Archive for the ‘Lame’ Category

Striking a bold move, Michigan Congressman Kerry Bentivolio returned his Chamber of Commerce award.

Daily Caller:
“If you notice, they call it the Spirit of Enterprise award, not the Spirit of Free Enterprise Award,” [Bentivolio's chief of staff Rob] Wasinger told The Daily Caller via email. “Crony capitalism is alive and well at the Chamber of Commerce.”

Naturally, the Chamber now supports his opponent.

Just in case you were confused about who the good guy is here, Bentivolio has quite a respectable conservative report card with an ACU score of 88, a Club for Growth score of 88, and a Heritage Action score of 83.

As previously discussed, the Chamber is also attempting to primary Justin Amash, who sports even more impressive credentials with an ACU score of 89.22, a Club for Growth score of 99, and a Heritage Action score  of 89.  The Club for Growth has explicitly endorsed Amash in the primary.

Opportunistic Fundraising Fail

Posted: April 7, 2014 by socklessjoe in FAIL, Lame

I’m sure some of you got Firefox-related fundraising spam from any number of conservative groups.  Here’s a particularly precious one I got from some group I’ve never even heard of.

alf1

Huh.  Didn’t know Firefox was a search engine.  Guess I’ve been using it wrong all this time. (Second screen-cap below the break.)

(more…)

Riddle me this, morons…

How is it that repealing Obamacare could add to the deficit?

The original CBO score was a joke, and they had to lie, scrimp, and steal from other programs (like the student loan program) to make the bill as a whole score in their favor.

Since then, they’ve gone back on any number of cost saving and/or tax-raising measures, not the least of which are Tsar Obama’s royal proclamations of waivers and delays.

It was a lie to start, and they compounded the lie.

Fact Check: TRUE!

Huh?

Oh, I dunno. I might specifically attend my National Security team’s briefing re Ukraine/Russia crisis. Maybe even skip golf or fundraising or jogging around the White House with Pluggy Joe in order to specifically make time for that. But then again, I’m just a simple Republican hatemonger, so what do I know?

h/t

Unless this….

Dick Clark

… involves this…

Dick_Clarks_head-500x380

I’m not interested.

Shock video to turn children into bloodthirsty killbots

Posted: December 5, 2013 by Sean M. in Lame

Do you ever just look at someone and think, “Man, it must be tiring constantly finding incredibly stupid shit to get outraged about?” Because that’s what I’m getting from these two douchewagons:

Santa and his reindeer have some company this year: military fighter jets. And that has some people very unhappy, saying it is a thinly veiled marketing video aimed at children.

NORAD is equating jolly old St. Nick and the military in the minds of kids, one psychologist said.

Santa means presents, good times and “everything else that is positive about Christmas,” Allen Kanner, a child and family psychologist, told the Boston Globe. The co-founder of the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood said the Pentagon has gone too far.

The associate director of the campaign, Josh Golin, goes a step further. He told CNN that it was “a back-door way to market” the military to kids. The Pentagon took this holiday tradition and added “violence and militarism,” he said.

Okay, at this point, I’m going to warn you that if you have impressionable little tykes around, you might want to clear them out of the room and lock the door. Because I’m gonna embed this gun-blazing, hellfire-spewing, guitar-rocking, splodetastic T&A jingofest right the fuck here:

AWWWWWW, HELLS YE–wait, that was it? That looked like the cut scenes from a game you might buy as a gag gift from the bargain bin at Fry’s Electronics. In 1998. And the fighter jets were on screen for something like five seconds. There’s more “violence and militarism” in your average Jane Austen novel than in that thing.

Seriously you guys, wash the sand out of your vaginas and work on something worthwhile. I would suggest helping out with this, but…you know.

UPDATE: Now It All Makes Sense…
I mentioned this to someone else who had seen the video, and we figured out The Military-Industrial Complex’s dastardly plan. They’re trying to make today’s kids (who are, we are constantly told, desensitized to violence through slick and realistic video games) sorry for NORAD in hopes that they’ll join up and bring the painfully square agency into the 21st century with their l33t skillz. Or something.

Plant

Posted: November 25, 2013 by socklessjoe in Fun With Media, Lame, Liberal Fascism, Obama's Fault

This dude was a plant.  Little doubt in my mind.

The NBC evening news [spit!] dutifully “reported” that few hecklers get so close to the POTUS.  IIRC, I think they said that he was “invited”, which from what I can gather, means that the whole crowd was invited, and presumably subject to at least minimal vetting. (Also, as I search news articles for this story, I see some outlets are scrubbing the word “invited” from the text.)

Upon hearing this, I immediately became convinced this supposed heckler was a plant.

