@Tymbrwulf, would you remove editorials and regular columns from newspapers as well?

Also, how would you regulate such a thing? What if FNC responded by saying "O'Reilly is objective"? How do you prove or disprove that?

For that matter, is Megyn Kelly really objective? Major Garrett? The gang at Fox and Friends? Changing networks, how about Joe Scarborough? Chuck Todd? Contessa Brewer? Tamron Hall?

What's the litmus test? How do I find out if I'm objective or not?

>> ^blankfist:
SPIT! SPIT! I hate the taste of words in my mouth.
I think you should read DFT's comment above. He got it.


Okay, so here's what DFT said:

Racism still thrives in this country, but the time of being able to say jaw-droppingly racist things in public is coming to a close. I think that's what blankfist meant.

DFT's description of your viewpoint matches mine. You think the problem of people saying jaw-droppingly racist things in public is essentially a solved issue.

Let's recap what's been happening in the public sphere in just the last few months:

Rick Sanchez just got fired for anti-semitic comments on the radio.

Laura Ingraham just got fired for saying nigger 11 times in the space of a few minutes, in the name of trying to prove that the real issues with race are that black people are "oversensitive" about white people saying racist things.

Carl Paladino just gave a speech proclaiming that schools should teach children that homosexuality is immoral.

Jan Brewer in Arizona is constantly telling people that all Mexican immigrants are violent criminals, and has occasionally called it an "invasion" (even though illegal immigration in Arizona has been trending downward for years).

We've had a pretty long, drawn out debate about whether Muslims should be allowed to build a community center within a few miles of Ground Zero, apparently because being Muslim in Manhattan is now offensive or something.

As part of that debate, we've had a bunch of people talking about burning Korans, and calling Islam a "cult" rather than a religion, etc.

Oh, and some lady called into C-SPAN and complained about how black people should be more thankful that white people gave them welfare and medicaid -- which you also find expressed in many of those interviews with people at Tea party rallies.

And that's just sticking to things you're likely to have heard about on TV and in the papers.

In short, if DFT "gets it", then you're saying something that's patently untrue, and highly dismissive of the issue.

Am I starting to see a pattern? Is the GOP/Tea Party trying to discredit all female politicians by showcasing their "rising stars" like Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Jan Brewer, etc.? Preemptive strike against Hilldawg? Or am I just seeing more obvious cases of politicians who are borderline retarded (which is nothing new).

According to statistics from the FBI and Arizona police agencies, crime in Arizona border towns has been “essentially flat for the past decade.” For example, “In 2000, there were 23 rapes, robberies and murders in Nogales, Ariz. Last year, despite nearly a decade of population growth, there were 19 such crimes.” The Pima County sheriff reported that “the border has never been more secure.”

FBI statistics show violent crime rates in all of the border states are lower than they were a decade ago — yet Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reports that the violence is “the worst I have ever seen.” President Obama justifiably asserted last week that “the southern border is more secure today than any time in the past 20 years,” yet Rush Limbaugh judged the president to be “fit for the psycho ward” on the basis of that remark.

Next, there’s Brewer’s claim that “the majority” of people immigrating illegally “are coming here and they’re bringing drugs, and they’re doing drop houses and they’re extorting people and they’re terrorizing the families. That is the truth.”

No, it isn’t. The Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector has apprehended more than 170,000 undocumented immigrants since Oct. 1, but only about 1,100 drug prosecutions have been filed in Arizona in that time.

The claim that illegal immigrants are behind most killings of law-enforcement personnel is also bunk. Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen claimed that “in the last few years 80 percent of our law enforcement that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.” A Phoenix police spokesman told the Arizona Republic’s E.J. Montini that the real figure for killings is less than 25 percent, and that there are no statistics on wounded officers.

So what is this “terrible border security crisis” that Brewer says has only “gotten worse”? She complained recently to Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren about the Obama administration’s handling of the border: “They haven’t did [sic] their job.”

[via Dana Millbank @ WaPo]

Fine, something needed to be done, but this is a terrible law.

Targeting anyone who might "conceal, harbor or shield" potential illegals gives the local racists free license to discriminate against anyone they don't like.

