Hey, Way to Go, History Channel!

Actress Roma Downey, Husband Mark Burnett Team on Epic Bible Miniseries

Television producer Mark Burnett and his wife, actress Roma Downey, have teamed to create a new 10-hour miniseries titled “The Bible” that will air next month on The History Channel.
 

My friend who recently came out was more comfortable touching his wife than Mark is. 

Now this sounds like it could possibly be a worthwhile venture, something like the "banned from the Bible" series that the History Channel did several years ago, when it was still interested in History, discussing the history of how the Bible came to be in its present form and which books were left out for various reasons, but no. No, this is something different.

 

 

Burnett, an Emmy Award winner best known for creating a number of reality shows, including “The Apprentice,” “Survivor,” “Shark Tank,” and “The Voice,” said the forthcoming miniseries is the most important work he’s done to date.

Talk about damning with faint praise!
 “We completely believe in the Bible, but beyond that, it's the most important book in history. It's the foundation of our society and our laws and has created so much art through the centuries,” he said.

 Oh, great job, there History Channel! Let's have an historical revisionist make a series about history. The foundation of our society and our laws? Seriously? How many times do we have to go over this?
(http://wwwirritant.blogspot.com/2009/04/historical-revisionists.html)

The production features special effects depicting miracles such as Moses parting the Red Sea, Jesus walking on water, and Daniel with the lions. Burnett said the goal of not only the special effects but the music was to help create a work that will still be popular decades later.

So, this is going to be a literal depiction of the Bible, floods, talking snakes and all, and it's going to be presented as History.

I'm not saying there isn't history in the Bible. I know Herod the Great was an actual historical person (although not all that great from what I hear). I think Nebuchadnezzar was a real person, and I have no doubt that there was a First Century rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth who attracted a large following and was executed by the Romans because, from what I understand, Pontius Pilate would crucify you as soon as look at you, especially if you seemed like you might be a threat to his grasp on power, but that's not what we're talking about here. They intend to portray Moses as a man who parted the Red Sea by the power of Jaweh, and Jesus as a man who walked on water and that's fine if the show is going to be on CBN, but not the History Channel.

Although, now that I think about it. . .

 

 

Oh, and this should come as no surprise:

Evangelical Christians are already praising the film.

Of course, they haven't seen it, but that's never stopped them from having an opinion about a movie or TV show.

While film and television may not be an industry synonymous with religion and faith, Burnett said they can definitely be inspirational vehicles.
“We've met so many people who have made their introduction to faith from movies.

Wow, really? This is really a thing that happens? Someone watched "The 10 Commandments" on TV and was inspired to join Christianity? Is that a thing that happens? Somebody rented "Battlefield Earth" and became a Scientologist? Or became Jewish after watching "Yentl?"

“If you're going to step up and make a 10-hour series on the Bible, it needs to be able to go around the world and stand the test of time for the next 50 years. Just as we are still watching ‘The Ten Commandments’ on television, hopefully people will still be watching this in 50 years’ time,” Burnett said.

Yes, I'm sure they will. I'm sure that a Mark Burnett production will have the same staying power as one of the greatest Cecil B. DeMille epics. I'm sure that's exactly what's going to happen.

Thou shalt not even dream of it, loser!

 

Sometimes There's Good News

'Girls Gone Wild' Files for Bankruptcy



Among the four largest creditors that were listed, the largest was $10.3 million in disputed debt with Wynn Las Vegas. The dispute stems from a $2 million gambling debt Francis incurred during a trip to the resort in Feb. 2007, according to court papers.
Last year, a judgment of $7.5 million was given to the hotel for defamation "stemming from Francis's public attack falsely accusing Wynn of deceiving customers," according to the lawsuit filed by the resort. In September, a jury awarded Wynn another $20 million for punitive damages for slander.

Everything That's Wrong With American Culture in One Headline

Brandi Glanville's Dad Said Her Oscar Dress Showed "Way Too Much Boob"

Us Weekly – Tue, Feb 26, 2013 12:40 PM PST




Oh, my God, so many, many things wrong here.

