US Politics Thread |OT| THE DARKEST TIMELINE

[Human Snorenado]

Still not sure how this is a reality, but every day Trump is in the race is a gift.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/charles-krauthammer-donald-trump-xenophobia

“It was stream of consciousness,” Krauthammer said. “I think his single most important statement was ‘I am very rich.’ That’s the basis for the campaign.”

...

Krauthammer did concede Trump had one redeeming characteristic: “He is very rich.”

[VomKriege]

This campaign is serious and should be run on moderately informed xenophobia.

[Brehvolution]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/16/gun-maker-colt-neared-bankruptcy-made-payments-nra-political-allies-former-general-mcchrsytal/

[ToxicAdam]

Still not sure how this is a reality, but every day Trump is in the race is a gift.

]

A Trump/Palin ticket is what we deserve.

[Great Rumbler]

Still not sure how this is a reality, but every day Trump is in the race is a gift.

]

A Trump/Palin ticket is what we deserve.

Nah, gotta be Trump/Fiorina.

[Brehvolution]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/with-eye-on-fiscal-armageddon-texas-set-to-repatriate-its-gold-to-new-texas-fort-know

 

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

the only thing Trump ever did that impressed me was balling on the Ali G interview about five seconds in.

can't shit a shitter, I suppose.

[Kara]

Obviously not privy with Colt inner workings, and I certainly won't argue that predatory finance is not a thing, but couldn't their situation be partly justified, market wise ? Those very old companies (and "familial" to quote Vularai) tend to hard code into themselves some complacency or poor gestion when the money flows in and it's really hard to rock centuries old roots. I'm somewhat experiencing that (at a low level) in my current position... A lot of comments in the original link alludes to that with consumers saying that Colt is too expensive compared to its competitors, while the quality of products have gone down.

I don't have an hard on for capitalism, but sometimes Ch.11 are justified...

I think the furor is not so much that a company that made bad business decisions is being disciplined, but that its ownership extracted money from it while disregarding its liquidity needs and that current law permits / encourages this behavior.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444592704578064672995070116

As I said though, the furor is predicated on a rosy idealization of the system. Ages ago I made a tl;dr post here somewhere about how businesses function almost like a bank to their ownership. The only difference here is that the equity firms aren't loaning their own money to their holdings and thus have less personal interest in their continued existence.

[AdmiralViscen]

If this sort of behavior was ever going to make headlines it would've been when Cerberus did it to Chrysler, and it didn't

[Great Rumbler]

[chronovore]

Witless Ape Rides Escalator

by KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON   June 16, 2015 4:30 PM

Donald Trump may be the man America needs. Having been through four bankruptcies, the ridiculous buffoon with the worst taste since Caligula is uniquely positioned to lead the most indebted organization in the history of the human race.

The Trump conglomerate is the Argentina of limited-liability companies, having been in bankruptcy as recently as 2009. To be sure, a lot of companies went bankrupt around then. The Trump gang went bankrupt in 2004, too, and in 2001. Before that, Trump was in bankruptcy court back in 1991 when his Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City — the nation’s first casino-cum-strip-club, an aesthetic crime against humanity that is tacky by the standards of Atlantic City — turned out to be such a loser that Trump could not make his debt payments.

The closing of that casino has been announced at least twice — it was supposed to shut its doors in December, but it limps on.

Donald Trump, being Donald Trump, announced his candidacy at Trump Plaza, making a weird grand entrance via escalator — going down, of course, the symbolism of which is lost on that witless ape. But who could witness that scene — the self-made man who started with nothing but a modest portfolio of 27,000 New York City properties acquired by his millionaire slumlord father, barely out of his latest bankruptcy and possibly headed for another one as the casino/jiggle-joint bearing his name sinks into the filthy mire of the one U.S. city that makes Las Vegas look respectable, a reality-television grotesque with his plastic-surgery-disaster wife, grunting like a baboon about our country’s “brand” and his own vast wealth — and not see the peerless sign of our times?

Trump is the living embodiment of a Paul Piff lecture.

[brawndolicious]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/with-eye-on-fiscal-armageddon-texas-set-to-repatriate-its-gold-to-new-texas-fort-know

 

Gold is the one true savior. Giving a bonfire of the vanities for the Yankee dolla.

[Kara]

If this sort of behavior was ever going to make headlines it would've been when Cerberus did it to Chrysler, and it didn't

Nor did Bain Capital really seem to stick to Romney even when he presented himself as a productive businessman.

It's difficult to explain why this stuff is "bad" to a layperson beyond relying on lazy emotional appeals. And even if it weren't difficult, enforcing any kind of changes from a regulatory framework seems unrealistic so that just compounds the apathy the subject already generates.

