*Written by Rob Rimes.

I had a long weekend but it is now over. My time in Gainesville with my cousin and friends was a blast, as I haven’t actually been partying too hard over the last month. This trip was a good way for me to drown in bourbon, Irish whiskey, tequila, Long Islands, Guinness, ginger beer and Pabst. I’ve been trying to be healthier in an attempt to lose weight and potentially live a somewhat longer life but even with my more health conscious attitude, my inner party monster still needs to be entertained and unleashed every now and again. What better time than with other party monsters that I genuinely cherish in a wild college town during graduation weekend? There was no point in taking any prisoners, as we ran roughshod over downtown Gainesville leaving no bottle unturned. A few days later, my stomach still hurts and my head is still swimming in a sea of 86 proof delirium – a special shout out goes to 1.75 liters of Old Crow Reserve.

To those who might find my more health conscious behavior a bit unsettling, there is no need to worry. It’s not called selling out when you do it because your liver hurts and you’ve been pissing blood. The blood part was not related to the booze but it was still a wake up call to straighten my shit out some what. Have no fear though, I will not go soft and become a shell of my former self like so many writers and artists who went clean only for their work to suffer and lose its appeal. Trent Reznor immediately comes to mind, although his Academy Award for a very boring and minimalist film score probably proves me wrong but only if you take the Academy seriously and turn a blind eye to their petty politics.

Anyway, my first night in Gainesville on this latest trip was intense. It started almost immediately with two Guinness Draughts and four Long Island iced teas while I watched my friends play pool. I didn’t participate in the contest because I was enjoying my own game of drown the writer in the dark and dingy corner of smoke and neon light. It is a one-player game but the odds are always steep and the challenge is never dull. Needless to say, I won the bout and went on to fight in other bouts in other venues for the remainder of the 48 hour tournament.

The weekend wasn’t all about completely succumbing to vices however. I mean, I never came across any other substances to entertain myself with and that’s fine, the booze was enough. I did get to spend a lot of the time talking politics and economics with the college kids, some of them a part of the Occupy Gainesville movement. Now while we didn’t see eye-to-eye on solutions, we did agree on the vast majority of the problems. My job, from my standpoint, was to try and get them to understand that you can’t just blame the banks for the madness. The government is just as responsible as is the Federal Reserve. Truth is, they were really receptive to a lot of the things I was saying. Now I had half a dozen conversations with a dozen or more people but for the most part, other than two or three close-minded joiners, they got what I was saying and left the conversations with the intent to look into their new perspective on these matters themselves. One of them even promised to pick up some of the books I wrote down for him on a napkin (titles by Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman and more modern authors Jeffrey Tucker and Stefan Molyneux – who has a ton of free e-books).

One interesting thing I discovered among talking to multiple college kids, is that their only real beef with Ron Paul is his pro-life stance. I told them that it is an issue I also disagree with Dr. Paul on. However, I told them that if you look at the rest of his platform and like it, writing him off over one issue is a bit careless. Especially since Dr. Paul thinks that it should be an issue left up to states and not the federal government regardless of his personal opinion on it. Most of these kids understood that but had a hard time envisioning a country were states’ rights were protected, at least on this issue. I explained that you cannot pick and choose issues and that the rule had to apply with everything. If you make one exception, you will make plenty more. They got and respected it but still had a bug in their ass about it and I get that. I then spoke to them about Gary Johnson who is basically a clone of Ron Paul policy-wise but is pro-choice instead of pro-life. Most of the people I talked to had not heard of Johnson and were actually pretty excited upon finding out his stance on the abortion issue. They also liked that Gary Johnson was not a Democrat or a Republican. I didn’t bring up all the issues they said they had with Obama however, as there were a lot more than what they had with Paul. Regardless of this, they will probably vote for Obama again even though they claim they are opposed to war, Gitmo and a plethora of other issues he has failed them on.

Now don’t get me wrong, not everyone was cordial. There were those few dumb bastards in the mix and fucking with them and sending them off in a self-conlficted rage was quite amusing. One kid was calling for anarchy and at the same time was calling for government to step in and regulate the banks more. Point is, this kid’s whole world-view was completely hypocritical. On one hand, this kid (and those like him) want to scream “Fuck the man!” and “Fuck the police!” while on the other hand want the government (the man and the police) to step in and regulate everything even more than they do now. I don’t understand how so many young people can’t seem to make a correlation between these two things? You want the government who is bought and paid for by the banks to regulate the banks? You can’t see how this is completely asinine, let alone how this is what has caused all these problems to begin with? Your solution to the problem is more of the problem itself? Does the meth addict break the cycle by taking more meth? No, the meth addict dies! Common sense is like a disease in the hipster socialist-anarchist psyche.

The ones who are so passionate in their ignorance don’t even care about the real crux of the problem. They want to continue to buy into their conflicted and hypocritical indoctrination and smash anyone who doesn’t swim in their sea of shit. On top of that, they don’t want to better themselves, they want to stay at the bottom so they can continue to bitch as they wallow in dirt and filth because if they were to try and actually get out of it, they’d be outed as a “sell out” or even worse a “hard-working capitalist pig consumer”. Yep, keep pointing your Djarum-clutching fingers as you slur your PBR-soaked words kiddies.

Not all is lost on the generation after mine however. Amongst the sea of those I dealt with, only a few were bad apples and completely hopeless. I remember myself at that age, as I had a similar view of the world. It was someone challenging me on my preconceived notions that got me to pay attention and learn how this whole game really works. If at least one of those kids breaks free from the mold and is affected by our encounter, my debt is repaid. I enjoyed the friendly and civil debates and even had fun with the assholes. In the end, it is about standing your ground and living by your own code not the code of some undefined group whose ideology is lesser than the sum of its parts.

