MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Man Jailed for Watching Cartoons Have Sex

A New Zealand court has sentenced a man to three months in prison for downloading cartoon porn. Ronald Clark has previous convictions for sexually abusing a minor, but the Japanese hentai he watched didn’t involve drawings of people.

From Stuff:

Clark's lawyer Roger Bowden described them as "pixies and trolls" that "you knew at a glance weren't human."

Bowden said the conviction for possessing objectionable material was "the law gone mad".

However, while the cartoon characters were elves and pixies, they were also clearly young elves and pixies, which led to concerns the images were linked to child sexual abuse.

Anti-child pornography group ECPAT Child Alert director Alan Bell said the images were illegal because they encouraged people "to migrate from there to the real thing".

"The distribution of it is damaging. You have to ask what impact does it have even if it's not harming [an individual child]."

Bell said it had to be conceded that no child was harmed in the images' production but "it's all part of that spectrum". Cartoon images of child abuse were a "huge" problem in Japan and the practice had started finding its way into computer games, he said.

…"The worry is that viewing or distributing such images could support the sexual exploitation of children even if the production of the images did not actually involve the exploitation of any children," said Lincoln University philosophy lecturer Grant Tavinor, who writes on the aesthetics of video games.

Click here and here for Reason coverage of U.S. laws that mess with sex offenders to no discernible purpose.

Photo Credit: amy_b | Foter.com | CC BY-NC-SA

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.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    But I keep hearing how Oz and NZ are libertarian paradises...

  • ||

    I don't know where you supposedly hear that from, Tulpy-Poo, unless it's yourself, since they have the kind of prohibitive gun laws--and gun storage laws--that a retard like yourself prefers, by your own admission.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Be fair now, I recall having to argue with some folks on this forum that NZ was actually a nanny-state and not the mind-your-own-business place people imagine it to be.

  • ||

    New Zealand houses the entrance to the mines of Moria. You can't have unrestricted gun ownership! What if the Balrog got its hands on a pistol?!?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I dunno, let's ask Gandalf.

  • IfUrHappy&UKnoItCankUrChains||

    You mean "YOU WILL NOT PASS!" was referring to a weapons background check? Good thing the Balrog of Morgoth didn't go to a gun show!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Bringing up a (misrepresented) comment from another thread is kind of crybaby-ish, isn't it?

  • ||

    Misrepresented?!?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You keep being an idiot, Tulpy-Poo. You're so very, very good at it. In fact, I would posit that you are a professional idiot. Except you don't get paid, so maybe you're just a pro-am idiot.

  • prolefeed||

    I missed that thread -- what exactly did Tulpa say that is causing people to shite all over him?

  • ||

    Basically Tulpa wants you to be executed if your gun is ever stolen. It's Tulpa, so it's really, really stupid. You know, Tulpical.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I said I supported a storage requirement for semiauto rifles with 1600 joules of muzzle energy, when not in the immediate control of the owner.

    Which according to certain persons here, puts me to the left of Tony on gun control. (???) I don't understand that either.

  • ||

    You don't understand it because you are the most self-unaware tard to walk the earth since Steve Urkel.

  • Jordan||

    You also called for a mandatory warrantless search once a year for any gun owners.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    At a time of their choosing during that year, and not a "search" but an inspection of the safe by an LEO or FFL. The misrepresentation continues.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I should specify, at the time of the gun owner's choosing....

  • Jordan||

    You think that distinction really makes it defensible?

  • juris imprudent||

    Listen, I'm going to nutpunch you, but I'll let you choose when.

    Fair?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    A safe inspection is a nutpunch?

    I guess letting the cops into your house to file a burglary report is a colonoscopy then.

  • juris imprudent||

    A safe inspection is a nutpunch?

    Are you really going to go with the "if you've got nothing to hide" line?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Well obviously I do since I support it, but even if you don't agree, it is a big distinction.

  • DesigNate||

    The fact you support something like that is weapons grade stupid. But I'd never accuse you of being to the left of Tony.

  • prolefeed||

    At a time of their choosing during that year, and not a "search" but an inspection of the safe by an LEO or FFL.

    If you are forced against your will to let an LEO into your house and look into your safe, without the LEOs going to a judge and demonstrating probable cause -- and they also get to look around your house and see if any signs of what could be construed as criminal activity can be seen and then be the basis of a more extensive "look" -- that is a warrantless search.

    That it isn't a surprise warrantless search doesn't change the blatant unconstitutionality at all.

  • stateless||

    If you live in NZ and you know what the laws are you just put your gun safe in a place where they don't need to enter your residence to do the inspection.

    Not that I endorse what the state does at any level but you just figure out how to best manage it.

  • Boisfeuras||

    I said I supported a storage requirement for semiauto rifles with 1600 joules of muzzle energy, when not in the immediate control of the owner.

    A car at highway speed has 300,000 joules of KE. Should you be culpable for a vehicular homicide in your stolen car?

  • ||

    "I said I supported a storage requirement for semiauto rifles with 1600 joules of muzzle energy, when not in the immediate control of the owner."

    So, you're saying every rifle in existence then.

  • ||

    Tulpa, I am having trouble with the logic of requiring storage for only semi-auto rifles with 1600+ joules of energy.

    This reeks of the kind of irrational fear that drives the push for a ban on scary looking guns.

    You arent a gun guy are you? People who dont know jack about guns or have experience with them have no business making rules about guns. When you have an idea about how you think guns should be handled, keep it to yourself.

  • prolefeed||

    But I keep hearing how Oz and NZ are libertarian paradises...

    More like, the allegedly conservative government in NZ ran the finances of their federal government into the ground, and the SOCIALISTS took over and restored some measure of sanity, surprisingly enough.

    That's a long way from "libertarian paradise".

  • Gladstone||

    Well to be fair to Tulpa I do recall that Lew Rockwell will often go on about how much freer NZ, OZ and Canada are compared to the US especially since they stayed loyal to the Empire. And no that last part is not an exaggeration.

  • Calidissident||

    Not to defend Rockwell (or his reasoning), but Australia, New Zealand, and Canada actually have freer economies than the US does

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Probably not by much, compared to the lower freedom in other areas.

  • stateless||

    U.S. citizens are not economically free, even if they move to a place like NZ which has better economic freedom.

    Not until the renounce their U.S. citizenship and pay their U.S. expatriation tax.

  • prolefeed||

    Not to defend Rockwell (or his reasoning), but Australia, New Zealand, and Canada actually have freer economies than the US does

    In some aspects, not others. Try to open a private medical practice in Canada, and tell me from your jail cell afterwards how free that considerable segment of the economy is.

  • Calidissident||

    That's true, but I was speaking about the overall economy. Also, while Canada has single payer, doctors can have their own private practices. It's not like in the UK where all doctors are government employees.

  • ||

    Unfortunately they have fewer civil liberties in other areas - like no freedom of speech and forced voting.

  • Brandybuck||

    To Lew Rockwell every country is freer than the US. To the extent that other countries are not anarchotopias, the blame must rest with the US.

  • Anti-War Libertarian||

    North Korea's economy would have triumphed if it wasn't for American aggression. This is why they had to invade South Korea back in 1950 in order to pre-empt American Imperialism. In the US didn't have those troops there then North Korea would be a libertarian paradise.

  • ||

    From who? Your socialist friends?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    OT (Sorry if anyone is actually interested in this topic): But what is going on with the backlash against Richard Dawkins, calling him a bigot? I'm seeing seeing news of some sort of spat between Dawkins and Mehdi Hasan of The New Statesman, with many criticism Dawkins for "bigotry" for allegedly targeting his criticism solely at a Muslim.

  • Irish||

    He said Islam is the greatest force for evil today. What's funny is this: If he said the exact same thing about Christianity, no one would care.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Dawkins might not quite the negative take on Christianity as he does Islam, but The God Delusion details his criticism of Christianity along with examples of Christian terrorism (i.e. abortion bombers).

  • Presedinte PL Romania||

    And he has said something to that extent about Christianity in the past. And, like you said, no one gave a flying turd. Freedom of expression should work both ways :P

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If he said the exact same thing about Christianity, no one would care.

    Bullshit.

    Every Christmas we're treated to bitching and kavetching from Christians about how they can't put their nativity scenes on public property. Just a few weeks ago I was being subjected to the rant about how public schools don't have Easter vacation anymore.... and you're telling me that no one ever complains about Christianity being slighted. Come on.

  • Irish||

    Allow me to rephrase: If he said the same thing about Christianity the people bitching about this wouldn't care. Personally I wouldn't care either way. The fact that people freak out is what annoys me, as well as the double standard.

    The leftists complaining about his ostensible Islamophobia would not care one bit if he said the same thing about Christianity. Bill O'Reilly might bitch, though.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The reason the majority freaks out is that they don't want to die from the terrorist attack on London that Dawkins is sure to bring.

    Jus' sayin'

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That's better. Next time, write the correct statement first.

    (and there is a HUGE difference between your original statement and your new one)

  • Irish||

    You are unbelievable prick.

    By the way:

    Every Christmas we're treated to bitching and kavetching from Christians about how they can't put their nativity scenes on public property.

    It's spelled 'kvetching.' Notice how stupid my comment on this minor problem in your post is? This is what you're like all the time. You talk yourself into thinking that people get annoyed with you because we hate people with differing opinions.

    No. People get pissed off at you because you add nothing to the conversation beyond the worst kind of pedantic whining.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    This. Tulpa makes good points sometimes, but he really goes out of his way to be antagonistic and needlessly pedantic.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The antagonism is a by-product of my interactions with the glibsters here (look at how Episiarch is addressing me, for example). Apologies if it's causing collateral damage among other commenters.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    My critiques are way above the level of spelling correction.

    I do the same thing in real life that I do here and have no issues with people calling me a retard and chasing me around screaming at me for something I said three days ago.

  • ||

    Yeah, because it's not the INTERNET. People are a lot more polite in real life, they probably just complain about you behind your back you nitpicking baby.

  • Irish||

    I assume you knew that though, and are just being Tulptastic.

  • Mike M.||

    That's awesome, the so-called "progressives" are all butthurt because their friend had the courage to speak the truth about these violent Islamic maniacs that they love so damn much.

    Keep speaking the truth as you see it Mr. Dawkins; these typical media scumbags deserve to be shamed, being the complete disgraces to humanity that they are.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I found this Tweet from Dawkins: "Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist."

    The standard response from a lot of progessives is that Dawkins is an anti-Muslim/Arab bigot or at the least "not helpful."

    I can entertain some truth in the latter, but the former is just typical, asinine progressivism.

  • Conrad||

    I read his recent tweet that


    If you were contemplating Artificial Insemination, would you be content with a random donor? Or would you make a deliberate choice?


    And then he says:


    Almost 100% say they'd opt for nonrandom choice of sperm donor. Shock, horror, you're all eugenicists!

    He makes a good point occasionally.

  • Presedinte PL Romania||

    Oh I loved that one! I also love how he talks about feminism lately. I respect him for that.

  • Conrad||

    I especially loved this one :


    Ronald Fisher, interested in why we have 2 sexes, asked why we don't have 3. Constructively imaginative question. Typical of an academic.
  • ||

    Not really the same thing, since planned pregnancies don't involve random donors for "natural" insemination.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Hush now! Let the gravy-sweating racist yokel dressed up in the cloak of faux-intellectualism have his fun.

  • ||

    Ah,yes. Because TOP. MEN. deciding WHO can breed is exactly the same as individuals deciding with whom they breed. Is a free market a random set of financial transactions? No. The opposite of dictatorships is not randomness.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    Dawkin's position on my right to defend myself is almost as idiotic as the flying horse.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    They hate him for his wife. As do I.

  • Dweebston||

    We are many and they are few, and we find their perversions icky. What more purpose do you want?

  • OldMexican||

    "The distribution of it is damaging. You have to ask what impact does it have even if it's not harming [an individual child]."


    It would be a surprising question to ask considering that the person is conceding that there are no victims; such concession also turns the first assertion - that the distribution of it is "damaging" - into a contradiction.

  • Jerry on the boat||

    I rather see this guy watching pixies than roaming the streets.

  • Presedinte PL Romania||

    And that's what's probably keeping himself at home and out of kiddie's pants. To each his own, I say.

  • Swamp Think||

    Exactly. Why not encourage potential predators to direct their urges into harmless animation? All benefit as far as I can see.

    This is the same wrong-headed thinking that control freaks use to ban e*cigarettes. A tool that helps their declared cause, be it tobacco or child porn, is crushed under the overpowering need to DO SOMETHING!

    Viva the UltraMaroons!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE TENTACLES?

  • ||

    Monique Junot: I figured if we had nothing to say to each other he would get bored; go away. But instead he uses it as an excuse to put his testicles all over me.

    Lane Myer: Excuse me?

    Monique Junot: You know, like octopus? Testicles?

    Lane Myer: Ohhhh. Tentacles. N-T. Tentacles; big difference.

  • Kurbster||

    Boku No Pico strikes again

  • A Serious Man||

    Anti-child pornography group ECPAT Child Alert director Alan Bell said the images were illegal because they encouraged people "to migrate from there to the real thing".

    Does that apply just to porn or to other things like violence in the media? I mean I figure it's only a matter of time before we migrate towards an actual 'Hunger Games'-style fight to the death tournament.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    For years, I have masturbated to images of Asa Akira. I have yet to migrate the real thing (i.e. having sex with Asa Akira).

    Funny, that.

  • prolefeed||

    Who masturbates to images of just one woman? Is Asa Akira your Porn Wife?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That would be an interesting arrangement, though I suspect it would have to involve massive polyandry.

  • prolefeed||

    The only reason for monogamy IMO is that the chick insists on it, and you want to be with her enough to go with that. Doing it with some porn star's image is almost cause for taking away HM's Secret Man Decoder Ring.

    Almost.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I dunno. Not to get all Alabaster Aborigine on you, but the origin of monogamy is actually from agriculturalist men wanting to be sure their kids were really their kids when it came time to divide up the estate. Before agriculture the norm was closer to group marriage with matrilineal descent being more important.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Or maybe the origin of monogamy was from two people who really, really loved each other.

    *shrugs*

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    No wonder you're still bating to still photos of mutilated Japanese-Americans.

    In other news, my shrine to pre-op Rebeca Linares is almost complete.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    pre-op Rebeca Linares

    \\

    I read that completely the wrong way.

  • Jim in Denver||

    Wow even Tulpa has some redeeming quality...

    Linares is HOT, and yes pre-op was hotter. Down with fake boobies!

  • Swamp Think||

    Adam & Steve?

  • prolefeed||

    I googled "the origin of monogamy: for about 5 seconds and got this from the top ranked hit:

    "Monogamy evolved in humans when low-ranking males changed tack from competing with the higher-ranked rivals to revealing their more caring side to potential suitors."