First: There is a headline about a person named "Brandi Glanville" and the name is just plopped in there like the US Weekly people just assume that you know who she is. Apparently, she is one of the loathsome "Real Housewives of some place or other," one of those despicable people who agree to act like drunken louts in front of TV cameras in exchange for being treated as tough they had accomplished something. And for some reason, this repugnant person is walking the red carpet at the Oscars. The Oscars!

 Granted, the Oscars have lots of problems, they're certainly bloated, overlong, self-congratulatory and boring as fuck, but they do still reward people who have reached some pinnacle of artistic achievement. How did a "real Housewife" get invited to the proceedings? Who knows? Well, probably a lot of people do, but I don't and I'm certainly not willing to invest the time to find out.

Secondly, Did someone really ask her father to comment on his daughter's bosoms? And instead of responding with "How dare you, sir? I will bid you good day! I Said Good Day!" this creep answered the question? "Yeah, I thought my daughter's boobs were a little over the top!" Apparently, attention-whore disorder runs in the family.

Okay, I made the mistake of reading a bit of the article, and it turns out that no one asked ol' dad about his daughter's breasts. He just decided to volunteer the information. On Twitter.
Now, he could have taken his daughter aside and said "Dear, don't you think that dress might be a bit too revealing?" or some such thing, but that would be stupid when you could just post that shit on Twitter so everyone can see!

And she proudly re-tweeted his message because obviously her "fans" are going to want to know what her dad thinks about her tits! Because our pop culture is irredeemably fucked up.

Brandi Glanville ✔ @BrandiGlanville

Hey brand, we looked for you on the oscars saw you in the dress. Beautiful dress but way too much boob looked like you fall out any time.Dad

10:21 PM - 25 Feb 13

37 Retweets 170 favorites

 

I imagine that when this tweet hit the tweeterverse, Jesus looked over at his father and asked "This? This is what you wanted me to save? For this I left Heaven?" and then they both wept.

Fuckin Texas, Man

Texas bans shooting immigrants from helicopters


This would seem to be the sort of thing that one would not have to bother banning because who would just open fire on people from a helicopter?

 

A hot-air balloon, sure. But a helicopter?

 

 

But, because this is Texas, of course some people have got shot from a helicopter. In fact, a couple of guys got shot dead from a helicopter
back in Oct, 2012.

A Texas state trooper who fired on a pickup truck from a helicopter during a deadly chase through the desert was trying to disable the vehicle and suspected it was being used to smuggle drugs, authorities said Friday.

The disclosure came a day after the incident left two illegal immigrants from Guatemala dead on an isolated gravel road near the town of La Joya, just north of the Mexico border.

 I suppose this is probably why they felt like they needed to ban this practice.

While announcing the new policy, Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw insisted that the ban on aerial shootings had nothing to do with the October 2012 death of two Guatemalan immigrants, who were gunned down by troopers in helicopter while they were hiding in the back of a speeding pickup truck near La Joya.

Oh, right. It's Texas!
If they said that this new policy was a response to these two deaths, that would be a little too close to admitting that they were wrong. And admitting you're wrong is the first step on the slippery slope to apologizing. And in Te4xas, they live by the rule set forth by John Wayne's character in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,"

 

Never apologize! It's a sign of weakness!

 



“I’m convinced that now, from a helicopter platform, that we shouldn’t shoot unless being shot at, or unless someone is being shot at,” McCraw told the state House Committee on Appropriations.

Wait, what? Up 'til now, you didn't even have to be getting shot at to shoot someone from a helicopter? No one needed to be getting shot at? You could just shoot someone from a helicopter if, what, they looked suspicious? (Guatemalan)
Apparently! Because they are finding no fault whatsoever with last October's shooting.

“Last Friday, after a review of the policy and looking at all of the different things, and this is not a reflection of what happened there, I’m a firm believer they did exactly what they thought they needed to do.”

