Top 10 political justifications/beliefs that are total bullshit.

Ok so this is basically a list of justifications people give for specific political beliefs that are so bad the justification doesnt even make sense, no matter if you agree with them or not. I was orginally going to rank them, but then I realized they all just fucking piss me off, so now its just an unranked list of 10.

Basically as a rule, anyone who uses one of these to justify their opinion shouldnt count. They are too damn stupid to be taken even semi seriously.

First off a double header. Two bullshit justifications with the same problem
1) I need guns to protect myself from the government/the government is coming for my guns.

Hey dipshit, if the government wants to kill you....

....you're already dead.

Ever heard of a predator drone? what about the one that "malfunctioned" and landed on your house You can own any gun you want. Still dead. Or what about the M-1 Abrams? AKA the most advanced tank in history, functionally indestructible.  You can double fist any two guns you want.....you aint making a damn dent in that. Just as two of an endless number of examples

Basically what I'm saying is at the end of the day your guns wouldnt do a damn thing if the government came to kill you. Which means they really have no reason to be interested in them.

2) Opposing abortion in the case of the life of the mother because your pro life.

Ironically enough, this one is most problematic if you accept its underlying premise, that life beings at conception and that abortion is murder.

See the whole thing about fetus' and embryo's is that basically they are parasitic. In that they can not live without the nutrients and oxygen they absorb from the host body.....AKA their mothers.

Which means if the mother dies.........they do too.

Which means two people die. As opposed to if you preform the abortion, the mother lives, the fetus doesnt, so only 1 person dies.

Now given that the supposed point of "pro life" is for fewer people to die......this is kinda awkward.

Its worse when you realize 2 things though. First, the person spewing this excuse doesnt understand the simple mathematical formula "1<2"; and Second, that mathematical fact is considered such a basic concept I couldnt find anything on the internet either teaching or mocking it.

3) "man look how unseasonly cold it is....guess that proves climate change is a hoax cause its not hot"

Yea, lets just think about this for a minute. You are saying "man its colder than it normally is" believing your disproving the point "the weather is changing"

So basically:

4) "gay marriage is a threat to my marriage"

Actually look to be fair, this one is actually completely logical in the following situation:

You secretly believe dick is delicious and that your missing out, and if we make it easier for you to get some delicious dick, AND give you the tax benefits your gonna leave your wife for it, because tax breaks was the only reason you tolerated putting in her in the first place.   

Cause yea otherwise this makes no sense at all. I mean what about swingers? You dont seem to have an objection to them, nor do you object to bisexual people, presumably because at the end of the day to get tax breaks they have had to shackle themselves to pussy just like you.

And hell you may not be huge fans of premarital sex, but I've never seen anyone suggest that my getting laid (as a single guy) would break up their marriages. Probably because I'm not getting a tax break like you are. Even if I am entertaining more than one woman (or man) at a time.

So yea since you seem to only dole out the restrictions on "teh gayz" I have to assume you'ev either never thought about this (or anything really)...........................or that your just a bigot pissed off you cant pick on the blacks and jews anymore.

5) "I dont fill out the census because I dont want the government knowing information about my home/family"

Ok so you only hear this one every 10 years, but once a decade it becomes a commonly held belief

And one that might be valid.....if they didnt already KNOW the information they are asking you for.

I mean I realize mail service is becoming obsoletem but theirs a reason why the postman knows where to deliver what little mail you have........because the government knows where you live. And they know what your house looks like, since construction and remodeling permits have to be issued by the government.  And hell they know everything about you, like say Social Security number.....since they are the ones who issued it too you

So your entire argument comes down to the government being too dysfunctional to check its own records, except that your also claiming they WOULD be able to check their own records of the census.....

Granted the only reason they ask you the questions in the first place is because they are too lazy and/or dysfunctional to check their own records.

However the part I never got was the magic exception to government dysfunctionality the Census Bureau gets, espesically as the information is gathered by temporary employees who wont work there in 3 months....in every other employer that would create MORE dysfunction not less.

6) "The president is driving up gas prices"

This is another one you hear frequently, but only at specific intervals, in this case any time a president is up for reelection.

Ok look I understand their are people who assume any president not of their party is an evil power hungry bastard.......but that's actually the problem here. If he's power hungry, he wants to stay in power.

So he's intentionally going to do something that would piss off a shit ton of people, and ensure people are less likely to vote for him to keep power?

How does this even make sense?

Ah, THATS how.......

7) "Abstinence only sex ed works" Or more specifically the thought process that leads to that belief.

Now this one is based on the bible.....which is a pretty good indicator of being justified by bullshit. But what makes this one unique is that the source material kinda calls bullshit on it itself.

Ok so the basic idea is behind this thought is that if you dont tell dudes they can stick their dicks in some chicks girls, neither they or the girl will figure out how do it. Therefore people wont have sex until marriage.

Which is kinda weird since I've been to a lot of weddings and i've never yet seen the priest or minister slip the couple a "how-to" book yet......yet somehow everyone seems to figure it out.

But then again the people who believe in Abstinence only sex education are also the ones who call sex "original sin"

Which gets us to the even bigger reason this is a total bullshit belief.

In the beginning God created Adam and Eve. And its worth noting that he created Eve expressly so Adam could have a "companion".  And at least as originally intended Adam and Eve were supposed to live out their days in the Garden of Eden with no further instructions from God.

Now according to the story Eve bit the apple and that's when everything went south. After all God finds Adam hiding in the bushes ashamed of the fact he's naked.

Now heres where it gets interesting. Because see when Eve bit the apple, this is NOT what happened.

Its' not what happened....because Adam was ALREADY naked, despite the fact that it appears nakedness is immoral. So biting the apple didnt cause "immorality" just humanity thinking such a thing existed.

At this point its worth pointing out that Adam and Eve both appear to have been created with fully functioning sex organs too. So it follows God was fully intending them to fuck each others brains out. Apparently without couching or education of any kind.

What I'm getting at is, according to the bible of the people who believe in abstinence only education, humanity came pre-programmed to fuck, and trying to stop that/assuming its bad is actually a symptom of the apple Eve ate that fucked us all over.......you know the mistake we are supposed to be avoiding making to get back into Eden......OOPS

8) "guns dont kill people. people kill people"  

So this excuse is pushed by the pro gun side of the gun control debate, and their point usually is, we dont need to regulate guns, because guns arnt inherently dangerous and have never, on their own killed anyone.

And technically I suppose they are right. I've never run into a pack of wild guns roaming the streets at night.

But now lets apply that logic elsewhere

You know what ELSE never killed anyone?

For those who dont recognize it, that is auschwitz birkenau, the worlds most infamous concentration camp.

But here's the thing.....Auschwitz never killed anybody.

And calm down I'm not denying the Holocaust or the over a Million people who died at Auschwitz.

But the thing is, all those people were killed by Nazi's.......Auschwitz just happened to be there, minding its own damn business.

Auschwitz never gassed starved, or even locked up a single person on its own. That was all PEOPLE.

