 min hike from near Jardim. Big enough pool for a nice dip. Really cool to go from total city to a lovely forest waterfall in a few minutes.

            1. Thanks for the tip. My wife has been there but I haven’t. For just walking, I like Niteroi. Walking and cerveja, of course.

              1. Indeed. I’ll have to check out Niteroi next time I’m there. Heard it’s very cool.

    2. Sorry, but couldn’t help imagining that literally: “CRASH! Anybody see my kidney?”

    3. What about that poor Dutch woman?

  8. I stepped out yesterday, but wanted to respond to Franc with something of a clean slate:

    You seem to want to punish an entire religion of 1.6B people based upon the actions of a very small percentage of idiots within that group. You seem to want to make exceptions to both libertarian principle and to American principle (due process) because you personally think Muslims, as a whole, are icky.

    No where in my comment history will anyone find calls to restrict the freedoms of Muslims. I didn’t say that above. I did say it is asinine to pretend that Islam does not have deep problems. So you created some strawman to reply to in response to my comment. But let’s reiterate:
    1. It is disingenuous to claim the only issues with Islam stem from terrorism. Frankly, that is just the tip of the iceberg.
    2. It is disingenuous to claim that the ‘minute’ number of terrorists that act aren’t encouraged by sentiments held by far larger numbers of Muslims. Sometimes majorities and pluralities, depending on the area.
    3. The only statement for activity I made called for rightful criticism of Islam itself. That extends to large swathes of its followers. This is something that in the past Francisco has vehemently argued against.
    4. Someone who cannot and will not address any of the above and simply attempts to minimize those issues is going to be tuned out by the wider public. But Franc just wants to dismiss those people as sheep, so…

    1. Because we need another comment thread turned into a shitstorm on the dangers of Mooslims.

      1. I know, seriously.

        there will surely be another “totally-random and definitely-not-part-of-any-trend”-attack by a person with “completely unknown motives” again sometime in the next week, let’s hold it off until then.

        1. I’m worried there will be a bigger attack in France or Germany any day now.

        2. I am the Greatest! Machete still in sheath.

        3. I know, right? Last thing we need is another Anders Brevik or Dylan Roof.

          1. Then at least the motives will be crystal clear, no need to speculate.

            1. Because you know what someone’s motive is before we even have any info about them? Wow, you should offer your clairvoyant powers to law enforcement.

              1. *whooosh*

          2. Look at the media reaction to the most recent stabbing in London (of the American) and the recent stabbing murder of MP Jo Cox.

    2. You’re never going to get an honest debate on this subject from the apologists for Islam.

      I applaud your efforts, but you’re wasting your time.

    3. You could make the same four points about Christianity.

        1. Cause I have better things to do on this beautiful day. I was just taking a big dump and posting some quick dumb comments using my phone.

      1. Barack?

        You aren’t going to start on that whole ‘crusades’ thing again, are you?

      2. Squirrels again ate my comment & logged me out.

        Xtianity’s does have point #1, but the consequences are nowhere near as severe as w Islam. Xtians don’t dare act on their religion the way Moslems are doing.

    4. I think Frank is trying to stay philosophically pure and feels compelled to defend Islam in order to make all that jibe.

      It is understandable.

      The rationale against open borders is pretty intuitive; You cant have liberty without a civil society composed of civilized people. Letting in boat loads of uncivilized people will destroy that civil society and thus liberty.

      As a thought experiment apply that logic (which is sound) to freedom of movement within the US. The larger the government the smaller the individual. Big government is a freedom killer. Thus we should not allow residents to move from California to Texas and Colorado/ From Mass to Fla etc. Blue state residents turn their states into statist hell, then they want to move to red states and start the process over. We should put a stop to that if we want to keep our liberty.

      Of course, if we did that it would just be a shortcut to destroying liberty ourselves. I can see how Frank arrives at his conclusion, I just don’t agree.

      Now someone point out how one of those things is not like the other. I have to go cook brunch for my wife.

      1. Most countries in the world have either weak government or really fucking big government. Weak government is NOT the same thing as small government. Weak government usually results in local nongovernmental gangs engaging in coercion.

        Compared to Mexico’s government, California’s doesn’t look bad.

      2. The rationale against open borders is pretty intuitive; You cant have liberty without a civil society composed of civilized people. Letting in boat loads of uncivilized people will destroy that civil society and thus liberty.

        I don’t even think this sort of argument is necessary.

        I believe it may come down to whether you see “Libertarianism” as a political theory to guide public policy,…
        ….or as a personal “moral philosophy”

        I would argue that the people who try to have both at the same time may be the problem.

        I personally think libertarianism is a political framework which provides the most value in detailing the relationship between the citizen and the state.

        It does not provide comprehensive justification for the existence of the state (which is what the anarchists moan about), nor does it provide any sort of comprehensive guideline for how any assumed state is supposed to relate to other states (foreign policy &/or border control).

        The ideas that some libertarians have about those latter 2 things stem mostly from their very-simply conception of how the “NAP” might apply. But the NAP is itself insufficient for justifying the existence of the state to begin with; how you then use it to try and justify foreign relations/border policy is adding weak arguments to weak assumptions.

        Basically – i don’t see any libertarian principle that requires ANY view of border-control. “Open” or “Closed” or “in-between”

        1. – to the latter point there –

          I think the idea of “free movement of labor” is an economic ideal to which libertarians should likely recommend policy move towards

          But describing it as a necessary absolute is absurd….

          ….just as demanding “no business taxation at all” as an absolute position is something we’d think of as an Ideal…. but having that ideal doesn’t require people to OPPOSE reduction in taxes, or any modification of tax-systems, because doing so is a compromise of any “fundamental principle”.

          But that’s exactly the posture the faux-purists take towards ‘immigration’ – that having any system for controlling/vetting/filtering *at all* is an unacceptable compromise, and a violation of “principle”.

          They go further, suggesting that the topic can’t even be discussed by libertarians in any actual detail – lest you dare compromise your posturing ideal.

          This all ends up ignoring the fact that we are never going to have completely uncontrolled borders, and that there could certainly be improvements to the status quo which improved free movement of labor (e.g. liberalized visa policy, removing caps), while ALSO satisfying the concerns of other political groups regarding “undesirables”.

          People prefer to pose because its morally self satisfying. But from a policy point of view, they’re both useless and irrelevant.

          1. Well reasoned. I don’t think there’s really anyone among the regular commenters here who disagrees with the notion that compromise is necessary in order to have a more open and “free” immigration policy.

            There are certainly people like that among some of the hard-core anarchists, but even with anarchists there are a quite a few incrementalists who realize it’s better for a man to be shot in the arm instead of shot in the head, even though him not being shot at all is the ultimate goal.

            Stuff like this is why, even to the most “open borders” libertarian, Democrats are so unsatisfying.

            Since their interest is dependent on it allowing them to accrue more political power, they’re completely unwilling to compromise with Republicans who want more security or other concessions (though not all of those are worth it; I’m looking at you E-Verify) in order to reform immigration.

            Nor are they willing to accept anything other than a complete overhaul rather than piecemeal legislation, even though they won’t GET the overhaul, since that would cede some of their hard-earned narrative (much more important than reality). Identity politics and effective political change don’t mix very well.

            Plus, even if they did get their way, their “reform” would probably be an awful social-engineering bureaucratic monstrosity anyway. Bleh.

            1. and somewhere in the mix lies the welfare state, unless one is to belief that the parade of Muslim immigrants is highly-skilled, well-educated and ready to find work. That same argument exists with Latino immigrants even though for them, finding work IS a priority. There is no rational means of dealing with immigration/border questions without also addressing the welfare state.

            2. don’t think there’s really anyone among the regular commenters here who disagrees with the notion that compromise is necessary in order to have a more open and “free” immigration policy.

              Maybe so.

              But there are certainly some who get up on their hind legs and declare that ANY discussion of

              “Whom we should encourage to immigrate vs. whom we should be less-excited to welcome”

              is simply not possible. There can be no preferential policy in immigration; why? Because Morals. or something.

              I’ve been very pro-immigration since before ever reading reason. For reasons which i think are economically self interested. but i at least predicate my argument on the basis that there’s a logical benefit for ‘more immigration’. Not because its “merely morally right”. I’m not particularly interested in the so-called morals of the subject because i don’t think its either a moral question, OR something which libertarianism should have any strict view on.

              Because of that, i can discuss modifications to the immigration system that might improve/change the way it works. Which could be theoretically more or less ‘restrictive’ to some, or more ‘open’ to others.

              The people who predicate their position based on their moral-posturing only have one possible stance, and all others are compromises which are moral-failings. Its a stupid way to discuss policy.

              1. I’m not particularly interested in the so-called morals of the subject because i don’t think its either a moral question, OR something which libertarianism should have any strict view on.

                I would counter with the idea of self-ownership and its entailments, but it’s clear that the mob has already chosen Barabbas and further debate is futile.

                *washes hands and all that jazz*

                1. the mob has already chosen Barabbas and further debate is futile.

                  There is no debate – as you’ve just demonstrated

                  which i already said is part of the problem.

                  If you want to talk about the policy, then there should be an acknowledgment that the imperfections of the status quo are not improved by “moral posturing”, but rather actual discussion of the pros-cons of any given changes to policy.

                  If all you’ve got is a foot-stamping insistence on a theoretical “moral” stance – one which, as noted, has no prospects of ever being realized (“total open-borders”)…. then any discussion of policy-detail is a waste of time. Everyone else’s view is wrong by default, regardless of the details.

