Handy Resources

Understanding the 2012 Election

My Sister's Blog New!

The Desktop Dyno

Salem Gravity Gran Prix

Jordan's Eagle Project.

Duke Boys Car Chase

LoL Cartoons

Logic Primer

Gymkhana Practice

Compass Course Spreadsheet

Complete Orienteering Course Files

Things you may not know about Sarah Palin

Amazing Grace on the Sax

Obama's Magic 8 Ball

Oh, wait . . . that's from an alternate universe

Refresh to get latest blog entry

How does that work?
8.31.15

Have you seen this teaching practice? People trying to get through a lesson with little kids will often ask a question, then whatever falls out of the dear child's mouth is good enough. The kid said something. Requirement met.

How can studying mathematics help us in our life? Yes, Johnny?

Well, like, if you, like, cause when you know something, that's, like, it can help you.

Very good, Johnny!

Is that what Hillary was thinking? "C'mon, just say something. Anything. Nobody will pay attention to the actual words."

Hillary said that she never sent or received anything marked "Classified" on her personal server.

Okay, wait. She said that she only used a private server so she wouldn't have to have multiple e-mail accounts. She didn't have another e-mail account. She didn't use a State.gov e-mail.

So, as Secretary of State she didn't ever handle sensitive information?

I honestly wondered. I thought maybe I was the one confused about this whole thing. Maybe she did have an official government account or . . . I just couldn't believe she'd say that and expect us to think "Okay, some words fell out of her mouth. No more questions."

This comes back to her same old attitude. When investigators wanted answers about her shady financial dealings in Arkansas she said "I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We're the president."

Just intrigues me that she says something like that and figures no one is going to say "Wait a minute . . . can you explain that?"

Please understand. I'm not trying to bring you to a realization that you didn't previously have. She could have said "Watermelon, watermelon, watermelon" and it wouldn't have made any difference. Sean Hannity will talk about this for about 16 more weeks, but it's not going to change anything. Not one thing.

Nobody that could have voted for her before supports her any less. Nobody that knew her before understands her sleaziness any more.

This will not change a thing.

When she first made that ridiculous statement I thought "Wait a minute . . . so if she didn't send or receive classified information from that server, what server did she use?" Then no one questioned that. No one.

So I figured I just didn't understand the whole thing. I shrugged my shoulders and moved on. I didn't care. I don't care. The price of toenail clippers in New Hampshire makes more difference than all of this micro-tempest.

Then last week someone called Sean Hannity. "So, Sean, if she didn't send or receive classified information from that server, what server did she use for that? She said she didn't have another e-mail account?"

Oh, good. I'd be really curious to hear a discussion of what I'm missing here.

Sean came back with . . .

"Well, besides that, here's another thing. What server did she use to send classified information if that was her only e-mail account? Huh? Did you ever think about that?!"

Sean! Get your headset looked at! My gosh, man! Why do you have people call in if you don't hear a word they say?!

Sheesh.

I've made my point, but I can't leave a dead horse just lying there.

Sean had Jeff Foxworthy on his show. Jeff Foxworthy. The guy that makes you laugh by saying funny things.

So Sean would ask him something, and Jeff would launch into his routine. "I tell you what, it makes a trip to WalMart look like . . . "

You don't have to have a PhD in humorology to know that a punchline is coming. You know the rhythm. But Sean just walks right on top of him.

"I know! It's horrible. I can't believe it! So what do you think about . . . "

Jeff starts to answer but just as he's setting up the punchline Sean interrupts.

Sean! Shut. Up!

I usually just switch over to Michael Medved, but I didn't want to. I really wanted to listen to funny guy Jeff Foxworthy. But then it occurred to me, well, you're really not listening to Jeff Foxworthy at all, are you? So I switched.

Why in the name of Jerry Q. Lewis would you have someone on specifically for the purpose of saying funny things and not let him say funny things?

I hate that I have to spend 2-1/2 seconds talking about "black lives matter." But that's my burden.

The movement is misnamed; their position is "only black lives matter." Otherwise, they would have no objection to the phrase "black lives matter" being a subset of the phrase "all lives matter."

The problem with both of those formulations is that neither of them are universally true.

In a vacuum all lives matter, sure, but what if you have two lives in conflict with each other? Classic dilemma. What if you have a scenario where one life can continue only at the expense of the other life?

Take, for example, the black man that shot the journalist and her cameraman. Philosophically, his life mattered, I guess, right up to the point where he pointed a gun at innocent people. At that moment the only lives that mattered were everybody but him.

When a punk walks into a convenience store with a gun, his life does not matter.

When you are trying to hurt me or my family, your life does not matter. Not in the least.

In her final statements to the jury, the waste of skin who was defending the Aurora theater shooter said through her fake tears "Do you really want to kill a mentally ill man?"

Mentally ill? Pffft

She's trying to paint this picture of a harmless Down's Syndrome boy who just wants to hug you and drool on your shirt.

Nuh uh. Insert "psycho" where she used "mentally ill."

I can't think of a better reason to kill a man than because he's a psycho

I told you the one thing that Barack Obama, the worst President of the United States in my lifetime, did accomplish for me. It was that he highlighted how Bill Clinton (pardon my language) is exactly who the Founders framed our system around.

Bill Clinton is the consummate liberal. If you google "clueless flaming liberal" his picture comes up. But America isn't liberal. So as soon as he got in office in 1992 and the voters saw how horrible he really was (idiots—who couldn't see that coming?) they kicked the demorats out of Congress and installed Newt Gingrich's Congress.

The Republican Congress passed a lot of legislation that was good for the country—legislation that Clinton was opposed to, like Defense of Marriage, DADT, welfare reform, and a balanced budget. Those things are completely at odds with Clinton's politics, but he had to go along for his political survival. And, once they went through, he claimed full credit for all of them.

That's how the system is supposed to work. That's why The People decide who gets to hold public office (theoretically). Because no matter what, you can always count on people doing what they perceive to be in their own best interests.

So Bill Clinton went along with that legislation because he had to in order to keep his political power. He didn't do it out of love for America. I'm not saying he doesn't love America. I don't think he loves his country as much as he loves himself and power, but the whole point is that it doesn't matter.

That's why it works.

When you're designing machines you have to understand and deal with physical properties as they actually exist. You can't design functioning machines around the characteristics you wish the materials had. Our system is structured around the way people are, not the way someone thinks they should be. That's why it is sustainable.

