A.M. Links: How Goldman Sachs Seduced Greece, FDA Targets Maker of Caffeine Spray, Kucinich Loses His Primary


  • Greek debt manager on the country's recently revealed loan from Goldman Sachs: "The Goldman Sachs deal is a very sexy story between two sinners."

  • FDA gets ready to pummel makers of AeroShot.
  • Despite a 2008 campaign promise, Obama embraces lobbyists (again).  
  • Dennis Kucinich lost his primary last night
  • After Super Tuesday, Romney lurches one stop closer to the GOP nomination
  • You'd need 76 work days to read all your privacy policies each year.


New at Reason.tv: "What's New With Nanotech: A Presentation by Zyvex CEO Jim Von Ehr" 


NEXT: Is It Possible to Outsmart TSA's Body Scanners?


  1. President Erwin Mitt Romney. Has a ring to it, no?

    1. Der Bostonfuchs? At which point does he shoot himself?

      1. If housepets were libertarian.

        1. So lefties think citizens are the equivalent of housepets owned and provided for by the government. Sounds about right.

          1. Can’t read, but WTF.

          2. “Housepets” sounds more cuddly than “slaves.”

        2. Carrying this analogy to the fullest, liberals are more like grateful housepets?

          “I love my master. He provided free contraception by paying for my neutering!” **Wagging tail**

        3. That site is so full of idiocy, I think I’m gonna tag it a favorite so I can post their tripe once in a while.

          Try this one out.

          1. Probably their best work IRT libertarianism. Rarely do people get us wrong so many ways at once.

            1. Hey, did you get a wedding present this week? Because if not, I need to raise hell with somebody.

              1. The box was on the porch when I got home last night, dude. He’s currently on display in our living room.

                1. He’s currently on display in our living room.

                  He? That doesn’t sound right. Email me what it is, because something may have gone wrong.

            2. Rarely do people get us wrong so many ways at once.

              I don’t know, the male-female split is accurate.

            3. Are you sure they aren’t sort of meta-jokes about left wing cartoonists?

          2. That needs to be a verse in the Book of Sloopiticus.

          3. So, the majority of things the government does for you is tax you less than it could?


          4. That is astounding. The entire “satire” aspect of the cartoon is based on the belief that the government owns your money, and anything they don’t take in taxes is a gift to you, courtesy of government’s benevolence.

        4. Wow. That’s even dumber that the cartoons Reason publishes (Bagge excepted).

          Perfect encapsulation of the ridiculous attitude that if you don’t want government to do it, you don’t want it at all.

    2. Isn’t it Willard Mitt Romney?

      1. Oh, cowardly commenter some guy, what am I going to do with you? Invisible was able to pick up what I was laying down.

        1. Sorry. I see it now. I still don’t get it, though.


    4. Romney, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!

    1. Still, I defend their First Amendment right to put stupid signs on the sides of buses.

    2. I thought Metro didn’t allow political ads on their buses. I guess its ok when it sucks the cock of liberal dogma.

  2. Paul’s gun rights record. Very anti-Paul article. Guess it’ll make Southerner happy.

    1. But his gun record isn’t bad. The only belmish is his refusal to stop the idiotic lawsuits against gun makers. And I am sure he did that out of his commitment to states’ rights. I think he is foolish for that since the results in one state can effectively ban guns in others. But it is not an anti gun position.

      1. The Path to FREEDOM! So funny.

      2. States rights, a great idea, except when it isn’t!

        1. Yes. When one state can effectively ban a product nationwide, that is a problem. That is why we created the federal government. To resolve those issues.

          1. We have a Federal Government so that the merchants who loaned the U.S. money to fight the war of independence wouldn’t have to hire a mercenary army to put down rebellions by poor farmers being taxed heavily to pay for that debt.

            And it worked!

            1. We also have a federal government so we can have a single national market. That whole negative commerce clause thing. And that worked too.

              1. Thanks, John, for being truthful about that.

              2. Oh, so you want to do this under an expansive commerce power.

                Nice to know!

                1. There are two sides to the commerce clause dipshit. One side restricts what the feds can do. The other restricts what the states can do. It is called the negative commerce clause.

                  You really are functionally incapable of making an honest argument aren’t you? Whenever you don’t understand something or can’t make a counter point, rather than shutting up or saying never thought of that, you just make some douche bag comment and change the subject.

                  1. “One side restricts what the feds can do. The other restricts what the states can do. It is called the negative commerce clause.”

                    Dude, you just described TWO negative sides…Before you go into your standard “you are so dishonesty rant” you should be more careful in reading your own post…

                    1. No. I just used a term of art. The “negative commerce clause” is the term used to describe how the commerce restricts states from restraining trade and creates a single national market.

                      Go look it up. You can continue you wikipedia legal education.

                    2. I know what the negative commerce clause is John, but when you talk about the “two sides to what” a clause can do it’s strange to only include it’s negative, implied aspect…

                    3. fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap…

          2. Which is why gun companies manufacture and advertise “Cali legal” firearms. Which is why some firearms (and other objects) cannot be shipped to CA,NJ,MA,Hi, and IL. Those states are shutting down the trade for the rest of us, not.

            1. But, of course, the tort suits are a different issue. They would put every firearms maker at risk for any firearm they ever made, regardless of where or to whom it was originally sold.

              1. That would seem to be an inner state commerce issue.

              2. Huh, are you saying the results of letting each state decide this issue that you really care about might be ones you don’t like and therefore states rights should be adandoned here?

                Gee, I wonder if anyone else has had that idea before!

                1. When one state uses its tort power to effectively ban a product nationwide, it has exceeded its authority to regulate interstate commerce. For that reason it is perfectly appropriate for the feds to step in and make one rule for the entire country. Better the feds do it than any single state getting an effective national veto.

                  1. “to effectively”

                    This is where you sound like Cherminsky…

                    1. What if Califonia went insane and passed a law that held all the world’s automakers liable for hundreds of billions of dollars in damages to the environment. And as a result of that every American car business went bankrupt and all foreign car makers refused to do business in the US and subject themselves to jurisdiction under US law.

                      You don’t think it would be appropriate for the feds to step in and occupy the field and take that power away from California?

                      You don’t have an answer to this. I am not sure you even understand the issue. So stop being a prick and making stupid comments.

                    2. What if Califonia went insane

                      Way ahead of you dude.

                      *Full of flakes, fruits, and nuts

                    3. You sound just like the government briefs in Lopez and Morrison.

                      “It’s all connected, effectively”

                    4. Having actually read those decisions, they turned on the lack of plausible economic nexus to the laws at issue, not on whether there was a sufficient interstate economic effect.

                      The Court ruled, in effect, that without a good economic effect, whether there is a good interstate economic effect doesn’t even come up.

                      The idea that states could affect interstate commerce with their laws was quite familiar to the Founders. The “dormant” commerce clause (which prohibits states from doing that) is a pretty straight read of the Constitution. Read the cases on states trying to pass laws that only intrastate garbage can be put in landfills, if you care.

                  2. “to effectively”

                    This is where you sound like Cherminsky…

                    1. Jesus Christ MNG

                      Your obsession with John is going full retard.

                      Take a break for a week, for your sake.

                    2. This has nothing to do with your right wing pal buddy, even in this very thread I’ve said the same thing to others. It has to do with fair-weather federalism.

                      It’s also telling that you and Pip show up at the same time, no?

                    3. There is nothing fair weather about it. It is called a national market. RC and I have both explained to you what we mean. And you just refuse to respond. You don’t have a response. But you are such a prick, you can’t admit that we have a point.

                    4. It’s also telling that you and Pip show up at the same time, no?

                      Oh no,

                      MNG’s figured out that every poster here, other than himself, is a John sock puppet.

                    5. Jesus, what a moron. I’ve been posting here regularly for years. Perhaps you need a break?

                2. Probably the guys who made it an explicit exception in the country’s highest law.

        2. Okay, MNG, let’s go with your premise that states rights are bad.

          Why, then, should each state have its own legislature and its own laws? why not do away with all that, and have those kind, caring people in D.C. make all the decisions nationwide?

          1. Come on now, FIFY. Massachusetts and California can keep their own legislatures, to give DC an example to follow.

      3. The only belmish is his refusal to stop the idiotic lawsuits against gun makers.

        I vaguely recall there being some question as to whether the firearm manufacturer would be liable for faulty or defective equipment, or something along those lines. Considering his voting record on about everything else, I would imagine it was about absolving manufacturers from all liability, which would be wrong.

        1. Regardless, his reasons for voting against it had nothing to do with his lack of support for gun rights. So agree with him or not, I don’t think it reflects on his commitment to gun rights.

      4. The only belmish is his refusal to stop the idiotic lawsuits against gun makers.

        That’s no blemish to me. It would be a legislative barrier to a person’s right to sue in court. It’s not anti-gun. It protects an individual’s rights.

    2. 4. Isolationism in a worldwide economy is a recipe for disaster

      That doesn’t make sense. I thought Paul only supported non-interventionism in matters of war and foreign policy? He criticized NAFTA for not being “real” free trade. There’s nothing that indicates Paul would advocate economic isolationism.

      1. Dude, not wanting to have our military out there killing people across the world equates to economic isolationism.

        Didn’t you get the memo?

      2. That is a neocon talking point. Anyone who uses it is either a neocon themselves or listening to them too much.

      3. This talking point only makes sense if you view international economic relationships through a Chomskyite lens.

        IOW, if you think that the US is exploiting other parts of the world economically, you would conclude that we need an interventionist foreign policy and vast military apparatus to maintain our hegemony so we can continue to exploit our economic slaves.

        “If we don’t have the ability to topple Middle Eastern governments at the drop of a hat, oil might be too expensive!” That sort of thing.

        It always amuses me when people unknowingly employ arguments they’d have to be cartoon villains to actually believe.

        1. You seem to spend more time angry than amused, Fluffster.

          1. The three stooges trying to repair a car is funny.

            The three stooges trying to repair my car is not funny.

            It is amusing in general and irritating in specific.

          2. It’s a fine line.

    3. I dont normally read comment sections (other than here and a few other places of sanity), but checked it out there. Everyone was ripping that article apart.

  3. The AeroShot packaging says the product is “not recommended for people … under 18.” But the FDA noted that the AeroShot website refers to “hitting the books” and “studying in the library” as activities that presumably could be enhanced by using the product.

    Ageism! Of course, in the coming Logan’s Run world of death panels, 18-year-olds will be middle aged.

    1. All those college kids are under 18, you know.

      1. Exactly. What high school kid “hits the books” or “studies in the library”?

        1. I slept through much of my senior year and still made mostly As.

          I did very little studying in high school.

          College on the otherhand…

        2. Thirded. High schoolers don’t fucking study.

        3. What are you implying? That we’re not actually teaching anything useful?

          1. I don’t believe we’re implying anything, we are actively saying it!

  4. Woman arrested for painting nails on plane (and contempt of flight attendant).


    1. Well, not all of us should have to suffer the smell of her nail polish. But the better thing to do is just kick her off the flight and bar her from flying with your company for a time period. Arresting someone, unless she turned violent, is too much.

      1. Her real crime was offending the flight attendant.

        Do that and you are guaranteed to have police waiting for you when you land.