                  Its self-satisfying, but it is effectively declaring yourself irrelevant to any discussion of public-policy.

                  the (more-)Open Borders advocates who actually operate in the real-world don’t spend their days tut-tutting all those who disagree with them as moral-criminals, spitting on them and referring to them as “the mob”; they argue why marginal changes to the status quo have actual practical benefits, and why the “problems” associated with immigration are overblown.

                  IOW, they at least acknowledge that opposing views have equal validity, and try to deal with them on a level other than ‘moral theory’

                  If you can’t start there, then you’re not relevant to the discussion.

                  1. As I have proven before, if it were just you, I’d be happy to talk about the moral stance, its relationship to policy, and historical precedent going all the way back to the Magna Carta, for the umpteenth time… even despite your framing the discussion with ipse dixit prior assumptions of what can ever be,,,even with you claiming to have solved the is-ought problem for all time….even with your claiming the thin vs. thick debate has been conclusively determined for all time. I don’t mind that. Even when disagreeing vehemently with me, like on what constitutes ‘intervention’ from a Realist vs. Liberalist view of international relations, you have consistently argued in good faith. Discussions between two individuals with strongly held views can be interesting, and even productive, even if either individual doesn’t change his or her view at the end.

                    1. But, no. Not this time. Not anymore. That well has been poisoned. A decade of such discussions being derailed by Mike M., et al. jumping in with hysterical ululations about the Reconquista and the pedophile cannibal rape gangs of Brussels has spoiled my appetite for such discussions on here. I wouldn’t hop on Stormfront to advocate in favor of the basic human dignity of people of all creeds and colors, and now, on HnR hands have been thrown up for similar reasons. In such a milieu, philosophical arguments, limited to 1500 bytes a post, just aren’t worth it. All that has needed to be said has already been said in other places, in other media…and if you’re interested in those arguments, you can pursue them on your own.

                    2. even despite your framing the discussion with ipse dixit prior assumptions of what can ever be,,,even with you claiming to have solved the is-ought problem for all time….even with your claiming the thin vs. thick debate has been conclusively determined for all time.

                      For the purposes of policy discussion, yes.

                      Call me crazy, but i don’t approach policy as though its an academic philosophy debate.

                      For all practical purposes, yes = “open borders” is as off-the-table as “zero corporate taxes”….

                      at least from the POV of “what policy can be implemented NOW which improves the status quo”

                    3. You and I want to discuss different things. I see a policy discussion equally as futile. We already know which policies would improve the status quo, but due to the mouth-frothers cited upthread, their implementation are as impractical as the “academic discussion” of natural rights you condemned to Cloud-Cuckoo Land earlier. Again, we’ve debated from where policy is derived before. You argue, as far as I can tell, that policy is pragmatic, developed in reaction to situational concerns; I argue that policy is the enactment of a priori moral principles that guide decision-making in solving a particular problem. That’s a debate that’s philosophical in nature, but you’ve declared it already won. So what’s the point? What’s the point in doing the work of setting up a detailed argument that shows the casual links from first principles to use-in-action when Bo will eventually be here to concern troll and all the rest of the knuckleheads and blowhards will get into a pig pile debating how the fact that Hispanics skew Democrat and/or have demonstrated a 15-point IQ gap compared to Whites should influence immigration policy. Or Ebola. Or Zika. Or colloidal silver commodities futures.

                      I’m tired, Dennis.

                    4. You argue, as far as I can tell, that policy is pragmatic, developed in reaction to situational concerns;

                      Nope. As per below, i’ve pointed out i have no problem basing policy on a natural-rights principle. (e.g. what i’m “allowed” to put in my body)

                      I just think that “the state” is itself defined by its limited jurisdiction. some stuff is “in it”, and some stuff is “outside it”. The rights which concern me are those of citizens vis a vis this state.

                      I grant that Non-citizens and foreign countries have theoretical ‘rights’ which, in a vacuum, should be recognized as equally valid as my own.

                      Yet i don’t think the state in which i reside is obligated to concern itself with them; particularly if doing so threatens the well-being of citizens, or in so doing, risks dissolving itself and its ability to guarantee the rights of citizens.

                      which is 1) why i think a libertarian state which intends to survive in an anarchic world can’t abandon a realist POV, and must prioritize its own self-interests/survival etc. and 2) a libertarian state can’t simply abandon the concept of “national borders”, and erase any distinction between citizens/non-citizens

                      hope that’s a little clearer.

                    5. For all practical purposes, yes = “open borders” is as off-the-table as “zero corporate taxes”

                      This may shock you, but there a good many jurisdictions with “zero corporate taxes.”

                    6. You misunderstand the context =

                      I’m talking about “National US policy”.

                      I’m aware that states within the US can have no corporate taxes (or any other kind) in order to attract businesses; i’m aware that entire countries choose zero corporate taxes as a national policy to do the same.

                      what i’m talking about, just for the sake of comparison, is proposing something as national policy and how you might expect it to be received and acted upon in the current context.

                      The US currently has the highest nominal corporate tax rate in the world.

                      And the general political attitude from both left & right is actually to try and make corporate atmosphere MORE regulated than it has been in the recent past. To try and FORCE companies to say within the US rather than move offshore.

                      The point of my example was simply to suggest that you’re just as likely to get anyone to agree that “open borders” are a plausible and desirable change to current policy…. as you would get everyone to agree to cut corporate taxes to Zero and let 1000 flowers of capitalism bloom.

                      as in, “not at all”.

                      Another point of my comparison was to try and draw distinctions between ‘idealistic goals’, and currently practical policy-platforms. I think zero taxes WOULD be a good goal to have. And maybe advertising that goal would at least attract people to your cause.

                      By contrast, i think acknowledging that your desired end state is “open borders” would effectively condemn you to political obscurity.

                    7. Lowering the US Federal corporate income tax rate is an idea that has some traction, probably inevitable, if only due to the fact that there are many alternative jurisdictions worldwide that offer a corporate rate half of that (many nation-states and territories offer an outright 0% corporate rate top-down). The competition from Asia and Western Europe, where country after country is slashing their corporate rates and accepting more and more “inversions” continues to heat up.

                      “Open borders” has zero traction as-is, but practical greater penetration into “loosening up” immigration starts with an economic incentive lines of argumentation framed in the right way.

        2. Interesting. But far too subtle for an internet debate, 1 star, thumbs down!!

          No, but that line of thinking was actually a tad enlightening for me… that outlook reminds me of folks examining science from a theological perspective and vice-versa. You are never going to get a satisfactory conclusion because you will always be talking past each other. No matter how hard you try, that crescent wrench is never going to loosen that screw.

          1. that outlook reminds me of folks examining science from a theological perspective and vice-versa.

            not sure what you’re referring to.

            If there’s any simple point which i think is concrete and uncontroversial, its the idea that =

            Libertarianism is Not “a theory of everything”.

            Its political theory. its about public policy, and mainly public policy between “citizens” and “the state” (both of which are mostly taken for granted in the status as they are)

            Because of this, it doesn’t apply to “non-citizens” and it doesn’t apply to states other than our own, or how our state relates to other states.

            as i said above, I believe this is the source of many problems here – particularly in areas like Foreign Policy & Immigration, where some people think they can just stamp their feet, cite “NAP!” and think they’ve said something that *should matter* from a policy POV.

            It results in a lot of useless, irrelevant moral posturing, which provides little/no insight into “what good policy is/should be”. By turning policy issues into moral questions, they’re effectively declaring any range of opinion on the matter off-limits, and declaring those who feel differently to be Moral Inferiors.

            which i think can be funny at times. (see: last night)

            1. If there’s any simple point which i think is concrete and uncontroversial, its the idea that =

              Libertarianism is Not “a theory of everything”.

              Its political theory. its about public policy, and mainly public policy between “citizens” and “the state” (both of which are mostly taken for granted in the status as they are)

              As a “thin-ist”, I agree with you, but as the thin vs. thick debate continues to rage, I can’t say the point is not controversial. Indeed, that very point is argued to the point of nausea several times a day on these fora. Not in so many words, mind you. But the majority of the long-standing ideological feuds you see boil down to either the thick vs. thin debate or city-mouse/country-mouse posturing.

              1. the thin vs. thick debate continues to rage

                I’m not sure its all that important to dwell on the ‘meta-debate’ about libertarianism itself.

                I was just pointing to why there’s stumbling blocks on the topic of immigration, specifically. (and foreign policy, which i suppose immigration is a subset of)

                if the issue were something like, say, ‘drug use’ – you’d find me entirely happy to stand on the pillar of “Self-Ownership” and declare that any policy which tries to tell people what they can/can’t do with their own Meat-Sacks is a fundamental violation, and that the only correct view is to oppose those policies.

                because that’s an issue of this state in which i live as a citizen, and my(and any other citizens) relationship with it. I will gladly make the ‘moral principle’ the basis of any policy between Citizen & State.

                My point was simply to say that immigration and foreign policy in particular… in my view…. fall outside that realm – and consequently i think people should stop assuming that there’s any “one size fits all” opinion, and that any different views are heretical

        3. I personally think libertarianism is a political framework which provides the most value in detailing the relationship between the citizen and the state.

          Care to elaborate on what “value” means to you?

    5. I guess it comes down to how you are suggesting we “address any of the above”.

      If your complaint about Islam having deep problems is just a statement of irritation, akin to saying that people who put ketchup on a hot dog are idiots, then OK… but you seem awfully adamant about the issue.

      OTOH if you’re calling for changes to government policy in response to Islam having deep problems, it’s fair to question how you can do that without restricting the freedom of Muslims…. since all the government can do on any issue is restrict freedom.