This is just like Mitt Romney starting companies to make a profit. That moron Barack Obama said "Well, he didn't do it out of a desire to give people jobs!" No, he didn't. I'm certain that he does have a desire to provide people with employment. But that's not a basis for a company that does provide people with employment.

Take Barack Obama, for a contrast. While he was bashing Romney for his motives, how many people had jobs because Obama really, really, REALLY, wanted to give people jobs?

Not one. His (stated) desires didn't do squat for anybody.

As long as we're bashing the first mentally retarded President, let's examine how he fits into the Founders' vision.

He doesn't.

He isn't subject to the fundamental laws that say he only gets to keep his power as long as The People approve of the job he's doing. That's why he's such a dangerous President.

Nobody voted for Obama based on his willingness or ability to do the right thing. They voted for him to prove they were cool. Even after he proved that he didn't have the will or ability to do the job, they voted for him again. His political survival doesn't depend on his doing the will of The People, so he has no reason to do it.

Understand, he certainly could have done the right thing. He could have loved America. He could have tried to do what's right for America and not been an idiot. But that wouldn’t affect his support in the least. Nothing he does can affect his support because it was never based on what he could or would do.

Since you quit reading a dozen paragraphs ago, we'll continue and highlight one other difference between him and the Clintons (pardon my language). Not only can his incompetence and evil not harm him politically, he is an ideologue and doesn't care if it does. The Clintonati are pragmatists. They'll do what they have to do to keep their power. But even if it cost him his power, Obama would follow his radical ideologies because he's not a pragmatist. He's an ideologue. He's the idiot muslim who's willing to strap on a vest full of Weed'n'Feed to further the cause.

In the ancient history department . . .

'Cause today's blog is really, really boring.

I know what you're saying. "No way! A boring blog on this site?!!"

Just so you know that I understand . . . This e-mail deal is going nowhere. I may be the only person on our side who does understand that.

Think about it. What do Sean Hannity and the others think we learned from this that we didn't already know about Hillary? Anybody who is capable of pulling the lever for that skunk doesn't care in the least about her secret e-mail server.

Nothing. That's my prediction. For all the endless indignation and revelations and hours dedicated to it on talk radio, it will have absolutely no effect on her support.

I made a lot of fun of people who "identify" as a gender they're not. I figured that was as safe as it gets. I figured there is absolutely no defensible explanation for those people being completely nuts.

You never know when you have to eat your words.

I've actually found a reason I would choose to identify as female. Not permanently. Just long enough to bitch slap these two female-shaped cretins into next week.

Wow. Really? Have you thought about changing the name of your movement to Black Spoiled Crybabies Matter?

Okay, we know anybody involved with that bullcrap movement is an insignificant little sniveling snot. But you have a guy who's running for—let me check—yes, President of the United Freaking States. A guy who is asking us to let him stand up to Putin and Iran. And he just cowers in the corner and surrenders the stage to two poster children for spanking.

It occurred to me this morning that I'd hate Obama even if he weren't scrogging up my country.

Imagine if you worked with that moron. You're walking out of the conference room with your buddy. "Who was that really annoying kid in the meeting this morning?"

"OMG, I know, right?! What an ass-kissing know-nothing brown-noser. How did he get involved in the project?"

Obama's that guy, the one who doesn't have an original idea, but he thinks his every thought should be engraved on tablets of stone. Instead of seeking to understand, he spends all his energies tearing down the people who dare question any pronouncement he makes.

Today it was "We have engaged in this debate many times before . . . "

Oh, boy. Here it comes.

"It’s a debate between those who say, ‘No we can’t’ and those who say, ‘Yes we can!' "

What an insufferable idiot.

First off, it's not really a debate. Obama doesn't do debate. A debate involves an exchange. In Obama's world it's "I say something and you shut up." (. . . unless you want to worship. Then you can be as vocal as you want and I'll stand here holding my little Nobel Prize and bask in the glow.)

But it's not between those who . . . you know, that meaningless drivel that he's spewing. It comes down to Obama and his mindless minions versus those who understand "Maybe we can, but we're smart enough to know we shouldn't."

If you've ever been to the solemnization of a marriage, you've heard the advice: "Never go to bed mad with each other."

(Phyllis Diller agreed "Yeah! Stay up and fight!")

But I heard a refutation of that advice that makes sense. If you're in a fight at bedtime and quickly "resolve" the situation, one partner has dominated and the other has submitted. That's not a healthy

A lot of nuances and intricacies present themselves here. "Resolve" might mean agree that you love each other and you will work it out. Both statements can be true. Not being mad doesn't mean having all the issues worked out. But for the purposes of this (excruciatingly boring) treatise we're going to focus on the idea that one dominant partner in the relationship is not a healthy relationship.

The point is that equality and order don't typically exist together. Follow me on this. To keep order you must have asymmetric force. Sometimes that is good and desirable. But the presence of "order," meaning everyone is being quiet, means that you have a dominant force and a submissive force. That can be desirable, for example, in a parenting relationship when the parent says "You will be home at this time" and the child obeys. Or when a tin-pot dictator invades Kuwait and you wipe out his army. Or in a sane world where a terrorist regime wants a nuclear weapon and you have enough hair on your legs to not let them.

But a relationship where everyone is equal is noisy. It's not "peaceful." (I chose the word "order" instead of "peace" earlier to avoid the intricacies of the meaning of the word peace. Neither word works without explanation.)

Here's what I'm talking about. One of the most common complaints you hear about politics is "Why can't we just get along and work together?"

Answer: Because of Equality, which is a characteristic we value.

Democracy is noisy.

I'm going to use Obama because he is a stellar example of the liberal trick of trying to silence debate. You just heard him. "Sure, I'm going to call this a 'debate,' but right up front I'm going to shut down anyone who disagrees with me as naysayers and not worthy to engage."

Examine the irony inherent in this statement: "It’s a 'debate' between those who say, ‘No we can’t’ and those who say, ‘Yes we can!' "

It's not a debate if you disqualify one side is from contributing (you moron).

So, what I'm talking about is that I'm not wringing my hands too much that everyone isn't agreeing on everything. I'd be really worried if we seemed like we were. In Hugo Chavez's Venezuela you get consensus. That's because the two sides of the debate are people who agree with him and people who get shot.

So think about it as healthy.

Don't play that liberal trick of crying "Racist!" or vilifying people who disagree with you or trying to shut down debate to avoid supporting your baseless position. As long as there's "chatter" it means the system is working.

This post could be two paragraphs long, except that after I outline what I'm talking about I have to go into all the many things I'm not talking about. I'm not talking about breaking the law.