[VomKriege]

Obviously not privy with Colt inner workings, and I certainly won't argue that predatory finance is not a thing, but couldn't their situation be partly justified, market wise ? Those very old companies (and "familial" to quote Vularai) tend to hard code into themselves some complacency or poor gestion when the money flows in and it's really hard to rock centuries old roots. I'm somewhat experiencing that (at a low level) in my current position... A lot of comments in the original link alludes to that with consumers saying that Colt is too expensive compared to its competitors, while the quality of products have gone down.

I don't have an hard on for capitalism, but sometimes Ch.11 are justified...

I think the furor is not so much that a company that made bad business decisions is being disciplined, but that its ownership extracted money from it while disregarding its liquidity needs and that current law permits / encourages this behavior.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444592704578064672995070116

As I said though, the furor is predicated on a rosy idealization of the system. Ages ago I made a tl;dr post here somewhere about how businesses function almost like a bank to their ownership. The only difference here is that the equity firms aren't loaning their own money to their holdings and thus have less personal interest in their continued existence.

Well to be honest it is so to be expected that I didn't bat an eye for it 
Top management in a lot of companies has become this byzantine distinct world of auditors, advisors, trust funds playing banto with excel sheets. Like politics, it has evolved into a specialized field that lives on its own with little connection to the actual work done in the office and workshops. The company I work for has had a transitional direction for a year manned by an audit company, that was hastily replaced by another transitional direction from another cabinet. It's confusing as hell, the only certainty we have is that ultimately employees will be fucked over.

[benjipwns]

Nor did Bain Capital really seem to stick to Romney even when he presented himself as a productive businessman.

It's difficult to explain why this stuff is "bad" to a layperson beyond relying on lazy emotional appeals. And even if it weren't difficult, enforcing any kind of changes from a regulatory framework seems unrealistic so that just compounds the apathy the subject already generates.

It hurt him in 1994 against Kennedy.

But the Kennedy team found if they went too far into what he was actually doing at Bain, the attacks just confused people, so they spiked things like this:


And went for something simpler:

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

In 2012, Obama wasn't exactly in great position to get on somebody about screwing over small parties to raid for the advantage of capital firms. Not that his supporters would have cared, or the GOP.

Random because I found it in the related:

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[benjipwns]

Speaking of Rick Perry, top favorite ad from old timey days:

[Mupepe]

Obviously not privy with Colt inner workings, and I certainly won't argue that predatory finance is not a thing, but couldn't their situation be partly justified, market wise ? Those very old companies (and "familial" to quote Vularai) tend to hard code into themselves some complacency or poor gestion when the money flows in and it's really hard to rock centuries old roots. I'm somewhat experiencing that (at a low level) in my current position... A lot of comments in the original link alludes to that with consumers saying that Colt is too expensive compared to its competitors, while the quality of products have gone down.

I don't have an hard on for capitalism, but sometimes Ch.11 are justified...

Colts are expensive guns.  But not for their quality.  Most people buy cheap ass guns.  A Springfield Armory 1911 is about half the cost of a Colt but hold them side by side and yeah, you see why.  And guns actually made in America just tend to be more expensive (for obvious reasons).  People just aren't willing to pay for it.  The average gun owner doesn't know enough or actually shoot enough to know the differences between the different types of metals and fit/finish discrepancies. 

I've got no insight into how they run as an organization obviously but their cost/quality ratio is about fair I'd say.

[ToxicAdam]

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/18/barack-obama-marc-maron-wtf-podcast


Obama is doing Marc Maron's podcast. He's actually going to do it in Marc's garage. lol

I've been a listener since the first few episodes, so this is a total mindfuck.

[TakingBackSunday]

I hope he says fuck

[brob]

I hope he says fuck

[benjipwns]

Where was Barack Hussein Obama to take these tough interviews as Benghazi was happening? Or during 2012?

I didn't see him on Between Two Ferns to explain himself then.

[benjipwns]

Supreme Court Says Texas Can Reject Confederate Flag License Plates

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Texas did not violate the First Amendment when it refused to allow specialty license plates bearing the Confederate battle flag. Such plates, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority, are the government’s speech and are thus immune from First Amendment attacks.

The vote was 5 to 4. The court’s other three liberal members joined Justice Breyer’s majority opinion, as did Justice Clarence Thomas.

...

In dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that the majority opinion “establishes a precedent that threatens private speech that the government finds displeasing.”

Texas has hundreds of specialty plates. Many are for college alumni, sports fans, businesses and service organizations. Others send messages like “Choose Life,” “God Bless Texas” and “Fight Terrorism.” The license plates are, Justice Alito wrote, “little mobile billboards on which motorists can display their own messages.”