    Re: your theory -- Why would any man who already had polygamy and numerous wives voluntarily go to monogamy? It makes more sense that men who were suffering from anogamy (dunno if that is a real word) would settle for monogamy in order to attract a mate.

    Basically, women tend to want monogamy far more than men do, and non alpha men might find that catering to that preference gets them sexual access to a woman.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    "Monogamy evolved in humans when low-ranking males changed tack from competing with the higher-ranked rivals to revealing their more caring side to potential suitors."

    See, this is where disciplines like Evo. Psych. piss me off with their hubris. You can make all the models you like; but when it comes down to it, until we develop time travel, the question will remain ignoramus et ignorabimus. If we assume that polygamy developed first (and that's a big assumption), it's most likely that the development of monogamy was a black swan event that is now lost to history. (The Quaternary extinction event, maybe?)

    This is why I come here, a throwaway joke about jackin' it to Asa Akira develops into an interesting conversation.

  • prolefeed||

    I suspect monogamy developed over and over again, because it is what women want, but only when women gained enough sexual power to gain the upper hand.

  • AuH20||

    Honestly, I've always wanted a Heinlein style line marriage. I'm anti social enough that a few nights alone would be nice (they can cuddle with the other husbands) but for that same reason, and given various mental, emotional, and financial stuff, it would be nice to know that I had a couple of people watching my back.

  • prolefeed||

    OK, now I'm in mild trouble with my GF after she looked at my comments on this thread. =P

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    OK, now I'm in mild trouble with my GF after she looked at my comments on this thread. =P

    That's why you need to do like I did, and marry someone who doesn't speak English well. :)

  • prolefeed||

    By "mild trouble", I mean she teased me for a couple of minutes, but I still get access to her vag.

    If she gets to be too much trouble, I can look into the Mail Order Bride thing. =)

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    That's why you need to do like I did, and marry someone who doesn't speak English well. :)

    Or marry as I did, someone who finds sites like this so mind numbingly boring that she never looks.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    That's why you need to do like I did, and marry someone who doesn't speak English well. :)

    Or marry as I did, someone who finds sites like this so mind numbingly boring that she never looks.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Do you mean the group marriage like in "Friday" or is this a ref to one of his other works.

  • AuH20||

    The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is what I was thinking of for my marital arrangements.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Haven't read that one, but have always intended to.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    It's on the internet so it must be right. [/sarcasm]

    There are of course different kinds of polygamy. The original form in hunter-gatherer communities was more like group marriage, which developed into polygyny (one man-multiple women) in agricultural societies for the reasons I stated. Of course this left a lot of men without wives which is an unstable situation -- do recall that a major objective of war in the ancient world was to capture women. Eventually monogamy evolved as a more stable arrangement as civilization became more delicate and war more "expensive".

    If it developed as your top Google hit states, why didn't it develop much earlier? Were low-status males just a bunch of morons who couldn't figure out that women wanted monogamy for the first 5000 years of agricultural civilization?

    women tend to want monogamy far more than men do

    That's disputable. What women do tend to want (somewhat rationally) is permanence of attachment, ie still having a guy to provide for them when they're older and no longer sexually attractive/active. In our society that correlates strongly to monogamy; young attractive women have no more interest in short-term monogamy than young attractive men do.

  • prolefeed||

    If it developed as your top Google hit states, why didn't it develop much earlier? Were low-status males just a bunch of morons who couldn't figure out that women wanted monogamy for the first 5000 years of agricultural civilization?

    It's more that a necessary but not sufficient condition for monogamy being the dominant social institution is that women must develop enough equality to have a choice in the matter of mate selection.

    If women are the actual property of whoever owns them, this strategy of low ranking men never gets off the ground.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Huh? Monogamy long predates women's rights and existed alongside arranged marriage for centuries.

  • johnl||

    There were situations where low ranking men gained political cout as well, and could have pushed for monogamy. Also, in situations where having an in-law relationship provides some benefits, monogamy helps make that more durable.

  • ||

    Monogamy evolved in humans because...well we really have no idea....so anyone can pull any theory out of their ass and it is as good as any other theory.

    My personal experience as a human, and from watching other humans is that monogamy is mostly a myth.

    Before anyone jumps up and claims that they are personally the paragon of monogamy, let me say that back in my single days I was the terror of the town. If I didnt fuck them, I fucked someone in her family or one of her friends. More than half of those women were married.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Tulpa, try telling that to the SSM fanatics. Had more than one recently go into fits about bringing up poly marriage, they said it was rare in history, it was not older than monogamy, and died out 2,700 years ago.

    Yes, this coming from same-sex marriage advocates. That was their argument, that something else was not the norm and extinct.

    It was their response to my advocating an end to the government marriage license.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    died out 2,700 years ago

    Strange, considering Jesus and St Paul are dealing with polygamy in the West as a very current issue in the New Testament period (and if you dispute whether the NT was actually written more recently, that only bolsters my point), and Christian missionaries also had to deal with it during the past 400 years or so...

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Islam is also currently polygamous (up to 4 wives), as are certain parts of Africa (the recent President of South Africa had more than one wife).

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Islam is also currently polygamous (up to 4 wives), as are certain parts of Africa (the recent President of South Africa had more than one wife).

    Yes; I don't see how this affects my position.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It doesn't; just more evidence to add to the pile that the SSM advocate Austrian was talking to doesn't know shit about polygamy.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    OK, good job.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    It doesn't; just more evidence to add to the pile that the SSM advocate Austrian was talking to doesn't know shit about polygamy.

    Wasn't just one, was several and it was like every freaking one of them just got a new talking points list.

    Stranger, a prominent libertarian website objected to my mentioning Mormons in an article for publication on marriage licensing vs. marriage equality. Had to dig up some obscure poly Lutheran and Jewish sects for the example of polys being excluded from "legal marriage" in the current debate.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Strange, considering Jesus and St Paul are dealing with polygamy in the West as a very current issue in the New Testament period

    Yes, strange, and those people continued with their party line even after pointing out plenty of newer manifestations.

  • Sevo||

    "(and if you dispute whether the NT was actually written more recently, that only bolsters my point),"

    No. Given it's largely mythical, the time it is written is irrelevant to any included mythology.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Haha, what the hell do you say to that kind of crushing ignorance.

  • ||

    "It's Tulpical."

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "Tulpical". Fun word. I'll have to figure out some way to sneak it into real-life discussions.

  • juris imprudent||

    It was their response to my advocating an end to the government marriage license.

    Kind of gives the game away, doesn't it. Not that they see that.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Kind of gives the game away, doesn't it. Not that they see that.

    Yes, and another strange one is the people who get all frothy over linking paternity to marriage licenses. They have it set in their heads that government marriage has something to do with the "rights of children." It is as if they actually believe the government created marriage licenses before people started breeding. How the existence of all of these unlicensed parents, famous or not, has slipped past their consciousness is a real head-scratcher.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Who masturbates to images of just one woman?

    Where did I say that was exclusive? Dylan Ryder is my Porn Wife, but she lets me fool around.

  • prolefeed||

    OK, I misread that. But, still, years? With Tumblr sites rolling out thousands of fresh chicks to masturbate to every day? Some examples:

    phatassasians.tumblr.com

    asian-booty.tumblr.com

    eropicss.tumblr.com

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Bookmarked.

    Bookmarked.

    Bookmarked.

    prolefeed, you are a scholar and a gentleman.

  • prolefeed||

    Just google "Tumblr (insert preferred race) (insert preferred body part)" and find all the sites you want.

    Or use the sites I showed you, and whenever you find a particularly hot chick, click on the site that the pic originated at and see if it is any good. Or go thru the "likes" section and see what sites pop up.

    A few more bookmarks for you (got about a dozen of 'em right now):

    theslinkydossier.tumblr.com

    ero4.tumblr.com

    melc.tumblr.com

  • ||

    *types*

    tumblr nude bears

    Not too impressed so far.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    Really, you didn't send her to yummyhairydudes.tumblr.com?

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Porn Wife?"

    Why have I not heard of this arraingement?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    They're not real, you know.

  • Swamp Think||

    But you've thought about it. Thought rapist! Shouldn't you be on a list somewhere?

  • ||

    Wait, how is it that you're having an Asian porn thread without your Thane?

  • juris imprudent||

    The real thing? Like real life pixies or elves?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    But I keep hearing how Oz and NZ are libertarian paradises...

    The voices in your head don't count.

  • prolefeed||

    OT from the 24/7 Newsfeed:


    Failure To Read Rights to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Raises Concerns

    April 21, 2013

    As the lone surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing lay hospitalized under heavy guard, the American Civil Liberties Union and a federal public defender raised concerns about investigators' plan to question 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev without reading him his Miranda rights. ...

    It's almost as if the prosecutor's office is determined to give this guy a way to get any potential conviction thrown out on appeal.

    It's bad enough they didn't Mirandize him right away, but to continue to not do so after he's been in custody for days and poses no imminent danger? The hell?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    He'll be declared an "enemy combatant".

    No muss, no fuss.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Or they'll just use the voluminous eyewitness/photographic/forensic evidence they have to show his guilt, which isn't affected by whether he gets Mirandized or not.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If they're going the civil courts route as opposed to a military tribunal.

    If, as I suspect, the FBI once had the brothers on the hook in a sting operation and it got out of control, I don't see the Justice Department too eager to let the little brother see the inside of a courtroom.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Two people can keep a secret as long as one of them is dead, and that plot requires way more than two people.

    Thus far, the military detainment route has been used for people the govt doesn't think it can convict in an ordinary court. What you are suggesting would be a major leap.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    and that plot requires way more than two people.

    And not to get all Troother, but to roll the end credits when they pulled that kid out of the boat was a bit premature, in my opinion.

    The Brothers Tsarnaev received training and/or assistance from somewhere. I seriously doubt their radicalization occurred in a vacuum.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    And before you know it, little Tsarnaev will be tenured and training college students.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Who said he was a genius?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That was intended to be a humorous aside to A.A.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I can't tell who's responding to who in this mess!

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Genius, of course, is the first requirement for a career in education.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    I heard the "plenty of evidence" angle on NPR this AM and it made sense. However, what is odd is the announcement that they were not Mirandizing him. Sounds like another "look how tough we are on terrorists" deal.

  • juris imprudent||

    Well once Lindsay Graham waved his mighty terrorist boner around, they really had no choice.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Are you implying that Graham and Obama are in a big stick contest?

  • prolefeed||

    re this from Wikipedia:

    "The Harmless Error Doctrine is a law that states that if a person’s involuntary confession is used as evidence at trial, but there is overwhelming evidence against the suspect anyway, making the confession negligible in its impact upon the jury, a conviction will be upheld.

    The Automatic Reversal Rule states that if a suspect’s involuntary confession is used as evidence at his or her trial, and it can be proved that the defendant was not properly read the Miranda Warning or did not understand the rights explicit in that warning, then the defendant’s constitutional rights have been abused and any conviction will probably be dropped."

    I'm not a lawyer, but if the prosecutors knowingly and deliberately chose not to Mirandize the guy so they could get information out of him that they used against either him or anyone else (and if not, why question him under that circumstance?), seems like a halfway competent defense attorney could argue that the defendant's rights were knowingly violated and that the Automatic Reversal Rule should kick in.

    I'm guessing that would be a 5-4 ruling by SCOTUS, though anyone's guess which side would get the 5 votes.

  • ||

    He'll be declared an "enemy combatant".

    Is he not a citizen?

  • juris imprudent||

    Is he not a citizen?

    Does that matter?

  • ||

    Um...sure the fuck does.

  • juris imprudent||

    I really want a font that drips sarcasm down the screen.

  • Nazdrakke||

    I really want a font that drips sarcasm down the screen.

    I would pay for this.

  • ||

    Sorry.

    There are elected officials actually arguing for this. My detector's sensitivity is set too high.

  • ||

    Or too low? Regardless, I'll just have another drink.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The only evidence that would be thrown out would be stuff that he said after being arrested, which they probably don't need for a conviction at this point.

    Lots of people misunderstand what Miranda actually means -- it's not a get out of jail free card unless their entire case is based on what you say after capture.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I've heard about a 1984 Supreme Court decision that influenced the 2010 DOJ memo. I thought it lent support to the notion that pre-Miranda warning interrogation could be entered into court proceedings?

    Could anybody clarify?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    From Wiki:

    Under this exception, to be admissible in the government's direct case at a trial, the questioning must not be "actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist," and must be focused and limited, involving a situation "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety."

    So, the pre-Miranda interrogation can be admitted into the court case, if the prosecution can argue that the evidence meets the criteria.

  • ||

    I am a bit put off by the arguments over Mirandizing. Mirandizing someone does not magically create a right to counsel, or the right to keep your mouth shut. Not Mirandizing someone does not make that right evaporate.

    Mirandized or not, everyone has those rights and can exercise them at will. Well, not the counsel one if they decide to violate it, but you can keep your fucking mouth shut.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Marques is scary.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It's almost as if the prosecutor's office is determined to give this guy a way to get any potential conviction thrown out on appeal.

    They don't have to release him just because some court says to.

    The President is a Constitutional Scholar, you know.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Miranda rights aren't in the Constitution. Like the exclusionary rule they're a prophylactic measure the courts have decided to require to protect rights that actually are in the Constitution.

  • AuH20||

    Tulpa, are you the kind of asshole who, when someone asks for a Band-Aid goes, "Actually, Band-Aid is a brand name. The correct term is medical adhesive strip"?

    Because I bet you are.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I'd rather be that kind of person than one who gives the person who asked for a Band Aid a strip of duct tape.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    If the person in need has cancer, duct tape is the proper choice.

  • prolefeed||

    Miranda rights aren't in the Constitution.

    I'd argue that they are an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    *Sigh*

    The 9th, if it is to have any meaning at all, must derive meaning from 1) the context of the 10th Am (i.e., as an extra assurance that the BoR is not meant to be an exhaustive list of rights that the FedGov can't violate), and 2) in the context of common law rights at the time of the drafting (especially as interpreted by contemporary exponents like Blackstone).

    The 9th is not a stand-in for libertarian philosophy any more than it is an advocate for Rawlsian positive rights.

  • ||

    The 9th is not a stand-in for libertarian philosophy any more than it is an advocate for Rawlsian positive rights.

    Not necessarily. I would argue 9A grants me ALL negative rights. Positive rights, OTOH, requires "enumeration" (for lack of a better term), as they require the action of another to be granted. I disagree with prolefeed, that 9A covers the attorney part of Miranda rights, simply because it is a positive right. The positive right to an attorney is granted in 6A.

  • prolefeed||

    The 9A covers the part about having the right to an attorney, since that is a negative right.

    The "right" to have money stolen from other people to pay for your lawyer is a positive right and not something I'd say falls under the 9A.

  • ||

    Fair enough. I was thinking more about the attorney that the taxpayers would pay for.

  • prolefeed||

    The Miranda warning can be read as a negative unenumerated right -- not only do you have the right to remain silent, as enumerated in the fifth, you have the right to KNOW you have the right so the state can't abuse their power because of your ignorance.

