hold them responsible

Posted on December 3, 2015 by greg

In September of 2012 four men — a U.S. Ambassador, a Foreign Service information officer, and two CIA security contractors — were killed in Benghazi, Libya. They’d all volunteered to be stationed in that volatile region. They all knew the dangers they faced and the risks they were taking.

The deaths of these four men has resulted in seven different high level investigations, thirteen Congressional hearings, more than fifty Congressional briefings, and at least twenty-five thousand pages of documents published. The investigations have cost taxpayers more than five million dollars…so far. The investigation continues; it’s the longest Congressional investigation in U.S. history.

Three months later twenty children, all of whom were six or seven years old, were killed while attending Sandy Hook Elementary School. Six adults were also killed. The school was supposed to be safe. None of the dead were aware of the danger they faced. None had volunteered to risk their lives.

How many Congressional investigations were launched? None. How many hearings, how many briefings, how many pages of documents published? Take a guess. A limited firearm safety bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate. It failed to pass. The bill never reached the House of Representatives.

Let me just repeat that. Four adult men who volunteered to serve their country in a dangerous region were killed in the line of duty, and Congress is still investigating it in order (they claim) to ensure the tragedy never happens again. Twenty prepubescent children and half a dozen school teachers and administrators innocently attending school were killed, and Congress did exactly nothing.

Nothing is what they’ve done in response to every single mass killing since the horror at Sandy Hook. Nothing is what they’ll do about yesterday’s mass killings in San Bernadino and Savannah. They’ll continue to do exactly nothing unless ordinary people call them on it. Unless ordinary men and women and mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers pick up their telephones and call their representatives at their offices, unless we bombard them with email, unless we contact out local newspapers and demand action, unless we make it politically risky for the cowards in Congress to continue ignoring gun violence.

You can find the contact information for your Congressional Representative here. You can find the contact information for your Senators here.

Call them. Raise hell. Hold them responsible.

what? another mass shooting?

Posted on July 24, 2015 by greg

Its either black gangs, an ADD/autistic drug white boy on antidepressants, or a moslem.

Oh, FreeRepublic, you never fail me. America dishes up another serving of mass murder, and y’all rush to ladle the paranoid gravy over it. Let’s rely on our almost total lack of information and wildly speculate on who’d do a horrible thing like that, shall we?

In order, here are the odds: 1) Moose-slime jihadist, 2) A son of Obama, 3) Criminal invader from across the Rio Grande, 4) Leftist (like Dylan Roof, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley, James Earl Ray…)

Could be ISIS-Arab—out to take some Americans and go to Paradise?

But wait…what’s this? News reports indicate the shooter was “an older white male”? Oh no, how can it be? What can it mean? Could it possibly be…a woman’s fault?

Just a guess that ex went to the movies with someone the shooter didn’t want her going to the movies with.

Maybe he was after the woman who was in his life at one time, and she was now with someone else.

John Russell House, alleged white guy (possible ISIS plant or maybe even a Democrat)

But if it’s not a woman’s fault, it must be Obama’s. Or maybe just random Democrats. Or liberals in general.

Simple. Rampant liberalism is the cause. The axis of evil in the White Mosque has set up an environment for leftists to engage in these killing sprees. Aside from the shooter, hussein, holder and jarrett are equally guilty. As long as the regime remains in place, it’s vital for Patriots to be well armed.

How many mass shootings does that bring us to now under this “wonderful administration”? Seems like it’s almost weekly now. What a country we turned out to be!

Well, if it does turn out that he was white — which is still doubtful in my mind — note that his political party isn’t mentioned in that media release. Typical of the drivebys. That’s proof he was a DemonRAT — like all of the other mass murders.

Given that liberalism is mental illness, it’s a sure thing this utterly crazy and evil man in Lafayette was a registered ‘RAT.

The very high 90th percent of this crap is done by liberals. ‘Tea Party types” doing this is almost non-existent. Liberalism is the ultimate cause. No self control, no morals, lots of mind altering drugs and victimhood delusions pushed by other liberals. They should all be caged.

The real scandal is a nutjob who should’ve been institutionalized, but b/c of decades of leftists policies, was allowed to roam free. Also, the types & amounts of taxpayer-provided welfare the @-hole was sucking in that allowed him to move around the country, live in motels, and purchase disguises, weapons, & ammo.

