Pulled this gem from Right Wing Watch.
Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel stopped by VCY America’s “Crosstalk” yesterday to discuss his group’s attempt to stop judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Alabama. Staver praised Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore for flouting the ruling of a federal court on the matter and lashed out at the Supreme Court for rejecting Alabama’s appeal of the marriage case, saying that Alabama “does not have to obey” any future Supreme Court ruling “that there’s some invented right to same-sex marriage and therefore you can’t have marriage as a union of a man and a woman.”
“That is so far off the beaten path, so far removed from the Constitution that it is no rule of law,” Staver said. “There is a limit to what the court can do, there is a limit to what the people can stomach. If that court were to say, the laws of gravity were fine for the founders but we have progressed, we’re a progressive society and we think they have changed, you would say, ‘That’s nuts, have they lost their mind?’ The question is: Have they lost their mind by saying there’s a constitutional right for same-sex marriage?”
Because everybody knows the laws of physics and a civil contract between two people are the exact same thing!
*headdesk*
Showing posts with label wanker of the day. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wanker of the day. Show all posts
February 16, 2015
January 22, 2015
Wanker of the Day
Two nights ago, during the Constitutionally mandated applause-fest that is the State of the Union speech, (though veteran Scribe Charlie Pierce has pointed out that in past years, Presidents would send a simple report to Capitol Hill, and we wouldn’t have to go through all this televised meet-and-greet nonsense), this tweet drifted across my timeline. It must have been one of Twitter’s horrid Promoted Tweets, as I do not even follow the jackass known as Steve King.
(And yes, you need to praise me, because I have now learned how to use the Snipping Tool! I did this just in case Mr. King or a member of his staff came down with a sudden attack of decency and deleted this abomination. Although, come to think of it, Congresscritter King would never succumb to such a thing.)
"Inviting a deportable." What a charming man, hey? Why, you’d think he was talking about a piece of furniture instead of a human being. One marvels that he didn’t go up to this person and ask about the size of her calves. Ugh.
(X-posted from Tumblr.)
(And yes, you need to praise me, because I have now learned how to use the Snipping Tool! I did this just in case Mr. King or a member of his staff came down with a sudden attack of decency and deleted this abomination. Although, come to think of it, Congresscritter King would never succumb to such a thing.)
"Inviting a deportable." What a charming man, hey? Why, you’d think he was talking about a piece of furniture instead of a human being. One marvels that he didn’t go up to this person and ask about the size of her calves. Ugh.
(X-posted from Tumblr.)
July 18, 2013
Wanker of the Day
This is the text of the unconstitutional law Virginia Attorney General Ken Kuccinelli wants to have reinstated.
§ 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty.
A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.
B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.
C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild.
You'll notice Section A says "any person." It doesn't say "any unmarried person," or "any non-heterosexual person." So, according to the language of this terrible law, a wife giving her husband a blow job or a husband going down on his wife, activities they have every right to do as consenting adults, could be arrested for private, personal, nobody-else's-business sexual contact.
Also, needless to say, this law directly flouts the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas.
There's something else that's peculiar about this, and I haven't seen anyone mention it. Section B has the standard boilerplate against incest and child molestation. However, if the victim is 13-17, the penalty is a Class 3 felony. According to this, Virginia felonies are ranked between 1 and 6, with penalties in descending order. Anyone else, including adults, is guilty of a Class 5.
Class 3 Felonies can have a punishable prison term of no less than five years but nor more than twenty years in a state facility. A fine of no more than one hundred thousand dollars is also possible.
Class 4 Felonies can have a prison term of no less than two years and no more than ten years in a state facility with a possible fine of no more than one hundred thousand dollars.
Class 5 Felonies can carry a prison sentence of no less than one year and no more than ten years. Also under the discretion of the court or the jury, confinement in a county jail for no more than twelve months is also possible with a fine of no more than twenty-five hundred dollars. An individual can be sentenced to one or both of these punishments.
So a perpetrator of molestation on a teenage victim could theoretically get a greater penalty than someone raping or molesting a small child.
What the hell is up with that? Is this just because there's greater possibility of pregnancy if the victim is a teenager? (Although the four acts banned here wouldn't actually result in a pregnancy.) Does Cuccinelli, or whoever wrote this boneheaded law, actually think a 13-year-old victim would suffer greater trauma than a 5-year-old one? That there are classes, and levels, of molestation victims, and one is more worthy of prosecution than another?
This law is just all-around stupid. It was also pushed because of Ken Cuccinelli's personal views, (and I would bet serious money those views are based on his religious beliefs) which he has absolutely no business foisting on the rest of us.
He declined to commit to a nondiscrimination policy against gays and lesbians observed by former Attorney General Bob McDonnell: “ My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. ... They don’t comport with natural law. I happen to think that it represents (to put it politely; I need my thesaurus to be polite) behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society.”
I don't call many people nutjobs, but Ken Cuccinelli absolutely merits that designation. I feel sorry for Virginia residents. What an embarrassment.
§ 18.2-361. Crimes against nature; penalty.
A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.
B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.
C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild.
You'll notice Section A says "any person." It doesn't say "any unmarried person," or "any non-heterosexual person." So, according to the language of this terrible law, a wife giving her husband a blow job or a husband going down on his wife, activities they have every right to do as consenting adults, could be arrested for private, personal, nobody-else's-business sexual contact.
Also, needless to say, this law directly flouts the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas.
There's something else that's peculiar about this, and I haven't seen anyone mention it. Section B has the standard boilerplate against incest and child molestation. However, if the victim is 13-17, the penalty is a Class 3 felony. According to this, Virginia felonies are ranked between 1 and 6, with penalties in descending order. Anyone else, including adults, is guilty of a Class 5.