      1. People who put ketchup on hot dogs ARE idiots. This is a fact.

        1. What about Muslims who put ketchup on hot dogs to ruin them for the infidels?

          1. That is truly sinister.

            1. But is it tomato ketchup?

              *fondly remembers the Great Ketchup Debate War on Reason while having a/ many big ole Cheladas and a bowl of fish and shrimp cheviche at El Bucanero in San Antonio

        2. Seconded. That is just wrong. We could put a question about it to the citizenship test. Wrong answer would be immediate disqualification. We have enough native born ejits that put ketchup on hot dogs; why would we want to import more?

          😉

          1. I don’t use ketchup.

            Or catsup.

            And why is Firefox’s spell-check going nuts over “catsup”?

        3. ketchup on hot dogs isn’t as bad as ketchup on bratwurst

      2. Is adamant good or bad? People do barbaric things in Islam’s name the world over, and one of the major parties keeps pretending it’s not so. The other has no real idea what to do. Might be nice is some US head of state sat with leaders of those nations and was fairly blunt in saying Islam has a problem that only Muslims can fix. They can either fix it or we can begin the process of shunning them from the civilized world.

        Apologists point to the minority that engages in violence while ignoring the segment that supports violence but is not willing to commit it. What’s happening in Europe will happen here eventually; past performance, future results and all that. Yes, govt can restrict freedom but govt also has as its primary obligation to safeguard the rights of its citizens. I don’t see how wholesale immigration of people hostile to Western values ends well.

        1. They can either fix it or we can begin the process of shunning them from the civilized world.

          What would be the standard for it being fixed? No Muslim killing innocent people anywhere? When 0.001% of the Muslim population is involved in terrorism, there really isn’t much room to go down.

          Furthermore, is there a standard that we can put out there that we ourselves could be sure to satisfy? Something like 3x as many innocent civilians have been killed by US airstrikes and drone attacks compared to 9/11.

          My problem is that the Islam-denouncers always seem to be fuzzy on whether they’re calling for complaints or for coercive action. It’s one or the other.

          1. Like anything, fixing a problem begins by recognizing it. If the Saudis, Iranians, and assorted others DON’T think there is a problem with people blowing things up and beheading people on every continent, then perhaps we consider disassociating ourselves with them. And it’s more than .001% of the Muslim population that either carries out the acts or supports them. Please. When you have nearly 2 billion adherents, you don’t need a large percentage for there to be a significant active population.

            Why the need for straw men? I didn’t say a word about air strikes or coercive action. If Muslims want to be part of the civilized world, they can start acting like it by no longer sponsoring Hamas or Hezbollah or ISIS or whomever else. They can actively work to root out those groups from mainstream Islam, but only if those groups fall outside the mainstream. When Iran’s govt or the Saudis foot the bill, it’s hard to say that radical is something other than the norm.

            1. Why the need for straw men? I didn’t say a word about air strikes or coercive action.

              But if you’re not for coercive action in response to the supposed “problem”, why do you care if the government agrees with you that there is a problem?

          2. “When 0.001% of the Muslim population is involved in terrorism, there really isn’t much room to go down.”

            Then why are we discussing this as a problem with Islam? What proportion of the Amish population drive tractor trailers over crowds of women and children in the name of their religion? How many Western Christians strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in crowds of innocents in the name of their religion? How many Jews secret themselves into foreign populations for the sole purpose of killing ‘infidels’?

            Islam has some big fucking problems that are unique to Islam. Saying that it doesnt or hand waiving it away by engaging in moral relativism is a dangerous willful denial of reality.

            1. Then why are we discussing this as a problem with Islam?

              Good question. Why are you?

              What proportion of the Amish population drive tractor trailers over crowds of women and children in the name of their religion?

              Roughly the same as the proportion of the Muslim population.

              1. Roughly the same as the proportion of the Muslim population.

                For uselessly large values of “roughly” perhaps…

                I am unaware of ANY Amish that meet the criteria, so it would actually be something like “infinitely more Muslims…”

                1. HaHaHa.

                  The yolks on you.

                  That was a trap question.

                  Amish don’t drive trucks.

                  Buggys are the Amish vehicle of terror.

                  Miss ! Another Chelada por favor.

              2. Roughly the same as the proportion of the Muslim population.

                Let’s quantify so that the yokels can understand it. or not, because, you know, yokels.

                If we take the arbitrary 0.001% as a proportion of homicidal maniacs, that means we’d expect about 17,000 Muslim homicidal maniacs and about 3 Amish homicidal maniacs.

                Seems about right.

                1. You don’t seem to understand what the word “proportion” means.

                  1. You don’t seem to understand what the word “proportion” means.

                    Yes, that must be it.

                2. Given a random Muslim, whose beliefs you are proposing to governmentally condemn and blame for problems (assuming you are not ultimately aiming for coercion), their likelihood of being a terrorist is roughly the same as a random Amish, random nun, random homeless shelter dishwasher, random goose tracking specialist, random CEO of a Fortune 500 company, etc.

                  Yes, there are more Muslims in the world than CEOs, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether it is legitimate or effective to deploy the government against their beliefs (if not their freedoms, which I strongly suspect is the ultimate aim).

                  1. whose beliefs you are proposing to governmentally condemn and blame for problems

                    If that was aimed at me, this is a 100% total and absolute lie.

          3. When 0.001% of the Muslim population is involved in terrorism, there really isn’t much room to go down.

            Bull. 1) We don’t judge Nazis by the percentage of German who actually ran concentration camps. We don’t judge KKK members by whether or not they actually lynched anyone. 2) The “tiny minority of Muslims” is a myth.

            1. Hopefully you judge Germans by the percentage of Germans that committed war crimes and Nazis by the percentage of Nazis who committed war crimes, not mixing the two.

              1. I don’t think Leni Riefenstahl should have been blacklisted.

              2. By definition, a German and a Nazi are not the same thing. But by definition, a Muslim is a Muslim, and must believe the basic tenets of the religion. Those tenets are incompatible with Western enlightenment values, and are on full display in Saudi Arabia, Iran, ISIS, and everywhere else sharia law is in control. Sure, there is some variation and disagreement, but there is 100% theological justification for every obnoxious thing those governments do in the name of Islam.

                1. By definition, a German and a Nazi are not the same thing.

                  Took you a couple of posts, but congratulations on figuring that out.

                  But by definition, a Muslim is a Muslim, and must believe the basic tenets of the religion.

                  Just as a person who claims to be Christian or Jewish must actually believe that God selects random ethnic groups for genocide in accordance with several Torah passages, that dashing babies’ heads against rocks is praiseworthy so long as they belong to an enemy race (Psalm 137), that homosexuals should be stoned to death, and all the other horrid passages in the Scriptures that Christians and Jews in 2016 prefer to pretend aren’t there.

                  1. Of course I’ve been in this argument before.

                    A: Muslims are violent terrorists because of this Koran passage: (blah blah blah)

                    B: Uh, what about this passage from the Bible that’s just as bad: (blah blah blah)

                    A: Well, Christians and Jews don’t follow that passage anymore.

                    B: Most Muslims don’t follow the passage you quoted either.

                    A: Maybe, but they still believe in the religion.

                    B: But doesn’t that mean that Christians and Jews are responsible for the Bible passage that I quoted?

                    A: No, because Christians and Jews don’t commit terrorist acts, only Muslims.

                    B: But most Muslims don’t commit terrorist acts.

                    A: They believe in a religion that supports terrorist acts in its scriptures like I said.

                    [and so on..]

                    Before you say I’m pulling a strawman, this is a summary of dozens and dozens of conversations I’ve had on this site and in the real world.

                    1. I’ve gone over this before, but Christianity and Islam are different both theologically and in practice.

                      The Bible: written by dozens of people “inspired” by God, in a handful of different languages and cultures over hundreds of years. The later, more important section is centered on a pacifist carpenter, who believed in separation of church and state. Acknowledged to be edited. Basically everyone reads it in translation. There’s a lot of room for interpretation. Result: few Christians, and near zero Christian clergy, believe in slavery or in killing gays or apostates or blasphemers.

                      The Koran: a perfect copy of the one in heaven, the final and eternal word of Allah written in the language he speaks. There is much less room for interpretation. Much is centered on the “perfect man,” a caravan robber turned warlord, rapist, slaver, and mass murderer, who did not believe in separation of church and state. A core tenet is the inevitable imposition of Islamic law over the entire world, by force if needed. Result: many Muslims, and a number of Muslim clerics, believe in killing gays and apostates and blasphemers, and in a worldwide theocratic dictatorship.

                      Thus, your equivalence fails at the ideological level.

                      And then, of course, we can simply look at history and the headlines: Islam sucks, far worse than Christianity, by any libertarian measurement you care to make. And so you are refuted on the evidentiary level as well.

              3. I judge Germans by the proportion who voted for and subsequently supported Hitler. Assuming you understand what the word “proportion” means.

          4. From where I’m sitting, those who defend Islam intentionally want to blur the line between coercion and criticism. And that is what Francisco did yesterday. He’s an intelligent libertarian and he obviously knows the difference. He demonstrates it in a host of topics, but becomes willfully blind when this subject comes up. He isn’t alone.

            In terms of other issues Islam has – it isn’t just the terrorism. Their treatment of women, the complete blurring of politics and religion which is ingrained in their societies, and frankly overall backwards cultures are issues. These are things prevalent in the Muslim world which manifest themselves in infringements of rights and the use of coercion against others. This is less of a problem here in America, but it sure as hell is not in Europe.

            So the focus on the rarity of terrorist attacks in the grand scheme, besides itself missing the point, doesn’t touch on any of this.