But oh no, there’s some suggestion by news sources that the shooter might have been a member of the Tea Party! How dare the news media leap to conclusions based on nothing more than the suspect’s name and race! How dare they make conjectures without any objective supporting evidence!

Anytime there’s a shooting the first thing the media does is check the names of anyone who ever joined a “tea party”.

How quick the media find a Tea Party connection. We’ll be hearing that non-stop.

Of course, it’s possible this could be a ‘false flag’ operation by Obama-led liberals intended to make it appear as if the shooter was a Tea Party fuckwit. Not just possible, really, but probable. In fact, it’s almost a certainty.

A 58 old white male involved in a national news shooting when we have stories this week of the govt desiring to link social security with whether someone is competent for owning a gun? Yeah a little too convenient..

Member of a FAKE Tea Party group run by a lawer who doesn’t pay his bills and belives in big government. Does that sound like a Tea Party member to you? Other REAL Tea Party members are even saying he’s fake.

And then the shooter. A guy who is reportedly homeless yet he’s staying in a Motel 6 and has a handgun and wigs and disguises and he supposedly used to own a bar and several business but he disappears off the radar sometime in 2006? Really? You know what this sounds like? A spec op. You know who else has disappears off the grid for years? Spooks. And they borrow other people’s identities or use fake ones that are completely fabricated that the feds create for them through credit agencies. I know this for a fact. Does all of this sound like bull$hit to you? It should.

FBI agents discussing how to plant evidence to frame Tea Party, probably.

But one thing is absolutely, totally, incontrovertibly clear. Everything would have been perfectly fine if more people in the theater had been armed and prepared to return fire.

Gun-free zone?

The safest place for a criminal is a gun-free zone. The safest place for Conservatives (good guys) is where an abundance of guns can be found. Killings at gun shows and gun ranges are close to non-existent.

Criminals flourish when law-abiding Patriots are unarmed. My church of Christ congregation here in Texas is NOT a gun-free zone. The preacher always places his gun in a shelf under the pulpit and most members are armed during services. We’ve never had an incident like that in Charleston. Should a leftist come in and try to do such a thing, he’ll be graveyard dead thanks to a flurry of hot lead in the head. Praise the Lord

More guns, yes, of course. That’s the answer. If only this country had a cadre of brave, patriotic, armed American citizens willing to park their asses in lawn-chairs outside movie theaters and military recruiting stations — men of iron will and brass buttocks, who know weapons and how to use them (mostly) — men who will lay down their lives and their Big Gulps to protect others (though not quite willing to actually enlist in the military).

Feel safe now?

Let’s face it, nothing will make you feel safer after you’ve been attacked by a stranger with a gun than to have multiple strangers with multiple guns loitering around outside your door. Just think how secure you’d feel if this was what you saw when you went to buy your tickets to see Bruce Willis in Pride and Predator 3 (Jane Austen’s back…and this time she’s armed and angry!).

Praise Jeebus, keep your ammunition dry, and always choose the 64 ounce drink (it’s the best value).

horseshit hypocrisy

Posted on July 2, 2015 by greg

I declare, fucking Republicans…no respect for the law.

Remember back in 1976 when the Supreme Court of These United States ruled that money (in the form of campaign contributions) was political speech and that the “quantity of expression” (the amounts of money) can’t be limited? Were Democrats angry about that decision? Hell, yes. But SCOTUS had made a decision, so it was the law. And Democrats followed the law.

And remember back in 2000 when SCOTUS, at the request of George W. Bush, stopped the recount of the Florida vote? And then, three days later, ruled that there wasn’t enough time to complete a fair recount — even though the recount would probably have been completed if they hadn’t stopped it — so the last recount would stand as official, thereby giving the election to Bush? Were Democrats pissed off by that decision? Damn right, they were. But SCOTUS had ruled, so that was the law — and Democrats followed the law and George W. Bush was given the chance to become the worst president in history..

And remember back in 2010 when SCOTUS ruled that corporations were people and therefore entitled to the same free speech rights (money, in other words) as individuals? Were Democrats furious over that decision? Totally fucking furious. But SCOTUS had issued a ruling and that ruling was law — so Democrats obeyed the law.