The wastes of skin in Ferguson have a right to express their opinion. They don't have a right to vandalize. The Occupy Wall Street losers have a right to display their ignorance. They don't have a right to trespass or be vagrants.

I'm not talking about being uncivil (which doesn't include calling our idiot President a moron, obviously). I went into that elsewhere. It's Carly Fiorina straight talk vs. Donald Trump insults.

Which brings up another thing I'm not talking about. You didn't read my Carly Fiorina post because it was excruciatingly boring. I'm not talking about actually listening to all the healthy chatter. Most of it is boring and nonsense and coming from morons who have no clue what they're talking about (like me).

So . . . well, I think the boring alarm just went off.

Bottom line, democracy is noisy, debate is healthy. As long as everyone's talking, whether or not they have anything meaningful to say, it means the system is working.

That's the first of two of the most common misconceptions about how our system is designed to work. "Why can't everyone just agree?"

The second is "I want to send someone to Washington who can get things done!"

That sounds really good. So does "I want to invent a perpetual motion machine!"

What follows is a really boring and horribly excessively long treatise on the second point. Honestly if I were you I wouldn't read it.

Does anyone remember colored toilet paper? You could color coordinate your bathroom; lavender, salmon, whatever the designer name for yellow is . . . corn flower . . . And designs. You could get toilet paper with floral designs.

Colored toilet paper was just a part of our life. Then one day Mom was talking about the idea that toilet paper dyes could get into ground water. I guess she had read an article in a magazine or that was the talk that was going around. Anyway, we started buying white toilet paper because that was the environmentally responsible thing to do. Everyone else did also.

Obviously you're hearing my version of the events. I'm not sure exactly when and why colored toilet paper went off the market, but that's how I remember it. One day (I was standing in the dining room just where the hallway intersects the entryway) Mom said something about we shouldn't use dyed toilet paper and the next thing I knew it wasn't available.

The fact that you can't buy colored toilet paper (I'm sure you can find it somewhere) isn't a bad thing. It's not a bad thing at all. Picture the toilet paper section of your local grocery store. Now imagine all those options PLUS seven different colors and two floral patterns. Ridiculous. Unsustainable. And nobody wants to contaminate ground water with dye ( . . . ignoring the other things that you typically find in places where used toilet paper is . . .). But it is a change in our culture. A minute change, but a change nonetheless. My kids have never lived in a world where people used colored toilet paper.

Okay. Hold that thought.

Now, let's talk about a big change. One of the things that bothers me about the 9/11 attacks is this—it's stupid, but it really bothers me—The Islamist terrorists changed the New York skyline.

That really bothers me.

You see pictures and movies before the event and right there, prominently featured, were the Twin Towers. Right there. Part of what defined the New York City skyline. They decided to change that. It doesn't look like that anymore. That REALLY bothers me. I was wishing that we would immediately rebuild them exactly like they were, to say "No! No, you don't get to decide what our skyline looks like."

Obviously, it's not the appearance of the skyline that bothers me, it's the reminder of what they did to us that the changed appearance represents. But THEY changed our skyline. They decided to change it and that's the way it is now.

Okay.

Now everybody is jumping on the Ban the Confederate Battle Flag bandwagon. (I wrote this post a month ago. The fact that you can't remember the two-day furor over the Confederate Battle Flag underscores exactly what I'm saying here.)

Does it astonish anyone else how fast that happened? Walmart and eBay and Amazon had it gone in less time than it takes to boot a Windows operating system. That's fine, they're private companies, they can do what they want. Whatever. But it's like people are really quick to make sweeping changes to our culture.

Things change, things evolve, we don't live in the same world our parents lived in. It just seems like with the new media age there is a lot more power to make sweeping changes just because someone is able to sway public opinion in that direction. That power to effect mindless change is what eats at me.

Okay, so this is going to be really, really long. I'm going to violate the 140 character limit by about 20 X, but it's kind of what I'm talking about here—the 'one-paragraph-and-done' culture that we live in now. Post a meme to Facebook, done. Ban a flag, done.

That's point one. People talk about "Making Washington work." Get things done in Congress. The ones you hear talking about that are repeating crap they hear that they think they're supposed to say. They don't understand the system. The system is supposed to be bulky and ungainly and slow. It's designed to only let the bills that can pass the test turn into law. Public opinion is too fickle to memorialize every little trend into policy. The system is designed for the long view.

So the idea that mob rule can implement broad changes on a whim is troublesome.

Second point. Psycho Nutcase Wasteofskin posed next to a Confederate battle flag. So freaking what? Do we ban Apple computers when pyschopaths take pictures next to them before crime sprees? That's just dumb. Lindsey Graham (who I'm starting to like less and less) said that we have to ban "his symbol," referring to the Confederate battle flag that Psycho Nutcase was posing with. Why? Why does his holding that flag—HIS symbol, as Graham said—make it toxic for the rest of us? If you really want to ban symbols that criminals cling to you'd do a lot better getting rid of hip-hop albums.

Back when Gabrielle Giffords got shot people started talking about not using certain words or phrases. The trouble, these idiots said, was that you never knew when a certain word was going to trigger an insane person to do a violent act.

So, what, we have to tailor our language based on what some imaginary crazy person MIGHT be triggered by?

Bullcrap. Bull freaking crap. I'm not going to let a waste of skin psychopath dictate my behavior. Are you?

When you're insane one excuse is as good as another. If we limited our language to only phrases in Dr. Seuss books the tiny fraction of the population who is completely out of control waste-of-skin crazy enough to do these things would still find an excuse to do the horrific things they do.

Just stupid. Just abysmally stupid. Let's let the craziest fraction of people among us dictate how we run our society.

Okay, we're almost done with point two . . .

Dixie State College in St. Gorge, Utah. Southern Utah is called Utah's Dixie. It's south, it's hot. It's called Utah's Dixie and the college is called Dixie College. They already changed the mascot from the Rebels. I swear, I wish I'd bought stock in a panty company a few years ago. There are more panty wearers in this country than ever before in its history.

Anyway . . .

Dixie College. Now there are calls to change the name. Seriously. My entire media world has been taken over by Phil Hendrie. Every second I expect to hear a giant global roar of laughter and "Just kidding! Geez, you were totally buying it that we were serious!" You cannot make up satire more ridiculous than this.

The reason? "Some people" associate the word Dixie with hate.

