Gary Johnson

Libertarian Gary Johnson Releases List of Potential Supreme Court Nominees

|

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson today released a list of six prospective Supreme Court nominees.

They are:

Johnson/Weld campaign

• Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski;

• Libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution;

• D.C. Circuit Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown;

• Former Republican Congressman from California Tom Campbell, currently Dean of Chapman University School of Law;

• Miguel Estrada, a lawyer with the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher;

• Law professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School.

Johnson had previously been talking up Turley and Campbell. He also spoke against specific issue litmus tests for Supreme Court picks, as Damon Root reported.

Some past Reason links on some of these choices:

• Interviews with Judge Kozinski from 2013 by Matt Welch and from 2006 by Shikha Dalmia.

Interview with Randy Barnett by Damon Root from June 2016, and with Nick Gillespie from August.

• Damon Root praised Judge Brown in 2015. More praise for Brown's decisions from Root from May 2016.

• ReasonTV interview with Tom Campbell from 2009. Campbell wrote for Reason in 2008 in opposition to the state's Proposition 8, banning gay marriage.

A May 2009 Reason feature speculating on replacements for Justice Souter had votes from our distinguished panel of judge-pickers for Barnett (3), Kozinski (2), Brown (2), and Estrada (1).

NEXT: Trump Wants Special Session of Congress to Repeal Obamacare, Hillary Strikes Back, Male Birth Control: P.M. Links

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. I want Judge Andrew Napolitano on the SC.

    1) He’s a principled law-as-written libertarian.

    2) It’d be fun to see every SC written opinion in the form of questions.

    1. 3) Proggies would have an aneurysm and die clutching their pearls when a Fox News analyst gets seated.

      1. OK so we have 3 Pros, any Cons?

        1. He wouldn’t have as much time for TV appearances, and I really enjoy those.

          -jcr

          1. Also, he’d probably get murdered like Scalia was, and that would be a tragic loss to our country.

            -jcr

            1. Start working from home! Great job for students…Making more income $97 a hour from computer at home. My sisters friend has been earning 20k for a months and she works about 15 hour a working week. I make 12k last month, it is in real easy and meaningful , here you can checking..
              Go this web site… http://www.Trends88.Com

            2. Start working from home! Great job for students…Making more income $97 a hour from computer at home. My sisters friend has been earning 20k for a months and she works about 15 hour a working week. I make 12k last month, it is in real easy and meaningful , here you can checking..
              Go this web site… http://www.Trends88.Com

              1. How much to have you fisted while wearing a giant onion gag ball, after being smeared in your own bodily fluids (all of them)?

    2. Judge Nap should be Attorney General.

    3. I feel like Judge Reinhold has been too long overlooked

      1. Where does he stand on the 1st, 2nd and 16th amendments?

      2. Doesn’t anyone fucking knock anymore?

        1. I always hope that they don’t, sometimes leaving the door ajar…….

  2. …and from 2006 by Shikha Dalmia.

    Dalmia is happy with whoever Clinton appoints. Not even just happy, ecstatic. Tears will be running down her face during the coronation.

    1. Other bodily fluids secreted as the nominee checks off her flavor of SJW checkboxes as well.

      Clinton appointing a brown South Asian immigrant or ME refugee to SCOTUS and Dalmia will probably need a main line of saline.

  3. It’s been a while since I had civics class but I don’t think a 3rd party candidate garnering less than 1% of the vote gets to nominate any Supreme Court Justices.

    1. I’ll refresh your memory, the popular vote doesn’t decide who gets to make those decisions. Also the election has not been held yet.

      1. A 3rd party candidate garnering 0% of the electoral college sounds even worse.

        1. If there ever were a year for the faithless to march off the reservation, this seems to be it.

          I don’t think it’s going to happen. Those little dogies are branded and sufficiently afraid of the whip and prod by now.

          1. Nobody in their right mind would cast a faithless electoral vote for GayJay. I could see some Mormon go for McMuffin, maybe

            1. Says a guy who thinks Trump is worth voting for.
              Fail.

              1. I agree with SIV. Who gives a shit who Gary Johnson would appoint if we lived in a magical fantasy land where he was polling in double digits? He should have been talking about this stuff a month or two ago…instead of fucking up simple foreign policy questions. Now he just looks like some delusional loon who thinks he’s Napoleon talking about his grand designs to take over Moscow.

            2. And only because McMuffins are very tasty.

            3. Donald isn’t fit for office period and Hillary’s flawed on several levels but let’s talk foreign policy. Our attention following 9/11 should have been where Osama bin Laden was. Our 1990 Gulf war involvement by the Bush administration, beginning with George H. H. was for oil. George W. chose to move us into Iraq trying to justify it as a 9/11 retaliation when actually, it was to pick up his father’s Kuwait battles. Hillary hasn’t the common sense to realize that the infighting between Tribes in the Middle East has gone on since the 7th century, that’s 1,300 years and we’re in now for 26 and counting! She has no regard for life, whether it’s our military men and women’s lives or innocent civilian’s lives. Seems to me that Hillary’s foreign policy is one huge gaffe!

              Gary Johnson may not have names on the tip of his tongue but understands what the cost of unnecessary and ineffective military interventions is. He understands the real cost of unnecessary military operations that have nothing to do with our defense. Johnson/Weld support military supremacy but with a foreign policy based on defense. Johnson/Weld are the only candidates with experience who can work across party lines with the gridlock in Washington, having both been re-elected Republican governors in Democratic majority states. They’re hands down the best qualified. I’m voting for honesty and integrity and that’s Johnson/Weld.

    2. What about a 3rd party candidate with Smith & Wesson standing by his side?

      1. We’ve got a 1,000 person committee looking into that.

      2. Only if he gets an endorsement from Ruger.

    3. A 2nd party candidate with 49% of the vote doesn’t either.

    4. Unbunch those panties dude.

    5. So your Ouija board gazed into the future and showed that the predicted 5 percent dropped to 1 percent, I take it.

      God, your shtick is so old at this point. One reason I can’t wait for this abortion of an election to be over is that your endless Trumpeting will disappear. I almost think a paid Trump or Clinton campaign staffer commenting here would be less of a one trick pony than you are.

      1. It’s. I have more about making goddamn sure Hildebeast doesn’t not receive The Prize. It would be worse than if The Kurgen got it.

  4. Pretty sure all those picks are considered ‘too old’ by today’s standards. Presidents are now supposed to nominate people in their 40’s so they can hopefully get 40+ years to push their agenda upon the nation.

    They are good from the perspective of more freedom & individual liberty though.

    1. Estrada and Turley are both 55, which is the same age Sotomayor was when she was appointed.

      Merrick Garland is 63.

      1. I should do a little research before jumping the gun.

  5. And the winner is Judge Janice Rogers Brown.

    She is a black woman and a strict constructionist who (correctly) believes that FDR’s “New Deal” legislation was unconstitutional.

    Since the left regards the “New Deal” as more sacred than the Ten Commandments are regarded as such by Christians they would blow a gasket at her nomination and spin themselves at 8,000 rpm’s trying to rationalize their “diversity” hypocrisy at opposing the nomination of a black woman to the Supreme Court.

    1. I think she’d be my top choice too.

      How friggin great would it be if the constitution was recognized as severely limiting economic regulation by state and federal government?