Class 3 Felonies can have a punishable prison term of no less than five years but nor more than twenty years in a state facility. A fine of no more than one hundred thousand dollars is also possible.
Class 4 Felonies can have a prison term of no less than two years and no more than ten years in a state facility with a possible fine of no more than one hundred thousand dollars.
Class 5 Felonies can carry a prison sentence of no less than one year and no more than ten years. Also under the discretion of the court or the jury, confinement in a county jail for no more than twelve months is also possible with a fine of no more than twenty-five hundred dollars. An individual can be sentenced to one or both of these punishments.
So a perpetrator of molestation on a teenage victim could theoretically get a greater penalty than someone raping or molesting a small child.
What the hell is up with that? Is this just because there's greater possibility of pregnancy if the victim is a teenager? (Although the four acts banned here wouldn't actually result in a pregnancy.) Does Cuccinelli, or whoever wrote this boneheaded law, actually think a 13-year-old victim would suffer greater trauma than a 5-year-old one? That there are classes, and levels, of molestation victims, and one is more worthy of prosecution than another?
This law is just all-around stupid. It was also pushed because of Ken Cuccinelli's personal views, (and I would bet serious money those views are based on his religious beliefs) which he has absolutely no business foisting on the rest of us.
He declined to commit to a nondiscrimination policy against gays and lesbians observed by former Attorney General Bob McDonnell: “ My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. ... They don’t comport with natural law. I happen to think that it represents (to put it politely; I need my thesaurus to be polite) behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society.”
I don't call many people nutjobs, but Ken Cuccinelli absolutely merits that designation. I feel sorry for Virginia residents. What an embarrassment.
June 2, 2013
Wanker of the Day
From here:
At Wednesday’s meeting for ExxonMobil shareholders in Dallas, CEO Rex Tillerson told those assembled that an economy that runs on oil is here to stay, and cutting carbon emissions would do no good.
He asked, “What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?”
Oh, I don't know. I suppose the people affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy thought that was just a walk in the park. We'll put up with stuff like that, don't you know, as long as our precious oil-based economy keeps rolling along, and we can rebuild in the same places where those pesky EF-5 tornadoes keep coming through.
Now that I think about it, that last sentence must have been misquoted. Surely it reads like this:
"What good is it to save the planetif humanity suffers if our profits suffer?"
Bernie Sanders, God bless him, talks about breaking up the big banks. This is a laudable goal, but it's not the most important.
Right now, the biggest threat to humanity, and to Earth itself, is the oil companies.
At Wednesday’s meeting for ExxonMobil shareholders in Dallas, CEO Rex Tillerson told those assembled that an economy that runs on oil is here to stay, and cutting carbon emissions would do no good.
He asked, “What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?”
Oh, I don't know. I suppose the people affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy thought that was just a walk in the park. We'll put up with stuff like that, don't you know, as long as our precious oil-based economy keeps rolling along, and we can rebuild in the same places where those pesky EF-5 tornadoes keep coming through.
Now that I think about it, that last sentence must have been misquoted. Surely it reads like this:
"What good is it to save the planet
Bernie Sanders, God bless him, talks about breaking up the big banks. This is a laudable goal, but it's not the most important.
Right now, the biggest threat to humanity, and to Earth itself, is the oil companies.
January 19, 2013
Wanker of the Day
The NRA. Of course.
This is in reference, of course, to that horrid ad dragging the President's children into the debate. I'm not going to link to it; you can Google it if you haven't already seen it. Suffice to say the NRA were all up in arms (pun intended) over the President's children having armed guards at their school.
Except, well, that's not even true.
This is based on the fact that the online directory for Sidwell Friends lists 11 people as working in the Security Department. Five are listed as “special police officer,” while two are listed as “on call special police officer,” which presumably means they do not work full-time. The directory also lists two weekend shift supervisors, one security officer and the chief of security.
Under the District of Columbia General Order 308.7, a special police officer is a private commissioned police officer with arrest powers in the area that he or she protects. They may also be authorized to bear firearms — but it is not required. Security officers, by contrast, cannot carry firearms and in effect are watchmen. So five to seven security personnel in theory could be licensed to carry firearms.
But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.” (Note: this includes those listed as special police officers.)
Kee-ripes. These clowns can't even get their false accusations right. The article gives the NRA "Four Pinocchios," which is the equivalent to a "liar, liar, pants on fire" rating.
The NRA has a serious credibility problem, and stuff like this isn't helping.
(By the way, this segment used to be called "Asshat of the Day." I decided to go with "Wanker" because, of, well. Page down a bit to see.)
This is in reference, of course, to that horrid ad dragging the President's children into the debate. I'm not going to link to it; you can Google it if you haven't already seen it. Suffice to say the NRA were all up in arms (pun intended) over the President's children having armed guards at their school.
Except, well, that's not even true.
This is based on the fact that the online directory for Sidwell Friends lists 11 people as working in the Security Department. Five are listed as “special police officer,” while two are listed as “on call special police officer,” which presumably means they do not work full-time. The directory also lists two weekend shift supervisors, one security officer and the chief of security.
Under the District of Columbia General Order 308.7, a special police officer is a private commissioned police officer with arrest powers in the area that he or she protects. They may also be authorized to bear firearms — but it is not required. Security officers, by contrast, cannot carry firearms and in effect are watchmen. So five to seven security personnel in theory could be licensed to carry firearms.
But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.” (Note: this includes those listed as special police officers.)
Kee-ripes. These clowns can't even get their false accusations right. The article gives the NRA "Four Pinocchios," which is the equivalent to a "liar, liar, pants on fire" rating.
The NRA has a serious credibility problem, and stuff like this isn't helping.
(By the way, this segment used to be called "Asshat of the Day." I decided to go with "Wanker" because, of, well. Page down a bit to see.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)