    Perhaps if the police were not allowed to lie to suspects, this would not be as important, but what good are rights if the police can lie to you and claim you have no rights and suffer no consequences?

    The entire Bill of Rights is a profoundly libertarian set of addendums -- the notion that the state's powers are few and defined, and the individual's rights are vast and encompass every negative right not specifically granted to the state as a power that can use against you.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The BoR is certainly liberty- and libertarian-friendly, but it's not a libertarian document. Much as I would like it to be the case, one can't just substitute negative rights doctrine for the 9th Am and be respectful of the history and purpose of the amendment, especially given that many libertarians argue that the 9th was incorporated post-14th Am (which significantly complicates things).

    More pragmatically, such an interpretation could easily be subverted by more mainstream ideologies than libertarianism to argue for, say, the "right" to free healthcare.

  • ||

    So are you arguing, as Tony does, that rights need to be granted and written down some where? I guess what I'm asking, is what does 9A mean? Rights are granted by Blackstone?

    I see the logical interpretation is I have the right to do anything I want, so long as I don't infringe on the rights of others in doing so.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    No, I believe that rights are pre-existent of any government's ability or desire to protect and codify them.

    I also believe that a good faith effort to interpret the 9th would lend itself to looking at what the founders considered as rights at the time, and what the intent of the 9th Amendment was -- and such an interpretation would look at what people like Blackstone and the drafting anti-Federalists thought of as rights. It would be silly to argue, for example, that the 9th amendment protects one's right to adultery -- committing adultery is certainly a negative right (though a scummy one), and yet it was criminalized in statutes that the amendment's drafters themselves wrote.

    Within the historical context, the 9th can be reasonably interpreted as a toothless philosophical statement, a constraint on federal action, or protection of what were considered common law rights at the time of drafting.

  • ||

    I would put it to you that the law against adultery would be ruled unconstitutional under the 9th. I'd go so far as to say that about ALL victimless crimes. God knows, the US has never passed unconstitutional law before. /sarc

    Have there been any cases argued on the basis of 9A?

    Griswold, kinda?

    link

  • The Late P Brooks||

    continue to not do so after he's been in custody for days and poses no imminent danger? The hell?

    See: Time bomb, ticking.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Oh, for fuck's sake, now the morons are talking about security at the LBGP.

    OMFG BOMBZ!

    "Hey, what's in this baggie? On the ground, motherfucker, on the ground!"

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Miranda rights aren't in the Constitution.

    Go huff some more airplane glue.

  • AuH20||

    Ugh. I am so tired of Islam being beyond criticism because of 60's era anticolinialism bullshit.

    I am sorry, but Fukuyama was right: The West has reached The End of History. We treat our women as equals. We don't stone gays. We allow people to speak freely. Our leaders are not given power because they emerged from the right vagina or sprang fourth from the right dick. And these ideas are simply better than the ideas that other cultures have. Not all cultures are better, and ours is superior. And it isn't a racial thing, should I be accused of that. Us treating people of different skin colors as equal took a lot of work from people of all races being willing to have the shit beaten out of them to drag the West, kicking and screaming, towards enlightenment.

    This all being said, we shouldn't try to bring other parts of the world into this culture if they aren't ready for it. It took centuries of religious wars, racial discrimination, and other horrificness for us to finally realize that that is no way for man to treat his fellow man.

    On the other hand, I am so fucking tired for having to apologize for it. Our culture is superior to the culture of most of the Middle East. It is superior to the culture of China. I am very happy to see India moving towards the consensus, although its problems with rape show that is still has some growing pains to go through. But, seriously Islam, grow the fuck up.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    We incinerate innocent women and children in other countries to save face. We militarily support governments that do all the things you state that we don't do against democracy movements. We ship our prisoners to other nations so that they can do the things to them that you state that we don't do. We keep entire nations under dictatorships so we can steal their oil.

    We've exported/outsourced most of our oppression -- well good for fucking us. Don't wear yourself out patting the West on the back.

  • AuH20||

    Wow, Grandpa Tulpa, I didn't know it was, "Talk like a 60s hippy who doesn't know shit" day!

    Our system is not perfect, but it also has some very solid built in correction tools. That is why torture became such a big deal- because that is something That We Do Not Do. Meanwhile, the Saudis aren't sitting around debating the morality of cutting off a thief's hands, the Russians don't give a shit about who gets shipped off to the gulag, and the Chinese accept that blind political prisoners can be placed under house arrest for making the local government look bad.

    As for exporting our oppression... we export Saudi women being unable to drive? Iranian homosexuals being stoned to death? Genocide against the Tamils in Sri Lanka? Racist land seizure policies in Africa?

    Tulpa, you are, as always, a pedantic dick.

  • ||

    No, Tulpa is fucking stupid. He uses pedantry to mask that he is a fucking moron. Once you ignore his contarian shit and his pedantry, you realize it's all a smokescreen to distract from the fact that Tulpy-Poo is dumb. Really dumb. And he knows it. And hates it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    So you're saying we're superior because we talk a good game and maybe feel bad over a news report before flipping the channel to American Idol so we don't lose our cheeseburger appetite thinking about some renditioned slob with electrodes clipped to his testes?

    Of course the rest of the world has oppressors and madness and idiotic beliefs of their own -- but my point is that we're hardly the perfection of societal evolution ourselves; to a large extent we've just shed our own skin of evil into the sand like the titans of Vagra II.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Genocide against the Tamils in Sri Lanka?

    That's complete and utter nonsense. You've been listening to too much M.I.A.

    (Not that the Sri Lanka Civil War wasn't an extended and brutal affair, but the Sri Lankan government never conducted a campaign of killing Tamils because they were Tamil. Indeed, in many Tamil villages in the North and the coasts, the populace didn't even support the Tamil Tigers, but were held by gunpoint at their mercy.)

  • Cytotoxic||

    That civil war started in response to the brutalization of the Tamil people. Not sure if that was 'genocide' but still.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'd argue that the civil war started in response to the Sinhala Only Act. While I wouldn't classify that as "brutalization", I recognize that language politics is a huge fucking deal in the Indosphere (see Bangladesh for another example). Still, genocide is the systematic murder of a racial, ethnic, or religious group. I haven't seen any evidence that the Sri Lankan government ever engaged in a systematic plan to kill its Tamil minority. As I mentioned before, more than a few Sri Lankan Tamils were neutral to supportive of the Sri Lankan government. (Tamil Buddhists do exist, for example.)

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Bla bla bla, woof woof woof.

    Any other country in our position would be worse, and historically has been. The US is very benign given its current position in the world.

    In fact, a historical comparison between the US and other empires confirms AUH2O's argument.

    Western culture really is just far better than the alternatives.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Because we've got much fuller bellies than any other empire in history has had.

    Take that away and you'll see how superior our "culture" is.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Give me a fucking break. Nazi Germany didn't get better once its people recovered from the Depression; it got worse. Kristalnacht occurred *after* recovery. The USSR's purges got much worse after the country's situation stabilized. Plenty of empires committed their worst acts at the height of their power, prestige, and ability to provide for their citizens.

  • Conrad||

    So basically we are bad because we refuse to bomb the Saudis and stop "Supporting" the dictatorship we're also bad because we bomb the Afghans. Moronic.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    No, because we provide the disgusting Saudi govt with military aid that enables them to squash democracy movements not only in their own country but also in Bahrain. And we supported Mubarak for decades.

  • ||

    That's a matter of policy, not culture.

  • DesigNate||

    Right, cause democracy is so ducking great. Especially when those "elected" are all islamofacisist that think women should be second class citizens and stoning a girl for talking to a boy is an okay thing.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Wow Epi's right you really fucking stupid Tulpa. Like 'Buchanan-Rockwell' fucking stupid. And you do try to patch it over with pedantry.

  • Cytotoxic||

    We incinerate innocent women and children in other countries to save face.

    Whatever the strawen in your head say Tulpy-poo.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • AuH20||

    Well, at that point, we may be well talking about the end of history for Homo Sapiens, and the beginning of history for whatever we use those technologies to become.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    and the beginning of history for whatever we use those technologies to become.

    Right, and Fukuyama doesn't think that's a good thing. He argues that we should prohibit certain technologies that might have a harmful effect on the current hegemony of our late 20th-early 21th century neoliberal democracy.

    I just think Fukuyama has seen The Wrath of Khan a few too many times.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Maybe he's m-bated to Mika Tan too many times?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You have to be quite the luddite to have it effect your penis.

    I don't mind someone who is more machine than woman.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Darth Vagina?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • AuH20||

    Also, cool book rec.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Agreed but I'd still say that there's nothing inherently wrong with being a cultural chauvinist for broadly defined Western civilization, given just how bad the alternatives are.

  • Conrad||

    Could happen. Humanity was simply not created to live in an industrial civilization. New discoveries in genetics show that personality traits, aggressiveness, intelligence, promiscuity, are highly heritable, in the future genome screening will identify the genes that cause these things. As our society has a specific set of desirable traits, it is not hard to imagine it accepting some form of modification of the genetic code. Already we imprison and drug those at risk for excessive aggressiveness, what if one could prevent such personalities from being born in the first place. One might say that liberalism would prevent this, however liberalism has its limits when it comes to personal matters like this. Liberals who use Artificial Insemination don't accept sperm from just anyone. The New E

  • Eugenics is American Values||

    Meh, he isn't a real American like me.

  • Eugenics is American Values||

    I don't mind their culture, I don't like that they are of inferior genetic stock. I actually think that the way they treat their women is rather admirable.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Awesome spoof!

  • Conrad||

    Strawmen say the darnedest things. I never said anything about the Arabs being "of inferior genetic stock." Nor did I say the way they treat their women was "admirable." The way many people from that region treat women is appalling. It is a false choice to have an androgynous libertine culture and a culture where women are stoned for committing adultery.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's a spoof of a racist troll who's been frequenting the board. Don't worry about it.

  • Calidissident||

    Conrad is the latest incarnation of that racist troll, if you haven't noticed

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Hadn't picked up on that; I'm slow in my old age. Thanks.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Our leaders are not given power because they emerged from the right vagina or sprang fourth from the right dick.

    Somebody should tell Jeb Bush.

  • juris imprudent||

    No - need to tell that to anyone even thinking of voting for Jeb Bush.

    It is ironic the fondness for dynastic politics in this country.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But...you could do a lot worse than Jeb.

  • juris imprudent||

    But it would be so much easier to do better.

    Can't we try for better one of these days?

  • Conrad||

  • AuH20||

    Well, if Florida is America's dick, then California is the asshole, and the states in a line between them are the taint, which works out really well if you exclude Texas. Because Alabama, Arkansas, New Mexico... taint nothing there.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Politicians like that piss me off.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Yawn. State legislators propose idiotic bills that go nowhere all the time.

    Let me know when he's trying to regulate the value of π.

  • ||

    "Miranda rights aren't in the Constitution. Like the exclusionary rule they're a prophylactic measure the courts have decided to require to protect rights that actually are in the Constitution"

    Correct. I wonder how many people here have actually READ Miranda v. Arizona. It's a good read. I highly recommend it.

    It was the product of what has been determined by history and hindsight to be a very activist court. It is now so ingrained in our culture that we just accept that it MUST be right and any violation of it is a violation of the constitution itself, but that's only because of this acceptance of it, which isn't intellectually based on constitution itself, but based on culture.

    Whether or not one thinks that Miranda leads to good results and is good policy is not the same thing as saying one thinks that somewhere in the penumbras and emanations of the constitution is a rationale for requiring LEO's to remind people of certain rights before custodial interrogation

    And realizing that Miranda warnings are a product of interpretation and an activist court helps when looking at exceptions to Miranda, such as the one being invoked in this case.

  • ||

    I had a case many years back involving a miranda exception, it was the proverbial one - kid dumps gun during foot pursuit. Case law says that after arrest, I do not have to (and common sense says I shouldn't) mirandize him when asking where the gun is. And yes the exception held up in court.

    Miranda is not sacred. It's simply case law. It's about as well established as can be, but it is a product of an activist court INTERPRETING the constitution and coming up with a remedy that is rather novel and hardly sacred.

  • ||

    btw,excellent post by orin kerr right now over at Volokh.com on Miranda exception stuff. Good read. Kerr rules

  • ||

    Oh, and to clarify, I was not the one in the foot pursuit and who questioned outside miranda. I had the case as the followup detective assigned to followup the case and charge it into Superior Court. When I said "I do not have to" I am speaking philosophically. I've had many foot pursuits, but none involving dumped gun - PERSONALLY

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The reasoning behind the Miranda rule is very sound; basically the Mirandization blunts the coercedness that statements taken from a prisoner would otherwise inherently have. I usually don't like judicial activism but this is pretty mild. You need some judicial teeth to enforce the BoR against the govt.

  • ||

    That was the gist of the argument. And I'm not saying it's a BAD argument. I'm saying it's an activist remedy, in that they could have come up with plenty that would be less "inventive" than giving cops a list of things they have to read to arrestees prior to custodial interrogation.

    But the main point you made is sound. Miranda warnings are not the constitution. As Kerr points out, many times even when the exceptions DON'T apply, there are reasons why cops will legitimately NOT mirandize. There are other issues like standing - if the cops interrogate somebody in custody w/o miranda and that person gives up testimony that incriminates ANOTHER person, then THAT is admissible, even outside miranda. That third person cannot protest that miranda rights weren't read, because it wasn't HIS rights violated. That's a nuance even some lawyers and cops don't grok, as I have found out in my travels

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That third person cannot protest that miranda rights weren't read, because it wasn't HIS rights violated.

    I would think that's obvious, since the 5th amendment provides no protection from being forced to incriminate others (and in fact, you can be forced (sub-poena) to testify against other people in court).

  • ||

    I've seen plenty of attorneys and cops who don't grok it.

    WA has "automatic standing" so it works a little differently HERE, but the general rule is one a lot of cops and prosecuting/defense attorneys miss.

    It's a reason to tactically NOT mirandize somebody in custody, because you are looking to use their statements against their codefendant, not against them themselves.

  • John||

    Yes. People think failure to mirandize is some kind of get out of jail free card. At this point, who gives a shit if you can use this guy's statements against him? You have an air tight case against him anyway.

  • ||

    My policy for the last few years has been mirandize ALL arrestees, even warrants just because if they start admitting stuff I don't have to interrupt them to mirandize them. However, yes... I have heard that from a lot of defendants... "hey, you never read me my miranda" ...

    "it's because I'm not questioning you, relax".

    But yea, you are exactly right. They think Miranda is a RIGHT itself. Iow, it is something that we OWE the arrestee - the warnings.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Funny thing is, if they know at the time that you're not Mirandizing them then they already know their rights and the Court's logic falls apart.

  • ||

    There's not anybody over the age of 8 in this country who doesn't know the miranda warnings by heart. I've had 10 yrs olds read them to me verbatim off the top of their head.