If you think that what you need to do when someone is speeding and might possibly have some sort of contraband in the back of the truck is to open fire, maybe your thought process is a bit flawed. Maybe you shouldn't be in a position of responsibility with the ability to make life-and-death decisions.
Granted, I'm no expert on law-enforcement techniques, but someone did ask a guy who is:

An expert on police chases said the decision to fire on the truck was "a reckless act" that served "no legitimate law enforcement purpose."
In 25 years following police pursuits, I hadn't seen a situation where an officer shot a speeding vehicle from a helicopter," said Geoffrey Alpert, professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina.

 

I know, but I'm lazy.

 

Such action would be reasonable only if "you know for sure the person driving the car deserves to die and that there are no other occupants."
In general, he said, law enforcement agencies allow the use of deadly force only when the car is being used as a weapon, not "just on a hunch," Alpert added



Well, that sort of wimpy soft-on-crime attitude might play in hippie South Carolina, but this is Texas, man! Fuckin' Texas!

Insane Laws Interspersed With Adorable Kittens

It's possible that some state Republicans are seeing the writing on the wall, realizing that they are fast becoming a permanent minority party and there's only so long you can keep Gerrymandering your way out of irrelevance. So, while they still have power, they're pulling out all the stops and putting the pedal to the metal towards Crazytown while they still have the chance. Here are a few of their more insane recent proposals, interspersed with adorable kittens to keep your heads from exploding.

 

You're welcome, humans!

First up, Montana crazy person Gary Marbut has proposed a "Sheriffs First" bill that would, in defiance of the Constitution, years of legal precedent and common sense, give local Sheriffs supremacy over Federal Law enforcement officers. Not only would FBI, ATF or Federal Marshalls have to get permission from the local yokel sheriff before arresting anyone, if they failed to do so the ensuing arrest would be considered kidnapping and the Federal agent could be arrested and charged.

Hey, who do you trust more?

Montana Bill Would Let Sheriffs Arrest FBI Agents for Arresting People

If Montana voters approve Gary Marbut's referendum in November 2014, any FBI agent who tries to arrest a Montanan for a federal crime could be arrested—and charged with kidnapping.

Marbut's "Sheriffs First" bill, which cleared a Montana state Senate committee last week, makes it a crime for a federal agent to take any law-enforcement steps without first getting permission from the county sheriff.

This might sound like the sort of whack-a-doo idea that would have no chance of passing, but. . .

The proposal already passed both houses of the Legislature once, in 2011, but was vetoed by then-Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat.

In Missouri, nutbag legislator Mike Leara has proposed a law which would make proposing a law against the law. Sounds complicated, but it isn't. In fact, the entire bill is only one sentence:

578.460. Any member of the general assembly who proposes a piece of legislation that further restricts the right of an individual to bear arms, as set forth under the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States, shall be guilty of a class D felony.

So if any member of the Missouri legislature were to propose, say, limiting magazine size or keeping assault weapons out of the hands of criminals, that legislator would himself become a criminal, but would probably still be able to own a small arsenal, because FREEDOMMMMMMMM!!!!!

I'm not sure what the legal theory is behind this, what interpretation of what law makes this lunatic think this law would stand up to the slightest legal scrutiny, but I think it's probably based on the legal precedent of Because I Want To v. Fuck You.




Not to be outdone, ironically named South Carolina State Senator Lee Bright has proposed a bill that would have high schools teach classes about guns.

I'm pretty sure this is not him, but Google image search seems to think she is.

 



Bright says he got the idea after hearing from older constituents who “remembered the days” when students could join a rifle team or learn about shooting during a school day. “We’ve got football, we’ve got basketball, and we’ve got baseball,” says Bright. “I think if they had a hunting team, it would be a great idea.

If there's any substantive difference between a basketball and a loaded rifle, I have yet to see it!












And then, of course, there's Kansas.

Kansas, where they want to pass a law requiring teachers to lie to their students.

Bill asks teachers to question climate change in class

HB2306 calls climate change 'scientific controversy'

House Bill 2306, introduced last week, says science classes must “provide information to students of scientific evidence which both supports and counters a scientific theory or hypothesis.”