The sound you just heard was my jugular bursting. Who gives a flying . . . . ?! EVERYTHING offends someone. Let's get rid of everything. Are you ready to do that? If you are offended by a word like Dixie I guaran-damn-tee you are NOT going to like the things I'd like to get rid of. I'd start with your pantywaist choice for President and then move on to everything single thing you hold dear in your pathetic anxious-to-be-offended existence.

Breathe, Frank. Breathe.

Which brings us to point . . . wherever we are. Three.

I agree, flying the flag on a government building is not a good idea. But on a confederate graveyard? Even on the capitol grounds . . . it's just stupid. I swear I thought I was listening to satire. They are . . . LITERALLY . . . talking about digging up confederate generals. Tearing down statues . . .

And renaming some school that was named after Calhoun. Just beyond stupid. I guarantee you –I'm trying to be ridiculous here, but I would actually bet money this will happen—someone will propose PhotoShopping Richard Nixon out of history Soviet style.

That is going to happen. Kennedy, Johnson, Gerald Ford, Carter . . . That's what they're going to teach in school. That's an ugly part of our history that we can't be teaching school children. And Kennedy was never assassinated. He just went to live on a farm out in the country where he could run all day and have fun.

Point four: Ban the flag, what have you accomplished. Nothing. Pat yourself on the back, go back to looking for a job because you like meaningless gestures like voting for morons to prove that you're hip and/or with it.

If you made it this far you deserve a reward of some kind. Look under your chair. There should be a $100 bill under there for your efforts.

What? There isn't?

Well, there should have been . . .

I recently bought two new tires. I won't reveal the name of the store, but in a completely unrelated story I had a credit card debit to Discount Tires on that same day. The salesman tried and tried to sell me four tires, but I didn't need four tires. I will need two more before winter, but I didn't feel like discarding two tires that have 5-6,000 miles of usable tread still on them. Now, this particular unnamed company has a policy that they put the newest tires on the back.

I believe the engineering term for that configuration is "stupid."

On every car you'll ever see the front wheels steer. That's the reason it's against the law to run re-treads on the front of a truck. You want the tires that do the steering to have good grip. If you have a tire fail you don't want it to be a front tire. In addition, when you brake the weight transfer is to the front tires and off the rear tires. (Funny thing, he showed me a chart of braking distance vs. tire wear to try to sell me all four tires. Then he wants to put the lowest tread tire where the braking happens.)

I said I wanted the best tread on the front. They wouldn't do it. The salesman said he "couldn't" do that. So I said fine, put them where you want and I'll fix them when I get home.

So after I paid them for two expensive tires I had to take them off and move them around.

I suspect the reason for their stupid policy is to sell more tires. I think the safety of my family warrants my extra work, but most people won't bother to do what I did and jack up the whole car and move around four big SUV tires. So they put the more worn out tires on the front, the customer comes back "Hey, my car handles and brakes like crap." Well, no wonder! Your front tires are bad. We can sell you new ones!

But let's say they really sincerely honestly believe that ridiculous bullcrap about bad tires on the front being safer. Let's say take exception to my intimation that the policy is to sell tires, and maintain that no! That the policy is purely for the safety of their customers.

That's the incompetence defense.

Worn tires on the back are safer than worn tires on the front. You can understand that or not, but it doesn't change the fact. So even if you really, really, REALLY believe that it makes them more safe, the policy can't change the laws of physics and the car is less driveable because you aren't smart enough to understand the principles.

You saw this coming. I've flapped my gums about this incessantly.

If it's going to be a grand unified theory I guess I should come up with a better name for it. Stupid vs. Evil is a pretty . . . well, stupid . . . name for the concept. I'm kicking around Mentally vs. Morally defective. Or incapacitated. Or defective. And I was kind enough to interrupt the flow of my language here to include you in my internal ruminations.

You see politicians doing this all the time. What? No! I didn't try to get out of paying taxes. I just didn't realize I was supposed to pay taxes on that. (ie, "It's okay, 'cause I'm just mentally defective, not morally")

Hillary Clinton saying "I didn't know doing government e-mails from my private server was wrong" smacked of George Costanza after having sex with the cleaning lady on the desk at work. "I . . . . uh . . . was that wrong?"

What the tire company did was wrong. Whether they did it out of malice or ignorance it was still wrong. If the company understands the physics behind the deal, they are like the evil socialist who knowingly lies to recruit stupid people to their cause. And the salesman may believe their bilge, which makes him the equivalent of the stupid socialist, who believes the lies the upper ups are saying about their way being better.

And, yes, I did just compare a corporation for profit to a socialist. "Wait, capitalists are the ones who love money, not socialists. That's a flawed illustration."

Bullcrap. Socialist leaders (the ones selling the lie, not the ones buying the lie) are every bit as into it for the money as the most ambitious capitalist. The only difference is they just say they're not so they can sell the concept to the stupid socialists.

Left unspoken in the Clinton misnomer deal was the term at the center of the whole little storm. "Planned parenthood." Uh, actually it's an organization to prevent parenthood, up to and including by drastic means.

So Jeb Bush said that he wasn't sure the government should be funding abortions to the tune of 500 million dollars a year. Hillary Clinton said he should be ashamed for coming out against America's health.

Okay, two possibilities here. 1) Hillary honestly couldn't grasp the very simple language that Bush was using, and just misunderstood what he was trying to say. That would make her pretty stupid. 2) She understood very well what he was saying but chose to lie about what he said to try to deceive people. That would make her evil.

So, explain to me again . . . which one of those characteristics qualifies her to be President?

Okay.

So, the point is, you know that Hillary is evil, but if I were running against her I might play with the concept that she's mentally incapacitated instead. "For the benefit of people like Mrs. Clinton, who need rudimentary things explained to them very clearly over and over again, let me go through what I said about Planned Parenthood in simpler language."

Almost makes me want to run for office, just to mess with people. "I'm sorry Mrs. Clinton was incapable of understanding that sentence. I am somewhat surprised she was so willing to expose that lack of comprehension skill, given that it's certainly an impediment to her crafting policy and negotiating deals in the office she's seeking."

But more likely a candidate might acknowledged the universally understood truth that she's evil. "Mrs. Clinton must be very insecure in her position if she has to mischaracterize my remarks in order to defend it."

The point, which I somewhat strayed from there, is that no matter how pure someone intentions, if they are wrong it doesn’t change anything. I'm talking about socialist ideas that breed poverty and misery. But good hearted idiots buy into it. "Ooooh, we want to help the poor!" Do you? 'Cause the policies you're buying into do just the opposite. The good-hearted socialists are compassioning people into misery.

