Ann Coulter Hate-Vomits on soccer.

So for years now I've noticed that Ann Coulter, right wing talking head, gets outraged about the strangest shit. Like seriously shes ranted about Credit Card fraud being an immigration scheme to destroy us; Not exposing yourself to radiation is actually bad for you; Radiation is good for you hence why the government tells you not to do it;  God intended for man to "Rape" the earth, and we need to do as he suggests for the good of society (and yes that was her word of choice); How Jews need to be Christians to be good Jews; The fact that Princess Di was sleeping with men while unmarried mattered to her death; She once got off a plane upon learning the pilot was African american and female, because that might make her unqualified; We let Arabs on international flights; How we as Americans could benefit from more facism; and my personal favorite SHE has ranted about the fact that women are allowed to have opinions.

Now as I said, many of those topics are either fucking weird, make no sense, or seemingly irrelevant to anything. Yet Ann Coulter keeps making them. Now I think I have a theory. Ann Coulter is bulimic.

Now I know what your thinking, how would an eating disorder have anything to do with weird rants?
And well, see Ann Coulter isnt bulimic in the normal sense of the word.

Bulimic people, basically feel an urge to consume everything they can, followed by an urge to instantly expunge whatever they just consumed.

Now for most people, they consume food. My theory about Ann Coulter is that she literally consumes HATE. She's compelled build up outrage about everything, and once she reaches her [over]fill, like all bulimics she suddenly needs to rid herself of all her hate, so she Hate-Vomits on whatever it is she happened to see just prior to the urge. In her most recent bulimic episode, she happpened to see a story about the world cup, which then led to his article:

"I've held off on writing about soccer for a decade — or about the length of the average soccer game — so as not to offend anyone."

Yea, see we are one sentence in, and you can actually see the HATE hit blinding levels.

A soccer game lasts 90 minutes. Which is outrageous, I mean who can watch any one thing longer than an hour? Its completely American......just like baseball.

Oh wait....."American as Baseball" is an expression. But like I said, clearly Ms. Coulter just hit the end of her binge period. Which means to paraphrase Ned Stark "Brace yourselves, Hate-Vomit  is coming"

"But enough is enough. Any growing interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation's moral decay."

BAAAAAAALLLGGGGGGHHHH

Oh god damn it, I got Hate-Vomit on my shoes....

"Individual achievement is not a big factor in soccer. In a real sport, players fumble passes, throw bricks and drop fly balls — all in front of a crowd."

Soccer players of course NEVER miss a pass. Its freaky actually. Which ever team starts with the ball scores perfectly every single time.....which is of course why no one watches soccer.

"When baseball players strike out, they're standing alone at the plate. But there's also individual glory in home runs, touchdowns and slam-dunks."
No glory in hitting a ball into a net of course. So fuck you hockey, fuck you lacrosse (oh hey another truly american sport). Oh and before I forget, fuck you guys on the offense and defense line in the NFL. You basically never even try to score you fucking pussies. Where's your sense of glory if you dont just all madly rush to the endzone. Fuck what happens to anyone else on the team that's THEIR problem.

"In soccer, the blame is dispersed and almost no one scores anyway. There are no heroes, no losers, no accountability, and no child's fragile self-esteem is bruised." 

Yea sports where no one scores SUCK. Like Hockey. It's average score is only 5 points. And Baseball, its average score is only 4 and a half.


Why cant they be REAL sports. You know like Football, in Football the average score is 21 bitches.

Of course in football you get basically 7 points per score, so that really works out to about 3

But hey, at least thats better than Soccer. They only score 2.6 points on average in soccer.....

"There's a reason perpetually alarmed women are called "soccer moms," not "football moms."
Well presumably that reason is because the Mom's think its safer. And it is, slightly. Football tends to rank somewhere in the 1-4 most dangerous (depending on how you define the term) sports, Soccer usually somewhere from 2-7. Of course Fencing tends to be in the mid 20's, so really if you want to keep your kid safe give them a sharp stick to play with.
But thats usually what happens when you attack a expression with "logic" demented or otherwise.

"Do they even have MVPs in soccer? Everyone just runs up and down the field and, every once in a while, a ball accidentally goes in. That's when we're supposed to go wild. I'm already asleep."

You know, I'm pretty sure that is EXACTLY how my mother described football to me once. And substitute field and ball for rink and puck, and you just described hockey to the uneducated.....

Hey wait, you dont think that could be the REAL problem here do you? that no one ever actually told Ann the rules do you?

Also I love the idea that a sport needs an MVP to be a real sport.....I dont think Boxing gives out MVP's

Also for the record:

Thats a soccer player holding an MVP award (from Major League Soccer) in 2009. So again, I'm starting to think Ann Coulter's real issue with soccer is that she doesnt know the rules, and too stupid to look them up on google.

"Liberal moms like soccer because it's a sport in which athletic talent finds so little expression that girls can play with boys. No serious sport is co-ed, even at the kindergarten level"
Actually on this one Ann is right. If you dont believe me you can ask Shelly Osborne, the first female Defensive Back in college football.

And hell if we go back to kindergarden, im pretty sure I played basketball, baseball, kickball, soccer, ect with girls. hell they were even in my karate class.....I guess none of those are sports because at one level they used to be co-ed.

Which I think makes Pro wrestling the only serious sport in the world.

Oh wait....never mind.

"No other "sport" ends in as many scoreless ties as soccer. This was an actual marquee sign by the freeway in Long Beach, California, about a World Cup game last week: "2nd period, 11 minutes left, score: 0:0." Two hours later, another World Cup game was on the same screen: "1st period, 8 minutes left, score: 0:0." If Michael Jackson had treated his chronic insomnia with a tape of Argentina vs. Brazil instead of Propofol, he'd still be alive, although bored."

Well except for Boxing.....oh and Olympic Wrestling. Both of them actually have an entire second scoring system set up in case their is no clear winning.

And also, how exactly do soccer games never have missed passes like you claimed before, yet somehow neither team scores.....seems to me if you never miss that impossible.

And also if being in the second half without a score is a problem, i would suggest never watching the superbowl....just saying.

"Even in football, by which I mean football, there are very few scoreless ties — and it's a lot harder to score when a half-dozen 300-pound bruisers are trying to crush you."

Wow, thats a shitty ass football team. 6 guys on one player? jeeze what happens if the quaterback does his job and throws the ball to one of the guys NOT near the 300 pound players?

Maybe Coulters ignorance of sports rules goes father than soccer????

"The prospect of either personal humiliation or major injury is required to count as a sport. Most sports are sublimated warfare. As Lady Thatcher reportedly said after Germany had beaten England in some major soccer game: Don't worry. After all, twice in this century we beat them at their national game."

Because you cant humiliate yourself in soccer, right Ghana?

"Baseball and basketball present a constant threat of personal disgrace. In hockey, there are three or four fights a game — and it's not a stroll on beach to be on ice with a puck flying around at 100 miles per hour. After a football game, ambulances carry off the wounded. After a soccer game, every player gets a ribbon and a juice box."
And no one has ever once been hurt playing soccer. its totally safe (if your squeamish i'd stop watching this around #4 If your my mother, I'd stop watching around #11, and its a Top Ten countdown)

 

I think I spyed a few ambulances carrying off the wounded....but I could be wrong......

