The denial is strong with the Losers

Yesterday, today, a week ago...even last Friday.

It's an ONGOING PROBLEM, you stupid fake-news motherfuckers!

Try not to step too hard on your own dicks next time.

In other news, crime in Venezuela up substantially

To no surprise for anyone with a functioning brain.

That would exclude your garden-variety Democrat, by the way.

Next move; Turn the Volume Up to Eleven.

SIASD.

Tale of two laws

Headline sez;

"CIA weapons meant for Syrian rebels are swiped in Jordan"

 Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I just hear Barry on the idjit box, complaining about how much we need more gun control in the USA?

Oh, yeah, he DID say that, didn't he.



Can you say fucking-douchebag-hypocrite?

WHOLE HEEP of fucking unintended consequences, Barry, so fuck you, asshole.

Solving what?

Problems?

I'll let you in on the obvious, Ward; the boneheads who inhabit the Congress don't solve problems, they only create them, boy.

Sit your stupid ass down and shut the fuck up.

And find another line of (hopefully meaningful or productive) work.

Color me unsurprised

...that US CentCom is acting like a bunch of 15 year-old girls, and that it got hacked.

Mandatory Voting

Look.

Not yet, of course, but if they can compel you to register, what makes you think they'll stop there?

Friendly reminder in the mail? Fines, I'd count on it. Warrants, sure.

Prison is not far behind, prole.

Just as they want, a drove of compliant drones.

Are you ready?

They're coming.

Let the snickering begin

Headline; "Single women put Obama on top in new poll"

Can you see Beavis and Butthead doing their schtick right now?

Journalists, as I've always contended, aren't very bright.

Cave dwellers to take back caves

Shocker.

Gum-Flapping Troglodyte returns to his spot under rock

At least, that's my reading of the headline.

Wish he'd done it sooner...Come to think of it, that Liberal idiot can't die quickly enough for me.

More for the Idiocracy Files

Read that post.

"This vote is an affront to democracy."

I'm surprised the asshole has enough mental wattage to breath.

The fights will be breaking out shortly.

Engage the enemy, or get out the popcorn. It should be entertaining, either way.

Can somebody rush the stage,

and escort this idiot out the door?

Yeesh.

The stupid motherfucker thinks he's fucking Peter Pan or something.

I can hear him saying it now, "If I wish hard enough, anything is possible."

What a loser we have at the helm.

Who can tax the sunshine?

Not so funny, really.

H/T to Les Jones.

More excellence

From the Mistress of Snark;

"...We the uncaring, governed by the incompetent, asked to pay the unimaginable and adhere to the indecipherable..."

Pure brilliance.

Could it be said any better?

Into the Maelstrom

I've been a reader of SurvivalBlog almost from its inception.

I'm not much of an apocolypse, world-ending-by-humanity-and-civilization-collapse type, but there are some incredibly useful threads of various topics over there, and I can almost always find good tips or project advice on everything from gardening to domicile security to economics.

When reading this morning's first post topic, Into the Maelstrom, and a Refuge on the Far Side, I'm going through each bullet point, nodding my head at most, when I run across... "Drastically scaled-back city, county, and state services--including police and fire departments"... and I stop.

Please, give me a big, steamy, hot slice of that, RFN!

I'm all about cutting "services" and "programs" that are offered by the anything-but-benevolent gummint, and it can't start soon enough.

Sadly, those who occupy the offices of public popularity often deem themselves "too big to fail," and we're likely to get even more, and far more draconian, taxes and fees, all for the supposed "privilage" of living, if the deflation-inflation cycle posited in Mr. Rawles' scenario comes to pass.

Ball jars and bullets...the new blackmarket currency.

Gummint Cheese

So, I was doing my usual morning reading over at Tam's place, and while reading her piece on the perpetually clueless professional victims in London preaching class warfare, I was reminded of a song from years past that was rather apropos.

My high school cross country coach was a huge fan of The Rainmakers, so the team was often subjected to various tunes by same on Saturday mornings while making the drive to the area meet. "Government Cheese" always stuck with me, and was a fitting song to hear on those trips, as it served as metaphor for the upcoming race, I'd always think; "Nobody's going to be out there on the course helping your sorry ass win, so don't be looking for no Gummint Cheese."



Bunches of folks seem to expect to get just that, and concurrently complain about the supposed inequities of their life.

Maybe we free market types with jobs should use this as our own anti-demonstration anthem.

Play it loud.

