Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Crazy-ass terrorist Michele Bachmann defends putting a gun to the head of helpless Americans — who just want compromise! — for partisan extremist purposes. That are most likely also anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-children, and most especially racist

We simply can’t allow this nutjob to come to power as a national figure. I mean, Jesus: she actually seems to believe in some of the things she says. Not only that, but what if her closeted queer husband gets his hands on any of the male White House decorators? Pretty soon it’ll be nothing but wood paneling and mounted moose heads in the Oval Office, with the Lincoln bedroom transformed into a display case for very hetero-normative bowling trophies.

The mind reels!

(thanks to happy for finding the link)

34 Replies to “Crazy-ass terrorist Michele Bachmann defends putting a gun to the head of helpless Americans — who just want compromise! — for partisan extremist purposes. That are most likely also anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-children, and most especially racist”

  1. sdferr says:

    Whereas, this is what government is for.

  2. dicentra says:

    In other news, Jonah’s totally had it:

    And yet you know the next time there’s the slightest, remotely exploitable tragedy or hint of violence, the same reporters, editors, producers and politicians are going to insist that blood was spilled because of the right wing’s rhetoric.

    Well, go to Hell. All of you.

    And for fun, Glenn and the gang taunt Chris Matthews for his drunken diction.

  3. happyfeet says:

    I don’t understand why they don’t name the fascist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service goosestepper in the article

    hoochie should be proud of her service to the fatherland I think

  4. cranky-d says:

    I was just thinking on the way home from the gym, what a tyranny we would live in if all the laws on the books were actually enforced, all the time, for everyone.

    Then again, I guess it’s still a tyranny, isn’t it?

  5. dicentra says:

    I don’t understand why they don’t name the fascist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service goosestepper in the article

    The laws regarding endangered wildlife are patently insane. Once upon a time there was a guy in Idaho who ran an exotic animal shelter. He’d rescue exotic animal pets that people couldn’t take proper care of and such. He had several tigers (yellow and white) and other large cats, a giraffe, various ungulates, snakes and reptiles aplently, and a breeding pair of endangered Whooping Cranes.

    He explained to us that the law required that when the cranes laid eggs, he was to smash them. Why? To prevent inbreeding. Because the gubmint wasn’t overseeing it, I guess. But instead, he’d send the eggs to other people who had Whooping Cranes so they could breed them with theirs to diversify the gene pool their own selves. He said that the Hawaiian Nene was saved by private breeders doing their own thing without any laws, but the gubmint-supervised breeding programs were going nowhere (prolly on purpose, IMAO).

    Then in a Florida zoo a tiger gave birth to a pair of cubs that the zoo was going to kill because they were half Bengal, half Siberian (and we can’t have that). A friend tipped him off, so he went down and brought them back to Idaho. They let the cubs romp on the lawn with the visitors. I toyed with the idea of letting them bite me hard enough to leave a scar, so that I could forever point to a tiger bite on my hand, but their teeth weren’t very sharp; they’d have to bite down awfully hard to break the skin. But at least I have “wrassling with baby tigers” on my résumé.

    Unfortunately, not long after our visit, an idiot woman put her infant near the tigers (deliberately) and the kid was bitten or scratched or something, so she sued the guy for all he was worth–literally–and the exotic animal shelter is no more.

    I hate people.

  6. sdferr says:

    By the way, related to the little girl’s misfortune, if you happen to come across a large feather on the ground that could possibly be an eagle feather, don’t, under any circumstances, touch it. The penalties for possession of an eagle feather are very harsh.

    Unauthorized persons found with an eagle or its parts in their possession can be fined up to $25,000.”

  7. cranky-d says:

    I just watched the video. Bachmann is obviously loony-tunes and needs to be stopped, now! And, since I agree with her on this, I need to be stopped now, too.

    Unfortunately, not long after our visit, an idiot woman put her infant near the tigers (deliberately) and the kid was bitten or scratched or something, so she sued the guy for all he was worth–literally–and the exotic animal shelter is no more.

    I hate people.

    I hate people, too. BTW, why didn’t CPS take her kid away? Anyone who would put their baby near an animal like that, probably unsupervised, is an unfit parent. If I had a kid, I would not put it next to a dog if I wasn’t absolutely sure that dog was kid friendly.

  8. cranky-d says:

    There are too many laws that no one could even know. Way too many. We are all criminals who just haven’t been caught yet.

    Tyranny.

  9. cranky-d says:

    For the Bobby Orr, let me add that with the runaway laws and runaway spending, this country can do no less than collapse under its own weight.

