Another Mass Shooting, Another Litany Of Pro-Gun Excuses.

Another mass shooting? You know what that means. We’ll discuss guns for a few days and then ignore the topic for the rest of the year (until the next mass shooting). Meanwhile, pro-gun people will swarm the Internet and TV channels pressing the usual old, tired talking points. We need to make absolutely sure we continue to learn nothing from this latest tragedy, all while wringing hands and expressing deep sorrow for the dead and bereaved. I tell you what…let’s cut to the chase, shall we? We’ve heard it all before. I bet news stations are dying to get back to covering really important things…like what the new Doritos flavor might be, the rad new films coming out this weekend at the Googleplex, or the latest crazy YouTube viral video.

A handy conservative / pro-gun person / gun nut trolling checklist:

1. Refuse to acknowledge correlation between gun culture with lax gun laws and constant news stories about mass murdering assholes shooting people.
2. Say nothing as pro-gun people decide, as always, to be the Civility Police and whine that the day to discuss gun issues is “not today.” But tomorrow isn’t good either. Yesterday? Nope: they’ll lie and say that these mass shootings are “rare” and that even considering a discussion about flaws with gun control in our country “punishes” responsible gun-owners! In short, it is never a good time to discuss the subject. Just how they like it.
3. Say nothing when pro-gun people bore and enrage us with the well-worn and grossly flawed assertion that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
4. Say nothing when pro-gun people start comparing a crazy Chinese man stabbing 22 kids with a knife (none of whom, as far as I know, died) to the Newborn and Clackamas tragedies, where people were injured AND died, pretending that the knifings in China are in any way equivalent to the constant gun violence and mass shootings in the U.S.
5. Say nothing as religious trolls like Mike Huckabee start blaming “godlessness” for gun violence. Because bad things never happen to devout Christians, no mass shooter ever has been a Christian, and prayer can definitely stop a madman from spewing bullets at your five-year-old child.
6. Mitt Romney should pop up any moment now to blame single moms for gun violence again, like he did during the Presidential debates. Oh, wait; no, he won’t, so you need to whine that Romney’s comment is completely irrelevant to the discussion because he lost the election, and ignore what it says about the GOP that they nominated someone who could say that with a straight face.
7. Say nothing when pro-gun people start protesting that they are “responsible,” ergo should not be deprived of the right to own multiple AK-47s or semi-automatics capable of spraying dozens if not hundreds of bullets into crowds.
8. Say nothing about pro-gun people clinging to 2nd Amendment and interpreting it with great creativity, although gun tech at the time the 2nd Amendment was drafted was restricted to primitive muskets and the like.
9. Express zero concern as pro-gun people claim they need to arm themselves against the government, etc., even though the government has and always will have access to greater and more destructive firepower than any one citizen can get access to. Also, we definitely need more anti-government kooks arming themselves to the teeth.
10. Nod agreeably as pro-gun people cite the few cases where a gun owner justifiably shot someone trying to rob, harm or kill them, while ignoring that there may hve been an option other than deadly force, and while ignoring the many cases where a gun was accessed by a small child or unstable pre-pubescent and fired, where suicidal or homicidal people turned to guns rather than psychiatric intervention, where a gun discharged unexpectedly and hurt or killed someone, where a gun turned a domestic violence incident into a homicide, where bullets fired from guns on holidays like New Year’s Eve or the Fourth of July wounded or killed an innocent party, where guns were stolen and used to commit more violent crimes, where guns were accessible to a mentally imbalanced or impaired adult, where adult white men used guns to shoot non-white teenagers dead over minor disagreements, where easy civilian gun access makes criminals even more dangerous, where easy civilian gun access gets our law enforcement officers shot dead, where heavy reliance on guns makes our law enforcement officers more likely to kill unarmed civilians, or where a gun escalated what might have been a less serious dispute into a deadly confrontation.
11. Refuse to discuss ties between politicians–usually conservatives–and donations to and from NRA.