He mocked the notion that, say, plates saying “Rather Be Golfing” or celebrating the University of Oklahoma conveyed a government message. The first, he said, cannot represent state policy. The second, in Texas at least, bordered on treason during college football season, he wrote.

...

The Supreme Court last considered what the First Amendment had to say about license plates was in 1977, when it ruled in Wooley v. Maynard that New Hampshire could not require people to display plates bearing the state’s motto, “Live Free or Die.”

Justice Breyer said Thursday’s decision was its mirror image. Texas cannot force the heritage group to convey its message, he wrote, and the group “cannot force Texas to include a Confederate battle flag on its specialty license plates.”

how is this even a case, i don't want to read their dissent but are they really suggesting the states have to make a customized plate for any group that wanted one?

thomas-sotomeyer team-ups continuing to produce the best opinions



Rep. Kinzinger Blames Drudge For Obamatrade Delay

Illinois Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger Wednesday morning in an interview with 1440 WROK blamed Matt Drudge’s Drudge Report and other new media outlets for delaying Republican leaderships plans to give President Obama “fast track” trade authority and ultimate approval of the Trans Pacific Partnership(TPP), also known as Obamatrade.

Kinzinger said, “(TPP) Does not exist yet, so there’s been a lot of, you know, if you look at Drudge or you look at Obamatrade(website), people are saying ‘you know Paul Ryan said its in secret and you’ve gotta pass it to find out whats in it’, well that’s not true.”

Kinzinger also said, ” A lot of where this misinformation has come from, it’s actually amazing. I saw Paul Ryan on Fox & Friends and even the anchors did not really know the difference between TPA, TAA, TPA. Where a lot of the misinformation comes from by the way I think it’s this website called obamatrade.com or something,”

aww the guy gets a little pity link in the corner on drudge with the other stories on OBAMATRADE



Martin O'Malley: Zero out fossil fuels by 2050

Saving the world is a goal worthy of a great people. It is also good business for the United States of America.

I believe, within 35 years, our country can, and should, be 100% powered by clean energy, supported by millions of new jobs. To reach this goal we must accelerate that transition starting now.

As president, on day one, I would use my executive power to declare the transition to a clean energy future the number one priority of our Federal Government.

I would create a new Clean Energy Jobs Corps to partner with communities to retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient, improve local resiliency, create new green spaces, and restore and expand our forests so they can absorb more greenhouse gases.

I would retrofit federal buildings to the highest efficiency standards and require new federal buildings to be net-zero, require the federal fleet to be subject to low- or zero-emissions purchasing agreements, and require all federally-funded infrastructure projects to meet climate resiliency standards.

...

I would set a national, cross-sector Renewable Electricity Standard so our nation is powered by 100% clean energy by 2050, and a national goal of doubling energy efficiency within 15 years. Many states like California and Maryland are already leading the way forward for the United States.

As president, I would support a Clean Energy Financing Authority to support projects to increase efficiency and resiliency upgrades in cities, towns, and rural communities nationwide.

I would prioritize modernizing our electric grid to evolve to support localized, renewable energy generation, reduce electricity waste and increase security from sabotage or attack.

And I would increase our investment in basic clean energy research so the U.S. can reclaim the lead on energy innovation, including advancing development, deployment, transmission and storage for renewable energy and new efficiency technologies.

The fact is, there is no either/or choice between our prosperity and protecting our planet — we can create a future where there are more jobs, and a future with a livable climate. And there is no future for humankind without a livable climate.

The reality, as I learned in Maryland, is that the two goals are indivisible.

Mocking the "saving the world",  "no future for humankind", etc. aside, I feel like there's probably at least one Obama/Hillary/Edwards column/op-ed/speech with these same exact proposals from 2007. And a slightly different Al Gore one from 1999. Probably a Kerry one in 2004. And probably not drastically different ones from say Johm McCain or Mitt Romney in 2007.

Oh wait, McCain gave that "straight talk" to Iowa about Ethanol at some point. So maybe Rudy...

I like how all the proposals have CLEAN ENERGY in their name. Like it's some thing that exists out there in the ether ready to be pulled down.

I would set a national, cross-sector Renewable Electricity Standard so our nation is powered by 100% clean energy by 2050

I assume the media will be asking him what exactly this is supposed to mean, look like or be accomplished.

[VomKriege]

I like how all the proposals have CLEAN ENERGY in their name. Like it's some thing that exists out there in the ether ready to be pulled down.

Well, isn't nuclear pretty clean ?

[benjipwns]

This capacious understanding of government speech takes a large and painful bite out of the First Amendment. Specialty plates may seem innocuous. They make motorists happy, and they put money in a State’s coffers. But the precedent this case sets is dangerous. While all license plates unquestionably contain some government speech (e.g., the name of the State and the numbers and/or letters identifying the vehicle), the State of Texas has converted the remaining space on its specialty plates into little mobile billboards on which motorists can display their own messages. And what Texas did here was to reject one of the messages that members of a private group wanted to post on some of these little billboards because the State thought that many of its citizens would find the message offensive. That is blatant viewpoint discrimination.