"You can't use your hands in soccer. (Thus eliminating the danger of having to catch a fly ball.) What sets man apart from the lesser beasts, besides a soul, is that we have opposable thumbs. Our hands can hold things. Here's a great idea: Let's create a game where you're not allowed to use them!"

 Wait opposable thumbs make us human?

I dont like to judge but that is a pair of some UGLY ASS HUMANS.

Now I would actually say what makes us Humans is our mind. And we've created entire careers where you dont need to use that (which is how Ann Coulter keeps her job). So why not a game that happens to have a added restriction built in?

Maybe Ann Coulter just hates a challenge? (like thinking)

" I resent the force-fed aspect of soccer. The same people trying to push soccer on Americans are the ones demanding that we love HBO's "Girls," light-rail, Beyonce and Hillary Clinton. The number of New York Times articles claiming soccer is "catching on" is exceeded only by the ones pretending women's basketball is fascinating.


I note that we don't have to be endlessly told how exciting football is."

Wait we are being force-fed soccer? thats kinda weird I dont remember anyone inviting me to their "World Cup Party" or showing up to work in their favorite teams Jersey. I also have never once in my life been asked to join a "Fantasy Soccer League"

But Ann Coulter is right about one thing, we NEVER have to be told how exciting football is.

"It's foreign. In fact, that's the precise reason the Times is constantly hectoring Americans to love soccer. One group of sports fans with whom soccer is not "catching on" at all, is African-Americans. They remain distinctly unimpressed by the fact that the French like it."

You know, I notice that the two sports Ann Coulter seems to point to the most as "real sports" football and basketball, seem to stereo-typically have a very high number of black players and audience

And one of her complaints here seems to be soccer isnt black enough.

Is it possible maybe that I misdiagnosed Ann Coulter? she may not be bulimic after all, maybe she just has a case of repressed jungle fever.

Someone should tell her its 2014, no one gives a fuck if she has a fetish for black guys. Come out of the closet Ann, be true to yourself. We wont judge you, I promise.

" Soccer is like the metric system, which liberals also adore because it's European. Naturally, the metric system emerged from the French Revolution, during the brief intervals when they weren't committing mass murder by guillotine. Despite being subjected to Chinese-style brainwashing in the public schools to use centimeters and Celsius, ask any American for the temperature, and he'll say something like "70 degrees." Ask how far Boston is from New York City, he'll say it's about 200 miles. Liberals get angry and tell us that the metric system is more "rational" than the measurements everyone understands. This is ridiculous. An inch is the width of a man's thumb, a foot the length of his foot, a yard the length of his belt. That's easy to visualize. How do you visualize 147.2 centimeters?"

God damn it my school never forced me to use the metric system. Fucking lousy ass public schools, jipping me of a true educational experience.

Also, maybe I'm a freak, but my thumbs are slightly different sizes....so are my feet, and my belt size seems to change every month. Does that mean measurements change depending on which side of my body I'm on? Cool, cause I just turned right, which means the 200 miles to New York just got shorter. SWEET!

"Soccer is not "catching on." Headlines this week proclaimed "Record U.S. ratings for World Cup," and we had to hear — again about the "growing popularity of soccer in the United States."

The USA-Portugal game was the blockbuster match, garnering 18.2 million viewers on ESPN. This beat the second-most watched soccer game ever: The 1999 Women's World Cup final (USA vs. China) on ABC. (In soccer, the women's games are as thrilling as the men's.)"

For the record, i didn't fuck up the italics. That second paragraph proving the point shes upset about in the first paragraph is EXACTLY as written in her article. Truth be told she actually has two more paragraphs comparing soccer's audience to other sports, and how its catching up, but theres not much there thats funny and they are kinda dull and long so I left them out.

See this is how you can tell this is a full Hate-Vomit purge, she is spewing out both sides of an argument.

Anyways the good news is once your spewing both sides, your near the end of the Hate-Vomit, but the bad news is its just gets weirder from here

"If more "Americans" are watching soccer today, it's only because of the demographic switch effected by Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration law. I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer. One can only hope that, in addition to learning English, these new Americans will drop their soccer fetish with time."

Wait Ted Kennedy was president in 1965 and could pass laws? FUCK I totally missed that. Oh wait she means the bill was written by Kennedy, which is kinda weird because the only immigration bill I can find that passed in 1965 was called the Hart–Celler Act. I mean yea Kennedy voted for it, but so did 75 other senators and some 320 members of the House.

Now I do have to agree with Ann Coulter on one thing, No American, who I know, whose great grandfather was born here is watching Soccer. Now admittedly the only American I know who's great grandfather was born here is me. And I dont give a fuck about soccer, even though I did play it when I was younger.

Ironically though, it seems that Ann Coulter's great grandfather was born in Ireland. Which may explain why she seems to have such a hard time ignoring soccer.

It's just a shame that she cant seem to drop her fetish with soccer and as a result is ruining my country for us real American's. I know, we should deport her unamerican ass, with her foreign sport obsession, and get back to real 100% american sports, like Lacrosse.

Cause unlike Soccer you cant use your hands, you have to get a ball into a net, its a bunch of guys running up and down a field....

Anyways I've mentioned the word fetish in relation to Ann Coulter twice in this article. So I think I need a shower or 3 to wash away that disgusting feeling that combination brings up. So until next time...........GOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLLLL!!!!!  

Even the Wingnuts are bigger in Texas part 3

And finally folks we wrap up our investigation of the crazy with Part 3. (Part 1. Part 2.)

And we start with the Economy. Now alot of this shit is crazy, but its also very technical to explain WHY its crazy, so I am going to try to limit myself here to the snarky stuff.

5-2: Downsizing the Federal Government

"We encourage the abolishment of any and all federal agencies  not based on an enumerated power granted by the United States federal constitution.

All non-military spending should be returned to at least  pre-2008 levels"

All right so we established back in part 1, The Texas GOP hasnt actually READ the Constitution. This is where they double (or well more like octupple down on that). See this time its Article II section 2, Clause 1....that being the part that gives the president to right to establish (without restriction) executive agencies.

And then to the second point. it appears they dont read anything else either. See that spending level may be a goal you want to achieve, but if thats the case you MAY want to retitle this particular plank.  You see non defense discretionary spending is actually below 2008 levels. If we take it back to 2008 levels your basically "upsizing" the federal government, not downsizing it.

5-9:  Funding Special Interest Organizations.
"We oppose any direct financial support of special interest organizations, such as ACORN and the ACLU, by any level of government"

Yea....see....heres the thing. Acorn DOESNT EXIST. In fact it hasnt existed in about 4 years, because Conservatives killed it off. Now this SHOULD be the kinda thing conservatives brag about, except they realized they needed a boogyman to scare people, so lied and said they didnt win. And now you drank so much of your own kool-aid your falling for your own lie.

