Well, its been about a month but the stupid has finally hit critical mass. Which means its time for another "this [very loosely defined] week in stupid".
Now just like my last attempt had a "theme", so to does this weeks gathering of the Congress of Cretins. This time though its based on two ideas too complex for mustered misinformed, Benghazi (read: terrorism) and how bombs work.
But just like last time, their is one stupid comment that breaks the rules, and this time its up first.
On his Radio show today the maharajah of mendacity Rush Limbaugh said this:
"Hawaii Five-O‘s premise last night was kidnapped girls held until they were 18 and then let go or killed, well, always killed, by a couple doing it for the welfare benefits...Now I don’t know what happened in Cleveland, but I couldn't help but make the connection. "
His point was that the kidnapping of 3 girls 10 years ago was likely because the kidnapper was trying to scam the welfare system.
The problem of course is actually in Limbaugh's own [and correct] summary of the Hawaii 5-0 episode. On the TV show the girls were killed at 18 because that's when they were ineligible for benefits as minors. The 3 women who were kidnapped were (according to about 45 seconds on Google) 14, 17 and 21.
Meaning one of them was already over 18, and within the first year two of them would have been. So clearly the Hawaii 5-0 Episode has nothing to do with the case here as far as motive.
This is not the first time Rush has been foiled by 45 seconds of research either, he previous praised the Lords Resistance Army for fighting in the name of Christians. Do a 45 second google search or the name Joseph Kony, and you'll soon see the problem. Same too with his infamous attacks on Sandra Fluke, or as he repeated called her durring the first day of attacks "Susan Fluke".
So yea, 45 seconds on google 3. Rush 0.
Now moving on to the first or our two categories tonight, Benghazi.
Today Congressman Darrel Issa held his hearing on the so called Benghazi cover-up (because it worked so well for republicans the last 23 times they tried this attack line). Absent from the hearing was Thomas Pickering, the co-chairman of the State Department’s committee investigating Benghazi.
Now Issa is saying Pickering refuses to testify, Pickering says he was never invited. So ABC's Jon Karl decided to get to the bottom of it, by asking Issa's spokesman a simple question, if Pickering announced he wanted to testify today would he be allowed.
To which Issa's spokesman replied "nope". Well that was easy, clearly we now know who is telling the truth about Pickering's non-involvement.
Now heres the thing, if your going to lie OR even if your going to just tell the facts from your own point of view, its probably a good idea to tell your spokesman. Just saying, otherwise you look like a fool.
And next up with a comment that almost speaks for itself, the scion of a threesome between Dracula, Emperor Palpatine, and Mephisto, former Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, who took the occasion of Issa's hearings to make his own comment on Benghazi:
"When we were there, on our watch, we were always ready on 9/11, on the anniversary, We always anticipated they were coming for us, especially in that part of the world . . . I cannot understand why they weren’t ready to go.”
Thats right, Bush and Cheney were always ready on 9/11......well except for that one time, you know the one whos anniversary they were referencing. But you know other then that.
To rephrase what Dick Cheney is saying "Don't worry honey, I'm STD free....well except for the AIDS"
And lets not even mention the terrorist attack on an american embassy on 9/12 (2006), because that isnt really the anniversary to be fair, it was after midnight [our time] so it didnt count.....
Moving on to our next category, it turns out Republicans have no real idea how bombs work....or guns for that matter.
Up first Senator Rand Paul. Now Senator Paul is known most recently for two things. The first was a 13 hour filibuster against the use of drones to kill american citizens. The second was this quote:
“I never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or policeman kills him,”
Now Senator Paul got hammered for his seeming flip-flop, but thats not what got him here. What got him here is a much bigger problem, namely that he doesnt seem to actually understand how a Drone works.
Now see heres the thing: no matter what you think of Drones, if you approve or disaprove, Drones kill by dropping bombs. In fact thats how so many innocents get killed, and one of the major reasons using drones at all is controversial.
I mean lets say a drone showed up to kill a guy who just robber a liquor store. It would drop a bomb on the guy since thats what drones do (unlike cops) Not only would that guy be dead, so would every single person inside the liquor store he just robbed, and the people in the next building over, and the poor smuck driving by on the way home from work.
Clearly Rand Paul doesnt actually understand that though, I think he thinks a drone is basically a flying sniper rifle.
But hey, you have to applaud the guy, he did take a hard principled stand against drones, and then a hard principled stand for drones. AND proved you dont actually have to know anything about something to have [at least one] hard principled stand on the issue.
Thats a pretty impressive resume.
But then there is our winner (and I believe a repeat winner) Wayne LaPierre.
At the NRA convention this weekend, Mr. LaTotallyfuckingnuts, said:
"How many Bostonians wished they had a gun two weeks ago?"
I'm gonna go ahead and hazard a guess here.....None. Why? Simple NOBODY SHOT AT THEM, thats why we called the terrorist "Boston Bombers" and not the "Boston Sharpshooters" because they didnt use a gun.
Hell in fact the guys basically werent even there when the bombs went off. They used a long distance signal to blow the things up.
I'm sure this is common knowledge to most people, but for Mr. LaCompensatingfortinydick, unlike a gun, a bomb doesnt actually require the bad guy to be there to use it.
Now Mr. LaUnhealthyloveforphaliclikegun, added to that comment that Boston was another "proof" that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun (which you know wasnt used in the bombing) is a good guy with a gun.
But again who exactly would you shoot? at the time of the bombing, and for several days after, no one had any idea WHAT the bombs where made out of, where they were, or who the bombers were.
So short of just randomly shooting someone every hour, I'm not entirely sure I see how guns would have helped here.
Granted I'm not sure Mr. LaBangbang does either. I mean he did kinda switch the weapon midspeech from a bomb to a gun (held by a bad guy), so maybe hes just that out of touch with reality,
Then again unlike Mr. LaNutjob I'm not really a firearms expert. For all I know simply holding a gun gets you a +20 dodge bonus, +12 Dexterity Modifier +50 Armor Class +100 Deflection and/or a deflector shield. And if any of that is the case then you know what, Mr. LaPierre has a point about more guns helping prevent bomb crime.
Of course if thats NOT how gun's work, then I'm afraid I have no choice but to name Wayne LaPierre [once again?] the stupidest person of the week.
Or at least I would, but my mother told me not to pick on the retarded so I guess I have to give him a pass.....
No comments:
Post a Comment