12. Refuse to discuss who refused to support gun restrictions and reasonable legislation intended to reduce ease of access to guns.
13. Refuse to discuss reluctance to offer the mentally troubled access to the care or meds they might need. In fact, you should whine more about affordable healthcare that covers mental issues.
14. Refuse to discuss gun show loopholes.
15. Refuse to consider proposals to enforce gun owner responsibility while claiming to already be responsible enough.
16. Assert that more guns would have prevented the problem, because kindergarteners packing Glocks and teachers bringing guns to school (workplace) is a great idea.
17. Ignore that MI just passed legislation approving of guns in schools.
18. Pretend that the shooter(s) were just crazy, and that access to guns didn’t make their issues worse.
19. Pretend that discussing the inarguable gun proliferation in the U.S. is akin to “wanting to take away” everyone’s guns, or that discussing the problem is equal to “stomping on 2nd Amendment rights.”
20. Indulge pro-gun people’s fantasies that if they were on site with their guns during one of these frequent mass shootings, that they’d be a hero and stop the carnage.
21. Ignore NRA’s agenda (sell more guns) and allow them to set the tone of all discussions about guns.
22. Post on Twitter, if you are a comedian, about how your 1st Amendment rights are stomped on if people respond unpleasantly to your hilarious jokes about dead children.
23. Continue to glorify guns in pop culture.
24. Drag Jesus into it some more, demanding that everyone pray for the dead and bereft, and claiming that the shooter wouldn’t have been the shooter if only he really loved Jesus enough.
25. Interview traumatized little kids on TV who just survived a school shooting that killed their classmates and teachers.
26. Clutch pearls for an entire 24 hour news cycle, and then drop the subject the next time Snooki says something stupid or a celebrity wears a nice outfit.
27. Don’t forget to drag political animus into the discussion, so you can cloud the issue with your hatred of anything a “liberal” or President Obama says or does.
28. Give desperately-sought attention to nasty partisan hacks like Coulter asserting that “more guns = less violence.”
29. Blame “violent media” like films, TV, video games, cartoons, music for gun violence, rather than blaming easy access to guns for gun violence.
30. Be sure to publicly announce your plans to go out and buy yourself a new gun or three “to defend yourself.” Stay scared, buy more guns, refuse to go to a range or take any gun safety courses to familiarize yourself with your weapons, just buy more.
31. Insist on increased, intrusive security measures so our schools and workplaces are more and more like prisons, while ignoring that reducing the amount of guns would make that kind of security less necessary in the first place.
32. Try to blame the parents of the dead children for not choosing to home-school them, or the parents of the shooters for gun violence, so people stop talking about how gun violence is directly tied to guns.
33. Blame society as a whole for gun violence, so people stop talking about how gun violence is directly tied to guns.
34. Continue to resist background check laws, and ignore stats that indicate that background checks, requiring people to use gun locks and to lock up guns, restricting access to guns, restricting access to more powerful and destructive guns with bigger clips, and enforcing waiting periods are useful steps that reduce gun violence.
35. Above all, pretend that gun culture isn’t really a big problem, and that it is just a teeny, tiny handful of bad people causing all the problems…on a nearly weekly basis…while wielding guns…but, hey, that’s purely a coincidence.

I discussed this on Facebook and got some good replies. I’d like to single out these:

Comment by E***** A***** D*****: The one you missed is their citing Switzerland as a culture where gun violence is low but the government arms adults with firearms, meanwhile forgetting to mention those are persons who have completed compulsory military conscription who have to account for ammunition in sealed boxes, that Switzerland although guaranteeing the right to own a firearm by law has the most restrictive gun regulations (e.g., licence renewal every 5 years, need to prove the need to own a firearm – hunting, sport, etc., ammunition sold under strictest of regulations, any hint of domestic violence (past and likelihood) results in no licence and the list continues. They make the best argument for regulations without even being aware of it! If you ever see the meme for Switzerland as a reason for allowing Gun Ownership, merely comment. We accept your terms and conditions, and will model our laws to mirror their laws. Glad to oblige you Gun Owners!