      2. I like the smell of nail polish. Maybe that’s why I’m not a doctor.

        1. I do too. And gasoline also.

          1. I like gasoline. Nail polish is unpleasant. Cologne and perfume literally makes me nauseous.

            1. Same here on the cologne and perfume.

              1. serious question: is it any and all? Or is it more the amount? I wear scent (but sparingly) and have a fairly substantial perfume collection, but find myself gagging when some sad person drenches themselves in it

                1. For me it’s more the amount, unless it is just awful perfume. It should be something that you need to be very close to someone to noticeably smell.

                  1. “too”

                    1. “to”

                      I just realized I’m retarded, lol.

                    2. me two 🙂

                    3. tu-tu?

            2. I’m ok with cologne and perfume in general, but Axe body spray makes me nauseous.

            3. Yeah, I frequently a migraine headache from perfume and cologne, but I think that is a function of how much people tend to put on. I think if it were less intense it would be less cloying and thus less nauseating.

          2. Hey Devil’s Advocate – haven’t seen you in a while. It’s been more sausagey than usual up in here.

            1. Heya! Yeah, it’s been a yucky few weeks.

              Re sausage-y. Well, WE ARE THE 15% (OR LESS)!!

          3. Kerosene. So sweet.

            1. Big Black. Kerosene.

  5. The spiders are coming! The spiders are coming!


    1. Wow, I never thought about it like that before! LOL!

      1. So, YOU’RE the anonbot!

    2. Australia is officially off my vacation list. Those pictures are insane. And now IM all itchy.

      1. It’s only Wagga, and that shouldn’t have been on anyone’s vacation list. Sydney isn’t draped in spider silk. Well, not yet it isn’t. It is pissing down, so who knows what it will look like by morning

      2. Try New Zealand. I confirmed with a resident Kiwi that it lacks the lethal fauna that covers Australia like a blanket of death.

        1. Unfortunately it’s full of amorous sheep, LOTR fanboys, and, worst of all, Kiwis.

          1. But better gun laws!

            1. but worse vowels!

              And our freedom-hating gun laws haven’t stopped criminals from getting guns. Meaning, of course, better crime shows on the telly

              1. Is there some new set of vowels in Kiwi english?

                1. Kiwi english has only one vowel: e.

                2. there’s a vowel shift in the classic NZ accent, heavily influenced by Scottish / N. Irish settlers. I worked with one who asked a colleague what sounded like “Are you bitter?”. “Yeah, always, I hate this fucking place.” “No, you weir suck, are you bitter?”

                  1. Aw, like the Brett/Britt “joke” from Flight of the Conchords.

                    1. it’s funny cos it’s true. Mind you, they’re sure that we Australians all sound weird. Can’t think why.

                  2. A friend of a friend is a Kiwi. He was impressed I could tell the difference by accent when we met.

      3. Australia just can’t get a break: Bats in northern Australian town prompt disease warning: A town in northern Australia has been invaded by more than 250,000 bats, prompting warnings of a potentially fatal disease related to rabies.

    3. That’s a lot of fucking spiders.

      1. At least they’re not on a fucking plane.

        1. I smell a sequel!

        2. Those would be motherfucking spiders. These are just regular fucking spiders, but there is a lot of them.

    4. Where’s Peter Weir when you need him?

      1. has anyone seen Miss Muffet lately?

    5. I think I’m more disturbed by the pregnant Snooki pic than the cobweb carpeted landscape. But both make my skin crawl.

  6. Now Hugo Chavez agrees that gun control works! He’s joining the ranks of unimpeachable historical figures who oppose private gun ownership like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong Il, and Pol Pot.

  7. Big tits get death threats.


    1. Those don’t seem very big. Here, underboob.

      1. Pretty.


    2. Talk about butterface…

      1. The Stepford Strippers?

        1. I, for one, welcome our robot underlings.

    3. Maybe I should find a way to troll YouTube for money. If you can get $1000 for a few minutes of video that’s pretty good.

    4. Dude, The Reply Girl sucks. She’s an incoherent moron and not all that attractive.

  8. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..ostpopular

    Pink slime ammonia treated meat rejected by fast food joints, bought by the ton for school lunches.

    1. Lefties spend a lot of effort demonizing corporations, but often turn a blind eye to public schools. Then again, one did publish an article a few weeks ago demonizing progressive parents who homeschool.

      1. Are public schools corporations? I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

        1. They were giving them a free pass while they demonized McDonalds and other restaurants while overlooking the schools.

          1. My wife and I were just talking about how bad school lunches are. They may have some food offerings that are healthy, but those are the exception, not the rule, and the kids evade the stuff they don’t want to eat, anyway.

            No chicken nuggets except government-issued chicken nuggets!

            1. I ate lunch at school with my daughter just the other day. The main entree is something like pizza or nuggets, which the kids eat. Then they give them two scoops of mandated healthy stuff, which the kids simply throw away untouched.

              1. We need some kind of special chairs, a la Clockwork Orange, I’m thinking.

        2. If McDonald’s served this tendons-and-cartilage-disguised-as-meat, it would be used as additional ammo in the left’s war on McD’s. But the government can serve the shit McD’s REJECTS with impunity from the government can do no wrong crowd. Pretty simple.

          1. If government served this tendons-and-cartilage-disguised-as-meat, it would be used as additional ammo in the right-wing’s war on gummit. But the free market can serve the shit any sane person REJECTS with impunity from the invisible hand can do no wrong crowd. Pretty simple.

            1. Actually, you had to fuck up the argument with convolution and ignore a lot of reality in between to get to your point, so no.

            2. F minus MINUS

            3. There must be a lot of insane people buying all that stuff, then. You don’t sell stuff for long in a free market if it is stuff that people reject. This really isn’t hard to understand.

          2. I have been led to believe that McDonald’s actually has higher standards for their meat than USDA grade A.

            1. I’ve heard that too.

              But even more, it’s no sin to sell less than “grade A” anything. I eat at McDonalds now and then because it tastes good. Noone makes me, and no one should prevent me.

        3. Are public schools corporations?

          Pretty damn close, and in some states I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that they are, in fact, a form of corporation.

          In most states, the public schools are not part of the municipal/county/state government, but are independent “districts”. They are legal entities, with the power to contract, can sue and be sued, etc. It varies, I’m sure, but I believe they generally lack police powers.

          Except for their authority to tax, they quack a lot like a corporation.

          1. they generally lack police powers

            Just wait.

    1. 78 million hours a day on Facebook…Inversely correlated to declining Labor Force Participation rate?

  9. As a candidate, Obama pledged that lobbyists “will not run my White House.” But on Monday, the president brought in one of this town’s most prominent lobbyists to run his White House ? or at least a nice piece of it.

    I look forward to Jay Carney dancing around answering Jake Tapper’s solo questioning on this.

  10. How do we know H&R has become Free Republic Lite? In the past few days we’ve seen GOP Senators openly press for immediate and direct military involvement in Syria and GOP Presidential candidates berate Obama for not pushing military action in Iran strongly enough, for focusing too much on diplomacy, and Obama has to his credit pushed back. But here on H&R most of the attacks were reserved: for Obama. That’s what you would expect on Free Republic?I mean hell, we’ve had recent Iran threads where over half of the commenters explicitly came out for either green lighting Israel to take action, us to take action of both. If that isn’t a sign of Hit and Runpublican infestation I don’t know what is?

    1. Obummer is in the White House and has the power right now. The clown candidates do not. They certainly won’t get any love from most Reason readers for their calls to intervene in Syria.

    2. Maybe that is because Obama is the President and the one who makes the actual decision and the GOP people are nothing but political hacks doing what political hacks do? Amazingly enough, when we went to war in Iraq, the attacks here were on Bush not the numerous Democrats who supported the war. Odd how that works.

    3. green lighting Israel to take action

      Maybe it’s just me but isn’t Israel a sovereign nation? Shouldn’t they have the right to do what they want regardless of what the President says?

      1. Then they should act like a soveriegn and stop taking our billions. If they want our billions we can ask them not to initiate wars that will cost us trillions.

        I think this Iran thing is the issue of the day. Our gas prices and economy are already suffering just from the rumor of wars, it’s imperative this war be snuffed while the neocons are pushing it. We saw what happened the last time neocons like John kept pushing regime change and WMD pre-emption against a nation in that region…

        1. Then why don’t you take it up with the people who are I don’t know in charge. I think you have finally coming to the conclusion that Obama is going to go to war with Iran. And you are desperate to blame it on the Republicans.


            I think one would have to be blind to not see this.

          2. Obama’s sabre rattling with Iran has in large part cost him my vote this time around.

            But I’m not going to deny that he is sounding better on this issue than the GOP heavyweights.


              Hold it. You have been saying for months you were voting for Johnson. What is with this may? Were you lying before? Have you changed your mind?

              1. Impeccable logic as usual John.

                Obama’s sabre rattling is one of the reasons I’ve switched to Johnson.

                The others are Obamacare, his failure with the economy and the medical marijuanja backtrack.

                1. The it is not a question of “may” then. He “has” cost himself your vote.

                  That is an awfully interesting slip of the tongue for someone so set on voting for Johnson. It couldn’t be that you were lying about the whole thing on those other threads and forgot you claimed to be a Johnson voter could it?

                  1. Why else would you vote for someone if not that you prefer them to someone else? Nothing I said is inconsistent with my intention to vote for Johnson. Obama lost me a long time ago and Johnson gained me.

                  2. Nice catch, John.

                    1. Well, John’s “logic” buddy here would think so…

                      How is saying “x lost my vote” inconsistent with “I plan to vote for y.?”

              2. I may be missing something, but where did MNG say “may”? As far as I can see, he is saying unequivocally that he is not voting for Obama.

                1. They are letting their hate “think” for them Zeb, let’s not get in the way of that with actual thinking.

                  1. Well, there’s some ambiguity in your statement that Obama’s saber rattling has “in large part” cost him your vote.

                    It could be read to mean that you aren’t committed to voting against him. But, on re-reading, that’s not the most obvious.

                    Better, perhaps, just to say “I am committed to voting against Obama in large part because of his saber rattling.”


            Not republicans, John.


            You and Rushbo are forcing Obama to go to war with Iran by writing mean stuff on the internets.


          So you’re saying we should end all foreign aid programs? Good call, I’m with you there.

          1. Would you admit that its kind of funny for the GOPers to run around screaming for an end to foriegn aid and then a minute later talking about how we have to increase our steadfast committments to Israel, the largest recipient of our foriegn aid?

            1. I don’t know, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a GOPer screaming for an end to foreign aid. Maybe I did at some point but I don’t usually track political affiliations in every person I interact with.

              1. He’s right about that, there are usually a handful of GOPer’s wanting to stop our aide to places they don’t like but when Israel comes up they want to double down.

            2. Yes, this is one of the reasons why most people here do not take the GOP seriously. Also, “GOP heavyweights” that made me laugh.

              1. “Also, “GOP heavyweights” that made me laugh.”


                1. There’s that, but mostly I was thinking the top level GOPer’s are so devoid of intelligence that calling them heavyweights was pretty funny.

            3. @MNG: Your unhealthy obsession of the GOP is pathetic.

            4. I think they get upset about the amount of foreign aid we give to countries that are hostile towards the US, if not outright enemies.

            5. I don’t have the figures to hand, and this might have changed, but I do know that for a few years in the mid 00s, Egypt was getting three times as much money as Israel was from the US government.

        3. Isn’t saying that taking our aid means you have to give up your sovereignty and do our bidding, I don’t know, pretty imperialistic?