      1. The Oprah Winfrey of striking down unconstitutional laws.

        You get struck, and you get struck, everybody gets struck!

        Would she gut Wickard v. Filburn and the abomination of a root password to the Constitution that shitty decision gave our overlords/betters? While we’re dreaming, we should dream big!

    2. She’d be great. Progs would probably think her more of a traitor than Clarence Thomas.

      1. Especially since she comes from the Thomas Sowell school of thought, i.e. “I was a hardcore Marxist in my youth but then I actually grew up and thought”.

    3. The diversity cultists have trashed Clarence Thomas from the day he was nominated. Rogers-Brown would get the same treatment.

    4. Hell yes, put a bloody Randian on the Supreme Court, that’s perfect.

    5. I’ll be in my bunk

    6. They had no problem going after Clarence Thomas so producing a “witness” to Janice Rogers Brown working as a prostitute would present no problem either.

    7. Strict constructionists are not really black. Don’t you k ow how that game works yet?

  6. Now those fucking Rooskies have gone too far!

    MNsure off to rough start, Dayton says robocallers tied up lines

    This is the same site that has experienced horrible, horrible glitches every year when enrollment starts up. But yeah, this time it was robocallers that were behind it. And since Gov Mumbles is a Democrat, it is only a matter of time before Russian hackers are blamed.

    I’m also amused that so many people stormed the site early. Why? Because the insurance companies were going to exit the Minnesota exchange because they were losing too much. So the insurance commissioner allowed them to add huge increases and cap the number of people they have to accept. So the people in MNSure know that they better get in early or they won’t be able to get any insurance and then will be penalized for not having insurance.

    1. MNsure in emergency situation

      Commerce Department figures show that HealthPartners will cap its overall statewide enrollments at 72,000 for 2017. Medica will limit itself to 50,000 individual enrollees, while UCare will accept 30,000 individual enrollees statewide. Blue Plus will not institute an individual enrollment cap.

      Currently, about 5 percent of Minnesotans?approximately 250,000 people?get their coverage from individual policies, according to the Commerce Department. Still, Corson said, the market has been shrinking. In 2015, the number was closer to 300,000 individual enrollees, he said.

      So the good news is that this market will really shrink from 300K enrollees.

      1. were the robocalls from the IRS or was it windows technical support?

    2. OT: Pope Jimbo, is Jason Lewis in your district? He’s libertarianish I think. Does he have a chance?

      1. No, his from the southern burbs and farmland. Tundra and I get the pleasure of not voting for either Erik Paulsen or Terri Bonnoff.

        I think Lewis has a very good chance of winning. The retiring incumbent was a GOP-er. With MNsure becoming a huge issue it hurts his opponent Angie Craig. She worked for medical companies and Lewis is painting her as part of the MNsure debacle.

        Polls look to be evenly matched.

        I’m hoping this candidate wins the race. Or even better siphons off enough DFL voters to throw the race to Lewis.

        1. Betty’s office signed on against the kratom ban after I contacted them, so I’ll toss a little dirt on the landslide out of principle.

      2. I live in the 4th, but work in the 2nd. I think Jason will be competitive and will ride on John Kline’s reputation, who was well liked. But then I also thought Kurt Bills would win.

        1. Kurt Bills was my high school wrestling coach.

          1. Did he punch your brown eye?

  7. I know a lot of libertarians seem to like Janice Rogers Brown, but reading her bio, I disagree with her on both the Second Amendment and whether the executive can defy a writ or habeas corpus.

    That’s kind of important stuff.

    1. “The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld an injunction that forbade the U.S. military to transfer Omar, a suspected insurgent, out of U.S. custody while his habeas corpus suit was pending. Brown’s dissent took the view that the majority was trespassing on the Executive Branch’s authority”

      Huh?!

    2. I thought her position was that domestic law was not superseded by international law and that the AUMF did not reference the Geneva Convention, so it did not apply to any detentions.

      I’m certainly not an expert in this area, so someone please expound on this.

    3. Where has she expressed anything but support for the 2A? Her opinion in Kasler v. Lockyer is based upon the procedural claims (equal protection, separation of powers, due process) brought by the plaintiffs. She makes it pretty clear that the right to self-defense is fundamental in her concurrence.

      1. I’m glad to know that.

        Again, I’m not making an argument here. I’m asking questions.

        Here’s what the Wiki says about that:

        “In 2000, she authored the opinion in Kasler v. Lockyer, upholding the right of the State of California to ban semi-automatic firearms, and of the Attorney General of California to add to the list of prohibited weapons. Her opinion in that case clearly explained that the decision was not an endorsement of the policy, but rather recognition of the power of the state.”

        http://tinyurl.com/gw2c5h7

        I wonder.

        I wah wah wah wah wonder. Are people basing this on her disapproval of abortion and affirmative action?

        She seems like she might be an excellent candidate–if the alternative was a gas spewing progressive.

        1. The problem is that Rogers is (mostly?) an honest judge. Her personal views are libertarian, but it seems that, unlike most judges, she tries to keep them from affecting her professional judgments. So this case was ruled against pro-2A groups even though she’s herself pro-2A because established precedent didn’t support their specific claims. That’s a problem not of one summary judgment but of the many precedential judgments that preceded it.

          1. It’s also a problem with the arguments those groups presented, although to their credit, those are the only avenues they really had to pursue, the rest having largely been removed from them by the courts previously.

            1. I appreciate all of that information.

              But from a lay person’s perspective, she’s upholding the state’s right to ban semi-automatic firearms.

              Oh my God, they’re semi-automatic. OMG! OMG! OMG!

              Related to that answer, one of my other gripes as a lay person is that the courts always seem so reluctant to revisit or correct the bad decisions of the past. There are a lot of bad decisions that have festered over the years and the mistakes keep compounding themselves because no one wants to revisit the bad ruling.

              What I keep hoping for is a court that will call a spade a spade even if it upsets the apple cart.

              1. I have been shouting that from the mountain tops for nearly a decade on this quasi- liberty friendly oasis in the intertubez desert.

                Justice Scalia had noting but contempt for the effort to overrule the Slaughterhouse cases. Do not doubt that there are anarchists, like Tom Woods, who would have absolutely eviscerated Scalia on the ambit of the privileges and immunities clause.

                As he would have on secession.

  8. Not many news outlets are covering FBI dump of 2005 closed investigation of Bill Clinton pardoning Marc Rich. Normal pardon application was not used and the Clinton Foundation received money from this guy, hence the quid pro quo investigation.

    Super heavily redacted documents.

    Tends to show that quite a few FBI agents are pissed off at the Clinton corruption and the get-out-of-jail-card.

    1. Guess who was investigating the Clinton pardons back then: James Comey!

      1. Got a small-headline, off to the side treatment at SFGate (free SF Chron e version); still got a lot of comments/clicks.
        Defense is lame: ‘Why aren’t they releasing Trumps records?!’
        Uh, ’cause he wasn’t investigated by the FBI?

        1. Correct, as Trump, who is something of an asshole, is not actually a crime lord of epic proportions. Like the Clinton Crime Family.

  9. I really like Kozinski.

    Maybe Bill Weld could put a bug in Clinton’s ear from whatever cushy low-level cabinet position he’s going to get for shilling for her during this campaign.