Comment by L** F****: Yeah. The thing that amazes me is that people freak out about the idea of stricter gun regulations when the Second Amendment explicitly advocates keeping and bearing arms in the context of “a well-regulated militia.” Unless you have had military training and had no record of mental instability in the military, you should have to join a citizen run gun club in order to own a gun, where you get basic training, and attend meetings on at least some sort of regular basis. Besides the fact that more safety education and training will be its own reward, there’s the added advantage that you are training with a bunch of people who have the opportunity to observe your behavior. If someone is mentally unstable, likely a fellow club member would notice it and be able to take appropriate action as far as whether they should have access to guns. It would also give a lot of at-risk young men an opportunity to find mentors and other community members who can be role models for them. I love how all these people who advocate personal responsibility whine incessantly about their Second Amendment rights but completely ignore their Second Amendment responsibilities.

‘…But The Political Parties Are Both The Same So I Am Not Voting!’

‎”I’m not going to vote. What’s the difference between Romney and Obama, anyway?”

Ignoring, for a moment, how unintelligent people sound when they say stupid shit like that, let’s pause for a second and think of some differences between the candidates.

Why vote? Well, I don’t know about YOU, but I’m going to vote for the candidate who isn’t trying to shove a vaginal probe up my private parts, has not vowed to kill Planned Parenthood, is less likely to start a war in Iran, doesn’t want to kill healthcare for the needy, does not hate on the gays, does not oppose equal rights, won’t protect the wealthiest 1% from paying their fair share of taxes, doesn’t support Citizens United, won’t ignore infrastructure problems, won’t sell off our national parks and forests to the highest bidder, who won’t protect polluters, who won’t deny federal aid for communities affected by natural disasters, who won’t deny students a chance at a college education because they are not independently wealthy, who won’t give free reign to religious bigots trying to erode Separation of Church and State, who doesn’t believe that corporations are people, who doesn’t believe that money is the same as free speech, who is not actively trying to disenfranchise voters, who supports the DREAM act, who won’t screw the poorest and most helpless in our society, and who won’t gut social services and education. I’m going to vote for the guy who has released his tax returns. I’m going to go for the guy who does not take quotes from his opponent and edit them out of context to tell lies in his adverts.

I will vote for the guy (Obama, to be clear) who is responsible for:

  • The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
  • The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010
  • The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare, or the ACA)
  • The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
  • Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010
  • The Budget Control Act of 2011
  • Ending the war in Iraq
  • A new START arms control treaty with Russia
  • Capturing / killing Osama Bin Laden

What about Romney?

  • A member of the same political party that endorses all that crap I already said I was not in favor of
  • Worked at Bain, but tells conflicting stories about when he actually left a position of responsibility. It looks like he was there for three years after he claimed he was.
  • Worked for the Salt Lake City Olympics, but all correspondence related to his tenure there has been destroyed.
  • Was Governor of Massachussetts, but all correspondence related to his tenure there has been destroyed and all the computer hard drives wiped.
  • Panders to ignorant Birthers and the hyper-religious
  • Has not, as far as I can tell, ever taken even one stand on an issue that he has not flip-flopped on later for political expediency
  • Lies his ass off constantly (oh, wait, that’s not an accomplishment; my bad)

Also, I am going to vote for the guy that the Koch brothers are not actively trying to purchase the White House for.

Check out the big brain on Brad!

So, no…I’m not going to use laziness or disinterest in doing my civic duty keep me from getting informed about how the two front runners are NOT the same and then using my self-imposed ignorance of the candidates and issues as an excuse not to vote. Neither should you.

Another take on this, from “Diamond Rain” on Facebook:

“To all the people who insist all the candidates are the same, there is no difference between them — which is clearly not true… the proof is in seeing how they vote, in the case of a legislator or a judge, and the huge differences between the policies they enact in the case of a president — but if you think there is no difference, then what do you suggest we do to preserve and better the Republic? Not vote?