If the State can do this with its little mobile billboards,could it do the same with big, stationary billboards? Suppose that a State erected electronic billboards along its highways. Suppose that the State posted some government messages on these billboards and then, to raise money, allowed private entities and individuals to purchase the right to post their own messages. And suppose that the State allowed only those messages that it liked or found not too controversial. Would that be constitutional? What if a state college or university did the same thing with a similar billboard or a campus bulletin board or dorm list serve? What if it allowed private messages that are consistent with prevailing views on campus but banned those that disturbed some students or faculty?  Can there be any doubt that these examples of viewpoint discrimination would violate the First Amendment? I hope not, but the future uses of today’s precedent remain to be seen.

...

The Texas specialty plate program also does not exhibit the “selective receptivity” present in Summum. To the contrary, Texas’s program is not selective by design. The Board’s chairman, who is charged with approving designs, explained that the program’s purpose is “to encourage private plates” in order to “generate additional revenue for the state.” Ibid., 58. And most of the time, the Board “bases [its] decisions on rules that primarily deal with reflectivity and readability.” Ibid. A Department brochure explains: “Q. Who provides the plate design? A. You do, though your design is subject to reflectivity, legibility, and design standards.” Id., at 67.b.

Pressed to come up with any evidence that the State has exercised “selective receptivity,” Texas (and the Court) rely primarily on sketchy information not contained in the record, specifically that the Board’s predecessor (might have) rejected a “pro-life” plate and perhaps others on the ground that they contained messages that were offensive. See ante, at 11 (citing Reply Brief 10 and Tr. of Oral Arg. 49–51). But even if this happened, it shows only that the present case may not be the only one in which the State has exercised viewpoint discrimination.

Texas’s only other (also extrarecord) evidence of selectivity concerns a proposed plate that was thought to create a threat to the fair enforcement of the State’s motor vehicle laws.

...

The constitutionality of this Board action does not necessarily turn on whether approval of this plate would have made the message government speech. If, as I believe, the  Texas specialty plate program created a limited public forum, private speech may be excluded if it is inconsistent with the purpose of the forum. Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 829. Thus, even if Texas’s extrarecord information is taken into account, the picture here is different from that in Summum. Texas does not take care to approve only those proposed plates that convey messages that the State supports. Instead, it proclaims that it is open to all private messages—except those, like the SCV plate, that would offend some who viewed them. The Court believes that messages on privately created plates are government speech because motorists want a seal of state approval for their messages and therefore prefer plates over bumper stickers. Ante, at 10–11. This is dangerous reasoning. There is a big difference between government speech (that is, speech by the government in furtherance of its programs) and governmental blessing (or condemnation) of private speech. Many private speakers in a forum would welcome a sign of government approval. But in the realm of private speech, government regulation may not favor one viewpoint over another.

...

States have not adopted specialty license plate programs like Texas’s because they are now bursting with things they want to say on their license plates. Those programs were adopted because they bring in money. Texas makes public the revenue totals generated by its specialty plate program, and it is apparent that the program brings in many millions of dollars every year. See http://www.txdmv.gov/reports-and-data/doc_download/5050–specialty-plates-revenue-fy-1994-2014.

Texas has space available on millions of little mobile billboards. And Texas, in effect, sells that space to those who wish to use it to express a personal message—provided only that the message does not express a viewpoint that the State finds unacceptable. That is not government speech; it is the regulation of private speech.

...

Messages that are proposed by private parties and placed on Texas specialty plates are private speech, not government speech. Texas cannot forbid private speech based on its viewpoint. That is what it did here. Because the Court approves this violation of the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.

[benjipwns]

Well, isn't nuclear pretty clean ?

Comparatively, and O'Malley actually has endorsed nuclear expansion for years, but anti-nuclear feelings are still fairly strong in the U.S. and it's across party lines though a bit stronger in the Green/Democrat/Environmentalist movement, there hasn't been a new nuclear plant put into service since something like 1996 or 1997. And only in 2012 did the government finally sign off on some reactors that had been shuffling around the bureaucracy probably since then.

It does produce waste though.

Another factor is probably our strong anti-French sentiment. They get like 80% of their power from nuclear so something clearly is wrong about it, we don't want to be like those French distinguished fellows.