"I don't know if these brown people in my shop are illegal, so I'm just not going to allow any brown people in my shop (cab, bus, hospital, school, library).">> ^MarineGunrock:

I live in Arizona and this is basically how it goes:
If a cop has reason to believe that someone is here illegally or is harboring illegals, they have the right to detain them until they can produce valid documentation that they are allowed to be in the US. If they can not produce valid documentation, they police now have the authority to deport them without having to go through the INS.
As a resident of the Phoenix metro area, I readily agree with this bill and approve of Gov. Brewer's actions. Illegal immigration here has a large impact on the society, mainly financially. From what I recall, up until now when police arrested one or two illegals, the INS simply let them go because it wasn't worth their time or effort to export a small number of individuals. No longer does Arizona have to suffer at the inaction of a federal branch.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I live in Arizona and this is basically how it goes:
If a cop has reason to believe that someone is here illegally or is harboring illegals, they have the right to detain them until they can produce valid documentation that they are allowed to be in the US. If they can not produce valid documentation, they police now have the authority to deport them without having to go through the INS.
As a resident of the Phoenix metro area, I readily agree with this bill and approve of Gov. Brewer's actions. Illegal immigration here has a large impact on the society, mainly financially. From what I recall, up until now when police arrested one or two illegals, the INS simply let them go because it wasn't worth their time or effort to export a small number of individuals. No longer does Arizona have to suffer at the inaction of a federal branch.


It doesn't take away from the fact that this is simply racial profiling. You aren't going to stop people of european decent or black people and ask for their papers. This is only for Mexicans, it's baldfaced profiling and that's wrong.

Here's a question...why not stop white people and ask them to provide papers that prove they are indeed Mexican residents since they are living on land that was Mexico before it was taken by the American empire. That's a silly notion but I'm doing it to point something out; this situation is a lot more complex than it appears and it deserves more discussion and debate than just giving the police such broad powers.

I live in Arizona and this is basically how it goes:

If a cop has reason to believe that someone is here illegally or is harboring illegals, they have the right to detain them until they can produce valid documentation that they are allowed to be in the US. If they can not produce valid documentation, they police now have the authority to deport them without having to go through the INS.

As a resident of the Phoenix metro area, I readily agree with this bill and approve of Gov. Brewer's actions. Illegal immigration here has a large impact on the society, mainly financially. From what I recall, up until now when police arrested one or two illegals, the INS simply let them go because it wasn't worth their time or effort to export a small number of individuals. No longer does Arizona have to suffer at the inaction of a federal branch.

In September 2006, Baldwin released his book titled The Unusual Suspect, which details highlights from his personal life, career, days of drug abuse and ultimately his turn to becoming a born-again Christian after the 9/11 attacks.[11] In the same year, Baldwin, Mario D'Ortenzio and Bobby Brewer founded, "Breakthrough Ministries", which was designed to utilize extreme sports as a ministry via arena tours, which were referred to as, "AsSalt Tours", and featured extreme sports celebrities, with Christian Hosoi being the most notable one. In 2007, Daniel Southern joined Baldwin as President of his ministries. In late 2008, Baldwin formed a for-profit organization called, "Antioch Ministry", which exists, "to facilitate the gifts and calling of Stephen Baldwin".[12] In 2009, Baldwin and Southern launched a third ministry called, "Now More Than Ever", designed to reach enlisted men and women in the military, around the world.


Baldwin at CPAC in February 2010, promoting his radio show.
In 2008, Baldwin teamed up with conservative evangelical Christian talk-radio host Kevin McCullough to put together a Saturday radio show called, "Baldwin/McCullough Xtreme Radio". As of April 18, 2009, the show airs on more than 195 stations and in more than 370 cities across the country.[13] Baldwin appears weekly on the show from the broadcast studios in New York City, as well as from various locations around the country when he is traveling for other business purposes.
-Wikipedia

What a terrible fuck fase he is

Hey thanks, that kinda makes sense to me! Whod a thunk it!

In reply to this comment by EmptyFriend:
yeah, should be MSNBC's. you only put the apostrophe after the S if you wanted to say it was both plural and possessive (eg "all 12 employees' cars were stolen"), so unless there are multiple stations named MSNBC...

grammar aside, can't blame her too much for reading her teleprompter, but i guess she should have corrected herself a little faster. seems like by the time he started talking, her brain was probably 3 steps ahead of her getting ready for the back-and-forth with him.

can't tell from the clip, but he didn't really look that offended or anything, i mean its not like she called him some offensive name or something.