    1. GODDAMMIT! *tears up betting slip*

      1. The van with “free skis and beer!” Looked too good to be true. So close

  10. Bernie Sanders awoke in a dank room lit by a naked bulb. An old TV in the corner flickered to life. A ghastly puppet spoke to him.

    Hello Bernie. You don’t know me, but I know you. I want to play a game.. Here’s what happens if you lose. The stereo locked to your ears will begin playing the following on an endless loop.”

    A ghastly cacophony shook Sanders brain.

    “Aw, god that’s awful,” cried Sanders.

    The puppet continued.

    “To escape, you must eat find the key hidden inside one of the 17 deodorants in your room before the timer runs out. Look around Bernie. Know that I’m not lying. You better hurry up. Live or die, make your choice.”

    1. It’s like a SugarFree post, without the in-your-endo, and shorter.

    2. I get it, Bernie doesn’t have deodorant in his room. Or his house.

      What do I win?

      1. He’s forced to go stand in the deodorant line at the store as rations are given out. The bread and shoes are already gone, as per usual in a socialist state, and he has to bargain with each of his comrades for every potentially life-saving stick. Then, as he lays dying, he loudly proclaims that the capitalist pigs were behind it all, manipulating the system into failure.

  11. Johnny Aleppo

    1. Is that the TV show from the late 50’s where a young John Cassavetes portrays a jazz musician/private eye, co-starring his wife, Gena Rowlands?

  12. He could name Roosevelt, Grover and Harry but would it matter?

  13. Daily Derp Dump

    Texas university bans cowboy costumes:
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion…..tumes.html

    Trump remains popular among Iraqis, Kurds:
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2…..raqis.html

    1. “have been advised not to wear”

      Or what? Man I wish we would start seeing some organized push back on this shit. 50K students and you can’t find 1000 to wear cowboy hats to class?

        1. At UT. In Austin

          Not Texas.

          This would have been laughed off campus at A&M.

      1. If I were a student at the aforementioned university, I would ‘advise’ the school to back the fuck up.

    2. It does show that derp is a universal human value, which crosses space, culture and religion.

      Another very highly-placed leader in Iraq’s security and intelligence arena, who requested anonymity, stressed that the U.S. troop pullout in 2011 was a mistake, and said Iraqis are looking to the next administration to once again develop a strong military relationship.

      Well who kicked them out? Oh right, Iraqi government, and I don’t remember huge pushback on the decision. Because government thought without the US it could start throwing its weight around, and then got cockpunched by ISIS>

      “The Iraq invasion was not wrong, but the decisions that followed were wrong,” said the official. “Keeping the army intact and getting rid of the Saddam loyalist bad apples, while keeping our security institutions in place would have been better.”

      Sweetie, who the fuck was “security institutions” if not Saddam loyalists? Literally entire structure was built to keep Saddam in power, no matter the cost in lives. If you were so fucking worried, you had a whole lot more guns than Saddam and his boys did, coulda got rid of him at any time and keep your entire precious structure.

      1. “Another very highly-placed leader in Iraq’s security and intelligence arena, who requested anonymity, stressed that the U.S. troop pullout in 2011 was a mistake, and said Iraqis are looking to the next administration to once again develop a strong military relationship.”

        Cindy Sheehan does not approve this message, unless the next administration is D.

        1. Didn’t the democrats have her committed? Once Obama was elected, she outlived any use they had for her. And she could become inconvenient to future democrat warmongering.

    3. “No Indian costumes.”

      Question: Suppose you dress up as a native American, but you are white. However, your costume is actually one of the Boston Tea Party members. That seems a legitimate enough claim, since you’re actually not “appropriating” anyone’s culture. You’d be dressing as a white person who dressed as a native American.

      Would that ignite the tinderbox on a campus and we’d see some people actually defend it, given that it was one of the famous pivotal moments in our country’s history? Would heads explode?

      1. You want to costume yourself as one of those evil slave holders? Why not KKK robe while you’re at it?!

        Of course it’s ban. Can’t have costumes that promote racism.

        1. These were Massachusetts whites. How many of them owned slaves?

          1. White is white, man. Even the Japanese aboriginals are guilty by association.

              1. Can’t you link to the actual image rather than using a link shortener? (Then again, considering how you screwed the link up the first time, maybe not. :-p )

                1. Just passing what my phone gave me, man. URL links from phone not always easy.

          2. There were 4500 slaves in Massachusetts in 1754

            Slavery wasn’t abolished in the Bay State until passage of the 13th Amendment.

            1. Slavery wasn’t abolished in the Bay State until passage of the 13th Amendment.

              But it was effectively ended by Walker vs. Jennison decided in the 1780s I think.

          3. It would have been tempting to keep a few sex slaves. If they looked like a young Vanessa Williams.

      2. These days, I wouldn’t expect many college students to know what the Boston Tea Party was. Most would probably think it’s the opening act for Florence and the Machine.

        1. Some may remember it from Assassins’ Creed 3, but it was not a well received game.

      3. However, your costume is actually one of the Boston Tea Party members.

        Just dress as an Indian and then go back and forth down the list switching sides and honoring and mocking disparate groups until your particular SJW gets bored and leaves or end up with the shotgun in their mouth and shouts ‘Duck Season!’

  14. This is an extremely strong list. Especially the first three (the latter could also be fantastic. I just don’t recognize them). Not citing these examples earlier, rather deferring to Weld or citing Breyer or Garland as SCOTUS models was a big mistake.

    1. Yeah, disappointed not to see his name here.

    2. Willet is on Trump’s short list.

  15. I notice that I’m not on the list. Probably because GJ is not ready for my crowd-sourced approach to deciding cases.

    For every issue before the court I start two Kickstarter campaigns, one for each side of the issue. Whichever one generates the most money is the one I vote for. Of course I keep the cash.

    1. That’s really unethical. You should refund the losers.

      1. Okay 10% back to the losers.

        1. And a Bennigans coupon.

  16. Libertarian Gary Johnson Releases List of Potential Supreme Court Nominees

    The world holds its breath.

    1. For how long?

      1. Long enough to shut its eyes, hold the bridge of its nose, and expel the breath sharply.

        1. Sounds long enough for Jamie Collins to deviate from Matt Patricia’s defensive scheme and get his ass traded to the Browns.

  17. If you’re pretending to be disabled to get worker’s comp, you probably shouldn’t compete on The Price is Right:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzub2SCf3qA

    1. Krugman was right about the multiplier effect. A bloated bureaucracy mixed with dimwits, and poof!, watch them multiply.

  18. Did Johnson name some good picks? Are they libertarian enough for the Commentariat? Did he forget anyone? Is Judge Napolitano a judge? Is he chopped liver? Why isn’t Napolitano on the list?

    1. What if DenverJ is Napolitano?

      1. It would be doubly terrafantasplendelicous – why?

        (1) The Mile High City – this New Englander has always loved Mile High Stadium and the front range and Boulder and Pearl Street Mall and all of the parks in Denver

        and

        (2) Judge Nap – although I think he looks better fat.

        1. Yeah, but my… err… I mean his back feels so much better without that extra weight.

          1. Sorry, not in the form of a question:
            But, what if his back feels better without the extra weight?

            1. Yeah, no doubt.

              But, he reminds me of a colleague who lost over 150 pounds, but looks so much older, his face is so lined, and……just an aesthetics thing.

