A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Why Does Dennis Rehberg Hate His Mother?

Okay, so we're all very tired of our do-little Congress.  Our friendly Republicans would have us believe that  it's all the Democrat's fault; after all, aren't they in charge of Congress now?  The Righties here in state even want you to believe that the current state of the economy is all the Democratic Congress' fault.  (Here's a joke for you:  Texas oil-man President sends his Vice President to meet with his BFsF, the Suads to attempt a resolution to high oil prices.  The VP comes back, winks and claims his meetings were beneficial.  And oil goes up another $30/barrel.  ~wink~  Oh wait!  That's not a joke.  That's actually what happened.)  But this post isn't about the colossal failings of the Republicans in their leadership role (dare you to say that and keep a straight face).  No, it's about their hatred for the country, beginning with their own mothers.

I think we have a little insight into why this Congress is bogged down.  It's probably because it's over-populated with tantrumming Republican children.  Case in point:

Every year, Congress passes another resolution affirming their support for our National Mother's Day.  Now, I love my Mother, and I hope she knows that even if I usually am a slouch about the whole arbitrary Mother's Day thing.  But seriously, I'm not alone in thinking that such ridiculous Congressional rituals and resolutions are a huge waste of taxpayer's time and Representative's effort.  Fine, hold the vote and get it over with.  On Wednesday, the House did.  The resolution H.R.  1113  "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day"  passed the House by a unanimous vote, 412 to 0.  No problem and let's get on with the taxpayer's business.  But wait ...

The only thing more godawful wasteful than meaningless Resolutions are Resolutions voted twice, that serve no one but Congress itself.  The only thing that could be worse than that are voice-count Resolutions manipulated by one party for *no* reason other than to waste effort and time.  And which party did that?  You guessed it.  The party of hating mom, apple pie and condescending to Nascar did that; the Republicans.

Republican Representative Todd Tiahrt called for a recount  voice vote, and 177 Republicans  said "Nay", they are not  "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day".  And who should we find here?

Montana

Nay       MT-0 Rehburg, Dennis (R)

I guess Dennis doesn't like dear ole Mom or something.  If you think I'm going too far, just take the word of the House Minority Leader:

House Minority Leader John Boehner, asked yesterday to explain why he and 177 of his colleagues switched their votes, answered: "Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother's Day."

This couldn't be more plain; Dennis Rehberg is on record as NOT supporting Mother's Day.  At best, this can be seen as a huge flip-flop from the stupid among the House minority.  At worst, it is a blatant attempt to derail the honest efforts of the US Congress.  The next local righty who blames the Democrats for accomplishing nothing will get laughed at.  The next local righty who tells me that Dennis Rehberg isn't the lowest form of loathsome party suck-up will get pointed to this vote.  He is Montana's sole Representative to the House, and he just said that Montana doesn't support Mother's Day.  The worst part is that he said it just to disrupt the people's business for no good reason at all.

I don't mind that Dennis Rehberg hates his mother; I just wish he didn't hate his country enough to screw with its governance.

The Empire Strikes Barack

I doubt that Clinton supporters will find this terrible amusin' like, but I laughed good and hardy.  And yeah, Bill Richardson would shoot first ...

I Think My Reading Comprehension Has Been Unfairly Insulted!

Steve Eschenbacher, Idiot for H.D. 96, has rather unfairly insulted my reading comprehension.  He wrote, rather plainly, that politicians will lie to you.  He is a politician.  He's running for office, and he will lie to you.  That's what he wrote.  I don't think I failed to comprehend anything ... unless, Steve thinks he's not a politician because he hasn't been elected yet (with no dismal chance of ever being).  Of course, reading as thoroughly as possible, one could take his meaning to be that politicians only lie in the promises they make after getting elected.  So, no promise they make while running could be a lie.  After all, they haven't been elected yet; they are not politicians.

So one really has to wonder on what grounds he takes Hillary Clinton to task for lying while running for office?  Is he then admitting that politicians lie while running as well as after being elected?  Why yes!  Yes he is.  And so, he stands corrected.  Politicians, running or sitting, will lie to you.  Steve Eschenbacher is a politician.  Therefore, quite plainly by his own admission, Steve Eschenbacher will and is lying to you.

Perhaps it isn't my reading comprehension that is open to question, but Steve's poor abilities at reasoning.  Hmmm?

And we allow this Idiot to draw a public paycheck ... Why?

Worth 1000 Words

I've been saying this since the great "tax cuts = energy subsidy" of 2001.

Ur Doing It Rong!

Like most folks throwing words into the Great Online, I don't have a lot of faith that political types with aspiration aren't constantly pandering to our desires and fears.  It's often hard to tell whether they are  sincere or lying to you, the voter  (unless of course, they announce that they're going to lie to you.)  But one thing you can be pretty well certain of is that if a politician tells you to your face that they don't like you, they probably aren't lying.  They really don't like you.  Most politicians are smart enough not to tell voters how much they don't like 'em.  Some politicians just aren't so smart.

This is especially true in local and regional contests.  So imagine my surprise when 2 candidates for the Montana House of Representatives hurled insult at the very voters they wish to represent.  Carol Minjares, The Frightened for H.D.  97 in Missoula really doesn't like Missoula.   In a post about 3 young Republicans running in Missoula, she headers it by referring to the city as "the People's Republic", an obvious (and worn out) euphemism accusing Missoula of being communist.  Not to be outdone in racing to the bottom, Steve Eschenbacher, Idiot for H.D. 96, picks up the same insult.