And do you remember back in 2013 when SCOTUS decided to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which protected minorities from state laws that suppressed their ability to vote? Were Democrats pissed off about that? Yeah, they were totally pissed off. But hey, SCOTUS had spoken and even though Republican-controlled states immediately began passing laws that made it more difficult for minorities to vote, Democrats accepted it as standing law.

And now SCOTUS has said that prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. And are Republicans angry about that? Fucking right, they are. But SCOTUS has spoken, so Republicans are…wait. When Democrats disagreed with the Supreme Court, they obeyed the law and tried to find legal ways to change it. But fucking Republicans? Not so much. They’re basically telling their people to ignore the law.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — Republican (not yet indicted).

The Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, issued a statement saying SCOTUS…

…ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist. In so doing, the Court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did nothing to weaken our resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democratic self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live.

This guy is the state’s chief law enforcement official, yet he doesn’t seem to understand that the Supreme Court’s actual job is to determine the meaning of the Constitution. He doesn’t seem to understand that the same Constitution includes a clause that says the following:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Supreme law of the motherfucking land. Ain’t no getting around that. If there was, then President Gore would have kept us from stupidly invading Iraq. And even though it clearly says ‘every state shall be bound thereby‘ Attorney General Paxton told his county clerks of court they should feel free to refuse to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples. He also included this warning:

It is important to note that any clerk who wishes to defend their religious objections and who chooses not to issue licenses may well face litigation and/or a fine. But, numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights.

“Go ahead, piss on the law,” he said, “I’ve got your back.” We sort of expect this sort of bullshit from Texas, and considering that AG Paxton is probably going to be indicted for securities fraud in the near future, it’s no surprise that he has no respect for the law. But we’re also seeing this same crap from Republicans in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, and North Dakota,

These fuckwits have the absolute right to disagree with the Supreme Court. They have the absolute right — and maybe even a moral duty — to work within the law to change it. They have the right to speak out against it. But damn it, they DO NOT have the right to flout the law by refusing to obey it. They DO NOT have the right to ignore the law or defy it, simply because they disagree with it.

This horseshit hypocrisy pisses me off.

i love fútbol — i fucking hate fifa

Posted on May 28, 2015 by greg

I love fútbol. I love the game and I love the term fútbol. It just sounds and looks so much more interesting than either ‘football’ or ‘soccer’. Plus fútbol more appropriately reflects the international nature of the game.

I particularly love women’s fútbol. It’s not quite as fast as the men’s game, but I prefer their style of play. There are fewer players who engage in diving, there is more emphasis on teamwork, there are fewer prima donnas, and above all there is more pure joy from the players in their athleticism. Women’s fútbol is simply more fun to watch.

So I’m completely over the moon that, in just over a week, the Women’s World Cup will begin in Canada. And I’m completely pissed off about the way the best women fútbol players in the world are being treated.

There has never, in the entire history of the World Cup, been a match played on artificial turf. Until now. All of the venues in which the Women’s World Cup will be played this year have artificial surfaces. That’s bad — bad for the players and bad for the game.

It’s bad for the players because playing on artificial turf increases the chances for injury. We’re not just talking about turf burns, which may seem relatively minor (but aren’t); we’re talking about serious injuries. There are more ankle injuries — some of which might only slow a player down, some of which might cause a player to miss a game, some of which might end a career. Artificial turf can cause a metatarsophalangeal joint sprain — more commonly known as ‘turf toe’ — in which a player’s big toe becomes hyper-extended. Have you ever had a toe injury? It changes the way you walk (assuming you can even wear a shoe), so imagine how it affects a player in a running sport. And if that’s not bad enough, playing on artificial turf increases a player’s chance of concussion. That’s true even for American football players — and those guys wear helmets.

Turf burns

It’s bad for the game because the increased risk of injury affects the style of play. Here’s what Heather O’Reilly — a midfielder on the US team — had to say about playing on artificial turf:

“Slide tackling on grass – you know, you get up, you shake the grass off, get the dirt off. On turf unfortunately, a little layer of your skin comes up with every slide tackle so you get turf burns. Those diving headers that are so exciting on the world stage aren’t going to happen on artificial turf because you can get injured. So it changes the game quite a bit.”