I got home, feeling pretty good about how most of the weekend went down. I also felt great for ignoring my responsibilities for a few days while not even paying attention to what was going on in the news. I didn’t really miss anything, other than Rick Santorum finally wiping away his bitch tears to endorse Mitt Romney, which just gave me flashbacks to 2008 when he was riding that Romney train hard. Something tells me that if I had the same debates with Santorum supporters that I had with the college youth of Gainesville, it wouldn’t have been as civil. I hope that all of those sweater-vests the Santorumites bought up like quaaludes at a disco are constructed of Iranian dog hair and Chinese asbestos. It would be the perfect ending to such a vile group of people.

Here’s what we do know about student loan debt: it’s roughly $1 trillion in size, greater than either auto or credit-card debt and second only to mortgage debt in the U.S.

Borrowers in their 30s today owe $28,500, on average. The debt burden has soared just as — and partly because — the recession hit, so younger graduates carrying the highest balances are hit with the double whammy of aweak job market (that still isn’t showing any sign of rapid improvement).

And this all comes as globalization and technological change have upended once-reliable career paths, wiped out many mid-level professional jobs and leave low-paying fields in health, food and beverage services, and retail as among the fastest growing job markets over the next decade.

Oh, and consider that student loan debt remains one of the most difficult types to forgive or discharge in bankruptcy, in part because the federal government (i.e. taxpayers) made or guaranteed 80 percent of all outstanding student loan debt as of last year. And finally, that once loans in deferral or forbearance are excluded, the delinquency rate on student loan debt was an estimated 27 percent as of the third quarter of 2011, according to a study by the New York Fed.

Worried? Americans should be.

Still, acknowledging the problem is perhaps the easiest step. Much more difficult is the question of what to do about it. Not surprisingly, young, heavily indebted grads are calling for forgiveness in full or in part of their student loan burdens. Petitions on advocacy website Change.org include calls for federal student loan interest rates to be capped at 3 percent or eliminated altogether. (Indeed, President Obama is currently among those urging Congress not to allow the interest rate on federally subsidized Stafford loans, which are aimed at low — and middle-class borrowers, to double to 6.8 percent on July 1, matching the rate for unsubsidized loans.)

And yet the trouble with those initiatives, or with forgiving student loan debt in whole or part, is threefold. For starters, the straight mathematics: the losses from any such debt reduction scheme will have to be borne by someone, most likely taxpayers, at a time when government finances are already stretched.

Second is the issue of “moral hazard,” that is, rewarding and implicitly encouraging imprudent behavior rather than punishing it. (Of course, it is easier for the public at large to demand that over-leveraged banks be punished for imprudence than 24-year-olds trying to further their education.)

And third is the question of how to keep future graduates from accumulating a mountain of student loan debt just as large, if not larger, than the one just leveled.

It is this third issue which perhaps is most pressing — and most vexing —and which also offers the most opportunity for innovation. Levying an “education tax,” making college free and assigning students to institutions based on a lottery system? Abolishing “college” altogether for more specialized trade institutions instead, while at the same time requiring a “gap year” of liberal arts prior to entry? Offering high-school grads the choice between student loans or business loans to fund new ventures? These all seem ridiculous, but then so too is our current state of affairs.

This, in fact, is why it may be far less costly for taxpayers in the long run to forgive as much of the current student-loan burden as possible. Before doing anything like that, however, there must be systematic reform to ensure debt loads simply won’t start to pile up again. (Not to mention the need for repercussions for those borrowers who most benefit from any such initiative, for the sake of fairness.) That is why the need for innovation or overhaul is so pressing.Our current system, in fact, has so failed that it may now be exacerbating income inequality (by saddling low-income students with high loan balances and shaky job prospects), economic malaise (by keeping would-be homebuyers stuck in costly rentals because of already high debt loans and/or poor credit histories, thereby damaging both the housing market and potential consumer spending), and long-term economic vitality (by hampering household and family unit formations with a higher share of 20- and 30-somethings currently stuck at home with mom and dad).

One thing is certain: if we do nothing to alter the status quo, we will have no one to blame but ourselves for the bleak outcome.

Source: CNBC.

On a fall day in 2010, half a dozen wealthy investors and portfolio managers converged on an office in midtown Manhattan. These were serious Wall Street moneymen; in aggregate, they handled more than a billion dollars. They had access to the most exclusive hedge funds and investment partnerships and often rubbed shoulders with the elite of New York, Greenwich and Palm Beach.

But on this day, they had turned out to meet an unknown college dropout from Utah — and to find out how he was knocking them all into a cocked hat.

The unknown, Allan Mecham, had been posting mind-bogglingly high returns for a decade at a tiny private-investment fund called Arlington Value Management, and the Wall Streeters were considering jumping on board. For nearly two hours, they peppered him with questions. Where did he get his business background? I read a lot, he replied. Did he have an MBA? No. I dropped out of college. Did he have a clever computer model or algorithm? No, he replied. I don’t use spreadsheets much. Could the group look at some of his investment analyses? I don’t have any of those either, he said. It’s all in my head. The investors were baffled. Well, could he at least tell them where he thought the stock market was headed? “I don’t know,” Mecham replied.

When the meeting broke up, “most people left the room mystified,” says Brendan O’Brien, a New York City money manager who was there. “They were expecting to see this very sharp-dressed, fast-talking guy. They were saying, I don’t get it, I don’t understand why he wouldn’t have a view on the market, because money managers get paid to have a view on the market.” Mecham has faced this kind of befuddlement before — which is one reason he meets only rarely with potential investors. It’s tough to sell his product to an industry that’s used to something very different. After all, according to their rules, he shouldn’t even be in the business to begin with.