Like gravity, or the Earth being round.

The bill says instruction about “scientific controversies” should be objective and include “both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis.” The only controversy identified in the bill is “climate science.”

Because only 97% of scientist agree about global warming. That's hardly a consensus! Obviously both sides should get their viewpoints aired. Both the scientists funded by Exxon-Mobil and those funded by the Koch Brothers!





Well, that's enough for one night. I'm sure there are many more CRAAAAAAAZY laws being proposed by Republicans throughout this great land. There are damn sure more adorable kittens!

A perfectly reasonable fear.

Erik Rush Suspects Obama Will Classify Christians as 'Mentally Ill and Ship Them Off to an Asylum'

In the area of mental illness, given the administration’s totalitarian bent, this could mean an era of atrocities galore. . .
In the case of those who pose the most dire threat to Obama’s designs – Christians – these will certainly be targeted. After all, who more demonstrably epitomizes mental instability in the eyes of the Marxist atheist than those who commune with and rely upon that which is unseen?


Ironically, anyone who actually believes this should be classified as mentally ill and shipped off to an asylum.

The Tea Party Apologizes

(Via TPM)

Tea Party Group Apologizes To Karl Rove

Tea Party Patriots said that a fundraising email sent out Tuesday showing a manipulated photo of GOP operative Karl Rove wearing an S.S. uniform was a mistake that the organization "did not know about or approve." 

"We apologize to Mr. Rove. While we may have strong disagreements with Mr. Rove on the future of conservatism, we want to be clear this imagery is absolutely unacceptable and are working to ensure this type of mistake doesn’t happen again," read the statement.

Oh, of course. Of course that sort of thing can't be tolerated. You can't go around comparing people to Nazis.



Even though you have serious disagreements with Karl Rove, Nazi comparisons are really beyond the pale.



Obviously the Tea Party can't allow itself to be associated with people who make these sort of outrageous comparisons.




It really goes without saying that Nazi references are unacceptable. A classy organization like the Tea Party is obviously above that sort of thing.




Apology accepted!




And so on. . .




etc. . .

World's Most Horrible Teacher Still Employed as Teacher, Still Horrible.

'Gays don't have a purpose' says special-ed teacher

Speaking in favor of an anti-gay prom in Indiana, a special education teacher adds fuel to the fire with homophobic comments

16 February 2013 | By Jean Paul Zapata

 

She actually made those comments on Feb.  12th and as far as I can tell, she has yet to face any disciplinary action.

Indiana!

 

 

'Homosexual students come to me with their problems, and I don't agree with them, but I care about them,' Medley continued. 'It's the same thing with my special needs kids; I think God puts everyone in our lives for a reason.'

Because obviously being gay is a handicap, just like a learning disability. It's a kind of sexual dyslexia!

When asked whether she believes gay and lesbian people have a 'purpose',  [And what kind of an asshole even asks that question?] Medley said: 'No, I honestly don't. Sorry, but I don't ... A gay person isn't going to come up and make some change unless it's to realize that it was a choice and they're choosing'.

I'm not even sure what she's trying to say in that last sentence, but it is apparently something along the lines of "gay people are bad and darn it, they just won't choose to be un-gay!"

Change.org has generated more than 18,750 signatures on a petition calling for Medley's termination. However, Medley has been defended by Northeast School Corporation Superintendent Mark A. Baker  who said she was practicing her First Amendment rights to free speech.
"These comments were expressed during a Sunday community meeting at a local church and at no time was she representing the Northeast School Corporation"


Except that this was apparently a meeting of teachers, parents, and assorted busybodies who were in favor of banning gay & lesbian students from the Sullivan High School Prom. So, clearly she was speaking as someone affiliated with the school.
According to My Wabash Valley.Com:
Several parents, students, and others who believe gays should be banned from the Sullivan High School prom met Sunday at the Sullivan First Christian Church.
"We don't agree with it and it's offensive to us," said Diana Medley.