Which raises an interesting question. Why did it go out of fashion to build prisons with crematoriums and gas chambers on site?  Its clearly not dangerous or indicitive of anything, or even designed for anything. They would be totally harmless, because like Auschwitz they would never kill anyone on their own.

So hell anyone who wants one should be able to build one right?

Now show of hands, how many people would think I was crazy and needed to be locked up and/or institutionalized if I actually made it for real?

If your hand is up, which I assume is ALL of you, I rest my case.

9) "I dont vote because I dont like any of the candidate"

Yea, see heres the thing. YOURE WHATS FUCKING WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY!

Apparently if someones not a 100% match with you you dont want anything to do with them.

So with that in mind, could you PLEASE let me in on your dating secret? I assume you and your significant other have never had a fight, arguement, misunderstanding, or difference of opinion. And heck I cant say that about the exes I think most highly off. Hell I  cant even say that about my wife, and I havnt even met her yet,

So apparently you can compromise your beliefs to find the person you want to fuck.....just not the person you want running things while your off fucking.

And even if you really do hate the candidate options, they still disagree with each other
For example:
Candidate 1 is promising to sodomize you if they win.
Candidate 2 is promising to sodomize you with this:

Now in this instance you would vote for Candidate 1. Not because you want to be sodomized but because if your going to be sodomized you'd rather not deal with the barbed wire.

Because hey, even if they cant have the perfect candidate, wouldnt you want the one who's position is closer to what you believe in and not farther away?

Or even hell, go vote for Candidate 3. He has no chance of winning, but at least he's anti sodomy.

I get it. People who dont vote think they are  pulling a James T. Kirk on the Kobayashi Maru and by not playing the game, they win. But  here's the thing people dont get. It's not important to a politician that you support him.....its important that you dont oppose him.

If 90% of the population opposes a politician, but 85% doesnt vote, he's likely going to win with 2/3rds of the vote.....even though thats only 10% of the population (the 10% who supported him originally)  Which means that politician will never bother to change his position, or never be removed from office because he keeps winning in landslides, all because 85% of the population couldnt be bothered to oppose him by voting for someone else they disagree with less.

Hell even if the politican still won, if the other-side but up a close fight, he's going to moderate his position, so that next time, less people will oppose him, and hopefully he wins by a more comfortable margin.

So yea, you really dont have an excuse. Go vote. Unless you truly can not see any difference in the candidate, in which case your either mentally incompetent, or Mommy and Daddy need to pay closer attention to what your looking at on-line, your too young to be reading my blog.

So yea there you have it, the top 10 most bullshit political justifications. (And if your wondering where #10is, remember #1 was a two-for-one. Or you can consider the previous sentence bullshit justification #10)

Carmageddon is coming to Virginia...

So one of the first blogs I ever wrote, I pointed out how the new pay lanes of 495 looked like they'd be a fucking disaster.

I suppose technically I was wrong. They didnt make traffic worse, but its only because people were actually smart enough to recognize a scam when they saw one, and no one is using the damn things.

It seems rather than pay an even increasing sum of money for a slightly maybe shorter commute, most people figured "fuck it,I already know how long it takes to get to work, its just not fucking worth it"

In fact according to the end of year reports, the 495 HOV lanes lost 51 MILLION dollars last year.

And that was before the silver line opened, finally allowing metro access to the same area as the express lanes. So I kinda doubt those numbers are going to get any better.

So whats the company going to do?

Well it turns out they had a plan B:

Enter the 95/395 pay express lanes.

This is the second part of the project signed into law by former Virginia Governor Bob McFelon.....sorry McDonnell.

And its the same basic idea as the 495 express lanes but more evil.

See just like the 495 lanes, the new 95 lanes charge you an ever changing rate to use by promising you a allegedly guaranteed travel speed.

Basically the way it works, quoting myself in my older blog.

"So how exactly does the company plan of enforcing its "45+ MPH guarantee"? well thats where the semi random pricing comes in. See the company is going to monitor the traffic flow and make second by second adjustments to the price. High traffic flow on either the HOV or main lanes will lead to prices to get on to the HOV to shoot up, essentially as a disincentive to keep you off of them unless you want to pay consistently inflating prices just for the privilege of driving."

So the more people on the main road, the more people are going to want to use the Express lanes. In order to keep most of those people on the main road, the price goes up, so the people rich enough to afford it can go faster.

But heres where the "more evil" part comes in.

According to the company behind both projects, one of the reasons the 495 lanes are failing is that no one is in the "habit" of driving them, because they were new, and people didnt want to spend the money if they couldnt figure out how the road works.

To that end the company has actually offered free days to try to get people to drive the lanes.
But of course since they want to make money the free days tend to be some of the least traveled days of the year, so the project has met with almost no success.

But thats a problem they wont have with the 95 lanes, because the 95 lanes have existed for years, For decades even. People are totally used to driving them because they drive them all the time.

See the 395 HOV lanes were originally built in the 1970's......at tax payer expense.

And despite the name, they are HOV lanes only 6 hours a day, 5 days a week. The other 18 hours and all of Saturday and Sunday, they are open to anyone. So many, if not all residents of the greater washington metro area are used to driving them.

Because normally 395 is 3 lanes wide on each side, but with the HOV open to all traffic that becomes a 5 lane road. So they actually do reduce traffic very well during the 18 hours a day they are open to all, and severe their stated purpose during the 6 they are restricted.

But after they reopen as toll lanes, you can say good bye to all of that. "normal 5 lane non rush hour traffic" will suddenly become "mild to heavy 3 lane non rush hour traffic"

Unless of course people are willing to suddenly pay cash to do something they have been doing their entire lives for free.  Which seems unlikely.

So most likely most of those people are going to wind up very pissed off and very stuck in much heavier than they are used to traffic.

But hey, at least some people will use these new pay lanes, since they are familiar with them right?

Actually again, probably not. Because these new lanes are confusing as fuck.

For starters, like most toll roads on the east coast, you need an EZ pass to enter this one.

Seems easy enough? but what about if you were one of the carpoolers who had previously used the HOV during Rush Hour?

Well YOU need an EZ Pass FLEX, which is a brand new kind of easy pass used no where else in the country.

But what about if your a carpooler who already happens to have the regular EZ Pass? Well you too need the new unique EZ Pass Flex, which you can exchange your EZ pass for.....for a processing fee of course.

Ah but given that its unique maybe we should explain how the EZ Pass Flex works:

Basically it has a little toggle, you toggle it one way it its a regular easy pass, you toggle it the other its a free pass and you dont get charged for the trip because your carpooling.

Well at least on the 95 express lanes. Everywhere else its an easy pass no matter the toggle.

Sounds easy right?

Yea well there's a catch. If you dont use your EZ Pass Flex in "flex mode" (read carpool mode) frequently enough, the toggle self disables, and it reverts to a regular EZ pass.......and if you try to use it, you're gonna pay....literally.