It's pure Symbolism over Substance. Hillary "wants" to help the poor. After the debates her spokesidiot said she didn't hear the candidates talk about . . . championing the middle class, or whatever meaningless bullcrap phrase Hillary is always flapping her gums about. It's all just talk. But the crazy thing is, that's more important to liberals than results. It really is. Hillary WANTS to help people. Never mind that her actions don't match her words.

Far and away the greatest example of that was Obama criticizing Romney for not "intending" to create jobs. Wow. That's the biggest head-shaker you'll ever come across. Obama, who has never created a company, ever, blasted Romney because, oh, sure, he's created jobs for tens of thousands of people and allowed them to put food on the table and buy homes and cars and send their kids to college. But he didn't create the companies for the purpose of doing that! (Wah).

Let me just say again. Wow.

Which, I guess about brings us back to where we started. When you're a liberal what you say you want to happen is more important than the real results. "Women's heeeaaa-elth." (Did you catch the sneering girly tone I said that in?)

No. It's "Abortion." Just like Carly said. Let's use common sense language.

But I will admit to not following her counsel on insults. I insult stupid people. I insult evil people. If you're wrong you're one or the other . . . or mentally or morally defective, as I'm trying out.

The really cool thing about capitalism is that it makes people treat each other well, because everyone depends on each other.

Socialism doesn't get you that, in spite of its stated "intentions." So if you're talking about socialist policies you're either stupid or evil.

I'm not running for office. I can say good hearted people are stupid idiot brain dead fools. When I am I'll say "Those 'well-meaning but misguided souls' who don't yet understand that socialist policies breed poverty, crime, and misery."

I wish I could find the clip of Hillary graciously stipulating that she's okay with CEOs making a lot of money. Oh, as long as it's not too much and their company is doing things that she considers good.

First, I'm going to let you savor the irony of Hillary Clinton blasting how much anyone makes.

The utter hypocrisy aside, it's none of Hillary Clinton's freaking business what companies pay their CEOs. It just floors me that there are still people who don't understand this concept. Someone actually called into a talk show and said that somebody has to pick winners, the best one to do that is the government.

Idiots. Complete freaking idiots. Scares me to death that I share the highway with such total mental defectives.

Somebody does pick winners. It's called The Market (you brain dead moron).

But Hillary is just following the party line. Her husband had the same philosophy. Remember when Newt Gingrich and the Republicans got control of Congress and then all the good things started happening? They passed DOMA and DADT and Welfare Reform. And they balanced the budget. All of which Clinton opposed, and all of which he took full credit for.

So they ended up with a budget surplus. The idea was floated to give the money back to the taxpayers who it belonged to. You have to listen to the clip of Clinton's response. You have to hear the chuckle in his voice, like, isn't that cute? What a darling little idea from people who obviously aren't nearly as smart as I am. He said that Well, yeah, I guess we could give it back to the people and hope they spend it right.

Excuse me?

So I need to get your permission on what I can spend my money on? Any advice on marriage or raising kids I should get from you? Can I go to the bathroom?

Then there's always the ever-entertaining Idiot in Chief who opined that at some point you've made enough money.

Oh, wise and wonderful Leader, I'm sure you'll be kind enough to inform me when it's your view that that point has come.

Obama also said basically what Hillary said, that he's okay with companies making money as long as they're doing things he approves of.

How extraordinarily gracious that man is. You couldn't ask for a better Supreme Ruler.

Stupid. Just extraordinarily stupid.

Or unspeakably evil.

They either really don't understand the basic principles this country was founded on, or they understand them very well and understand that a strong and prosperous Middle Class presents a clear and present danger to them as members of the Ruling Class.

All right. Let's finish up with John Hawkins nailing it on how liberalism has gone beyond mainstreaming dumb to mainstreaming crazy.

I used to work with a guy who couldn't be wrong. If someone intimated that he was wrong he'd go back to his computer and blow the rest of the afternoon compiling data about how he wasn't. Dumb data. Like putting together every little insignificant thing and compiling it in a table. Really? You just calculated how many hours you've worked at this company? The guy was majoring in the minor.

It was entertaining. Most of the time we didn't think he was all that wrong, we just liked tormenting him into putting together his little reports.

Today I'm that guy.

(I mean, really, to the point where I'm glad nobody reads this ridiculous blog, 'cause I'd be pretty embarrassed at myself if anyone did).

The salesman gave me this pedantic explanation of complex technical concept that can occur with worn rear tires, known as "oversteer." This is a concept I (and all my friends) fully understood from Hot Rod magazines by the time we got our drivers licenses at age 15. Most everybody I know (except maybe pantywaist open wheel racers) prefers a car set up to oversteer. We also understood a concept that he apparently didn't: understeer (or push), which is infinitely worse for anybody who has actually ever driven a car.

Oversteer? Wow. That sounds very technical. Do you really want to sit down and have a discussion of the physics of traction circles and torque-induced vs. inertial oversteer? 'Cause I'm pretty sure the little How-to-Pressure-the-Customer seminar they gave to you flunkies probably didn't cover that.

I didn't want to do it. I didn't. But I knew I was going to have to. I'm going to have to blog about Donald Trump.

Obviously the reason people like Donald Trump is because he tells it like it is. He's a breath of fresh air, since we're used to politicians like Hillary who say ridiculous things we know are not true.

Here's the perfect example. When Geraldine Ferraro worked on Hillary's last campaign she said that the only reason Barack Obama was even in the running to be President was because he's black. Truer words were never spoken. The only reason someone so pitifully lacking in accomplishment would even be considered for the President is because he is black.

Hillary fired her for saying that.

Trump would have said "Well, are you going to tell me that's not true? The truth hurts, doesn't it?"

He says words like "stupid" and tells politicians "You're having a hard time tonight." He's not politicially correct; he doesn't care if he offends people. That's why people love Donald Trump.

Donald Trump called Rosie O'Donnell a fat cow. Everybody wants to see a public figure do that. Sure, we can do that—I do that kind of stuff all the time on here—but we're nobody. Trump is a big public figure and he's doing it and we're saying "Yeah!"

Donald Trump is Jack Reacher. Let me explain. In the preface to The Killing Floor Lee Child explains that he created the Jack Reacher character specifically to do the kinds of things readers would love to do, but can't.

Usually, a book’s hero comes up against people he needs to be afraid of. What if, I asked myself, the hero is the toughest SOB in the valley and others need to be afraid of him? I wanted the kind of vicarious satisfaction that comes from seeing bad guys getting their heads handed to them by a wrong-righter even bigger and harder than them.