Over a 12-year stretch, through the end of 2011, Mecham, now a mere 34 years old, has earned an astounding cumulative return of more than 400 percent by investing in the stock of U.S. companies — many of them larger ones like Philip Morris, AutoZone and PepsiCo. That investment performance leaves the stock market indexes and most mutual funds trailing far in the dust. Of the thousands of mutual funds in America, only a smattering of stock-oriented funds have done better, according to Lipper. Arlington, which is structured like a hedge fund, has put most firms in that category deep in the shade as well. It even managed to turn a profit during the crash of 2008, when Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index fell nearly 40 percent. And Mecham has done this mostly while sitting in an armchair, in an office above a taco shop, in downtown Salt Lake City.

Mecham doesn’t look, talk or act like a typical Wall Street manager. He’s soft-spoken. He doesn’t use jargon. He dresses like he works in a bookshop, with a patterned shirt and a plain tie. And the story of his success, arguably, says a lot about the flaws of the fund-management industry. By his own account, and those of other investors who have vetted his fund, Mecham has no secret sauce or amazing algorithm; what’s extraordinary about this young man is how ordinary he is. But his investment approach relies on a handful of common-sense tactics — focusing on just a few stocks, for example, and avoiding or ignoring short-term statistical analysis — that big money-management firms either can’t use or are reluctant to try. Skeptics and admirers alike agree that Mecham’s approach involves a higher-than-usual potential for hefty losses. Russ Kinnel, director of fund research at Morningstar, says most fund customers would be unlikely to take that chance. “Pension funds, consultants, investors in general are quite benchmark-centric,” Kinnel notes; they get uncomfortable when their money managers deviate.

CONTINUED at Smart Money.

Former Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno died Saturday night from lung cancer at the age of 85, CBS Sports confirms.

Paterno had been in the hospital since Jan. 13 for observation for what his family had called minor complications from his cancer treatments. Not long before that, he conducted his only interview since losing his job, with The Washington Post. Paterno was described as frail then and wearing a wig. The second half of the two-day interview was conducted by his bedside.

The final days of Paterno’s Penn State career were easily the toughest in his 61 years with the university and 46 seasons as head football coach.

Sandusky, a longtime defensive coordinator who was on Paterno’s staff in two national title seasons, was arrested Nov. 5 and ultimately charged with sexually abusing a total of 10 boys over 15 years. His arrest sparked outrage not just locally but across the nation and there were widespread calls for Paterno to quit.

Paterno announced late on Nov. 9 that he would retire at the end of the season but just hours later he received a call from board vice chairman John Surma, telling him he had been terminated as coach. By that point, a crowd of students and media were outside the Paterno home. When news spread that Paterno had been dumped, there was rioting in State College.

Police on Saturday night had barricaded off the block where Paterno lives, and a police car was stationed about 50 yards from his home. A light was on in the living room but there was no activity inside. No one was outside, other than reporters and photographers stationed there.

Trustees said this week they pushed Paterno out in part because he failed a moral responsibility to report an allegation made in 2002 against Sandusky to authorities outside the university. They also felt he had challenged their authority and that, as a practical matter, with all the media in town and attention to the Sandusky case, he could no longer run the team.

Paterno testified before the grand jury investigating Sandusky that he had relayed to his bosses an accusation that came from graduate assistant Mike McQueary, who said he saw Sandusky abusing a boy in the showers of the Penn State football building.

Paterno told the Post that he didn’t know how to handle the charge, but a day after McQueary visited him, Paterno spoke to the athletic director and the administrator with oversight over the campus police.

Wick Sollers, Paterno’s lawyer, called the board’s comments this week self-serving and unsupported by the facts. Paterno fully reported what he knew to the people responsible for campus investigations, Sollers said.

“He did what he thought was right with the information he had at the time,” Sollers said.

Sandusky says he is innocent and is out on bail, awaiting trial.

The back and forth between Paterno’s representative and the board reflects a trend in recent weeks, during which Penn State alumni — and especially former players, including Hall of Fame running back Franco Harris — have questioned the trustees’ actions and accused them of failing to give Paterno a chance to defend himself.

Three town halls, in Pittsburgh, suburban Philadelphia and New York City, seemed to do little to calm the situation and dozens of candidates have now expressed interest in running for the board, a volunteer position that typically attracts much less interest.

While everyone involved has said the focus should be on Sandusky’s accusers and their ordeals, the abuse scandal for Paterno put a sour ending on a sterling career. Paterno won 409 games and took the Nittany Lions to 37 bowl games and those two national championships. More than 250 of the players he coached went on to the NFL.

With his thick glasses, rolled up khakis and white socks, Paterno was synonymous with Penn State and was seen in many ways as the archetypal football coach.

More coverage from CBS Sports

Source: CBS Cleveland.

First-year starting quarterback A.J. McCarron and the kicking game were supposed to be the Alabama Crimson Tide’s biggest hurdles to a national championship. The LSU Tigersand the Tide were all but inseparable in most areas of the field, but LSU had more experience and pure playmaking ability at the QB position, while their special teams were supposedly much better than Alabama’s.

Jeremy Shelley and fellow kicker Cade Foster combined for four field goals in the BCS National Championship game, making up for their poor performances in Alabama’s loss to LSU earlier in the season. Head Coach Nick Saban was very pleased with his kickers, who helped guide Alabama to a win.

“Jeremy did a great job in the game. We have a lot of confidence in Jeremy. He doesn’t have great range, but when we get it down there by the 25-yard line he does a pretty good job for the most part. We got one blocked and he pushed one to the right a little bit. But we’re just going to keep on giving him opportunities, and I think he did a great job.”