[VomKriege]

France is supposed under its current governement to aim for more renewable energy bringing the nuclear share to only 50% by 2050 I believe. Areva, the french nuclear company, is going through hard times as well and will be incorporated back under a closer Electricité de France tutelage.  But really I think nuclear energy will still be the backbone for France well into the future. I think nuclear is the best option but can't be generalized with the current level of technology, too pricey, complex and would put a strand on Uranium supplies. Things will maybe change if the industry can achieve the pie-in-the-sky new generation that would make it way more efficient. It's a shame too that scare-mongering is so ingrained with the issue : Nuclear is the only cleanerish option we have to sustain a massive energy network (with hydroelectricity, but you cannot build a dam anywhere and everywhere...), but it is close to impossible to say out loud in a conversation of arguably strategic importance.

Retrofitting when possible and imposing new building norms for energy conservation is a much sensible policy but a long term one. My little knowledge on the subject is that reducing the actual demand for energy worldwide in the future is a ludicrous proposition. On the other hand, coal is a fucking health hazard and oil should be managed with care. Only way out is to be more efficient (and clean if possible).

[benjipwns]

The interesting thing is that some of the new planned reactor designs' waste can be used in other type of plants as their fuel and I think that's an intriguing path to pursue rather than trying to impossibly drill down the cost of something like solar. The regulators currently don't care for it since "waste is waste" similar to how "radiation is radiation" but I imagine that could change if they start getting built in places like China and can be pointed to. Industry people get gaga over stuff like Thorium reactors until you ask about costs.

The U.S. designs aren't as safe as France's mostly because they're so old they don't have all the new fangled upgrades, but nuclear plants in the West have none of the dangers that the Soviet built ones had yet Chernobyl is what people think of*. Japan was a special case where the thing had been battered by a tsunami. (And to be fair, had a history of maintenance issues.)

Germany's "fuck nuclear" was one of the stupider responses. Polled well though, like 90% or some shit.

*And even that was only mildly a design flaw IIRC, it was a fuck up by everyone involved it's like the ultimate how not to handle a meltdown guide. The design flaws just meant instead of leaking out radiation after their fuck ups the thing exploded. And then the Soviets being the Soviets rather than follow more safety procedures were like "round everyone up, nothing to see here, fence it off, bye." I've read that one of the closed towns actually was a similar situation with a chemical plant of some kind. Then there's that one where the closed city is full of ungodly pollution because of the steel plants.

Long story short, the Soviets weren't too concerned about things like safety and following procedures when you can cover it up. Chernobyl was impossible to cover up because of that explosion.

[Mandark]

The impression I have of nuclear power is massive cost overruns -> we've got a new design, this time it will be different -> it's not different -> please understand.

[benjipwns]

I think you could replace "nuclear power" with most any capital-intensive project. 

[benjipwns]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/john-kasich-replace-jeb-bush-2016-candidate-119191.html

Operation Replace Jeb Bush
John Kasich is on a last-ditch mission to prove he can be the Republican establishment’s dream candidate in 2016.

Sensing the window of opportunity is closing, John Kasich is on a last-minute dash across the country to convince party donors and power-brokers that there’s room for one more candidate in the most crowded Republican presidential field in decades.

The Ohio governor, who’s expected to formally announce his White House bid next month, is jetting to America’s political money capitals — from Dallas to New York City to Palm Beach — with the goal of securing the financial support he’ll need to wage a 2016 campaign.

He’s huddled with Ann Romney at a lavish Utah ski resort and pushed to win the backing of a powerful longtime friend, media mogul Rupert Murdoch. He’s also tried to convince Ohio’s deepest-pocketed donors to keep their powder dry and not commit until he gets into the race.

The case for his candidacy is grounded in his record as a popular swing state governor. But part of his sell to donors is that Jeb Bush has run an ineffective campaign, creating an opening for a candidate who happens to fit Kasich’s own profile.

Coincidentally there was an Ohio poll just released in which Kasich was the only Republican to beat Hillary, 47-40.

Though he doesn't really dominate the field:

Kasich 19, Bush 9, Walker 8, Rubio 7, Huckabee 7, Paul 7, Carson 6, Cruz 6, Christie 3, Perry 2, Santorum 2, Graham 2, Trump 1, Fiorina 1

That's comparable to Jeb and Rubio in their own states:

Bush 20, Rubio 18, Walker 9, Carson 7, Huckabee 6, Paul 5, Christie 3, Cruz 3, Perry 4, Trump 3, Fiorina 2, Kasich 1, Jindal 1, Santorum 1

Pennsylvania is a bit more like the national polls, mass confusion, except for a bump on favorite son Santorum:

Rubio 12, Paul 11, Bush 10, Carson 10, Walker 9, Santorum 7, Huckabee 6, Christie 6, Cruz 5, Trump 4, Perry 1, Fiorina 1, Kasich 1, Graham 1

[Great Rumbler]

This capacious understanding of government speech takes a large and painful bite out of the First Amendment. Specialty plates may seem innocuous. They make motorists happy, and they put money in a State’s coffers. But the precedent this case sets is dangerous.