Someone is going to be the next president. Saying there is no difference between [Romney] and Obama is not only wrong, but it is worse than a useless contribution because it suggests that the democracy is ineffective and there is no point participating. As far as I am concerned, those who take the position that there is no difference between the parties and/or the candidates are:

1. Wrong.

2. Doing the country a disservice and

3. Are either:

a: On the losing side and trying to convince others to stay home and not vote because they are desperate to find a way to win or;

b. Too lazy to educate themselves in the vast differences between parties and candidates and would rather get a few cheap applause from others who are also too lazy and want to use that as an excuse to do nothing and take no position.

Ignorance is easy. Learning is not.”

So don’t be an asshole. Educate yourself. Pick a candidate. Do your civic duty. Vote.

False Equivalencies: Why Glenn Beck Pretended to Be Upset Obama “Ate a Dog”

Glenn Beck is SIMPLY APPALLED, people. Obama, when he was a small child, living in a country that does not have the same taboo about eating dogs that we do, was given dog to eat by his adult caretaker. Well then, Beck, I guess you have to stop calling President Obama a Muslim then since it is forbidden by their faith.

Man, the conservatives really had to dig deep to counter Romney’s callous treatment of the family dog. Ever hear of “two wrongs don’t make a right”?

Or, more accurately, that the offending passage from one of Obama’s books that they are attempting to color as “just as bad” does not elaborate on whether Obama knew he was eating dog beforehand (I was fed donkey and snake AND rabbit without knowing that was what it was before I ate it), does not mention that it is common in the country where he was raised (even if it is gross to Western sensibilities), and involves, at best, being a passive bystander and consumer of an anonymous and nameless livestock animal raised for meat like a cow or chicken or pig.

Compare that to what Mitt Romney admits he did as an adult: he was an actively responsible party mistreating a living animal with a name (Seamus) who was already elevated to the status of house pet by strapping him for hours atop the family car, and then he did nothing to remedy the situation after the supposedly beloved companion animal / four-legged family member expressed discomfort, fear, and distress by, well, crapping himself.

So now we’re comparing what Obama did as a child to an anonymous animal, when he had no choice but to do eat what his adult guardian told him to do, to what Romney did as an adult to a family pet, when he had several options he could have chosen at any time, such as putting his luggage atop the car and the dog inside it. What, was he more concerned that a suitcase might fall off than the dog carrier? To repeat: Obama was a child who was FED dog by his caregiver (how much choice did YOU have in deciding the dinner menu at your home when you were a kid?), while Romney was an adult who freely chose how to treat the family dog and to ignore the poor animal’s obvious distress.

In short, weaksauce all around. But would you expect anything else?

You know, I remember Matt Drudge spamming the entire USENET with his screeds, not bothering to check if it was wanted or appropriate.

Back in the day, self-promotion and advertising of any sort were LOATHED and resisted. There were newsgroups (sort of like forums) which existed as separate little “islands” of discussion devoted to a narrow-focus subject, and people resented–especially when access was via a slow dial-up modem), and EVEN MORE when they got on USENET via the first paynets–reading something off-topic.

Most people using USENET had access to approximately 5,000 newsgroups of varying degrees of popularity. Drudge would spam his long and 99.8% off-topic and self-indulgent / self-promotional “reports” to every single newsgroup he had access to, and would ignore everyone raising hell about it (SO RUDE). He did not participate in discussions that I EVER saw. He was out to talk about what he wanted to talk about, and to hell with you or if it was an appropriate venue or even if anyone else was interested even tangentially in his posts.

