quickhits:

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it:In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618. 

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. 

Wow, that’s really interesting…

Tell me, how many massacres have been committed with a claw hammer?

Yeah, I thought so…

(Source: antigovernmentextremist)

"The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic."

— Viral rightwing post threatening wave of assassinations if gun control is passed. (via quickhits)

(Source: splcenter.org, via quickhits)

quickhits:

On behalf of Americans tired of their shit, I demand rightwing bloggers start using math and logic!
What you’re looking it is one of the more histrionic of the many, many rightwing headlines calling out Harry Reid. Earlier this year, Reid said a Bain investor told him that Mitt Romney had not paid taxes for ten years. Now, Mitt’s released his 2011 tax returns and it turns out he paid almost $2 million that year.
You do see the problem here, right? Yeah, it turns out that 2011 wasn’t a decade-long year. Here’s the specific conversation from the Huffington Post who first reported the charge:

Saying he had “no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy,” Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.  “Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years,” Reid recounted the person as saying. “He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” said Reid. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look? “You guys have said his wealth is $250 million,” Reid went on. “Not a chance in the world. It’s a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don’t pay taxes for 10 years when you’re making millions and millions of dollars.”

Notice where Reid said which ten years he was told constituted Mitt’s free ride? Yeah, you didn’t because he didn’t. Romney’s release of his 2011 return proves absolutely nothing on this point.
Look, I don’t really believe Reid either. But I’m not going to claim I’ve got proof when any idiot can see that I don’t. This triumphalism is completely unsupported by any fact. This is lazy-assed bullshit and anyone who had any interest in even appearing to be serious would be ashamed to pull this crap.
If you’re a rightwing blogger and you wonder why we all think you’re idiots, look no farther. We’re just taking you at your word when you pretend to be idiots.
At least, I hope for your sake that you’re pretending.

quickhits:

On behalf of Americans tired of their shit, I demand rightwing bloggers start using math and logic!

What you’re looking it is one of the more histrionic of the many, many rightwing headlines calling out Harry Reid. Earlier this year, Reid said a Bain investor told him that Mitt Romney had not paid taxes for ten years. Now, Mitt’s released his 2011 tax returns and it turns out he paid almost $2 million that year.

You do see the problem here, right? Yeah, it turns out that 2011 wasn’t a decade-long year. Here’s the specific conversation from the Huffington Post who first reported the charge:

Saying he had “no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy,” Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.

“Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years,” Reid recounted the person as saying.

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” said Reid. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?

“You guys have said his wealth is $250 million,” Reid went on. “Not a chance in the world. It’s a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don’t pay taxes for 10 years when you’re making millions and millions of dollars.”

Notice where Reid said which ten years he was told constituted Mitt’s free ride? Yeah, you didn’t because he didn’t. Romney’s release of his 2011 return proves absolutely nothing on this point.

Look, I don’t really believe Reid either. But I’m not going to claim I’ve got proof when any idiot can see that I don’t. This triumphalism is completely unsupported by any fact. This is lazy-assed bullshit and anyone who had any interest in even appearing to be serious would be ashamed to pull this crap.

If you’re a rightwing blogger and you wonder why we all think you’re idiots, look no farther. We’re just taking you at your word when you pretend to be idiots.

At least, I hope for your sake that you’re pretending.

apropos of nothing

For you Confederate-flag-waving blockheads who say idiotic things such as, “If the flag offends you, you need a history lesson” …

Yeah, right.  This coming from the same people who think Barack Obama is a Muslim and who believe that “Democrat” and “socialist” are interchangeable terms - those are the very same people who think they have any business talking about history.

"What stands out about [David] Brooks’ lamentation is the fact that it seems to be far too little, far too late because the problems that Brooks complains of go back far further than a mere five years. Where were they during the 90s when conservatives were pursuing bizarre conspiracy theories against the President and his wife? Where were they when the Bush Administration used a terrorist attack as an excuse to pass a PATRIOT Act that was little more than a wish list of law enforcement tools that had been requested for years, most of which have barely even been used in the pursuit of terror suspects over the past ten years? Where were they when discriminatory laws against gays and lesbians were used as a springboard to election victory in 2004? Heck, where were they when a supposedly conservative Administration increased government spending and power at a rate unseen since the Johnson Administration?"