In real life, if your house gets burgled or your car gets ripped off, they aren’t going to find the bad guys and you aren’t going to get your stuff back. If someone bullies or disrespects you at work, or in school, or in a relationship, there isn’t much you can do about it. But in a novel, all that good stuff happens . . . and people enjoy watching it happen. They love it. It’s closure, albeit vicarious.

So I wanted Reacher to do what we all want to do ourselves—stand strong and unafraid, never back off, never back down, come up with the smart replies.

I've included the full text of Lee Child's remarks further down

So Donald Trump is the larger than life character who says the things we wish politicians would say.

Trump, as a billionaire, is familiar with the investing concepts of fundamentals and technicals. Technicals are the data that show what an investment's performance history has been and indicate what that performance might be in the future. These are the candlestick charts and that sort of stuff. Fundamentals are the concepts behind why a stock is doing what it is. These are things like people are moving more to electronics, so brick and mortar bookstores aren't a good investment. Or there was a frost in Florida so orange juice futures are a good investment.

Based on the technicals, Trump won't be the Republican candidate. He always touts how he's ahead in the polls. That's not a good thing. The fact that he's ahead in the polls this early is a pretty solid indicator that his flame will burn out and he'll be nothing at the time it matters. That's the way it has always happened.

As a side note, the technicals also indicated that Barack Obama would not be reelected. No President who was responsible for such a disaster as he created had ever been reelected. You remember that study done by the University of Colorado professors that scientifically proved that he could not be reelected. They have never been wrong.

I said they were wrong.

They were wrong because of the fundamentals. The rules didn't apply to Barack Obama, because nobody voted for Barack Obama. Everybody who cast a vote for him was doing so to prove they were cool and cosmopolitan and progressive and tolerant in their thinking. Barack Obama could not screw it up no matter how hard he tried. He hadn't built it (to use his language), he couldn't tear it down.

Trump can't win. The fundamentals say he can't. People love him for speaking his mind. But for that same reason they won't vote for him because he's a loose cannon. They love his candor, but they're not sure they trust him. For as much as people love that he calls his opponents "stupid!" that's not the face of the country that they want portrayed.

In the voters' mind he's kind of unpredictable. You might wonder, but, what is he going to do? He's not going to just nuke someone. Is he going to embarrass us or say something stupid? But Barack Obama does that all the time. All. The. Time.

I've already explained why Obama can get away with it. It's not about him. He can't screw it up.

But the American President has a dual role, which is a little different from that of most world leaders. Most nations have a Head of State and a separate Head of the Government, like the Queen and the Prime Minister. The American Presidency encompasses both roles. So, while we'd like a go-getter smart businessman, tough, no-nonsense guy running the government, we're not sure we want him shaking hands with the foreign leaders at state dinners.

For as much as we find it refreshing to hear a candidate that speaks his mind, we are more comfortable with politicians who are a little more polished. That's why we keep electing politicians like that.

Louis L'Amour explained this concept in The Empty Land. The people want a tough gunfighter sheriff in the out-of-control boom town. But once the problem is solved and the society is civilized, they don't really trust that type.

You may have heard the concept in the context of the three types of people: Sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs. Most people are sheep who like to be protected from the wolves. But, after the problem is solved, people are usually nervous about having the sheepdog around. If the guard dog is strong enough to keep away the burglar, he's strong enough to turn on his owner.

Mark Levin loves Trump. That makes sense. Mark Levin is radio's Trump. He's the one who says "Get off my phone, you big dope!"

Contrast that to Michael Medved, who is radio's John Boehner or Lindsey Graham. Medved says we've got to maintain credibility. Medved says we can question Obama's results, but not his character. He says that to be insulting or crazy in our talk removes us from the debate.

He basically cautions against saying anything in the way that I say it on this blog. If I ever run for public office, which will happen about the same time that Catherine Zeta Jones starts stalking me, I will immediately delete every entry in this blog.

People love Trump because he tells it like it is.

But so does Carly Fiorina. Fiorina was on Chris Matthew's little show. Matthews was "astounded" that Carly had called Hillary a liar. Why would you do that?" he wondered.

"Because it's true," Fiorina said. By any common sense standard measure Hillary Clinton has lied. We don't use common sense language. People are tired of sanitized sound bites.

Then Matthews said you can't have a conversation with someone when you start out by saying "I don't believe a word you say."

You know those moments when you give advice to people in movies? "Don't go in there, dummy!" And you know those times when you scream at the radio or TV "You need to say this!" I was yelling at my iPad. "She never said that! You said that!"

Carly Fiorina said it.

She came right back with the response I was yelling. "You are the one who's made a generalized comment about her. Not me."

So she tells it like it is. But about Trump she says she says "You don't get things done by insulting people."

Very true.

So I would have to say that it becomes a question of how rather than what. Method.

The "what" is to not get bogged down in PC and not let people get away with lying because you're afraid to insult them. The "how" is doing it with propriety.

A good example of how not to do it was when Joe Wilson told President Obama "You lie!" Obama was lying. People applauded Wilson for speaking the truth, but it was wrong. It was the wrong way to do it. And oftentimes when you do the right thing the wrong way you get the opposite result from what you wanted.

So, you're saying we should just let Obama get away with lying?

That's The False Dilemma fallacy.

Consider the case of a man and his wife and the man's mother. The mother is bashing the wife and the husband stands by and says nothing. Afterwards the wife says "Gee, thanks for standing up for me there." Then the husband comes back with "What do you want me to do, hate my own mother?"

Really? The only way you can stand up for me is to hate your mother?

Uh . . . no, I wonder if we can find some middle ground between those two extremes.

The middle ground is method. How to do it. Stand up for your wife. Don't let your mother abuse your wife, but do it in a way that respects your mother. Don't let Clinton lie, but understand you don't get the desired results by insulting people.

So, please, check out Carly Fiorina. If you like straight talk, she's your candidate. But she's not going to embarrass us.

Common sense language. You've got to love that. Say it like it is.

Contrast Carly Fiorina and her straight talk to Hillary Clinton using the words "women's health" when she means "abortion."