    We aren't ADVISING anybody of jackshit. They KNOW their rights. We are, at best, reminding them.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Hearing the cops affirm and recognize one's rights can be an encouraging experience, even if you already know the rights in theory.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    "They KNOW their rights. We are, at best, reminding them."

    You are incorrect, Real Dunphy. MANY average Americans (particularly those steeped in poverty) don't know what their ACTUAL rights are under the constitution particularly as an American required to submit to law enforcement under extraordinary circumstances. I grew up in the ghetto... most of these young people (a few who actually wanted to beat me senseless) seem to have matured in a different time and place completely unrelated to the planet earth, much less America.

    Miranda is constitutional rights distilled onto a card. The ethical graces of the open society.

  • ||

    Anybody see Defiance?

    I think it has potential.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's far less crappy than the premise would have implied.

  • AuH20||

    I have to agree. The main character really managed to do a good channeling of Malcolm Reynolds and it looks like it could evolve into a fun sci-fi western. The daughter and the woman who runs the brothel are also super hot, and the guy in charge of the criminals impressed me with his acting.

    Now, it looks like, being town-centric, it will devolve into schmatlz any number of episode, but so did a ton of classic sci fi (This document is for Yangs and Coms!). Plus, honestly, sci fi is such a dead genre on TV compared to what it was even 10 years ago that I take what I get.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Plus, honestly, sci fi is such a dead genre on TV compared to what it was even 10 years ago that I take what I get.

    I blame Joss Whedon.

    You should too.

  • Generic Stranger||

    How did Whedon destroy sci-fi?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Not enough Abrams need more Abrams.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Sci fi is too expensive for broadcast TV at this point. Every kind of fictional show has suffered, even sitcoms and terrestrial drama.

  • ||

    God, you are really the dumbest fuck ever. Scifi is too expensive for broadcast TV? You mean the problem that Gene Rodenberry solved with TOS, and that is moot with such cheap CGI?

    The reason the broadcast networks can't do scifi is that they have no fucking taste. They do it every once in a while, and it's uniformly terrible because of who they choose to write and showrun it, not because they lack a budget. Did the execrable Terra Nova lack a budget? Nope. But it was showrun by your TNG dreamboat Brannon Braga. Of course it was terrible.

    Scifi requires thought. The broadcast networks have no idea what that is.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It should be noted that, Braga, the man who killed Trek, is even more responsible for the death of TV sci-fi than Whedon, as Whedon came to power in a post-Braga era.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It shocks me that Braga can still find work.

    Being the showrunner for Voyager & Enterprise should be a fast track to the unemployment line.

  • ||

    He was given a show that had time travel, dinosaurs, and the money to do whatever he wanted. That's like the recipe for awesome, and he managed to make it 10 times worse than TNG.

    He should be barred from every studio at pain of death. Yet he's not.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It shocks me that Braga can still find work.

    The joys of the Hollywood union guild system!

  • AuH20||

    And yet somehow Enterprise turned out to be pretty good. I give the credit for that to Rick Berman, however, who Rodenberry handpicked to launch TNG

  • ||

    HM, I have to disagree with you about Whedon. He's an excellent writer and didn't do anything to kill scifi. Also, one has to realize that Firefly isn't just Whedon; Tim Minear is a major, major factor in that show's excellence and in its libertarian-ness.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Tim Minear is a major, major factor in that show's excellence and in its libertarian-ness.

    I have to question that given how stupid Drive was.

  • ||

    Drive got four episodes before it was canceled. It didn't exactly have much of a chance. Of course, I would expect you to dislike what chance they had. You are, after all, a complete and utter dipshit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I actually liked the first couple of episodes of Drive, but it's always easy to write a couple of good episodes to hook people into a story; sustaining that is the hard part. But if you look at what Minear had in mind for the rest of the show you may puke on your monitor. Consider yourself warned.

  • AuH20||

    Whedon is an excellent writer who needs other writers in the room to go the other way or he just gets sucked up his own asshole.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    It should be noted that, Braga, the man who killed Trek, is even more responsible for the death of TV sci-fi than Whedon, as Whedon came to power in a post-Braga era.

    There had been awful sci-fi on TV for decades before 2000, so how in the world can you lay the blame on those guys?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    They didn't kill sci-fi, they just showed that the old paradigms didn't work.

    Being stupid, neither of them tried anything particularly different in the 10-15 years that they were at the helm of one of the most recognized sci-fi franchises in television.

  • ||

    Braga is just a terrible writer. Just absolutely terrible. Hackneyed, cliched, deus-ex-machina plot complication moron retarded terrible. I just cannot describe how Braga is literally the worst kind of scriptwriter.

    Whedon, on the other hand, is a character genius, very creative, and if Dollhouse wasn't trying something new, what the fuck was it?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    True, but I can't really say that Roddenberry was any better of a writer in most respects.

    I do (mostly) like Whedon, though he can be overindulgent.

    Dollhouse was an interesting show but needed a better actor for the lead role.

  • ||

    Gene didn't write most of TOS, he just reviewed and modified scripts. Many legendary scifi writers like Richard Matheson, Theodore Sturgeon, and Harlan Ellison wrote TOS episodes. And those turned out to usually be the best ones.

    Fun fact: Harlan Ellison's original script for "The City on the Edge of Forever" had Spock pushing Edith Keeler (Joan Collins) in front of the truck, not stopping Kirk from saving her. He was furious that Gene changed it because Gene thought it would make Spock look ruthless. So when he won the award for it, he flipped off Gene who was in the audience.

    Harlan is kind of a dick.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Yeah, I know that Roddenberry didn't write most of the scripts (we can all be glad for that) -- I just don't think that he was a very good showrunner outside of being good with the green eyeshades part of the business. The writers' bible was just lousy and Roddenberry never really had a good grip on how to make a realized character.

    For everyone who complains about how Star Trek 2009 made Kirk, Spock, and Bones into caricatures -- that's basically what they were in TOS.

    There were good bottle episodes, but mostly the show is only good compared to the other sci-fi that was available at the time.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    For everyone who complains about how Star Trek 2009 made Kirk, Spock, and Bones into caricatures -- that's basically what they were in TOS.

    True, but ST2009 had many, many other problems in addition to that.

  • Cytotoxic||

    If Braga killed pre-Abrams Trek then he deserves praise and women.

  • John||

    They don't do it because they think it appeals to a narrow audience. It is really seems stupid. Yes, it does appeal to a narrow audience, but that audience, younger men, are nearly impossible to get to a TV and are thus very prized by advertisers

  • AuH20||

    It seems that everyone forgets the glut in the late 90s of supernatural/sci fi(basically nerd) shows: Angel, Buffy, Xena, Hercules, Stargate SG1, Enterprise, Farscape, Sliders, X-Files, and even those weird one-offs like Earth 2.

    Then again, a lot of those were on either UPN or WB. I think sci-fi's problem may be that cable doesn't quite have the budget, but all of the lower tier networks (CW, NBC) are too scared to try it.

    Honestly, with the sucess of Game of Thrones, why has HBO, or their rival Showtime, not tried to get into sci-fi yet?

  • John||

    GoT is fantasy which is close enough to SciFi. I would be very surprised if someone doesn't do a SciFi series after the success of GOT.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    My running theory is that all the low-hanging fruit has already been picked. Voyager and Enterprise were both shows that essentially operated by having TNG-style scripts and non-existent character interaction and development; both shows were slaughtered in the ratings. Successful sci-fi requires a little more nowadays than just caking some makeup onto an actor, writing dumbed down versions of (much better) sci-fi novels, and having the actors ham it up.

  • ||

    And don't forget that ultra popular fantasy The West Wing.

  • AuH20||

    Confession: I was a history-political science major. It is heavy handed liberalism at so many turns, and the middle seasons where Sorkin had a Bush freak out suck... but I really like The West Wing.

    Where do I turn in my libertarian card as I see myself out?

  • ||

    Oh, I liked it just fine. I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings, too, but that doesn't mean I think midgets should have rights, those funny little mutants.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    HBO has lower production budgets than NBC? You sure about that?

  • AuH20||

    Tulpa, Jesus Christ, it is called reading. You know, reading? Left to right, top to bottom, group letters together to form words, words together to form sentences?

    Take Tylenol for any headaches, Midol for any cramps.

  • Irish||

    Jesus Christ. Tulpa seems incapable of reading a post for substance. He reads posts so that he can find one point he disagrees about, at which point he takes time off from looking in the mirror and masturbating at his reflection to make himself feel superior by pointing out a minor quibble.

    I didn't understand why you annoyed people so much when I started posting here, but your posting style is like mental erosion. The first few times you do this, it's kind of annoying but people seem to overreact. However, after a couple of weeks, it becomes obvious that this is all you do, and it really wears on people.

    Fucking stop it.

  • AuH20||

    Yeah, Irish, Tulpa is a bit like water torture. The first drop isn't so bad but by the time you get to the thousandth you just want to stab a bitch.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That's what she said.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The problem, Irish, is that people base their arguments on these "minor quibbles". And in many cases, they're ripping into me with personal attacks based on these "minor quibbles". As in this case, where the whole discussion started with an attack on my comment:

    Tulpa (LAOL-VA)| 4.21.13 @ 5:05PM |#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    Sci fi is too expensive for broadcast TV at this point. Every kind of fictional show has suffered, even sitcoms and terrestrial drama.

    The whole avalanche of this subthread, with all its insults against myself, my family, and my pets, has proceeded from people saying I'm a retard because I think scifi is too expensive for broadcast TV to sustain. The relative budgets of cable TV and broadcast TV would seem vitally important to that discussion, no? Not a minor quibble.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Jesus Christ. Tulpa seems incapable of reading a post for substance. He reads posts so that he can find one point he disagrees about, at which point he takes time off from looking in the mirror and masturbating at his reflection to make himself feel superior by pointing out a minor quibble.

    I didn't understand why you annoyed people so much when I started posting here, but your posting style is like mental erosion. The first few times you do this, it's kind of annoying but people seem to overreact. However, after a couple of weeks, it becomes obvious that this is all you do, and it really wears on people.

    Fucking stop it.

    I just wanted to repeat it. In italics. I actually LOL'd.

  • Nazdrakke||

    I just wanted to repeat it. In italics. I actually LOL'd.

    You are not alone in this. It made me think of this: http://9gag.com/gag/298283

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I was just asking a question.

  • Irish||

    That's the point. It's constant.

    And then you post things like:

    That's better. Next time, write the correct statement first.

    You realize that you're talking to adults right? And that most of the people here are just as smart as you are?

    You constantly write things that just drip with an inflated sense of superiority.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    So what am I supposed to do? Let people make fallacious arguments against my position with no response?

    And keep in mind you've called me retarded, lacking in reading comprehension, and a mere 9 minutes before the comment you're quoting, accused me of arguing in bad faith ("Tulptastic"). So this respect you're demanding seems to be a one-way street.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    You could say "thanks for the clarification" or one of approximately fifty million things that would sound both polite, respectful, and get your point across.

    And for a long-time participant, you seem to have no idea how the social rules of H&R work. People insult each other here all the time, both because it's funny and for effect; to underscore the extent to which someone supports or does not support an argument being made. Being a condescending jerk accomplishes neither of these things: it's just pointlessly rude.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    People insult each other here all the time, both because it's funny and for effect; to underscore the extent to which someone supports or does not support an argument being made.

    That's fucked up.

  • DesigNate||

    It's why there are no libertarian women. So wipe the sand out of your vag and get over yourself.

  • ||

    Indeed. Libertarians just spring out of holes in the ground.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You realize that you're talking to adults right? And that most of the people here are just as smart as you are?

    NO HE DOES NOT.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    the problem that Gene Rodenberry solved with TOS

    You mean the show that was cancelled after three seasons and had its budget slashed for the third? Back when broadcast TV was the only video entertainment there was without going to a movie theater?

  • John||

    Yeah, that show that was canceled over 40 years ago. Things have changed a bit. Sci is not particularly expensive.

  • AuH20||

    The key with sci-fi is expectations. Its supernatural, not sci-fi, but look at Grimm: Its rating would suck... except it is on Friday (which was the spot I think X-Files once held). Its grown in its second season, and if it stick to Friday with its ratings, it will go an easy 7 seasons.

    The problem is that networks think that sci-fi TV is going to do as well as sci-fi movies, forgetting that sci-fi movies have the budget for shit tons of expensive action sequences.

  • ||

    AuH2O, they're moving Grimm (which rocks) to Tuesdays.

    It's probably important to note that Grimm is "fantasy", not sci-fi, and the former has gotten a lot of mainstream acceptance in recent years.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    ST:TOS-level special effects are dirt cheap nowadays. ST:TNG's effects are probably pretty affordable too.

    Special effects that won't be laughed at by today's audiences, on the other hand, are expensive.

  • ||

    You fucking moron, you do know that Gene went to CBS with the entire pitch of "how to make a scifi show on a TV budget", right? That they turned a 15 minute pitch meeting into a multi-hour session where he described exactly how he would do things to keep the budget reasonable? And then they turned him away, stole all his ideas, and made Lost in Space?

    Of course you don't, because you are the dumbest fuck since your mom, and once again you talk the fuck out of your ass when you know Jack and shit about something, and Jack left town.

    You are so ignorant that it's actually starting to shock even me.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Lost In Space was also cancelled after three years and had its budget slashed as time went on; I find the claim that LIS was made with ideas stolen from Roddenberry fairly dubious too, but don't have time to do the research.

    But keep going with the insults; you clearly have no idea how stupid they make you look.

  • ||

    He details the exact meeting and what happened in it in The Making of Star Trek, you blithering idiot. You're so fucking stupid that it's amazing you can type. Once again, you know nothing about what you speak, but you blunder forward with the confidence only the truly dense and clueless can possess. Hey, want to talk about address parsing too? I hear you're really caught up on that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Gene Roddenberry wrote an account of the meeting that makes Gene Roddenberry look good and the people who turned down his show look like thieving idiots?

  • ||

    Move those goalposts, moron! How am I not surprised that you did that? Oh, because you're a blithering idiot.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Not at all. Even if CBS did steal GR's ideas for cheap scifi, the resulting show also got shitcanned after three seasons b/c it was too expensive. WHICH WAS MY POINT HORON

  • AuH20||

    How dare you accuse Epi of being a member of the tribe that fought for the French against the Iroquois in the 7 Years War Tulpa!

    FOR SHAME!

  • ||

    LIS got canned because it was about a mincing pedophile somehow not being beaten to death by the parents of the children he stalked, and because the robot was stupid. Stealing budget tricks doesn't make your show good, it just makes it cheaper.

    Your evidence is idiotic. Which is exactly what I expected.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I will not stand idly by and have you denigrate Major West.

  • juris imprudent||

    I will not stand idly by and have you denigrate Major West.