If there was any justice, he would eventually have gotten tired of spamming the world and being hated by nearly everyone with USENET access globally and would have gone away (or, when the Internet finally had a GUI, he would have made a ranty Angelfire or Geocities webpage with spinny skulls, under construction animations, rainbow-hued horizontal dividers and GIFs of Reagan with a halo and Clinton with devil horns…maybe an ASCII cow or Bart Simpson picture). Unfortunately for us all, he was leaked documents about the Lewinsky scandal, probably because he was a self-important global spammer who ignored all criticism in his lust for blathering about how much conservetism rocks and liberals all suck to EVERY DAMN BODY’S NEWSGROUPS, he posted THAT all over the damn place, and, voila, the little asshole has never stopped being self-important, spreading gossip and mostly unsubstantiated dross, and trying to just shout louder than anyone else, without regard for anyone who might find him tedious, wrong, annoying, etc.

So, there you go.

I’m not upset that he busted Clinton and Lewinsky, for what that is worth. Someone else would have. I’m just annoyed that he has ended up being REWARDED for being a giant hateful conservatard asshole with no social skills or courtesy for others.

Seriously, there is no justice in this world.

One of my conservative friends (who was VERY irritated that I reminded him that the Heritage Foundation was responsible for the part of Obamacare he had been ranting about most) treated me to this false equivalency:

  1. Windmills for wind power kill birds.
  2. Birds fly into the windmills and die.
  3. Lots of them.
  4. Ergo, windmill blades killing birds is JUST AS BAD as drilling for oil and having a pipe burst and spill oil everywhere. (“Take that, liberals! How you like us now! You bird-murderers!”)

Yes, indeed. Birds fly into stuff. That is, of course, exactly equivalent to BP getting away pretty much scot-free with dumping tens of thousands of gallons of biohazardous material into the Gulf, killing dozens if not hundreds of species (including birds; heck, if you want to be utilitarian, including fish and shrimp that humans eat) and then trying not to actually pay any of the damages without being arm-twisted.


I did not even bother to get into a discussion about it. Because birds flying into windmills is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as probably permanent damage to not just birds but also a lot of sea life and HUMAN BEINGS in the area. And wind power is just evil, anyway, because Republicans are wary of it. No big money in wind power. So it has to be EEEEEVIL and bad.

Seriously. As columnist Dave Barry used to say, I am not making this up.

(Birds fly into wind power windmill blades: BAN WIND FARMS.
Birds also fly into jet engines on places. BAN PLANES.
Birds also fly into house and business windows. BAN WINDOWS.)

Both political parties have their flawed cheerleaders, though.

Nick Kerton says, “The bad thing about [Joe] Scarborough isn’t that he’s a harsh conservative, but that he constantly says he’s a “centrist”. His fucking theme song is Stuck In The Middle With You. Scarborough is obvious, though. Chris Matthews is a bit conservative leaning as well, while Al Sharpton tends to paint atheists unfairly when religious issues come up — in one segment he explicitly suggested that social justice could be an EXCLUSIVELY religious value. But CNN…argh. When they’re not saying the Dems just need to give more to the rabid dogs, they’re spending half an hour explaining how an exit poll works.”

I agree with all three criticisms. Joe is mostly an economic conservative. Chris gets very hawkish and sort of, hmm, fratty and he never met a boring sport analogy he didn’t love to rant at length about. Al is still recovering from the Tawana Brawley Hoax and his mild animus towards any atheist or agnostic folks.

While we are at it, I like Keith Olbermann (and his affection for James Thurber is charming), but he’s kind of a douchenugget off-camera.

The false equivalencies are thoroughly annoying, whichever side does it, though. There is something to be said for comparing apples to apples, rather than apples to kumquats, Ford Pintos, or monkeywrenches.

I Won’t Mention the Magic Underpants

Republicans run the worst candidates. I have conservative friends and family members and they are close to donning sackcloth and ashes in despair over Mitt Romney.

Let’s take a look back at the quality candidates that competed to win the nomination crown this election season. To be fair, I am going to strive to say something nice about each of the Republicans who had Formally Declared or formed an Exploratory Committee with an eye on running for President in 2012!

Michele Bachman: Your crazy eyes are a lovely shade of blue.