            1. And if Francisco is an Iraq vet (not questioning his background, I just don’t know if that is him), he should know full well that the insurgency would not have been able to operate without general support or at least apathy from the general public. The only real progress made in Iraq came from the people themselves getting fed up with certain behavior and taking action. Or we can look at France and see that terrorists often had large support networks in Muslim enclaves.

              Gilmore presents some interesting arguments above. I am not opposed to the free movement of people myself, but fortunately America doesn’t have hundreds of thousands of migrants masquarading as refugees from the Muslim world flooding in looking for handouts from the government.

              And I don’t need to agree with Trump to legitimately ask whether our government is serving the interests of the American people when it uses our tax dollars to import ‘refugees.’ Open borders is a far cry from government coercion being passed off as humanitarianism.

              1. but fortunately America doesn’t have hundreds of thousands of migrants masquerading as refugees from the Muslim world flooding in looking for handouts from the government.

                No, it’s people from Latin America who do that….

            2. “Politics is the mind-killer.” People become overly-attached to their ideologies, which are merely mental models of reality, and then twist themselves into knots to deny contradictory aspects of reality that are staring them in the face.

              There is no way in hell that Muslim immigration increases the liberty of the Americans already here. It means more terror supporters, more terror, more government surveillance, more welfare, more social strife, less social cohesiveness, less social trust, more “anti-racism” initiatives, and more Democrat voters. All that gets ignored because of the supposed ideal of “freedom of movement,” or because some Somali is more free here than he would be in Somalia. Well, call me heartless, but I reduce my liberty for the sake of some foreigner’s liberty only voluntarily. I deeply resent having my liberty reduced so that the Democratic party can get more votes, so that the Chamber of Commerce can get cheap labor, and so that various stripes of blind ideologues can self-congratulate.

            3. “He’s an intelligent libertarian and he obviously knows the difference. ”

              Most here are yet have gone off of the rails once or twice. Hell, I’ve done it. Remember John’s train wreck over body armor?

              I guess we are all human.

            4. From where I’m sitting, those who defend Islam intentionally want to blur the line between coercion and criticism.

              That’s not what I’m trying to do at all. I’m just trying to pin down the Islam-denouncers on which one they’re after (criticism or coercion), and can’t seem to get a straight answer.

              If all you’re after is criticism, well you’ve already accomplished that. And frankly the govt has no business criticizing a religion, that’s the job of individuals in the marketplace of ideas.

              The only reason you’d want the govt to be on your side is if you’re after coercion.

              1. And frankly the govt has no business criticizing a religion

                But what if that religion is a rival political system? That’s what Islam is.

                1. Doesn’t have any business criticizing a rival political system either.

                  1. One of the few valid duties of my government is to protect me from people who wish to harm me. So yes, it’s their business.

              2. See, it’s funny because I never actually talked about having government on my side, though it is naive to think that the other end of the spectrum isn’t going to involve government action. It’s very easy to turn your assumption on its head. In Europe we see plenty of people who aren’t critical of Islam, and want the government on their side policing the market place of ideas.

                Moreover, we don’t live in libertopia where the state takes a hand off approach on the issue of immigration or anything else, really. So the counter position – the one already in action – is seeing tax dollars spent here and (predominately) in Europe spent on bringing more of these people over.

                Francisco has defended Islam in the past and attacked larger criticisms of the religion as a whole that tied it to the actions and even beliefs of its followers. Perhaps he’d disagree with my characterization, but that is definitely my own interpretation. It’s a bit hard to have an open debate on anything when you can’t move past the moral preening stage.

                1. See, it’s funny because I never actually talked about having government on my side

                  You also never talked about not having the government on your side. The Islam-denouncers have been quite slippery about whether coercion is part of their desired course of action, which makes me extremely suspicious. Forgive me if I’ve caught you in a net you don’t deserve to be in.

                  In Europe we see plenty of people who aren’t critical of Islam, and want the government on their side policing the market place of ideas.

                  I would and do oppose their censorious ways as well. That gallant principled capitalist Mr Zuckerberg’s empire, which all right-thinking libertarians must oppose using antitrust against, is mightily helping the thought police on that score.

                  So the counter position – the one already in action – is seeing tax dollars spent here and (predominately) in Europe spent on bringing more of these people over.

                  If your concern is misuse of taxpayer funds, then the religion of the people being brought would have nothing to do with it.

  9. ported from previous –

    Emerging Olympic Theme =

    MUCH UGH
    SO PATRIARCHY

    The former is a (in my view, legit) bitch about the fact that the Olympics coverage is designed to pander to women… and in so doing, diminishes women’s sports by assuming women don’t actually want to watch the ‘whole event’, but instead see snippets and biographies and lots of commercials.

    NBC doesn’t necessarily have a social responsibility to cover female Olympians as the real athletes they are. But there’s no question the current setup treats them as diminutives, even while celebrating their “stories.” And this may very well turn off traditional sports viewers.

    Even if you buy NBC’s argument that the majority of the viewing public prefers edited, packaged programming over the vagaries of live sports competition, then ask yourself this question: Why aren’t NFL football telecasts tape delayed and packaged?

    The latter is manufactured outrage that NBC cited “the man behind the (medal winning) woman”. inverting the typical “supporting wife” trope. Yawn. Beats zika.

    1. We only watched the opening ceremony. It was beautiful, except that they had to go full on retard with the global warming bullshit. The left cannot leave politics out of anything, they always find a way to slip their retarded and tired old ideology into everything.

      1. Clearly Global Warming should be the priority when there’s a riot in the slums right next to your crony-scumbag-enriching sports-complex.

        Seriously, people should be staring intently at minor fluctuations in the temperature of the planet, and not the shitheel leftists robbing the public blind while you’re looking in that direction.

        1. “Seriously, people should be staring intently at minor fluctuations in the temperature of the planet, and not the shitheel leftists robbing the public blind while you’re looking in that direction.”

          Once again you have nailed it. The global warming canard looks like a scam in every aspect because it is one.

      2. Agreed. Great opening ceremony but the global warming bs was not appreciated. One other thing I found funny, but not unexpected, was the total lack of coverage of the US first gold. They did not show a single shot of that match on any replay. Some would have found it triggering I suppose.

        1. triggering

          I perceive there what has been executed.

        2. My wife was getting upset at the frequency of the commercials. 6 commercials in 30 minutes, or something like that.

      3. I seriously blame the global warming hysteria for the environmental problems in Rio. In the last 30 years all the enthusiasm and energy of the people who care about the environment have been channeled into worrying about global warming. There wasn’t enough energy left to deal with the actual problems of polluted water and air. People in Rio de Janeiro should be concerned with a sewer system not with global warming.

        1. People in Rio de Janeiro should be concerned with a sewer system not with global warming

          Amen.

          But of course, a sewer system requires “getting results”. and people will be able to see when millions of dollars intended for ‘sewer improvement’ never actually does anything about the garbage or the water quality. And they’ll wonder where that money went.

          Whereas, when Brazil signs some bullshit “historic climate agreement” with Obama? and commits millions annually to some “programs” to combat carbon emissions, or whatever? Well, all they have to watch is some bullshit ‘temperature of the earth’. and they won’t know if there’s any effect for decades. SO much more convenient, don’t you think?

        2. They could start by not voting for corrupt commies. Of course, we can’t even get that done in the USA, so not sure why expect it there.

    2. Haven’t watched any of it yet. Has the media picked out the 4 or 5 people that everyone is supposed to talk about all of the time? Either because their just super awesome, or they fought back from adversity, or their the bad boy/girl?

      1. Boy bands? …what are we talking about

      2. America’s sweetheart? Up until some crazy bitch hits her in the knees?

      3. Hope Solo has angered all of Brazil. I like her bad-girlness.

        1. I hope she brought a bodyguard.

  10. If Penn is always so adamant that no one listen to him, why does he ever bother saying anything?

    1. That’s his greatest trick of all – making the $20’s disappear from your wallet, and if you have buyer’s remorse, it’s your own fault, not his.

      1. I only pay for the illusions, not the ideology.

        1. Same thing.

  11. But what if they remove the word “Don’t” and put a picture of Hillary on it?

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..e-offense/

      1. America is Ready For Hillary…

        http://i990.photobucket.com/al…..ff/cc5.jpg

      2. That one’s a little extreme. I have seen one with a dingy jail cell that was more appropriate.

  12. Local restaurant takes heat for signed photo of Trump

    The owners of Schnitzel Haus took down a signed photo of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump that graced the Bay Ridge German joint for nearly a decade, because online reviewers called the eatery racist for appearing to support the divisive White House hopeful

    A customer Godwins the review.

    What would the owner do if people started boycotting because he took it down?

    1. I will channel Robby Soave here =

      The Schnitzel Haus views are wrong in just about every way possible. I would call their support of Trump unkind. Not violent, not anathema to civilization, but certainly unkind. I would question the wisdom of supporting any candidate that makes some people feel uncomfortable or unwelcome.

      In any case, vast numbers of people are currently communicating to the Schnitzel Haus that its policy is morally wrong. People certainly have the right to demonize them. In fact, supporters of Hillary can do anything they want (short of violence) to combat the Schnitzel Haus and put it out of business. Government’s most vital function is to protect the rights of minorities?even unpopular minorities. And Trump offends minorities. Still, that is no reason for the State or City to send health & building-code inspectors and down to harass and threaten the Schnitzel Haus, as they will no doubt do in response to the online-critics.

      1. Clinton makes me feel both uncomfortable and unwelcomed.

        So there is that.

    2. You just know whoever wrote the original review creamed their pants upon seeing the photo on the wall, knowing that they had an opportunity to signal their rectitude by flaming the business with an irrelevant complaint. And the people who reviewed it after probably have never eaten there.