    Oh, that does explain a lot. NTTAWTT

  • ||

    The main character really managed to do a good channeling of Malcolm Reynolds and it looks like it could evolve into a fun sci-fi western.

    That was my thought exactly. Reminded me of Firefly.

  • ||

    I'm a bit wary to watch Defiance after SyFy fucked me over with Alphas.

  • ||

    Is S2 ever coming to Netflix?

  • Rhywun||

    ^ This. I basically don't watch new shows - and Alphas is why.

  • DesigNate||

    Wait, what happened with Alphas? I'm only halfway through season two.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I thought Defiance had already been airing for a long time now? What...

  • John||

    The British Press is saying the FBI is looking for a 12 man sleeper cell in connection with the Boston bombing

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/w.....hA.twitter

    I can't find a single major American media outlet that is reporting this. Are the Brits lying or is the American media really that dedicated to the "Obama won the war on terrorism" message?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Eh, it's a British tabloid.

    Take the sensationalism of an American Hollywood gossip site, like TMZ, and crank it up to 11. Then lower the intelligence down to that of a microcephalic with Klinefelter's syndrome and you have the proper context in which to judge the merits of the article.

  • John||

    They also will print anything that will sell. That makes them more reliable than the American media, which will either lie or refuse to cover something that doesn't fit their narrative or might embarrass the wrong people.

  • Irish||

    They also will print anything that will sell. That makes them more reliable than the American media, which will either lie or refuse to cover something that doesn't fit their narrative or might embarrass the wrong people.

    No. American media will be unreliable in order to protect a narrative or will twist a story the way they want it. A British Tabloid will make up entire stories with virtually no evidence in order to sell magazines to the lowest common denominator.

    A story in the mirror which claims to have an 'unnamed source' is astonishingly unreliable.

  • John||

    A British Tabloid will make up entire stories with virtually no evidence in order to sell magazines to the lowest common denominator.

    You mean like trying to frame an innocent bystander for the Olympic Park bombing and later having to pay out a seven figure libel settlement? You mean making up stories like that?

    You guys have to be fucking kidding me.

  • juris imprudent||

    Maybe you should check the supermarket tabloids, since that seems to be the level you are relying on.

  • John||

    You mean those magazines that reported things like John Edwards having an affair with Real Hunter and a love child when the major media refused to touch it? You mean untrue shit like that?

    It is not like the major media hasn't been caught fabricating and outright lying any number of times. Since when are tabloids less reliable than the major media? I would say judging from their track records, they are more reliable.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I dunno, the Mirror got scooped big time on the Bat Boy incident.

  • juris imprudent||

    "Best investigative reporting on the planet. Sure the New York Times gets lucky sometimes."

  • John||

    How many times has the NYT been caught lying and fabricating stories? Seriously, why do people think the old line media is somehow believable?

  • Irish||

    How many times has the NYT been caught lying and fabricating stories? Seriously, why do people think the old line media is somehow believable?

    They're not. But the Mirror is less believable. Honestly, this argument comparing the NYT to the Mirror is like when Shrike screams about how Bush also did something.

    It's irrelevant. The NYT being untrustworthy sometimes does not make a British Tabloid a trustworthy source.

  • John||

    The fact is that tabloids often do get the truth. And this is hardly an unbelievable story. The FBI didn't mirandize the guy for a reason. They have already arrested other people at the guy's apartment already. It seems more likely than not these guys didn't act alone.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    John, you're sentenced to watch the entire MIB trilogy for that bit of ignorance.

  • John||

    Right dipshit. The tabloids are always wrong. That is why the Mayer of LA really wasn't banging a newsbabe and John Edwards really didn't have a love child.

    You really are mind bogglingly stupid.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You know what the difference between you and me is? I make right-wing apologetics look good.

  • John||

    You are a fucking moron Tulpa. The fact is that tabloids do in fact get the story right as the two examples I gave above show. Do they get it wrong sometimes? Sure, but so does the major media just as often and in many cases in more spectacularly bad ways.

    So "that is in a tabloid" really isn't an intelligent response or an argument for disbelieving a particular story.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I've totally run out of relevant MIB quotes at this point.

  • John||

    You really are the dumbest person who posts on here Tulpa. Shreek is a sock puppet and has a serious mental illness. Tony is psychologically damaged in some deep way no one can quite figure out. You in contrast have none of those excuses. You just really are that stupid.

  • juris imprudent||

    You could've gone with "EAT ME".

  • Rhywun||

    So "that is in a tabloid" really isn't an intelligent response or an argument for disbelieving a particular story.

    and writer Rod Serling, who, the authors say, was high on Jacobson’s meth when he furiously wrote “The Twilight Zone” series

    I could believe he was high *in between* writing episodes. This whole "he was high when he did this or that" nonsense is really annoying.

  • ||

    Check the hot sheets.

    /K

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    John, you should use something much more credible, like the Rockford Record: More arrests in Boston bombings, FBI eyes terror cell

  • The Late P Brooks||

    looks like it could evolve into a fun sci-fi western.

    No kidding. When does Festus make his debut?

  • AuH20||

    So, I think we can all agree: There is no way Tulpa is smart enough to constantly remember how to breathe. He probably uses Post-It Notes or something.

  • ||

    Tulpa doesn't need to breathe since he has no active brain tissue. He gets by just fine through absorbing oxygen through mucous membranes and through the fine hairs in his ears, because the metabolic requirements of a brain-dead fat retard are really that minimal.

  • AuH20||

    Epi, just curious: You believe in the "CBS took the idea for Lost in Space off of Rodenberry, which I agree with. How much credence to you give to JMS's claim that DS9 was lifted from the pitch he gave to Paramount that he later turned into Babylon 5?

    I think that the first seasons of the two shows are similar enough that I believe it. Then Babylon 5 got way, way better.

  • ||

    I have found Straczynski to be pretty solid in his work, and since stealing a creative guy's ideas don't usually work out in the long run, I'd believe him. There's a reason TOS is legendary and LIS is a footnote. And though I stopped watching Babylon 5 part way through because I was too busy getting drunk and stoned and hitting on chicks in college, and I barely watched any DS9 (because it sucked), I agree that it was better. People steal shit in Hollywood all the time. In fact, Straczynski and Gene should have expected it.

  • AuH20||

    Torrent Babylon 5 sometime. If you stopped before the end of season 4. I mean, you should buy the DVDs, but whoever owns the rights to Babylon 5 has managed them horribly. No syndication on the 12 million cable networks that now exist, no deal with Netflix or Hulu(because its not like B5 needs all the exposure it gets) etc.

    They have it a wb.com... but the WB doesn't even exist anymore.

    Season 5 wasn't that good, but it was because JMS had to rush his 5 year plan. They thought Season 4 was the last, so they crammed a ton of plot in, got a renewal, and then went, "Oh, crap, what else were we thinking of for year 5 that wasn't good enough to make it in?"

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Season 5 wasn't that bad, IMO -- definitely not something like, say, BSG season... well, you know which season I'm thinking.

    BTW, Babylon 5 would be a fantastic franchise to add on to if any network is interested in a sci-fi offering.

  • AuH20||

    Shit, given that it didn't have huge rating at the time and had bad CGI, why not just reboot B5?

    Then again, it would be really hard to get actors to even give close to the performance that Londo and G'Kar gave, but rework the core concepts, stick it on cable so you can explore some of the more mature themes fully, and I think people start gushing over it like Game of Thrones.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    JMS was talking about potentially adding to the core story as part of an online distribution network two years ago. IIRC the problem is with negotiating distribution rights.

    People would eat up a B5 reboot, though.

  • AuH20||

    I guess here is the thing I don't get: Babylon 5 was, even in its own time, a relatively obscure, low rated sci fi show.

    However, it was critcally acclaimed. And thus it seems like the ideal show to go to digital streaming. I mean, Star Trek, which was a much bigger show with way better DVD sales etc. has gone all digital on both Hulu and Netflix.

    Like, if you are Warner Brothers, why wouldn't you pull it out of the vault and sell it to Netflix for slightly below what you think it should go for, just to get it back into the public consciousness and drive DVD sales? Let it stay on Netflix for a year, pull it for 3-4 months, and then let it back on once your DVD sales have spiked. I mean, at the moment, they are making almost no money off of a property sitting in their vault, and the business of sci-fi is such that people will lap up 30 year old good sci-fi.

    Seriously, I will simply never understand the television business, because they do not operate like a goddamn business.

  • ||

    You haven't seen Bab 5 all the way through?

  • AuH20||

    Well, I assume Epi is a good bit older than me, and saw the show on broadcast, but if you have it on DVD or what not, once it hits S2E10(GroPos) you can't put it down.

  • ||

    My wife watched it on broadcast. I saw a bit of it, but kinda came in in the middle. She insisted I watch it with her, all the way through, on DVD about 2 years ago. You are absolutely correct mid season 2 through end of 4 was AWESOME!

    Season 5 was disappointing.

  • ||

    The Brothers Tsarnaev received training and/or assistance from somewhere. I seriously doubt their radicalization occurred in a vacuum.


    Somewhere I read that the reason for not Mirandizing him is so he can be questioned without a lawyer to try to get him to give up any accomplices, co-conspirators etc. With a lawyer present he would refuse to answer any question whether the answer incriminates him or not.

    They already have all the evidence they need to convict him and likely execute him and that's all they will present in court. What they're looking for now is how many more are involved.

  • John||

    Exactly. He doesn't seem to have acted alone. They arrested two other people at his apartment. You would think FBI manhunt for sleeper terror cell would be the kind of thing the media would be all over. I can't for the life of me figure out why they are ignoring it.

  • AuH20||

    But then wouldn't any arrests you made based on information he gave you without a proper Miranda warning be Fruit of the Poison Tree?

    So great he give up some guy. The only reason that you had reasonable suspicion on that guy is because you violated the suspects right, and every evidence resulting from that interrogation is inadmissible.

    Yes, they can convict him without Miranda. They can not, however, convict the cell without reading him his Miranda rights.

  • John||

    But then wouldn't any arrests you made based on information he gave you without a proper Miranda warning be Fruit of the Poison Tree?

    No. I have no standing to object to the violation of someone else rights. If the police violate your rights and get evidence against me, I am out of luck. For example, they caught the BTK killer in Kansas by illegally obtaining a DNA sample from the suspects sister and comparing it to the DNA found at one of the murder scenes. Totally violated the sister's rights. But the evidence obtained from that violation was admissible against the killer.

  • ||

    Correct. I addressed the standing issue in an earlier post. This is spot on

  • ||

    here it is: 5:03 pm

    As Kerr points out, many times even when the exceptions DON'T apply, there are reasons why cops will legitimately NOT mirandize. There are other issues like standing - if the cops interrogate somebody in custody w/o miranda and that person gives up testimony that incriminates ANOTHER person, then THAT is admissible, even outside miranda. That third person cannot protest that miranda rights weren't read, because it wasn't HIS rights violated. That's a nuance even some lawyers and cops don't grok, as I have found out in my travels

  • ||

    Several of you had touched on these points but I was getting the impression that some others were not quite getting it.

    It is especially important to be able to get at a suspect not just sans lawyer but before he can even contact one. Yes, none of what you get will be admissible at his trial but you already have all you need.

    The first thing any decent lawyer tells a defendant is pretty much "Don't say another word about this case to anybody (not just the cops)."

  • John||

    Never talk to the cops. If you are never going to be able to talk your way out of it. All you will do is incriminate yourself or set yourself up for a lying to police charge.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    George Zimmerman got out of a murder charge by talking to the cops....

  • ||

    Oh, really?

  • ||

    That should be:

    Oh, really, Tulpa?

    And John, when you become "a person of interest" it is not only "do not talk to the cops", it is "do not talk to anybody, not even your family, your friends, not anyone."

    It is even, "be careful who might be listening in when you're on the phone with your lawyer."

  • John||

    What the fuck are you talking about? George Zimmerman got himself fucking arrested. And oh by the way, every single incongruity in his statement is going to be used to show he is a liar. The fact that they probably were innocent mistakes will make no difference. Get a lawyer and explain things after you talk to your lawyer. Never just talk to the cops.

    It is amazing you manage to feed yourself.

  • ||

    John, that's bogus advice, but it gets trotted out here constantly.

    There are all sorts of circs where talking to the cops (pre and post arrest) benefits people. I've seen several dozen just in my personal investigations. I've had people talk themselves into nolle pros, or being released or whatever. Let's remember Gary Ridgway (the guy who actually did the greeen river killings) talked to police back in the early stages and actually helped keep him down on the list of suspects - and he was GUILTY).

    If you are guilty, there are very good reasons not to talk (although there are sometimes good reasons TO talk. Iow, it depends).

    If you are innocent, there are often good reasons to talk.

    The problem with only analyzing cases (e.g. zimmerman) where the guy who talked WAS arrested and charged is that you are engaging major selection bias. You don't see all the cases where the guy talks and IS NOT charged. Those don't make the docket or the paper, so you only see the cases where talking hurt the person. You don't see the ones where it helped because that IS NOT A CASE in the first place. It got dropped.

    Again, I can think of easily two dozen cases where people talked post arrest and it substantially helped them.

  • ||

    Get a lawyer and explain things after you talk to your lawyer.

    He didn't say never to talk to the police, he said never to "just" talk to them (i.e., without a lawyer).

  • ||

    I've spent huge walls of text discussing this. In brief, there ARE reasons in some cases to talk to the cops before talking to a lawyer.

    a statement given prior to talking to a lawyer is MORE credible because it was (obviously) uncoached, unrehearsed and if given summarily at the scene is going to have that extra "oompf"

    I've responded to PLENTY of self defense cases where the guy talked to me w/o a lawyer and it DID benefit him substantially and no arrest was made. Happens ALL -0-- THE ---- TIME.

    And I know of homicide cases (I have to testify on homicide case this Monday, ironically) where it was self defense and the person gave a statement to responding cops and it benefited them

    In brief, ... it depends.

    As a hard and fast rule, if you are not sure, it's better to get a lawyer first, but there are plenty of exceptions if you are smart enough to know what those are (like you are innocent as fuck and can give a good alibi at the scene.)

  • ||

    It seems to me that John's point was to talk to a lawyer before talking to the police.

    A lawyer can help avoid many of the pitfalls of giving ambiguous and even erroneous statements.

    Any self defense advice that I have read say basically that if you are unlucky enough to get into a deadly force situation you should not give any statements about it before getting legal counsel.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If you have to have a hard and fast rule, that's probably a good one.

    If you can talk your way out of a charge the night of the incident, you can probably talk your way out of it with your lawyer present the next day, with the only penalty being a night in jail. However, there may be situations where that doesn't hold, ie the prosecutor doesn't take kindly to you "lawyering up".

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Zimmerman DID get out of a murder charge, then a few weeks later the civil rights movement outrage industry swooped in and pressured the politicians to circumvent the prosecutors decision. This later development had nothing to do with Zimmerman's talking to the cops.

