Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Last Call

FINALLY.  Podcast vs. The Stupid this week with Todd Akin.  This is gonna be awesome.

Listen to internet radio with Zandar Versus The Stupid on Blog Talk Radio

Women are like sea cucumbers, you know.

Another Milepost On The Road To Oblivion

And you know that road goes through Texas.

A Republican judge in Lubbock, Texas told a reporter on Tuesday that he and other officials are making plans for the possibility of “civil war” if President Barack Obama is reelected, warning that should the president cede control of the country to the United Nations, he’d prevent troops from entering the county.

He’s going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the U.N., and what is going to happen when that happens?Lubbock County Judge Tom Head  asked a reporter for a local Fox News affiliate during an interview that was supposedly about county business.

I’m thinking the worst,” he deadpanned. “Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we’re not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we’re talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy. Now what’s going to happen if we do that? If the public decides to do that? He’s going to send in U.N. troops.”

Head concluded: “I don’t want ‘em in Lubbock County, okay? So I’m going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say ‘you’re not coming in here.’ And the sheriff, I’ve already asked him. I said, ‘You gonna back me?’ He said, ‘Yeah, I’ll back you.’ Well, I don’t want a bunch of rookies back there. I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me.”

Yeah.  A sitting GOP judge in Texas says this.  Advocating open rebellion against the President.  Advocating violent, armed resistance against the US.  A sitting.  Judge.  Openly admitting this to a reporter, in an interview.

How is this man a judge?  He is insane.  He is certifiably insane.  Bonkers.  Nuts.  Not only should this guy not be a judge or any sort of public official, he shouldn't be outside jail for stuff like this.

The real problem is millions of voting Americans will agree with this nutjob.  And you'd better believe they will vote against Obama.  That's where we are right now in this country:  judges openly calling for armed insurrection against the President of the United States.

The Road to Oblivion, indeed.  More on this from Tom Levenson:

Head’s judgeship is actually a county-executive position under Texas nomenclature.  Thus, Mr. Romney and Mr Ryan, he is an elected representative and a member of your party.  I ask you:  do you repudiate this call to treason?

If not, why not?

Good question.  Won't be answered though most likely.

Ryan Just Akin To Get Outta Here

And Paul Ryan disappears the legislation he co-sponsored with Rep. Todd Akin down the Village memory hole.

Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan is now refusing to explain a bill that he co-sponsored with Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) that critics say would have redefined rape, providing federal assistance only to victims of “forcible rape.”

In an interview with KDKA on Tuesday, Ryan said that he believed Akin’s assertion that only victims of “legitimate rape” could get pregnant “were outrageous, over the pail.”

“I don’t know anybody who would agree with that,” the candidate said. “Rape is rape period, end of story.”

KDKA Political Editor Jon Delano noted that Ryan’s congressional record showed that he had opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

“Look, I’m proud of my pro-life record,” the Wisconsin congressman explained. “And I stand by my pro-life record in Congress. It’s something I’m proud of. But Mitt Romney is the top of the ticket and Mitt Romney will be president, and he will set the policy of the administration.”

Forcible rape language?  I have no idea what you are talking about.  I never believed that.  It's all a media trick.  Also, ask Mitt Romney, he's in charge.

“You sponsored legislation that has the language ‘forcible rape,’” Delano pointed out to Ryan. “What is forcible rape?”

“Rape is rape,” Ryan replied, shaking his head. “Rape is rape, period. End of story.”

“So that forcible rape language meant nothing to you at the time?” Delano pressed.

Rape is rape and there’s no splitting hairs over rape,” Ryan insisted.

Romney’s running mate also said it was “ridiculous” for President Barack Obama to claim that women would be denied birth control if Republicans won the White House.

“Nobody is proposing to deny birth control to anybody,” Ryan remarked. “And I don’t think [women are] going to take the bait of all these distractions that the President is trying to throw at them.”

Nope, women are too smart to listen to the fact that Ryan wanted to redefine rape to such a narrow definition that abortion exceptions would be minimal, effectively outlawing the practice.  They're too smart to listen to the fact that the GOP's party platform in 2012 includes outlawing all abortions with no exceptions, period.

Those are distractions from the issues that matter, you know.  Just ask Paul here.  He'll tell you everything you need to know.  And then legislate that it's all you need to know, too.

Am I Crazy, He Asks. The Answer Is No, You're Just Stupid

So, The Consumerist is an awesome read just because you come across gems like this.

I'm not sure if I'm crazy for trying, or if Costco is crazy for not honoring their return policy…but your opinion will be appreciated. 
In December of 2006, I spent $900 on a 37" Vizio from Costco in Charlotte, NC. The TV worked great up until this week, when it failed to turn on. Knowing that I purchased the TV under their old return policy, which stated that I could return anything that I wasn't satisfied with, I marched into the same Costco today. I had since thrown out the receipt, but they were able to find the transaction in the system. 
For background…my wife and I spend thousands of dollars every year at this Costco, and I've probably returned 2 or 3 things. Small items; a pair of shorts or a shirt that didn't fit. Part of the reason I bought this TV from Costco was their consumer friendly return policy. 
Today, though, the front end manager told me that I would've had to return the TV within 90 days of purchase. I informed him that this policy change did not occur until February or March of 2007. He told me it didn't matter, and referred me to their concierge support number for assistance. I calmly but firmly voice my disappointment, and asked if anything else could be done. Nothing else, he said, could be done. 
While I would've been very satisfied with SOMETHING…a free year of membership, a gift card toward the purchase of a new TV, something, instead I received nothing. 
We've been Costco evangelists for awhile, but maybe no longer. 
So…am I crazy??