Twilight Of The RINOs? (via azspot)

(via azspot)

my bold political pronouncements for 2012 and beyond

Two things:

  1. Barring incriminating video evidence of him personally leading an al-Qaeda cell made up of hippies and gangbangers on a raping and pillaging raid against a convent, Barack Obama is going to be re-elected, if for no other reason than the rest of the Republican field of candidates is batshit insane.  That’s one of the nice things about the internet, even after the recent shabby attempt by Congress to cripple the web:  everyone and anyone can see the insanity in real time, rather than find out about it when it’s too late.  And thanks to the recent horrible entry in the rancid field of reality television, otherwise known as the “Republican presidential debates”, anyone whose head isn’t firmly planted up Rush Limbaugh’s backside can clearly see and hear that this bunch of merry cutthroats is the worst band of candidates ever assembled.  Seriously, all Barry has to do at this point is just air clips of the debates from now until November, and he’ll have this thing locked.  Unless, of course, something goes awry with the election process.  Which, of course, just doesn’t happen anymore. [/a little sarcasm]
  2. No matter what Barack Obama does between now and 2016, he is going to get impeached.  It wouldn’t matter if he single-handedly saves the United States from an attack of ubervamps pouring out of the Hellmouth; the GOP (which, as been previously stated, is batshit insane) will find some sort of pretense to drag the Kenyan-commuislamosocialist usurper before the Senate.  (Hopefully, someone will talk him out of trying his usual negotiation technique of giving away the farm before the vote is taken, but that is neither here nor there - yet.)  Which is why all this talk of “wait until the second term, then you’ll see Barry take the gloves off” seems a bit foolish to me.  Of course, one can also look at that situation as an opportunity; since they’re coming after you anyway, why not throw up some truly progressive legislation and see what gets through?  But that’s just crazy leftist talk, or so I’m told.

If I’ve learned nothing else from the current crop of Republicans over the last few decades, it’s this:  they **hate** to lose.  Even after one overcomes all their underhanded attempts to cheat, lie and steal their way to power, they’ll never stop coming after you if you have any other letter other than an (R) after your name.

Gonna be an interesting upcoming four years.

"Is there anyone who thinks sexual harassment is a real thing? Is there anyone who doesn’t know it’s all a lawyers’ ramp, like ‘racial discrimination’? You pay a girl a compliment nowadays, she runs off and gets lawyered up."

John Derbyshire in the National Review, via Slate Magazine

Really, really not The Onion. Really!

(via rachelfershleiser)

Who knew people could perform self-lobotomies in the comfort of their own home? Thanks, National Review!

(via evanfleischer)

(via evanfleischer)

Tags: wingnuts

(Source: sarahlee310)

"The First Amendment was written neither to guarantee freedom of religion to Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus nor to prohibit their free exercise of religion. It wasn’t written about them one way or another. It was written for one specific purpose: to protect the free exercise of the Christian religion. We must be clear: the First Amendment does not prohibit the free exercise of alternative religions, but neither does it guarantee it. It simply does not address the issue at all."

American Family Association spokesman and demagogue royale Bryan Fischer, trying to see how many feet he can get into his mouth.

Our only question: If this is how he mangles the meaning of a single 45-word sentence, what’s that say about his interpretation of the Scriptures?

(h/t Joe.My.God.)

(Source: motherjones)

Ann Coulter, Canada, & Vietnam (by kalanw)

Your regular reminder that Ann Coulter:

  1. is a Koo Koo Krazy Person.
  2. loves pulling stuff out of her ass on a regular basis.
  3. is often wrong and will never admit it.

I bring this up because she reared her ugly head again during the New Rules segment on Bill Maher’s show.

She truly is an ignorant piece of shit.