If alcohol were illegal then you would have more home brewers. Indoor growing is an aftermath of aggressive outdoor growing scrutiny. The investment in both is high. The rewards are infinite.

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
Fermentation is a simple process yes, but making something that is safe to drink is a much more complex system. Your average booze hound doesn't brew their own beer, or make moonshine in their bathtub. Where as I think a fairly large portion of marijuana users would happily grow their own.

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
There's very little money to be made if you legalize weed as a drug. We're talking about a plant that requires little effort to grow and process to make a usable substance.

Unlike alcohol?

6'4 and full of mussels

Seriously I ate a whole sack of em'


I live in the desert East of California (Nevada), and I plant trees. They pay me to do this. I really don't spend a huge amount of time on computers, like many others here, but I do enjoy indoor recreation, simply because I am outdoors so much. Unlike many other sifters, I kill and eat what sustains me, when I am lucky enough to have the opportunity. I am married, and have no children. I am a gourmet, gut eating, beer brewer when I am not planting trees.

And its obscene how many of us humans there are. Mandatory birth control anyone?

If you haven't figured it out my handle and Avatar relate to Ed Abbey. A man who could deliver a harangue about the horrors of grazing cattle on public land all while eating a 26 Oz. porterhouse.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:

That is complete nonsense. Its such a nonsensical statement that the opposite argument is much more compelling to my ear (though still a wild oversimplification), that poor people who don't have the ability to replace stolen goods, repair damages, file lawsuits or pay for insurance, would be more concerned with funding collective security, as they could be wiped out completely by a single incident.

I am saying that someone with $10 million has more to lose than someone with $10,000. You disagree? If china invades tomorrow and loots the entire country, who loses more? If there are no police who is more likely to be kidnapped for ransom--the millionaire or the pauper? With no legal system, whose house will be the first to be burglarized, the mansion on the hill or the one bedroom apartment in the city?

Do you know why people form nonprofits? Because you don't pay taxes on things related to the organization, but in-turn all the money you generate can only be spent to benefit the nonprofit. The whole point of your column here was you want to make taxes voluntary... so, uh, yeah, I think what you mean instead of 'nonprofit' is 'board', or 'committee'... and those things we already have.

If your argument is true, that people only give to charity for tax breaks, or only form charity organizations for tax shelter, we are a sorry lot indeed, and the community most definitely should not be trusted.

Anyhow, I'm not going to go through and bust your balls on everything that makes no sense in this... strict individualists are by definition anarchists while strict collectivists are communists...

I would argue that anyone who is an anarchist is not an individualist, as there can be no law in anarchy, and without law, there are no individual rights.

I respect that you're trying to find your position towards the individualist side of the spectrum, but as a general statement I think you're system is all over the place, with individuals being selfish but not that selfish and on and on...

That is how the "invisible hand" works. Even though people are acting in their own selfish interest, they end up benefiting the community at large. It is one of the most important principles of the market. Just look at the quote in my bio:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens."
—Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

The butcher ends up providing dinner for thousands of people--do you think he does that out of the goodness of his heart? No, he does it for the selfish reason that he gets paid. Same thing with the doctor. Do you think the doctor spends 8 years in medical school and 60 hours a week because he wants everyone to be healthy? No, he does it because he gets paid well. Part of him likely enjoys helping others, but that too is a selfish interest.

Thanks to fissionchips for pointing this thread out to me! I haven't been too busy sifting lately so my queue isn't full, but my goodness... you guys make up one of my favorite communities, on and off line! I'm kinda quiet on here mostly because I am more of a peace lover than a storm brewer, but if it weren't for the more vocal people on here I don't think this would be as fun. I aspire to the heights of wit, humor and intellect displayed by my peers. Thanks for the kudos! (now that my lips are all chapped I will end this little speech with that)

I have been searching for the video of Contessa Brewer saying "Sta'testicle' dead heat".

Also, I am desperate for a mashup of the Mercury Mystique SNL skit with the new "When You Turn Your Car On, Does It Return The Favor?" commercials... Dag, that would be so awesome...

My husband is a hobby brewer. He makes a great Blue Moon knock off. He makes only ales, but since we live in a cold place now...I wonder if he can try a lager?