          1. WTF? You mean it’s wrong for us to condition our aid?

            Do you think its wrong to ask welfare recipients to work to get their benefits?

            1. We give aid to countries all over the world. You think it is just fine to demand countries’ do our bidding in return? Maybe but that seems rather imperialistic. And also completely unrealistic. And further, I have never seem you claim this in any other context but Israel. Why should I not then assume that this is just a special rule you make for Jews?

              1. Ah, anti-Semitism, the quick refuge of the pro-Israel fanatic!

                As point of fact John if I were to support foriegn aid of course I would heavily condition it for ANY recipient.

                1. Welfare sponges SHOULD work for what they are given. Great idea, though Team Blue will always block it.

        4. Then they should act like a soveriegn and stop taking our billions.

          Hey, I’d love to cut off every country on the damn planet from our tit, even if the effect on the budget would be negligible.

          Just because Reason’s not publishing a laundry list of articles on what YOU smugly think they should be focusing on seems rather narcissistic to me.

          1. I’m not talking about what Reason publishes, they do a great job, I’m talking about the commentariat.

            1. “I’m talking about the commentariat” well that’s your problem right there. I kind of agree though, in between issues of the magazine I almost forget how good it is.

            2. Military policy seems to be one of those issues that libertarians don’t universally agree on (like abortion). And the more bellicose commenters often seem to be more long winded on the subject.

              1. I actually get why this is so: they see these issues as life or death. Actually, I agree on that, that’s why I’m so anti-war…

    4. Why should we have any respect for Obama, MNG? Just because he’s president?

      If you really lurk over at FR, you’d know they have a very anti-libertarian streak over there. I know, because I made the mistake of setting up an account there years ago… and eventually got kicked off for stating my views. I learned a lot from that.

      So… you were saying?

      1. You mean how FR allows Papists, Monarchists, Neo-Confederates, and Drug Warriors to roam free and unchallenged as respected members of the board, but the slightest mention that hey, the civil institution of marriage is pointless and the ZOT-knives come out?

        Yes, they do, in fact, suck.

    1. I saw a history channel thing on this like 4 months ago. It was pretty cool to watch the robot biped run around.

      1. I’m not sure how I feel about robot soldiers. On the one hand, it means fewer American soldiers will be put in harms way. On the other hand, I wonder if it is much easier to kill real people you see on a screen than real people standing in front of you.

        1. Probably much of a muchness, I suspect. The real problem is desensitizing soldiers to shoot at something recognisably human. Once you’ve broken through that barrier, it probably doesn’t make a difference if they’re recognisable and one the screen vs real life. If they’re not recognisably human on the screen, it’s probably easier for anyone to kill.

          1. I don’t have a problem with them shooting people trying to kill them. I just hate the assholes that gun down innocent civilians on purpose. These robots might make it easier to do things.


            I think Dostoyevsky was right on this one; either you’re the type of person willing to kill someone or you aren’t. I don’t think there’s much “desensitizing” to it.

            1. You and Dostoyevsky are wrong. The willingness to fire rate in US troops went up sharply with new training techniques over the last 1/2 of the 20th century.

              1. So, switching to an entirely volunteer force had absolutely *nothing* to do with troops willing to kill people?

                I think you can see the flaw here.

                1. Revolutionary war was volunteer and they fired at same rate as civil/ww1/ww2/etc soldiers.

                  1. How did they correct for the increased rate of fire for the weapons?

                2. I will, however, admit that it is easier to train volunteers in the psychological techniques needed to overcome the unwillingness to kill.

                  Also, Vietnam wasnt volunteer and, IIRC, the rates were up by then. So the techniques do work, at least somewhat, on draftees.

              2. Not for nothing, the number of wasted bullets went up dramatically as well.

                I’m sure there is a chart of rounds per casualty somewhere online.

              3. I read somewhere recently that in spite of the number of casualties in WWI, more than half of all line soldiers on all sides intentionally missed their targets hoping that someone else would do the killing for them.

            2. I agree with rob. You can get desensitized to killing. You just have to dehumanize the people you are killing. History is full of otherwise peaceful people who in a time or war or revolution after the enemy has been sufficiently dehumanized became vicious killers.

              1. You just have to dehumanize the people you are killing.

                That’s how muslim extremists do it.

                More seriously though, I do agree that if you A: don’t think you’re killing a human or B: you don’t actually recognize that you’re killing a human, it can be a kind of hack around the inhibition to kill a fellow human.

                1. anon,

                  That is why propaganda is so important in war. You have to get your population to stop looking at the other side as human beings or you won’t win.

            3. Hmmm… ultimately we might fall into two categories, but I doubt those willing to kill are all ready to do it easily – some are, most have to get to that point. My understanding is that modern military training initially at least has to break through inhibitions at shooting at people (and most, but not all, recruits have them). Up until WW2 analyses of shooting patterns suggested most soldiers couldn’t bring themselves to shoot at a recognisable person. After switching from round to human-shaped targets, more bullets hit bodies. That understanding is informed by reading stuff like On Killing by Dave Grossman, not first-hand experience, thankfully. Perhaps one of the vets here can shed some light on this.

              1. In my experience, vets that might have something interesting to say on this subject don’t talk about it.

          3. I’m sure it’s pretty easy to program the software so the robot shows you’re shooting at a Halo alien instead of a human.

        2. In the future, all wars will be fought by armies of robots on the moon.

          1. Will the designated losers send assigned victims to execution chambers?

      2. history channel


        1. and Hitler.

          1. Hitler is so 90’s. Aliens, pawning and antiquing is where the money’s at!

            1. And cars, although the american version of Top Gear is actually a pretty good show, so I’ll cut them some slack there.

        2. Sadly, H2, formerly History Int’l, is where the decent History Channel programming lies.

        3. Full metal jousting!

    2. They’ll outsource building Skynet to the robot army.

        1. Is this fill-in-the-blank? I’m going to go with the letter “r” for my favorite Eddie Murphy movie.

          1. Wait just a minute. Did you just say that Norbit is your favorite Eddie Murphy movie? Fucking…..Norbit?

            Jesus, man.
            48 Hours
            Trading Places
            Beverly Hills Cop
            Coming To America

            …and you go with Norbit?

              1. Don’t forget Pluto Nash.

                God, I wish I could forget it…

            1. Are you trying to tell me that Norbit is good enough that it’s not automatically assumed that someone is being sarcastic when they say it’s their favorite?

              Just what exactly did you love about it so much, sloopy?

  11. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    The liberal war on the science of alternative energy. Lots of laughs in indignant comments.

    1. That article makes perfect sense, so Liberals have to disagree with it.

  12. It’s a shame about Kucinich. He is a complete nutjob and has more fruits and flakes in his campaign than granola, but at least he was weird and different. Marcy Kaptur is a stupid, venal, establishment congresswoman with no record to speak of other than voting for every single Big Government Program ever.

    Not shockingly, she is from Toledo.

    I am sure this will get me called a GOP shill any second.

    1. Kuc did and said some crazy shit, but yeah, it’s always bad when an outside of the mainstream voice gets tossed like that. The GOP redistricting did its thang…

      But I wouldn’t feel sorry for him, he could just move to some liberal blue state with low residency requirements and run, or simply spend time with his smoking wife, or run his elven kingdom more directly now.

      1. ok…the elven kingdom bit was good

      2. It was the GOP that purposely put both of them into the same district. But to be fair, Ohio was losing two seats and the Cleveland area is the place with the largest relative population decline, so it did make sense to merge those two districts.

    2. Kucinich may have been a little loopy but Louis Gohmert is a full fledged nutjob. I look for these guys since I am from Georgia (the home to the most nutjob politicians than any other state since 1970).

      1. I was quite surprised that GA had more GOP delegates than Ohio, not that the attention the latter gained relative to the former would have clued me.

        1. What’s your opinion of Bernie Sanders, shrike?

          [this oughta be fun.]

    3. Mrs. Kucinich makes the strongest possible argument for lefty politics.

      1. She is unbelievably hot.

        1. Whaaaaaa?????

            1. She’s pretty. You calling her unbelievably hot just confirms everyone’s suspicions that you are, in fact, a ginger lover.

        2. Nah, she just looks extra tall next to the munchkin Kucinich and most published photos of her are flattering. She’s really not all that great.

  13. Obama Is More Vulnerable Than Republicans Think: Ramesh Ponnuru

    1. Any sane person, whatever their party affiliation, knows that Obama is very likely to lose his re-election bid. For obvious but distinct reasons, neither party wants to acknowledge it though.

    2. Of course he’s vulnerable. The problem is, three of the four Republicans running for President agree with at least half of the shit Obama has foisted on America.

  14. Electric cars and liberals’ refusal to accept science

    These events confirm the wasteful folly of allocating capital according to the dictates of politicians, such as when Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared in November 2008: “A business model based on gas ? a gas-guzzling past ? is unacceptable. We need a business model based on cars of the future, and we already know what that future is: the plug-in hybrid electric car.”

    The electric vehicle flop also illuminates a point about science ? or the politics of science.

    1. Some of the comments are quite epic stupid.

      1. mgochs
        3/6/2012 1:17 PM EST
        Exactly! NASA looked like a huge sucking waste. Of course it gave us satelite communications, TV, radio, GPS….It spawned thousands of technical innovations in computers and materials to name a few. Putting a man on the moon had no obvious return on investment but look around your house and office.

        Obama goals are things like “let’s insulate thousands of houses…” And that worked well.
        RecommendRecommended by 2 readersReport


        1. I’d also go with: TV? And GPS was a military project.

          1. Well, sure, and if ever there was a military project, it was the Apollo program.

            1. Dammit, we had to know if there were Commies on the moon!

              1. Apparently you idiots haven’t seen the docudrama Dark of the Moon.

                1. is that the one that you’re supposed to play on one TV, synchronizing with The Wizard of Oz on another?

              2. “Your jambox is now his, by way of our actions!”

                1. You’re the Moon Master!

              3. Nazis. Apollo was just a plot of von Braun’s to resupply the Nazi moonbase.

          2. I think that “satellite” is meant to modify both “TV” and “radio” in that sentence. But I still think that someone might have thought of the possibility of communications satellites without NASA.

            1. Arthur C Clarke described the communication satellite in the 1940’s – in fact one of the early manufacturers used to pay him an annual dividend to express their gratitude for him coming up with the idea.

              1. Also most early comsats were military, not NASA. I think it might have been Hughes that used to pay Clark the annual dividend, but I’m not 100% sure.

        2. Yes, radio, you shill. I remember quite clearly when Col. Marconi announced from Skylab his invention of wireless radio.

          1. Ground Control to Col. Marconi doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.

            1. No, they couldn’t talk to him anyway, because he invented the radio in space. He broadcasted, but no one could hear him. Even when he screamed.

              1. That telegraph wire they ran up to Skylab?

                Man, what an engineering feat!

        3. Arthur C. Clarke invented satellite communications. Anyone capable of launching a rocket into orbit could have implemented it. It just happened to be governmental agencies had that exclusive ability early on.

          1. It just happened to be governmental agencies had that exclusive ability early on.

            But not for as long you might think. The first commercial comsat was actually launched in 1965. Somebody figured out pretty quick that it was possible to use comsats to make money.

    2. But there is a consensus among climate scientists that electric cars are the way of the future!

      Consensus I tell you!


      1. well we dont use steam powered cars either like we wont use petrol after awhile. progress…gosh

        1. of course, that assumes that electric cars are the future, Orrin. Isn’t it entirely possible something *else* will come along? Of course, that better “something else” may never develop if government keeps crowding out investors.

