… involves this…
I’m not interested.
After all, someone makes this.
The most flabbergasting aspect of the 2014 Mercedes-Benz G63 AMG 6×6 isn’t that it exists, but that it’s a production vehicle. As in, you can buy one….
Little help here from the lawyery types…
In philosophy, there’s a moral principle that “ought implies can“. Put otherwise, it means that in order for some action to be obligatory, it must be possible for the agent to perform that act.
Is there a similar principle in law? If the Congress enacted a law requiring the executive to provide a free unicorn to each citizen (or some non-zero subset of citizens), could that law be considered Constitutional? Clearly it is impossible. Wouldn’t impossibility imply unconstitutionality?
Similarly, Obama’s defense of his endless improvisations that substantially alter the law seems to be that the law is impossible to implement.
I hope you can see where I’m going with this.
Any such principle, law nerds?
So Paul Ryan wants veterans to ‘give’ after he ‘took’ and at least one veteran is less than thrilled.
I’m still mulling this Paul Ryan budget deal that stole money from every military retiree (past, present and future). This morning, upon opening my email, I noticed I had a letter from Congressman Paul Ryan…and it was begging me for an “emergency end of the year donation.”
Then he gets all intemperate and shit,
Your ability to look us in the eye, take money from us (apparently there was ZERO, other source of waste within the federal government that you could have recovered this money…
The nerve of him.
Doesn’t he know that the GOP establishment pooh-bahs are more important than we and that they deserve our money to Fight The Democrats?!?!?!?!
I mean, otherwise the Dems will gut our military and show disrespect to our veterans!!!!!
Via Gateway Pundit.
Related, apparently people are upset that there’s a fat Barbie. I don’t get why.
I know my Gi Joes would have loved a fat chick to bang. Hot Barbie always snubbed them for that metrosexual loser Ken.
So when last we saw the National Review in a free speech controversy, we had Derbyshire trying to start that dialogue on race we always hear about.
Derbyshire was fired of course. Can’t have a dialogue on race where unpalatable truths are uttered, where whitey does not apologize for being all white and shit.
Steyn had a Corner comment about how the lynching of Derb was a bad idea. Of course, he was attacked for that, he should have learned his lesson.
So here we have Mark Steyn opining on the Duck Dynasty guy Who Must Be Shunned By All Right Thinking People.
So his editor felt the need to explain to Steyn how he needs to shut his pie hole, some things are just beyond the pale. Sure we have free speech and shit, but not if it offends someone important.
Geez, I usually respect Steyn, but he should have learned from the Derbyshire dustup that the National Review is not willing to support the wrong speech any more than they are to support non-establishment GOPers, those things keep you from getting all the good invites to all the right parties.
The dust-up over a certain reality TV personality’s recent comments about sexual mores reminded me of something that has irritated me for some time about the Celebrate Diversity crowd, and a minor revelation I once had while watching a Will and Grace re-run.
But first, a minor detour. Back in 2002, not too long after college, I was living in the DC area working in what I would consider my first “real” job — something that didn’t involve bussing restaurant tables or making inordinate amounts of photocopies. Rather suddenly, I found myself in need of a new place to live. I ended up finding an ad for a cheap, metro-accessible place. The ad said “gay friendly”. Hmmm, not my ideal choice. But I needed new digs pronto, and it was cheap! As it turns out, it was three gay dudes living in a house, and I was the odd straight guy. Little wonder that I ended up watching a re-run of Will and Grace.