$80k? Was there a sale?

This just stinks all around. It's not victim-blaming to reasonably doubt whether someone was actually a victim, and this has all the hallmarks of a double cash grab.

I'd say about half the guys posting on the thread put lie to that statement, but whatever.

He's out because he's a security risk, plain and simple. Nothing to do with moral judgment, necessarily (although that makes it more juicy for the press) but anyone with that level of security access has to be absolutely squeaky clean in every respect. Plus, as DCI, Petraeus was in the reserve chain for nuclear…

Okay, so I'm assuming you guys were unsubbed. So yesterday, your access included... nothing at all. Today, you have access to lots of stuff, just not all the stuff you used to have when you were paying money. I'll grant that the quickbar thing is a bit silly, and perhaps it will change, but it's not as though iced…

"I'm not going to order dinner, but please bring me more free bread! Wait, I have to pay $2 for refillable iced tea? Highway robbery! Good DAY, sir!"

And, what, your argument is that white men in America have it rough? Do tell. Anyway, since in the first sentence I address my comment not to the choir but to the hurr-durr crowd in the vestibule, your smartassery isn't really all that smart, which just leaves you with... well, surely you can do the rest of the math.

This. Their thing might've violated the half-plus-seven rule, but, last I checked, that wasn't a law or any of our damn concern. Accusing a guy of having a thing for twinks in 2012 doesn't make news; accusing him of being a sexual criminal–especially considering his job–well, that's front page. And it didn't pass the…

If he values his reputation, he had better NOT sue. He would have to prove, by the weight of the evidence, that the guy was lying all along (and, since Clash is a public figure, prove that he was doing so recklessly or maliciously) and his entire. sexual. history. could be admitted into evidence in open court. Which…

Aw, shucks.

To all the guys who either a) totally whiffed on the satire (to whom I say: thanks for the refreshing breeze off that schwaaaaang and a miss) or b) got it and got offended: as a white male, I'm of the opinion that we're not really allowed to get huffy over ANYTHING EVER along racial/gender lines for at least fifty…

Yeah, there's some ambiguity there, but I suspect it's more an entertaining bit of semantics than anything that could actually hold water if tested. Clearly the 22nd Amendment was intended to limit actual service (or it wouldn't count assumed presidency time against the clock) rather than just elected service. …

Heh. She's had to explain this a few times; basically, she just wants to see mentions so's not to lose them among the "just had a burrito" noise. Hashtag #MO flags constituents.

The 22nd Amendment doesn't prohibit it, but the 12th does.

Yeah, I was gonna say "10% commission."

Of course, another way of looking at that is that we accidentally promoted John Ashcroft.

He'll hold no public office after January 3, barring some horrible counting catastrophe tonight.

No, you're not, though considering Kotaku's intermittent (down from constant) efforts to kill it off, I can understand why you'd think so.

Went to a wedding a week ago. Couple had more items under $1o on their registry than over $100 (and nothing at all over $250), and then proceeded to provide a six-hour reception with four courses and a help-yourself open bar.

Ditto DontBeBrownInTexas. This is approximately the worst thing that can happen to a dude, ever—excruciating pain and the very real possibility that you lose a nut. Some guys are just predisposed to it; make it through puberty without incident and you're likely in the clear.