 
5-18: Taxation by a Foreign Entity

"We believe that any attempt to allow the United Nations or any other foreign entity to levy taxes on U.S. citizens or governments should be rejected."

We also believe respiration should be encouraged. We also believe food should be consumed. We also believe grass should be green. We also believe the Sun should be hot.

Chalk this one up to the "shit no one is actually trying to do, and is so fuckingly obviously supported by 100% of the people of the country (and likely the world) as to be mind boggling that they felt the need to state it. I'm guessing this is another of those "We heard it on Alex Jones/Glenn Beck" planks.

5-49: Alternative Energy Sources

"We encourage economically viable use of wind, coal-fired plants, solar, and nuclear power, and bio-sources without government subsidies"

Course oil companies can keep their subsidies....how else do we ensure ^ kinds of companies fail?  

5-67: Sound Money

"Our Founding Fathers warned us of the dangers of allowing central bankers to control our currency because inflation equals taxation without representation. We support the return to the time-tested precious metal standard for the U.S. dollar."

Alright look, I'm only an American History major by training, so I might be a little out of my element here, but I dont think thats what the founders meant when they said "taxation without representation". I think what they were referring to was British attempts to tax the colonies without giving them a seat in parliament to vote on the taxes.

I also think Alexander Hamilton was a founding father. As was Robert Morris, the man Hamilton picked to set up the nations first centralized bank (the Bank of North America) under the articles of confederation. As was George Washington, who as president signed into law the First National Bank of the United States (our second centralized bank). Then again I could be wrong.

Also I do so love the idea a shiny rock is worth more than a piece of paper...Im pretty sure they both have the same intrinsic value (nothing). Also lets be honest, the whole metal standard thing did work pretty well. Well except for the Great Depression. And the Panic of 1907. And the Panic of 1893. And the Long Depression (1873). And the Panic of 1857. And the Panic of 1837. And the Panic of 1819. And the Panic of 1796.  (Oh by the way, its not an accident that most of those fit into the period of time (between 1836 and 1913) that we didnt have a centralized bank).

But you know, other than those few decades, precious metals never let us down.

Finally the last section of the GOP platform in Texas, that I'm dubbing "'Merica fuck yea"

6-1: Texas Sovereignty

"We reaffirm Texas’ state sovereignty, as reserved under the 10th Amendment. Texas retains its sovereignty, freedoms, independence, power, jurisdiction and rights which are not delegated to the federal government by the United States Constitution." 

Wait. Texas is a state? Your fucking with me right? and they are the exact same as the other 49? no fucking way........

6-4: United Nations Agenda 21.

"We oppose implementation of the UN Agenda 21 treaty policies and its supporting organizations, agreements and contracts which were adopted at the Earth Summit Conference in 1992. We oppose the influence, promotion and implementation of all international nongovernmental organizations’ programs and policies and the use of taxes to promote these programs."

Wait a minute...this seems familiar, hang on a second.*scrolls up the party platform.*
Ah here we go:

1-31:

"The Republican Party of Texas should expose all United Nations

Agenda 21 treaty policies and its supporting organizations, agreements and contracts. We oppose implementation of the UN Agenda 21 Program which was adopted at the Earth Summit Conference in 1992 purporting to promote a comprehensive program of sustainable development projects, nationally, regionally and locally. We oppose the influence, promotion and implementation of nongovernmental organizations, metropolitan and/or regional planning organizations, Councils of Government, and International Council for Local Environmental initiatives and the use of American (Texas) citizen’s taxes to promote these programs."

Wow they forgot they already put that in the platform? thats kinda awkward....

Unless it was intentional. See Section 1-31 was on page 5, Section 6-4 was on page 35. And they did say in Section 1-23 they had a 30 page limit. They just wanted to ensure no matter what 30 pages you read you read that part.

6-5: Homeland Security

"We support the strengthening of our nation’s homeland security while protecting the constitutional rights of all United States citizens and lawful resident aliens."

6-6: Decommission Homeland Security.

"We support decommissioning the Department of Homeland Security and reorganizing into previously existing structures. The communication barriers between security agencies should be reconciled"

So lets see, you want to strengthen Homeland Security by getting rid of it? Again I have to ask DID ANYONE REMEMBER TO READ UP 1 FREAKING LINE BEFORE VOTING ON THE IDEA???

6-26 Israel.

"We believe that the United States and Israel share a special long-standing relationship based on shared values, a mutual commitment to a republican form of government, and a strategic alliance that benefits both nations. Our foreign policy with Israel should reflect the right of sovereign nations to govern themselves and have self-determination. In our diplomatic dealings with Israel, we encourage the continuation of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, but oppose pressuring Israel to compromise their sovereignty or security. Our policy is inspired by God’s biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise."

Yea. I got to ask, do you all READ anything? See the biblical promise your referring too doesnt seem to exist.

I think your using this passage from Genesis “I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed”

Now that's God talking to Abraham, thing is Israel didnt exist when that conversation took place. It was settled by Jacob, Abraham's descendant 4 generations later. (or 400 years depending on translation)
  

Thats per your own holy book.......which much like the Constitution, you dont seem that familiar with.

And finally we end on, what else, Bengahzi.

6-29: Benghazi

"We call upon the United States House of Representatives to appoint a select committee and a special prosecutor in order to subpoena testimony to fully investigate all aspects of the Benghazi debacle, 

including, but not limited to, the reason Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi; the denied assistance before and during the attack, the accounts of personnel who participated in the defense of the Embassy Annex, and the apparent attempt by the White House to deceive the American public with a concocted story about a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video. We call for bringing those responsible to justice."

Yea, see here's the thing. That already happened. The guy whos chairing the select committee is named Trey Gowdy. Thing is you havnt heard much from him recently because it turned out all those questions you raised have already been answered by the last 7 republican committees to investigate Benghazi. Well that and Gowdy and Republican party as a whole got caught fundrasing off the idea. And Darrell Issa (the republican who Gowdy was "replacing" for lack of a better term) released documents supporting the White Houses version of events, while basically admitting he [Issa] had had them the whole time, meaning the entire Benghazi thing was one massive troll attempt by the GOP.

So yea, you got trolled.

And actually so did my readers. You see this isnt the LAST thing, its just the last numbered thing. There was one more thing, tacked on to the bottom of the platform, and not numbered that needs to be mentioned. And in fully trouped irony, it really is the best part of the entire thing.

"Resolution in Support of Prioritizing Constitutional Carry Legislation

We call upon the 84th Texas Legislature to propose to the people of Texas a Constitutional Amendment to strike “; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime” from Article I, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution. 

Further, we direct the State Party Chair and the State Republican Executive Committee to consider adoption of such an Amendment and other legislation necessary to remove restrictions on Texans' right to own and bear arms a legislative priority for the Republican Party of Texas for the 2015 legislative session and to utilize reasonable Party resources necessary to promote and support their passage."

Everyone got that right? the Texas GOP is actually asking for a constitutional amendment to ban an attempt to lower the rate of gun related crimes. Basically they are throwing their support behind the idea of RAISING the crime rate......