And at least as originally conceived, you were going to have to pay a monthly fee to use your EZ pass flex as a flex. You can thank current VA governor McAuliffe for getting rid of that feature though.

And that just covers getting ready to get on the road. When you actually get on the road, things dont get any simpler.

See your in the HOT (high occupancy toll road) lanes, driving along, by your self, EZ pass on, the road stretching out for miles ahead of you, and suddenly your pulled over by the police and ticketed for violating the occupancy rules. What the fuck? Arnt you paying to use the HOT lanes?

Yes.....but you may have left those behind miles ago. See the preexisting HOV lanes ran from DC itself to Dumfries,VA. The new HOT lanes, extended the Virginia end to route 610 in Stafford County, 9 miles below the current end.

However the HOT lanes only extend north to Edsall road, 2 miles north of the beltway, but 6 miles short of the city line. But the road itself keeps going unabated, it just reverts to its preexisting HOV-3 status.....so you better have 2 extra people in your car, or your'e getting that ticket.

And its not like that exit is any better marked then most of the exits from the HOT, just a single white sign annoucing HOV-3 from that point forward.

Now yes I'm aware I-66 does the same thing, becoming exclusively HOV after 495. But there is still a difference between the interchange with a major highway as 66 has, and a random exit kinda in the middle of nowhere.

Now to be fair, I should point out originally the plan was for the pay lanes to go all the way to DC....the problem was the counties of Arlington and Alexandria refused to turn over their portion of the HOV to a private company, specifically because they didnt think making them pay lanes would actually help anything.

Which is actually kinda amazing if you think about.

The former republican governor of virginia gave away (read stole) roads the tax payers had already paid for, to give to a private company, that it turns out he didnt actually have the right to give away....a fact that he appears he didnt tell the company until later.  All to avoid having to raise taxes to allow the state to build the 9 mile extension on the southern end, which to be fair was sorely needed.

Although emphasis on the "was" in that last sentence, because now they probably wont make a damn bit of difference, because the most likely outcome (if the 495 lanes are any indicator) is people wont use them.....and possibly even less people will be in a position to use them then were prior to the "creation" (conversion) of the toll road, since the whole system is designed to dissuade people from using the HOT lanes to keep the traffic flowing.

But, that whole edsall road thing isnt the only really fucking confusing part of traveling the 95 HOT lanes, and this time their isnt an excuse outside of the company trying to gouge people.

Basically, depending on where your trip takes you, you have to pay twice.

Ok so explain this, I again have to explain how things work on the 495 lanes.
Your driving along, you decided to get in the 495 HOT lanes, when you do and your EZ pass is scanned, the prices at that moment are locked in. So say your driving the whole length of the lanes, from the mixing bowl to tysons corner, but after you get in the lanes, the prices go up because traffic gets more congested.

Well lucky you, since your price was locked in when you enter the lanes, you'd still pay that lower price when you exit the HOT lanes.

Not so on the 95 HOT lanes. Instead the price could get locked in twice. Once when you enter the lanes, then once again if you happen to pass a certain point (the fairfax county parkway), so if the price happens to go up when your driving (which is highly likely during rush hour) and you drive past the Parkway.....well hope you enjoy getting charged more than you expect....sucker.


Then again, I suppose you COULD always just get off the road before then, and sit in the congested traffic.......but that kinda defeats the whole point of the express lanes in the first place.

Oh, by the way, probably worth pointing out that if you ask Transurban (the company running this thing) about the second charge, they actually wont tell you the same thing I just told you.

What they would tell you is that the second toll point is Heller Road. Which is cool and all, except their ISNT a Heller Road exit going northbound.

Because Heller Road doesnt actually intersect with 95 at all. It runs parallel to it on the South Bound side briefly, which is why it's name appears on the southbound side at the same exit as the Fairfax County Parkway, But since it never crosses 95, its not reachable from the northbound side without going on the Fairfax County Parkway first.

Which might be a problem if your a northbound driver trying to avoid the second toll and looking for the name "Heller Road"......

And actually come to think of it, they do the same thing with the end of the road at Edsall Road.....or as they call it Turkeycock Road.....or Turkeycock Creek depending on which Transurban resource youre looking at.

Which is odd, since according to google (and my own memory of driving 95 every day) their ISNT a turkeycock anything near 95. They seem to have just made the name up (I couldnt find a single thing on google linking to a turkeycock in the right place that wasnt either put out by or quoting transurban).

So yea, hopefully you know ahead of time when to get off the road, and dont actually go to the company in charge for help.......(and they wonder why no one wants to use their roads)

So yea, seeing as how the HOT lanes are just now opening for regular business, you best brace yourself, your commute is only going to get worse with more traffic on the non HOT lanes and a shit ton of confused drivers in the HOT lanes...but hey, at least rich folks will get to enjoy the road your tax dollars already paid for that you cant afford to use anymore right?

Happy driving......

The worlds most crooked prosecutor.

So by now I'm sure all of you know the names Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson.

For those who dont, first get out from under your damn rock, second heres a quick recap:

Michael Brown was an unarmed black teenager who was shot and killed by Officer Wilson. Wilson claims the killing was self defense.

Wilson was arrested, however the Grand Jury refused to return an indictment.

Now its worth nothing the rate of indictments is something like 99.9%, so failing to get one is extremely rare.

Unless of course you are dealing with the worlds most corrupt prosecutor.

Enter a name most of you likely dont know: Bob McCulloch, the Prosecutor in the Michael Brown case.

Key point here: As the Prosecutor he is SUPPOSED to want Officer Wilson put in jail for Brown's murder.

At least if he was doing his job. It turns out, he was more than happy not to do his job in this case.

Ok so first off a brief explanation of what the Grand Jury is and isnt.

A Grand Jury IS NOT supposed to decide guilt or innocence. The only thing a Grand Jury is supposed to do is decide if the prosecutors case sounds plausible (which does not mean that is was probable or what actually happened) . In fact the Defense doesnt even play a role at a Grand Jury, they dont even show up.

Which is the reason the indictment rate is so freaking high.

Basically a Grand Jury is like deciding to go to the doctors office because you think you might be sick. You see signs you think make it likely you are sick, and so you go see a doctor, without really considering the signs you arnt sick before going

Its only after the Indictment that the trial process most of us know from "Law and Order" or being called to jury duty begins. Thats when a trial jury is sworn in, both sides present their cases and guilt or innocence is determined.

To continue the previous comparison, the trial is would be akin to the doctor examining you to decide if you really are sick, or if their is another explanation for what you thought were your symptoms.

Oh one other thing, that may wind up being very important. The Consistutional protection against double jeopardy (that is being tried twice for the same crime) doesnt attach until your liberty is actually at risk, which its not in a Grand Jury because Grand Jury's arnt supposed to determine gulit or innocence.

So yea, this SHOULD have been a slam dunk indictment (which again IS NOT a conviction or sign of guilt). Dead guy was unarmed. Cop had a gun, shot the dead guy. DONE. Indictment reached lets go to trial.