Roberts and Alito need to stumble across some magic elixir that instantly ages them by about 30 years.

[benjipwns]

The dissenting opinion has a six page appendix of examples of specialty Texas license plates.

[Great Rumbler]

Specialty plates and vanity plates are horrible things owned by horrible people.

[Kara]

Why did I read that excerpt of the dissent.

[benjipwns]

Cato's amicus brief lists among its citations:

P.J. O'Rourke, Foreigners of the World: A Brief Survey of the Various Foreign Types, Their Chief Characteristics, Customs, and Manners, Nat’l Lampoon, May 1976
Gilmore Girls (Warner Bros. 2000-2007)
Full House (ABC 1987-1995)
America’s Funniest Home Videos (ABC 1989-97)
Frank Rich, In Conversation: Chris Rock, Vulture.com, Nov. 30, 2014
The Avengers (Marvel Studios 2012)
The Aristocrats (ThinkFilm 2005)

A footnote:

As far as treatment of bad behavior goes, amici prefer the subtle social pressures of the fictional Stars Hollow, Connecticut, see generally Gilmore Girls (Warner Bros. 2000-2007), to those heavy-handed tin-ears of Middleborough, Mass.

Wait, another:

One research fellow at amicus Cato is a die-hard Sooners fan. While he appreciates the OU tag, he is offended by the very existence of Texas and respectfully suggests that, as an alternative way to dispose of this case, this Court could rule that Texas is unconstitutional. Or, better yet, make it part of Oklahoma. That would really help with recruiting.

[Kara]

America stands for freedom
But if you think you're free
Try going to the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles
And asking for a custom plate celebrating the Confederacy

[ToxicAdam]

An Ohio Republican will never become the presidential candidate. They have to maintain too 'middle of the road' on their conservatism and it won't play in the south. Voinovich had the same problems.

The only current Ohioan that has a shot is Sherrod Brown. But he's probably not polished enough for a national campaign.

 

[I'm a Puppy!]

I worked with a guy who was a business intelligence geek that took it too far.

He had some custom plates that read B I Guy. He was boasting about how he just got them and I was like "So your license plate says you're a bi guy?"

He was like

[benjipwns]

A couple weeks ago at the rapists office a SUV had the plate 24-7 MOM, she was there for their yoga and was a perfect stereotype.

[Kara]

I spend a good chunk of my life on the road. I know of some real bad California license plates.

[benjipwns]

I know an ex-footballer who would get my vote.

[CatsCatsCats]

Y'all heard of this book Code Red? http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00A0QDJP2?ref=aw_sitb_digital-text the author was just on local community radio and it all sounded very 

[Phoenix Dark]

But with respect to Ms. Kendall, this hateful man’s use of a slogan is no proof that the slogan itself is hateful. Elected leaders make this distinction constantly when it comes to Islamic terrorism, after all: The teachings of Muhammad, the Koran, the black flag with the Shahada (the flag of ISIS) — they have been “hijacked” and “perverted.” Why hasn’t Dylann Roof merely “hijacked” or “perverted” the main symbol of the Confederacy?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420003/blood-stained-banner-charleston-ian-tuttle

[Kara]

Use "Koran" in 2015 brehs.

[benjipwns]

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/19/government-stifles-speech

For the past two weeks, Reason, a magazine dedicated to "Free Minds and Free Markets," has been barred by an order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from speaking publicly about a grand jury subpoena that court sent to Reason.com.

The subpoena demanded the records of six people who left hyperbolic comments at the website about the federal judge who oversaw the controversial conviction of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. Shortly after the subpoena was issued, the government issued a gag order prohibiting Reason not only from discussing the matter but even acknowledging the existence of the subpoena or the gag order itself.

...

On May 31, Nick Gillespie published a post at Reason.com's Hit & Run blog discussing Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht's "haunting sentencing letter" to District Court Judge Katherine Forrest, and the judge's harsh response. Gillespie noted that Forrest "more than threw the book" at Ulbricht by giving him a life sentence, which was a punishment "beyond even what prosecutors...asked for."

In the comments section of the post, six readers published reactions that drew the investigative ire of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In a federal grand jury subpoena dated June 2, the U.S. District Court commanded Reason.com to turn over "any and all identifying information" we had about the individuals posting those comments.

This is the first time Reason.com has received such a subpoena from any arm of government.

From press accounts of similar actions at other news publications and social media sites, we know that it is increasingly common for the federal government to demand user information from publications and websites while also stifling their speech rights with gag orders and letters requesting "voluntary" confidentiality. Exactly how common is anyone's guess; we are currently investigating just how widespread the practice may be.

...