Yea I told you, even the wingnuts are bigger (and a whole fuck of a lot crazier) in Texas......

  

Even the Wingnuts are bigger in Texas, part 2

Alright folks, welcome to part 2 of the crazy shit the Texas GOP just voted into their party platform. (part 1 in case you missed it)

First up we hit the section on social issues. Now in the interest of brevity I'm leaving out the mundane crazy stuff (anti gay, anti divorce, abortion ect) and just hitting the craziest examples.  

2-5: Family Values

"We support the affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian family values and oppose the continued assault on those values. We strongly support a women’s right to choose to devote her life to her family and children. We recognize her sacrifice in the face of the assault on the family. Additionally, we recognize the challenges of single parents and applaud their efforts in creating a stable and moral home."

WOW they support a womans right to choose. I'm legitimately shocked.

See its right there in the text. They support a womans right to choose to get her bitch ass in the kitchen and make me a sandwich. In fact they support it so much they dont give an alternative. Instead they just say that the sacrifice you make to get my sandwhich, not to mention spread your legs to have my babies, will be recognized. 

2-8: Pornography.

"We encourage the enforcement of laws regarding all forms of pornography, because pornography is detrimental to society and demeaning to women and children."

But its not detrimental to men. See unlike women we are mature enough to handle seeing a vagina......

2-11: Roe V.  Wade

"We are resolute in our support of the reversal of Roe v. Wade."

by the way, the difference in text size is not my doing. thats actually how it appears in the platform. I guess they figured the size you write equals how serious you are. Which also means they really arent that serious about the rest of this shit.

2-12: Natural Life

"We revere the sanctity of human life and therefore oppose genocide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide."

We also lead the nation in state sponsored executions...which I think are basically state unwanted assisted suicides and/or euthanasia. But other then that, we believe in life...kinda.

2-27: Child Abuse Prevention. 

"We believe that no individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child. An abused child should be given the option of declining visitation with his/her abuser. If court ordered, visitation with minor children by such persons should be supervised."

2-29: Foster Care

"We support eliminating bureaucratic prohibitions on corporal discipline and home schooling in foster homes."

Again, can you pick a side? Because you just came out in favor of protecting children from abuse and allowing people to whoop a kids ass.

Unless your saying beatings dont count as abuse?

Next up, education. Sadly most of this is mudane, and doesnt rise to the level of being extremely insane. But I do what I can

3-24: Religious Freedom in Public Schools
"We urge school administrators and officials to inform Texas school students and district personnel specifically of their First Amendment rights to pray and engage in religious speech, individually or in groups, on school property without government interference. We urge the Legislature to end censorship of 

discussion of religion in our founding documents and encourage discussing those documents, including the Bible as their basis. Students and district personnel have the right to display Christian items on school property"

Yea, if we are going to be informing people I think maybe we should start with the Texas GOP. See district personnel have no rights to pray or engage in religious speech on school groups. Same with the display of christian items.

Just saying you might want to check the law before adopting a plank asking people to break it.

Secondly as far as the biblical basis of our founding documents, you are aware that the Constitution specifically legalizes the actions prohibited by 3 of the 10 commandments (1-3, false idols, holy day ect), doesnt allow 2 more to be charged as a crime (4 (respect parents) and 6(adultery) and the very nature of our society was always designed to be in direct violation of two more (9 and 10, coveting others goods).

Furthermore of the 3 that are left (killing, theft, false witness), the Constitution is totally silent on two of them (killing and theft). Meaning that out of 10 commandments only 1, bearing false witness is actually IN the Constitution, compared to 7 allowed or countermanded by the Constitution.

Not what I would call a great "biblical basis"  

3-27: School Surveys and Testing

"Public schools should be required to obtain written parental consent for student participation in any test or questionnaire that surveys beliefs, feelings, or opinions. Parental rights, including viewing course materials prior to giving consent, should not be infringed."

So yea, welcome to texas, where the kids cant even say if they have an opinion, unless their parents pre approve the opinion.

Also do wrong answers count as opinions? I mean presumably you really did think 2+2=5 when you put it on the test. Thats an opinion, one that happens to be wrong, but an opinion none the less.

So yea, math classes in texas (along with all other classes) have just been abolished.

And now the part everyone has been waiting for.........Guns. (followed by other security laws)

4-1:  Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

"America’s founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment with clear intent – no level of government shall regulate either the ownership or possession of firearms. Therefore we strongly oppose all laws that infringe on the right to bear arms. We oppose the monitoring of gun ownership, the taxation and regulation of  guns, ammunition, and gun magazines. We collectively urge the legislature to pass “constitutional carry” legislation whereby law-abiding citizens that possess firearms can legally exercise their God-given right to carry that firearm as well.  Until such time we urge the state to re-introduce and pass legislation easing current restrictions on firearms such as open carry and campus carry. Stiff penalties shall be imposed for frivolous litigation against legitimate firearm manufacturers. All federal acts, laws, executive orders, and court orders which restrict or infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall be invalid in Texas, not be recognized by Texas, shall be specifically rejected by Texas, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in Texas. We urge the Texas Legislature to enact legislation to protect law-abiding firearms owners from having their right to bear arms infringed by federal agencies due to such minor mental health diagnoses as non-severe PTS (post-traumatic stress), seeking counseling for minor depression or other minor mental health diagnoses."

Because its so damn long, I went ahead and bolded the 4 parts I want to make fun of

1) Actually Texas is right, the founding fathers were VERY clear on the 2nd amendment. It, like the rest of the Amendments at the time, only applied to the FEDERAL government. That was actually the point of the 10th amendment, to make sure the amendments didnt restrict the states. Granted thats no longer the case due to the 14th amendment. But still, you'd think from a party that wants to go back to the founders intent, and references the 10th amendment and asking it be enforced no fewer than 3 times, would have some idea of what it meant.

2)God given right to carry a fire-arm? Damn I must have missed that commandment. Also hat tip to Jesus/God for knowing 2000+ years ago guns would be invented.

3) So do you think they will consider the law valid? I didnt get it the first 4 times......

4) So you know, if your only a minor mental health risk to people, its cool. By the way, wheres the line between minor and potential crazy person?

4-5:  FSLTransportation Security Administration (TSA)

"We call for the disbanding of the TSA and place airport security into the more accountable and capable hands of the state and local law enforcement."

Remember when 9/11 happened on the TSA's watch? No? Of course you dont, because back then airports were in the "more accountable and capable hands of state and local law enforcement".  Just saying......

4-9: Judeo-Christian Nation

"As America is a nation under God founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship in the religion of their choice"

But we DID specify the religions we would really like you to choose from. Also remember a bit ago when I was talking about how the Constitution opposed Christian principles....this is one of those times. Christian principles require an attempt to convert people, which happens to be the opposite of both the Constitution, and presumably this section (although wait until the satanic memorial in texas shows up to test this theory).

