Ok so its been about a month since I did one of these (well except for the one dedicated to guns), what can I say, stupid people take holidays too, but now they are back, so lets get rolling.
1st up, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who in a FOX NEWS interview on monday was taking about the out of control executive branch, specifically the current President, Barack Obama but also offered up this gem:
"FDR had a little bit of this 'king complex' we had to limit FDR finally because he served so many terms that I think he would have ruled in perpetuity, and I'm very concerned about this President [Obama] garnering so much power and arrogance that he thinks he can do whatever he wants."
Now FDR died in office, which I think is kinda the kinda the definition of perpetuity, especially when its during your 4th term. Which means I'm not sure exactly what "limit" Rand Paul is taking about, since we clearly didnt limit the guy.
Now I can think of two options; First that he's kinda of idiot and didnt realize the Term Limit amendment (22nd) didnt go into effect until 1951, and wasnt in force for the current office holder anyways, so had FDR still been alive, couldnt have affected him.
The second option is that as a US senator and a member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, specifically the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations he knows something I dont, like that Congress or the Republican party (depending on who he means by "we") had FDR killed, and that was the "limit" they placed on him.
Personally I'm hoping for the second, cause who doesnt like a good scandal?, but lets be honest, its the first, Rand Paul is just stupid.
Next up Florida Republican Congressman Ted Yoho [Yo Ho a pirates life for me] (sorry, but come on, who wasnt thinking it?) who said this:
"The militia had the same equipment as the military to protect them against the tyrannical government, It's more important today than ever that we uphold our Second Amendment."
Ok look I'm a fair man, Congressman Yoho is correct, except for cannon/artillery, cavalry, the navy, Bayonets and smooth-bore muskets. In other words pretty much everything except the bullets, which were hand made.
Now to be fair, the hunting rifles favored by the populace and owned by most of the militia, had some advantages to be sure over the military smooth-bore, namely range and accuracy (as opposed to the faster and easier reload, cheaper and easier manufacture and bayonet equipable abilities of the musket) and a fair number of Revolutionary war Generals (especially Nathaniel Green) were able to turn the use of a force with mixed muskets and rifles to their advantage.
However as interesting as that is, none of that changes the fact that Congressman Yoho is wrong, and even if he wasnt, do you think people should be able to own a B2 stealth bomber or Nuclear submarine? I mean even the "governments out to get me" folks can see how those might be a bad idea.
Now for my next stop on the cavalcade of morons, the Governor of Mississippi
"There is no one who doesn’t have health care in America. No one.Now, they may end up going to the emergency room. There are better ways to deal with people that need health care than this massive new program."
Ok so your first (and second) sentence is no one needs healthcare. your 3rd sentence is to prove to the first two. Your 4th sentence is "for the people who need healthcare..." Um....Gov, do you, you know, listen to yourself talk? And I mean this assumes we agree the emergency room is a good idea for basic healthcare needs (its not, that's why its called the emergency room and not the basic healthcare room). But still wow, I mean forgetting what you said in the previous 3 sentences, while still making the same point....thats talent.
And now for the last in this weeks parade of the living mentally dead, Rush Limbaugh who after being confronted with a good point (that I disagree with, but I suppose if I was pro life would think is good) about a disconnect on public perception of Sandy Hook shootings and abortion (the idea being put forth is both are killing children and yet only one gets attention) said:
"Well, it’s a good point. You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun."
Ok um what? I mean I think i get Limbaugh's intended point, that liberals want to take your guns away, so if we make guns required for abortion liberals will take them away, therefore ending abortion. But to be honest even getting that far requires doing mental contortions and gymnastics a man of Rush' girth shouldn't be able to do.
But even that still begs the question, how exactly should guns be used in an abortion (so that liberals will take them away). I mean do we stick the thing up a woman's vagina and pull the trigger? or is it faster just to shoot her in the stomach? or perhaps Rush is part of the fringe but loud segment who somehow figure killing a pregnant woman who wants an abortion (and her fetus) is better then letting the fetus die, cause it turns out [what from their point of view is] two deaths are better then one? Or is he talking about the sadly less fringe and equally loud group, who think killing an abortion provider is cool?
Seriously. Did anyone else think anything different? I mean I realize by "thinking" I'm cheating since your not really supposed to think about Rush's statements just agree with them and repeat them. But still I mean even if I agreed with Rush on Abortion, what exactly was his point? hey look at the ways guns can be used to kill people (and arnt), hey look at how much more dangerous a gun could be? hey look at how fun it might to shoot people involved in abortions?
I mean I'm a smart guy, but even I cant figure out how in the world Rush intended to spin that one.
And now before we go, bonus "Irony statement". See it turns out the statement isnt dumb per say, its just ironic so I cant really include it in the million moron march.
Yesterday the NRA's Wayne LaPierre decided to go deliver the rebuttal from the NRA on Obama's repeated use of the words "gun control" in his inauguration (Obama actually never mentioned guns but that was the NRA stated reason....sadly not quite enough to get them on the stupid list), in his retort Mr. LaPierre was trying to point out being an absolutist isnt a bad thing and defending the idea of being an absolutist said:
“Obama wants to turn the idea of absolutism into a dirty word, Just another word for extremism. He wants you, all of you, and Americans throughout all of this country, to accept the idea of principles as he sees fit. It’s a way of redefining words so that common sense is turned upside down and that nobody knows the difference.”
Now maybe your like me and wondered just what absolutism actually mean? well I went and looked it up. The good news for the NRA is it doesnt mean extremism, though had that been the case they totally would have made the stupid list. (and to be honest, I actually figured the definition would be close to extreme or uncompromising, so I actually thought LaPierre was more or less right, and thats the true reason hes the "bonus" and not on the list itself)
The bad news is, the actual definition is "the principle or the exercise of complete and unrestricted power in government."
In other words if you are an absolutist, like Wayne LaPierre is claiming he and the NRA are, you believe in the the totally unrestricted control of government, in which the government can do anything it wants, like take your guns away from you at a moments notice.
Which means Wayne LaPierre gave a speech and said in short, he fully supports the governments right to take your guns away from you. And I suppose as a self avoid absolutist fully supports his fiction Obama's attempt to "redefine" the word to mean what it actually means, because the government totally can do that in an absolutist system.
So yea he just came out in favor of the very thing he claims the other guy is doing. Oops.......
So until next time that is this weeks (give or take a few days) March of the Mock-able Mental idgets (alliteration rules :P )
No comments:
Post a Comment