              It doesn’t mean I love the judge any less – there’s just less of him of him to love 🙂

              1. I’m not judging, LM, but I never had you pegged as a chubby (justice) chaser.

                Takes all kinds

                1. HM, for your files, my tastes align much more closely with sarcasmic than those of John.

                  As for Sly, are you or were you ever a fan?

                  Funk is fine, but R & B rules.

                  1. I inherited more than a few Sly and the Family Stone albums on vinyl from my folks.

              2. Kind of like the way Al Sharpton looks like a bobble head on a tiny stick figure now.

  19. Ok, this is pretty awesome, just for the “Grandma wailing on the electric guitar”.

    my first (real) guitar was an 1980s reissue of that same early 60s 3-pickup Gibson SG Custom. I always thought it looked way too hilariously Heavy Metal for playing jazz, but gospel-grandma wacking away at it is even more bizarre

    1. That’s an awesome guitar. Not my first, but my first good guitar was a 1969 Rosewood Flying V. I’ve been kicking myself in the ass for 30 years for selling that.

      My oldest brother had an SG Custom that was pretty awesome around the same time.

        1. cue: ooooooh, aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh

          Yeah, this guy wants $10K for his. Which was my rough guesstimate as a starting point.

          1. I got $1600 for mine, that was in 1985, and then I think the guy who bought it sold it for 3K or so, seriously.

            1. Still remember that and regret selling it, very fast guitar the way it was fretted and the narrow neck. I remember the case, burgandy with orange fur inside. Shit, why the fuck did I sell that?

      1. I’ve never owned a Flying V, or even played one for very long, but everyone who has them swears by them as the most-reliable of the Gibson designs.

        *because its basically a neck-through-body, right? the pickups are mounted in the neck-base, with the V-parts glued on the sides. The upside of which is, unlike every other gibson, it actually stayed in tune most of the time no matter how hard you beat on it.

        And do you mean rosewood as in “neck-and-body”-wood, or just the fingerboard? Because that would be worth a small bundle at this point.

        1. The thing I loved about my V was the speed of it. I was a lead guitarist and played in bands who played a lot of Southern Rock (Skynyrd) and a lot of original rock with lots of GEETARR, you konw. I’d like to explain how it’s different from the speed of a strat, but it’s difficult. The neck is narrow and the frets are very close together. Definitely a speed guitar, but not like anything else.

          1. No, i get it.

            My vague memory of the V that i handled was that the neck *was* narrower, but that it was thicker-in-hand (rounder? deeper?) than the SG neck i had, which was wider in terms of string-spacing, but a much “flatter” neck, shallower, than any other gibsons (or fenders).

            That SG was such that you sort of had to play “spanish style”, with your thumb on the back and your fingers arched over, to reach everything. I never was able to “grip” the thing where my thumb could stay on top. Part of the reason i dumped it after 20 years; it was nice and all, it just wasn’t the most comfortable thing to play. Add to that the fact that the 3 pickups meant that the strings were always very-close to the pickups, and there was nowhere you could pick without being in danger of ‘tapping’ the pickups themselves… you ended up picking very shallowly on the strings, just with the tip, and never digging in. It probably made me a better player as a kid, but i never liked it at all.

    2. That performance of “didn’t it rain” is a classic. She rocks so hard.

      I first saw it in a BBC Documentary about her, “The Godmother Of Rock & Roll” … recommended.

    1. The migrant camps should be in Green Party strongholds, since they’re the ones who claim to be the most supportive of refugees.

  20. Hillary Clinton speech from 1969: she was shrill and banal even then.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1bR_HMpW_A

    1. Bingo.

      For illustration, how about the continental divide between her speech and that of her trailer park trash tolling husband at the 2004 Democrat convention in Boston?

      Whatever else one may think of William Jefferson Clinton, one must accord him his oratorical props.

      1. He was absolutely gifted. I’m starting to think that:
        A) he’s getting senile
        B) has reached total doesn’t-give-a-shit-say-what-he-wants old age,
        Or
        C) really doesn’t want Hillary to win. He’s enjoying his retirement, has a good legacy, doesn’t want the shrew to mess it up.

  21. Remember the lady who became internet famous during a failed attempt to steal a Trump sign? Well, at least 4 other people have tried to steal that sign.

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

    1. I do remember one person set up a line of Trump signs on their lawn – with a board of nails under the first one. There was no curb between their lawn and the road so people tried to run the signs down – and popped their own tires in the process.

      1. Back when you could simply rake your leaves into the street and city would come sweep them all up (and the codgers would complain and tell us that they used to burn them) we had an old timer a few streets away who would put a cinder block in his pile, so any kid trying to ram them with his car would end up with some real problems.

    2. Electrified razor wire would greatly increase the mirth.

  22. Tard steals Trump sign, defends self in WaPo op-ed. Defends actions because feelz.

    ” There were so many Trump signs up and down our main drag ? it was destroying all sense of equilibrium in our community.”

    1. destroying all sense of equilibrium in our community

      “People might not agree with me! Waaaahhh”

    2. Yeah, we pointed that out when it first appeared.

      The absurd thing is the premise, embedded in the title

      “How angry does Donald Trump make me?”

      See, she’s not actually responsible for her own actions. She was *MADE* to be this way by Trump and his hate-filled hatefulness. She is a very open minded person who can tolerate everything except ….well, intolerable things!

      Even the statements of contrition in the piece feel like she’s back-patting herself for her moral-self-awareness.

  23. Wow, look at this.

    War on Wiminz

    So Hillary’s decision to break federal law and put the State Department’s official email server in her basement and recklessly allow it to hacked by any 5 year old paying attentions is A WAR ON WIMINZ!

    Yeah, that’s the ticket. Just keep that up.

    1. I CAN imagine what would have happened if it were just about any male; he’d be behind bars.

      1. Good evening Sevo.

        You rooting for the Cubs or the Indians?

        1. I really don’t have a pick, but I have a friend who has suffered Cubbyhood for a LOOOONG time, so it’d be nice to see him happy.
          You?

          1. Cubs.

    2. Just keep that up.

      Unfortunately, it will be wildly successful.

    3. What utter dreck at that link.

    4. I am mad. I am mad because I am scared. And if you are a woman, you should be, too. Emailgate is a bitch hunt, but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us.

      …emailgate is just a reminder to us all that she has no business doing what she’s doing and must be punished, for the sake of all decent women everywhere. There is so much of that going around.

      Its is basically an unbroken series of fallacies/rhetorical pathetic-appeals, and sentences (like the last one above) which aren’t even grammatically sensible.

      it closes with a tu quoque

      Imagine the emails the Trump campaign must be exchanging ? Now those would be legitimately interesting!

      “”Robin Lakoff is a professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley””

      Right. spouse of the eminent George Lakoff, the man who basically helped provide leftists with the means of “How To Lie More Effectively“… via “Framing“, which has always struck me as simply a re-branding of Sophistry…. which i guess explains “why she writes like that”. Those aren’t Fallacies! they’re *tools*

      1. “Imagine the emails the Trump campaign must be exchanging ? Now those would be legitimately interesting!”

        There was whining in the Chron comments today regarding the release of the Rich files; ‘Well, Trump tried to hide stuff from the government, too!’
        Uh, yeah, he wasn’t sworn to uphold the constitution at the time, dimwit.