4-16: Equality of All Citizens

"We deplore all discrimination. We also deplore forced sensitivity training and urge repeal of any mandate requiring it. We urge immediate repeal of the Hate Crimes Law. Until the Hate Crimes Law is totally repealed, we urge the Legislature to immediately remove the education curriculum mandate and the sexual orientation category in said Law"

In fairness they have a point. Adding extra penalties to bigots for acting on their bigotry is technically discriminatory.  In a similar vein, theirs a point to be made that guns dont kill people, bullets do.

Which is a nice way of saying, if you REALLY wanted to you COULD make that argument......just don't expect us to take you seriously.

4-20 (shockingly NOT about weed): Prison Reform

"We believe our prison systems should emphasize protection of society and punishment of offenders, ever mindful of their human rights. Prisoners should be required to perform meaningful work. Prisoners should not have access to private information of any citizen. No extraordinary medical care, including organ transplants or body part replacement, should be performed on prisoners at taxpayer expense."

Is it just me, or are the first and last sentences contradictory? I mean we need to respect their human rights.....unless that happens to be a right to life, in which case fuck you guys. Unless of course you can pay for it....while not having a job, or insurance because YOUR IN PRISON.

Also seems to me this would further contradict section 2-12....but maybe thats just me.

4-26: Unborn Victims of Violence

"We believe a person who injures or kills an unborn child should be subject to criminal and civil litigation"

Of course you have to prove the killing was intentional, so ladies get ready to fully document your miscarriages! :D Hopefully you never did anything even remotely wrong.....

That wraps up Part 2. the 3rd and final part will be up soon, but until it is, let me leave you with this, the next theme song of the Texas GOP

Even the Wingnuts are bigger in texas, part 1.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it appears the wingnut fringe of the GOP has claimed their newest victim....the Texas republican party.

See the Texas Republican party just issued their party platform for the upcoming cycle and boy oh boy is it a doozy. It covers everything we have come to expect from the fringe right, lack of forethought, conspiracy theories and no real understanding of government.

Now I wont bore you with every single thing they have decided to stand for, but here are some of the highlights.....and my retorts.

Now there is a lot to work with here, so I'm splitting this at least in half.
Part one is going to have the section that seems to be mostly with laws/governing ideas. (where most of the insanity seems to be)
Part two will have social issues, education, gun and crime laws, the economy and what I will call "patriotism/ 'merica fuck yea". (If needed I may even split part 2 in half.)

So lets get started with part one

First one of their key principals they lay out:

"Strict adherence to the original intent of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. and Texas Constitutions."
Just remember that for the moment folks.

Section 1-3: Opposition to Socialism

"Socialism breeds mediocrity. America is exceptional. Therefore, the Republican Party of Texas opposes socialism, in all of its forms."

Presumably this includes the post office (which is IN the US Constitution) , oil and gas subsidies and medical research subsidies. By the way, removing those last two would bankrupt Texas businesses, as Texas tends to get most of those subsidies.

Either that, or they dont know what the Socialism is....

Section 1-4:  Full Repeal of the 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"Return the appointment of U.S. Senators by the State Legislatures."

Hmm, so your against more socialism and more democracy? So what ARE you in favor of? plutocracy I assume?

But to be fair, think how much more the Senate could do if it was less responsive the will of the people. (side note: according to the most recent approval numbers, I dont know if being less responsive is possible)

Section 1-5: Unelected, Appointed Bureaucrats and Agencies

"We decry the appointment of unelected bureaucrats, and we urge Congress to use their constitutional authority to defund and abolish these positions and return authority to duly elected officials, accountable to the electorate. In the interim we hold Congress responsible for agency decisions. Executive decisions by agencies must be reviewed and approved by Congress taking effect "
 You know, maybe I missed something, but wasnt the ENTIRE POINT of your last section to increase the number of "Unelected, Appointed Bureaucrats" by making senators "Unelected, Appointed Bureaucrats"?

Also, what about your first principal? seems to me if we removed all "Unelected, Appointed Bureaucrats" that would kind of be a problem for the Supreme Court, which according to the Constitution are "Unelected, Appointed Bureaucrats".

Also ambassadorial elections? I mean sure having them appointed isnt in the Consistution per say, but really? you think thats a good idea? Just think of the expense of having 200+ more national elections every year. Well 200+ for ambassadorial. I think if we include ALL "Unelected, Appointed Bureaucrats" thats likely closer to a thousand or so new elections we have to pay for.

And hell, just imagine how long that ballot is going to be, it will take 3 days to vote

Also last point, again going back to that principal. Pretty sure the Article II of the Constitution gives oversight of the Executive Branch exclusively to the president....seems to me making congress responsible to run them kinda violates that.

Section 1-6: Constitutional Citations on Legislation

"We urge that all bills presented in the U.S. and Texas Congress include citations to the authorizing constitutional provision, cost to implement, and impact on the family "

Um, yea as far as the Constitutional Provision, Article 1 Section 8. Doesnt matter the law, thats your citiation. See thats the part of the Constitution that gives congress the power to pass any law they see as necessary and proper.

You know, for people who's main goal is to return to strict adherence to the Constitution, I have a hunch you never read it.

Also, can we get a definition of family please? Cause you know, the average american family is 2.6 people.
So who counts as the .6 of a person? Also, what about traditional Catholics? they might have 5 or 6 kids. So is everyone then .32 of a person? or do the parents count as full people and each kid is .1?

Oh and what about income and occupation? I mean lets be honest, a tax on gas is going to have a much bigger affect on farmers then on bike messengers. I'd also guess a capital gains tax would have a much bigger impact on say the Bush family then say the family living in a two bedroom apartment in El Passo.

And note, so far by the way, I have only included things that fit under the traditional definition of family. It will get much more complicated once we add in gays, adoption, artificial insemination, single parents, divorces, step parents, unmarried hetrosexual cohabitators with kids ect.  

So I mean, we can either make bills millions of pages long to cover all the possible definitions of families....or we can define family in such as way as to not apply to 99% of people.....or we can admit this is a fucking stupid idea. Your call.

Section 1-22: Preservation of Republican Form of Government.

"We support our republican form of government in Texas as set forth in the Texas Bill of Rights and oppose Initiative and Referendum. We also urge the Texas Legislature and the U.S. Congress to enact legislation prohibiting any judicial jurisdiction from allowing any substitute or parallel system of Law, specifically foreign Law (including Sharia Law), which is not in accordance with the U.S. or Texas Constitutions."
 
Of course no one is actually TRYING to do that, likely because the US Consistution makes that illegal, but since as weve already established you've never actually read the damn thing, I kinda understand how you could be that stupid.

Section 1-23: Germane Contents Requirement.

"All content of any bill must be germane to the title of the act and bills shall be less than 30 pages."

You know, before you say shit like this, its occasionally a good idea to do a page count....see your party platform is 40 pages.

Also your State Constitution is now illegal. Now counting the index it clocks in at 195 pages. So thats only 6 1/2 times longer than you claim it should be required to be.

Maybe sometimes you need more than 30 pages? Maybe learning to read would be a better idea.......