I don't know where these folks get the idea that anything that bothers them can be banned. You know, there are people who find Christianity offensive, what with its sexism, homophobia, and all-around anti-sex attitude. Should those folks be able to bar Christian teens from school functions?

Their idea is to create their own separate...traditional prom. Students say there are several others from their high school who agree, but are afraid to take a stand.
"If we can get a good prom then we can convince more people to come and follow what they believe," said student Kynon Johnson.
And now they want everyone to know where they stand.
"We want to make the public see that we love the homosexuals, but we don't think it's right nor should it be accepted," said a local student.

And if that's not love, I don't know what is! Who you are is completely wrong and unacceptable, we're going to have a "good prom" and you're not allowed to come. Luv Ya!



Of course, there are those who find this kind of bullying heroic:

"Christians have always been prepared for a fight. Jesus gave us armor for the front, not the back; we're not running anymore," said Bill Phegley with Carlisle Church.

Yeah! You, the vast majority, are no longer going to run from. . . wait. When were you ever running? You think it's courageous for the majority to come together to shun the minority? And you're going to act like it's the gays that have been somehow pushing you around?
And some idiot right-wing talk show host has chimed in with this (via MPS)

Everything is so upside down in our society now and right and wrong have completely switched where what is really wrong is to say you shouldn’t have two boys allowed to go to the high school prom.

 




Yes. Yes it is really wrong to say that. Glad to see you've come to your senses and. . .Oh, wait. You're being sarcastic, aren't you?

 I feel for these Christian kids who are in a prom or kids who are at this high school who say, ‘you know something, do we have to go down this road?’ Whether the homosexual activists like it or not, and I know this isn’t politically correct to say this,
 but not everybody wants to see that. 

 

Well, Jeezus, nobody wants to see this, but what can you do?

And your rights to be who you are and love whom you love are obviously not as important as the fact that some insufferable prig might be bothered by seeing two boys dancing together.





 I know that that’s offensive to the activist crowd, they want us all to see it, they want us all to approve of it, they want us all to call it blessed and okay and rejoice and have parties and throw confetti in the air over this whole thing

Or, they may just want to live their lives without constant harassment and belittlement and condemnation from asswipes like you, but you know,
tomato, tomahto!

But the fact of the matter is it’s a moral issue. You will always have Christians who will disagree with this and why should the rights of the activists trump the rights of Christians?

And there it is, the victim card! You knew it was only a matter of time. Listen radio nut, your Christian rights aren't being violated. No one is telling you that you can't attend the dance. No one is telling you that you can't bring the date of your choosing. Just because someone else's rights get recognized, that's not a diminishment of yours. I know you're used to being treated like the top dog, but rights are not a zero-sum game. Everyone can have rights without you losing yours.

 Also, shut up you horrible person.
 

Seven PsychoCats

Who cares about Marco Rubio's drink of water?

 
So he got thirsty. So what? Isn't the relevant topic here that he gave maybe the stupidest speech of all time?
 
 
Because he starts out with standard right-wing boilerplate like
 
More government isn't going to help you get ahead. It's going to hold you back.
More government isn't going to create more opportunities. It's going to limit them.
 
Which you expect from any Republican, and which are presented as if they were obvious facts with no evidence required. But then he goes on to talk about how his neighbors depend on Social Security and Medicare (big government programs) and how "Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now."
 
And he used the Federal student loan program to be able to attend college, but for you, government is bad and will hold you back and blah, blah, blah. . .
 








And perhaps the stupidest sentence anyone has ever said
 
"When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can't control the weather – he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air."
 
So when we make a stupid claim, the President in your imagination says something that in real life he didn't say? The government can't control the weather. What an asinine thing to say. The government can take measures to limit the amount of damage that human activity is doing to the climate, but they can't "control the weather" so why bother? And I don't recall the President saying that you want dirty water and dirty air, but you actually make a pretty good case for that like a minute later when you say: "God also blessed America with abundant coal, oil and natural gas. Instead of wasting more taxpayer money on so-called "clean energy" companies like Solyndra, let's open up more federal lands for safe and responsible exploration."
 