Another problem is the ball moves quite a bit faster on artificial turf. That means more balls going out of bounds, which translates into more throw-ins, which results in less action on the field. The rhythm and fluidity of the game changed.

Let me say it again. Playing fútbol on artificial turf is bad for the players and bad for the game. Here’s former Canadian national team player Carrie Serwetnyk on the issue:

“[The decision to use artificial turf] like saying that women’s Olympic track would be taking place on a cinder track instead of a rubber one.”

It’s pretty much unthinkable that the same decision would be made in the men’s World Cup, or in any of the qualifying matches. So why is the Women’s World Cup being played on artificial turf? Because FIFA, the organization that runs international fútbol, has no respect for women as athletes. That’s it. That’s the entire reason.

How do we know that? Because when the women players learned they’d be playing on artificial turf, they complained to FIFA. Sixteen months before the World Cup starting date, more than 70 top-ranked players from at least 17 national teams signed a letter, asking FIFA to insist on grass surfaces. FIFA ignored them. So the women sued FIFA, accusing them of gender discrimination, arguing that men’s teams would never be forced to play on an artificial surface instead of natural grass. FIFA refused to publicly address the lawsuit, and stalled. Eight months ago the women asked the court for an expedited hearing, since the turf would have to be changed before the games began. FIFA continued to stall and refused all attempts to negotiate. According to their lawyer, some of the women involved in the suit were threatened with suspension from their local governing bodies.

In January, when it became clear nothing was going to happen, the women withdrew their suit to concentrate on preparing for the World Cup. FIFA didn’t comment.

There’s a lot of money in FIFA. A lot of money and a lot of secrecy. The bonuses — not the salaries, just the annual bonuses — for FIFA officials in 2012 amounted to more than thirty million dollars. The recently indicted FIFA officials were accused of taking more than US$150 million in bribes.

How much would it have cost for FIFA to equip the World Cup 2015 stadiums with grass? Between three and six million dollars. Money wasn’t the issue. The issue was the health and safety of the women players. The issue was respect.

I love fútbol. I love the Women’s World Cup, and I’ll watch almost every match. I love fútbol. But I fucking hate FIFA.

but… but… what if…?

Posted on December 10, 2014 by greg

That ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario? Total bullshit. There’s absolute no evidence that such a scenario has ever taken place. No evidence at all. Yet it keeps coming up in almost every discussion about torture.

“But what if we knew with absolute and perfect certainty that this guy has detailed knowledge of a bomb that’s going to detonate, and we knew with absolute and perfect certainty that it would detonate in a couple of hours, and we knew with absolute and perfect certainty that hundreds or thousands of innocent people would die — and what if this guy totally refused to talk. Would you still say torture was wrong in that situation?”

Well, yeah. It would still be wrong. The exigency of the situation doesn’t magically turn a wrong thing into a right thing.

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden, coward.

“But what if we knew with absolute and perfect certainty that the victims included your family or friends? What if some of those victims were people you loved? Would you still say torture was wrong?”

Yeah, it’s still wrong. The identities of the potential victims aren’t materially relevant to whether or not it’s wrong to torture people. If it’s not okay to torture somebody to save a stranger, why would it be okay to torture somebody to save a person you know? Besides, there’s no way to be certain the torture would elicit reliable intelligence.

Former Vice President Richard Cheney, coward.

“But what if we knew with absolute and perfect certainty that torture did work, and that by using it we’d be able to save thousands of lives. Would you still be opposed to torture?”

Yeah. Torture would still be wrong. It’s not a question of effectiveness. It’s a question of national morality. It’s a question of who we are as a nation.

“So let me get this straight. You’re saying that if we knew with absolute and perfect certainty that torture worked, and we knew with absolute and perfect certainty that using torture would provide information that would save thousands of lives — if we knew all that, are you saying you wouldn’t use torture against one person to save the lives of thousands?”