But apparently McCulloch,just couldnt be fucked to do his job this time.

For starters he allowed Officer Wilson to testify to the Grand Jury for several hours. So basically the Defendant got to testify in part of the trial in which the defendant is supposed to play no role.

Actually McCulloch presented ALL the defenses evidence.  Despite the fact that is expressly not what your supposed to do in front of the Grand Jury.

Futhermore, McCulloch didnt cross examine any of the defenses witnesses.....he did cross examine his OWN witnesses however.

Cross examination by the way is the really "fun" part of "law and order", where the DA basically gets the defenses witnesses to change their stories or admit they were lying ect.

Basically the whole point of cross examination is for the other side to challenge the statements made by the witness, partly to ensure they arnt LYING.

But to this jackass apparently the people he wanted to jury to distrust were his OWN witnesses, since they were the only ones he challenged.

Which is even more amazing since as it turns out one of the Defense's witnesses was in fact lying.

Specifically, witness #40, who as it turns out was the only witness who perfectly agreed with Officer Wilson's version of events.

In fact as it turns out, Witness #40 is a self admitted racist (did I mention Brown is black and the cop who shot him (Wilson) is white?) who has a history of mental disorders and has previously lied about witnessing other crimes.

In fact “This lady clearly wasn’t present when this occurred, She recounted a statement that was right out of the newspaper about Wilson’s actions, and right down the line with Wilson’s actions. Even though I’m sure she was nowhere near the place.”

By the way, the reason that sentence is italicized and in quotes......those arnt my words, those are the words of Bob McCulloch (AKA the prosecutor) a couple of days ago on the radio.

Alright but lets give him the benefit of the doubt, he found out Witness 40 was lying after the fact right?

Actually NO.

"There were people who came in and, yes, absolutely lied under oath, Some lied to the FBI. Even though they’re not under oath, that’s another potential offense — a federal offense. I thought it was much more important to present the entire picture.”

Yea, thats Bob McCulloch saying he knew at the time she was lying but thought it was more important for her to testify anyways.....without being challenged on her lies.

Oh by the way, lying under oath is called perjury. Its kinda a major crime. In fact we impeached a President for doing it.

Apparently that didn't really bother this prosecutor.

In fact as he himself said in the same interview I've been quoting:

"It's a legitimate issue. But in the situation — again, because of the manner in which we did it — we're not going to file perjury charges against anyone."

I like that justification by the way "because of the manner in which we did it" I.E. we needed the perjury to throw the case, so we wont actually go after anyone for doing this.

By the way if you think facilitating the commission of a crime (as McCulloch did) sounds like something that should be illegal.... it is.

In this particular case its called "Suborning Perjury" and is both a state and federal crime

OOPS..........................

Oh, thats not the end of McCullough's problems either.

See a Grand Jury, like most jury's is made up of normal regular people.

Which is fine and all except most normal regular people are basically stupid when it comes to knowing the ins and outs of the law.

Hence Jury Instructions. Now what Jury instructions are the explanations of the law given to the jury, designed to simply the law and explain the standard that needs to be meet to violate the relevant law.

Except in this case, McCulloch refused to accuse Wilson of a specific crime (ala, murder 2, manslaughter, ect) and left the specific crime up to the jury, and gave them only a broad guideline of what might constitute an illegal killing........in 1985.

Alright, so in 1985 a case called Tennessee vs Gardner changed the standards where a police officer could use force, and greatly reduced the officers ability to use deadly force

Specifically in the pre Gardner days it was fine for a police officer to shoot a fleeing suspect, now a days not so much.

Which is kinda critical in this case. See pre Gardner, all Wilson would have to do to not commit a crime would be to have Brown resist arrest and run, and he could shoot him......even in the back (as people are claiming happened). Now Brown would have to be presenting a deadly threat to Wilson in order for Wilson to kill him and not commit a crime.

As you can see thats a VERY big difference. And the version the Grand Jury got was the earlier pre Gardner version (which is no longer the law)

And its not like McCulloch moved heaven and earth to correct that "accident" either.


Heres the transcript on the LAST day of the Grand Jury. The Jury had received the flawed instruction on day one

“Real quick, can I interrupt about something?” interjected Alizadeh. “Previously, in the very beginning of this process, I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest.

“So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered, and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the State of Missouri does not comply with the case law.

“....And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri Supreme Court, I'm sorry United States Supreme Court cases...."

“So the statute I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law".…

"I don't want you to get confused and don’t rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago.”

A grand juror asks, “So we’re to disregard this?”


Alizadehanswers: “It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that’s not correct, ignore it totally.”


When a grand juror asks more questions,

Whirley chimes in, “We don’t want to get into a law class.”

Now in that quote Alizadeh is Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kathi Alizadeh, basically McCulloch's assistant.

And its not like she cleared things up any. She didnt even tell the jury which part of the statue wasnt legal, just that the whole law is unreliable (which isnt true, it really is just the change I outlined above)

Oh and the "Whirley" who chimed in and ended the questioning of what exactly is wrong with the statue was the JUDGE.

Yea thats right, the judge stopped the Grand Jury from understanding the law.

So yea, it seem that, instead of doing his job Bob McCulloch decided instead to commit a crime, and botch the jury instructions to prevent a trial.

Or as he put it “My job is not to get an indictment, my job is to seek the truth, and seek justice and do what is right and what’s appropriate in there"


Except that actually IS his job, and per our system of justice the first step in determining truth and seeking justice for the victim IS to get an indictment if possible. Not to litigate the whole process in a forum not designed to to do that.

He had a similar horrible excuse for suborning perjury

“If I didn’t put those witnesses on, then we’d be discussing now why I didn’t put those witnesses on, even though their statements were not accurate."
Look I know their are some really fucking stupid people out there, but I think 98% of the country would need no explanation of why you dont put someone you know is lying on the stand.

So I highly doubt, no matter the outcome of the trial their would have been any conversation.

But now that we know what McCulloch did, there's still the very important question as to WHY.

And I think I have an answer: Bob McCulloch has no testicles.

Ok, so by all available evidence it appears McCulloch didnt want to indict Wilson and intentionally threw the case to ensure Wilson couldnt be found guilty because McCulloch doesnt believe he is.

Thing is, there is actually a legal and common way to do that, its called prosecutorial discretion.

Basically what that means is that at all times the prosecutor reserves the right not to prosecute.

Of course in a high profile case like this one, that kind of decision comes with a HUGE backlash, no matter if the prosecutor wants to indict or not.

It seems rather than face this backlash McNonuts....err McCulloch basically tried to fake a trial, to con the rank and file into *thinking* Wilson was found innocent, therefore it wasnt McCulloch's fault he wasnt convicted. This way the process appeared legitimate (it wasnt) giving McCulloch the way out he needed, and done at a time in the process he has basically total control of what happens, ensuring his chosen outcome.

And he might have actually gotten away with it too, except I think he got just a bit too carried away when he promised to release all the evidence he gave to the Grand Jury to the public.....presumably thinking to add more fake legitimacy to public perception.