While the kickers redeemed themselves, McCarron did much more than that, and his play was perhaps the biggest story of the game. Though he did not throw a touchdown pass, he made a number of big plays to move the Alabama offense down the field and into field goal range, even when the LSU defense was doing a good job of containing Trent Richardson.McCarron was humble, praising Richardson and the coaching staff for their role in the win when asked about his performance.

“We’ve been leaning on No. 3 [Richardson] all year. He’s our workhorse. I mean, he’s our main guy … I don’t think I did anything special, really. I mean, I always bust my butt in the film room. I mean, it helps when you got a little longer, you can study them a lot more. But I bust my butt in there, and I know everything they want to do. Certain downs and distances. But that goes back to our coaching staff. We have the best coaching staff in the country.”

Alabama are losing Richardson and a number of key defensive pieces, but Nick Saban will be happy that he doesn’t have to worry about his quarterback or kicking game going into next season.

Source: SB Nation.

Economics Professor Jack Chambless of Valencia College in Florida had his sophomore students write a short essay on what the American dream means to them and what, specifically, they wanted the federal government to do to help them achieve that dream.

The results demonstrate the sheer magnitude of the idiocy of a public education system dead set on indoctrination rather than education:

I took the essays from three classes – about 180 students…

About 10% of the students said they wanted the government to leave them alone and not tax them too much and let them regulate their own lives.

But over 80% of the students said that the American dream to them meant a job, a house, and plenty of money for retirement and vacations and things like this. When it came to the part about the federal government, eight out of ten students said they wanted free health care, they wanted the government to pay for their tuition, they wanted the government to pay for the down payment on their house, they expected the government to, quote, “give them a job.” Many of them said they wanted the government to tax wealthier individuals so that they would have an opportunity to have a better life.

The following is an excerpt from one of the non-sensical essays written by a student of Professor Chambless:

“As human beings, we are not really responsible for our own acts, and so we need government to control those who don’t care about others.”

One could understand the naivete of such responses from elementary or high school students, but we’re talking about adults of legal voting age, the majority of who have no concept of individual liberty and personal responsibility.

These young adults are the future of our nation and in the nearly twenty years they have attended school they have learned only one way to achieve the American dream: to plunder it from others.

Source: The SHTF Plan.

Every so often, a college newspaper is thrust into the national spotlight. ForThe Collegiate Times at Virginia Tech University, this has happened twice in recent years — once in 2007 when a gunman opened fire and killed 33 people, including himself, in the deadliest mass shooting in American history.

The second time was on Thursday, when another shooting was reported on the campus. [The Lede blog has updates on the shooting, which has left two people, including a police officer, dead.]

In 2007, The Collegiate Times did not have a tool for publishing real-time updates and informing fellow students about what they had reported. On Thursday, the newspaper’s Twitter account, @collegiatetimes, was providing updates every few minutes, quickly becoming a source for information about the shooting and the response on campus as students and staff members were locked down during the afternoon.

Twitter became even more critical when the newspaper’s Web site crashed and the staff was evacuated from the newspaper office and moved to a secured area. (The paper’s Web site redirected to the Twitter feed.) The editors also posted Twitter updates on the newspaper’s Facebook page.

Within a few hours, the paper’s Twitter following grew by more than 18,000 — to more than 20,000 from 2,000 just before the news broke. The growth shows just how Twitter can amplify a single message, or a single account, even if that account is a college newspaper without a local following.

The Collegiate Times’s reporting began at 12:44 p.m., with a post relaying the university’s first alarm about the gunshots.

CONTINUED at NY Times.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

There have been way too many debates in the month of November, this one was the fifth and thank Jesus it is the last one. Luckily I get a break from covering all these damn things until the next one on December 10th. This debate brought some extra fire, especially after the very calm church debate we got just three days prior. The subject of this particular debate was national security, which is one of those touchy subjects that really shows a candidate’s true colors. It is easy to tell the true liberty lovers apart from the bastards just with the issue of the PATRIOT Act alone. So with that said, let’s go!

Legend, icon and show stopper Wolf Blitzer graces us with his presence as moderator for this CNN hosted affair and love him or hate him, he is usually always a solid moderator, minus his incessant bullying of last year’s senatorial candidate from Delaware, Christine O’Donnell. Luckily for us, there were no witches in denial on the stage and Wolf didn’t have to resort to picking on a defenseless joke of a candidate. Not that some of these people aren’t jokes but even the battiest has her shit together somewhat. Okay.. maybe not.

The only thing worth mentioning about the introductions is that Ron Paul got the loudest pop from the crowd, Mitt Romney got the second loudest and Gingrich surprisingly got some boos. Rick Perry pimped out his wife per usual and we all found out that Jon Huntsman is apparently married to Mary Kay. I wonder if he gets a big discount on eyeliner? Anyway, these goddamned introductions go on for so fucking long that we didn’t even get the first question until 13 minutes into the debate! Unlike other channels, CNN apparently doesn’t care about fitting in the most substance in their television time constraints. Fuck Ted Turner.

When a question is finally asked, it is about whether or not the PATRIOT Act should be extended. Really? Apparently there are still a shitload of fear turtle zombies that think that giving up their liberty for safety is a great exchange. Yep, safety from a boogeyman threat that is a lot less likely to kill you than a bolt of lighting. Surely these conservative candidates don’t believe such nonsense?