      2. Coincidentally, I just gave a lecture that touched upon Lakoff and framing theory last night.

        On the one hand, framing, (or cognitive linguistics, really), is a re-branding of sophistry in the same way chemistry is a re-branding of alchemy in that cog. ling. seeks to identify and explain the neurological and psychological mechanisms behind our cognitive biases involving the comprehension and conceptualization of language.

        On the other, you are completely correct about the Family Lakoff being Sophists in the original Greek sense. Ol’ George truly believes, I think, that “truth” is merely whatever you can get the most people to believe at one time. And he’s willing to sell you the manuals to instruct you on how to do that. A constant theme in his political work is that conservatives seem to already have this innate ability to frame political discourse in the manner that they want. So progressives need to double their efforts and learn the secrets of Lakoffian Framing (TM), at this week-end’s seminar in Paramus, NJ. Only 299.99 for a 10 VHS tape cassette course!

        1. framing,…is a re-branding of sophistry in the same way chemistry is a re-branding of alchemy in that cog. ling. seeks to identify and explain the neurological and psychological mechanisms behind our cognitive biases

          I get it. And i appreciate that people don’t actually think in a logical manner to begin with, and that language can be used to mimick the way people actually ‘reason’, by feeding them emotions and images that they identify strongly with, providing them a musical catchphase (“bitch hunt!”) they can remember to replace the (missing) logic of the argument…. and so on.

          I think Advertising Agencies were always pretty hip to that stuff before the Lakoffs came along.

          A constant theme in his political work is that conservatives seem to already have this innate ability to frame political discourse

          ‘innate’, as in they rely on the same frames that conservative pols have always relied on = “God! Family! Children! Fear the enemy across the border! ”

          They may seem ‘innate’ because they’re (*excepting god, i guess) mostly “real things” that people can reference as ‘mattering in their lives’.

          The thing about progressives is their ideas really don’t have the same physical manifestations. “Fairness” is just an intangible concept. So they link it with all sorts of imagery and projections of Enemies, the people who are *causing* the unfairness – the bankers, the mysogynists, the yokels;

          1. “The thing about progressives is their ideas really don’t have the same physical manifestations.”

            Gonna disagree re: “Free Shit!”
            Base appeal to emotion, ignoring any rational investigation.

            1. (shrug)

              the ‘framing’ thing as far as i can tell really isn’t so much about the stuff (subject matter) itself but more how it is communicated. IOW, the ‘brand name’ is more important than the product, because the brand-name is what gives you conceptual-goodfeels.

              I think my point above was that Conservatives had an (what was described as) ‘innate’ advantage because they never really had to travel far from the thing-itself to sell their ideas. They are inherently couched in tangible concepts. The branding comes naturally.

              Progressive ideas are much more conceptual and less-tangible. And even ‘free shit’ is really just an idea, not something you connect with like ‘family’ or ‘tribe’ or ‘state’.

              Even “Free Shit” has to be communicated in a way that actually isn’t being sold as “free shit”. No one wants stuff they didn’t feel that they earned. So they’re told that the problem is Inequality. Its not “free stuff:” = they’re rectifying an imbalance and delivering fairness.

              Conservatives have never been any more-rational; their own pitch has always been couched in tribalism and appeals to their divine superiority (MAGA?); its just that the Left has gotten better at insisting that all the competitor’s branding exercises are really just code-language for Racism, Misogyny, Class-Oppression.

              1. “Progressive ideas are much more conceptual and less-tangible. And even ‘free shit’ is really just an idea, not something you connect with like ‘family’ or ‘tribe’ or ‘state’.
                Even “Free Shit” has to be communicated in a way that actually isn’t being sold as “free shit”. No one wants stuff they didn’t feel that they earned. So they’re told that the problem is Inequality. Its not “free stuff:” = they’re rectifying an imbalance and delivering fairness.”

                Suffice to say I disagree.
                “Free” food, housing, transportation, medical care is far more tangible than community groupings, regardless of the size.
                There may be a stronger emotional appeal for those issues among mystics, but “free” food on the table is a tangible matter.

                1. “free” food on the table is a tangible matter.

                  Sure but Clinton doesn’t pitch to the people on the WIC program by telling them how she’s going to expand the list of shopping items. She speaks in concepts, like how “Women deserve a raise”.

    5. You know, by any even borderline rational standard, it’s Lakoff’s comments that should be seen as incredibly demeaning to women. In effect, what she’s saying is that women are fundamentally incapable of following basic information security protocols and should be given a pity pass.

  24. Amelia Earhart skeleton found 76 years ago?

    1. Oops link to real clear science. It’s OK, you lazy bums can click one more link from there.

  25. Why primates kill their offspring
    Come on, really? Have you spent any time around the little brats?

    1. Fun fact: rodents, shrews, and bats comprise over 70% of mammal species.

      Fun fact: the scientific name for moles means “truly fat and blind”- Eulipotyphla

  26. Joe West’s strike zone is oddly shaped.

  27. Why is Trump in Eau Claire, WI? I don’t see him even in shouting distance there.

    1. Well, the Hillary camp thought they had it sewed up, but they’ve recently started spending money there, so it might be more in play than we mere mortals can keen.
      Also, I think Trump is going to win Iowa. And, uh, well, hem and haw, well, I ran into more actual whitey-don’t-like-the-blacks type racism there than anywhere else that I can remember.

      1. If he wins Wisconsin, he will have mopped the floor with Hillary. I don’t see it. Iowa? Sure, he could win that.

        1. Yeah. I see Hilldog with a blowout in the electoral college. The popular vote is down to 2 points in the RCP poll aggregate. But the Dems have such a huge advantage in the EC that Trump will need to win most of the toss ups.
          I agree, if he wins Wisconsin, then somethings up. I merely point out that team blue is concerned enough to start spending money there. But, the Clintons have a few skills besides graft, and total electoral war is one of them.

          1. And, three hours later/more at one with the universe/drunk/stoned, I would like to expound upon that thought, please.
            The Democrats in general, and the Clintons, specifically, are masters ay the art of spin, with the help of the media.
            It is embarrassing, for me, to watch the fumbling idiocacy on team red’s side. Obama’s reelection campaign: Obamacare was extremely unpopular, so they nominate Romney. Before that? The nation was tired of war, so they nominate McCain.
            I mean, Gary Johnson isn’t going to win. The only hope to stopping Hillary Clinton from being president is Trump.
            Others say that the only hope to stopping Trump is Hillary.
            I have met very few people who are voting for someone. And that’s just sad.

            1. Trump wasn’t part of the plan. They fully intended to force Jeb! on us. So the flooded the field with Lindsay Grahams and Jim Gilmores who clearly had no real intention of being nominated. The GOP elite had no concept of Trump creating a populist groundswell in the party.

      2. the first poll conducted entirely after the Comey decision came out today. It was done in North Carolina. Three weeks ago the same poll had Clinton ahead by one. Now it has Trump up 51 44. This poll has not been particularly faxorable to Trump. Unless something went very wrong or people in North Carolina really care about this in ways other states don’t, Hillary might be in big trouble.

        1. Based on the polls I’ve gone over I’d say this is Trump’s most plausible victory map

          Not terribly likely but possible. Of course the real lulz will be if McMullin wins Utah in this map scenario.