But it was that released evidence that led people to discover Witness 40 lied, and the Jury instructions were possibly intentionally unclear.

Which resulted in the interview he did that I've been quoting from, where he tried to explain it all away as not a big deal, only to basically admit to a crime live on the radio.

But hey on the upside, maybe he can share a jail cell with Darren Wilson.

Cause yea, remember back when I was explaining a Grand Jury, and I mentioned Double Jeopardy doesnt attach until a trial jury is sworn in?

So yea, turns out the very guy McCulloch was trying to get off can still be rearrested and recharged at any time with no constitutional protection. And given what McCulloch is admitting to in terms of rigging the last one it seems thats only going to be a matter of time. (And my guess is no matter Wilsons actual guilt or innocence, this whole mess really wont have helped his case or reputation at all)

So yea, for failing to protect the guy he did all this to try to protect, it seems McCulloch may not only be the worlds most crooked prosecutor, but the worlds dumbest one as well.

And next on the republican's failed promised agenda......Keystone XL.

So maybe late last week you saw a headline about how the House of Representatives approved the building of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

Well heres the thing: DOESNT MATTER.

Just like how my last blog pointed out that the GOP kinda overpromised on the whole Impeachment thing (and the whole Obamacare repeal thing). Well they kinda overpromised on the whole Keystone XL thing too. And now they are trying to cover their asses.

Although to be fair to the GOP this overpromise was a lot harder to see coming then the last one.

Ok so heres the deal, despite winning the election earlier this month, the new congress isnt actually sworn in until January. So this new "news making vote" is actually the 9th or so attempt to pass Keystone with this congress. It always passes the house and fails in the senate.

The thing is, the timing isnt an accident. Doing the vote right now is intentional. Because the problem is, this time around the bill just might pass. And for the Keystone XL supporters, that is actually looking like a bad thing

Ok so their are already 45 Republicans willing to vote yes, and the bill itself has 11 democratic cosponsors. So thats 56 yes votes. 3 more Democrat's have indicated they are willing to vote yes, which brings the total to 59....one vote short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

And its also widely believed that President Obama supports and would sign this bill, so overcoming the filibuster is the LAST hurdle before the money for this thing is approved and it gets built (and to be honest, most of the southern part has already been built, its the northern half alone thats drawing all the controversy and attention)

Now normally, this would be a great thing for the Keystone XL supporters, but there's a problem.

 

Yea it seems the American Government kinda forgot about Canada. And turns out Canada may have already killed the Keystone XL pipeline.

Ok so this gets a little complicated but let me see if i can explain.

In 2010 the "original" Keystone pipeline (KP) opened. It runs from the same spot as the Keystone XL will, but it runs east for a while inside Canada, entering the united states basically parallel with the Mississippi river, then heads south to town of Steele City Nebraska before heading off to Illinois.

The already built and operating part of the XL pipeline runs from Steele City down south to Texas.

So wheres the problem? Well the planned northern part of the XL pipeline is supposed to replace the existing KP pipeline, but unlike KP the XL pipeline is supposed to run due south into the US, then Southeast to Steele City. Now this has the advantage (from the oil companies perspective) of running through American oil fields in Baker Montana.

Now the problem that has generated so much controversy in this country is that between Baker and Steele City is one of the worlds largest reservoirs of Fresh Water, that irrigates 25% of the countries farm land and provides drinking water for the populations of 8 states. Basically the last place you can risk an oil spill.

But the Republicans and our president seem willing to take that risk. However long before the XL gets to Baker it has to pass through 300+ miles of Canada, including a couple of major Canadian fresh water reservoirs.

And unlike our government the Canadian Government sees that as a dealbreaker.

So much so that a couple of weeks ago they approved something called the Energy East Pipeline,

Now that pipeline runs from the same spot as both the KP and XL, but runs east all the way across Canada to New Brunswick just north of the American Border with Maine.  

And the most important part is Energy East is owned by the same company, Transcanada, that proposed Keystone XL.

And therein lies the problem. See Transcanda now has everything they want. A pipeline running from the oil sands in Canada to Texas (the KP and southern half of XL) and a new pipeline to handle the higher amount of oil they think they can drill (Energy East) .

So they no longer have any real reason to fight for Keystone XL.  And there is the problem for the Keystone Supporters.

See even if the Keystone XL bill passes the senate, the company behind it no longer wants to build it. and if the government builds it, it stops 300+ miles short of anything. So its kinda useless. In fact it would be the literal definition of a waste of money and resources.

So yea to avoid looking like an absolute embarrassment this bill needs to fail, but is all set to pass.

Which is the secret of the timing. With the end of the congressional session fast approaching, the president has the rare chance for something called a pocket veto.

See normally after congress passes a law the president has 10 days (12 calendar days since Sundays dont count)  to veto a bill or it becomes a law even without his signature.  But if congress should happen to be adjourned during those 10 days, like say for the holidays like Thanksgiving, if the President refuses to sign the bill it's considered vetoed.

Which is the real win win for everyone.

The President doesnt actually HAVE to veto the bill, so he cant be attacked for killing it.

But Keystone XL doesnt actually get built, which means the embarrassing secret of its uselessness stays a secret and its supporters dont get caught.

And the supporters get to trump the largely ignored construction of the southern half as the "triumph" of the bill they are going to pass on Tuesday because most people have no idea the jobs that the Keystone project are supposed to bring have already come and gone for that part of the country.

So the supporters can claim they followed through on their promise to bring jobs, and no one notices the fact the bill is officially a joke, and no one takes the hit for killing the bill.

So yea, thats how the next part of the Republican's promised agenda is going to fail......and why they probably want it to.

The Republican Impeachment trap.

So unless you've been living under a rock, you know that the next Congress will be fully republican controlled.

Which is ironic, because it looks like the first major problem facing the new Congress is going to be Republican voters.

A poll that came out yesterday survived voters on their opinion of impeaching Obama for any reason.

Nationwide, 69% said their was absolutely no reason to consider impeaching Obama.

BUT  among just republicans....50% said Obama needs to be impeached. And among the Tea Party faction of the GOP, 64% said impeach him.

And well thats real bad news for the new Republican Congress.

You see for years now Republicans have floated the idea of impeaching the president.

For example about a year ago the GOP held a close door meeting expressly for discussing that possibility. as one of the participants put it

“We’ve also talked about the I-word, impeachment, which I don’t think would get past the Senate in the current climate. . . . Is there anything else we can do?”

Before that the guy Obama beat in 2008 said that as it related to Syria

"Nor will there be American boots on the ground because there would be an impeachment of the president if they did that.”

and so on and so one.

Impeaching Obama first picked up steam in 2009 after the stimulus and Obamacare were passed.
People preaching it at the time suffered under the false impression that impeaching Obama would automatically repeal any bills he'd signed....and thats not how it works.

But despite eventually getting that fact straightened out the ferver among republicans never went away.