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying first and foremost that torture is inherently wrong and should be punishable as a crime. I’m saying torture doesn’t really work, that it isn’t an effective way to get information. But if I knew with absolute and perfect certainty that I could save a thousand lives by torturing one person, I’d do it. I’d torture the hell out of him. And I’d expect to go to prison for doing it. I’d be okay with serving a long prison sentence — or even a life sentence, or possibly a death sentence — in exchange for saving thousands of innocent lives.

Former President of the United States George W. Bush, coward.

What these jackasses in the CIA and in the Bush administration want is the power to torture suspects without any consequence. Fuck that, and fuck them. If they believe so strongly that torture is necessary, then let them pay the price for doing it. We see soldiers and police officers and firefighters routinely risk their lives to save people. We see ordinary folks all over the world risking injury or possible death by protesting against policies they believe are wrong. They know the risks and they’re willing to suffer the consequences of their actions.

If the CIA and members of the Bush administration really believed torture worked, if they really thought it was effective, if they truly thought it saved lives, then they should also be willing to accept the consequences. I don’t care if their intentions were good. If they’re not willing to own up to what they did and pay the price, then they’re just fucking cowards.

loathsome creatures

Posted on February 28, 2014 by greg

Seriously, this shit surprised me. I mean, I know there are ~~some~~ a lot of Republicans in Congress who are ideological dicks more interested in making political points than in participating in the actual process of governing the fucking nation. But THIS? This is some outrageous shit, is what this is.

I’m talking about Senate Bill 1982. The Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014. It’s not what you’d call a sexy title, but this bill — had it passed — would have provided US$21 billion of extra coin over the next decade to expand military health benefits (including mental health treatment). It would have increased veteran education benefits. It would have expanded job training programs.

Senator Saxby Chambliss, mewling canker-brained minnow-hearted fuckwit Republican from Georgia voted No

The bill — had it passed — would have done a lot of small things that would make military service somewhat less onerous. If, say, a National Guard member was a licensed electrician and his license expired while he was deployed in Afghanistan, this bill would protect that license and extend the time in which it could be renewed. It would protect troops whose apartment leases expired while they were on deployment. It would forestall home foreclosures until troops could return from deployment and give them some time to get their financial matters straightened out. Little shit like that matters to ordinary folks.

But the bill didn’t pass. It didn’t pass because Senate Republicans blocked it. Seriously. Why did they block it? Bullshit reasons, that’s why. Some objected to the inclusion of ‘reproductive treatment and services’ based on some incomprehensible Jeebus-sparked twaddle. But here’s the thing — if some poor bastard gets his cojones shredded by an IED on a road in Helmand Province, but still wants to have a family, Jeebus ain’t going to plant no baby in his wife’s womb. Medical science will do that.

Senator Bob Corker, pampered leech-nurtured addle-pate Republican from Tennessee voted No

Some Republicans were concerned about the cost. Of course, they weren’t terribly concerned about the cost of going to war. And, of course, they’re all supportive of the new Lockheed-Martin F-35 Strike fighter — which, so far, is US$163 billion over budget and seven years behind schedule. But $21 billion stretched out over ten years for veterans? Too fucking expensive.

Even worse (and lawdy, you wouldn’t think there could be anything worse than denying a guy who left his balls in a combat zone the right to have a family), the Republicans tried adding some totally unrelated, politically motivated bullshit amendments to the bill. Like sanctions against Iran and some nonsense dealing with that Most Giant of Political Turds, Benghazi.

Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, fawning pasty-hearted dissembling pig’s bladder Republican from Alabama voted No — and Benghazi!

Even so, 56 Senators voted in favor of the bill. Only 41 voted against it. That’s right, a minority — all Republicans — were able to kill a bill that would help veterans. And this was as bipartisan a bill as is possible in this insane tea-party environment. More than two dozen of the provisions in the bill were Republican ideas.

But they still killed it. Not because it was a bad bill. They killed it for political reasons. For ideological reasons.

Senator Chuck Grassley, spongy po-faced corn-fed fustilarian Republican from Iowa voted No

I’m sure, if you asked, all forty-one of those senators would claim to support the troops. I’m sure they all think of themselves as patriots. I’m pretty confident (though I haven’t bothered to check) all of them were (and probably still are) supportive of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For them to vote against this bill is contemptible. It’s despicable and disgraceful. These people should be ashamed to be photographed in front of the flag. They should be forced to visit VA hospitals and explain their votes to the men and women there. They should be held up for ridicule and scorn by everybody who truly supports the troops. And since these people undoubtedly consider themselves to be Christians, they should suffer the most appalling of Biblical curses.