        2. Electric cars are older than petrol cars… gosh.

          1. Electric cars have been the way of the future for more than a century!

          2. And it was the government that pushed for gas cars back then.

            1. There were electric cars in the late 1800s, yet Obama still talks about the dangers of antiquated technology.


        3. Battery powered electric cars will not replace gasoline powered cars for a long time if ever. No one wants to buy a car that can only go ~50 miles on a single charge and then needs to be plugged in for 12+ hours to recharge when a gasoline powered car can go 300+ miles on a single tank and then all you have to do is stop at a gas station and refill the tank in ~5 minutes and go some more.

          The only electric car technology that comes even close to that is hydrogen fuel cell, but there aren’t enough hydrogen filling stations to make them practical right now.

          1. Just need overhead power lines and no batteries. Create a lot of jobs with shovel ready projects, too. It’s back to the ’40s !!

  15. Fatal D.C. stabbing makes a case for handguns




    1. If there was a ban on carrying knives in public this never would have happened.

      1. I think DC already has such a ban.

        1. Then clearly this didn’t actually happen.

          1. Yup. It’s obviously right wing propaganda.

      2. Didn’t the UK ban knives?

        1. Don’t take your kitchen knives anywhere to be sharpened.

      3. If there was a ban on walking dogs in public this never would have happened.

        1. When walking is outlawed, only Walkers will walk.

      4. I can’t tell. Was that an attempt to be sarcastic, or did you accidentally hit on the solution to the problem?

    1. Scary mooslim name=no return of private property by the police.

    2. This is why you have multiple carry pistols, incidentally.

      1. Not to mention a drop gun with serial number filed off.

    3. So shouldn’t he now report the gun as having been stolen? That way when it turns up in a fatal shooting in the future he has proof that he’s not the owner.

  16. China’s falling defence budget

    A number of readers have asked me to respond to news that China’s (publicly stated) defence budget will rise this year by 11.2pc to $110bn.

    This has spooked neighbours. Tokyo is “concerned”. Taiwan said it is “a menace to the peace and stability of the whole region”.

    I don’t wish to take sides in this dispute but I will point out that China’s nominal GDP (growth plus inflation) will increase by 12pc to 13pc this year. Ergo, the defence budget is shrinking as a share of GDP.

    1. But growing in real terms. As you get richer, you have to spend a smaller percentage of your wealth to have a big army.

      1. Something the US hasnt learned yet.

        1. Yes we have. We spend smaller percentage of GNP on defense now than at pretty much anytime post WWII.

          1. Less than in the 90s?

            1. I believe so. IN 2010 it was 4.7% of GNP. I don’t think it was any lower than that in the 90s. But maybe. I can’t find the stats for the 90s. But 4.7% is pretty low.

              1. Does that include all the Afghanistan and Iraq spending? No off budget tricks allowed in this discussion?

                1. I believe it does. We have a 14 or 15 trillion dollar economy. That is a lot of money.

              2. It is higher now than it was in the last 90s but lower than in the cold war.


                1. Since GNP includes Gov’t spending (right?) doesn’t our recent giant Gov’t spending spree artificially inflate the denominator on the DoD spending/GNP fraction?

                  Too lazy to check, but how does our current DoD spending compare to past spending as a percentage of GNP with the government spending portion backed out?

        2. In 1960, over half of all federal spending went to defense. Today, even if you throw in the Dept of Energy, FBI, CIA, TSA, etc, it amounts to about 25% of federal spending. From 1985 until 9/11, it dropped from 7% of GDP down to around 3.5%


          1. So its gone from 3.5% to 4.7% in the last decade.

            I rest my case.

            1. We got in a war. We were at peace in the 1990s. Go compare 2010 to say 1968 or 1951. Compare apples to apples.

              1. We got in a war.

                Hence the problem. Afghanistan was unavoidable*, but it should have been done and over with by the end of 2003. By 2010, it should have been back below 3.5%.

                *you know, short of a time machine to correct 50 years of policy foolishness

    2. This is all based on you (not me) believing the numbers they [THE CHINAMAN] provide for thier defense budget and the numbers they provide for their GDP growth.

      1. excellent use of brackets

  17. FDA gets ready to pummel makers of AeroShot.

    “You should take prompt action to correct the violations cited above,” the agency said in the letter. “Failure to do so may result in regulatory action without further notice. Such action may include, but is not limited to, seizure or injunction.”

    Holy fuck, I just raged out.

    1. What were they thinking introducing a new product in this communist country without official sanction for a product that has no approved purposes?

  18. We’re Underestimating the Risk of Human Extinction


    1. There is that whole issue of why there seems to be no other intelligent life in the universe. Perhaps it is because intelligent life eventually discovers sufficient technology it can’t help but destroy itself.

      1. Or the Forge of God theory: There are “wolves” out there, so advertisting your existence is suicidal.

        1. Unfortunately, that is also the Battlefield Earth theory.

          1. I think its one of the standard sci-fi themes. Greg Bear did an exceptionally good job with it in Forge of God, IMO. The sequel, Anvil of Stars, on the other hand, sucked hard.

          2. ANGELS???

          3. “This probe was made out of a metal that was worth a clanking fortune…”

        2. That too. I am not gung ho on contacting other civilizations.

          1. Look how it worked out for the Indians (either one) when the Europeans “discovered” them.

            1. Nice work, rob. Why don’t you send Godesky an engraved invitation to the thread next time.

              1. Earthman, am I free to gambol among the stars?

                1. Kirk only lets the Grren Aliens do the serious gamboling.

          2. hmmm.. random thought here, perhaps the leftist craves contacts with aliens. They will be benevolent, all-powerful creatures who could fulfill every progressive dream. Or something like that.

            1. Yeah, that’s the Arthur C. Clarke model of alien. I think the Covenant or the Bugs might be a better model of what we’ll encounter than the benevelont overlords where technology moved them past war.

              1. The most difficult to read book I’ve ever read was “Childhood’s End” by Clarke. The concept of aliens coming in and solving humanity’s problems by converting the human race into something completely inhuman was terrifying to me. This is why the idea of the Singularity is not one one of my favorites.

            2. this idea sounds great to a lefty, because then their worldview would be validated.

      2. Or perhaps is has something to do with immense distances between habitable planets and the relatively short time in which we’ve had any chance of receiving signs from another planet.

        Hell, a few centuries ago Europeans didn’t know about other humans in Central and South America, did they?

        1. Just the time scales of the universe dwarf the time scales of civilization. By the time we receive signals from an alien civilization, there’s a good chance they may have already gone extinct.

          1. That would be fine. The impact of receiving of the message would be enormous and even if they weren’t extinct our chance to communicate would be nil anyway.

            1. Even if we were contacted by aliens, they would just be secret GOP shills in disguise anyway.

        2. I think that this is most likely. It seems quite likely that technology for interstellar travel or communications is just not practically possible, at least on any scale that we would notice.

      3. Or, how we underestimate the difficulties of space travel might have something to do with it? Just might? And as far as the SETI project, I once asked a physicist at my old school involved in it, what makes you think you can get a signal from anything a tiny fraction smaller than a star to remain clean enough for analysis. He didn’t really have a good answer.

        1. BTW, space is not a frictionless environment. Any signal traveling through and between star systems is going to encounter cosmic phenomenon that will interfere and potentially disperse it.


      I think the past 10000 years stand as pretty good evidence that technology has always helped humans thrive in their environments.

      1. And, of course, the threat is technology.

    3. Yes, a species that inhabits every part of the globe and has over 5 billion individuals is clearly at the point of extinction.

      These lefty “scientists” are amazingly stupid.

      1. Yeah, when you look at the ridiculous places where people live and have lived for thousands of years, extinction doesn’t seem terribly likely. I could imagine some sort of huge die off scenario or collapse of civilization, I guess, but extinction in any foreseeable future seems pretty far fetched.


  19. Iowa’s “Ag Gag” bill.

    Iowa action could set a precedent for other agricultural states as it is the largest producer of corn, soybeans and has the largest number of hogs and the sixth largest cattle herd.

    “If somebody comes on somebody else’s property through fraud or deception or lying, that is a serious violation of people’s rights and people should be held accountable for that,” Branstad told reporters on Monday.

    The adoption of penalties in Iowa follows a series of cases where animal rights activists gained entrance to what they call “factory farms” including chicken and egg, hog and cattle production and processing facilities.

    1. Me, sloopy and a few others had a great discussion on this a while back. It was everyting H&R could be without the partisan bs that dominates this site now.

      For my take, I don’t think the government should offer any job protections for the whistelblowing employer who reveals questionable practices at his workplac, but I don’t think they should provide a criminal charge or civil action to the employer. If an employer catches someone taping, let em fire em, if an employee tapes something and gives it to the press, let the employer fire em and leave it at that.

      1. Why shouldn’t an employer who is damaged by something an employee does, especially through fraud, be able to bring a civil suit for damages? Why should they be limited to just firing the employee?

        1. Because there might be a public interest in knowing about possibly illegal activity at the workplace?

          If an employer found and taped evidence of child abuse at a daycare and made it public to the cops and media should the day care be able to sue them?

          1. Under current law in every state that I know of, reporting child abuse automatically gets the “whistleblower” immunity from liability. Try another example.

            Don’t forget, “whistleblowing” is abused by employees because of the immunities it already provides.

            And don’t forget about the “public interest” in allowing people to recover for damages that they suffer due to the wrongful activities of others.

          2. What if the practices (like most of farming) are completely legal? If no criminal charges ever get filed because there’s no violation of law, can the employer sue for damages then?

            More interestingly, could the civil claim be laid out in the employee handbook? I know I can get the living shit sued out of me for work-related things that are not illegal, most relating to NDAs and trade secrets and IP.


        Is there a dollar amount that we could raise and give to you that would incent your sorry, useless ass to take a permanent hike?

    2. If you gain access to a place by fraud or deception, isn’t that already trespassing? Doesn’t seem like something that needs its own law.

  20. Mitt Romney wins six on Super Tuesday but gets labelled a loser



  21. Apple to announce new iPad today. It better be quad-core. If it is, I’m definitely getting it. If not… I’ll have to think about it. But I am liking the retina display and more RAM. Still, some Android tablets are quad-core. Apple needs to keep up!

    1. The Asus Transformer Prime is pretty sweet. Android still seems clunkier to me than iOS but it’s a nice machine.

    2. May be nitpicking, but I thought I read it would be a ‘HD’ display as it would be insanely expensive to produce a retina display that large.

      1. 2148×1580 or something equally ridiculous.

    3. Unless you’re doing serious number-crunching or graphics, WTF is “quad core” going to get you on a tablet? Another checkbox on the feature list?


    Goldman as Zeus mating with Greek mortals and producing debtigods.

    1. What comes after a trillion?

      1. Hyperinflation.

      2. Fuck you, that’s what.


      3. brazilian, perhaps.

        1. so the moral is: look in your pants, you’re rich. Nice!

          1. Hey, my junk is priceless.

            1. Valueless is also a synonym for priceless, Robo.

      4. a trillion and one.

    2. Note that the outright conspiracy to defraud is not characterized as a crime, and its participants as criminals.

      Rather, it is a “sexy story”, and the participants are “sinners”.

    1. they should really embrace it, though. I mean, the generation coming generation will have a hugely disproportionate male to female ratio. If those boys can’t get girls, then it may be their only option. Then again, there is war. War for womenz!