Herman Cain: Godfather’s Pizza used to be very tasty…when I was a small child with undeveloped taste buds.

Newt Gingrich: For a fat guy, you don’t sweat much. Your chutzpah when condemning Democrats for hypothetical ethical lapses is impressive for a man who left not one but two wives while they were languishing in hospital beds and who was censured when Speaker.

Jon Greenspon: Ex-Marine. OORAH.

Jon Huntsman: Your veneers are very white and shiny. Actually, even though I disagree with Huntsman politically, I still liked the guy and thought he was a decent human being. That was when I knew he was doomed to fail.

Gary Johnson: He does not attend church, is pro-choice, anti-big government, pro-immigration, an outspoken critic of the war on drugs and favors legalizing marijuana. And no one knows who the eff he is.

Fred Karger: Self-hating gay guy, but check out his nice suits!

Andy Martin: Spammed “Is Obama a Kenyan Muslim?” emails all over the globe, so clearly has the wild-eyed enthusiasm Teabaggers admire. Has at least one interesting necktie.

Thad McCotter: Plays a mean lead guitar for his band, the New Flying Squirrels. Or so his fan says.

Jimmy McMillan: Even though HE lives in a rent-controlled apartment, he knows that YOUR rent is probably too damn high.

Tom Miller: Likes our Founding Fathers…even if he does not understand exactly what they said.

Roy Moore: Survived West Point and has never been caught shooting anyone in the face. So he’s already one up on Dick Cheney.

Ron Paul: His legion of neckbeard basement-dwellers are all super passionate on Teh Intarweebz, and willing to overlook his racist newsletters and pro-life stance because he pinky-swears that he might legalize pot.

Buddy Roemer: Has an extremely friendly first name.

Mitt Romney: Best. Hair. It’s nice, innit? Too bad about the crazy Christian cultists he’s strapped to himself like ticking bombs. Has the aplomb to lie over 600 times since January and not turn into a pillar of salt from shame. Such a successful businessman that he wants to shield the American public from jealousy by concealing his tax records. Not capable of feeling shame when caught running political adverts with a fragile or non-existent link to reality and truth.

Rick Santorum: Yields most entertaining (if disgusting) results when searched on Google.

Vern Wuensche: I have to admire the chutzpah it takes to run for office with that jawcracker of a surname when your most fervent supporters can’t spell basic English words.

No One Loves Mittens. :(

I don’t hate the guy personally. He’s like Bubble Boy, but, instead of that bubble shielding him from germs, he has just lived in this hermetically-sealed bubble of privilege and whiteness and wealth all his life. He belongs to a fringe-y religion that did not acknowledge that black people are actually human beings until 1978, his grandparents and great-grandparents were polygamists, and he is, right now, wearing Magic Undergarments.

The Billionaire Bubble Boy thinks that deprivation means living off the interest from your investments, having to downgrade from 4-star to 3-star restaurants, buying the second-best luxury automobile or choosing not to get ALL the extras and options on your first choice model, only being able to visit six countries instead of seven during summer vacation, not buying that eighth mansion, having to make do with a less amusing and less piquant wine and having to let one of the maids go. He can’t have illegals on staff, folks, he is running for office! Straighten up or heads will roll! His wife Ann is going to have to make do with ONLY two shiny new Cadillacs, and hold off on buying three, because the peasants might experience “class envy” or something distasteful like that…I mean, sheesh, you should see all the fuss the little people are making over his car elevator. What’s THEIR problem?

He might as well have a “FOR SALE or LEASE” sign on his forehead. His values are conveniently flexible for the right price.

Sad Mitt Romney is Sad.