Section 1-26: Constitutional Convention

"We strongly oppose any constitutional convention to rewrite the United States Constitution. We encourage the Legislature to rescind its 1977 call for such a convention. We call upon other states to rescind their votes for such a convention."

Section 1-27: Article 5 Convention

"Under no circumstances shall the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Constitutional Amendments, be changed in any manner. We urge the Texas State Legislators to take the lead in calling for an Article V Amending Convention of States for the specific purpose of reigning in the power of the federal government. Any

proposed amendments must be ratified by ¾ of the states to take effect."

Wait a second, you LITERALLY JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELVES IN CONSECUTIVE POINTS. An Article 5 convention IS the constitutional convention that texas called for. So do you want one or is it illegal? Make up for freaking minds.

And we can just skip over the fact that making the first 10 amendments unamendable is not only ironic as hell, but also totally against your principal goal of a strict adherence to the intent of the founders, because we already know you havnt read the Constitution.

Instead I will focus on the fact that these two ideas are literally one after the other. Which means your not even reading your own document. And we are no where near page 30 so you dont even have the "its too long" excuse.

Also you are aware the Bill of Rights was already amendment right? (by the 14th amendment), and that with out that, the bill of rights doesnt apply to the states (so you have no right to own a gun as an example)? Yea somehow I'm willing to bet you dont know that.

1-29: Reparations
"We oppose any form of reparation"

You know what the legal definition of reparation is? Actually dont bother answering its clear you dont.
So here it is, right out of the dictionary.

"the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged."
So yea, making it impossible to do that basically eliminates the justice system entirely. I mean from fines to community service, even to prison time the idea behind all of it is to make amends for a wrong one has done.

Now actually to fair, you really meant you were opposed to any form of reparation for slavery, you just left the last two words out because you didnt want to look like racists. Well mission accomplished, you just look like morons.

1-41: Defending American Citizens.

"We call for Congress to act as President Obama has dismissed the IRS targeting of specific political groups and individuals, which calls into question the President’s and the Department of Justice’s commitment to citizens Constitutional rights; and We call for Congress to act on the Benghazi cover up and the failure to protect American Citizens including U.S. military personnel by the Obama Administration; and We call for Congressional investigates into other federal agencies"

All-right so in earlier blogs and on my facebook, I've already gone into detail about how none of those things are real so I'll spare the rehash. So lets just call this the "All our information comes from FOX News" clause, accept it as the explanation of how they seem to have never read the Constitution and no nothing about the government and move on.

1-50: Real ID Act
"As the Real ID Act effectively creates an unconstitutional and privacy-inhibiting national ID card, we hereby call for its immediate repeal"

Actually I think they have a point. After all Article F, Section O, Clause X clearly states the government cant issue ID card.

And you know luckly the government cant read the Census, Social Security database, tax returns, drivers licenses, birth certificates, ect to find out you exist......

Oh by the way, I skipped over it, but earlier in their platform they called for improvement to drivers licenses. Later they will call for photo ID to vote.

So as near as I can tell, its important the government can verify who you are, but its also illegal........

I-62:  Remedies to Activist Judiciary

"We call Congress and the President to use their constitutional powers to restrain activist judges. We urge Congress to adopt the Judicial Conduct Act of 2005 and remove judges who abuse 

their authority. Further, we urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights"

Ok again skipping the unconstitutionality of the idea....Congratulations you just legalized partial birth abortion, polygamy, child rape, human sacrifice, indefinite detention of US citizens, trials without juries, forced self incrimination, and a variety of other things.

See all of those things either possibly fall under or are prevented by the very things you dont want the court to legislate on.  So unless their are explicit laws that make each and every one of those, and a ton of other things like that illegal, guess what you just made them legal. And unless all 50 states make them equally as illegal you can never again make them fully illegal.

Of course since you have your heads up your collective asses you didnt think about that, you just tried to repeal the only thing stopping you from shoving YOUR beliefs on other people, you forgot it works both ways.

1-75: Voter Rights Act:

"We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized"

No such legislation exists. No really. The Voting Rights act of 1965 was codified and updated in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992 and 2006.

There was no update in 1973, and even if their had been it would be outdated and obsolete due to later updates.

Which means they want to repeal an old version of a non existent law...

Damn it, who on FOX news and/or Alex Jones/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh gave them the wrong dates and made them look like morons?

1-88: AWOL Legislators 

"We urge the Texas House and Senate to compel attendance of absent members and penalize those who attempt to break the quorum by not being in attendance"

Now keep in mind a good chunk of what legislators do is actually pointless. For example at the US level every march all the teams in March Madness have resolutions praising them passed (although to his credit Speaker Boehner eliminated that when becoming speaker). Same with most sports teams. And the most famous example is renaming government buildings requires money as well.  

Its true at the state level too.

Which means your basically forcing legislators to miss kids soccer games so they can pass resolutions praising their kids soccer teams for making it to "state". Or pulling them away from a dying parent to vote on renaming a post office.

Yes some of the stuff legislators do is important, but lets be honest no body wants them to vote on every little thing, they wouldnt have time to do anything else (like say figure out how to solve legitimate issues)

1-92: Filibuster:

"We support return to the traditional Filibuster in the U.S. Senate."

But remember folks they ARNT the party of obstruction.

Unless by traditional filibuster they mean the one where you actually had to talk the whole time and as soon as you shut up people could vote.....in which case I am actually on their side.....I just have a hunch thats not what they mean.

1-96:  Religious Symbols 

"We oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Ten Commandments or other religious symbols."

Cause that worked out so well for Oklahoma.

Oklahoma's Satanic Memorial. Coming soon to Texas 

I hope these people never get a hold of a real double edge sword, they will cut their own heads off with it by accident.....

1-100: Symbols of American Heritage

"We call upon governmental entities to protect all symbols of our American heritage from being altered in any way"

That could make it difficult to change the flag next time we get a new state.....

Also I do like the irony that technicality, this isnt a symbol of American Heritage.

Flag of the Republic of Texas.

Also when they say American Heritage I have a sneaking suspicion they mean this:

Also not a symbol of American Heritage. In fact not being american was the point.

  Admittedly that suspicion is based on the fact the next item is about restoring a confederate memorial, but maybe I'm overreacting.

Well that wraps up part one, part two will be up shortly. The good news is, it should be a bit more topically diverse, as this first part was by far the longest part of the platform.  

Fuck the troops.

Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to introduce you to the new Republican 2014 election strategy.....Fuck the Troops.

So for those of you not paying attention, earlier this week Bowe Bergdahl America's only POW in the Afganistan or Iraq war's was brought home.

Now you'd THINK this would be universally good news, but then your not a republican.

See Republicans think we should have left the guy behind.

Now they [usually] find other ways to say it, but thats basically their conclusion.

The American Military Pledge to "leave no man behind", well it turns out if doing that might make Obama look good, fuck the troops.

And well see Bergdahl is a killer. In fact 8 (or is it 6? or is it 32? the right wing cant seem to decide on the numbers) of troops were killed while trying to find him. Therefore he should take personal responsibility for their deaths, and that makes him unworthy of rescue, because he got american soldiers killed.