Well, Newt starts off by saying that there is a distinct difference between criminals and terrorists who we are at war with. Newt has been using this talking point a lot lately. He then says that he would support an extension and expansion of the PATRIOT Act. In fact, Mr. Gingrich says that he would “strengthen” the PATRIOT Act. So far every good thing Newt has said throughout these debates is now overshadowed by this idiocy. When it comes down to police state tyranny, he is just a shitcock bastard trying to shackle the feet of the free people he claims to be fighting for and protecting. For a guy who brings so much fire and always has his nuts on display, he sure is a scared little bitch when it comes to the boogeyman.

Ron Paul immediately comes out in opposition to Newt when he says that the PATRIOT Act is “unpatriotic”. Ron Paul points out that it undermines liberty and it does incredibly more harm than good. Paul says that you can’t have safety and security without having to suspend the rights of Americans. Newt responds by saying that Timothy McVeigh succeeded without a PATRIOT Act in place. Ron Paul tells Newt that his example is like saying that we need a cop in every house to prevent child abuse. Ron Paul points out that Newt’s viewpoint is pro-police state and anti-liberty, he’s right.

In regards to the PATRIOT Act issue, Michele Bachmann says that she takes the side of the Constitution. M’kay, does this dingbat even know what that means because the Constitution says nothing about a PATRIOT Act and at its core, would be vehemently against such tyrannical legislation. Nope, she’s a dumb ass and is an example of a so-called constitutional conservative Tea Party hypocrite as her stance is seemingly pro-PATRIOT Act. Bachmann, in typical fear-monger fashion, builds up our fear by telling us that phones are smartphones now and that they aren’t wired into walls anymore. Really shithead? Thanks for pointing that out while trying to get grandma to think that her cellular device is a goddamned Decepticon waiting to bite her ear off. Bachmann then complains that the CIA doesn’t have enough power to properly interrogate terrorists. Aah, so waterboarding torture isn’t tortuous enough for this Constitution thumper. Bachmann citing the Constitution is just like that old adage warning about the Devil citing the Bible.

Jon Huntsman, one of two sane people in the room in the matters of national security and foreign policy says that we need to find the proper balance between security and liberty. I see his point and it is a lot more admirable than mostly everyone else’s proposed policies but I’d prefer to privatize everything, without the government still defining what the protocol for security is. You see, even if we do privatize the TSA, the replacement firm would still have to practice the Department of Homeland Security’s guidelines. He can’t simply privatize it and we can’t simply find a balance, we have to go beyond that.

The next big question asks if the TSA is necessary and if their pat down policy is a violation of liberty. Mitt Romney says that we can do better than TSA policy. He also says that he agrees with Newt’s side of the PATRIOT Act argument and not Ron Paul’s. Mitt reminds us that we are at “war!” Yep, here we go. Mitt says that we have to defend life, liberty and property. Uh huh homeboy, because that’s exactly what the PATRIOT Act doesn’t do.

Rick Perry is up next and he talks about how he wants to privatize the TSA and in turn, eliminate their unions, which he perceives to be a big part of the problem. Perry points to Denver who he says has successfully privatized their airport security. Funny, considering that the Denver airport is considered to be somewhat of a headquarters to the New World Order according to conspiracy buffs. Rick Perry, like most of his counterparts on the stage, says that he would also try and strengthen the PATRIOT Act.

Rick Santorum, who is STILL in this race, says that he would like to see airport security use profiling methods. Israel has been using this technique for years and it has worked with success. Unfortunately, people would rather be politically correct than be safe. Then again they would rather be safe than be free. So essentially people rank political correctness over safety over liberty. Wow, we’re really fucking doomed!

This fucking idiot Santorum actually cites Abraham Lincoln’s abuse of power as a good example of when one should abuse the power entrusted to them by the American people. Santorum says that Abe showed us that at times, you have to sacrifice liberty for a little security. Where’s Ben Franklin to kick this shitworm in the testicles? Santorum also says that he wants a stronger PATRIOT Act. Yep, all these fuckers really love that small government they pimp out so much.

Ron Paul says that people us the slogan “We are at war!” too damn often and too carelessly: a-fucking-men! Ron Paul tries to explain to the clueless idiots that the PATRIOT Act and other similar legislation mixed with executive powers has made every American vulnerable to be labeled a terrorist and/or assassinated. Nope, they are all unaffected by reason and logic, go figure. Scare tactics only work when it’s bullshit, especially their bullshit.

Herman Cain jumps in and refers to Wolf Blitzer as “Blitz” thus fucking up the name of one of the biggest legends in the media game. Cain goes on to say that he wants to implement “targeted identification” in airports which is his stupid way of calling for racial profiling in a way to not look like he is a racist. He doesn’t need to worry about that though, he already looks like a bigot after recently telling his story about how he was relieved to find out his surgeon wasn’t a Muslim. Cain then tries to scare grandma harder than Bachmann when he tells us that terrorists (the Muslim ones) want to kill all of us, so we have to hurry up and kill all of them. During this tirade, Bachmann can be heard through her mic laughing like a rabid dickbag choking on shit.

Jon Huntsman says that we don’t need to nation build in Afghanistan, we need to nation build in America. He is for expanding the drone program in exchange for bringing troops home.

Bachmann feels that Pakistan is the “..epicenter for dealing with terrorism.” She calls Pakistan violent and unstable and drums up the fear again when she warns that their nuclear facilities can be overtaken by jihadists. She also points out that that big evil bastard Red China is trying to influence Pakistan against the United States. However, she wants to keep sending foreign aid to these people because we need to keep them happy and friendly with us. This woman’s intelligence is fucking non-existent. She closes her rant by calling Pakistan “Too Nuclear to Fail!” Derp! This chick is just a series of shitty unfunny slogans pinned to a pair of crazy eyes.