    3. Small trivia detail = I lived in Bay Ridge from the ages of ~4-7 or so. It was when Saturday Night Fever was being filmed there, and i assumed it was a very important place because they made movies about it.

    4. no longer eating there would be my first step. It may be self-defeating but it’s the only way a person who finds this sort of Orwellian thought police resolving can respond. And if I was a regular, I might take the step of letting the owner know why we would be scarce. Good lord, these people are fucking insufferable.

      1. Huh? The owner took the picture down because it might hurt his business. The insufferable people are the reviewers who write stuff like this:

        “But I felt uncomfortable. On the wall there is a picture of Donald Trump.”

        I live a couple blocks from this place – now that Trump has been hidden away I want to check it out.

        1. so are you trying to argue my point or help make it? Yes, the insufferable ARE the people like the one you cite. And like you thinking about going since the pic is down, there could be others who say screw it, I’m not going to go if the owner buckles to this. It’s a ten-year old picture.

          1. I thought you were arguing against the owner for protecting his profits. Maybe I misread.

            there could be others who say screw it, I’m not going to go if the owner buckles to this

            Nah. The anti-Trump folks are more “activist” about this kind of thing, especially around here.

  13. In a complaint which reminds me of NYC & Chicago’s complaints about ‘other state’s gun laws’….

    Cuba Blames America For Its Fleeing Population = “Stop Being So Tolerant of Illegal Immigrants!”

    1. After the Spanish American war there was much debate about whether to annex Cuba as US territory with the aim of eventually making it a state. It was decided no because…Cubans. Personally I think that was a mistake.

  14. Penn, now 61 and a life-long teetotaler, is trying to live as long as he can both because as an atheist he believes there’s nothing after this life

    Thanks a lot, Penn. So much for trying to counteract the old saying “there are no atheists in foxholes”.

    1. What about Red Army Commissars? They were willing to face death, and they were atheists.

      Not helping?

  15. I’m on what’s for me a sure-fire way to lose weight pretty fast: anxiety. It’s not worth it, even though I’m obese. It seriously kills my appetite, which is ordinarily a big one, & has me near nausea.

    I’ve got to move out of this apt., and my only remaining client can’t afford another retainer for now, so even if I find a new place, I’m going to need $ just to move & put down deposit & rent.

    1. Have you tried heroin?

      1. Alcohol works wonders for a while. But I don’t actually suggest that.

    2. Sorry to hear that, the cure sounds worse than the disease. 🙁

      1. That’s why if I ever get stomach modif’n surgery, it’d better be something that doesn’t kill my enjoyment of food?something that makes me feel satisfied, not nauseated.

    3. Sorry to hear that, the cure sounds worse than the disease. 🙁

      1. I’ve also found that as my anxiety goes up my eating goes down and vice versa.

    4. That’s interesting. Most people I know (including myself) are nervous eaters.

      1. Up to a certain point, but when the anxiety is sky high the appetite may be reduced.

        1. I take it as the fight or flight thing… when my anxiety gets very high, I teeter on the brink of a nervous breakdown and I want to either break everything I see or run off into The Blue. Eating is about the last thing I want to do. Otherwise, with just the day to day gnawing angst, I eat way too much and the wrong things. About five years ago, I formulated a fairly consistent booze habit too. Basically, and fatefully, turning into my father. Trying to do better lately, but life is in one of those “not too bad so don’t rock the boat” phases. About due for the inevitable follow up – “I was just minding my own business and everything suddenly turned to shit in about a month” phase. I’m old enough, and been around enough blocks, to FEEL when the next one is coming.

        2. Lorazepam will fix that as long at it’s short term. Then you can just switch to alcohol until the crisis is over. Better living through chemistry.

    5. Up your supplement intake, especially B6 and B12, and see a doctor for hard drugs. Anxiety will fucking kill you, seriously. I’ve been there, drugs are better than anxiety. See a doctor to help you deal with that. Worrying never fixes anything, it will actually cloud your ability to think yourself out of your crisis.

      1. Start smoking weed, not cigarettes.

        1. If I had anxiety, cannabis would make me worse. But still the better choice as opposed to tobacco.

    6. Sorry you’re going through that.

      I’d recommend taking up exercise. I know you said your money is tight, but you can start jogging with a cheap pair of shoes. A $40 pair of New Balance shoes will do just fine; you don’t have to spend $200+. Or better yet, get a pair of Xero huaraches and do it pseudo-barefoot style.

      Exercise will greatly lessen your stress. It won’t make it all go away, but it will at least take your mind off of it for a while. You can also eat more since you’ll be burning tons of calories.

  16. Agreed that the Standard American Diet is unhealthy, but let’s be fair, I don’t think “buttered steaks, movie theater popcorn covered in oil and Milk Duds, Cinnabons chased by sweet drinks, and hunks of cheese slathered with peanut butter” is actually standard for average Americans.

  17. is trying to live as long as he can both because as an atheist he believes there’s nothing after this life

    Of course another two years of tree bark and rain water for a diet, he’ll want to hang himself and end it all. There IS a happy medium between main lining a gallon of melted butter and a pail of raw broccoli as your choices. The FRENCH of all people understand that. Eat well, get off your ass and go for a hike, and keep your decadence small.

  18. another two years of tree bark and rain water for a diet, he’ll want to hang himself

    ah, but his corpse will smell like a freshly-mown lawn.

  19. “Everybody’s makes jokes except me about George W. Bush not being smart. He’s smart. He just is. Obama’s smarter? Probably, sure. Obama’s smarter than Clinton? Probably. Almost certainly. But they’re up here, you know, and if we’re talking about it, you know?You’re wherever you are, but you’re not smarter than Obama, you know. None of us are. Even the smart guys you know aren’t there.”
    ” I don’t think Obama could talk to you for fifteen minutes about any subject without you saying either ‘I didn’t know that,’ or ‘I never thought of that.’ ”
    All right, Jillette’s a good guy but I fear he labors under the mis impression that politicians are smarter, on average, than the rest of us. I’ve had occasion to converse with quite a few elected politicians, mostly local and state level, and a few federal level reps and senators. In every case I’ve been struck by how ordinary and frankly stupid these people are. John Stossel has made this point more than once and he’s spent a fair amount of time in the company of politicians. I am the stereotypical regular Joe of average intelligence. But I doubt that I’d be impressed after 15 minutes with Obama or any of these other clowns. I personally think the evidence argues against any great intellect in Obama’s case.

    1. In terms of economics and foreign policy he’s done what he was told to do by the same idiots that gave GW his marching orders. He shoved Obamacare down our collective throats, legislation that he obviously did not and does not comprehend. He’s a hard core partisan promoting a divisive agenda that I think most libertarians perceive as pretty damn stupid. I see no evidence that he’s a thoughtful person or particularly insightful.
      So he worked with Trump and has decided he’s too stupid to be president. I would agree. But the argument that Obama is smarter just isn’t supported by the evidence.

      1. Penn is just butthurt because Trump disrespected him both times he was on Celebrity Apprentice.

        Trump is very shrewd about entertainment, which was where he worked “with” Penn.

    2. Those politicians you mention actually *are* super-intelligent, they were simply acting stupid to win votes.

      Once they get home, they relax by solving problems in five-dimensional calculus.

      /sarc

    3. ” I don’t think Obama could talk to you for fifteen minutes about any subject without you saying either ‘I didn’t know that,’ or ‘I never thought of that.’ “

      sure, but that would be more a function of hubris than intelligence. Saying “I don’t know” is a far greater sign of intelligence because it signifies a curiosity about things and willingness to learn.

      1. Remember all those articles about how George W. Bush just wasn’t humble enough, and we needed a humble President such as, say, Obama?

        1. and nothing verifies humility quite like saying you’re better at (fill in the blank) than the staff member charged with that job, as Obama did.

    4. Mofo is without a doubt one of the best TelePrompTer readers of all time, but when you really listen to him off the prompter, he usually comes off the rambling idiot that he is. He’ll deliberately take 15 or 20 minutes to answer a fairly simple question, and when he’s done you usually realize he didn’t actually answer the question or say anything meaningful.

      He’s only at his “best” (worst) when he’s viciously attacking and demonizing his enemies and the people he hates. It’s pretty much the only thing he truly excels at.

  20. Fired Muslim workers deserve unemployment benefits from Cargill, Colorado labor department rules
    Payments could cost Colorado’s unemployment fund nearly $1 million

    “The workers filed for unemployment payments after they were fired in December by Cargill Inc., amid a dispute over whether the Muslim employees could take prayer breaks during their shifts. Cargill challenged the claims, but the company withdrew its appeals this summer after losing 20 cases, officials with the state Department of Labor said….

    “The Muslim workers said that their religion requires that they pray five times per day to stay in favor with God.”

    1. It was normal for the woman to wait a few minutes for the supervisor to make sure the line was sufficiently staffed before approving a prayer break for a group of three people. The woman would use her paid 15-minute break to pray, the decision order said.

      “The claimant was satisfied with the prayer arrangement,” the order said.

      However, the woman said she asked for a prayer break on Dec. 15, and her supervisor told her she would be allowed to go the bathroom, but that if she wanted to pray, she had to go home, the decision order said.

      If that’s true, the employer was absolutely engaging in religious discrimination. There is no legitimate business reason for allowing a bathroom break but not a prayer break.

      1. Except that bathroom breaks are usually infrequent and person gets back as quickly as possible. Prayer breaks are every day and not quick at all.