"The People's Republic of Missoula", written without irony (or any sense of how not-funny that 'joke' has gotten) by two folks who need votes from Missoulians to get elected.  They really don't like you, Missoula, not the town, not the people.  They apparently seem to think that they can save you pinkos from yourselves, but they certainly won't do it out of caring or respect for you.  So, when the time comes for you 'commies' to remind these idjits that Missoula and Montana are democratic republics, cast your votes accordingly.  Kindly show these fools the meaning of 'EPIC FAIL'.

Who Wrote This?

Somebody wrote:

Which just goes to show that politicians will lie through their teeth, knowing that they cannot do what they are promising, and yet, we still buy it. Why do we let them get away with this?

Now who could that be?  Simple enough.  Aspiring politician Steve Eschenbacher, Idiot for H.D. 96.   Vote accordingly, Missoula.

A Retraction

The epically fragile Dave Budge apparently intends to sue me (pro se, fools for clients and all that) over something I wrote yesterday morning.  It appears he is concerned that I have defamed his character by writing that he was fresh off a "stint of fleecing old people", and has *demanded* a retraction.  I personally would be interested in seeing precisely what harm my website could do to his reputation, considering that not one of his clients would likely ever have read it, and his rather consistent claims that I am a liar, a douchbag and an asshole.  No, Dave is having one of his legendary tantrums of temper.  But, since I'm rather amiable about most things, I have redacted the sentence to more accurately describe my intent.  A full deletion at this point would be useless since Dave himself copied the sentence to other websites over which I have no control.  He spread the word himself, so to speak.  Whether or not this retraction will stop Dave from reaching for his Junior Legal Eagle DIY Home Lawyer Kit and Will Maker is entirely up to him.

Obviously Dave thinks that I meant something legal or criminal with the use of the word "fleece".  Nothing could be further from the truth.  You see, he is correct that I would have no way of knowing whether or not he engages in criminal or professionally unethical behavior.  I cannot factually say "Dave Budge fleeces people" with the word carrying a legal or criminal connotation, just as I have not the facts at hand to say that "Dave Budge does not fleece people"  with the word carrying a legal or criminal connotation.   Certainly I would never try to accuse him in such a  manner, where "fleece " means that he engages in criminal or professionally unethical activity.  It's not like the guy sells snake oil, or vitamins or other such homeopathic folderol.  He simply provides a service, an unsavory one in my opinion, as I expressed yesterday.

Dave and I have 'discussed' that before, so he knows my opinion on his line of work.  I think "asset management" is a rather unnecessary way for folks to profit by playing with other's money.  It's little more than an unseemly form of sales pitch, in my opinion.  Perfectly legal, of course, but I view it as a low form of labor hustle for profit.  Dave is aware of the lack of respect I have for his profession, and the dearth of quality I find in him.  Rather surprising then that he should get hung up on a word that I  simply couldn't have meant in the manner he chose to view it.  No worries.  Words are easy enough to retract, and so I have done.

It's doubtful that Dave, the good libertarian, will lose his new found love of the frivolous lawsuit without an apology.  I'm game for that, certainly.

Dave Budge, I am honestly and sincerely sorry that you felt threatened by a word.  I deeply apologize that I did not make my thinking clear to you.  I don't think you're a criminal or professionally unethical; after all, we have established that I wouldn't know even if you were.  Certainly, no one who profits from manipulating the money of others should be subjected to the accusation of 'fleecing' taken in the dim light you cast upon it.  So, I regret using the word 'fleecing' as regards whatever it is you undertake, Dave Budge, and I retract it in total.  I also apologize to all the people that Dave will whine about this issue to.  You have no idea the embarrassment I feel on your behalf and the sympathy I have for your plight.  Please accept my deeply held belief that Dave is as professional as he presents to you, and not nearly the self-loathing wanker that he presents online.  I hope that you accept my apology, Dave.  And please accept my solemn promise that I will never refer to your professional activities as 'fleecing' again.  In the future, I will be much more direct in telling you what a complete piece of hypocritical human filth I think you are.  But your "reputation" is certainly safe from any attack launched by me.

Love and peace,

Wulfgar

(Oh, and Dave, working for ASMSU *is* working for the University, even "per se" even.  Do learn to Google sometime.  Best wishes.)

The Respect Owed A Great Nation

Not much more I can say.

Seperated At Birth

You tell me.

From Meaningless To Traitor in Nothing Flat

The Dark Lord's Sooper Secret Spywise Network Thingy brings us this intel:

Taped by the NSA, leaked by "low-level employees" to the media:

Bill Richardson: Hey, Hill? After much thought and deliberation, I've decided to endorse you.

Hillary Clinton: Too late.

BR: Huh?

HC: Yeah, the time when your endorsement could have been effective has long since passed.

BR: But, I'm a super delegate, and ultimately, we'll be forced to decide this thing!

HC: Not important. Frankly, Bill, I just don't think yours would be a significant endorsement in this environment.

BR: So you're telling me that my endorsement means nothing?

HC: That's exactly what I'm telling you. It doesn't matter. A few weeks ago? Maybe, but today? I don't want it. It's useless.

BR: Frankly, Hillary, I'm finding this a bit disconcerting.

HC: So? What are you going to do about it?

BR: Endorse Obama.

HC: Judas.

 

Many Kossians died to bring us this information ...