Which raises a question, where's the limit? soldiers die trying to rescue people ALL the time, so whats the cut off? Are you SOL when 1 soldier dies trying to find you? or is it 2? 3? 5? 7? How many until we decide, that even though you ARE a soldier, and one who might die trying to rescue someone else its not worth getting you back.

Oh and one other, fairly important point....according to official army records, none of those 8 solders died looking for Bergdahl. 2 were killed in a taliban attack on an american base, the remaining 6 killed a few months after the "intensive search measures" to find Bergdahl had wound down. 2 of those 6 died in a roadside bombing, another was shot durring an attempt to capture a Taliban operative, another when he had the bad luck to step on a mine, and 2 more during regular patrols.

Now I should point out to be fair, the families of the mine stepper and the two killed on patrol do believe their family members would not have been where they were when they died had bergdahl not been missing. So its not like the right wing entirely made the claim up, they just expanded and exploited the claim to try to make the president look bad.  

But hey, I mean its *OBAMA* why not slander the reputation of a solider to make Obama look bad? I mean why not make him look like a killer, I mean its not like he's anyone important, he's just a grunt. I mean fuck the troops, this killer should never have come home.....

Now look its one thing to object to the terms of the deal......although it should be noted most of them seem to have an alternative. The few that do, like Senator Ted Cruz, say we should have used military force to get this guy back, which is kinda weird, since that would result in more soldiers possibly dying, and we've kinda established that on the right anyway, if anyone could die to get you back, your not worth it.

Now the rest of the republicans who only object to the deal seem to follow Marsha Blackburns example:

For those who'd rather not click the link, her position is basically "I have no idea what deal I would have accepted. I dont have the information needed to make that decision.....however despite knowing nothing, and having no alternative I would not have done what the president did. Now the one thing I would have done is close a mainland american prison so that the Taliban cant come here....that was the question right? No? well lets try again....I dont know but I know Obama bad.....Of course I wouldnt have turned the deal down.....can we talk about Bengahzi? No....ok well what I would have exchanged for Bergdahl is ..shit...Bengahzi? can we PLEASE talk about Bengahzi?"


Now if the "I have no idea what I'd do, I just know what the president did was wrong, I have no alternative, can we change the subject?" defense sounds familiar, it should, its the same defense Republicans used for 5 years on Obamacare (still waiting on that "replacement plan" by the way)

But in all fairness to Blackburn and her ilk, she is at least willing to admit we absolutely should have brought the guy home, and is only upset about what we gave up.

So that puts her head and shoulders about most of the rest of her party.

Take Ralph Peters over on FOX news. See he believes Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter. Now of course Bergdahl is actually in good standing with the military. Now yes some people in his unit are claiming he deserted, and maybe he did.

Thing is, you need one thing to make someone a deserter....you need a defendant. We didnt have one because he was held by the Taliban. Now that he's back he can be tried for desertion and punished if found guilty. (it might also be worth mentioning that when he was captured Bowe Bergdahl was a Private First Class, he was promoted to Sergeant while in captivity. So presumably the Army doesnt [yet] believe he deserted, you tend not to promote deserters.)  

But thats not enough for Peters.  See heres what he had to say about the issue:

"Megyn, throughout much of our history we did go after deserters and when we got them we shot them or hanged them. Or if we were in a good mood, we would brand them with a “D” on their cheeks or forehead. When we became enlightened in the 20th century, we still shot some, but we always sent them to prison at hard labor."

No trial, just shoot him or hang him on sight, because people you know claimed he may have deserted. Fuck innocent until proven guilty. Fuck a right a trial. Fuck the troops fighting to give you those rights. Allegations of anything trump facts.

In fact this is actually a hardening of perspective on Peters part, in 2009, right after Bergdahl was captured, Peters said this:

"I want to be clear. If, when the facts are in, we find out that through some convoluted chain of events, he really was captured by the Taliban, I’m with him. But, if he walked away from his post and his buddies in wartime, I don’t care how hard it sounds, as far as I’m concerned, the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills."
So in 2009, before the president got him back, we could allow for the possibility he MIGHT not be a deserter, but now that he's back, we are going to assume he was so we can attack the President for not killing him outright.

But hey in fairness, Ralph Peters has never been elected to anything, so maybe he's just one right wing nut.

NOPE.

Take Senator Kelly Ayotte.
On June 2nd, following Bergdahls release she issued this statement:

“With 29 percent of former Guantanamo detainees having reengaged or being suspected of reengaging in terrorism, the administration’s decision to release these five terrorist detainees endangers U.S. national security interests, It also sets a precedent that could encourage our enemies to capture more Americans in order to gain concessions from our government.”

Ok, so three things,

1) if we follow this logic, we dont get Bergdahl back....so her message is, in the name of national security, we basically say "fuck you, you got captured" and we leave him behind.
2) 29% recidivism rate. Alright in fairness this means 1 of those 5 guys we traded for Bergdahl will go back. Thing is, recidivism rate from US prisons is 40%....and we let those people out ALL the time, with I assume Mrs/ Ayotte's tacit agreement at doing it.

Side note by the way, the reason we have that 29% figure is because we've been tracking the 500+ guys let out of Gitmo by the last president, Guess it wasnt a problem letting people out of Gitmo before......I guess its only a problem when you need something to exploit and that happens to be convenient.....

And now thing #3)
"This Memorial Day, we also remember the men and women of our armed forces who are currently serving in harm's way. We thank them for their service and pray for their safety. We also must continue to keep Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who has been held prisoner by the Taliban for nearly five years, in our thoughts and prayers - and I renew my call on the Defense Department to redouble its efforts to find Sergeant Bergdahl and return him safely to his family."

Thats a statement by Senator Kelly Ayotte on May 24th....just a week before her other statement, basically asking Obama to do EXACTLY what he did.

Furthermore, heres part of press release from May 22nd from Ms. Ayotte's office talking about an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill she got passed.
"Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl: As part of ongoing efforts to urge the Department of Defense to do all it can to find Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and bring him home safely, Senator Ayotte worked successfully to include a provision in the bill that presses Pakistan to fully cooperate in the search for SGT Bergdahl."

So yea, to sum up, she literally passed legislation to try to find this guy....and was apparently all for bringing him home any way possible....until it actually happened at which point, fuck this guy.

I mean there is only one conclusion here: Fuck the troops. She clearly was just exploiting this guy to make her self look good, and is now PISSED Obama didnt realize that, and brought the guy home.....by doing exactly what George W Bush did to boot.

And its not just Senator Ayotte.  Check out Senator John McCain, himself a former POW:.
This week John McCain said this, when asked about the deal:
“I would not have made this deal. I would have done everything in my power to repatriate him and I would have done everything I possibly could. But I would not have put the lives of American servicemen at risk in the future,”

So yea, again two points
1) Ok, so you dont want to put the lives of american servicemen at risk? Ok, so how would you have gotten the guy back? You just ruled out military action...and since swaps apparently involve putting servicemen at risk those are out too. So you would have what? just asked really really really really nicely and hoped the Taliban would have given Bergdahl to you for nothing?