Idiot Perry then jumps on idiot Bachmann and smugly states that “If you aren’t an ally, you ain’t getting a dime!” Bachmann replies by calling Rick Perry naive. Then to hit her point home she resorts to more fear-mongering per usual and warns that Al-Qaeda, who are essentially dead at this point, could steal nukes from Pakistan and blow up New York City. Jesus fucking Christ lady, just stop it! Besides, how is showering Pakistan with free money going to stop Al-Qaeda from robbing their nukes? You’re own example, that won’t happen, contradicts your whole argument about sending money to a growing enemy. Lady you’re an idiot that needs to enroll in some classes at STFU.

Mitt Romney is asked that if the massive amount of money being poured into Afghanistan is worth it. Without actually committing to an answer and providing a sound bite, which is his modus operandi, Mitt basically agrees with the Afghan War and thinks it is money well spent. Mitt feels that Afghanistan is a breeding ground for terror, yet he doesn’t see that the vast majority of Afghanis want us to GTFO and are getting angrier and angrier by the day over our occupation of their country. Yep, America is turning up the heat on this pot about to boil over. You see, Mitt Romney, like most of the GOP candidates, is of the belief that somehow we can get this country full of warring tribes to become a democratic nation that will be able to stand on its own two feet in an effort to push back all the bullshit in the region. God, Romney and anyone else who thinks this is either blind or has never read any history on the people of that area. You can’t force democracy on those who don’t want it and you certainly shouldn’t sit in their backyard with an entire army waiting for them to finally give it a try.

Huntsman tells Romney that we’ve already accomplished the vast majority of our goals in Afghanistan and that we need to get out. Huntsman once again says we need to nation build at home, not abroad. This gets Huntsman a loud round of applause from the crowd. Mitt disses Huntsman and tries to combat him by repeating his stupid points again and Huntsman slaps him like a hoe and re-solidifies his points to further applause. Mitt Romney responds by saying that Afghanistan has to become a soverign nation and that we can’t stop until they are free of the Taliban and champions of democracy. He says he stands with the commanders on the issue. Huntsman replies by saying that the president stood with the commanders in 1967 and that turned out to be the biggest military disaster in U.S. history.

Newt is asked to chime in but is quickly cut off by Mitt who feels the need to not let Huntsman’s burn stand. Newt says that he should let other people talk but Romney ignores him and tries to throw down more on Huntsman. Mitt just pukes up the same points over and over. We get it dude, it’s the message we don’t like, not how you are interpreting it. Your argument sucks bro.

Newt Gingrich finally chimes in and tells us that we should be furious at Pakistan, as Osama bin Laden was there under their noses this whole time. Imperial Newt is prepared to tell Pakistan to either help us or to get out of our way. Yep, that’d be an act of war if anyone came at us like that. Gingrich believes that Pakistan was protecting Osama bin Laden the whole time.

Rick Santorum gets some more time and says that he agrees with Ron Paul. He then spins his statement stupidly and says that he agrees that we aren’t in a “war on terror”. Oh no, Santorum tells us that we are in a “war on radical Islam”. Jesus dude, stop talking.

The next major question asked of the candidates is would they help Israel if they decided to attack Iran. Herman Cain is the first up to answer and he says that he would make sure Israel had a clear plan on attacking Iran before deciding if he would help them or not. C’mon man, that’s weak. Cain also admits that he would only help them if they had a real chance at succeeding. Okay, so Cain doesn’t like a challenge, he is only down to join up and fight if the odds are stacked in his favor. What a puss. Makes me wonder why Cain is still in the presidential race, considering he is plummeting faster than Lindsey Lohan stock in Hollywood.

Ron Paul says he would not help Israel attack Iran, as Israel is their own nation and can deal with their own problems. Paul points out that the whole scenario of Israel attacking Iran and vice versa is basically ridiculous, as neither country wants to risk killing itself in a nuclear exchange. Ron Paul also points out that Syria’s president Assad called this talk of war between the two nations stupid. Ron Paul then asks “Why does Israel need our help?” He informs us all that we already stand in their way enough and that it is time to allow them to take care of themselves. Ron Paul also points out that we don’t even have a treaty with Israel. He warns us that whenever we try to buy friendship it bites us in the ass, just like what happened in Egypt during the Arab Spring. Paul ends his talking points by proclaiming that we need to stop having such a willingness to go to war.

Thin skin Herman Cain, who is obviously offended by Ron Paul’s statements on behalf of all the people who supposedly need our help in Israel, tries to argue against Paul’s points but says absolutely nothing worthwhile, thus proving he is still an idiot on foreign policy. I guess he didn’t have any advisors telling him what to do or say before he opened his mouth.

The candidates are then asked if there are any sanctions that could prevent Iran from making a weapon of mass destruction. Rick Perry calls for us to shut down Iranian banks before even considering a military strike. Perry basically says that we need to go ape shit with sanctions. Perry also calls for sanctions against Syria and pretty much wants to make the entire Middle East a no fly zone.

Newt is asked if killing Iranian banks would stop Europe from getting Iranian oil. Newt responds by saying that we need a massive “all sources energy plan” in the United States, so we can become the world’s supplier of energy and thus, strip the Middle East of power. He wants us to develop a good strategy to combat radical Islam and says that if need be, we could break Iran in a year. Uh huh, yet we are still dancing around in Afghanistan over a decade later and are close to approaching a decade in Iraq. Yep, one thing our military management is, is quick and exacting. Newt also says that sanctions to hurt Iranian banks are a good idea.