      1. True.

        Employers are offering find a wife programs

  23. Shorter MNG:


    1. Fuck you buddy. I realize it upsets one such as yourself to point out the increasing rightward tilt of the commentariat here, but I’ve been posting here for years, subscribe to the magazine, and can express my observations on that. You don’t own this board or for that matter libertarianism.

      1. I have only been here for a few minutes, I can express my observations that you are full of shit, even if you have been here for 20 years.

      2. the increasing rightward tilt of the commentariat here

        uhm. Examples please? I don’t recall the locals all of a sudden going ‘anti-immigrant, pro-drug-war, pro prayer-in-school, anti-gay-marriage, ‘lets invade iran!’,etc. And the stolidly-GOP-types who come here do nothing but bitch about it!

        I suspect all you’re going to end up with is, “but John likes Sara Palin!”.

        I haven’t seen any “rightward tilt” in at least the last 5-6 years.

        But then again, to you and Tony, Mr Rogers was a fascist reactionary.


    2. No kidding.

      “Throw the Shill Stick! Come on you guys, throw the shill stick! I wanna play!”

    3. I so crave the endorsement of a leftist that I am, in fact, a libertarian.

      1. You are now my minion Pro. Accept it. I corrupted you. MNG said so.

  24. How do we know H&R has become Free Republic Lite? Yesterday the H&R staff rightly inviting mocking of Santorum’s usual long-time so-con meme about single mom’s ruining the country, but most commenters here defended Santorum and happily joined him. The so-con line about single mom’s ruining the country is an old one that runs through decidedly non-libertarian GOPers like Dan Quayle, Mike Huckabee and of course now Rick Santorum, we all know where it goes, with paeans to the sanctity of marriage and calls for government to “protect and promote” marriage, but most of the commenters here who joined the conversation echoed the so-con line here yesterday. Again, that’s to be expected on Free Republic, but I would think libertarians would be happy that government “protects and promotes” marriage less now than they once did?

    1. Just because you think people should be free to be single mothers doesn’t mean you have to deny the pretty established fact that single motherhood generally turns out worse for kids than two parent families.

      1. I’m actually not sure it turns out any worse than children in fucked up two parent families, in fact I’ve seen studies to the contrary.

        1. It turns out worse in the aggregate. The more single parent homes you have, the more social problems you get. Sure you can always point to anecdotes. But that is not the overall picture. Study after study has shown this.

          1. Study after study has shown that single parent home outcomes are worse than high conflict two parent family homes? I’d like to see such studies.

            1. No single parent homes in the AGGREGATE are worse than two parent homes.

              And what is “high conflict” two parent home? That is not even a term. You just pulled it out of your ass. Again, you can always point to anecdotes. But that doesn’t make the rise of unwed mothers a good thing.

              1. They’ve done studies comparing the outcomes of two parent families that argue a lot to single parent families, and the children of the latter come out better.

                1. Ah, so good single parent homes do better than dysfunctional two-parent homes.


            2. I would have thought a professor would be able to read.

              1. I would have thought a professor would be able to read.

                Shut up, you. Do you know how much money he makes? And why are you such a shill for Big Family? Is it because you hate Murphy Brown?

                1. What I like about the Rev. is he got all butthurt and incifed me, and then spends his day following my comments and responding to them via the responses to my comments.


            3. You can start with her stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Wallerstein

              sorry, MNG but John’s right on this. Controlling for other factors, studies show that kids are better off in 2 parent families than in 1 parent families.

              Maybe Rick’s plan to reduce single parenthood won’t work, or will create problems that are worse than single parenthood, but he’s right to see single parenthood as a bug instead of a feature.

              From a libertarian perspective, we would rather have a family raise a child than the village. Some individual families will do poorly, but all families acting in independent self-interest will average out better than a blue-ribbon panel of DC bureaucrats.

              1. Did that study compare single parent families to high conflict two parent families? Because it’s not happy two parent couples that are splitting up and leaving the kids in one family.

                1. Wallerstein’s research ove ra long career has generally confirmed that even in families with high conflict, the children had better outcomes.

                  This research was only about the effects of divorce. You’d have to dig around for studies on people who have children and never live with the other parent.

                  As a parent, I can tell you that it’s far less stressful to have a partner than to be on your own.

                  1. I’m a parent too, and my experience and the studies I’ve read demonstrate to me that:

                    Happy two parent family > happy single parent family > high conflict two parent family > high conflict single parent family

                    Which is why I think our “liberal” divorce laws, oft demonized by the right in these discussions, are better than the alternative.

                    1. That nice MNG. But the science says otherwise. Abdul just showed you it did.

                    2. He showed me one study, you don’t think I can match it with a contrary finding supporting my view?

                    3. “A new study finds that children who who are born and grow up in stable single-parent homes generally do as well as those in married households in terms of academic abilities and behavior problems.”


                    4. So what? The chances of a single parent home being “stable” is smaller than a two parent home.

                      Yeah, if you cull out just the right sample, you can prove anything. So what?

                    5. Well, it’s exactly what I said, that’s so what: stable one parent families are better than unstable two parent ones.

                    6. If you cherry-pick one side of a comparison (“stable” single-parent homes), that tells you what happens when you cherry-pick one side of a comparison, and not much else.

                    7. You should stick to the law talking.

                      The study compared stable one parent to both stable two and unstable two and found the worst was the last one. So it kinda shows the issue seems to be stability.

                    8. Nah, the worst is unstable single parent families–you know, the majority of single parent families.

                      That’s the problem, MNG. That most single parent families come into existence via instability of one sort or another. Stable single parent families are rare.

                      And those unstable ‘high-conflict’ families you go on about? Well, those are the seeds of a not inconsequential number of single parent families.

                    9. so do it.

                2. Isn’t the issue here that it would be better if happy, functional couples had children than children being the offspring of random couplings?

                3. Did that study compare single parent families to high conflict two parent families?

                  Did you push your head up your ass yesterday or just this morning?

                  Your arguing from the fallacy of the lonely fact, MNG–yeah, high conflict couples can cause more problems with child-rearing than single parent homes. But when compared in totality–two-parent homes to single-parent homes–the former wins out time after time after time. Your white-knighting for single moms doesn’t change that fact in the slightest.

                  1. Dude, did you not read above where I said this:


                    I answered your assertion before you asked it…

                    1. I answered your assertion before you asked it…

                      You didn’t answer a damn thing. You cried above about the commentariat picking on poor, defenseless single mothers and then pulled out a fallacious comparison to set the debate because you knew someone was going to immediately call you on the fact that two-parent homes are generally better environments for children than single parent homes.

                    2. How did the paper define “stable” and “unstable?”

                      Stable married families were those in which the children always lived with their married parents. Unstable families were those in which children underwent some transition in their parenting.

                      So the two-parent family was “stable,” regardless of arguments, if the kids stayed with both parents. That’s not really the argument you were making earlier.

                      Further, “some transition in parenting” means that the kids weren’t always with their two parents, whether that’s because they were with relatives or friends or because they were switching between the equivalent of two single-parent homes. That means that “unstable two parent homes,” by her own definition, doesn’t really mean “a two parent home” at all.

                    3. It would also be interesting to know the prevalence of “stable” v “unstable” single-parent homes and how this compares to married families.

                      And why are we leaving out non-married two-parent homes, anyway?

                      Trying to come up with a comparison of stable v. unstable one-parent and married homes seems like an exercise in selection bias, to me. An “unstable” two-parent home could, effectively, be a “stable” one-parent home (the kids live with their mother, even though she’s still married to the father).

            4. I think that MNG has a point. The fact that, in the aggregate, single parent children do less well does not really say much about anyone’s particular situation or why they are single parents. It is true, but is is not useful. You can also say that black people are faster runners in the aggregate, but that doesn’t allow you to say anything about any particular black person’s running ability.

              1. Here’as what I know from living in the ghetto. Single moms lacking the assistance of a stable partner* tend to produce prison fodder. Lots and lots of prison fodder.

                * Government assistance is NOT a stable partner, BTW.


      I started that thread. I said that Santorum was right about that one. I hate Santorum. I hate Santorum precisely because of his SoCon views. So, fuck you and your Freep hallucinations.

      1. MoNGoloid, he is a mongoloid…

    3. Most comments are about the joys of the hunter gatherer society. So I suppose that reason has become primitivist lite ?

  25. Noel Gallagher will has a sad if Obama loses. I love Oasis, but Gallagher can go **** himself.

    1. I liked them better when they were called “The Beatles.”

      1. Oasis >> The Beatles

        1. Your arrows are pointing in the wrong direction.

          1. I don’t think so.

    2. But what does Damon Albarn have to say?

  26. During the campaign, Kucinich — an outspoken anti-war liberal — attacked Kaptur for voting to fund “Bush’s wars,” voting for the Patriot Act, backing the Keystone XL pipeline and opposing gay marriage, among other things.

    Sounds like he got beat by a Republican.


    Unfortunately for the state of the GOP, it still sounds that way.

    1. As long as they were military contracts, baby!



      1. Look at the pussy he scored with that nonsense.

        1. I suppose your christfag, bushpigs and Chritian Talibans is a hit with the ladies ?

          1. I don’t know how many of you are ladies.

            1. I wanna have your babies shrike.

              1. See shrike, the right here is really something huh?

                1. They get so pissed off if one deters from the GOP platform.

                  1. I love you MNG

                  2. It’s more that they hate liberals. Two liberals on “their” site is so appalling they go into the most juvenile responses like spoofing.

                    1. This really is the worst chat room ever.

                    2. Oh come on, I can’t think of a better place to have a good laugh than here.

                    3. I suggest we get together to discuss these christfags in more detail, afterwards we can visit the steam baths together.

                    4. stay away from Charlie Sheen though!

                  3. And you do the same if one deters from the Team Blue Better Life Through Collectivism script, shrike.

                    What’s your point?

                    1. At least MNG makes sense, and isn’t a complete socialist nutcase.

                      Hit “enter” too early last post. Happens to guys in their late forties.


    Made up numbers FTW!

  28. Gov’t agencies and colleges demanding facebook usernames and passwords from applicants. Yeah… don’t think I’m sharing that with anyone. don’t need to find my status updated to “I think I just sharted” or some other silly crap or have someone say “my facebook has been hacked by the Dr. Jerkass”.

    1. So a university can read an athletes mail? How is this any different?

      1. The university can read emails hosted by the university. But can it read their yahoo or gmail accounts? No.

        1. I would think a public university would have a hard time reading private emails it hosts. If you are a public entity and you offer your students emails for their personal use, they have an expectation of privacy in those emails.

  29. How about another dose of freedom?

    USG claims it can seize any .com domain. ‘Merica! **** yeah!


      .xxx FTW!

    2. I think you’re allowed to say “fuck” out loud around here.

      1. Yeah, but I’m not sure how the spybots on my government computer will feel about it.

    3. Since the USG is claiming the ability to do this because the DNS servers are in the U.S., why can’t a competing DNS server set up shop in, say, Antigua? Or another location?

  30. How do we know H&R has become Free Republic Lite? Take the many recent threads about the whole Komen Foundation flap. It was like Free Republic in here, with commenters falling over themselves to criticize supporters of Planned Parenthood. There might be plenty to criticize PP from a libertarian perspective, but this stuff was straight out of Free Republic. What should a libertarian care when private anti-abortion groups persuade board members of a private cancer foundation to end contracts with a private provider of women’s health care that also provides abortion related services and then private pro-choice groups persuade the board to change its mind on ending the contracts? None. You’d expect most libertarian commenters to say that private groups can persuade whoever they want to do whatever.