So, fuck clean energy, let's dig more coal - hey, why do you think we want dirty air? 
Actually, nobody thinks that you "want" dirty air. We think that you just don't give a damn whether or not it's clean as long as your donors are making lots of money.
 
And while we're on the subject of energy policy:
 
 "If we can grow our energy industry, it will make us energy independent, it will create middle class jobs and it will help bring manufacturing back from places like China."

Really? Being energy independent will cause manufacturing companies to say "forget paying Chinese slave laborers $2 an hour in shit conditions, now that the US is drilling for more oil, I say we move the factory back to Ohio and pay people a middle-class wage!"
 
 




And re: taxes
"Raising taxes won't create private sector jobs.  And there's no realistic tax increase that could lower our deficits by almost $4 trillion."
Well, first of all, no one said that raising taxes would create private sector jobs. Me going jogging every morning won't create any private sector jobs, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't do it. I mean, I'm not going to, but I should. And come to think of it, I'm going to use that rationale when my wife suggests I get a bit of exercise occasionally: "but honey, that won't create any private sector jobs!"
As to the tax increase, I seem to recall a time when we had no deficit, when we had in fact, a budget surplus. Hmm, what was it that happened to change all that?

 



Oh, right!

 
I could go on, but it doesn't get any less stupid. Marco Rubio, or whoever wrote his rebuttal speech is a goddamm idiot. And that's what should be relevant not the drink of water.
 
Although, now that Rubio has tweeted out a picture of a bottle of Poland Spring water, I do wonder if maybe that wasn't a bit of product placement.

 

Are they a donor?

 



Oh, and also this was weird:

"I needed water, what am I going to do" Rubio told me this morning on "Good Morning America" while pulling out a bottle of water and taking a sip. "God has a funny way of reminding us we're human," he said.

Um, most people don't really need a reminder that they're human, Senator. We're usually well aware of our humanity.



PS It's always worth noting that Marco Rubio voted against renewing the Violence Against Women Act.

It may finally be safe to go to North Carolina

NC bill could mean prison time for topless women

MICHAEL BIESECKE, Associated Press Copyright 2013 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

By MICHAEL BIESECKER, Associated Press

Rep. Rayne Brown, R-Davidson, is proposing a bill to make it a felony - A FELONY!- for any woman to expose, intentionally or otherwise, a "nipple, or any portion of the areola."

But what if it's an accidental "wardrobe malfunction" or "nip-slip?'

Democratic state Rep. Annie Mobley said she worried that women wearing "questionable fashions” could be prosecuted under the new rules.

But Committee Chairwoman Rep. Sarah Steven (R) suggested that women could use pasties or nipple coverings just to be safe.

“They’d be good to go” with nipple coverings, Stevens said.

"You know what they say, duct tape fixes everything," Republican state Rep. Tim Moore agreed.

Ooh, good one!

Much better that women put duct tape on their breastseses than to take a chance that someone might accidentally see a nipple!

Rep. Rayne Brown, R-Davidson, knows all too well that House Bill 34, her bill defining women’s nipples as indecent, has been the punchline of many a joke this session.

“We’ve had the most fun with this bill for about the past week and a half, and that’s OK. You need to laugh sometimes,” she told the House Judiciary C Committee. “But there are communities across this state, there’s local governments across this state, and also local law enforcement for whom this issue is really not a laughing matter.”

That's right, this is NO LAUGHING MATTER for municipalities that have been struck with the scourge of visible baby-feeding parts! Oh, the horror!

Co-sponsor Rep. Rayne Brown, R-Davidson, told members of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that her constituents are concerned about topless rallies promoting women's equality held the past two years in Asheville, which is located about 130 miles west of Brown's district.

But clearly falls within the borders of her beeswax!

My God, people must have been terrified!

 

 

 

Many cities have local ordinances barring women from going topless, but Asheville does not.

 

I've been to Asheville, and I'm not surprised. It seems like a minding tour own business kind of town. Plus it's too damn cold for toplessness to be much of an issue.

