Here is another one. If you disapprove of cutting in line, acting up, refusing to leave a place of business, and resisting arrest are bad things, then you are racist!

I know Montius posted an article, but in case you don't want to read the whole thing:

Radio frequencies are a scarce resource and thus can be legitimately owned.

Line up a babysitter, fill up the dog food bowls extra high, and take out a third mortgage on that double wide...because O'Reilly and Beck are going on tour!



http://www.boldfreshtour.com/bold-fresh-tour-info.html

Don't know about you guys, but Bold & Fresh sounds like an awesome shampoo.

Bold and Fresh: 80's rap duo.

Super Mentos LDO.

lolol

If only Bill and Glenn had a means of talking straight with the American people on a regular basis.

Wonder how many old woman groupies Papa Bear and Beck are going to tag team after the shows. Maybe Bill makes them bring their own loofahs.

You can? Where? I'd love to make some wagers on this.

We're winning.

BBC reports that only 11% of people surveyed think the status quo system of government intervention is working well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8347409.stm

Germany new ACism hotspot imo

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/her...wyer-dies-jail

Pretty scary story all around.

US actually AC hotspot based on that graph. Pakistan close 2nd?

Haha, this

In the absence of government, who "sells" it? Or is it first come first serve?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

So yeah, first to use it in an area owns it.

They think the status quo system is a free market though.

What a bizarre question. Option A: "free market capitalism is fatally flawed and a different system is needed". So the wall fell in Germany and suddenly we had free market capitalism? O RLY

looked at another way, we are right on the heels of mother Russia...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBrfql3pnU

^ Andrew Napolitano and Bill O'Reilly talk about whether or not KSM should be tried in the US. The discussion obviously hinges on such things like "the law" and "the Constitution", but those are pinhead terms that pinheads use, per Bill O'Reilly. So Napolitano and O'Reilly have a funny conversation where Bill O'Reilly tells Napolitano he doesn't care about the Constitution and that "the Constitution isn't here but you are", then asks Napolitano why he wants KSM tried in the US, at which point Napolitano strains to explain why he believes KSM should be tried in the US without referencing the Constitution by name.

Breathtaking imo.

Bill is a pinhead but dude he was trying to get the guy to answer a question and did not literally mean he doesn't care about the constitution. He wanted the man's opinion but he kept referencing the constitution without any reference as to how the constitution applies.

lol wat? Napolitano is crystal clear how the Constitution applies. You can't explain that any clearer.

Yeah I saw this and obv had a facepalm type reaction. iirc the Judge said the main issue is that there is no formally declared "war" on AQ thus making them ineligible for tribunals. Are the Constitutional issues properly addressed if we:

1) Formally declare war on Al Qaeda
2) Try all AQ/unlawful combatants in military tribunals
3) ??????
4) Profit.

In an age of talking heads spewing bile on the left and right, we can count on CNN to always deliver straight, hard-nosed reporting.

That's an interesting question, actually.

I'm not certain that the Constitution actually allows for, or contemplates, a formal legal declaration of war against an entity that is not an actual nation-state.

It's one thing to declare war against Germany or Japan (or even Canada, hehe), but another to declare war (and as such invoking stuff like the War Powers Act) against a loose affiliated organization that, by at least some counts, is actually only comprised of a few hundred people.

I'd like to see the strict constructionists form an argument that the Constitution actually allows for that.

I don't care about the Constitution. The Constitution isn't here, you are. KSM is a terrorist who killed Americans. We arrested KSM in Pakistan! Why is he allowed to be tried in NYC?!?

FWIW, this is actually a very skilled maneuver by O'Reilly. You can either sit there and be like "WTF BIll O, your question doesn't make any sense, I can't answer as to what's allowed and what's not without talking about the Constitution", which Bill O just told you not to do. Or you can keep talking about the Constitution, at which point you're a pinhead who just can't state a simple opinion without pinheading it up by talking about some document that isn't even there.

This is why he's selling out stadiums with Beck imo. Can't beat him.

The biggest LOL-worth part of this entire debate is the complete glossing over, by the right, of the fact that we've successfully conducted multiple trials of Islamist terrorists in the U.S. since 9/11, and even well before.

Sure, it's inconvenient, but justice isn't always "convenient".

I can't remember the specific accused, but back when I was living in Virginia and working at a firm that used the EDVA rocket docket a ton, it was a real pain in the ass to get in the federal courthouse for weeks and weeks, because the whole area was ringed with machine gun wielding marshals, as one of those trials was going on during...oh...2002 or 2003. And parking was tough because of closed street surrounding it. But the courthouse remained open for business, the wheels of justice continued to spin, and oh yeah, the convict is now in SuperMax and never going anywhere.

The cold hard truth is this...it's not that the Republicans and their far right pundits don't actually think justice can't be carried out. It's that, after eight years, they're still trying to use 9/11 as a cheap source of even cheaper political points, and that their the only item on their intellectually bankrupt agenda is attempting to politicize every action or decision of the Obama administration, in any way possible. Because god forbid if the country actually somehow improves between now and 2012.