    1. Its easy to lure one of these nutjobs out. Just mention Soros and they break into Glenn Beck type conspiracy handstands.

      Soros is a great capitalist and libertarian who gets Cato invitations and past Reason.com interviews.

      1. Indeed, I’ve seen folks here (rightly) mock the left’s Koch obsession and then later in the same thread get into a two minute Soros hate.

        1. The Kochs didn’t loot the houses of Jews sent to the camps. That’s a pretty big distinction.

      2. libertarians don’t support warmongering, economy-centralizing statist politicians, shrike. So why does Soros?

        1. Because the other assholes are the REAL warmongering central statists.

          1. They BOTH are, shrike. If Soros was really a libertarian, he would toss his support to actual libertarians, or at least people who approximate libertarians.

            1. Doesn’t Soros do both, in other words he funds directly libertarian causes and then he funds what, in his opinion, is the lesser of the two big evils?

              1. Not only that, he funds anti-statist revolutions in the old Soviet Bloc. Velvet, Orange, Rose.

                1. Name one libertarian entity he has funded in the United States. CATO, Reason, the LP, Ron Paul’s campaign, anything.

                  1. He has his own – Open Society Institute. Based on Hayek’s bff- Popper.

                    1. OSI is not libertarian.


                      Try again.

                    1. On October 26, 2010, Soros donated $1 million, the largest donation in the campaign, to the Drug Policy Alliance to fund Proposition 19, that would have legalized marijuana in the state of California if it had passed in the November 2, 2010 elections.[59]

                    2. Soros’ drug-war opposition is his ONLY saving grace. The rest of what he does? Fuck him.

      3. Other than the white indian guy here, you are the biggest nutjob, you still believe in the Christian Taliban out to get you.

        1. I actually was arrested by the ChristoTaliban in Atlanta for just attending a party (Club Zinc in Atlanta).

          They rounded up 140 of us and we became locally famous.

          1. And then they tied you all to a stake to burn, you obviously managed to escape to tell us all of your heroic adventures surviving the Taliban.

            1. You ever hear of the Atlanta 140?
              Yeah, that was shrike and 139 other guys.

            2. I love the way the goalposts move!

              1. Then shrike should stop moving them, Tonio.

    2. And “libertarian commenters” can criticize private groups when they do whatever.

    3. You posted this already. You’re verging into WI territory here, MNG.

      1. Where did it already?

        1. The other 3 threads you’re catfighting in? Not sure how you haven’t noticed.

        2. At least twice, up above.

          1. One post is about the rather unlibertarian war drumming going on here, the other about the rather unlibertarian obsession with who is married and having children, and the other is the rather unlibertarian obsession with debates within a private foundation…It’s called listing several examples to illustrate a problem.

            Try again.

              1. Examples, how do they work to illustrate a trend?

      2. Oops, my bad. When I saw “How do we know H&R has become Free Republic Lite?” I assumed they were identical and didn’t read further. IOW, TL;DR.

        1. Yeah, me too. Once the stench of quasi-partisan ad hom/tu quoque begins to emanate from a post, I usually move on.


      Because we still have opinions about things that we don’t believe are proper reasons for coercion? Sorry that the left decided that killing fetuses was more important than saving adult women from cancer.

      1. But that’s not what that flap is about: it’s about whether people can use non-coercive means to persuade the board of a foundation to change its mind.

        But hey, we all know why it’s a big issue with you cynical, you’re exactly what i’m talking about.

    5. How do we know MNG has sand up his vagina? Because he never did answer why PP couldn’t have gotten funding from somewhere other than Komen.

      1. How do we know RRR has sand up his vagine? Because he can’t seem to answer why a libertarian, as opposed to a closeted socon, would care about where a private foundation spends its money?

        1. I mean, if you are a pro-lifer then yeah, you don’t want to see a private foundation reverse its decision to not do business with an abortion provider. That makes sense.

          But a libertarian?

          And that’s my point, isn’t it?

          1. And that’s my point, isn’t it?

            What point? I couldn’t give two shits if Komen decided to give their money to PP or not, politicized decision or not. What was stupid was PP’s implication that the money was irreplaceable and the public shit-fit they threw over it.

            Instead of answering whether or not PP could have gone to alternative sources (or at the very least, shown with actual figures why the money from Komen was so critical to their operations), you instead tried to reframe the debate around irrelevancies that had nothing to do with the central issue.

            Just because libertarians in the commentariat didn’t think PP was entitled to funding from Komen doesn’t make them anti-abortion, no matter how much you wish it was so.

            1. My problem with PP, is the taxpayer money they get. Period. I don’t care what they spend it on… it’s the fact that they GET it in the first place.

      2. Because he never did answer why PP couldn’t have gotten funding from somewhere other than Komen.

        From most accounts, the money was replaced by other sources within a couple of days. Problem solved, except for entire beaches shoved up vaginas.



          I could give 2 shits, but it was tough to dodge the shrill harpies calling in their harpie army to do battle with Koman.

          1. It’s a neat reading, the right wing reading of what happened.

            Pro-lifers were upset that Komen did business with PP, not in the area of abortion, but in other areas where PP and Komen’s missions overlapped. The non-political thing to do would be to let this lie.
            But they didn’t. They pressured the board to make a politicized decision, and then other people pressured them to reverse that decision. And the right, and their fellow travellers here, blame the latter party for the politicalization.

            Pretty neat.

            1. So, let me get this straight SVD….Koman publicized this and launched a very nasty public campaign? Koman had their shock troops out on practically every social media outlet shrieking about the betrayal? Komen was the organization hyperventilating and distorting the situation from the first nanosecond?

              Because Komen made a quiet, internal decision, supposedly based on ideology, but we’ll never know the truth at this point, any possible public response, no matter how partisan or political, isn’t possible to be classified as such.

              Indeed. Very fucking neat.

      3. How do we know MNG has sand up his vagina?

        Because it’s Wednesday?

  31. http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/0…..he-market/

    NatGas vehicles hitting market


    Chrysler will have competition. Late this year, General Motors Co. will sell natural-gas versions of two pickups ? the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 2500 HD. The GM trucks will run on gasoline and natural gas for 650 miles. Ford Motor Co. has offered natural-gas ready pickups and vans since 2009.

    1. Good stuff if the performance and purchase price is comparable; I’m sure we’d all love to halve our fuel costs. Why can’t the LNG/CNG providers partner up with a nationwide gas station franchise for combined distribution? Is it an engineering, safety, or regulatory issue, or is it just oil companies protecting their product share?

      1. Plus, with natural gas, you might be able to just fill up at home, given the right equipment. Anyone that has natural gas in their homes should be able to get the equipment, right? Dunno what all is involved.

        1. Your home natural gas feed is nowhere near the pressure of CNG. You would need a very expensive compressor to fill your own tanks. Dangerous for the common homeowner to operate as well.

          1. There is an expensive home solution to CNG. It takes a while to fuel a tank using this method, but cheaper than gas in the long run.

        2. Apparently. Though I really can’t see the EPA, DOE, DOT, etc letting us all keep methanol conversion kits in our garages if it actually takes off.

          1. Granted that’s FlexFuel, but in the end you’re still getting your fuel from nat Gas.

  32. Read this in the work paper today, unfortunately the free portion of their website only has a slight summary.

    TLDR: Judge rules that man is responsible for child support for invitro twins conceived after he separated from his wife, despite the facts that:

    1) It wasn’t his sperm used.

    2) He has a written agreement with his wife that he will have no parental responsibilities to the kids.

    1. On appeal, he should settle out of court for one last opportunity to inseminate the wife the old fashioned way.

    2. I was working a case involving a wife who left her husband several years ago. She lives in Oklahoma, but her estranged husband lives in Ohio, I think. Anyway, she shacked up with another guy and had a baby with this guy. She then went to get welfare. Welfare sent the case to us because, under law, we have to initiate child support. Well, since she was still legally married at the time she got pregnant (they had since divorced), the man she was married to is presume the father under the law. They had not seen each other in a couple of years, and she admitted the other man was the father… even admitting it to me. Doesn’t matter. The law is the law is the law is the law.

      1. You know, this sort of seems to be the closest analogue for rape in terms of men’s choice for kids (since people, even prochoice, often claim that men made their choice when they had sex).

      2. An irrebuttable presumption?

        1. Well, it’s written in the law. I think the only way to get out of it is 1) the mother agrees, and 2) he has to pay for a DNA test himself. This still may not relieve him of his legal obligations. It’s really up to the judge.

  33. Bar Refaeli got a haircut.



      You have ruined my day. Asshole.

    2. Still works for me.

      1. Me too.

        1. I still have her underwear photo shoot in my yank bank. It’ll do.

  34. White Indian, this article is for you.

    Sofa surfer? Tell your insurer. So when you gambol about the sofas and the futons, be sure to keep your insurance guy in the loop.

  35. Datebi* C’ O ‘M ?????????c o m m u n I ty?????????????bi s e x u a l and b I ?c u r Io u s In d I v I d u a ls ? You’ll find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.?Join it right now and have fun?Totally Free To Place Profile and connect with hundreds of thousands of singles like you now!

  36. The Ron Paul delusion has ended.

    It’s time to stop the War against Iran, to fight for peace and restore the rule of international law.

    It’s time to re-elect President Obama and turn back the Republican War Machine.

    1. Must be cold and wet under the bridge this time of the year.

    2. That is comic gold. Did Obama not do those things for the four years in office because he forgot? Didn’t have time?

      1. We’re out of Iraq, we’re winning in Afghanistan (you know, the country that actually attacked us) and Osama bin Laden is dead.

        It was in all the papers.

        Meanwhile despite the endless war drums from the frothing at the mouth Republicans, Obama has held firm and committed to defending international law, ending torture and defending peace by taking unprecedented steps to work with Iran to to achieve both our goals.

        1. Papers/ What papers? Rolling papers? We use the net Thomas.

        2. Yeah, when he says things like he will attack Iran, thats what one would call “working together”.

          And yes I know you are only spoofing.

        3. He also killed an American citizen. And started another war in Libya. And we left Iraq exactly when Bush planned to leave. We could have re-elected Bush and the result in Iraq would have been exactly the same.

          And us being out of Iraq will come as a hell of a surprise to the 1000s of mercenaries, I mean contractors, we still have on the ground there.

          Try again.

          1. If we re-elected Bush we would all be in camps now if we attempted to oppose the invasion of a peaceful and democratic Iran in any manner.

            1. Now you are just trolling.

              1. How easy you forget how it was nearly impossible for anyone to speak out or protest against the Bush Administration without having your lives ruined. Go look at the facts in the history books.

                Your oblivious because you look at OWS, one of the largest popular movements in world history, and how it’s not suppressed by the media and police state because they can spin it as being against a black man and thus support the Republican agenda through it.

                Not so just five years ago when the media refused to cover anything against the illegal tyrannical wars of Bush Jr. Nor did they cover any of the jackboot thugs destroying innocent lives for daring to question to the Bush plan.

                1. [wtf_am_i_reading.jpg]

                  Seriously, what? This is so far afield from reality it approaches word salad.