Now of course up till now it never mattered. As John Boehner pointed out to justify his lawsuit of the president last year, Impeachment didnt matter, because without Republican control of the senate they couldnt actually remove Obama from office. And to be fair to the speaker he was far from the first to used that justification not to impeach.

But now we have a republican senate, so clearly the first thing they are going to do is impeach obama right?

No actually. Because they cant. And for a reason so simple I need only 4 letters to explain it

MATH

Pure basic simple math.

The Constitution requires a 2/3rds majority to remove the president from office.

No matter the outcome of the two pending senate races the GOP wont have it, they will have only 52-54 senators, leaving them 12-14 votes short of impeachment.

But see even having to explain that to their supporters who believe they gave the GOP everything they needed for impeachment, isnt the GOP's biggest problem.

The GOP's biggest problem is that, there was NEVER any chance of them being able to impeach and remove the President, and anyone who can do basic math has know that since the day after election day 2012.

Ok so in this election the GOP started with 45 seats. Of the seats contested in the election 21 were Democrats.  Which means that if the GOP had run the table and defeated EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT, which no one expected, they would have had 66 seats.

A 2/3rds majority is 67 seats. Meaning even under the best possible conditions they would have been a single vote short.

Like I said, pure and simple math.

Simple enough that Republicans knew this. They've known it for years

But that hasnt stopped them from telling their base that if they ONLY gave them the senate they could totally impeach Obama.

Well it kinda turns out thats exactly what the party voters wanted and the voter gave them exactly what they asked for.

So now the new Republican Congress is stuck in a trap of their own making. They cant actually deliver the goods they promised, and knew that when they promised them.

It will be interesting to see how the Republican Base is going to feel about that when the truth comes out (which will be seconds after the first Republican has to make an excuse for not impeaching Obama)

Oh and if that wasnt bad enough......the other major promise the Republicans made, to repeal Obamacare....well we all know that bill is going to get vetoed.

And how many votes does it take to overcome a veto in the senate? 67.

So yea, that was another set of goods they've known for years they would never be able to deliver on and lied about it.

Which means when it comes to their own party, the new senate hasnt even been sworn in yet and things are already looking pretty bumpy........

American Jihad comes to A-blow-s........

So some of you may have heard of Dr. Keith Ablow. If not all you need to know is he's Fox News' resident on air psychiatrist. I dont mean he's the shrink the FOX guys go to, I mean he's the idiot they trot out anytime they want a psychiatrist to explain how getting your head that far up your own ass is actually the sign of a healthy mind.

Which is kinda ironic, given that if anyone in this world is a candidate for major mental help, its Dr. Ablow.

Among his "expert opinons" he's presented on FOX, he's probably most well known for: claiming, psychologically, Newt Gingrich's 3 marriages made him more qualified to be president than anyone who had only had one; and the world cup was a planned distraction by the Obama Administration so no one would notice Obama's failure in Ukraine. He's also made statements that waiting in line at the airport builds the mental discipline needed for a strong economy; that the uni-bomber might actually be on to something; and the color pink is responsible for the destruction of masculinity. Oh and also, transgender people dont actually exist, they are a myth made up by liberal educators.

Anyways he has just written his most recent column for FOX news, and honestly its kinda hilarious......if you like laughing at retarded people who publish columns for FOX news.....which I do.

His subject is on how to win the war on terror and get america back on the right track all in one fell swoop.

He begins.....

"Among the many definitions of jihad are a "war or struggle against unbelievers" and "a crusade for a principle or belief." Given those definitions, I believe it's time for an American jihad.

An American jihad would reawaken in American citizens the certain knowledge that our Constitution is a sacred document that better defines and preserves the liberty and autonomy of human beings than the charter of any other nation on earth."

Because apparently the Constitution has super powers. Its like a cross to a vampire.....if we just love it hard enough, it will create a super-shield and everything will be ok

"The Constitution, along with the miracle of our nation's founding and the providential history of America fighting and winning war after war against oppressive regimes, proves our manifest destiny not only to preserve our borders and safety and national character at home, but to spread around the world our love of individual freedom and insist on its reflection in every government."

Well the good news for the Catholic Church. Since the standard of miracle is now "shooting at people until they decide they have better things to do then shoot back....and were never fully committed to returning fire anyways" you can basically easily canonize whoever the fuck you want now. Like seriously guys, if it takes you more then 4 days to find the 2 miracles required to make whoever you want into a saint, your doing it wrong by these standards.

I also kinda like the opposing messages here.
On the one hand, we oppose oppressive regimes that force their beliefs down peoples throats. So we are going to end them by forcing our beliefs down peoples throats.....

"An American jihad would embrace the correct belief that if every nation on earth were governed by freely elected leaders and by our Constitution, the world would be a far better place. And an American jihad would not only hope for this outcome, but work toward it."

Translation" An American Jihad believes that if only every nation on earth did what we told them to do we would find we liked them better......

"We would begin at home, as every great world movement does. We would not only allow, but teach, Americans — including American children — to internalize and project their justifiable feelings of pride in our democracy as superior to all other forms of government."

Oh god damn it, who wants to explain to the good doctor we arnt actually a Democracy?

But hey I'm glad he's proud of the government he doesnt have.......

"In grade schools we would teach the truth that the founding of our nation and its survival in the face of communism and fascism weren’t just good luck or good planning, but preordained by our commitment to the truth about the essential nature of man."

That truth being unstated....because you know even he has no idea what he's talking about.

"And we would embrace the certain knowledge that history will eventually spread our values all over the globe"

Because you know, again, we HATE oppressive regimes that do that, and need to take a stand against them.

"We would tie American aid to incremental changes not just in the attitudes, but in the fundamental structures, of countries. These changes would move those countries, slowly but inexorably, toward reflecting our Constitution in their own charters"

Because like any good oppressive regime, we are going to tell the poor, sick, needy ect to fuck off and die quickly unless their leaders (who likely arnt poor, sick or needy) capitulate to our demands.

"We would unabashedly fund pro-democracy movements around the world, partly with government funding and partly with donations from American citizens. Through these donations we would seek to double the budgets of the CIA and our Special Forces, seek to fund an international mercenary force for good and provide our veterans unparalleled health care."

Hmm, donations that fund the CIA and the Military? I believe those are called TAXES you fucking moron.

Although credit where its due....the term "donations" does at least sound more patriotic......

"We would urge our leaders, after their service in the U.S. Senate and Congress, to seek dual citizenship in other nations, like France and Italy and Sweden and Argentina and Brazil and Germany, and work to influence those nations to adopt laws very much like our own. We might even fund our leaders' campaigns for office in these other nations."

Ah so lets see, we are apparently going to add a requirement to the "Sacred" text of the "perfect" Constitution requiring only US citizen's with single country citizenship can be in the congress...

But hey I guess even sacred texts have a few typos. (no one tell the members of congress with dual citizenship......Ted Cruz looking at you)

Also I like the idea we are going to show our respect for liberty by taking a dump on other countries laws......