          1. So, Trump 264, Hillary 268, and the Republicans control Congress.
            The media would have a collective aneurysm, we’d be treated to a year of articles about how the EC is undemocratic, and I would laugh until tears were streaming down my face.

            1. I honestly don’t see the Republicans giving Trump the White House in that scenario. In the event that neither has a clear “win”, but Hillary has more votes, they’d almost certainly give it to Hillary…if for no other reason than to preserve the Electoral College. Giving it to Trump might spark a backlash that could actually turn into a constitutional amendment doing away with the EC, and if that happens the GOP is fucked long term, because CA, NY, and heavily urban populations will forever dominate the Presidential race.

              1. I like your faith in the basic goodwill of the loyal opposition.
                If the elephants didn’t choose Trump, what do you think would happen? And, pussies though they may be, do you really think the Republicans would give the executive branch to the Democrats?
                I’m making shiny hats tonight, for free, what size do you want?

                1. I like your faith in the basic goodwill of the loyal opposition.
                  If the elephants didn’t choose Trump, what do you think would happen? And, pussies though they may be, do you really think the Republicans would give the executive branch to the Democrats?

                  It’s not so much faith in their goodwill as realizing that as a party, they’re an undisciplined lot, and at least some of them would realize that causing a constitutional crisis that could result in their party being fucked for a very long time just to hold the executive branch for 4 years isn’t really worth it. My guess is that the number of them that realize that and break ranks to vote with the Democrats would be sufficient to give Hillary the election, especially considering that a large number of them aren’t exactly Trump’s biggest fans to begin with.

              2. Maybe they go back to p,an A and give it to Jeb!.

      3. I wonder if the Ron Johnson / Russ Feingold race has anything to do with it. Maybe the polling shows that enough people are motivated to go vote for Johnson, that it could hurt her chances.

        So she is spending money in the hopes that she can get the Democratic base to show up.

        Looking at the polling it looks like Feingold is ahead comfortably, but maybe internal polling is showing that Feingold is weak (he is after all even more of an establishment type than Johnson)?

        1. Hmm. Nice angle to look at it from. I told you, those Clintons can politic (actually, bubba’s the one can sell stink to a skunk, Hillary would be nobody if she hadn’t married Bill, yay feminism), to shame Machiavelli.

    2. Why not? Wisconsin has a governor more “conservative” than Trump. I don’t understand why they are so reliably blue in national elections but the state is full of the white working class people Trump is appealing to.

      1. Because as Mencken pointed out decades ago, the American dairy farmer is the most entitled, self-righteous, and venal individual on the face of the planet.

        1. When I was in junior high school in Wisconsin in the late 70’s, there was a kid that always stunk of manure. All the city (pop. 10k) kids would make fun of him. Of course he had to sit alone during lunch. The kid would wake up at 4am everyday and do choorz at his family’s farm, go to school and then go home and do more choorz until sundown or later if it was winter. Looking back, I’m glad I never ridiculed the kid. Those farmers are easily duped into thinking socialism is their friend. Class warfare works there as it does in most places.

        2. The salt of the earth!
          And if you don’t believe it, just ask. They’ll straighten you out real quick.

      2. Having family in Wisconsin, and once spending a summer there (30 years ago), I feel completely qualified to offer my half-assed theory: unions combined with a saccharine niceness that makes Canadians look rude.

  28. Just caught part of Kennedy’s interview with Johnson. At the end after asking who he supports for the 2020 Libertarian nomination, Kennedy asks Johnson to keep Weld away from the Libertarian party & Johnson just grimaced & said nothing as she signed off.

    Brutal. /Nathan Explosion

    1. Link? or was it a repeat on the news or something?

      1. It was on Kennedy’s show tonight. It repeats at 12am eastern time. Doubt it’s made it to any video sites yet.

        1. thanks, i’ll check it at midnight

    2. I have hong the curtain needs to come down on the Gary Johnson show.

    3. Here already endorsed Kmele **

      * I actually thought he only encouraged Kmele to seek the nomination but Welch and Moynihan are pushing the endorsement angle hard.

  29. No opinion on this, but interesting. Voter fraud?

    1. I think more likely data type conversion errors. Integer number of votes used to calculate percentages (floating point) then rounded and multiplied against sum total of votes. This would yield fractional vote counts and is just indicative of shitty programming, which is totally unsurprising.

    2. I did some work on nascent voting-machine tech back in the late 1990s.

      they’re like cash registers. they’re primarily designed so that that transactions can be audited. And transactions are designed to be un-fakable, with physical stages of confirmation. they’re not designed to be “networked” or controlled by outside sources; getting information in them, and out of them is actually designed to be labor intensive and tedious.

      Everything i heard her say about “master computers” just sounds to me like batshit consprio-goofery.

      I don’t know who/what the standard is for voting machines right now, but i’m still pretty sure all of them generate a hard-copy receipt (just like electronic cash registers) so that in the event of an EMP/power failure/system crash, you still have hard-copyies of all the transaction data.

      I don’t know how her concept of some networked-master-machine would square with all those rolls of paper-data being generated locally every time someone actually voted.

      1. * by “Work”, it was nothing to do with the IT really. It was for investors who wanted to know who made these things, what the tech-standards were, what state-budgets were like, and how fast state governments were going to upgrade their tech over the next decade. Mkt research, basically.

      2. That’s what they say. Check the tape and make sure it matches the vote.

  30. ADDISON RUSSEL!!!

  31. UnCivil, I posted some recipes in the PM links.

  32. 7-2 Cubs in the 6th? Well, my buddy’s grief may be relieved.

    1. Could happen. Dad is from Chicago, he’d be happy.
      Did you know that, in the late 20th century, Chicago had a larger polish population than Warsaw? Or that’s what i was told, can’t actually be bothered to research.

    2. Did you just see the advertisement for an anti-chin fat injection? WTF? We are so ridiculously prosperous that we can worry about chin fat.

      1. “Did you just see the advertisement for an anti-chin fat injection? WTF? We are so ridiculously prosperous that we can worry about chin fat.”

        Not watching, but I’ve seen the ads. I wonder how much of the ‘horrible US medical costs’ are ‘lifestyle meds’ and elective surgery for US and other folks.
        And I don’t have a bit of problem with that.

    3. Did you just see the advertisement for an anti-chin fat injection? WTF? We are so ridiculously prosperous that we can worry about chin fat.

      1. First world problems.

  33. No thanks, Brian, a vote for a decent and principled politician is one vote that could go for the guy who finds 10 year olds hot and pinches teenagers on the butt when they let him too close.

    Poor America… ultimately, it’s really a choice between a lying, arrogant narcissist and an women who can’t work out these new-fangled IPhones.

    1. Aaamnndd, AmSo for the lying idiot award, three weeks in a row!

    2. “…an women who can’t work out these new-fangled IPhones.”

      But, man, can she peddle influence! Why I saw a blue-light special for a sit-down with Obo advertised just last week! Only several million bucks, and you didn’t have to be an official in a MFN! Hell, any tin-pot dictator is as good as an ally!
      Plus, if the Clintons get back in the WH, Bill’s gonna renew the Motel 6 franchise. That Lincoln bedroom’s been sitting vacant and it could be a money-maker!
      Oh, and after that hag puts the plumbing fixtures on Ebay, the entire WH will get fresh plumbing. Remember she tried to walk off with the silver the last time they were there; this time she’ll ‘not remember’ it isn’t hers.
      What a pair!