        Frankly, if your religion has lengthy demands, maybe it should be on you to find an appropriate job. Like Seventh Day Adventists taking a job in a 24/7 workplace and complaining about getting Sunday work assignments. No one else wants those either.

        1. According to the testimony, it was going to be a single 15 minute break regardless.

        2. Seventh Day Adventists celebrate Sabbath on Saturday.

          The point stands, it’s just my turn to be a pedant.

          /PEDANTIC

          1. Theological question: can a blind person be a Jehovah’s Witness?

            1. Let us consult the Holy Oracle.

              *shakeshakeshake*

              Signs point to yes.

    2. I have seen that shit before with my own eyes. They are as bad as the worst union members. The prayer breaks are strategically timed to cause as much damage to productivity as possible.

      Cargill was right to fire them. Fuck them.

      1. I mentioned yesterday that I’m in a cubicle between two yentas. One of them suddenly opened up a couple of weeks ago and told the other that a couple of years ago, when she was still nursing her kid, the HR person wouldn’t let her pump her breast milk on her schedule, and therefore she was glad the HR person was no longer with the company.

        I kept my mouth shut, but my thinking was, “Does anybody really need to hear this shit?”

        1. “I’m in a cubicle between two yentas.”

          A believer in reincarnation would suggest that were a serial killer or war criminal in a previous life, and you’re working off the karma.

          1. Mom was a narcissist, had a violent temper, and was probably bipolar. I’ve had enough bad karma in my life.

            I’ve thought about bringing that up when they start talking about their ex-husbands, but it’s easier to keep my mouth shut.

            1. Ouch, sorry to hear that.

      2. Do you need extra insurance in case workplace violence jihad?

      3. The prayer breaks are strategically timed to cause as much damage to productivity as possible.

        I wonder if untreated paranoia affects productivity.

        1. He forgot to mention that they say “Allahu Akbar” during their prayer breaks, which as we all know makes them terrorists.

          1. Yet more handwaving from the latest Tulpa sock. *YAWN*

        2. Right, because when do Muslims ever conspire? It’s unpossible! So Suthenboy’s personal experience must be incorrect. Besides, people of any religion can conspire, and so that proves he’s wrong in yet another way!

    1. A lot more of that shit is going to come out. Of course it makes no difference to her hard-core supporters or to those with TDS.

  21. I will not stand for any badmouthing of buttered steaks.

    1. Thank you, Otter.

    2. Was it grass fed butter? Did the butter have a name?

    3. Food snobs will only accept butter made from the same cow that provided the steak*.

      *I know. I know. I grew up on a farm with 100 head of cattle. I’ve been drinking and it sounded funny.

  22. Atheism is the stained-glass ceiling in U.S. politics

    “…the suggestion that Mr. Sanders might be an atheist was seen as heavy ammunition in the DNC’s attempt to discredit him in favour of Ms. Clinton. The tactic mars the historic prospect of the first female U.S. president even as it highlights the real barrier to the country’s highest office ? more than money, perhaps even open homosexuality (although the latter is the stuff of fine speculation)….

    “…Those who eschew religious belief are, ethically speaking, no better or worse than other people. When it comes to statesmanship, they might conceivably be superior, since the virtues proper to elected office are, in democratic politics anyway, reason and compromise rather than privileged access to a supreme being. The will of the people is the only guiding light you need.

    “Principled state atheism might prove a necessary condition for increasingly diverse democratic countries. It brings no controversial metaphysical commitments, no trappings of debate-proof conviction. It governs without fear or favour.”

    1. Two hours and I haven’t gotten so much as a nibble.

      1. My advice: repost it on several threads tomorrow and Tuesday. People like that.

  23. Obama as high intelligence as believed. We’ve had eight years of exposure to reasonably come to such a conclusion.

    He’s very meh. I’ve not come across a single thing he has said or done that left me impressed or made me rethink a belief or position. In fact, he’s left me often with a ‘what the fuck is he going on about?’ and sounds like your general run of the mill progressive/liberal – especially on business, finance and economics.

    Bah. What do I know? I’m just a little (albeit educated and multilingual) commoner and small business owner (who the progressive left clearly loathe despite their rhetoric regarding small business) who should know who his betters are despite my own private experiences which are substantial enough for me to comfortably stand by my assertion.

    1. Oops. ‘Obama is not as high intelligence’.

    2. But he’s a great orator, or he would be ‘if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if…..’

    3. I’ve never voted for BO but I’ll admit that back in 2008 I was relieved and hopeful when he beat McCain who scared the shit out of me. Silly me, I live in Illinois for crissake. If he had gotten out of the ME as promised, did anything about the federal debt as promised, scaled back the WOD as one might hope considering he’s an admitted user of controlled substances, we might be living in a slightly better country notwithstanding his leftist dogma.
      But instead we got Obamacare, bigger better wars, assassinations, and imperialism, a regulatory state completely out of control, unprecedented debt to GDP ratio and an ever expanding police state. I doubt that he’s spent 15 minutes thinking about the FED and the cost of money. Or the inevitable blowback from murdering innocent people with drone attacks. Or the racial tension he has created. Or the dangerous precedent of expanding presidential power. Or the general assault on the rule of law through federal asset forfeiture, campus speech codes, sex codes etc.,etc., etc. The fact that he regrets and seems puzzled by the fact that Libya blew up in is face gives us some insight into his ability for critical thinking.

      1. Heh…I was just glad BO beat Hillary. McCain I didn’t particularly like, but voted for in the general. So here we have the possibility of Hillary again, scaring me even worse than the 1st time.

        1. I didn’t think Obama was going to be anywhere near that bad, though I still thought McCain would be less bad.

          1. I didn’t fancy him on any level. I expected mediocre or less. And that’s what the United States got.

  24. I’ve been cooking on the grill on my pizza stone, works great for everything, but the heat cracked it. I need a better stone. I guess they make some that are granite, this is popular in South America, and those won’t break. But I can’t find one. Well, I did find one on Amazon but it’s only 7×14″, too small. Guess I could make my own. The pizza stone works great, until it breaks again.

    1. What was your pizza stone made from? I hear good things about soapstone.

      1. I assume it’s ceramic. I saw one of the soapstone stones. I wasn’t sure how that would do, I thought that soapstone is soft because it contains a lot of talc.

    2. It will only break if it is being heated unevenly.

      Try one from Pampered Chef. They call it stoneware but it is actually fritted glass.

      http://www.pamperedchef.com/shop/Ston…..Stone/1371

      1. Thanks, will check it out.

      2. Sounds like you boys know how to cook pizza on a grill. I have a charcoal Weber and when I tried to cook on my stone I found it burnt the underside without ever getting a chance to cook the top (ie cheese, toppings etc.). How do I avoid that? Is it a question of spreading the coal around? Using whole briskets? I don’t think it’s the stone the problem.

        1. Preheat the stone before putting the pizza on. Also, I have a gas Weber Q grill, which I assume is going to be much easier to control the heat and will cook more evenly. This is why I gave up charcoal.

          Right now, I’m looking for a granite cooking stone for my grill, apparently it’s the ultimate grilling experience. If only I could find one to buy on the intertoobz.

          1. Also, I’m cooking everything on the stone, not just pizza. Works great for meat. I just did some steak and shrimp.

        2. Sorry for the late reply, I had to go whip up my sesame chicken.

          Pizza is an oven dish. Cover your grill and get it to 400 and put the pizza in when the coals are burned low and covered with ash. It is a bit of a trick to get it just right

          1. Thanks to both of you.

        3. You’re a self-respecting Italian, and you don’t have a coal-fired brick oven?

          /sarcasm

          1. My parents do!

    3. Maybe Jonathan Richman should make & sell pizza stones.

    4. Try a salt block.

    5. Maybe I’m missing something, but who cares if the pizza stone cracked? You’re not cooking soup. Why not just slide the pieces together and carry on?

  25. If I were meant to eat rabbit food, I’d have been born with floppy ears.

    1. Carrots are good for ya, doc!

  26. The latest on the made-for-Hollywood story of patriotic bikers taking a Civil War veteran’s ashes to his home state for burial.

    Fun fact – the veteran’s remains were originally held at the insane asylum where he died, which is “the hospital made famous in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, a film starring Jack Nicholson and adapted from the novel by Ken Kesey.”

  27. You haters say you don’t like the income tax, but did you know that the first federal income tax bill was signed by…Abraham Lincoln?

    1. Yeah. He also famously dragged Irish immigrants off the street for cannon fodder if they couldn’t buy their way out. Not exactly a libertarian hero. So what was your point?

      1. Weekend trolling. It’s a tradition of mine.

        1. And hanged a man for reading the constitution in public.

          Booth did the country a favor.

          1. To be fair, the Confederates (whom Booth supported) did the same stuff as Lincoln *plus* promoting slavery.

    1. Fuck those whiney cunts. We’re going to play the games we want to play and there’s not a damn thing they can do about it. Billions of dollars says so. They’re just asking for another beat down.

        1. Funny how all the guys in that movie are now beggin ‘the man’ to control every minutia of their existence.

    2. Someone should make a GTA style game wherein you get a chance to run over some BLM protesters in the street.

  28. Trump supporters revive Romney’s “Let’s just pretend we’re winning” strategy from 2012:

    ‘Polling can be skewed’: Four Trump surrogates go on CNN for mass denial of Trump’s lousy polls

    1. 1) No doubt there is some wishful thinking there, but there’s also more reason for it in this case. I have no doubt that Trump is the beneficiary of a Bradley/shy Tory effect, much more than Romney ever was.

      2) Polls tend to discount or ignore voters who did not vote in recent elections, but Trump is getting large amounts of support from people who rarely or never voted before.

