Tag Archives: douchebag

You Don’t Have A Right Not To Be Called An Ass

Posted on by
image of a baby cryingStop Censoring Me Bitches

Political correctness is where one tries to think about the words one uses before speaking. It’s about diplomacy and tact. You also try to keep in mind if you would like it if someone used offensive words at you. On the other hand I don’t support censoring people who sound like assholes. They should be able to say what they want when they want. What I don’t support is when the assholes get angry and complain when their assholeness is pointed out to them. That isn’t censorship. It’s making an observation and if they can’t take it then maybe they need to shut their pie hole.
Continue reading

Isn’t It Great, People Who Get Free Health Care Want To Cut Yours

Posted on by
offical image of Sen. Lindsey Graham
December douchebag Sen. Lindsey Graham (R)

The Congress, led by the Republicans, where members get free healthcare and a tax payer funded pension, are insisting that Social Security and Medicare must be cut to get a budget deal to prevent a fall off the fake fiscal cliff. Isn’t it great that people who don’t need a social safety net want to cut and gut it for those who do? Isn’t that what America is all about?
Continue reading

Men win again in Ohio as most restrictive anti-abortion law is passed

Posted on by

{EAV_BLOG_VER:c5a647f92fc5c3b9}
Ohio cheap labor conservative Republicans scored a direct hit against women today by getting the most restrictive anti-abortion bill passed today. House douchebag leader Matt Huffman (R-Lima) pulled the reason to pass it out of his large lumpy ass and it made me wonder how can men tell a woman what to do with their body but look out if you demand someone get health insurance or make any comments about what people should eat.
Continue reading

Ohio State Senator Tim Schaffer has no idea how public assistance system works

Posted on by
photo of Ohio State Senator Tim Schaffer (R-31)
Ohio State Senator Tim Schaffer (R-31)

I knew when low voter turn out helped sweep the GOP into office in Ohio this past November that we would then see some stupid ideas being introduced. For example, unemployment is 9% and instead of that being a priority the Ohio GOP instead have introduced six anti-abortion bills. The stupidity also led Ohio State Senator Tim Schaffer (R-31) to introduce a bill requiring a urine test as a requirement for state public assistance.

The Ohio Senate is considering the bill that would require anyone applying for heating, housing, medical or food assistance to submit a urine sample.

People who fail or refuse the test would not qualify for aid.

State Sen. Tim Schaffer says the bill will weed people out who abuse the system.

“What the legislation does is, it makes sure that when Ohio taxpayers are asked to provide human services to a family, that the money is being used to buy things for the family,” Schaffer said.

State Assistance May Require Drug Tests

I get a sad kick out of morons like Schaffer who don’t understand how public assistance works. They operate on false assumptions. Schaffer is wrong in his intent that “the money is used to buy things for the family…”

State assistance is rarely actual cash. Heating assistance is a voucher, food stamps are now debit cards, medical payments are made direct payments to the provider from the state.

A friend pointed out too that a urine sample will usually not detect alcohol. NOR will it detect cocaine if they last used a week ago or more.

People on public assistance have to jump through so many hoops as it is. The false assumption of wide spread fraud personalized in the old Reagan era “welfare queen” smear just doesn’t exist since the welfare reform work in the mid 1990’s.

Tim Schaffer and those who have no current idea how the public assistance system works, need to take a test before they can introduce new laws about it.

Scalia: “Yes you can discriminate against women…”

Posted on by

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave another interview that continued to show how much of an ass he really is and made me wonder why he hasn’t been retired yet. He is yet another conservative that is hypocrisy personified.

In a recent interview Scalia actually said:

“Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.”

The Originalist

The problem is the 14th amendment isn’t as open as Scalia thinks:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Just like if Congress intended God to be in the Constitution it would have put Him in it, probably in 1868 the men who wrote the amendment weren’t thinking of women but don’t you think that if women were not to be protected they would’ve written “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of male citizens of the United States…”

Scalia’s Archie Bunker mentality was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1971 which confirmed women were equally protected.

It’s nice that Scalia falls back on his original intent doctrine but fails to remember that judicial review of laws isn’t specifically in the Constitution and I doubt the framers thought corporations are people covered by the Bill of Rights either.