 

Brown said a blanket solution is needed to give law enforcement officers statewide the clear authority to make arrests when nipples are exposed.

I don't see how we can expect to be taken seriously as a society when we are so clearly terrified of boobs. If you don't want to see them, look away. It's not like there are topless women all around, I would venture to guess that there are very very few women who are at all interested in being topless in public. If you happen to run across one who is and the sight of her mammaries is that offensive to you, it doesn't take that much effort to look in another direction. Jeez!

Of course, what Ms Brown, Ms Stephens and the other Republicans who passed this bill through committee may be worried about is ending up looking like this: 

An Absolute Disgrace

This is an absolute disgrace. Some teabagger scumbag congressman has invited Ted fucking Nugent to be his guest at the State of the Union. Ted Nugent has made violent threats against Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Barbara Boxer and others while waving around his machine gun. In a sane society, a piece of shit like Nugent would never be allowed in the same building as the president.

After choosing inflammatory entertainer Ted Nugent as his plus-one for Tuesday's State of the Union address, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) explained his decision in an interview with CNN, saying he made the choice based on Nugent's merit.
"He's a very articulate spokesman," Stockman told CNN. "I'm excited to have him. I think he gives a balance to what's being said tonight at the White House.

This is, of course, total bullshit. The only reason for inviting Nugent is to extend a giant middle finger in the face of the President, and the Democratic Party in general. No president has ever had to put up with this level of disrespect, and no person of any stature should have to. And it's not just this one nut. No one from the Republican leadership, your Boehners, your McConnels, your Cantors, no one is going to take this guy aside and say "no, you can't invite that seditious owl-casting of a human being to the State of the Union. Try to pretend to be a decent fucking human being." They may not have had the guts to do it themselves, but they're all okay with it.

“I am excited to have a patriot like Ted Nugent joining me in the House Chamber to hear from President Obama,” said Stockman.  “After the Address I’m sure Ted will have plenty to say.”

Patriot? Patriot?  Here's a quick rule of thumb. Someone who wears clothing adorned with the flag of a nation that has declared war on the United States is not a patriot.



A man who shit his pants to avoid service in a war he supported is not a patriot.

And a man who threatens the elected officials of the US is definitely NOT a patriot.



Even if he hadn't made threats against the life of the President, Secretary of State, and a couple of Senators, even if he hadn't offered a "new Concord Bridge." Even if he hadn't had a history of racist remarks. Even if he hadn't wished aloud that the South had won the Civil War, a clown like Nugent, a man who made a living flouncing around in a loincloth singing songs about vaginas does not belong at an event like the State of the Union Address.



Seriously, THIS is the guy next to whom you are proud to sit at such an august event?



You're really proud to associate with this person?

View this image ›

Seventeen-year-old Hawaii native Pele Massa was too young to marry Nugent. So Nugent made an agreement with the girl's parents to become her legal guardian. This was rated #63 on Spin magazine's "100 Sleaziest Moments in Rock" list.

You're going to listen to the President of the Goddamm United States of America with the man who wrote these lyrics?

Wang dang sweet poontang
Wang dang sweet poontang
That Nadine, what a teenage queen
She lookin' so clean
Especially down in between
What I like

She's so sweet when she yanks on my meat
But down on the street,
you know she can't be beat
What the hell
Wang dang sweet poontang
Wang dang sweet poontang

This is what the modern Republican Party has devolved into. Some asshole invites this piece of shit to the Capitol and no one in the party will call him on it. What's maybe even more pathetic is that Ted will be offering his "thoughts" after the speech and I'll bet you any money that reporters will show up, not just from FOX, but even from once-legitimate news sources.

Can you imagine this ever happening with any other president? Would any member of Congress have had the balls to invite someone to the State of the Union who had threatened the life of George Bush or Ronald Reagan or even Bill Clinton? The level of outright contempt these people have for a sitting president is an absolute disgrace.