QotD

From the Breda Fallacy;

"...the fringe Left, where the life of poultry dumb enough to drown in a rainstorm is worth more than that of a human being. So think about that while you're sinking your teeth into a big piece of breast meat and be thankful that you're not alone - 48% of us would like to punch a hippie too."

Courtesy of Tam.

So, is this "patriotic" thing he's talking about kinda like AmWay?

Really, one is to just "pay-up", presumably because they can "afford it"? This isn't really a voluntary arrangement that you are talking about here, is it Joe?

A couple of questions:

Are there any tangible rewards for "donating" more, or do I just get brownie points for "donating"more?

Do I get to feel better about myself for doing so?

Do I get to rub others' noses in it 'cuz I'm "more patriotic"? Do I get a medal for being a good prole?

Inquiring minds want to know, Joe.

Dipshit.

Respiration, the latest trend in carbon credit schemes

My good friend DirtCrashr has an excellent piece up over at his place on the latest fad in Euro-Centric Eco-guilt-tripping; requiring third world farmers to perform hours of back-breaking manual labor in a quest to make themselves (that'd be the NGO's and bureaucrats creating "policy") feel better about "saving" the evironment.

I'd laugh about this if it wasn't so...enraging.

My favorite part of the link,

"for the poorest people around the world, ‘reducing carbon output’ means saying no to machinery and instead getting your family to do hard physical labour,"

which is, of course, one of the oddest things that I can think of, as it completely ignores the human mind's need to solve a problem, that being a better method for doing any given task. Man has been inventing and using tools (machines) to better his life and surroundings, ya know, manipulating the environment, since before recorded history. It is part of what I do for a living, making a hospitable environment, designing buildings, as in, putting a roof over one's head to keep the rain and chill off. It's a fundamental need and urge of the human psyche to seek these things out and to find new and better ways to doing it. If these nitwits over at Climate Care (snort, laugh) get hold of the reins, it's all going to shit in a big hurry. Bah!

Good thing I brought the range bag today, I need the therapy.

Taking a swipe...

at The War on (some) Drugs™. Laughed myself silly.

This is great. I can only hope that people will come to their senses on this stuff.

Shamelessly stolen from Radley Balko.

More of the Dolt

I found this piece over at the usual suspect's place since he/she/ it has been trolling me, and of course, he/she/it has it all wrong, again.

Jade seems to think that quoting noted gun hater David Hemenway (Laugh!), who questions the work of Gary Kleck on his "methodologies" is a great way of refuting his arguments about the number of justifiable uses of force by citizens. I couldn't care any less about what is being argued here, whether it be "defensive uses" and/or how many times these "DGU's" result in "gun deaths", since I tend to discredit these "studies" out of hand. My experience tells me that very few of these "studies" have any merit at all, and are stacked before the "testing" for a certain outcome. This is because of a notable lack of the application of the scientific method. Conclusions can not be considered reliable in these cases, and considering how most of these studies get funded, they are nothing more than partisan hack jobs for a predictable talking point. Nothing more.

Jade's supposed "proof" lies in quoting yet another statistical piece known as the FBI Uniform Crime Report. The pertinent part of his/her/its argument is in Table 14, and shows the number of justified homicides by citizens that the FBI claims have occured.

Well, I really have a hard time believing this number is accurate. I mean, fewer than 300 per year for the good guys? I was expecting something along the lines of a couple thousand, but to see a paltry 192 for the last year of complete numbers left me thinking that we need more practice folks. Well, I'm a sporting sort of guy, so, for the sake of argument, let's allow it to stand on its own, for just one minute.

Next, just for fun, let's look at another catagory, and it just so happens to be conveniently placed right next to the former table that we just reviewed. Its title is, Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Law Enforcement, and the numbers aren't looking so good for Jade's argument, either, as it seems that the long arm of the law is only marginally higher in its efficacy in summary on-site executions of cretins. Again, too bad, since I really like reading about how the bad guys got whacked, but, I'll just have to take what I can get.

Actually, when considering that run-ins with hoodlums is kinda, ya know, part of the job description and all, I would have thought that the number woulda been quite a bit higher for the cops. I'm really reconsidering my position about letting the cops have guns, at all, since, well, the numbers tend to prove that the cops don't really need them either, right? (Snark alert)

Good apples to apples comparison is always a good thing, I think, and yet another reason as to why looking at what are obviously cooked numbers (Hint for the Clueless on this, they ALL are.) is an extremely poor method for the basis of any argument. ANY statistician worth his salary will tell you exactly the same thing.