Eff It All Friday Open Thread

Wow I really put in a solid day's effort here.

I called my shot into the high left field bleachers and I blasted it straight there.

2pm to 7:55pm. What am I, a farmer? I rise with the crow the cock.

Not the bird. I don't want to talk about it actually.

Be that as it may:

RNC pumps out a pro-amensty statement but does not explicitly call for a pathway to citizenship.

The Republican National Committee passed a resolution Friday calling on Congress to pass an immigration reform bill by the end of the year—but it stopped well short of the bipartisan compromise passed by the Senate earlier this year, omitting a “path to citizenship” for any class of illegal immigrant.

I personally have nothing against a guest-worker program. If people migrate here for economic reasons, I don't mind giving them a pass to do so.

But they're not coming here to be citizens and I don't see the need to extend citizenship to them.

I don't think they're bad people to break our immigration laws. But break them they did, and for basic reasons of economic opportunity.

We could be talking about a guest worker program but we never will because the Democrats will call it "racist" and the unions will call it competition. So instead the GOP will buckle under and give the Democrats their new voters/government clients.

Did you hear this story? About the lesbian girl who was having sex with an underage girl? And the question of whether the older lesbian girl should be prosecuted, as the law suggests?

I stayed away because I didn't know a key fact upon which everything hinged.

Here's the problem:

People who reflexively support gays will say "don't prosecute her because you don't prosecute straight kids in that situation and we have to do what we normally do. We can't treat gay people worse."

People who reflexively oppose gay stuff will say "you have to prosecute her because you routinely prosecute straight kids in that situation and we have to do what we normally do. We can't treat gay people better."

Well I agree with both final sentences -- we cannot treat gay people better and we cannot treat gay people worse. Which means the first sentence of each claim is in contest-- do we usually prosecute straight kids in this situation?

If so, we should prosecute her, just like the average kid. If not, we should not prosecute her, just like the average kid. As this all swings on a factual question I have no idea about, I didn't weigh in.

Well, it looks like we have to prosecute her. She has frequently and flagrantly disobeyed a judge's order to stop contacting the underage girl, including sending her graphic sexual photos.

I still don't know the answer to whether we routinely prosecute straight Romeo/Juliette offenders, but I do know we routinely prosecute adults who defy a judge's order to not contact a minor, and do so by sending... explicit material, let us say.

Thomas Sowell says stop letting the barbarians of the left win on campus.

McCain, Rand, and Cruz now all say Obama must call the coup a coup and stop funding the Egyptian military.

And Lindsay Graham agrees with McCain, if you can believe that.

Here's a big story under dispute: Hillary yelled a Congressman for calling Benghazi a terrorist attack. She shrieked that it was a demonstration over a YouTube video.

Now, did she say this after the Administration had abandoned that stupid line?

Oddly, she's the one insisting it did happen later.

Well... she's not saying it didn't happen later. She's saying it didn't happen at all. She's saying the only time it could have happened was later, but it didn't, and this guy Kitzinger is just a big liar.

Which is strange... because he asked her about this to her face in the Benghazi hearings and she didn't dispute it then:

Kinzinger actually addressed this point with Secretary Clinton when she testified about Benghazi before the House, back on January 23:

KINZINGER: When you briefed us, you said unequivocally this was a result of a video. I remember in fact, you got pretty upset when somebody suggested this was a terror attack. This was our briefing that we had. But we find out now it wasn’t a video, it was this terrorist attack.

Now you may be confused by this -- as I am. You may think, "Why doesn't Hillary say 'yes I said that because I did then believe that'"? In other words, why is she forcefully denying something that 1, obviously did happen, and 2, could even be spun to her advantage?

Answer: Because she's Hillary Clinton. And just as the guilty fleeth when no man pursueth, Hillary lieth even when the truth would serve just as well.

And do notice the post I am stomping, by Purple Avenger, on the Caspian Sea Monster, a Soviet-era plane you probably never heard of. (I'm only stomping because I was just about to post and I want to sign off for the night.)

Thus endeth the sermon. Go out and do good this weekend.

Here are some songs with slight political suggestiveness, for no reason:

That second song is interesting. Because it contains one minor reference to "socialists and all their taxes" -- even though it's not from the singer's mouth, but the singer speaking someone else's thoughts -- it got questioned as possibly controversial. The band had to explain "We're just talking about what people in our families think."

Like they had to swear "We totes didn't believe that when we said it."

Remember this is the media that insists you Conservative Morons have to stop rejecting art just because it might discomfit you for having political themes you don't like.

posted by Ace at 08:16 PM

| Access Comments