Coming Soon to a Senate Near You

Here are some of the fine candidates who may be running for Senate seats in 2014 because there are no standards, apparently.

Michele Bachmann.
Yes, that Michele Bachmann.



According to Real Clear Politics, "Bachmann is again being mentioned as a candidate for higher office -- this time as a potential challenger to first-term Democratic Sen. Al Franken in 2014."

Oh please, God, let this happen! I would love a front row seat to watch Franken eviscerate this looney moron in a debate.

It should go a bit like this:




Paul Broun

Congressman Paul Broun is probably best known for his statement that everything he learned about science was "lies from the pit of Hell." And he means that quite literally. He doesn't mean like "damnable lies." He isn't using "from Hell" as a figure of speech as in "Ugh, I had the date from Hell last night!" No he means that the Devil is sitting down in actual literal Hell thinking up science stuff to try and lead good folks like Paul Broun astray. So of course, he's on the House science committee, because apparently the GOP believes that the Science Committee should approach science the way the American Cancer Society approaches cancer.





He's also the one who suggested that instead of raising the debt ceiling, we should lower it. And he had this to say about the potential passage of "Obamacare":

"If ObamaCare passes, that free insurance card that's in people's pockets is gonna be as worthless as a Confederate dollar after the War Between The States -- the Great War of Yankee Aggression."

Oh, and he also said this:

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

And this:

He also spoke of a "socialistic elite" - Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - who might use a pandemic disease or natural disaster as an excuse to declare martial law.

"They're trying to develop an environment where they can take over," he said. "We've seen that historically."

In New Jersey, you may very well be seeing this man running for the Senate:

 

It worked for Scott Brown!

 

 

 Geraldo Rivera

There's really nothing to say about this buffoon that hasn't already been said. Just let this phrase roll around your head for a moment:
Senator Geraldo Rivera.



In Massachusetts,  there has been speculation that "Dr" Keith Ablow may throw his pointy tinfoil hat into the ring.

  

Well, that kid is fucked!

 

Yes, Glenn Beck's favorite shrink, "Dr" Keith Ablow, the man who psychoanalyses people he's never met, from alleged child murderesses to the President of the United States.  

 

And what insight! Why just listen to his analysis of why the President is interested in passing laws that might prevent some children from being gunned down in school:

 

Ablow added that “the autonomy of others did [Obama] no favors as a kid, when he was abandoned again and again by people who were — quote, unquote — ‘responsible’ and supposed to do the right thing like parents. So his belief is: ‘You know what? What good is individual autonomy in decision making? What good did it do me? The collective is what needs to be empowered, and all the better if I am the center of that collective and the most powerful person in it.’” “His solution runs psychologically in the direction of disempowering the individual every single time,”

 

 

It couldn't possibly be that the Prez, like most Americans, is sick of seeing groups of children murdered by psychopaths. No, it must be his deep-seated desire to disempower individuals because his father abandoned him. Occam's Razor!

 

Oh, and he also provided some insight into known sociopath Newt Gingrich:

 

 here’s what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude—psychologically—from Mr. Gingrich’s behavior during his three marriages:

 

Um, he's a narcissistic, self-centered dishonest bum?

 

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.
2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.
3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible. 

(Clearly, she's the asshole here.) 
Oh, right, he's a charming, charismatic, narcissistic, self-centered dishonest bum!

Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.

So, Mickey Rooney for president?

 

Too dated? Maybe Larry King?


And after his conclusion, he continues on to point #4, because that's a totally normal thing to do!

4) Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.

Wow, what a sacrifice! Paying alimony AND having people find out what an asshole he is! So noble! Obviously, the guy who's been fucking around behind his wife's back and is now dumping her to move on to the next temp-wife is really the one who suffers!

Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.


Yes, hopefully he'll break the news gently to Congress that he's been seeing other legislative bodies! What a fucking douche.




The good news is that none of these assclowns has a snowball's chance of actually being elected. Hopefully they'll stick around just long enough to provide us with a few good laughs and to remind the electorate what a collection of fools and clowns the modern Republican party has become.