  • The heckler acts as an aesthetic foil, an angry voice countered by Obama’s calmness.
  • The heckler acts as a sympathetic character, who Obama can agree with on substance.
  • The heckler allows Obama to lie about following the law in a context unrelated to wanton lawlessness with Obamacare.
  • The heckler acts as a distraction from Obamacare, serving as a pivot vehicle.

And he just happened to get close to the President at this event…

The Republican Party: Nobody Asked You

Posted: November 17, 2013 by Sean M. in Conservatism, Lame

Joe Scarborough took some time away from his job as the ill-fitting fig leaf over MSNBC’s naked Democrat Party advocacy to write some book, an excerpt of which ran in today’s Parade Magazine under the title “Joe Scarborough: How I Would Fix the Republican Party,” and it’s about as squishtastic as you’d expect.
 
He starts out with some pro forma Tea Party bashing (“amateurs,” “ideologically extreme”) in making the point that we maybe could have won the Senate in 2010 with some better candidates, but then starts talking about his opposition to a 1996 Colin Powell presidential campaign that never materialized anyway:

I spoke out against the possibility of Colin Powell’s presidential candidacy in 1996 ­because his political moderation was so off-putting to me. The thought that he could be the standard-bearer of my Republican Party was offensive. But watching the retired general on Meet the Press in recent years has made me understand why ­Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush drafted him to a be a critical ­player in their administrations. In retrospect I realize how much better the GOP would have fared against Bill Clinton in 1996 if I had not let my hopes for a conservative stalwart get in the way of our best hope to beat Clinton.

Right, because in foregoing a “moderate” (more on that in a moment) like Powell, we ended up with that extremist right wing firebrand…Bob Dole.
 
What really galls me about this, though, is that Scarborough’s squishy mea culpa misses the point: that he was actually right all along. Colin Powell may still nominally be a Republican, and Scarborough is correct that he’s surely no conservative, but he’s not a moderate, either. Powell is a liberal, and while that’s his prerogative, I don’t think it serves anybody to pretend otherwise. He voted for Obama in 2008 and fucking endorsed him in the last election over that other knuckledragging, just-to-the-right-of-Albert-Speer conservative…Mitt Romney.
 
Scarborough claims that Republicans (and he really means conservatives here) “kick moderates like General Powell out of the party’s mainstream and drive them into the arms of the Democratic Party every four years,” but let’s be honest here–In an election between Obama and Colin Powell, Colin Powell probably would have been too conservative for Colin Powell.
 
He closes his piece by invoking Reagan and makes some noise about “fighting for the core ­principles of conservatism and emphasizing values that most Americans agree with” before saying that sometimes we’ll have to use “principled pragmatism” like Reagan sometimes did too. The difference, as I see it, is that someone like Reagan started out from a credibly conservative position and knew when to be pragmatic when he absolutely had to. When “pragmatism” is your default position at best and a handy excuse to stab your base in the back at worst, what’s the point of getting into the Big Tent, anyway?
 
An additional thought:
 
Maybe it’s just because I don’t pay much attention to intra-party stuff like this on the other side, but it sure as hell seems to me like we conservatives are the only ones who get hectored about this coalition-building business on a regular basis. When was the last time you heard, for example, anybody telling the Democrats with a straight face that they had to pay more than lip service to moderating their stance on one of their core issues like, say, abortion on demand? Yeah.

A little dose of reality.

Some are talking about a generational rejection of the liberal agenda. Call me unconvinced.

Latest RCP average of the generic congressional vote.

RCP_generic_2013_11_17

If the manifest failure of the namesake project of the liberal god-king Obama is not enough to get Republicans better than parity with Democrats, doesn’t that mean we’re still screwed?

[Reference reading: Hot Air, Mediaite, Douthat @ NYT]

The latest White House weasel word in defense of Obama “misspeaking” about folks keeping their insurance plans is “substandard”. As in, “You shouldn’t want to keep your substandard plan anyway.”

This is a rather slick tautology. The plans are “sub-standard” in that they are below the legal standard — the Obamacare standard. So when people complain that they were kicked off their plan because it didn’t meet the Obamacare criteria, it is a semantically null defense to say that the plan was “substandard”.

Of course it is substandard. Obamacare defined the standard, and that is the very thing about which people are complaining.

“Substandard” is particularly weaselly because in addition to having the precise meaning of being below the standard, it has a looser connotation of being of poor quality.  Not all substandard plans are of poor quality, but they’d like you to think so while repeating a technically accurate word.

And regarding idea that the POTUS “misspoke” (several dozen times), I think it’s time the GOP bring back a word that was used effectively against Bush: “misled”.