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara subpoenaed all of the identifying information we had about the authors of such comments as, "Its (sic) judges like these that should be taken out back and shot." And, "Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you feed them in feet first." This last comment is a well-known Internet reference to the Coen brothers' movie Fargo. 

The subpoena also covered such obviously harmless comments as: "I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for that horrible woman," and "I'd prefer a hellish place on Earth be reserved for her as well."

The comments are hyperbolic, in questionable taste–and fully within the norms of Internet commentary.

...

The original subpoena, received late on Tuesday, June 2, did not come with a gag order. However, it came with a letter from Bharara and Assistant U.S. Attorney Niketh Velamoor requesting that we refrain from informing any other parties about the subpoena so as to "preserve the confidentiality of the investigation," and that we notify his office in advance if we intended to do so, even though it also said that we were under "no obligation" to keep the subpoena confidential.

We had three options: We could 1) abide quietly with the subpoena, 2) attempt to quash it, and/or 3) alert the commenters named in the subpoena.

Option 1, quietly abiding, was a non-starter for us.

As for Option 2, our chances of prevailing in that sort of legal challenge—given the extremely wide-ranging authority of federal grand juries, and the precedents set in cases such as In re Grand Jury Subpoena No. 11116275, 846 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012), involving an anonymous poster on Twitter—was in practical effect, virtually nil. 

In the Twitter case, an anonymous poster moved to quash a grand jury subpoena to Twitter that arose from online postings of a sexual nature about then-congresswoman Michele Bachmann. In that case, Twitter received the subpoena and notified the anonymous poster about it, letting him know that the company would comply with the subpoena unless he filed a motion to quash. The court denied his motion, holding that the poster's First Amendment right to comment anonymously must yield to the government's "compelling interest" in knowing his identity.

So we decided, against the government's request but well within our legal rights, to choose Option 3: notify and share the full subpoena with the six targeted commenters so that they would have a chance to assert their First Amendment rights to anonymity and defend themselves legally against the order.

At about 10:30 am ET on Thursday, June 4, our attorney Gayle Sproul (of Levine, Sullivan, Koch, & Schulz) called Velamoor to discuss the subpoena. The call did not go well. Sproul asked Velamoor to consider scaling back the scope of the subpoena by omitting the more benign commenters. Velamoor said simply, "No." Then Sproul informed him that we would be notifying our commenters about the subpoena to give them the chance to defend their rights to remain anonymous, and that we would not comply with the subpoena as it related to any commenters who moved to quash the subpoena before our compliance deadline. Sproul explained to him that there is case law firmly establishing that these commenters have the right to speak anonymously, and that we would withhold the information of anyone fighting the subpoena. Velamoor disputed that any such free speech rights exist. He asked that we delay notifying the commenters so he could get a court order prohibiting us from disclosing the subpoena to them. We refused. Sproul pointed out that we were perfectly within our rights to share the subpoena given the law and the wording of his own letter. Velamoor then suggested that Reason was "coming close" to interfering with the grand jury investigation. The call ended abruptly.

...

Later that day, at approximately 5:35 pm ET, Velamoor sent Reason a gag order he had later secured blocking us from discussing the subpoena or the order itself with anyone outside of Reason, other than our attorney.

The gag order was accompanied by this email:

Mr. Alissi,

Regarding this subpoena, I spoke to someone who said she was an attorney representing Reason in connection with this subpoena.  The attorney indicated that Reason intended to notify the individuals referenced therein about the subpoena.  The attorney further refused to provide me any time to take steps to protect the confidentiality of the investigation.

I have obtained the attached Court Order prohibiting Reason from notifying any third party about the subpoena.

Please forward the Order to the attorney and any other individuals who should be aware of it.

Thank you

Niketh V. Velamoor
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY  10007

...

Having already suggested that Reason might have interfered with a grand jury investigation, Velamoor contacted Sproul on the afternoon of Friday, June 5, in response to a letter from her explaining the commenters' constitutional rights and laying out the timeline of Reason's notification to them. Velamoor told her that he now had "preliminary information" suggesting that Reason was in violation of the court order. Sproul said we were not and asked for further information. Velamoor refused to give any specifics, saying simply that he was "looking into it further."

Popehat coverage:
http://popehat.com/2015/06/08/department-of-justice-uses-grand-jury-subpoena-to-identify-anonymous-commenters-on-a-silk-road-post-at-reason-com/
http://popehat.com/2015/06/11/media-coverage-of-the-reason-debacle/

libertarian garbage finally getting what's coming to them, throw Gillespie's hair and leather jacket in jail for life!

[Kara]

Attacking people hung up on certain kinds of government waste with government waste. I love me some poetic justice retribution.

[Great Rumbler]

[Great Rumbler]

Just heard a segment on the local ESPN radio station today where the host railed against the Confederate flag and Confederate-fetishism.