I don’t think he is deliberately evil but I do think he really, really doesn’t get it. He has never experienced any deprivation or need in his life that couldn’t be fixed via money or calling up a Good Ol’ Boy to help fix it. He was born a millionaire; he was more rich than 99% of us could ever hope to be in this lifetime, all before he cut his first tooth. He may be a billionaire: we don’t know, because he is hiding most of his assets overseas (to hang out with a lot of outsourced American jobs, I suppose) and dragging his feet about releasing the tax records, even though he released 23 years of records to McCain willingly enough and even though all people running for higher office do this as a matter of course. It is what you do. But Mitt is special, apparently, and doesn’t want to, and he really wishes he could wash the rotting fish stink of Bain off of himself, already, because he “retroactively retired”. What more do YOU PEOPLE need to know?

He is ALWAYS so, so special. He is intellectually incurious (favorite book: “Battlefield Earth,” by fourth-rate sci-fi hack writer and Scientology cult leader L. Ron Hubbard). He has no real sense of humor. “Seamus the dog LOVED the fresh air atop the family car for twelve hours. Ha. Ha. Ha. Don’t let the fact that he crapped himself in terror or ran away five seconds after we reached our destination kid you. He LOVED it. Ha. Ha. Ha.” We’re all exotic Others to Mittens, and he thinks we are quaint and wants to hear the song of our people and learn our native customs, but not if it means getting any cooties. Or eating your shitty 7-11 cookies. Who do you think he is, people? Get those inferior crap biscuits out of here. Gosh!

He’s just so frustratingly out of touch.

It was particularly cute when he claimed to be unemployed…while giving speeches for which he was compensated approximately $400,000.00. “I’m just like you! Unemployed! I feel your pain. Why, Ann and I had to live off of our investments and savings for a while, and man, it sucks when you have to cut down on the size or cut quality of the steaks you are having for dinner. By the way, your trees are the right height.”

I’m not even getting started on his (supposed) values and plans, because those are so mutable that I’m pretty sure he has no idea what his values and plans are until someone throws some money or favors at him in exchange for his support. Pro-Life, Pro-Choice. With the NRA, against the NRA. For Romneycare, against Obamacare. Foreign policy experience? NONE, but he wants to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. He’s the Kinder Egg of politicians, but there is no choking hazard toy hidden inside, he’s hollow and you have to provide the prize yourself. It will look an awful lot like what your Republican relatives want, but it will turn out to be smoke and mirrors when they poke at it. Many of his cronies are Bush buddies. No one is really happy with Mittens as the Republican Crown Prince of 2012…except Obama supporters.

But you don’t have to take it from me.

You can read Steve Benen’s ongoing series of articles “Chronicling Mitt’s Mendacity,” which, last I checked, was up to its 31st installment. He just began writing them in January. They each outline, on average, about two dozen different instances where Romney has FLAT OUT LIED about something. Oh, that’s about two dozen lies per article, not two dozen lies total. What. The. Fuck.

If Benen is “too suspect” or “too biased” for you because he is publishing on a “lefty” blog, well…how about a Republican; namely the guy who ran against Obama in 2008. Remember him? You can read John McCain’s complete dossier on Mitt’s flips and flops (all 200 pages of them!) and perhaps come to the same conclusion McCain did: Even Sarah Palin was a better choice for high office than Romney.

Why doesn’t that scare the CRAP out of everyone?!

No one loves Mittens. 😦

Except the Überwealthy.

As Harry Reid said, “Perhaps Republicans want to shield a handful of billionaires willing to contribute nine figures to sway a close presidential election. … If this flood of outside money continues, the day after the election 17 angry old white men will wake up and realize they just bought the country. That’s a sad commentary. About 60 percent, or more, of these outside dollars are coming from these 17 people …

Goodbye, “of the people, for the people, by the people”.

Hello, “of the 17 angry old white men, for the 17 angry old white men, by the 17 angry old white men.” Not exactly what Abe Lincoln had in mind when he wrote the Gettysburg Address, I’d bet.

(But I can’t afford to bet you $10,000. For that, you’ll need to ask Mitt Romney. Please wash and sanitize your hands first, before you shake on it.)

“Dadgummit, the serfs are complaining about me on The Interweebz again! When I am Emperor, THEY WILL BE SORRY.”