And now, the much more damning thing #2)
This is John McCain being interviewed by Anderson Cooper in February.

"COOPER: Would you oppose the idea of some form of negotiations or prisoner exchange? I know back in 2012 you called the idea of even negotiating with the Taliban bizarre, highly questionable.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release -- Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence- building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man.

I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details"

So yea, thats John McCain literally suggesting the President take the same deal he took.

Oh by the way, you know how congress (including some democrats like Senator Feinstien) are now claiming they didnt know anything about this in advance. Well seems John McCain knew all about it......I guess the rest couldnt be bothered to pay attention.

But yea, so there you have John McCain of all people, saying this is EXACTLY what we need to do to get this guy home.....and now getting pissed that we did it because doing it is bad for the military.

So again the only conclusion here is Fuck the trooops. Apparently Republicans are willing to endorse ideas that are bad for you, then attack those ideas to make it look like they support you because it makes them look better but they dont give a shit about you. Or alternatively, Republicans are willing to attack ideas that would actually bring you home, because it no longer gives them a way to look good by demanding you come home. Either way "Fuck the troops"

Oh and its not just Ayotte or McCain, they just happen to be the most egregious examples.

There is Representative Mark Amodei who had this on his twitter wall for about 15 hours before he had it deleted

 

Rep Lee Terry who had this on his website for a bit:

"A grateful nation welcomes the news of the return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. I have the pleasure of regularly speaking with our nation's active duty military and veterans and I know that there is nothing more solemn than the pledge to never leave one of their own behind on the field of battle.

"Sgt. Bergdahl is a national hero. It's my hope that once he ultimately retires from active duty service, implementation of reforms to our nation's VA hospitals are made so that he will have access to the long-term care he has rightfully earned from the horrors he endured.

"Furthermore, I call upon President Obama to reach out to the Mexican government to secure the release of Sgt. Tahmooressi who himself has been held captive and abused in a Mexican prison for inadvertently crossing the Mexican border with firearms that he legally owned in the United States. If the President can negotiate with a group who has harbored terrorists and declared war on the United States for the last twelve years, I would expect he can work with our neighbor and trading partner to secure the immediate release and safe return of Sgt. Tahmooressi."

Now if you check his website it looks like this:

 

Senator Thad Cochran, who had this on his twitter wall....right up until it was announced he was headed for a run off election with his primary challenge:

And my personal "favorite" Republican US senate candidate in Iowa Joni Ernst

25 Minutes....thats how long that one was up before it was deleted.

Now to be fair, I dont blame any of the above for what they did. It wasnt their fault. See they were rushing to pretend they give a fuck about the troops, same as they have always been trained to do. They didnt realize the new republican message is "Fuck the troops", and they got caught unawares. They didnt realize that this time they are supposed to exploit the situation to make Obama look bad, not exploit the situation to make themselves look good.

Oh and the worst example of fuck the troops is yet to come.

For that we have to turn to Allen West, former Republican member of congress.

Now Allen West is kind of an expert on POW's...by which I mean Allen West was discharged from the military after assaulting a POW.So yea, clearly Allen West doesnt have much respect for POW's. What wasnt known until now his disdain covers anyone whos been captured on both sides.

See here's Allen West's response to Bregdahl coming home as posted on his website:

"This morning on WMALs “Morning on the Mall” radio show with hosts Brian and Larry I was asked a simple question relating to the Taliban prisoner release and impeachment of the president. I responded yes that in this current case, the U.S. House of Representatives should file articles of impeachment."

So yea, according to Allen West, bringing the troops home = Impeachment. Because its not like the President is the Commander in Chief or anything.....

Fuck the troops we should have just left that SOB to rot.

Now look to be fair I should give Allen West's stated load of Bullshit

"President Obama used an Article 2 signing statement to deem unconstitutional a measure HE had signed into law contained in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The law stated that he must advise Congress within 30 days about any plans to transfer detainees from GITMO. Obama basically stated that this was “unconstitutional” and that his unilateral action fell within his purview. Once again Obama used selective discretion as to what law he feels he must adhere to — in this case it has severe ramifications for our national security."
So yea Obama didnt enforce the law by notifying congress....except John McCain who seemed to know all about it back in February....which I'm pretty sure was more than 30 days ago.

And of course he ends by claiming the presidents justification that we leave no troops behind is insincere...oh and Bengahzi.

"To hear Obama state that “no American should be left behind” — has he forgotten about Benghazi and Marine SGT Tahmooressi? How about leaving behind American veterans to die?"

Now of course we actually DID recover and return the bodies of those killed in Bengahzi, so by the usual definition we DIDNT leave anyone behind, but hey seeing as how we are already willing to exploit 1 living POW, and 6 dead soldiers who happened to die near the time he went missing, why not slander 4 more by claiming they didnt come home.  I mean hell if your going to go with a strategy of "Fuck the troops" you got to go all out and fully commit to exploiting all troops every where. So thumbs up to Allen West for his level of commitment.

Oh one last final thing, but for this we leave the world of elected republicans and return to FOX: On Fox and Friends the other morning, Host Brian Kilmeade said this about Bergdahl:

"Can you imagine if it turns out that he was actually collaborating, all that time,that would even make it worse"

Now is there any evidence Bergdahl was collaborating, even if the desertion claims about him are true? NOPE. But hey FUCK THE TROOPS FUCK THEM IF THEY GOT CAPTURED THEY ARE TRAITORS FUCK THEM FUCK THEM FUCK THEM.

Sorry, my inner FOX news host got out there for a second....

Oh and Bowe Bergdahl isnt the only Bergdahl FOX is attacking. Because hey, why ONLY limit your self to attacking out military when you can pick on their families as well

See his father is a terrorist according to FOX news. now yes, the aforementioned Brian Kilmeade seems to have gotten the most attention, but he's far from the only one, as Media Matters points out

So yea.....Fuck the Troops, Fuck their families, and Fuck anyone with a beard.

Now as I leave you, I will present the top 10 members of the Taliban in America as according to Fox new's standards (excluding Duck Dynasty because its been done to death)

#10-8:

WWE's The Wyatt Family. A 3 man Taliban Cell.

#7 

John Lennon. technically British, but an American Icon...and Taliban leader.

#6-5

ZZZZ Top....more Taliban infiltrators pretending to be Musicians

#4

WWE champion Daniel Bryan...note the pro Taliban Shirt.

#3

Our 19th President, and early member of the American Taliban

#2

With a beard like that, of course this motherfucker is Taliban...if ever seen in your home KILL HIM

And Last, but not least, the Leader of the American Taliban by FOX new's standards, #1

This guy is actually middle eastern...OF COURSE HE'S TALIBAN!

So yea, there you have it folks. FOX new's Taliban top 10.

Now remember folks, if you serve in the military, please try your best to be captured (or at least released) when their is a republican in office, otherwise Fuck you, and your family you traitor.

Hey GOP, with a message like this, good luck in 2014....your going to need it.