  10. LTC John says:

    Her opponents are so used to lying, concealing, obfuscating and BSing that they just know she has to be hiding something!1!11! It must be a deep desire to impose Xtianist Theocracy!1!11!

    I seem to run into that type of thinking all the time – but I deal with a lot of lawyers.

  11. Mueller says:

    sdferr posted on 8/2 @ 10:56 am
    By the way, related to the little girl’s misfortune, if you happen to come across a large feather on the ground that could possibly be an eagle feather, don’t, under any circumstances, touch it. The penalties for possession of an eagle feather are very harsh.
    “Unauthorized persons found with an eagle or its parts in their possession can be fined up to $25,000.”

    Not only Bald Eagles. I enjoy annoying trout and Salmon with flies I tie with my very own hands. While it is perfectly legal for someone in England to use the feathers of the endangered Bustard-whatever, I could go to jail for it. Even though the feathers were collected from a zoo kept bird.

  12. Mueller says:

    Back on topic. Bachmann, right?

    I’d hit it.

  13. Ernst Schreiber says:

    The kid learned an important lesson. The endangered species act is there to protect endangered species from us. As far as our government is concerned, we a the threat.

    That. And never get between a cat and it’s meal.

  14. dicentra says:

    BTW, why didn’t CPS take her kid away?

    I might have seen the woman whose kid got scratched (but I didn’t see the incident). A woman was holding a kid in her arms that was about the same size as the cubs, dangling it down by the tigers, hoping for I don’t know what to happen. The kid was too young to appreciate the tigers. I remember thinking she was a total moron.

    But the tigers were running free on the lawn, so it was someone else’s fault that the kid was injured. Maybe the wench was trolling for a lawsuit in the first place.

    Again. People suck.

  15. Ernst Schreiber says:

    we are the threat.

  16. sdferr says:

    we are the threat

    Well yes, necessarily. We only need think of the war of all against all.

  17. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Thanks for turning my point inside out. ‘preciate that.

  18. sdferr says:

    I’m not sure how it’s inside out Ernst? I thought the whole point of government in that scheme was precisely to end the war, and to do that, from the authority’s point of view, everybody under the rule is restrained because of the threat they pose?

  19. sdferr says:

    Besides, Hobbes declares we are not, by nature, zoon politicon, i.e. unfit by nature to social concern. We’re supposed to be more a-social, I thought?

  20. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I was talking about the little girls P.O.V. Leviathan is there to prevent her from acting on her natural impulse to protect a baby bird if they can –and punish her in order to deter other little girls if they can’t. Because we, merely by being Human, are a greater threat to baby birds than cats.

    (It occurs to me now that maybe you didn’t see my 14)

    As to Hobbes and human nature, he was wrong and Aristotle was right.

  21. sdferr says:

    Leviathan is there to prevent her from acting on her natural impulse to protect a baby bird if they can –and punish her in order to deter other little girls if they can’t.

    If I get it now, from the little girl’s point of view she has learned that the government sees her (us) as a threat for protecting baby birds? That may be what she thinks, but then she wouldn’t be thinking correctly about Leviathan’s view in that case. Still, maybe she does learn enough just to learn that the government views her as a threat of some sort. That at least would be on the mark.

  22. sdferr says:

    As a corollary, I should probably add for clarity, it would also be good if she learned that government is stupid, on top of being all-knowing. So’s she doesn’t suffer some shock later on in life.

  23. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Let me try putting it this way, if saving baby birds from little girls is a legitimate mission in pre-empting the return of the war of all against all, then Leviathan is suffering a sever case of mission creep.

  24. sdferr says:

    Heh, that’s for damn sure.

    But maybe we have to add, if mission creep is definitionally plausible when we come to attempting to get our arms around what Leviathan decides it should do. Somehow or other I’ve a sneaking suspicion we’re at a disadvantage to Leviathan itself once it’s got rev’d up to speed.

  25. Stephanie says:

    Leviathan only has us at disadvantage because we have de facto granted it that advantage by our continued consent to having our wages confiscated before they reach our own pocketbooks.

    There is no difference between the 1300s and now as in both instances, we affirm the state’s rights to ‘drought de Seigneour.’ Only now we are more ‘civilized’ and the raping is of our pocketbooks and not our womenfolk. Until we go all William Wallace on their asses, ain’t nothing gonna change.

    And yes, Braveheart is on the TV as I speak. Why do you ask?

    On a personal note, the national Letter of Intent has (finally) arrived and is being signed today at the club. The members are so excited for my daughter, they are holding a signing party and the local paper is even coming for an article in the sports section. She is, to say the least, overwhelmed by the hoopla.