      1. I know… she’s a politician. Burn the witch at the stake. She probably has public and private positions that differ from each other and doesn’t emote about it on The View. The neerrve of that women.

        1. american socialist|11.1.16 @ 11:08PM|#
          “I know… she’s a politician.”

          Oh, she’s certainly a politician and they do come in some variety.
          At the bottom, there’s the corrupt Chi Town social activists, and under the shit they leave, there’s the Clintons.

    3. “…an women who can’t work out these new-fangled IPhones.”

      Hint, asswipe: It ain’t the phones, it’s the corruption recorded on the phones. Did ya see that Rich got pardoned after a hefty ‘donation’ to the foundation?
      I’m sure lefty imbeciles like you see that as just a coincidence.

  34. Holy moley, this just happened: The FBI releases the results of Hillary server investigation. Some fascinating redactions:

    Pagliano stated to the FBI that he only transferred clintonemail.come-mail accounts for Abedin and [REDACTED] from the Apple Server and said he was unaware of and did not transfer an e-mail account for Clinton.

    Clinton’s immediate staff, to include Mills, Sullivan, Abedin, [REDACTED] and Hanley, told the FBI….

    1. Is this in the PDFs?

      1. Yes, I copied those from the first third (I think) of the first one.

    2. The FBI also released the documents pertaining to Marc Rich on their Twitter vault. It’s strange but fascinating.

    3. What’s fascinating about them?

      1. the redactions i mean.

        1. Who’s redacted? They list known close aids and one name is redacted. It seems like that should either be an easy to fill-in-the-blank or somebody totally off the wall. Is it her lead SS agent, an alien lizard, a deep cover mole?

        2. Seriously? Just one name of “immediate staff” is redacted. That’s a huge clue. And the server guy only transferred two e-mail accounts, Abedin and [REDACTED], who we know is not Clinton. In other words, somebody else on the staff with an e-mail account worth the time of the server guy to transfer the account. The redactions are different lengths, which could mean that there are two different people on Hillary’s staff whose identities the FBI is protecting (startling in itself), or it could be the same person, just referred to by only a last name in the short redaction.

          By tomorrow, the MSM will be filling with speculation about who this person (or persons) might be. People will be fitting names into redactions. “Can’t be Jennifer Palmieri here; her name’s too long…” It’ll be a feeding frenzy. It’s Hillarygate. It’s over for her.

          1. That’s a huge clue

            OF WHAT

            By tomorrow, the MSM will be filling with speculation about who this person (or persons) might be. People will be fitting names into redactions

            Why would they be doing it tomorrow when they could have been doing this since september 2nd onward?

            people have been noting the presence of redacted names in the FBI report for the last 2 months. Remarkably this hasn’t been read as de-facto proof of some hidden conspiracy.

            1. I think this is happening now because the FBI very recently found some bombshell, and/or because agents were revolting. These are just the preliminary releases. There are dots to be connected between Hillary, Weiner, the emails, the Foundation, and Marc Rich. Rich had connections with the earlier WJC Foundation, and though he is dead, various associates of his have connections with the current Clinton Foundation.

              I also suspect that the final Wikileaks drop of this week are connected. Maybe the FBI knows what’s in them already. Maybe Assange sent them to the FBI, hoping for help from them.

              I think something even bigger is about to blow.

    4. Also – the stuff you’re referencing didn’t ‘just happen’.

      from what i can tell, all these docs were part of/excerpted from the report that they released back in early September

      re: the redacted names, they are in both cases probably one of the people listed here, and probably redacted because… there’s a secondary investigation of that person ongoing, maybe?

      I’m not saying the 2 redactions have to be the same person. But if they were “immediate staff” in the latter one, there’s only a limited # of people that could be.

      1. Exactly. Which means the bloggers and/or the media will figure this out by tomorrow or Thursday, and more pieces will fall into place, and #Hillarygate will trend on social media, and more rats will flee the sinking ship, and Trump will win, and Scott Adams will be hailed as genius for seeing it in mid-2015.

        1. Yup, shiny new hat it is. Papaya, I hate to break it to you, but it’s too late. Their is nothing at this point to stop the Hildabeast, short of SMOD.
          My prediction: Hillary wins presidency, Republicans keep house, Republicans very very very narrowly keep Senate.

          1. I think the FBI is the SMOD, from Hillary’s standpoint. All this would not be coming out now if there aren’t bigger bombshells to come. Why would the FBI want to annoy Hillary this week with seeming trivialities like the Marc Rich stuff? It makes no sense. What does make sense: they feel they need to “interfere” in the election for the good of the country, because some bombshell is about to go off.

            1. As much power as people like Comey have, they are still, nominally, for now, restrained by the law. I don’t think Comey is a partisan hack, but i bet that he wants to keep his job and his house and his kids’ private schools… he’s probably pissed as all hell that Lynch threw him under the bus.
              He’s not doing any “October Surprise” on purpose, or for partisan reasons; he’s a poor shmuck caught up in the great game.
              He’s making the best of a bad situation, knowing that, no matter what he does, he’s going to be crucified.
              If he had recommended to indicte in July (which again, shouldn’t have been put in his lap), then none of this would have ever happened.
              If Hillary had just not tried so hard to circumvent FOI requests by setting up a private server, none of this would have ever happened.

        2. Careful, there, Papaya; you could drift over into SIV territory. You don’t want that to happen.
          HRC 310 EC votes, she’ll claim ‘landslide”, Tony and commie-kid will swallow it. The rest of us will accept people held their noses and pulled the D lever.

          1. Some polls are showing Trump support rising. She’s putting effort into supposedly “safe” states like WI. Doug Shoen abandoned her. She referred to Huma as “one of her aides.” These are not the signs of a Hillary landslide.

        3. Exactly. Which means the bloggers and/or the media will figure this out by tomorrow or Thursday, and more pieces will fall into place

          No, because as i already said all these docs were available to the press 2 months ago. There are references/citations of both sentences above in stories from the daily caller, others at the time.

          Nothing here is new information, and you still haven’t suggested what’s supposed to be ‘fascinating’ about the redactions. My own guess was just trying to read your mind what you might be suggesting.

          1. Seriously, that link is that old? I know Gateway Pundit often jumps the gun and gets things wrong, but how could they be reporting this as big news, two months late? Are you sure all four of the documents on that vault.fbi.gov page were there in September?

  35. “Could happen. Dad is from Chicago, he’d be happy.
    Top of the 9th; still 7-2

    “Did you know that, in the late 20th century, Chicago had a larger polish population than Warsaw? Or that’s what i was told, can’t actually be bothered to research.”
    Yeah, the commies pretty much murdered most of the population there and in Krakow; commie-kid says it was for their own good.

    1. Well, you’ll notice that people in the US who have ancestors from that area, during that time period, generally hate both fascists and Communists, seeing them as both as two sides of the same murderous ideology that proposes that collective good is worth murdering millions of innocents in pursuit of the statists’ goals.

      1. Between “Bloodlands”, “Total War”, “The World at War” and probably some others, it’s obvious the poor Poles took it in the shorts.
        First the Germans and the Russians, then the Germans, then the Russians (who stood by and watched the Warsaw massacre by the Germans), and then the betrayal by FDR and Churchill.
        And then, just to make sure we don’t have any sympathy for the pure, they killed and ran off the returning Jews.
        It sure would be nice to have a hero…

        1. There was a Pope or two, and a guy who ran a union.

          1. Not seeing a hero there.
            The pope’s an old fart in a funny hat with fantasies and it seems the guy who ran the union was an anti-semite (from memory).