                  1. Valarie Plame come to mind?

                2. You can’t be serious. People called Bush Hitler. They wrote plays about assasinating him. There were huge demonstrations at both the 2004 and 2008 RNCs. There were giant anti-war demonstrations in Washington.

                  Cindy Sheehan was on cable TV all of the time and traveled the country. And she was a hero until Obama was elected and the Left threw her away.

                  WTF planet do you live on? You are dangerously ignorant.

                  1. Cindy Sheehan was a victim of the Bush assault on America.

                    Had he never lied us into wars to stand up for his daddy she would have never been crushed under the treads of the Bush war tank.

                    1. Are you incapable of understanding facts? Do you just color the world to fit whatever you want it to be?

                      Again, people said horrible things about Bush. Bob Kerry, a former Senator called him Hitler. Dissent was never easier than it was in the 00s.

                      Stop lying.

                    2. Ask Valerie Plame about that “easy dissent” sometime.

                    3. She became a celebrity and got a full Vanity Fair profile.

                    4. And how many innocents have died because her cover was blown? And how many more will die because she won’t be working to defend the nation?

                    5. Apparently the time machine came back from 2006.

                    6. Is CIA Jesus on it?

            2. Bush was term-limited, Thomas.

              Besides… Bush was a prick.

          2. “And we left Iraq exactly when Bush planned to leave.”

            But Bush wasn’t running for your side; the guy who was said he would be in there for “a hundred years” and sang about bombing Iran four years ago. He also supported action in Libya. Recently he called for immediate airstrikes in Syria.

            That was the choice in case you’ve forgotten.

            1. So you are admitting Obama is no better than Bush.

              Good to know.

              And again, you sure defend him a lot for someone who has allegedly “lost your vote”.

              1. Conservatives are quick to point out that Bush is not running now, it’s not nutty to point out to you that he won’t running in 08. McCain has embraced every military action Obama has and then some.

                1. I guess I should be glad I didn’t vote for him, then.

                  As it turned out, it didn’t really matter much did it? I got a warmongering bastard anyway.

                  1. As it turned out, it didn’t really matter much did it? I got a warmongering bastard anyway.

                    Pretty much this. So what’s the pool on when we can expect the first bombs to fall on Iran? I like after the RNC at the end of August. The first new moon after the RNC is September 15, FWIW.

                    I can’t figure out though whether we’ll just start shooting, or whether there’ll be some grand sacrifice first: a carrier getting mined, some terrorist act, that sort of thing.

        4. You misspelled, “Saudi Arabia”.

        5. You’re talking to Sean Hannity’s mini-me, John.

          The reality shield is thick under that coif.

        6. Also, the only reason Obama is “out of Iraq” is because negotiations to stay failed.

          1. He desperately wanted to stay.

            1. Which is why the GOP candidates (sans Paul bless his heart) criticized him for not negotiating more aggresively to stay.

              1. So the GOP is now the truth tellers? He was in negotiations to stay. He wanted to stay. If his whole plan was to leave, why did he try to negotiate to stay? Why try to negotiate something you don’t want?

                Try again. More GOP this time.

        7. Ah, so wars are only bad when you aren’t winning them.

        8. The U.S> is out of Iraq because Obama failed to alter an agreement that Bush had signed.

          The U.S. is losing in Afghanistan, which didn’t attack the U.S.

          The U.S. violated the UN charter by attacking Libya – an act of aggressive war – something that all signatories are required to renounce upon joining the organization.

          AS far as killing Osama Bin Laden goes. Somebody working for Stalin managed to put an icepick in Trostky’s brain. It’s not exactly a big accomplishment.

          1. Oh, and the methods used to find bin LAden, fraudlulently telling hudnereds of people they were being given a vaccine in order to get DNA samples was highly unethical from a medical standpoint – and under U.S. law would normally earn the person comitting the fraud several years in a federal penitentiary.

            Bush was a piece of shit. But – in every respect that I can consider – economics, pandering to unions, subverting the rule of law, wasteful spending, criminal behavior, subversion of science for political gain, Obama is worse. The fact that gullible fools like yourself think he’s an improvement is funny and tragic. It also is the biggest indictment of democracy possible. Demogogues like Pericls and Alkibides destroyed Athens. Demagogues like Obama, Santorum etc will destroy the U.S. Why, because morons like you suspend disbelief and drink in their idiocy.

            1. How many wars has Obama lied us into?

              How many of our civil rights has Obama stripped us of?

              How many Americans has Obama tortured for pleasure?

              How many economies has Obama destroyed in order to reward his cronies?

              Unlike Bush, the answer to all of those questions is zero.

              1. trolololololol

              2. Everybody now….


              3. I would say the right not to be killed by your government without due process is a big right. And Obama stripped us of that.

                And Obama hasn’t changed torture policy one bit.

                And Obama hasn’t improved the economy a single bit since taking office.

                This is just sad.

                1. “I would say the right not to be killed by your government without due process is a big right. And Obama stripped us of that.”

                  The Cheney-Bush white house had argued the very same authority under the AUMF, no?

                  1. They didn’t actually do MNG. Obama did. So he owns it. Since you are not voting for him, I am surprised you are so willing to defend him.

                    1. Oh, there’s no defense for it, but let’s not pretend it wasn’t an executive authority claimed under your guys.

                    2. So what? I won’t vote for Bush again. I promise.

                2. Hasn’t improved the economy? LOLOL

                  Take a look at the stock market some time.

                  Or GDP figures.

                  Or unemployment.

                  Obama is basically God himself compared to Bush’s economic record.

                  P.S. Obama outlawed torture, do a little fact checking next time GOPig.


                  2. He didn’t outlaw torture. We have same the same interrogation manual we always had. And we now practice rendition at a higher rate than we did before.

                    You are a sad, dangerous person Thomas.

                    1. I’m sad and dangerous, but not the guy who wants to murder billions in the name of the American God.

                    2. Who wants to murder billions? Are you insane?

                    3. Who wants to murder billions? Are you insane?

                      Yes, John, he is insane. Anybody who sincerely thinks Obama is not a warmonger is insane – the bombings and killings Obama has ordered are legion – any person who is blind to them does not have a well-functioning mind.

                      Or someone is doing a great job of training themselves to pick up Cesar’s mantle.

                  3. Wow, this has to be a spoof, but I’ll bite.

                    Take a look at the stock market some time.
                    The stock market is not the economy, especially when in the midst of a bubble.

                    Or GDP figures.
                    Government spending is part of GDP, so increasing G can increase overall GDP, at least in the short term.

                    Or unemployment.
                    We’re still at (a government padded) 8.3%, a number not seen since the early 80s, 3.5 years after the official end of the recession. How is this suddenly good?

                    People don’t want to live in recession and will find their own way out. The going is slow when hindered by government.

              4. How many wars has Obama lied us into?

                Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, and we’re on our way to 2 more in Syria and Iran. So, 3 with an *.

                How many of our civil rights has Obama stripped us of?

                We’ll go with the 4A for starters with his murderdrone program. His attempt to take away 2A rights with his F&F program fell flat.

                How many Americans has Obama tortured for pleasure?

                Every one that goes through a rapescanner. Oh, and does murder from 30,000 ft count as torture?


                Let’s see: he perpetuated our trainwreck. He’s destroying Mexico’s with his drug war.


                Only in your mind, numbnuts. Only in your mind.

          2. “It’s not exactly a big accomplishment.”

            We were told for years under Bush it was the highest national priority.

            1. We were told for years under Bush it was the highest national priority.

              Coincidentally, my son’s highest national priority is that I buy him the $600+ Lego Millenium Falcon Lego set this year.

              1. Hey, Thomas… would you like to have sex with me?

            2. That is not true. I recall a lot of stories in the news around the ida that killing Osama was no longer neccessary.

    3. restore the rule of international law
      your troll-fu is weak.

      1. I disagree. Look at all the people responding to it!

    4. The Democratic War Machine on the other hand does not exist, all those big wars started by them are purely myth.

      1. What big wars?

        It was Bush who lied us into Iraq and Afghanistan against international law.

        President Obama followed the law, did something actually noble instead of getting revenge for his dad, and ended a real threat in Gahdaffi.

        To not see the blatant difference in wasting our country on revenge and saving people from genocide is playing right into the warmongering Republican-Halliburton hands.


          1. I thought libertarians were supposed to be against war against innocents? Or have you all fallen into being brainwashed by Faux News 24/7?

            1. We are. Hence our opposition to Warmonger Obama and Warmonger BOOOSCH. Only liberals still think this is 2004.


        3. I guess the Vietnam war does not exist in your world ?

        4. …did something actually noble

          That’s so cute!

          1. Obama donned his helmet and vest and personally decapitated Ghaddafi with TR’s wartime bayonet.

            That noble bastard.

            1. …and then gave succour to assorted widows, orphans, sick kiddies etc

        5. This has got to be a spoof right?

        6. President Obama followed the law

          You mean by sidestepping the constitution and not getting the congressional authority necessary to get us into this war? In other words, by not following the law?

  37. I voted for Ron yesterday, I couldn’t stomach any of the other names on the ballot. However I did enjoy catching a little bit of asshole Gingrich’s speech last night-the man is at a Sunset Boulevard level of delusion talking about how he will lower gas to $1.13 per gallon.

  38. A soccer mom with four kids ran an Upper East Side brothel that raked in millions of dollars catering to wealthy, powerful johns ? allegedly using her cop connections for protection, according to explosive court documents.



    1. When cops arrived at her upstate home,, where she rescues wild pigs and raises pit bulls, they didn’t find anyone ? but a wild boar chased a police officer around, the sources said.

      Pig-on-pig violence!

      1. Hakuna Matata!

      2. Cops are trained to kill pets (and people) that show the slightest hint of aggression.

        Obviously this didn’t happen as any cop would have killed the boar on sight.

      1. They are going to throw her in jail but they let Spitzer walk.

        1. Sounds like there are probably a lot of big wheels in Manhattan sweating today.

          Her list of clients should be deelish.

          1. They won’t touch the big boys. They will fuck some middle class women making a living.

            1. Sure, but the client list will come out. And there will be tears, and lulz, aplenty when it does.

              She’s probably already leveraging it for a plea deal.

              1. If she doesn’t end up like Deborah Palfrey, AKA “The D.C. Madam,” she’s ahead of the game.

              2. If you’re running a brothel and your client list doesn’t include some influential public figures you need to get out of the business.

    2. So yesterday, Pip.

      1. Wait, you focused on the pig chasing a cop yesterday but didn’t say anything about the Million-Dollar Celebrity Pro Ring in the Upper East Side?

        What are your priorities, man?

        1. The fact that Manhattan is full of hookers is hardly news.

          But a pig chasing a pig – that’s comedy, man!

    3. an Ugg-wearing

      That’s all I need to know right there. Obviously guilty. (kidding)

      1. Guilty of looking like a commie waiting in line to buy toilet paper.

  39. Please note:

    Recognizing that full-size pickups have been slow to adopt hybrid technology, there will be separate incentives for “mild” and “strong” hybrid trucks if they are sold in sufficient quantity. There will also be credit for natural-gas?powered vehicles to match their reduction in greenhouse gases. Conversely, for CAFE purposes, oil burners are not penalized for the higher carbon content of diesel fuel.

    I am in favor of conversion to natural gas in situations (like local fleets) where it is economically and practically feasible. It makes a lot more sense than ethanol.

    However, don’t assume the truck makers all suddenly jumped out of bed one morning and cried, “Eureka!” This is being driven in large part by CAFE numbers-juggling.