These are loathsome creatures.

no, megyn kelly isn’t that stupid

Posted on December 13, 2013 by greg

If you’re not aware of it yet, FOX News personality Megyn Kelly (yes, that’s actually how she spells her name and no, that’s not her fault — blame her parents) said something stupid on her show. She was speaking about an article written by Aisha Harris in Slate. Harris wrote about the discontinuity of growing up as an African-American girl and having two Santas — the ubiquitous jolly white guy in the red suit, and “the Santa in my family’s household” who was black. When she asked her father about the two Santas, she got a perfect answer:

My father replied that Santa was every color. Whatever house he visited, jolly old St. Nicholas magically turned into the likeness of the family that lived there.

That’s incredibly sappy, but it’s also a perfectly lovely notion. But nonetheless Ms. Harris grew up feeling “slightly ashamed that our black Santa wasn’t the ‘real thing.'” So in her article she suggests (and I presume this is tongue-in-cheek) that we should abandon the notion of Santa Claus as a human and begin to present him as a penguin.

It’s too bad, in a way. Harris makes some important and interesting points about the duality of growing up black in what is essentially a white culture. The whole ‘Santa as Penguin’ business rather distracts from that — but still, the article is worth reading.

Enter FOX News in the person of Megyn Kelly. FOX News isn’t in the business of debating interesting social phenomena (nor is FOX News in the business of news, for that matter). FOX News is in the business of being outraged by interesting social phenomena. In a panel discussion about the article, Kelly categorically states that Santa is a white guy. And so, by the way, was Jesus.

Over the last couple of days there’s been an indignant cascade of cheerfully pissed off folks railing against Kelly. They’ve explained in detail the ethnology of the tribal cultures that inhabited Galilee in the first century. They’ve expounded on the symbolic and social evolution of Nikolaos of Myra from a tall, thin, Turkish-Greek priest to the jolly red-suited fat man created by Haddon Sundblom in the 1930s for Coca Cola adverts.

In effect, folks have been calling Megyn Kelly stupid. Profoundly stupid. Stupid on a galactic scale. People have been suggesting that the sheer mass of Megyn Kelly’s stupidity is so great that it’s capable of affecting tides. But folks, she’s not stupid — not at all. She’s worse than that.

There’s no shame in being stupid or ignorant. If you lack the capacity to be intelligent, it’s not your fault that you’re stupid. If you lack access to accurate information, it’s not your fault that you’re ignorant. If you lack the means to obtain a good education, it’s not your fault that you’re uneducated. The shame is in being willfully stupid, deliberately ignorant, consciously uneducated.

Megyn Kelly is intelligent, has easy access to accurate information, and received a quality education. In other words, the shame begins with the fact that Megyn Kelly works for FOX News.

It’s her job to be outraged and to engender outrage in others. That’s the FOX News mission — keep their viewers uninformed and angry. Keep them feeling victimized. Because if you’re a victim, then you’re not to blame. If you’re a victim, you have a right to defend yourself. You have the right to defend yourself against minorities who want a non-white Santa. Against gay folks who want marriage equality. Against women who want to control their own reproduction. Against people who believe in evolution. Against anybody who believes differently than you do.

Megyn Kelly isn’t stupid. She’s a willing participant in an organized movement to prevent change. Megyn Kelly isn’t stupid; she’s just getting paid to act that way.

government shutdown explained in two quotes

Posted on October 3, 2013 by greg

Marlin Andrew Stutzman is a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives. He represents the 13th District in Indiana.

Marlin Stutzman, Republican, Indiana

“We’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

Don Fanucci is an extortionist for the Black Hand in Little Italy. He represents the Sicilian mobster Maranzalla.

Don Fanucci, Extortionist, Black Hand

“This is my neighborhood. You and your friends should show me some respect. You should let me wet my beak a little… Tell your friends I don’t want a lot. Just enough to wet my beak.”

It’s that simple.

gregfallis.com

it's this or get a real job

Category Archives: stuff that pisses me off