      3) There is a large and distinct difference in enthusiasm. Trump rallies are packed, Hillary rallies are small. There’s even a noticeable difference in social media support. True, those aren’t votes, but neither are poll answers.

      4) There is some evidence of poll manipulation. “Never in my life have I ever seen this. They were cooking the numbers. Cooking them,” Caddell exclaimed.

      1. There is some evidence of poll manipulation
        While reading the link( and by the way I’ve always thought Caddell is a pretty straight up guy) I’ve got the network news on with a breathless story about Trump’s campaign being in total disarray with no hope of surviving. Went to the grocery store today and the Enquirer front page is “Trump’s Revenge” with stories about the purported criminality of everyone connected to Hilary. Don’t know who has the most influence here but this is by far the most hilarious election ever. If Trump actually wins, the comedy will reach epic proportions.

        1. Indeed, it is hilarious (when it’s not just depressing).

    2. Trump’s lousy polls

      Its a little ridiculous how people like you (with the encouragement of the media) are prancing around acting like minor changes to a small-polling margin is so especially significant of anything.

      I don’t care what the polls say, fwiw. I actually think Hillary should win. and probably will. But that doesn’t make any of the cheerleading about polls (which have remained within a margin which could pretty much flip at any time) any less stupid.

    3. ‘I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.'” – Pauline Kael

      I think the guy could actually pull this off.

  29. On the subject of weight loss: I had to lose 50 pounds to get into the Army. It took about 6 months. I did it by walking uphill on a treadmill for 5 or 6 hours a day everyday. I ate somewhat more carefully, but my diet did not change too much. I’ve found it’s easier to lose weight by exercising instead of dieting. For other people the opposite is true.

    I have a number of fat relatives and the thing they all have in common is they rarely exercise. Diet is important but so is regular exercise.

    I do not like exercise. It makes me sweaty, tired, and causes an annoying thumping sensation in my chest. But I do it anyway because it has many benefits. My attitude is I don’t have to enjoy it, I just have to do it.

    The best exercise is the kind you do everyday and the best diet is the one where you eat what you want, but in smaller amounts.

    1. Wow, impressive.

    2. “On the subject of weight loss: I had to lose 50 pounds to get into the Army.” Not so in 1968. PT is so good, so good for me, I love PT. Heh.

  30. Funny, I thought Dylan peaked with his first album, which I still have and play.

  31. I’ve lost most of 20lbs in the last two months.

    The depression diet works wonders.

    (my wife left me)

      1. I did deserve it. My drinking was getting out of hand, as was the associated bullshit.

        I just hope that if I can get my head on straight that she’ll take me back.

        We’re still friends. Kind of have to be with a six year old daughter, but not in the way I would like.

        Time will tell.

        1. Get it together.

          /slap.

    1. Sorry to hear that, dude. There’s always OkCupid.

      1. Zoosk 😉

          1. How may times do I have to tell you that while I recognize you as being attractive, I’m just not into that? Seriously. How many times?

              1. Undetermined. Need face and dick pics before I make a call.

    2. That blows. But good job on the weight loss, if that was your goal.

      My gf broke with me in July. Her mom got sick and she moved across the country to be closer to her.

      Easy come, easy go.

      1. We have been married for ten years. Not exactly easy come easy go here.

        1. True, but that’s about 9 years longer than any of my relationships have lasted.

          1. We were friends for two years before that.

      2. The weight needed to go, but it’s not like my goal was to eat a couple mouthfuls of food a day and not feel hungry. Separation will do that.

        1. Your mom really should have taught you to cook for yourself in case this happened.

          1. Actually, she did. She’s a great cook, and on top of that I went to culinary school. Being a great cook is no good if you have no appetite.

        2. Same here. It’s not worth it. I’ll bet the overall effect on health is negative.

    3. The weight you lost should help with the spouse upgrade as well.

      1. Hard to improve on a ten.

        1. Yeah. You really don’t know what you got til it’s gone. Lucky for me my wife gave up on fixin me about 25 years ago. I would not want to be looking for an “upgrade”. Not gonna happen.

    4. Wow sarc, I am sorry to hear that. Really sorry.

    5. well, to be honest, it was your tiny pecker, but the cop stories didn’t help

      1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

        1. No, I’m going to FUCK Tulpa. And lots of others too.

          1. Kicking a man when he’s down is kind of what we do. But kicking a man when he’s down from the cover of a sock handle? It wasn’t even funny.

            Boy, don’t you look like a big pissy-pants nursing a zinger that hit too close to home. Let it go, dude.

            1. Cry more on sarcs behalf, cunt.

              “Oh you’re using a sock handle WAAAAAAAAAH I DISLIKE THAT, ITS NOT CRICKET” said the cunt.

              1. Oh noes he said a bad word. Oh my, waily waily, he said a bad word, y’all.

                So edgy. So cool. We’re all in awe.

                This is the part where you disappear back into the insignificance from whence you came and everyone forgets you in two days.

    6. Depression, anxiety, sickness…they all work. Really sorry to hear about you, & now ISTR your having mentioned it in another comment thread, just casually.

      1. I wish. Only gained weight.

    7. I don’t even need to tell you about bone broth and the drinking, because you’re chef-trained and smart, so you already know. I’m sorry this is happening. I hope things turn the corner soon, and that you see progress in the effort you are surely putting forth to correct this productively.

      You’re a good guy, Sarc. You can do this.

  32. OT: Another American, Jordan McTaggart, killed while fighting against ISIS. He was one of the many foreign volunteers fighting with the Kurdish YPG militia.

    http://www.boulderweekly.com/news/born-dead/

    1. Apart from the river and the basketballer, I can’t think of anyone who does more honor to the name Jordan.

      1. No love for #1 golfer in the world, who unlike the river, is a proud American.

        1. I knew I’d miss someone.

  33. I hope Reason reviews The Intimidation Game:

    “For nearly 40 years, Washington and much of the American public have held up disclosure and campaign finance laws as ideals, and the path to cleaner and freer elections. This book will show, through first-hand accounts, how both have been hijacked by the Left as weapons against free speech and free association, becoming the most powerful tools of those intent on silencing their political opposition.”

    1. Nothing anyone who listens to talk radio doesn’t already know.

      1. Also part of Reason’s beat. I would be surprised if they *didn’t* review this.

        1. Don’t turn into John when they don’t.

          1. There’s only one John here, you fucking half wit. What happened to you, sarcasmic? You used to be one of the smarter commentators here but now you just yell Red Tony all the time.

            Oh shit, now I’m doing it.

            1. That was perfect. I’ve been snickering for five minutes straight. Good job.

            2. [polite applause]

              He does have a certain style. Still, he’s given us a lot of gems over the years, including:

              pot, Mexicans, and ass sex

              there’s no sugarcoating it, [extreme understatement]

              1. What I did above could be called affectionate parody. I actually like John. True, no one here illustrates the phrase “Forget it, he’s rolling” quite like him, but he definitely adds to the atmosphere.

                You’ll note that I didn’t attempt a John-o; I find those inimitable. I could misspell a random word or two, but that’s not a proper John-o.

          2. “Don’t turn into John when they don’t.”

            That would be unwise, there is only room for one, like with the Highlander.

        1. Hell, I’d take a Vorta at this point.

    1. I’m a little uncomfortable with the unnamed sources but Davywavy is a solid journalist so undoubtedly the story will be on CNN tomorrow.

      1. True fact: Davywavy was David Weigel’s handle on AOL Instant Messenger.

  34. Great job by the NFL Hall of Fame.

  35. Today I learned about carnivorous horses:

    http://www.lrgaf.org/deadly_equines.htm

    The Man Eater of Lucknow.
    According to accounts of the time, King George IV presented an English thoroughbred stallion to the Maharajah of Oudh. After arriving in India, for unknown reasons the horse became a notorious killer. Known as the “Man Eater of Lucknow,” it went on a rampage, slaying and eating the local citizens. Once it was recaptured, the Maharaja ordered the ferocious stallion to fight a wild tiger. Though contemporary mythology states that horses are hapless prey animals who flee from predators, the English horse defeated the tiger, leaving it so terror-stricken, “his tail was between his legs and he ran round not unlike a whipped spaniel.”

    1. …so then Catherine the Great “tamed” the horse.

      /urban legend that won’t die

  36. Played Cards Against Humanity for the first time last night. It’s basically madlibs. My favorite filler phrases were “cutting off a flamingo’s legs with garden shears” and “a pinata full of scorpions”. One of my winning hands was “with enough time and effort, a one way trip to Gary Indiana will turn into a face full of horse cum.”

    I strongly suspect Agile Cyborg was involved in the creation of this game.

    1. I just looked that up. O! M! Fucking! G! That’s hilarious!

    2. I love that game, although I’ve only played a few times. It finally forced people to accept my off color humor in a way that Apples to Apples did not allow.

      I also played the similarly structured “All Good Christians” (with my wife (a seminary grad) and fellow church members).

      “What do good Christians wait until marriage for?”
      “King Solomon needed so many women because he was over-compensating for _____.”
      “Loving your neighbor as yourself includes _____.”
      “When good Christians don’t understand something in the Old Testament, they simply add Jesus and _____.”
      “What is known to make the baby Jesus cry?”