  40. After Super Tuesday, Romney lurches one stop closer to the GOP nomination.


    1. Awww, Kerry… why the long face?

  41. I’m reading (and enjoying) noir pulp-novelist David Goodis for the first time – Dark Passage.
    Here’s the thing — I’ve seen all the other Bogey-Bacall movies, Key Largo, To Have and Have Not, The Big Sleep but I didn’t even know Dark Passage existed. So does the movie version really suck? Why does it get no love? Or

    1. Citizen Nothing|3.7.12 @ 9:54AM|#
      I’m reading (and enjoying) noir pulp-novelist David Goodis for the first time…

      Dude = *Shoot The Piano Player*.!!Goodis’ best novel. Made into French Noir film i’ve never seen. Truffaut.

      Also, I highly recommend Jim Thompson (*e.g. The Grifters, The Getaway, The Killer Inside Me, Pop.1280, et al) and Chester Himes’ (Cotton Comes to Harlem, Blind Man with a Pistol, etc) stuff

      1. Thanks, GILMORE. Noir has been a sadly neglected part of my literary intake.

        1. Hey, my pleasure.

          i’d also recommend cornell woolrich ….but never got to him yet. I’ve been told he’s the classic hardboiled shit like thompson. I have read about 6 of the Russ McDonald ‘Lew Archer’ books, and they’re great, if a bit later-dated than the 40s-50s classics. I’ve gone through periodic noir-novel binges… great stuff as a side dish from other genres. Thompson though is my man. He’s never failed me. I’m almost through all of his stuff. He’s got a dozen novels that are just…pure thompson. Scary unique. he was Stephen King’s favorite writer. The dude went dark… very dark. Dickless mass murderers? Incestuous family of con artists? Small towns where everyone knows the worst thing about everyone else? the guy had an angle that was one of a kind.

  42. It’s time to re-elect President Obama and turn back the Republican War Machine.


    1. Seriously, it’s time to identify supposedly partisan policies that don’t materially change when the parties switch:

      * Willingness to go to war
      * Love of the War on Drugs
      * Social welfare
      * Abortion
      * Increase in government regulation
      * Waste, fraud, and corruption
      * Expansion of government power
      * Eroding of civil liberties
      * Intervention in the marketplace (including crony capitalism)
      * Law enforcement good, citizens bad
      * Many et ceteras

      1. I agree with that, except Abortion. Both sides keep trying to change things in little ways, in albeit stupid ways. Team Red wants to require the mother to stick a pineapple up her ass, so Team Blue wants to legalize tossing newborns in a wood chipper. They’re both assholes.

        1. That’s why I said “materially.” They’ll do things around the edges to tell their respective constituencies that they’re doing something, but it’s all nonsense.

          It always amazes me that partisans who care about one or more of the issues above act like it makes such a difference which party is in power.

          1. But they don’t even pretend to do anything about the other issues you listed.

            1. Vote for the party that pretends to do the things you care about! It’s a compelling message, no?

  43. Quick anecdote about the state of community colleges:

    This semester I’m taking a geology class just to fill a lab science requirement. The instructor is a pretty hardcore lefty eco-nut and has no trouble making his views on everything known. Last night the class was forced to watch Gasland and boy what an experience.

    It had everything the eco-nut could want: BUSH!!!! CHENEY!!!! HALIBURTON!!!!! GREEDY MONEY GRUBBERS ARE KILLING US!!!!!! And at the end we were treated to a mini-diatribe about how the government under Bush was evil, how we need more government, and how Al Gore probably would not have allowed this if he had won.

    1. WTF does that have to do with geology?

      1. That it ignores it completely?

      2. Nothing, but he’s mainly and environmental science instructor that likes to push his views on the kids in the class. I take night classes and this is the first one I’ve been in where the rest of the students are all in the young 20s (normal college age). It was pretty humorous to hear all the oooohs, aaaahs, and gasps from the rest of the class.

    2. And?

      Bush was EVIL and rather than spend his eight years fighting the imminent end of the planet and preserving life as we know it, he instead gave all our money to big banks and big oil corporations like Halliburton.

      1. trolololololol

      2. Well it’s a good thing Obama saved us from all of that now isn’t it?

        1. Good one, Sparky.

      3. I see rectal has developed a new character.

    3. I noticed quite a bit during my time in college that the professors/instructors that relied on videos in place of instruction generally were pretty worthless as teachers.

      I can understand it in high school/middle school because so much of what teenagers compose as their worldview is filtered through pop culture. By the time you get to college, though, you should be past all that shit.

  44. a wild boar chased a police officer around, the sources said.

    He just couldn’t bring himself to shoot it?

    Professional courtesy, I guess.

    1. I don’t believe that it happened simply because there’s nothing about the boar being killed.

      1. Nobody said it was big boar. Could have been a 10 pound baby pig. Hard to hit those fuckers with a pistol.

  45. I’m actually kinda glad that Ron has failed to get any traction and his campaign is over now. Now we can get over all this stupid infighting over who is the “most pure” candidate and do what’s best for liberty by getting behind the one guy who can beat Obama in Mitt Romney.

    The fact that Romney is for smaller government and has business experience is just a bonus.

    After four or eight years we won’t even mind that Ron lost because of how much we will have rolled back the Obama assault on our country.

    1. The fact that Romney is for smaller government…

      That’s so cute!

      1. Hey, David. You and Thomas should really get together and compare notes.

      2. Smaller than what?

    2. Assault?

      Reading comments like this makes me both laugh and cry about how ill-informed Americans are about exactly what Obama has done for all of us.

      1. What Obama has done TO all of us.

        Ignoring everything else, this is why I wont vote for Obama. It is unforgivable.

      2. You’d suffer far less angst if you left here and hung out at Kos or DU.

        1. +1 Tonio

    3. Lol.

      Im voting for Johnson.

      He is a better candidate than either Romney or Obama.

      If you dont believe he is better than Romney, compare and contrast records as governor of their respective states.

      Its Johnson in a landslide.

      1. Johnson can’t win. He might not even be on the ballot.

        Romney can win, he can defeat Obama and start rolling back the horrors.

        If we all make sure to get out and support Romney then he can win for sure. Staying home is saying you want four more years of Kagana, Sotomeyere Obamacare and worse.

        If we don’t change things now, we may never be able to.

        1. *Kagan, Sotomeyer, Obamacare

          Don’t know what happened there.

          1. “Kagana” is the third level black magic that a mage can use on the newest Final Fantasy game. It works best against a toxic enemy.

        2. Johnson will be on the ballot (assuming he wins the LP nomination) in my state.

          No votes have been cast. EVERYONE on the ballot can still win. They are currently tied at zero (actually, we dont know for sure who they will be yet, so a bit early to discuss – Obama may resign between now and the convention for all we know).

          However, based on 2008, Obama cant win my state. He lost to old man McCain by 16 pts. So even if I was some sort of strategic voter [read: idiot], I would still be voting for Johnson over Romney.

          Morons who think their vote matters are the possibly the biggest morons in the universe.

          1. Wow, three examples of joez law in that last sentence.

          2. Right, Johnson might not even win the nomination.

            And even if he does, he can’t win. There’s pretty much zero chance. No votes have been case, but when they are, Johnson or any Libertarian candidate will be lucky to crack single digits.

            Helping Romney get a larger popular vote majority will help grant a mandate to a limited government true conservative agenda.

            1. And even if he does, he can’t win

              Johnson can win. All he needs is everyone considering voting for Romney to vote for him instead. If you favor limited government, its an easy switch to make, as there is no evidence than Romney will shrink the size of government.

          3. I have discovered I can predict the outcome of an election with 75% accuracy by taking the inverse of my ballot.

          4. No votes have been cast.

            Obviously you’re not familiar with how things work in Chicago.

    4. do what’s best for liberty

      And by this you mean “Bend over and take it in the ass from a Big Government douchebag with a different colored tie”, all while pretending its leading to ‘Liberty’.

  46. I assume that David and Thomas are trolls or regulars just playing, but they really do sum up what we’re up against.
    It’s like fighting a large sea of tapioca.

    1. Nothing will get better until I am made moderator.

      Vote for Purity! Vote SugarFree!

      1. Don’t know what’s scarier – the stuff SugarFree would ban, or what he would allow

        1. That would be more like fighting a large sea of seman.

          1. I am just the dike for that sea of semen.

            1. Err… wait… um…

            2. Don’t you mean diaphragm?

              1. Unlike GOP shills like you, I think the government should pay for my diaphragm, sarcasmic. It’s basic health care for comment mods. And has nothing to do with me being a slut.

                1. And has nothing to do with me being a slut.

                  Paying for that new butt-plug, on the other hand, does

            3. You misspelled dyke.

            4. No, no, he’s talking about Obama’s seaman. Apparently, he has some Navy guy to run errands for him or something. I’m pretty unclear on all of it.

              1. Must be a corpseman.

          2. “Come, Swallow!”

      2. I tried signing your petition, but the link didn’t work 🙁

    2. I am not sure. Go to the fever swamps on the left. And people really do believe this shit.

    3. It has to be rectal. His White Idiot character started getting zero bites.


    Thank you. Thank you very much.
    (Wipes away a small tear.)

    1. Well it’s 50 cups of coffee and you know it’s on
      I move the crowd to the break of break of dawn
      Can’t rock the house without the party people
      Cause when we’re gettin down we are all equal
      There’s no better or worse between you and me
      But I rock the mic so viciously
      Like pins and needles and words that sting
      At the blink of an eye I will do my thing
      It’s Like a needle in the cartridge when the record spins
      Like diggin down deep in the record bins
      Everybody gettin down make no mistake
      Nothing sounds quite like an 8 0 8

      1. Well, nothing does sound quite like an TR-808.

    2. New headline: “Obese Woman Found Dead in Public Bathroom”

  48. Take a look at the stock market some time.

    Oh, right- the stock market “boom” brought to you by Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve Bank.

    1. But its amazing too with how so many people attribute eveything that goes on in the eocnomy on who occupies the WH, as if theres some magic lever in there.

      The economy is largely going to do its own thing if the gov doesn’t fuck it up even more. Even Obama’s own forecasting with the stimulus was that absent any policy, the economy was going to recover.

      Had the financial collapse waiting 5 months, we’d have the opposite with team red blaming it all on Obama. Instead Bush gets the blame even though any policies that helped contribute to it were supported by both he and Obama and pretty much everyone else in Washington.

      Its pathetic that we chose out leaders 80% of the time just based on what the economy is doing that month.


        Actually, that’s a good thing. I want to have a better life. Unfortunately, we don’t elect politicians that will just let us have a free market. We want them all to DO SOMETHING!!!111one

    2. Take a look at the stock market some time.

      I look at the DOW and S&P500; more as inflation gauges.

  49. Some delusional idiot is on Bloomberg blabbering on about how Newt wan yew is going to win the nomination and kick Obama’s ass in the fall.

    1. What, for Best Actor?

  50. Newt Kwan Yew, that would be.

    And. in other news, the President (in a move completely unrelated to the recent announcement that Government Motors will “temporarily” shut down the VOLT assembly line) has proclaimed his wish for an increase in the tax credit for Chevrolet VOLTs.

  51. Notice with all of Thomas’ comments, he hasnt responded to the monetary base graph link I posted.

    1. Of course. I’m telling you, it’s White Idiot 2.0.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.