He’s six feet five inches tall, and around two hundred and fifty pounds, all of it muscle. In Tripwire, after he’s been doing physical labor in the sun for a spell, he’s described as looking “like a condom stuffed with walnuts.” No one in his right mind would mess with him. I had in mind the kind of intimidating physical presence that pro footballers have—relaxed, utterly sure of themselves—but in Reacher’s case with a barely visible hint of danger. (In fact, in One Shot, he admits to having played football for Army while at West Point, but that his career was limited to only one game. “Why?” someone asks. “Were you injured?” “No,” he replies. “I was too violent.”) His physical presence is another offshoot of conclusion number two: Don’t do what the others are doing. And for a long time what the others had been doing was making their protagonists more and more flawed and vulnerable. Way back, it had been a welcome development to move away from the uniformly lantern-jawed he-men that had crowded the genre. Heroes became smaller, realistically afraid, physically unexceptional. On the emotional side, they became battered. They were alcoholics, recovering alcoholics, divorced recovering alcoholics, divorced recovering alcoholics living in cabins in the woods and traumatized by professional mistakes. Literal and metaphorical bullets were lodged near hearts. There was an overwhelming feeling of incipient failure and melancholy.

As with all trends, this one was started by inspired pioneers and then overdone by imitators. By the time I started writing I was tired of it. I wanted to start over with an old-fashioned hero who had no problems, no issues, and no navel-gazing. His physical competence is really an expression of his mental competence, too. He’s a fully-functioning person.

And I thought it would be interesting to reverse the paradigm in terms of physical vulnerability. Usually, a book’s hero comes up against people he needs to be afraid of. What if, I asked myself, the hero is the toughest SOB in the valley and others need to be afraid of him? In my fourth book, Running Blind, an FBI agent called Blake threatens to leak Reacher’s name to a violent psychopath called Petrosian. Blake thinks it’s an effective motivator—and in real life and most books it would be. But Reacher just says: “Look at me, Blake. Get real. There’s maybe ten people on the planet I need to be scared of. Extremely unlikely this guy Petrosian happens to be one of them.” I was trying to discover whether drama was possible without the usual David-versus-Goliath structure. I wondered, would Goliath-versus-Goliath work? I have a fan and a friend who works in the gaudy world of pro wrestling—worked, actually, because he’s retired now. You’ll be shocked (shocked!) to hear that their bouts are heavily scripted and rehearsed, even to the extent of having story conferences. My friend’s major concern is that the wrestling paradigm always has the designated good guy lose, and lose, and lose, before winning in the final round. It was hard for him to come to terms with the absence of a battered underdog. But I always wanted Reacher to be the overdog.

Because I was following my instincts. Remember, “Dickens wanted what the audience wanted.” I was the audience. I wanted the kind of vicarious satisfaction that comes from seeing bad guys getting their heads handed to them by a wrong-righter even bigger and harder than them. I thought, isn’t that what fiction is for? Because the existence of fiction is a curious thing. Language evolved way back when leisure was simply unheard of. Language was all about survival, and cooperation, and the dissemination of facts in pursuit of literally life-and-death issues. For most of our existence language has been for telling the truth. Then fiction started up, and we started burning brain cells on stories about things that didn’t happen to people who didn’t exist. Why? The only answer can be that humans deeply, deeply desired it. They needed the consolation. Real life is rarely satisfactory. The transaction is clearly apparent in romantic fiction. In real life, you sit on the subway and you see a beautiful girl. Truth is, you aren’t going to dinner with her, you aren’t taking her home, you aren’t going to live happily ever after. In fact, you aren’t even going to talk to her. But in a novel, all that good stuff happens. It’s a vicarious way to live. Same for crime fiction. In real life, if your house gets burgled or your car gets ripped off, they aren’t going to find the bad guys and you aren’t going to get your stuff back. If someone bullies or disrespects you at work, or in school, or in a relationship, there isn’t much you can do about it. But something can be done about it in a book, and people enjoy watching it happen. They love it. It’s closure, albeit vicarious.

So I wanted Reacher to do what we all want to do ourselves—stand strong and unafraid, never back off, never back down, come up with the smart replies. I thought of all the situations that we find ourselves in—timid, uncertain, scared, worried, humiliated—and imagined a kind of therapeutic consolation in seeing our wildest dreams acted out on the page.

So, Reacher always wins.

So Jeb Bush said that he didn't think the government should be giving $500 million to fund Planned Parenthood. He went on to point out that there are a lot of hospitals and health organizations that provide the same services Planned Parenthood does, and besides, what was that whole Obamacare thing for anyway?

All good points.

Then Hillary "Spawn of Satan" Clinton said . . .

Just today we got another window into what Republican candidates really believe. Jeb Bush said he’s not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues

Wow. Just . . . wow.

Bush never said anything remotely like that. What Clinton used was a linguistic technique known as "lying."

Bush said that the government shouldn't fund abortion, especially not to the tune of 500 million dollars. He wasn't even speaking out against abortion in that case, which I'm sure he opposes. He was wondering why the government was in the business of funding it.

Two things. First, Clinton, who for six months hasn't uttered a paragraph that didn't include a reference to her granddaughter, made the statement in expressing her hearty support for Planned Parenthood, an organization that performs abortions.

Abortions. Think about this. You're watching TV with your 6 and 8 year old. The newscaster comes on, "Next on Eyewitness News, debate continues on the subject of abortion . . . " The TV show about the family with the puppy dog comes back on and your kid turns to you and says "Daddy? What's abortion?"

Tell me how you explain that in mainstream polite society we are discussing a common practice known as abortion.

Abortion is killing a baby in the mother's womb. Abortion is an ugly word because of the concept it describes, but it's a more delicate term than saying "Lawmakers continue to debate at what point doctors should be allowed to crush a living baby's skull and suck it out of its mother's body."

I wonder if the debate would be any different if we couched it in those terms. I doubt it would be much different, but it's an interesting thought.

Okay, but fine, let's call it abortion. We all know what we're talking about and it's a perfectly correct term for the procedure. But "abortion" isn't gentle enough even. Now it's called "women's health?"

Really?

Women's health . . .

Listen to this.

You know, this really isn't complicated—when you attack Planned Parenthood, you attack women's health and when you attack women's health, you attack America's health.

Abortion isn't women's health! Women's health is pap smears and mammograms and health issues that are unique to women; that in addition to general health practices that are not unique to women but that benefit women. How crazy is it that "abortion" and "women's health" are interchangeable terms? That's just freaking nuts!

So do we have to invent a new term for things that are legitimately women's health issues, since the sacks of crap on the left have hijacked that term?

"Oh, your son graduated from med school! You must be so proud. What's he going into?"
    Women's health.
"Omigosh! Your son is going to be doing abortions?! That bastard!"
    What? No! What in THE hell are you talking about?