      Noah’s awkward sexual encounter with his son ( Genesis 9:22)
      David carrying a warm sack of 200 foreskins (1 Sam 18:26-28)
      A pair of she bears mauling a group of kindergarteners (2 Kings 2:23-25)
      The voice of God knocking you off your ass, on your ass (Acts 9)
      A slightly stoned Paul (Acts 14:19)
      Making stupid life choices and blaming them on Php 4:13 (Php 4:13)

  37. How many people will sign a petition that says “I am a moron” because they didn’t read the petition?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIvea_QWF4g

    For those in need of a face-palm aid, try video on the petition for hyperinflation:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJtS9CuyuaU

    1. Je suis un cr?tin!
      (raises fist in solidarity)

  38. I stand with Raven Symone and Sara Haines.

    1. To clarify, apparently they were very complementary to presidential candidate Gary Johnson on The View.

      As goes Raven, so goes Crusty and America.

      1. Down your jeans with a can of beans, wiseguy.

        1. How else would i be expected to be familiar with these people? we’re not all worldly and cultured like you.

    1. I confess to a mild pleasure seeing the greens / sanders fans getting into eye-clawing fights with shrieking Hillary supporters who see everything around them as part of the vast-right-wing conspiracy to deny her the throne.

    2. I’m just waiting for Hillary to tell everyone on the left that they are either with her or against her.

    1. But it’s the Libertarian Party that gets passed off as the whack jobs.

      1. Pfft, you guys never shut up about an allpowerful and benevolent invisible hand, and yet she’s the whackjob!

        /sarc

      2. Don’t want to pile on, but have we already forgotten the Libertarian candidate?

        1. There is no Libertarian candidate.

    2. That seems about right

    3. People who put videos on youtube clamoring for peace, justice, tolerance, and an end to two-party duopoly suck.

  39. Thinking this lady never read Bastiat.

    1. Yeah, if you mean that she probably assumes that “wanting government to provide thing X” = “wanting thing X to be provided”

      1. Yes. Not trying to start an abortion fight. It’s just amazing how perfectly Bastiat addressed this already.

        1. This being a Muslim terrorism vs denial thread wasn’t enough for you, huh? You had to add abortion to, huh? Your sick, sick I tell you.

          1. Too late to pull out now.

            1. Ha ha.

              I’ll just say that apart from perhaps tony there would be few here to defend the proggy “prolife” perspective, which as far as I can tell consists of saying that prolife people are, like, total hypocrites unless they’re in favor of a big-ass welfare state, against capital punishment, and (if it’s a Republican administration), “against war.”

              1. There are some actual prolife progs who think like this, and other progs who are simply concern-trolling or scoring points.

            2. Nice

          2. Wow, that was a lot of typos

  40. “The AC power adapter type could not be determined.” Fucking what? It still shows as plugged in and charging..so what the hell you stupid device?

    1. “Why does it say ‘paper jam’ when there clearly is no paper jam?”

  41. This spinning windmill on fire is beautiful, says Jason Kottke.

    All it says to me is: our renewable energy future is a disaster, let us find our smug aesthetic consolations in its failure. We meant well.

    1. Can’t watch video (OS problem, long story), but I’m sure my firework wheels are better. I make a pretty good reversing saxon w Fe & TI sparks.

  42. http://www.washingtonexaminer……le/2598807

    This seems like a big fucking deal.

    1. It wont even get 1/50th the coverage that the Melania/Michelle Obama speech-biting ‘nontroversy’ received.

      It wont even be mentioned outside of the ‘right wing’ media. The fact that the Examiner is reporting it as “Cotton says:” and not as an independently verified story with citations of the emails, etc. means they don’t think it will even get picked up by anyone else.

      1. I can’t imagine Cotton made it up. So it’s true. It will take a while but it will get coverage

      2. Reason of course won’t touch it.

    2. We’re still the “Great Satan”?! LOL. That takes me back.

    1. Oh, good, one of the cute ones.

      More like this, please, and less brain-eating.

  43. So the German guy who yelled at the Munich shooter is being charged with a hate crime for insulting the shooter. Apparently in Germany it is illegal to insult people(?) even if they are in mid-rampage.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/…..rosecution

    1. The shooter considered himself Aryan *despite* being from Iran? Ha!

      At least the article walks it back a bit in the following paragraph.

      1. “Aryan” (/???ri?n, ???rj?n, ??r-/)[1] is a term meaning “noble” which was used as a self-designation by Indo-Iranian people. The word was used by the Indic people of the Vedic period in India as an ethnic label for themselves, as well as to refer to the noble class and geographic location known as ?ry?varta where Indo-Aryan culture was based.[2][3] The closely related Iranian people also used the term as an ethnic label for themselves in the Avesta scriptures, and the word forms the etymological source of the country Iran.

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

        1. Oops. Should have hit refresh.

      2. Do you think it’s a just coincidence that Iran sounds a lot like Aryan?

        Old Iranian *arya-, meaning “‘Aryan,’ i.e., ‘of the Iranians.’

    2. But Mr Weinzierl, suggested they could include “insults to the detriment of the dead.”

      The shooter was named Frees Peech?

    3. I don’t know if I can trust anything in the same paper that writes the following stupidity:

      But policies which have benefited German industry and exports have caused economic oblivion in many parts of southern Europe, and now the rest of the continent seems to have had enough.

      “How dare they demand we live within our means like they do!”

  44. Trump Derangement Syndrome: woman repeatedly defaces pro-Trump signs and attempts to run over man who put them up

    http://boston.cbslocal.com/201…..an-bryant/

    1. “Violence erupts near Trump supporter”

      1. “Trump supporter, protester clash”

        1. “The latest in a series of violent incidents plaguing the Trump campaign”

          1. “Dispute over Donald Trump leads to violence against Latino man”

    2. That house is a couple miles from me. I am surprised she didn’t hit the guy who even lives closer with a sign that is in a more conspicuous place.

  45. There may be some mixed messages here

    “The danger of Donald Trump isn’t that he’s an actual, real-life fascist, no matter what the Washington Post (or your Facebook feed) says. Trump is not Hitler, and he will not drive the country toward literal fascism. But that’s not to say Donald Trump isn’t dangerous for America ? and, to be honest, for everyone else. The danger of Trump is that he’s figured out what demagogues have long known: Fascist rhetoric works.”

    1. The Atlantic hyperventilates about Voldemort:

      http://www.theatlantic.com/mag…..mp/480771/

      “O.K., I guess I’m asking, do you consider yourself ideal company?”

      “You really want to know what I consider ideal company?,” Trump replied. “A total piece of ass.”

      I might have phrased Singer’s question this way: Who are you, Mr. Trump, when you are alone? Singer never got an answer, leaving him to conclude that the real-estate mogul who would become a reality-TV star and, after that, a leading candidate for president of the United States had managed to achieve something remarkable: “an existence unmolested by the rumbling of a soul.”

      1. I love those TDS pieces.

        Meanwhile back at the ranch… http://www.washingtonexaminer……le/2598807

        How many others has she gotten killed? four in Benghazi, this one in Iran, and how many others we have yet to hear about? Her CYA sure is expensive in lives.

        The woman is a pathological liar, a criminal, and has blood on her hands. How is Donald Trump in any way comparable to her?

        1. This Iranian scientist, before he was hanged he was no doubt tortured. How many did he give up after crying Uncle?

          The woman should be in front of a firing squad and we spend our time taking about Trump’s irreverence for the political process.

    2. Someone should tell Ser Coaston that if you talk like a fascist, propose fascist policies, then you are a fascist no matter how much you deny it.

      1. I haven’t read about Trumps proposals for govt control of private industry. Please cite.

        That’s what fascism is.

  46. OT:

    Apologies if someone has already posted this, I haven’t read all the posts here and I wanted to post this because it may still be available on yahoo.com. I just went there, to yahoo.com and I saw a headline that says: “Trump: You people really believed me?”. I clicked on the story and captured a screen shot of what came up. You can see that screen shot at http://www.spencersoft.com/spe…..psOut.jpg.

    The “Read More” link led to a page not found page.

    The newspaper is the Charlotte Observer, not the Onion. So, what the hell is this?

    1. And here’s Yahoo’s front page showing the headline: http://www.charlotteobserver.c…..4247.html.

      The Read More link goes to: http://www.charlotteobserver.c…..4247.html.

    2. And here’s the story:

      http://www.miamiherald.com/opi…..64247.html

    3. Every single one of those links is dead except the last one – and that goes to a story headlined ‘what Donald Trump might say if he dropped out’.

      That’s it. Its just some dude at the CO ‘speculating’ about what Trump might say.

      1. Dammit! I screwed up some of the links.

        Here’s the first: http://www.spencersoft.com/Trump/TrumpDropsOut.JPG
        The second: http://www.spencersoft.com/Tru…..sOutII.JPG

        The third link was the link from the Read More link in the story on Yahoo. As noted, that was a dead link when I posted this.

        As you said, the fourth link works. Note that while that page’s headline is clearly speculation, you can’t tell that from the article, nor from the title in the first two links above. Those links present the story as if it were true.

        Now, they should follow up with a story on what Hillary might say if she gets arrested.

  47. I made it through most of the interview. Good stuff. Here’s my first question…

    With the arguable exception of Rand Paul, name me a candidate amongst the 16 or 17 who started off in the debates who is better than Donald Trump? Second question: Name me a single Republican who libertarians should vote for.

    1. 1) Yo momma.

      2) Yo grandma.

    2. As a candidate, Trump is quite good because he actually battles the leftists while all the rest are milquetoasts. As a President he could be worse. We don’t know. It would be instructive to study how he ran his companies. We know he promoted many women and strove for efficiency over optics, and that he knew when to abandon a losing venture (bankruptcies). This sharply contrasts with Hitlery or any Dem or most of the Heffalumps who pursue PC BS and perpetual war.

  48. my best friend’s mom makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been without work for five months but last month her payment was $19746 just working on the computer for a few hours. find more information …
    ?????????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.