[Tasty]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/2015/06/20/dylann-storm-roof-photos-found-website/wSSh9OQq97jFDzKQ4MB34N/story.html

“He just made really stupid but obvious statements about people from other races,” Wareing said in an email. “He would call black citizens ‘nuggets’ and such. He never made direct threats at all on Tumblr, at least it didn’t seem like that, just weird ramblings about how he felt he ‘didn’t fit in.’”

Among his writings were images of Sept. 11 “memes” and of “My Little Pony,” Wareing said.

Welp

[Phoenix Dark]

nuggets?

why not show some damn effort in your insults. What not go for "niglets" instead

[Joe Molotov]

Among his writings were images of Sept. 11 “memes” and of “My Little Pony,”

 

[Great Rumbler]

The choice of a Japanese film might seem peculiar at first, given the manifesto is a white supremacy rant. But in a section titled "East Asians", the essay reads: "Even if we were to go extinct they could carry something on. They are by nature very racist and could be great allies of the White race. I am not opposed at all to allies with the Northeast Asian races."

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

I wonder what Mr. Evil-Dumbass-Racist-Shithead thinks of his cinematic hero's extended career? If he ever saw more then just the one Sono film?

Specifically the anti-groupthink Suicide Club, the pro-love and acceptance Love Exposure, and the pro-immigration Exte, or maybe how he feels about all the porn, gay and straight (mostly gay if my understanding is correct), that Sono did prior to his legit filmmaking career.

Of course, expecting logical thought is a bit too much of a stretch to think of for this POS.

[Oblivion]

[VomKriege]

I know that he is in a situation where he doesn't have a free hand, but it's still weird to see the POTUS twitting like Joe-Six Pack Activist.



Otherwise, the news are 
There's something wrong with the USA, and unfortunately it's probably something deeper than just the gun ownership laws.

[benjipwns]

gasp, if this video gets out, Bernie's weekend is over:


the guy basically sounds like a socialist in this interview

[benjipwns]

First Libertarian Party candidate: http://www.robertdavidsteele.com/

After a lifetime overseas as the son of an oil engineer and as a Marine Corps infantry officer and Central Intelligence Agency clandestine service office (spy), he settled in the Commonwealth of Virginia where he has been resident since 1986.

Robert has been educated at Muhlenberg College (AB Political Science), Lehigh University (MA International Relations), the University of Oklahoma (MPA Public Administration) and the Naval War College (Diploma in Defense Economics). The latter two were continuing education non-resident endeavors. His first graduate thesis developed an original analytic model for predicting revolution; his graphic on the pre-conditions of revolution that exist in the USA today is very popular and has been featured at The Guardian in the UK and at Homeland Security Today in the US. He is the top non-fiction reviewer at Amazon, with over 2,000 reviews spanning 98 distinct categories.

Today Robert is the foremost activist for both electoral reform and open source everything.

Robert’s proposition to the Libertarian Party is that it must unite now, in 2015, with the Constitution, Green, and Working Families parties, and with Independents as well as Democrats certain to be disappointed when Bernie Sanders suspends his candidacy in favor of Hillary Clinton, to demand the Electoral Reform Act of 2015. This eight-point act, which includes a Constitutional Convention as the final element in restoring public voice for all, will make possible the destruction of the two-party tyranny and the election of Libertarians at all levels but particularly into Congress. Robert’s vision has been published as “A Fantasy: On the Seventh Day,” in CounterPunch.

While Robert tests off the scale on Libertarian values – and was first recruited to the party at Hackers on Planet earth in 1996 or 1998 when he completed the Libertarian survey – his focus in seeking the nomination is to enable a convergence of the 60% now disenfranchised, including all Libertarians, to gain legislation in 2015 that makes possible an Independent ticket including a Libertarian, and a Coalition Cabinet including multiple Libertarians, and a Congress including at least 20% Libertarians, in 2016.

Robert eschews comparison with all others on the issues for the simple reason that his focus is on restoring integrity to the entire electoral process and thence to governance, the economy, and society. What he thinks about any given issue should not matter because he defers to a future honest legislature replete with Libertarians, and to national issue ballots, to establish public preferences – for example, in relation to legalizing marijuana. Robert is unique – he is the only candidate who is serious about uniting all citizens to demand electoral reform now, in time to achieve an honest open government – radically scaled back in size and budget and authority – in 2016-2024.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/12/on-the-seventh-day/

post about extremely long shot candidates for extremely long shot parties nominations brehs 

[headwalk]

There's something wrong with the USA, and unfortunately it's probably something deeper than just the gun ownership laws.

[VomKriege]

The problem is Prima Nocta, yes.

[Kara]

That LP candidate.