    If GZ had clammed up and refused to talk, period, the night of the shooting, he would have been charged the next day by the prosecutor. He would have been a guy with a gun standing over a dead body and no explanation. That leads to a murder charge.

    Note also that his statements to police have not yet been used to impugn him, while other developments (his wife's use of the Internet defense fund, for instance) have. So it's probably not going to be used against him at trial if it hasn't already.

  • AuH20||

    If a cop is ever near you, first word out of your mouth: "I want a lawyer, and I am not answering any questions until I see one."

    No matter what they do or say, keep repeating that.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Massad Ayoob's take on the subject..

    Basically: 1) Point out perpetrator to police.
    2) Tell police you will "sign the complaint".
    3) Point out the evidence to police.
    4) Point out witnesses to police.
    5) Will give full cooperation in 24 hours after speaking with an attorney.

    And then shut up. Expanding on 1, 3, and 4, I've heard it explained as, "I shot that guy. He was coming at me with a knife and I was in fear of my life. Those people saw what happened." And then shut up.

    John's right on any inconsistencies in Z's account being used later to hang him. Unless you're sure you can tell the same story the same way to 5 different people, 10 different times, shut up until you talk to your lawyer.

    I'm not buying the Daily Mail's account of sophistication, given the crudity of the explosive agent used in the bomb. (either smokeless powder or TATP) That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they told some people about this, maybe obliquely. OTOH, if they had real assistance, you'd think they wouldn't be reduced to 'jacking some guy for his car.

  • AuH20||

    John, as you are a lawyer, one question: Say my rights are violated, but they lead to someone else's incrimination. Can my lawyer object or file an amicus brief or anything?

    Because if not, that seems a legal loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

    "Look, we illegally searched your cell phone. But it led to your weed dealer, we charged him not you, so your rights weren't violated and no one can object!"

    It would seem to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the 4rth amendment.

  • ||

    Look, the issue is standing. STATE law varies, but under the federal standard, you cannot protest (no standing) the other person's rights being violated, even when it leads to us (the cops) getting incriminating evidence against you. NO STANDING.

    You CAN object to YOUR rights being violated. What the point is, is that evidence gathered against other people - THEY can't object to it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Wasn't there a recent case where the cops were illegally trespassing on one person's property to spy on his neighbor's property, and the courts said that there was no Fourth Amendment issue?

  • ||

    Doesn't ring a bell, but probably. That gets into plain view and open view doctrine as well, which are two constitutional bunny paths I am not hopping down right now.

  • ||

    Oh, and I am not talking theory here. I am talkign personal experience in using these tactics. I have, for example, interrogated passengers in motor vehicles without mirandizing them, to get evidence to use against the driver (and the guy who actually stole the car). And yes, it has held up in court. I had several cases of that nature in Hawaii, for instance.

    Research a little bit about the exclusionary rule (and note this is based on constitutional interpretation, the constitution doesn't SAY that illegally obtained evidence need be suppressed. Case law does).

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Miranda is only intended to protect the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. You can actually be forced to incriminate other people.

  • ||

    Somewhere I read that the reason for not Mirandizing him is so he can be questioned without a lawyer to try to get him to give up any accomplices, co-conspirators etc. With a lawyer present he would refuse to answer any question whether the answer incriminates him or not.

    Um...just because they don't TELL him he has a right to a lawyer doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to a lawyer for christ's sake. He's a fucking US citizen. All he needs to say is I want a lawyer. WTF?

  • John||

    Of course he can demand a lawyer. But you don't have to give him one. He can complain later but all the complaint gets him is his statement not being admitted against him, which wasn't going to happen anyway.

    You can't of course make him talk. He is still free to not answer questions. The bet is that without a lawyer he will be too dumb to understand that.

  • ||

    It's not merely a matter of too dumb. Trust me, as somebody who has engaged in Loooooooooooooooooooong interrogations, there is all sorts of internal psychological pressure TO talk, specifically to confess. He almost certainly knows his miranda rights (iow that he can't be compelled to talk), but that's intellectual. When he;s being interrogated, he may have a very visceral urge TO talk and that's what the interrogators (if they are good) will key in on.

  • dinkster||

    I've had plenty of cops ask me the same stupid questions over and over. Glad to know it's because they think I'll confess to something.

  • ||

    What do you mean they don't have to give him one. OF COURSE THEY DO. He has the right to an attorney and if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided by the court. You act as though reading Miranda is what grants those rights. Every citizen has those rights at any time they are accused of a crime or arrested whether Miranda is read or not. PERIOD!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    It's disputable whether the 6th amendment actually recognizes a right to have an attorney paid for by the state. That wasn't the position of the courts until the 1960s, before which the amendment was interpreted only to bar the state from preventing you from employing your own attorney.

  • ||

    See Gideon v. Wainright (sp?) iirc

  • juris imprudent||

    As someone who has been lawyer-bitch-slapped allow me to pass it on - there is no debate Tulpa. It is settled law.

  • ||

    Actually, and we're getting way technical here, they do not have to get him a lawyer, they just can't use anything he says against him.

    I repeat: They want to interrogate him before he can talk to a lawyer because they hope he will incriminate his accomplices or co-conspirators, not so he'll incriminate himself.

    A lawyer will tell him to say nothing at all, something he has a perfect right to do without being told by a lawyer.

  • ||

    Are you actually implying that the "reading" of Miranda is what "gives" you your rights? You don't have the right to an attorney unless I tell you you do?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    A right that is not enforced is not a right.

  • ||

    No, Miranda is what determines the admissibility of statements at the suspect's trial.

    They are not looking for evidence for Tsarnaev's trial, they're are looking for evidence of a wider plot.

    I am not here speaking to the rightness or wrongness of what they are doing but merely addressing the effectiveness of this approach as an interrogative technique.

  • ||

    True, with the understanding that *if* the public safety exception applies, then even statements sans Miranda will be admissible.

    Again, I personally charged a case where that exception applied, and yes those statements against interest WERE admitted even though he was not mirandized and he WAS in custody (gun drop case)

  • ||

    No, Miranda is what determines the admissibility of statements at the suspect's trial.

    Only the first part. No?

    “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.”

    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

    STOP

    You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

    STOP

    Two rights there, no? I see the right to an attorney as having nothing to do with admissibility.

    They can and must allow you to have an attorney present if you ask for one.

    I get the admissibility thing, but John claimed they didn't need to provide you with an attorney if you asked for one. I'd argue it's pretty clear that they do.

  • ||

    Look, this is something I deal with all the time.

    In a "NORMAL" case, iow not claimed to be terrorist etc. or some other sort of "Exception", the state has the burden of providing you with an attorney if you ask for one. You are not going to get it right away. It's up to the judge to determine if you meet the indigency criteria etc. and that won't be until later anyways (not while you are sitting in the station).

    When I arrest somebody, if they request an attorney (vs. merely speaking to me or invoking their right to remain silent which are different protocols), I tell them they are free to call one and let them use the phone. Sometimes they will call the guy. I have had the attorney come down and confer with the suspect and then do the interrogation from there. On DUI's , we have a # for the on call public defender and they can call him if they ask. Note: the defender almost always advises them TO provide a breath sample (Refusal can be used against you AND you lose the license for a YEAR. if they already have a revoked license, then they might say refusal - and we often say SEARCH WARRRANT for blood, but i digress)

    I think the misunderstanding you are having is the "normal case" vs. the "public safety exception " case

    Fwiw, I get along really well with defense attorneys. I LOVE interrogations, whether with a defense attorney present or not.

  • ||

    Also (in a "normal" case), if they ask for an attorney, questioning must cease. I've had them ask for one, THEN change their mind and say they WANT to give a statement, and that's a bit dodgy. You can remirandize them and get an explicit waiver from there, but it's still dodgy. Then, there is the distinction between "equivocal" and "non equivocal" invocation of right to counsel.

    And regardless... once counsel has been assigned you CANNOT initiate questioning w.o counsel present. If they initiate it, that's a different story.

  • Gray Ghost||

    It's not even, "they need to provide you with an attorney." You've indicated by asking for a lawyer that you want the assistance of counsel. I thought they weren't allowed to speak with you (on pain of getting the statements excluded against you and, excuse me while i laugh my ass off, ethical proceedings undertaken against the court officer soliciting the questioning) once you've asked for counsel, until you've talked to counsel?

    Of course, 4th Amendment jurisprudence is full of judicial line-drawing, the police bitching that they can't get a particular piece of evidence in, and a subsequent court allowing it in via definition stretching that would impress Plastic Man.

    Seriously, it's not that hard. Just Mirandize him and you're done. As to the, 'he won't talk to us without the needle coming off the table,' who here thinks the Feds aren't going to see which three felonies a day aren't going to apply to everyone of his family members? Or what other pressure that might work?

    Hell, if you really want his info that badly---and you may not even need his statements, if you can go through his phone/computers/roommates statements---take the needle off the table knowing that you'll give him a plea deal that puts him with the rest of the prisoners in some garden spot like Marion, IL, and see if he gets Daumerized.

  • ||

    Much of this talk is, of course, academic since so far Tsarnaev is still unconscious and so far has not shown any signs of recovering.

  • Capt Ace Rimmer||

    What about this angle:

    By depriving the American citizen of a lawyer and his opportunity to trade whatever information he has in return for a deal that gets him off of death row you've deprived him of a fair trial.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Technically you can be forced to testify against other people in exchange for nothing, so that probably won't fly. Plea bargains in exchange for testimony are just pragmatic stuff to keep the witness from claiming he doesn't remember.

  • ||

    Unless someone's fucked up they already have all they need to put him on death row.

  • ||

    They have enought to put HIM on death row, they don't have enough to put any other conspirators in so much as a prison cell.

    He'd be trading what he knows to keep himself off of Death Row.

  • ||

    That has also occurred to me since I wrote the above, Tim.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    That boot won't lick itself

    There have been numerous instances of schools really overreacting to the clothing worn by students. But in the case of a West Virginia middle schooler, we wonder if school officials have a point. Last Thursday, Jared Marcum had the brilliant idea to wear a T-shirt to Logan Middle School printed with an image of a gun. In light of the recent rash of school shootings, it’s not too surprising that a teacher had issues with Jared's shirt.

    Tulpa, is your new job at msn.com?

  • John||

    That gun on that shirt might have gone off and hurt someone.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The issue is that other kids might have adverse emotional reactions to seeing the image, which is not conducive to the education process. If recognizing this fact makes me a retard and an anti-gun person, so be it; it's a welcome break from being a retarded right-winger like I was until a week ago, when the commentariat decided to re-evaluate which kind of partisan hack my consistent positions made me.

    If it were up to me, schools would have uniforms to avoid this whole silliness (along with other problems), but that's another issue.

  • John||

    The issue is that other kids might have adverse emotional reactions to seeing the image,

    And they wouldn't have such a reaction when they see a gun on TV? So should we ban any image of guns anywhere? Of course we should. You are tulpa

    Whenever I think you can't make an argument any more stupid, you manage to find a way.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You cut off my reason for why such adverse emotional reactions are a problem...

  • Cytotoxic||

    Your reason was fucking stupid as usual.

  • ||

    I can't take this exam, his shirt is giving me a sad!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Why would other kids have an adverse emotional reaction to seeing a gun? Bugs bu

    Having had kids, I can say that most of what people assume about children's sensibilities is completely idiotic special snowflake nonsense. Unless it's made blatant and horrible, most kids aren't affected by stylized or implied nudity, sexuality, or violence unless they're told to feel a certain way by figures in authority. A pre-teen could care less about nudity. Children all across America watch all sorts of cartoons where guns, hammers, and all sorts of violent implements are used to comedic effect. The idea that these things are in and of themselves damaging to a child's psyche is, outside of specific cases, absolute nonsense.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    I saw a fuckton of Obama shirts on teachers and students five years ago. It disrupted my learning.

  • juris imprudent||

    adverse emotional reactions

    That someone with alleged conservative bona fides can write this is proof positive that you are fundamentally an idiot.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I would also consider an ANTI-GUN t-shirt to be disruptive and inappropriate, if that matters.

  • Generic Stranger||

    No, it just makes you look like an even bigger jackass.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    I saw a fuckton of Obama shirts on teachers and students five years ago. It disrupted my learning.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If recognizing this fact makes me a retard and an anti-gun person,

    It does.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    And again- all this jibberjabber about sci fi shows, and I'll bet nobody has mentioned LEXX yet. You guys are pathetic.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    LEXX was spectacular indeed.

  • prolefeed||

    Queuing up season 1, episode 1 right now. Never heard of this show before, but sounds worth checking out.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Hooked, I take it?

  • ||

    I watched the first episode a while back.

    I'm afraid that for some reason it didn't grab me although all the episode descriptions suggest that it's good.

  • buybuydandavis||

    However, while the cartoon characters were elves and pixies, they were also clearly young elves and pixies,

    Determining the age of elves and pixies is a well established branch of which science, exactly?

    I thought at least elves lived forever. What's young for an elf?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    LIS got canned because it was about a mincing pedophile

    Of course it was; that's why it's Tulpas favorite show.

  • ||

  • ||

    Someone else posted that. I thought it had been Photoshopped.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Have you even seen Gator?

  • ||

    Through a mosaic of Archer episodes I nearly think I have.

  • ||

    Absolutely. How could you think otherwise? The more important question is have you seen Gator Bait?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    The real crime is that last night someone confessed to never seeing Willow

  • ||

    Roger Ebert's ghost?

  • ||

    "Calm down, Hitler. Do you think Ron Howard just wished Willow was great? No...and yet it was."

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Oh, no

    Monday's bombings, the first major terrorist attack on American soil in the age of smartphones, Twitter and Facebook, provided an opportunity for everyone to get involved. Within seconds of the first explosion, the Internet was alive with the collective ideas and reactions of the masses.

    But this watershed moment for social media quickly spiraled out of control. Legions of Web sleuths cast suspicion on at least four innocent people, spread innumerable bad tips and heightened the sense of panic and paranoia.

    "This is one of the most alarming social media events of our time," said Siva Vaidhyanathan, a media studies professor at the University of Virginia. "We're really good at uploading images and unleashing amateurs, but we're not good with the social norms that would protect the innocent."

    What happens to the gatekeepers when the barbarian hordes tear the fence down?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    "We're really good at uploading images and unleashing amateurs, but we're not good with the social norms that would protect the innocent."

    Hey, she really is an expert on the media. That's a perfect description of the MSM.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    OK, I've reviewed the situation and decided that it's in the best interest of everyone if I take a vacation from posting here. Perhaps you will have a better understanding of how valuable my utterances have been when I see you all in May. Have fun.

  • Nazdrakke||

    how valuable my utterances

    Careful not to bump your ego on your way out.

  • juris imprudent||

    Be sure to avoid anything sharp - be a shame for that ego of yours to get punctured.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Didn't Carly Simon write a song about you?