  26. McGehee says:

    I thought the whole point of government in that scheme was precisely to end the war

    According to the proglodytes, the point of government is to make sure the right people win the war. Which has come to mean that (1) people who contribute to proglodyte politicians get to win, and (b) the war never actually ends, because then there would be no further need for proggy campaign donors to donate to proggy campaigns, and life on earth as we know it would come to a screeching halt.

  27. zino3 says:

    “sdferr posted on8/2 @ 10:56 am

    By the way, related to the little girl’s misfortune, if you happen to come across a large feather on the ground that could possibly be an eagle feather, don’t, under any circumstances, touch it. The penalties for possession of an eagle feather are very harsh.

    “Unauthorized persons found with an eagle or its parts in their possession can be fined up to $25,000.”

    The “Gubmint” is good, and organized as a hierarchy of wanna-be proctologists.

    when I was a lobster fisherman, any spawning female or undersized lobster (3 and 3/8 inches by it’s carapice) was worth a $5,000 dollar fine (each) if you got caught with them.

    I figure that those dozen 12 inch lobsters I ate (unbelieveably delicious!) back then were my first and, but not last, $60,000 dinner. You have no idea how tasty those illegal little lobsters are.

    Then I did a bunch of blow, just because I was feeling cocky, and also because I could. A perfect evening. How could I not snort blow after eating sixty thousand dollars worth of illegal lobster meat? I felt kinda like Scarface, but without the mountains of cocaine. I think I had about a half a gram.

    1986 – what a year! And that’s not to mention the dead owl that I found and put in my freezer. ANOTHER incredibly expensive breach of Greenie-Red law if you are caught! More expensive by far than illegal pre-pubescent lobsters.

    I guess most of my life has been pretty cool…

    And P.S.

    If you are a farmer, and still allowed by Obama to drive your own tractors and farm equipment, don’t EVER run over a rat! Cass Sunstein will be there before you can turn off the ignition…and it will cost you about as much as 500 ilegal lobsters.

  28. Dave in SoCal says:

    I couldn’t help noticing the pitiful and transparent attempt at CYA by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Upon speaking with the subject, later identified as Alison Capo, on June 27, the agent determined that no further action was warranted. A citation that had been previously drafted by the agent was cancelled on June 28.

    Unfortunately, the citation was processed unintentionally despite our office’s request to cancel the ticket.

    Their statement that “Unfortunately, the citation was processed unintentionally despite our office’s request to cancel the ticket.” tries to make it sound like it was a clerical glitch. “Oops! That was supposed to be canceled, but our automated ticket system accidentally sent it out anyways”.

    If the ticket was indeed canceled the day after the encounter at Lowes, why did the same self-important Fish and Wildlife busybody show up two weeks later, accompanied by a state trooper no less, to hand the Capos that same ticket? If the busybody agent did in fact determine that “no further action was warranted” as the spokeshole claims, then (1) why did she do it anyways, (2) why did she request a state trooper accompany her and (3) why wasn’t she fired/suspended/reprimanded for her actions?

    I suspect that busybody Fish and Wildlife Service Agent Shaky Hands walked away from this with a promotion rather than a demotion.

  29. sdferr says:

    why did she request a state trooper accompany her

    Every self-respecting mobster needs a gunsel.

  30. Mueller says:

    shoot.
    shovel.
    shut up.

  31. zino3 says:

    And don’t forget, if there is even ONE “marsh” plant on your land, it ain’t your land to do what you wish with anymore.

    It now belongs to government employed morons, and you are a suspected criminal.

  32. dicentra says:

    And don’t forget, if there is even ONE “marsh” plant on your land, it ain’t your land to do what you wish with anymore.

    So when people find “endangered” species on their land, they hurry up and wreck the habitat to prevent their land from being essentially seized by the gubmint.

    Thus reducing the species’ habitat. Show me a law designed to save a critter and I’ll show you a law that guarantees its demise.

    Of course, it’s not beyond the enviros to find a slightly differently colored morph of a species and deem it a separate, “endangered” species so that they can stop something—anything—from being built.

    There’s good evidence to show that Spotted Owls are just a subspecies of the Barred Owl that got separated from the main population during the last ice age, and the incursion of the Barred Owl is merely rejoining the two genetic lines. Given that Spotted and Barred owls can produce fertile offspring, that is.

  33. guinsPen says:

    Wait a minute here, weren’t we were the ones we were waiting for?

Comments are closed.