"We would accept the fact that an American jihad could mean boots on the ground in many places in the world where human rights are being denigrated and horrors are unfolding."

Because hey, nothing says respecting human rights in fear free ways then american martial law enforced by guys with guns.

But in fairness to Dr. Ablow, our strategy of interfering with guns because its possible horrors are unfolding did bring us a stable and threat free Iraq........

"Because wherever leaders and movements appear that seek to trample upon the human spirit, we have a God-given right to intervene — because we have been to the mountaintop of freedom, and we have seen the Promised Land spanning the globe."

Oh for fucks sake.....who wants to tell the good doctor that the Promised Land is literally a term for Israel?

Because his plan for American Jihad now seems to be
1) force american culture and government down everyones throats.
2) to prove the supremacy of american cluture and government, as soon as we get done, set up a totally different culture and government (israel) to run the damn world.

I'm just saying....you'd think that would run contrary to his point.....but I assumed he had a working mind.....my mistake.

"An American jihad would never condone terrorist acts of violence against our adversaries or the targeting of people simply because their beliefs are different from ours.

Wait a minute we WONT be targeting people who's beliefs are different then ours? cause like seriously up to that sentence thats been the WHOLE FUCKING POINT of your article.

I guess the Jihad's off....everybody go home......

 "But for those who malignantly demonstrate their intentions to subjugate others, there would be no quarter." 

Because only WE are allowed to do that????? Cause again thats kinda the idea your pushing here.

Good News is: Dont leave yet guys the Jihad is ON!

"An American jihad would turn back and topple the terrible self-loathing in our citizens set in motion by President Obama, beginning with his "apology tour” — a psychological plague. It would make American pride not only acceptable, but celebrated, again. And, remember, American pride is nothing more than being proud to support truths that are self-evident, irreducible, elemental and inevitable"

Actually, to be honest, I kinda agree with Doctor Ablow on this one. See the Obama "Apology Tour" never actually happened. (do you think if it had it wouldnt have been in EVERY campaign ad of 2010, 2012 and 2014?). In fact the Obama  "Apology Tour" is basically a plague the right wing collective psychologically infected themselves with and like most psychological problems is the sign of a deceased mind and someone who may need professional help.....

"An American jihad would make every tax dollar a tithing and the squandering of those dollars a sin."

Wait, before you said they would be "donations", now suddenly taxes are tithes?
Actually to be fair, it doesnt really matter since the definition of tithes is basically "a tax"

"An American jihad would make every hour spent working in an American company — or founding one — an offering."

To whom exactly? and what am I offering them? an hour of work? Well yea I already do that, and then they pay me for that hour.....thats how fucking employment works......

"An American jihad would make every teacher of American history not only a public servant, but a servant of the Truth."

You know I have a hunch that Dr. Ablow doesnt actually personally know any "servants of truth"....

"We the People of the United States are good and we are right. And we need the spirit of an American jihad to properly invite, intensify and focus our intentions to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution here at home, and to seek to spread its principles abroad."

Because again, as divine as the Constitution is, people just cant see how great it is for them unless its shoved down their throat.

But yea, there you have it the latest ranting of the unhinged mind FOX news uses as their on air expect physiologist......

Rick Scott's Number 1 Fan

So one of the stupidest threats ANY candidate can make in an election is to not show up to the debate.

Because you know, not showing up and giving the other guy hours of free uncontested airtime to get his message out will sure show him.....

Really why not just donate to the other guys campaign fund so he can run ads against you?

Yet for some odd reason, this is EXACTLY what some republican just did.

And not just any republican, it was an incumbent governor. Specifically Rick Scott, republican governor of Florida.

No really, for like 4 minutes Governor Rick Scott basically refused to debate his opponent, Former Republican Governor of Florida, turned Democratic Candidate for Governor Charlie Crist.

Why? well actually rather then tell you.....I really cant do it justice so I'll just show you.

    

The only thing missing from that clip is "LIVE FROM NEW YORK IT'S SATURDAY NIGHT!"

 A couple of things stick out pretty fast

First: This clip exemplifies EXACTLY what is wrong with the media.

So consider the position of the "hosts" in this clip. As far as they know, 1 of their 2 candidates has declined to show up to what is a major hour long (at least) preemption of their usual primetime line up.

And their solution? basically ignore the candidate that did show up and stick their thumbs up their collective asses.

Lets assume for a moment you actually give a flying fuck about someones opinion of an electric fan, well you know when would be the perfect time to discuss that? how about the half hour or so of post debate analysis that follows these things?

But apparently to these jack off's their own opinions are of such interest, not only do they think thats what people want to hear, the actually go so far as to quite the candidate who DID show up from giving his positions.

And hell, sticking his thumb up his ass was the least of the moderators problems.

After all there is actually nothing remotely unusual about a political debate starting with no candidates on the stage. Thats actually how most of them start, then the candidates get introduced and come out.

Now it appears in that clip that Crist was waiting backstage for his introduction, and as soon as he realized he wasnt going to get one, and that the moderator was going to use this standard procedure to create the false equivalency that neither candidate was willing to debate, he hauled ass and got out there.

What the moderator SHOULD have done was introduce both candidates, then explained why one of them didnt come out.

But see that would violate rule 1 of political reporting: "unbaised" mean ALL THINGS must be EQUALLY the fault of both parties. Bringing Crist out, then explaining why Scott wasnt coming, would have made it seem like Scott was the ONLY unreasonable one, and therefore would not have   "unbaised"

Same thing when the moderator tries to cover for Scott by ONLY mentioning the part of the contract that Scott wants him to mention, that being the ban on electric fans.

Which therefore makes Scott seem less unreasonable by giving him "justification" for his actions, and saying his actions were caused by crist's, thereby fulfilling rule one, its BOTH their faults Scott isnt there.

Which would be fine and good, except for one small problem, its NOT TRUE.

The Scott Campaign itself released the section of the contract they cited as "proof" the fan was banned. The problem is, it DOESNT ban fans. What it bans are "any electronics" used by the candidates. Presumably this is intended to mean cell phones, lap tops, ear pieces, anything the candidates could use to get information from.

But Scott Campaign is claiming that the fan falls under the definition of electronic, and therefore was banned, they are NOT actually claiming that the contract out right banned fans.

Which means their justification basically relies on word play, which makes it a very weak justification.

Especially considering that under the definition the scott campaign wants to use "any device used by the candidate that uses electricity" that would also ban the use of the Microphones on the desk the candidates would use to answer the question, not to mention the time clock in front of the moderator to show them how much time they have to finish answering the question.

But I dont see the Scott Campaign demanding the candidates scream their answers while counting to 60 seconds in their heads.....

Oh, except its worse. See not only did the moderator pass off the Scott Campaign interpretation of a rule as the wording of the rule itself, the contract actually DID deal directly with fans. It also contained a sentence explicitly allowing "electronic devices used to regulate temperature" or as they are known to the rest of us Fans.