            1. The enemy of my enemy.
              At that point in history, the greatest threat to freedom, the greatest possible enabler of “a boot stomping on a face, forever” was the USSR. The iron Lady, Ronald Reagan, and Pope John Paul II didn’t win the cold war by themselves. Of course not. Millions of others had fought in that decades long conflict. But, in the end, when an opportunity showed itself, these three individuals grasped the moment, and share a very large amount of credit for the fall of the Evil Empire.

    2. “Could happen. Dad is from Chicago, he’d be happy.”

      9-3 final. No prob in Chi Town; guns aren’t allowed (like the opening of deer season in the midwest – stay indoors)

  36. 9-2 Cubs bottom of the 9th; the Aboriginal Americans are going to need 7 runs to tie.

  37. A piece on The American Thinker used the term Hillarygate. I think that may well become the final hashtag of this campaign.

    It will be absolutely hilarious if Scott Adams turns out to have been right, and Trump wins, maybe in a landslide.

    Now, if only Reason and all libertarians realized what an opportunity is coming up. The party establishments, the media, the whole globalist establishment is about to be cracked, if not smashed. It’s time for a big swing to populism and nationalism. And while those aren’t libertarian, libertarians have big opportunities in the their ascendancy. Just give up on open borders, compromise a bit on trade, but in exchange, we stop the leftists and SJWs, and maybe clean out if not dismember large parts of the federal government.

    1. globalist

      speaking of ‘framing’…. what exactly do you mean by this word?

        1. lol

          i like the redundancy

        2. No, not “Jew.” It’s the opposite of “nationalist,” isn’t it? What’s a better word for the establishment that wants greater international integration and opposes nationalism?

    2. Hmmm…. *doesn’t know whether to measure Papaya for shiny new hat, or get enthusiastic.

      1. Just make sure the tin foil is as light as possible. If it’s too dark he’d hate it.

        1. CHINESE-MADE TINFOIL!!?!? (throws to ground, crushes underfoot)

      2. Eh, I could be wrong. You guys just get the perhaps dubious benefits of my amateur prognostications. What’s H&R for if not to shoot the breeze on such topics?

    3. If libertarians would just give up on immigration policy, abortion, trade, military spending, gay rights, etc. they might get President Trump to tell these rape counselor SJW on campus to stop being so bitchy. He’s definitely the one to do it, for sure.

      1. Uh huh. If the Democrats could just stop nominating (and covering up crimes for) neoconservative war mongers who want to deport just as many brown people, and bomb the rest, while steering all the middle classes’ money into big banks, the military-industrial-security complex, Wall Street, and their cronies, they might be able to tell the rednecks to give up their rights. She’s definitely there one to do it, for sure.

      2. “If libertarians would just give up on immigration policy, abortion, trade, military spending, gay rights, etc. they might get President Trump to tell these rape counselor SJW on campus to stop being so bitchy. He’s definitely the one to do it, for sure.”

        If you weren’t such an asswipe, you might have an opinion that mattered.

      3. Frankly, Trump isn’t going to change immigration policy. He has no say on abortion. What’s he going ot do, veto a ‘free’-trade bill that is really nothing more than a closed-door-negotiation deciding which special interests in the US get favorably treatment in foreign trade? It ain’t the President who controls military spending – you should know that by now. And, again, there are no ‘gay rights’ – there are only Human Rights and Trump has no real control over which governments and how they protect them.

        SJW’s OTOH, are graduating morons into the workforce – these people directly affect my quality of life.

        1. Trump, with Congress, can deny federal funding to sanctuary cities. They can do a better job of defending the border. Just those two things will change a lot.

    4. Just give up on open borders, compromise a bit on trade

      Oh, well, worth it to stop the damnable SJWs. And they won’t be emboldened by Trump ascending to the presidency or anything, they’d just scatter and disappear.

      Or are you envisioning some coordinated crackdowns on lefties?

      1. I just want the government to stop promoting and funding them.

    5. I don’t know how *nationalism* will lead to smaller, more freedom respecting, government. Has *any* nationalist nation, EVER, had a small, limited power, government?

      No.

      In fact, most of them really like to bang the war drum if not flat-out try to steal their neighbor’s shit.

      Plus, I like that my access to goods and services is not held hostage to weather problems or grasping unions. Which is what you have to deal with when you only ‘buy local’. If weather is bad where I live, I can still get fruit all year around. If sitcom writers strike, I can still watch telenovelas.

      And you’d have to explain to me why they *national* border is special and different from my state’s border, and the county and city border. Why is it OK for me to buy something from a guy in Bangor, Maine but not from San Luiz Rio Colorado.? What’s the difference? One guy is an American? Why should I care? I don’t know.

      1. The US was a nationalist nation and had a smaller, more liberty-respecting government. The national border is special because it defines the country. I like free trade, too, but “free movement of people” will kill this country, because importing statists is suicidal for liberty (but great for the Democratic Party).

  38. Estrada was nominated to an appeals court (I think it was DC), but the Demagogues blocked him for several years and he finally gave up. I’m sure he’d be a fine replacement for Scalia.

    1. I liked him in C.H.I.P.s

  39. “Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs Speeches to Be Published as Book ? Without Her Permission”
    […]
    “The publisher has taken five of Clinton speeches ? including the three she gave to Goldman Sachs for $675,000 a pop ? and slapped on an introduction from the man responsible for leaking them, WikiLeaks founder (and the new darling of the alt-right) Julian Assange.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/entertai…..443917.php

    Comments run toward ‘Why did “they” release these now!?’ And ‘Bush!!’
    Amusing to see the hilbots scrambling; the official talking points seem to be lacking at this point.

    1. It’s all fake. Right wing… I’m sorry, I meant… vast right wing conspiracy.

    2. they’re coming out sooner or later regardless.

      her presidency, if she wins, will make the 1990s clinton-era seem scandal-free. The GOP already have a bottomless pit of material from which to draw.

      1. ^ I’m seeing this.
        Wikileaks would have had to have material beyond reckoning to put Trump in the WH and it’s arguable whether that would be preferable to:
        HRC landing there under a perpetual (and deserved) cloud; one slow leak after the other with her pulling the ‘old news’ crap often enough that even the NYT (nah; fantasy on my part) admitting that the hag is a steaming pile of shit.

        1. Could actually be the best outcome: total government shutdown. So busy fighting themselves they don’t “do” anything.
          *Silver lining courtesy of marijuana, beer, and whiskey. Does not take into account media covering for every crime of a Clinton administration. Please stop taking and call a priest immediately if dizziness, irritability, or double vision occurs.

          1. I can see it!
            *finishes beer*

  40. Janice Rogers Brown all the way

  41. Gary – good picks! Very good picks for SCOTUS.

    Why couldn’t you pick a better running mate?

  42. Watch Now….!!! Recomended Streaming Online :
    If This Sound Good For You
    Latest Update More HD Quality Movie Available Here:
    ? ? ? http://bit.ly/2eA9W4k ? ? ?
    Happy & Enjoy to Watch For Free

  43. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  44. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  45. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  46. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.