Michele Bachmann agrees with Newt because her brain is just a pile of forgotten Jello shots left in the dirt at a derelict campsite. Bachmann immediately starts Obama bashing, as that is the only way she can get the drones in the crowd to cheer. She mentions that Obama’s mishandling of the pipeline issue is what has fucked up our quest for energy independence. Nope lady, it’s been a fucked issue before Obama even came to power. Bachmann then tries to scare grandma again by saying that Ahmadinejad is going to eat our children and pick his teeth with the bones of our goldfish or something. Whatever, this chick takes the silly threats of a silly dictator way too seriously but I guess one would have to when their entire campaign is about scaring the shit out of everyone whether the boogeyman is Barack Obama or some Moooslim that wants to murder every single one of us while sitting in a cave eating goat ribs 7,000 miles away.

Santorum is asked if we can afford to continue giving foreign aid to Africa to help combat AIDS and malaria. Santorum says that we have to maintain humanitarian aid all over the world. Santorum lets his true colors fly when he says that we have to use ALL of our resources to promote our values through out the world. By “our values” Santorum means his particular brand of Jesus snack cakes.

On the aid to Africa issue, Herman Cain gives an answer that once again shows his lack of knowledge on everything outside of developing pizza deals. Cain says that we have to sit down and figure out if all this aid is working and then make a decision. What a bunch of pandering jackassery that just illustrates how hard this guy is struggling and trying not to dig himself anymore holes.

Ron Paul reminds us once again, that this sort of aid simply takes from the poor in a rich country, the United States, and gives to the rich in a poor country. Paul calls this sort of aid worthless and says that if we are going to aid or teach these other countries anything, we need to teach them about free market principles and economics. Dr. Paul lets it be known that none of the other candidates up there are conscious of the budget. He also says that the most important national security issue is our financial state. Tou-fucking-ché!

Mitt the bitch gets all upset with Ron Paul and tries to argue a bunch of neocon nonsense to which Ron Paul responds by telling him that “All this talk is just talk.” Paul says they are nibbling away at baseline budgeting and nothing is being cut from the military. He calls Mitt’s stance, and frankly the stance of 6 out of 8 of these people on stage, “..a road to disaster”. Mitt says that the cuts are real and he starts listing examples. He then says that military cuts will prevent us from being able to properly defend ourselves. Occupying a country against their wishes is only called defense if you dine on the same bowl of RINO turds that Mitt eats three times daily.

On the subject of defense cuts, Newt talks about how something is very wrong with the system when it takes the military 9 years to develop something new but Apple can change the world every 9 months. Now, I’m sure those aren’t exact figures but he does make a very good point. Shifting to energy, Newt says that we need to open up oil fields everywhere we can but that we won’t because this country isn’t serious about energy. He says that we need to get away from all this mindlessness and get shit rollin’ again! Then after making the statement about “mindlessness” Newt says he would bomb Iran for regime replacement. C’mon Newt, you were doing alright this round.

Jon Huntsman drops some knowledge on the nimrods when he borrows a page from the Ron Paul manual and also states that we need to face economic reality and understand that our national debt is our biggest national security issue. Huntsman says that Washington D.C. has a trust deficit with the American people because they can’t brush the bullshit aside and start working towards fixing the problems. Huntsman adds that we cant have an honest conversation about cutting some of the sacred cows and that we need to put everything on the table when it comes to fiscal responsibility. He finishes his points by saying, “Our foreign policy needs to reflect our economic policy.”

Rick Perry is asked if he would compromise the Democrats in Congress to avoid gridlock. Perry starts his answer by calling the Super Committee a “super failure”. Perry points out that Obama is not a leader and he passed the buck to Congress instead of doing the right thing. Rick Perry feels that the idea that you can’t work with the other side is dumb. He promises to do whatever is needed to get things done. He also, once again, calls for a part-time Congress. He thinks that Congress should work half the time and get half the pay. It would definitely make the career politicians rethink their path in life.

Rick Santorum is posed with the same issue and he claims that he would not “work against himself” if it came down to having to compromise with the other side. Newt says that we need a series of reforms done to entitlements. Bachmann promises to draw a line in the sand in regards to the deficit issue. She also says that when we pay back interest money to China we are transferring our military might because our military will decrease and China’s will increase.

On border security, Rick Perry calls for a “21st century Monroe Doctrine”. He mentions that Hamas and Hezbollah are working in Mexico and need to be stopped from crossing over. He also says that Iran and Venezuela are working together and pose a real threat to border security, which just compounds the issue with Hamas and Hezbollah working in the same region, so close to us. Perry wants more boots on the ground and “aviation assets”, which is just Texan for “drones”.

Ron Paul speaks out against the War on Drugs and says that it needs to end. He says that we need to stop worrying about the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and to give more attention to our own borders. He calls for better immigration services and adds that free medical care and education benefits, as well as welfare for illegal immigrants, is a burden to us all. Ron Paul calls the Drug War “a total failure.” He points out how the federal government has increased their power, as they continually undermine the states when it comes to drug laws. Paul also points out that more people die from prescription drugs than illegal drugs. These are all very valid points and issues that nearly all of the other candidates skirt around or ignore when trying to scare the shit out of us on the drug issue.

Herman Cain says that an insecure border is a threat. What about an insecure candidate, Mr. Cain? He also says that terrorists are coming in from Mexico. Cain  adds that Mexicans feel Mexico has failed, so that is why they come here. I think Cain’s talking points came off of the last piece of toilet paper he used because he’s just talking out of his ass and contributing nothing to the debate on this subject.

Rick Santorum is asked about how we should welcome immigrants. He goes on some wannabe-Reagan rant about shining cities and hills and luck dragons that shit marshmallows. He says something about the economic benefits of legal immigration but he has a hard time commanding my attention.