  • Ted S.||

    I can think of another regular here about whom Carly Simon sang a song.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Hugh?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    May 2014, right?

  • Conrad||

    Why 'Tulpa (LAOL-VA)'?

  • ||

    Don't feel obligated on that whole May thing.

  • Irish||

    What on earth. Tulpa, if you stopped being smug and pedantic, people wouldn't have a problem with you. So your solution is to be super smug about your belief that we need you here.

    You have trouble learning lessons, don't you Tulpa?

  • ||

    You always double down on smug.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Oh, no. Tulpa's going to take his ball cross and go home.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    "We miss Tulpa" - said nobody, ever

  • ||

    And some of you idiots still talk to Tulpa like he's a normal human worth talking to. You're almost as dumb as him.

  • ||

    Who is this "Tulpa" and why should we care?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Anyone fly in the last week or so?

    I leave on tuesday and was wondering if they got extra dickish with the existential threat of international, global, fundamental Islamic Jihad and all.

    Should I leave early(erer)?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Pack your stuff in a big aluminum pot.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'm fucked. I thick dark hair(my dad's eastern european and looks like saddam hussein)and don't shave, and all my stuff is mil-surp.

    I was gonna use the bag I keep my ammo and stuff in, but it smelled like the gun range; it'd probably set off all the alarms.

  • ||

    "I was gonna use the bag I keep my ammo and stuff in,"

    lol. You CAN'T be serious. You don't want it to have even ever touched ammo (or gunpowder or...) let alone the bag you use to STORE that stuff in.

    God almighty, man!

  • General Butt Naked||

    You don't want it to have even ever touched ammo ...

    That's like everything I own!

  • CJR||

    Uh, no. The chemical detectors at the airport don't register on gunpowder or the combustion products thereof.

    I fly five or six times a year using my range bag (which usually contains shitload of ammo, gets dragged around various shooting ranges, is used as an expedient rifle test, etc.) as a carry-on. I haven't had any problems, unless I accidentally leave ammo or empty brass in it...

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • Generic Stranger||

  • Anti-War Libertarian||

    Why can't the US be like a more normal country like North Korea or New Zealand? Kim Sung-Il was a heroic defender of liberty from American Imperialism and a staunch ally of those other pro-peace, pro-liberty defenders of liberty Mao and Stalin who supported the oppressed minorities unlike the Imperialist Amoronikkkan Empire which destroys the world's moral fiber by selling vile filth like

    At least in those countries they have politicians that care about the poor unlike in the US where the Supreme Court declares that corporations are people and they have free speech rights which allow the corporations to control our media and brainwash us and make us fat and lazy. And at least their politicians are willing to stand up to gun manufacturers and the NRA to pass sensible gun safety measures while the Senate supports killing children. And they at least have democratic media controls while over here our Corporate media lies all the time and convinces us to pass savage budget cuts that allow the rich to live while the poor starve in the streets. And North Korea at least has no obesity problem and true Korean culture has survived unlike in that tyrannical U.S. puppet state of South Korea where they have sold out their culture in exchange for Yankee corporate greed and produce Imperialist Propaganda like Gangnam Style. And they don't have corporations that destroy the land, destroy the culture and destroy the people through their so-called "free trade" ideology.

  • Conrad||

    If you hadn't talked about the "poor starving the street" like it was a bad thing you would have made a perfect cosmo.

  • General Butt Naked||

    After reading Tulpa's recent shamefully embarassing posts, I've declared myself a cosmotarian. The closest I can get to a working definition of "cosmotarian" is: someone who isn't tulpa...

    And I would never say anything like what was posted above.

  • Conrad||

    To get a good sense of cosmotarianism, take a typical liberal rant and replace "corporations" with "the government" specifically "the drug war." Same hatred of white people, Christians, Israelis, and men, same fallacious argument, same warnings of "fundamentalists" wanting to institute "theocracy," same belief that America is the great Satan(there is even something called "bleeding heart libertarians"!), same whining about the
    "Kultur war" just as they advocate for the normalization of homosexuality, and the idiotic belief that liberals value "personal" freedom. I could go on, but you get the idea.

  • ||

    I don't really want to respond to you so this is a general response to Butt and Cali, but if being something opposite to a racist misogynist piece of shit like you makes me a "cosmotarian", bring it the fuck on, because I'm all for it.

  • Conrad||

    It would be unfair to call you a typical cosmoatrian, most cosmos have more class than you. The fact that you even use the term "misogynist" says it all about you. It never dawns on you the irony of you using liberal snarl words even as you promote the most anti-liberal ideology imaginable.

  • Irish||

    It never dawns on you the irony of you using liberal snarl words even as you promote the most anti-liberal ideology imaginable.

    Misogynist is not a 'liberal snarl word.' Misogynist has clear meaning regardless of how liberals have co-opted it.

    Your clear and visceral hatred of women who behave in a way you deem inappropriate is pretty much textbook misogyny.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I like how Conrad is so stupid that he can't recognize a parody of Buchanite/Raimondoite paleoconservative foreign policy and thinks it's about "cosmotarians".

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *Buchannanite

  • Calidissident||

    Epi, I couldn't care less what American calls me, I just think it's hilarious how (as Heroic Mulatto also pointed out) that he sees a parody of Rockwellian/Buchannanite/Raimondite foreign policy and thinks its about "cosmotarians"

  • Calidissident||

    See, this is what is so ridiculous about the whole "cosmotarian" thing. Cosmotarians are supposed to be the opposite of Rockwellian libertarians. Rockwell, Raimondo, etc. always lob similar insults at Reason, CATO, Gary Johnson, and basically whoever they view as not meeting their standards of purity. Anti-War Libertarian's post is a hyperbolic parody of a Rockwellian, and yet Conrad (aka American) thinks its a perfect example of a "cosmotarian" post.

  • Conrad||

    Rockwell whines about the Senate supporting killing children? It sounded to me as general anti-liberal satire.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Rockwell whines about the Senate supporting killing children? It sounded to me as general anti-liberal satire.

    Wow, you're a mouth-breathing moron.

    Just how many extra chromosomes do you have?

  • Liberal||

    So Rockwell supports gun control? What else does he support?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Calidissident||

    The gun control part doesn't really vibe with Rockwell's views, but the parts regarding other countries and foreign policy is, especially given the guy's screen name and his other posts, most definitely a parody of Rockwellians. It's not a completely accurate portrayal (obviously, given that it is satire) but the group he's parodying is definitely not cosmotarians, unless you consider Rockwell and Raimondo cosmotarians, which is absurd

  • ||

    From my observations, if you are calling someone else a cosmotarian...

    ...it's because you are a Republican.

  • Liberal||

    I'm no Republican. Are you one of those people who says that libertarianism requires one to support cultural liberalism?

  • Irish||

    OHOHOH! Is this another of American's handles? Does he have two or three going right now?

  • ||

    The only thing libertarianism requires one to support is the NAP.

  • BuSab Agent||

    ^THIS^^^

  • General Butt Naked||

    The only thing libertarianism requires one to support is the NAP.

    Yeah, but real libertarians know that NAP doesn't apply to wetbacks, ay-rabs, druggies, nigras, whores(the women folk), and gun owners.

    My theory is that the people that scream "Cosmo!" the loudest are closet republicans, as you said above, that want to get invited to cocktail parties. They dress their McCainesqe ideology up in a veneer of ersatz libertarianism and political pragmatism.

  • Gladstone||

    General you forgot to list Teh Gheys you Republitarian.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oooh, the mask slips "Gladstone"! HA!

    You've fallen right into my trap. I knew some half-mexican, slant-eyed, cosmotarian homo would bring up the gayz and here you are.

    How's that for hope and change you sumbitch?

  • Irish||

    I don't necessarily agree that they're closet Republicans. It seems to vary. American screams 'Cosmo' because American is either an unbelievable racist or a sock puppet troll. He's either a total dumbass or is just trying to get a rise out of people.

    Tulpa just has no values. Tulpa will fly wildly from a bizarre, hyper-Republican argument to talking about how a gun on a t-shirt will mentally scar the little children. Tulpa is just an arch-contrarian who thinks needling people and being pedantic is proof of his high intelligence. To Tulpa, saying you're a Cosmo is his way of convincing himself he's better than you because he's just incredibly arrogant and smug.

    I don't know about SIV. He is a mystery.

    Cosmo is basically an insult in libertarian circles that means what 'patriarchy' means in feminist circles. It's a mindless, vague, undefined catchall that basically means 'someone who believes something to which I am opposed.'

  • Calidissident||

    "Cosmo is basically an insult in libertarian circles that means what 'patriarchy' means in feminist circles. It's a mindless, vague, undefined catchall that basically means 'someone who believes something to which I am opposed.'"

    I mostly agree with this, but the people who say it (or related terms with the same implication, i.e. "Beltway libertarians") the most seem to be either a) Republitarians or b) Rockwellians. Which is kinda ironic, since those two groups tend to hate each other even more than they hate "cosmotarians"

  • Irish||

    When Republitarians and Rockwellians use it, they often mean the same thing, though. Generally they mean someone who is more socially liberal than they'd like.

    Like 'You're an atheist?' COSMO!

    The really crazy word rape occurs when other groups, like straight up racists or Tulpatarians, use the word to mean whatever they want it to mean.

  • Calidissident||

    Irish that's a pretty fair assessment, but I'd add to it that when Republitarians and Rockwellians use it, there's always the implication that the people they're calling "cosmotarians" aren't REAL libertarians

  • Irish||

    There really aren't that many Rockwellians who come around here. They don't like us very much. I know that Gladstone used to read Rockwell and has since seen the light and realized that Rockwell is goddamn crazy.

    Speaking of which, does anyone remember the time Justin Raimondo, who's basically a weirdo, pseudo-Rockwellian, showed up and wrote a single, longwinded post about what a neo-con Rand Paul is? That was hilarious.

  • Calidissident||

    I used to read Rockwell and briefly Raimondo (though not exclusively), and they often use terms like "Beltway libertarians" to refer to Reason, CATO and their supporters. I don't know if they ever used the specific term "cosmotarian" but they used terms that mean and imply the same thing. I'm pretty sure they even threw around the "COCKTAIL PARTIEZ!" line.

    "Speaking of which, does anyone remember the time Justin Raimondo, who's basically a weirdo, pseudo-Rockwellian, showed up and wrote a single, longwinded post about what a neo-con Rand Paul is? That was hilarious."

    Yeah, Ron Paul is really the only American politician has their approval. Everyone else isn't pure enough. And the funny thing is they would still run articles during election season about why people who might disagree with Ron Paul to some extent on certain things should nonetheless support him, despite they themselves wouldn't use that logic with any other politician.

  • Gladstone||

    I always found it funny that LRC would attack Reason for being "Beltway Libertarians" when both of them love Vidal, Cockburn and Zinn for being anti-war.

    Oh and I always found their demand of unconditional loyalty to Ron Paul a bit much.

    Fun Fact. I recall reading an article written by Rothbard in the 70s/80s where he quotes Raimondo approvingly bashing Paul for not being a real libertarian. I wonder what happened to change their attitude? I guess they felt Ron was their way to get political influence? I mean Rothbard did involved with that Peace and Freedom party back during the Vietnam War.

  • Calidissident||

    "I always found it funny that LRC would attack Reason for being "Beltway Libertarians" when both of them love Vidal, Cockburn and Zinn for being anti-war."

    The "Beltway" attack seems to be more of a way to suggest that Reason, CATO, etc. cozy up to the political establishment and let their desire to fit in with that crowd affect their advocacy and political analysis away from "true libertarianism". I don't know about LRC, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Reason "loves" the guys you mentioned.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Irish, I understand what you're saying, and I've said the same thing many times. But,

    ....

    Christ, I ran out of words. I totally had some point to make but just flaked the fuck out. Staring at the scree for a minute now...

    Oh well, anyone else have anything to add?

  • ||

    This is from Urban Dictionary:

    cosmotarian

    A cosmopolitan libertarian; a libertarian who holds socially liberal personal opinions about abortion, homosexuality, race, and other social issues. Compare to paleotarian.

    IOW... a libertarian (except the abortion thing)

    paleotarian

    A conservative libertarian; a libertarian who holds conservative personal opinions on homosexuality, drug use, abortion, and other social issues, but does not support government authority in these issues (except possibly abortion). Compare to cosmotarian.

    IOW... A Republican (who doesn't want to legislate morality)

  • ||

    I would say the paleotarian is till a libertarian, Republican or no. Libertarianism is a POLITICAL philosophy, it doesn't require someone to personally like certain stances on the topics he doesn't want the government weighing on on.

  • Anti-War Libertarian||

    I would definitely prefer the ideology of Chavez to that of Dick Armey and Tom Delay since Saint Hugo supported the poor and impoverishment through share the wealth programs. The only way to stop and American Imperialism is through proper land reform and redistrubtion of the wealth by such fine men as Chavez, Kim Jung un, and Vladimir Putin all heroic opponents of American Imperialism.

  • Anti-War Libertarian||

    ...The only way to stop *war* and American Imperialism....

    Fuck you CIA-stooge squirrels for screwing up my posts!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Despite a serious throat wound that prevents him from speaking, the surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect is beginning to respond to questions from investigators, federal officials tell NBC News.
  • Conrad||

  • ||

    Conrad: A retard for the ages.

  • np||

    conviction for possessing objectionable material

    No matter how free they claim to be, as a result of having an unprincipled approach, many countries make various exceptions for free speech, as well as many other things. I noticed a common trait shared by Anglo/English countries (US, UK, IE, CA, NZ, AU) is the criminalization of obscenity, where the only difference lies in the details of how one determines obscenity or what is objectionable.

    NZ also has a national ratings and censorship board
    http://www.censorship.govt.nz/.....aPage.aspx
    In relation to this article, some anime are also banned like "Ikki Tousen Dragon Destiny", and "Puni Puni Poemy"

    Canada also keeps a list of banned titles. Basically the list grows primarily from customs inspections, and also contains random computer file names as stuff to watch out for:
    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/b.....iew-986512

    It's not just possess these titles = go to jail, and register as a sex offender in some cases, you can also go to jail for possessing something that would end up on the list like this guy

    The US does not use a national list of course, but uses case-by-case criminalization through the Miller test, delegating the task to the jury, if they do not plea bargain (and they almost always do)

  • Conrad||

    I'm not convinced that obscene material is covered under the "freedom of speech" guarantee in the constitution. The founders were clearly referring to actual speech, specifically political speech, and the printed word("freedom of speech"). They were not referring to pornography. I believe that everyone should be able to watch pornography if they want, but that doesn't mean it is in the constitution. To say so smells like liberalism to me.

  • ||

    You don't actually believe in natural rights, do you?

  • SIV||

    Do you know who else didn't believe in natural rights?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    King George the Third?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Barack Obama?

  • dinkster||

    Hr puffnstuff

  • Conrad||

    And in Canada, there's the infamous "human rights commissions."