So yea basically the moderator is outright LYING to people to make both candidates seem unreasonable. Like when he explains the situation he says "Gov crist asked for a small fan to be placed under the podium. The copy of the rules Gov Scotts campaign showed me said "no fans" yet the yet somehow their is a fan"

YES BECAUSE THE RULES SAY THATS OK. Which is probibly why Gov Crist asked for a fan in the first place.....because the rules said its ok, and he's wearing a suit in Florida and Florida is well known for being FUCKING HOT!

Same with the female moderator when she asks Crist a question about the rules. Shes acting like this is an open question.

But heres the thing, the moderators are actually supposed to read the debate rules BEFORE the debate.

So yea, all the moderators KNOW what they rules actually say. But in the interest of looking "unbiased" they pretend they dont and instead operation on the assumption the Scott Campaigns interpretation of the rules is THE rules, that way Crist looks unreasonable.

Second point. At one point one of the moderators claims you cant have a debate without both candidates......why the fuck not?

Unless its an episode of the West Wing, candidates dont actually talk to each other at all during debates.

Usually the moderator asks a general question about policy, both get an answer and retort, and then sometimes the moderator asks one of them a follow up question about a previous stand or point of clarification on the issue.

There is absolutely no reason you cant do the same thing with one candidate. You just double the amount of time he has to answer the question, meaning the process would still take exactly the same amount of time as scheduled.

I mean I suppose officially thats more an interview then a debate, but considering the other side basically forfeited, that actually seems fair to reward the candidate who showed up with basically and extended interview. An heres the thing, if the moderator has done their job, the interview should actually BE challenging because point of the debate questions is supposed to be to challenge the candidate your questioning, and those same questions would be the interview questions.

But then again, that assumes the moderators have done their jobs properly and these 3 ass clowns dont seem to have done so.

But heres the thing, after Scott actually showed up, things got even weirder

Here's Scott explaining why he didnt show up

So you see Scott didnt show up, because he didnt know of the guy who was ALREADY on the stage was going to show up.......

Either Rick Scott is the worlds WORST X-Man, whose mutant power only allows him to in the past, or this is a horrible excuse.

Actually no matter HOW you look at it, its a horrible excuse.

How god damn long does it take to figure out the guy CURRENTLY ON THE STAGE, is actually showing up for the debate. Apparently it takes Rick Scott up to 3 minutes to process the location of a single person.

I'm pretty sure even my old AOL Dial Up connection was faster than that.

But for a second here, lets humor Scott and assume Crist wasnt actually going to show up.

Why would that matter AT ALL to Scott? Even with incompetent moderators, if you walk out, look like your the only one willing to debate the issues, the audience is going to love it and the other guys going to look bad.

Basically if Rick Scott actually thought Crist wasnt coming, he should have been at the curtain, ready to open it in a seconds notice and make Crist look like an elitist little shit who cant even speak without a precious fan.

But whats Scott's claiming here is basically "hey look, I thought my opponent was about to do something amazingly stupid (not show up).....so i decided to do the exact same stupid thing, its not my fault he didnt go through with it "

But even that falls all kinds of short. See the contract is worked out between the two campaigns. So if Crist wasnt going to show up because he couldnt get what he wanted in the contract, and Scott decided not to show up in a sign of solidarity for Crist, it would still raise the question of "what the fuck is wrong with the Scott Campaign that they wont put something into the contract even their own candidate is in favor of?

Also, I mean lets assume for a second that despite the fact its one of the stupidest things he could do, Scott really wasnt going to show up if Crist wasnt, it raises a couple of interesting questions.

1) how badly organized is the Scott Campaign that they apparently forget to station a staffer:
a) in the backstage near the curtain able to look out on the stage
b) near a television that they could actually SEE if crist showed up
c) that they forgot to station the Governor closes enough to the curtain to instantly appear if Crist showed up.

2) Ok so if your not showing up in a show of solidarity with Crist, why did you send a staffer out to the moderators claiming you were protesting Crist breaking the rules?

More to the point if you sent a staffer out to the moderator explaining Crist had "was breaking the rules" and had gotten his way WHY THE FUCK WOULD EXPECT HIM NOT TO SHOW UP FOR NOT GETTING HIS WAY?"

And all of this ignores the much larger and more important fact that fans were expressly permitted in the contract.....that Rick Scott signed.

Yet apparently he didnt actually know what it said.

Which raises the question, how many other things.....like say LAWS, has Rick Scott signed that he doesnt know the contents of.

Does he just make a habit of assuming things say what he thinks they say and signing them?
Does he have any idea of what his own record as governor actually is?  Or is he just assuming the laws are what he thinks they are?

Oh and the final (at the moment) worst part of this.....apparently time hasnt really improved things for the Scott Campaign.

See the day after the campaign Scott's campaign released this statement to the media:

"So, let's get one thing clear: Rick Scott never refused to take the stage and debate. In fact, our campaign was not notified Charlie had even taken the stage because the last we heard, Crist was in an 'emergency meeting' with debate organizers pleading for his precious fan.

"But Charlie Crist can bring his fan, microwave, and toaster to debates -- none of that will cover up how sad his record as Governor was compared to the success of Governor Rick Scott."

Now not only does that "clarification" still contain all of the original problems (why do you care if Crist is showing up and the fan was expressly legal so why would crist be arguing over it/did you actually read the contract), it adds a new ones.

Mainly if Scott's campaign didnt give a shit about the fan, and intended to come out as scheduled, WHY DID YOU SENT A STAFFER UP TO THE MODERATORS WITH A COPY OF DEBATE RULES CLAIMING A FAN WASNT ALLOWED AND YOU WOULDNT PARTICIPATE?

Also, if Scott was going to come out as planned, what the fuck took so long? I mean your claiming Scott was standing at the curtain, waiting to debate, heard the debate start, heard the moderators say he wasnt coming,  saw/heard Crist come out......and just stood there for a few minutes thinking absolutely nothing was wrong.

So yea, the question has to be asked....how little attention does this guy pay to the world?

I mean I suppose the staffer COULD have been a rogue operative, and Scott didnt know the staffer was going the media with that excuse. But then we have the added question of "how poorly is Rick Scotts campaign being run that he cant control his staff AND that his staff is too stupid to go get him when they realized the debate was startin? and why if hes THAT BAD at running his own campaign would you ever want him to run a state?"


So yea. By his own "admission" Rick Scott is:
1) not paying attention to things that are happening in front him him
2) a horrible manager
3) not reading things he signs
4) willing to do something stupid, solely to look as stupid as someone else
5) Incapable of adjusting to changing or uncertain circumstances (like say the location of a debate opponent) until it is too late.

6) not even sure why he does the things he does.

So yea, thats 6 great reasons why you should NEVER vote for Rick Scott for anything, and Charlie Crist didnt even need to say a word.

On the upside, maybe now that someone was actually stupid enough to do it, candidates will stop threatening to walk out of debates because they will realize how fucking stupid a threat that really is....