On the subject, Newt says that we need to attach visas to college degrees in order to keep the good students in America, which will benefit our country. Bachmann states that she is against amnesty and the DREAM Act. Newt responds by saying that we should not punish someone who came to America at 3 years of age that just wants to work to better this country and their own life. Uh oh, the GOPers are getting uneasy, as Newt’s stance does not sit well with the majority of the right-wing crowd. Bachmann tries to battle back at Newt but offers nothing. She tries to do some math but her made-up examples and figures don’t even add up.

Mitt Romney says that amnesty is a magnet. He does say however that he would staple a green card to the diploma of those with great brains. He then goes on to talk about his love of legal immigration and how we should promote the path to citizenship better.

Gingrich says that we cant punish people who have been living here for a quarter of a century, as they have ties to our country, expanded families, etc. Newt makes it clear that we must be humane in enforcing the immigration laws. I fully agree with this point. Sorry conservatives but Newt is right on this one and I know it eats away at many of you. How can you expect to rip someone away from their life and ship them back to a land that they haven’t been a part of for over a quarter of a century?

Herman Cain is asked if he would implement a no fly zone over Syria, he says no. He adds that we have to find a way to get our allies to stop buying Syrian oil. Cain states, “We must have a strong military.” He also says that we must grow the economy. He’s all over the place and he’s boring me at this point. Thank fuck we didn’t get “NINE! NINE! NINE!”every 12.3 seconds this debate.

Rick Perry says that we must make Syria a no fly zone because it would be a huge sanction against them and would keep them in line. Yep, and just like with other examples given, if someone were to do to the U.S. what the U.S. is proposing to do to others, we would view it as an act of war. Rick Perry claims that Syria is in a partnership with Iran in exporting terrorism.

In regards to recent relations with the Middle East, Jon Huntsman says the president has failed with the Arab Spring. He proclaims that we have to remind the rest of the world what it means to be an ally of the United States. Huntsman says that sanctions are not going to work because China and Russia wont play ball that way. He warns that we need to let history be our guide because too often we jump on the side with people we havent had enough time to understand and each time it has ultimately backfired on us.

On terrorism, Dr. Paul says that Al-Qaeda was inspired by the fact that we had bases in Saudi Arabia. He said that all we need to do to inspire them is to just meddle in their area. Paul calls a no fly zone an act of war, he asks what would happen if China forced a no fly zone on us, that is exactly what I’ve been saying! Paul says that we can’t do anything to a country that we wouldn’t want them to do to us. Paul asks, “Why don’t we mind our own business?” Yeah, why the fuck don’t we?

Mitt Romney says that America isn’t just another nation with a flag, it’s something more exceptional than that. He says that a strong military and economy will make sure that no one fucks with us. Romney states that he is not for imposing a no fly zone on Syria.

Rick Perry follows up Mitt by saying that we’ve got to get serious about helping Israel. Ok buddy, we’ve helped them way more than we’ve ever needed to. In fact, we are part of their problem. Lets just let them do their thing. Perry also says that we have to get real serious about Iran and Syria. I thought Texas didn’t scare easily?

In the closing statements, the candidates are asked if they have any national security worries that weren’t addressed in the debate. Santorum says that we need to worry about Central and South America as they are made up of militant socialist regimes with ties to radical Islam. Ron Paul worries about overreaction on our part and people not understanding who the Taliban is and their true motivation. Rick Perry worries about communist Red China and their forced abortions and cyber attacks. Romney worries about China too as well as Iran being a nuclear power. Mitt is also worried a little bit about Latin America. Cain worries about cyberattacks and bad pizza. Gingrich is worried about WMDs, as well as electromagnetic pulse attacks and cyberattacks. Bachmann is worried about constipation, Al-Shabaab and intelligent debate. Jon Huntsman is worried about China but says they are in for real trouble in the future. Huntsman says that our real threat is our problems at home.

In the end, this debate was good for the fact that it showed were a lot of these people stand on these issues. Where many of these candidates agree on most of the fiscal issues, the subject of national security shows that many of them are still just chips off of the old establishment block.

Grading Scale:
Grade A: Ron Paul
Grade B+: Jon Huntsman
Grade C-: Newt Gingrich
Grade D+: Mitt Romney
Grade D: Rick Perry
Grade D: Herman Cain
Grade F: Rick Santorum
Grade F: Michele Bachmann
Grade I: Gary Johnson

*Taken from Yahoo News.

The online “hacktivist” group Anonymous published the personal contact details on Monday of a California university policeman who used pepper spray on protesters, and it urged supporters to flood him with phone calls and emails.

YouTube videos of Friday’s incident on the campus of the University of California, Davis have gone viral and led to the suspension of the college police chief, two police officers and calls for the chancellor to step down.

In the YouTube videos, one of which has received 1.44 million views, two university police officers in riot gear are seen spraying an orange mist on protesters sitting peacefully on the ground.

Following the spraying, the crowd begins chanting “Shame on you!”

CONTINUED..

*Taken from RiseAgainstState’s YouTube Channel.

A YouTube video shot during the November 9 student rally in London allegedly shows plainclothes police acting as agents provocateurs among the protesting crowds.

The video uploaded by the user “noshockdoc” shows two people who first engage in rough handling of one of the rally protesters. Then, reportedly, the same people are shown along with six others detaining someone behind a police cordon.

The media dubbed the November 9 march against tuition fees and education cuts one of the most intensively-policed events to take place in London. The force had 4,000 officers on duty on the day, and they were authorized to use rubber bullets if necessary. This was never needed, however. The Met reported that 24 arrests were made on the day.

Some of the protesters reported incidents of violence which they said had been caused by the security forces. “The police tried to provoke people to react violently, and some people had to act in self-defense against police attacks, but we all supported one another and prevented the police from causing a riot,” one of the activists, identified only as ‘Dan’, told the Oxford University student newspaper Cherwell.