Women's health! Pffft!.

So let's translate Hillary's statement into English.

You know, this really isn't complicated—when you attack government funding of killing unborn babies you attack America's health.

That's what Hillary Clinton said.

Just nonsense. I guess she's continuing the Clinton legacy. She's got some big shoes to fill,* following the likes of "I didn't inhale," and "You can't raise a family on 4.25 an hour," and "It depends on the meaning of the word is." And then there's always everybody's favorite, "Well, she did have sex with me, but I didn't have sex back."

This really isn't complicated. When you support Hillary Clinton you support an evil, lying, wicked, despicable, hateful, manipulating, annoying, self-absorbed, cold-hearted, prevaricating bitch.

---

*Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones disagreed about Bill Clinton's shoes being that big . . .

Bill Clinton was the king of this technique. He understood that the average voter is stupid, they did, after all, elect him, right? And all you had to do was give things pretty names and nobody bothered to find out what you were talking about. Gun control became "Crime Bill," getting fleeced on your taxes was "Contribute." It's the same kind of nonsense you see that crap with the "Jobs Bill" and "Affordable Care Act."

Man, that would be so confusing working for the Clintons. Imagine Bill talking to his chauffer. "Can you cook the tennis shoe and bring it around to the refrigerator and we can conference up to the lake?"

"Yes, Mr. Clinton, I'll start the car and bring it around to the porch and we can drive up to the post office."

What the hell good are words if they don't have an understandable meaning?

Okay. Second point.

Frederic Bastiat said that when conservatives oppose government doing something, a liberal will say they oppose the thing itself. Truer words were never spoken. And that was back in 1776.

The things the government shouldn't be involved in is a long list. Stem cell research is one great example. The liberals (lying sacks of crap) say we oppose "life-saving stem cell research." Not at all. We just think the private sector should develop it. The debate rages about whether the government should provide free college education. Liberals say we oppose college education. Not true at all. You don't need a college education to spot a klutzy Straw Man logical fallacy like that.

Conservatives in general are opposed to wanton abortion. But in this case, Bush wasn't even saying anything against abortion. He was specifically questioning the government funding it.

So for Clinton to say Bush is opposed to women's health . . . Well, it's just . . . it's a lie, is what it is. And a ridiculous one.

That's like if Hillary saying I am opposed to "reproduction" because I don't want Bill Clinton sleeping with my wife.

See, I phrase things in those clever and measured terms because I'm a high-class upper tier polished blogger. In Trumpese you would say she's a despicable lying old bitch.

More on that later.

I have a couple of rental properties. Having rental properties gives you the opportunity to meet all kinds of . . . uh, interesting . . . people.

There was one gal, I'm just going to call her "Debbie," who changed the utilities on the rental into my name two weeks before she moved out. When I called her on it her excuse was that her father had died.

Really. What do you say to that?

Nothing. When someone says her father died you say "Omigosh, I'm so sorry. That must be so difficult. Wow. I'm sorry."

She said her father died and she had to run out to California to the funeral and things were hectic and she didn't have time to do it when she moved out so she just did it two weeks early.

So you say you're sorry for her loss, you eat the two weeks of utilities, and you don't ask her to provide you with some evidence that her father really did die. As it turns out, I think her dear old dad has died about seven or eight times. Every time she gets herself into a bind and needs an excuse that nobody is going to touch.

That's the tactic Hillary Clinton used. She accused Bush of not being sensitive to "Women's health," which she considered the unblockable curse. Who wants to be seen as that dolt?

Bush thinks it is, too, since he immediately folded, which, if I knew nothing else about the man, would completely disqualify him from ever getting my vote.

The correct response is "That is a lie, Mrs. Clinton, and you should be ashamed for trying to get away with such a clunky, transparent tactic. I don't expect an apology from someone loathsome enough to do that, but for your political survival you should consider how stupid it makes you look to your supporters."

You're flying around the universe on the Enterprise and you beam down to a remote planet and for some reason the inhabitants there don't speak English. No problem. You whip out your handy dandy universal translator and you're in business (which, if you're Captain Kirk, is getting a date with the hottest native on the planet.)

"Sp[8lisk bfft k754rs techwilly babookabish."

You hold up the translator. It beeps a couple of times. "Nice ship. What does it do in the quarter mile?"

That's a pretty advanced piece of technology. Maybe 400 years in the future they'll have the technology, but we already have a universal translator for Democratese.

Most of the things a democrat says translate to "Shut up!"

Pretty simple.

That's what Hillary was saying to Bush. "If you dare express an opinion I'm going to call you a misogynist, and that'll teach you to open your mouth!"

That's what liberals say to anyone. If you have an opinion on anything they have to figure out a way to get you to shut up. If you keep talking they might have to explain their indefensible position.

A handy table of democrat terms:

Symbol of hate . . . . shut up
Let me be clear . . . shut up
About this topic there can be no debate. . . shut up
American values we hold dear . . . shut up
I keep hearing a lot of chatter . . . shut up
Partisan politics . . . shut up
Hater . . . . shut up
Racist . . . . . shut up
Women's health . . . shut up

I don't know who disgusts me more right now. Hillary Clinton for her despicable lying tactics or Jeb Bush for being such an incredible wuss.

Okay, let's take a break from bashing that despicable lying sack of crap Hillary Clinton and bash that despicable lying sack of crap Barack Obama for awhile.

Oh, by the way, if you're offended by me calling the President of the United States a despicable lying sack of crap, keep in mind that he compared us to Iranian terrorist supporters. If you don't want me to hit you in the face, don't step in the ring with me, you despicable lying sack of crap.

Plus . . . let me know if I ever say anything as bad about him as the left said about George Bush.

Okay, then.

You're out to lunch with your buddy. He's telling you that his girlfriend is psycho crazy and manipulative and controlling and demanding and unappreciative . . . You're sitting there waiting for him to say "But . . . !"

You expect him to justify all of that by saying she has a good heart or they share a lot of common interests or she's been going to counseling and making real progress. Or something!

Instead he tells you that he's pretty sure she's going to kill him in his sleep someday. And he just proposed to her.

That's what we got from Barack Obama the other day. He gave a speech on the Iranian nuclear deal debacle where he said that, yeah, the money we give to Iran will be going to terrorists. He spends a couple of minutes going down the litany of the crazy things that Iran has done in the past and will absolutely do in the future and you're just sitting there waiting for the "But . . . !" that will justify all of that.

It never comes.

It's just shake your head crazy.