  • Rhywun||

    I noticed a common trait shared by Anglo/English countries (US, UK, IE, CA, NZ, AU) is the criminalization of obscenity

    FTFY

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Ok, now I have said New Zealand was an example of economic freedom. However, didn't Ohio just lock up a guy for essentially the exact same thing?

    Australia USA = New Zealand

    Gun rights need to come back in Aussieland and Gillard has to go.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Damn,

    USA (Greater than, equal to) Australia (Greater than) New Zealand

  • Rhywun||

    I just saw Gillard on FOX Soccer (I did not know who she was at first) bragging about how many millions of dollars the *National government* was pouring into soccer there. And I was like... WTF?

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    She's a statist bitch; Obama's feminine alter ego.

  • Rhywun||

    Yeah, it really creeped me out. The host was like "how exciting is this Grand Final event?" and the PM was like "well, you have me to thank for throwing $20 million at it." Barf.

  • ||

    After a disappointing showing at some past Olympics (Barcelona?) the Australian government started pouring millions into sports. The government pays guaranteed salaries to Olympic athletes and actively recruit athletes from foreign countries with promises of paid passage and accelerated citizenship.

    Getting rid of Gillard would be a good start but this stuff is supported by the Liberal/National coalition and it was the Howard government that imposed the semiauto/pump action ban and confiscation.

  • Lindsay||

    I first learned of this site from a troll who kept calling me a "statist." I think it is really disturbing that there are people like this in the world. I live in Israel and I'm thankful that I don't have to deal with this kind of ideology. We have a government, we have a nation, and we do fine. I think it is weird that you guys claim to be atheists, but you have a religious belief in the rightness of your ideology, as if a superior being came down and told you property was sacred, and it doesn't matter how much suffering your system creates, you will still say it is right.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    D+ trolling

  • Nazdrakke||

    ..the fuck?

  • ||

    I'd say you don't have the slightest grasp of our philosophy.

    I'd lurk more prior to commenting on subjects you are completely ignorant of.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And in case English is Lindsay's second language, I'd recommend he/she visits here. (Though Ale Yarok is a bit on the Dopertarian side).

  • ||

    Ale Yarok = Green Leaf

  • Irish||

    I live in Israel and I'm thankful that I don't have to deal with this kind of ideology.

    Yeah, you just have hardcore zionists and an issue with terrorism. Clearly your way of doing things is what we all should aspire to.

  • General Butt Naked||

    "Getting blown up on buses is waaaaay better than being left alone, doper!"

  • dinkster||

    A woman and a Jew? Two strikes already.

  • ||

    They don't make the trolls like they used to...you slackers need to step your sockpuppet game up

  • WomSom||

    lol, you have got to be kidding me! The kangaroo court system is a farce!

    www.Ano-Surf.tk

  • Liberal||

    Libertarian argumnts on gun violence are idiotic. The solution to gun violence: more guns! Almost as stupid as saying that the solution to not having enough tax revenue is to lower taxes. Libertarians talk about using their guns against criminals, as if there are any criminals where libertarians live. Meanwhile, the poor who are forced to live in crime-prone areas support gun control. Most Americans support common sense gun control measures.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A+ trolling!

  • Rhywun||

    I *knew* Krugman reads Hit n Run.

  • Irish||

    Maybe if the poor who live in crime ridden areas had weapons to defend themselves, they wouldn't be so crime ridden.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Is it troll night?

  • Irish||

    Every night at reason is troll night. It's one of the reasons I love it so much.

  • ||

    Every night is troll night, my Canadian friend. And I'm not your friend, guy.

  • Irish||

    I beat you, jackass. Now you look like a pale imitation of Irish.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What the hell is a pale imitation of the Irish? An albino?

  • Irish||

    A ghost.

  • Gladstone||

    Victor McLaglen? The Replacements?

  • Irish||

    Hitler?

  • Generic Stranger||

    Edgar Winter?

  • ||

    I'm not your guy, pal!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    shrewd

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    GARY BUSEY

  • Sevo||

    Anti-War Libertarian| 4.21.13 @ 8:55PM |#
    "Why can't the US be like a more normal country like North Korea or New Zealand?"
    ----------------------------
    Conrad| 4.21.13 @ 9:11PM |#
    "I'm not convinced that obscene material is covered under the "freedom of speech" guarantee in the constitution."
    ----------------------------
    Lindsay| 4.21.13 @ 9:42PM |#
    "I first learned of this site from a troll who kept calling me a "statist." I think it is really disturbing that there are people like this in the world"
    ----------------------------
    Liberal| 4.21.13 @ 9:57PM |#
    "Libertarian argumnts on gun violence are idiotic"
    ----------------------------
    Tulpa scampers off, claiming none here recognize the greatness of his posts, and we almost instantly get these.
    Coincidence?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    *taps nose*

  • Irish||

    Anti-war libertarian is a parody of Raimondo and Lew Rockwell.

    Conrad is just American. I have a feeling that Lindsay and Liberal are also American. This is especially true since Lindsay is from 'Israel' and talks about how awesome Israel is, which is something American does constantly.

  • Sevo||

    OK, #1 would be a stretch for Tulpa, unless in full-troll mode.
    #s 2,3,and 4 are close to his arguments.
    OTOH, it may just be that 4/21 has all the lefty dopers enjoying their new 'freedom' through hypocrisy.

  • Irish||

    I maintain that the bottom three are the same troll. American has a history of running multiple troll accounts at once.

  • Calidissident||

    Not sure if Liberal is American, but Conrad definitely is, and Lindsay most likely is

  • Calidissident||

    Actually I just saw the post from "Liberal" about how "cosmotarians" think that one has to support "cultural liberalism" in order to be a "real libertarian" which is something American always says

  • Irish||

    Liberal and Lindsay also have never showed up before and suddenly posted within 20 minutes of each other. They did that shortly after 'Conrad' disappeared from the thread.

    That leads me to think they're related.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Another grueling day of televised motorsports draws to a close. Kimi did good. So did the new kid in MotoGP. The boys in Long Beach put on their usual clown show.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Ferrari had some reliability issues.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Ferrari had some reliability issues.

  • Irish||

    Just like your posting.

  • Sevo||

    OK, I'm an old fart.
    Ferrari used to have 'reliability issues' like setting the car on fire during pit stops.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Today it was Filipe's tyre shredder, and Nando's broken fake passing system.

  • Sevo||

    The Late P Brooks| 4.21.13 @ 10:22PM |#
    "Another grueling day of televised motorsports draws to a close"

    And Jr did what Jr does.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Ok, I am officially getting rid of my LAOL tag. Which commentariat clan is taking applications?

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Maybe John and I need to start one.

  • General Butt Naked||

    You'll have to wait until monday morning as he only posts on the taxpayers' dime.

    Don't join up with anyone, rugged individualism is the spirit of the comments.

  • johnl||

    FCAL?

  • Gladstone||

    First California Financial Group?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    All things considered, Alonso brought that thing home in championship style.

    And what the fuck was Rosberg's problem? When Hobbs accuses you of blocking like Schumacher, you need to take step back.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I think Pepe was more unsettled than Keke Jr.
    Never hit your own teammate.

  • SIV||

    So is reason going to push e-verify like Cato is? I haven't canceled my subscription lately.

    Any commenter who says "the perfect is the enemy of the good" in relation to immigration reform with e-verify can suck my dick.

  • SouthernSeaDog(Y-tarian)||

    "e-verify like Cato is"

    E-Verify isn't cosmo, so no.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I haven't been keeping up with the bill, but where do they mention e-verify in the story, and why is it so bad?

  • SIV||

    Rubio is pushing e-verify w/ the gang of 8 for the "comprehensive reform" immigration bill. It is more national id shit The program is operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Cato isn't going to emphasize the e-verify portion but "comprehensive reform" is going to be bad. They need to do it piecemeal.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ah, I see.

    Fuck that shit.

  • ||

    Cato as a think tank does not take positions, only their fellows do.

    Jim Harper has been very much against it and how it will lead to National ID, that's why they run shit like this:

    http://www.cato.org/events/e-verifys-many-perils

  • SIV||

    I know that. Cato didn't come out in favor of mag limits, only Robert A Levy did. It will be interesting to see how they finesse the push for "comprehensive immigration reform". I suspect with the ol' "perfect is the enemy of the good". E-verify isn't "good".

    They will dispute the Heritage Foundation's claims on entitlement increases.I bet Heritage if far more right than the Cato fellows.

  • SIV||

    I'm not going to read 400+ OT comments. Could someoene summarize this thread for me? Is it full of commenters snapping at troll chum?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Tulpa had a hissy fit, took his ball and went home.

  • SouthernSeaDog(Y-tarian)||

    ^this

  • SIV||

    Over what?

    (Please God, not something I agree with him on)

  • Irish||

    Yes. That and Tulpa being a pedantic bitch for half the thread.

    The only part that might be of interest is the point where Tulpa gets tired of getting shit on, and basically says 'Since you guys are being mean, I won't post here for a month! THEN YOU'LL LEARN TO LOVE ME!'

    That was actually pretty damn funny.

  • SouthernSeaDog(Y-tarian)||

    Most days I think Tulpa is the pro-Drug War persona of Dunphy. What a combo.

  • ||

    God spare me

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You forgot the Asian porn link dump.

  • Paul.||

    His Romney loss was supposed to result in his joe-like absence... almost did.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    setting the car on fire during pit stops.

    They banned refueling. Fucking spoilports.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Could someoene summarize this thread for me?

    Bob Wills is still the king.

  • SIV||

    Spade Cooley could stomp a mudhole in Bob Wills.

  • Tulpy-Pooh (LOL-PA)||

    You Betray Me Hit 'n' Run. Everybody Betray Me. I FEDDAP WIT DIS WARULD!

  • ||

    You betrayed me! You're not good. You, you're just a chicken. Cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep!

  • Tulpy-Pooh (LOL-PA)||

    There once was a guy who had 300 other guys along with octopods and yetis. When they all found out about each other they beat him all up and sent him to a hospital on Guerrero Street.

    Ha Ha. What a story Warty.

  • ||

    What the fuck does LAOL mean, anyway?

  • Tulpy-Pooh (LOL-PA)||

    You're just a little cheeken. Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep.

  • Gladstone||

    What the fuck does LAOL mean, anyway?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS9oNBJEtNU

  • johnl||

    Law And (sic) Order Libertarian.

  • ||

    LAOL = Law and Order Libertarian = Republican

  • Sevo||

    And no one picked up on this? J.D.; asleep at the wheel!
    "Jennifer Lawrence presents Bill Clinton with GLAAD Media Award"
    http://blog.sfgate.com/dailydi.....dia-award/
    This is a man who promoted and signed the DOMA, who porked a female intern in the oval office, and now gets WHAT?! From WHOM?!
    Do you reckon if he buggered a 10YO black kid in the platz at noon, they'd give him an award for "diversity"?

  • Gladstone||

    Do you reckon if he buggered a 10YO black kid in the platz at noon, they'd give him an award for "diversity"?

    And Andrew Sullivan would have to declare him America's First Gay President. Poor James Buchanan.

  • Gladstone||

    Roger Bowden? Wasn't he is M*A*S*H?

  • Gladstone||

    Roger Bowden? Wasn't he in M*A*S*H?

  • SouthernSeaDog(Y-tarian)||

    We deserve a better caliber of troll. The comment section is basically the only reason half of us come here...

  • Tulpy-Pooh (LOL-PA)||

    I did naht hit her, it's not true! This is bullshit. I did naht hit her. I did naht!

    Oh hai H'n'R!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9gN2hdybFY

  • Irish||

    It's hard to have a high caliber troll when you only actually have one and he makes a dozen different accounts.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • Nazdrakke||

    Hey, could someone take pity on an ignorant soul and describe to me the magic of turning a hyper-link into text like all you web-fu masters do? Thnx.

  • Irish||

    Do you have google Chrome?

    If so, go to the 'Reasonable' app and download it. It let's you do all kinds of nifty things, like put shit in block quotes and block Shrike.

    There's also a button called 'link' that you can press and enter a hyperlink.

    I don't know if there are similar downloads for other browsers.

  • Nazdrakke||

  • Gladstone||

    Heh, Top Hat and monocle. I guess whipping children in factories was not easy to draw.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Can you make one for Opera?

  • Gray Ghost||

    Go grab Reasonable if you view this site with Chrome. It'll allow you to do it easily.

  • Irish||

    HAHAHHAHA! This is the first review.

    A Google UserOct 15, 2011
    You really need to re-think the process of adding people to the troll list. MNG and I are now on it and neither of us fits the profile of a troll. Also I was able to increment my ignore-count (assuming that's what the number next to the name is on the list) by just unignoring and ignoring over and over again. Well, unless several other people happened to be ignoring me at the same time, which I think unlikely. That's just asking for abuse from a dishonorable user who has a grudge against someone.

    --Tulpa

    Dishonorable user. He's using the word dishonorable to describe someone who abuses an ignore function on a libertarian site. God, never change, Tulpa.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Dang I remember that. See, shit's been the same forever.

    Tulpa has become more and more like mng over the past few months. I think he actually was mng now that I ponder it. He must of gave up the sockpuppet when registration made it too much of a pain in the ass to troll.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • MJGreen||

    Damn, everyone needs to be watching VEEP. That show is ON FIRE.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I think I saw the first few episodes of S1.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Plus it has Buster!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • Nazdrakke||

    Would this be a good idea?

    I'm hardly the person to question the Koch bros business acumen, but it seems risky.

  • ||

    What a dumb bitch:

    “So far, they haven’t seemed to be particularly enthusiastic about the role of the free press,” Ms. Mayer said in an e-mail, “but hopefully, if they become newspaper publishers, they’ll embrace it with a bit more enthusiasm.”

    I'm skeptical that it would work out since any properties would be "tainted" by the Koch name.

    That said, I'm not sure how many normal people are actually aware who the Kochs are and that they're evillllll. A media buy like this, if indeed ideologically motivate, would be targeting people who consume more mainstream news sources and don't necessarily know or care about the Kochs.

  • Irish||

    So far, they haven’t seemed to be particularly enthusiastic about the role of the free press

    This is fucking ridiculous. Liberals really don't know what the Koch's actually believe, do they? The Koch's, if anything, are MORE pro-free press than the current press.

  • Irish||

    I don't know why there are apostrophes there. Grammar is the enemy of all true libertarians.

  • DesigNate||

    .Hear hear

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    JULY!?!?! I have to wait until July for the world to end?

  • GeorgeSorkos29||

    Wow...talk about a dude needing to know a thing or two about healthy relationships! Hentai porn? And no people?

  • hdson81||

    Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83 per hour. I work through this link, http://www.g00.me/Work

  • craigbhill||

    Thank you, JohnRoss, for pointing out what numbskull sticks-in-the-mud conservatives can be! How REASONable of you.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online