Crazy... perhaps not.  So stupid you survive despite Darwin's strongest evidence?  You betcha.

I cannot believe that someone would feel entitled to use an electronic product for six years and expect a full replacement.  Or in his deliciously specific complaint, "SOMETHING" was owed to him.  Consumer protection laws exist to keep us from being scammed, not to guarantee we only have to purchase something once in our lives.  Considering the number of hours the average television is on per day, 90 days is fair, 180 is above and beyond, and a year is unheard of.

The guy may not be crazy, but he's a jackass for certain and an idiot to boot.

Honey, I Forgot To Pay The Protection Money

David Kelleran, 51, claimed in his lawsuit that the police's Prohibition-style tactics violated state law and trampled on his rights. And, in any case, the police got the wrong address.
Kelleran, who owns the restaurant called 68, is seeking an unspecified amount of damages for the loss of alcohol worth "thousands of thousands" of dollars, his attorney Craig Trainor said on Thursday.
According to the lawsuit, Kelleran was notified in July 2011 by the New York State Liquor Authority that his $4,382 check to renew 68's liquor license bounced and he had ten days to make the payment.
Before the ten days were up, Kelleran said police came to his apartment over the restaurant in Brooklyn and arrested him for selling alcoholic drinks without a license. He spent the night in jail, the lawsuit said.
While he was in jail, police went into Coco66, a bar Kelleran owned next door to 68, and poured all his wine, beer and liquor down a drain, the lawsuit said.
Seems a bit off there somewhere.  The best the article lays out the facts, it appears either Kelleran's protection money check also bounced, or we have some seriously overzealous cops with an extreme interest in overdue license fees.

Unless a major fact is missing, this guy has a pretty good case.  To destroy so much property under these circumstances is at the very least a major ethical lapse.  

The Dirty Air Up There

It's getting harder to breathe.  A three judge panel at the DC Circuit Court has struck down part of the Obama EPA rules on clean air in a pretty sizable victory for polluters.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that forces cuts from plants in 28 states in the eastern half of the country, finding that it exceeds EPA’s powers under the Clean Air Act.

The 2-1 court decision Tuesday is a victory for industry groups, some states and GOP lawmakers, who alleged the rule would create economic burdens and force the closure of substantial numbers of coal-fired power plants.

The court decision instructs EPA to continue administering a less aggressive, George W. Bush-era rule called the Clean Air Interstate Rule pending the creation of a "valid replacement."

The judges said the Obama administration rule allows EPA to “impose massive emissions reduction requirements on upwind states without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text.”

Several states, including Texas, Alabama and Georgia, challenged the rule alongside the National Mining Association, power companies and other parties. But other states such as New York and Delaware, as well as environmental groups, joined the case in defense of EPA.

I would expect the Obama Administration to appeal to the Supremes, but for now, the polluters get to pollute under Bush-era rules, that is, no limits.  It's "less aggressive" the way a dead chicken is "less aggressive" than a live tiger.  The limits are simple:  states can basically put out whatever pollution they want to tolerate themselves, and it's not "interstate air".

Meanwhile, let's continue to enjoy the hottest year on record in the US.

Keep Letting Those Dogs Out, Willard

Latest NBC/WSJ poll has President Obama up 48-44 over Mitt Romney, suggesting zero campaign bounce from Paul Ryan.

After Mitt Romney selected his vice presidential running mate, and just days before the political conventions kick off next week, President Barack Obama maintains his advantage in the race for the White House, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

A Democratic ticket featuring Obama and Vice President Joe Biden gets support from 48 percent of registered voters, and a Republican ticket of Romney and new running mate Paul Ryan gets 44 percent.

These numbers are only slightly changed from July, when Obama led Romney by six points in the survey, 49 percent to 43 percent, suggesting a minimal bounce for Romney (if at all) after this month’s Ryan pick.

Ahh, but the killer stuff is in the crosstabs.

  • Congress's approval rating is 12%, tying the all time low.
  • President Obama's likeability is at 48%, 38% for Mittens.
  • 47% of Americans want Congress controlled by the Dems, the highest number since April 09.
  • The Ryan effect: 22% more likely to vote for Romney because of him, 23% less, 54% don't care.
  • Obama crushes Mitt on women's issues, with 52% saying he'd be better to Mitt's 24%.
  • Mitt does win the economy still, 44-38%.
More info on the poll:

Looking inside the numbers, Obama continues to lead Romney among key parts of his political base, including African Americans (94 percent to 0 percent), Latinos (by a 2-to-1 margin), voters under 35-years-old (52 percent to 41 percent) and women (51 percent to 41 percent).

Romney is ahead with whites (53 percent to 40 percent), rural voters (47 percent to 38 percent) and seniors (49 percent to 41 percent).

And the two presidential candidates are essentially even when it comes to the swing groups of suburban voters, Midwest residents and political independents.

94 to 0 on black voters.  As in "Of the 12% of the 1000 people we polled who were black, or 120, rthe number of people who said they would vote for Mitt Romney was either 0 or 1."

That 13 point lead with white voters?  Yeah, that's enough to keep Mitt in the game, however.


Related Posts with Thumbnails