16 March, 2010

Dumbfuckery du Jour

Two items today exemplifying the remarkable dumbfuckery that pours from Con mouths when they're trying to excuse their appalling ignorance and pathetic political posturing.

Firstly, Rachel Maddow vs. J.D. Hayworth:
Rachel Maddow last night challenged former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), who is running against Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in the Republican primary, on his assertion that the Massachusetts Supreme Court defined marriage as an "establishment of intimacy" that could lead to man-and-horse marriage -- when the phrase "establishment of intimacy" isn't in the decision itself.

"Where in Massachusetts law or in the Supreme Court ruling does it say, 'the establishment of intimacy?'" Maddow asked. "I read, spent the whole afternoon sort of looking for that, and couldn't find it anywhere."

Haworth maintained that "the high court in Massachusetts defined marriage in a rather amorphous fashion, simply as, quote, 'the establishment of intimacy.' Now, I think we all agree there's much more to marriage than that."

"Sir, I'm sorry, it didn't," Maddow replied. She laid out all the uses of the word "intimacy" in the court's decision, showing that Hayworth's phrase was not in there.

"Well, that's fine," said Hayworth. "You and I can have a disagreement about that."
Rachel then used a word that was probably a bit too large for J.D.: empirical.  Yes, indeed, it's empirically true that the phrase "the establishment of intimacy" is absolutely not in that court decision.  Anyone can search for the phrase, not find it, and conclude that it is not there.  It can be proven.  But I doubt that a man who believes you can have a "disagreement" about whether something is or is not in a document can understand a word like "empirical."  In fact, I have empirical evidence he doesn't understand the word "empirical:"
Hayworth, perhaps unaware of what "empirical" means, replied, "OK. OK. I appreciate the fact that we have a disagreement on that."

So let me try to sum it up in a way J.D. can possibly understand: saying that people can disagree whether the words "the establishment of intimacy" are in that court decision is like me saying we can disagree whether the letters J and D are in J.D. Hayworth's name.

Indeed, it is like saying we can disagree whether or not J.D. Hayworth possesses a penis after he has dropped trousers, divested himself of briefs, and been arrested for public indecency, his little twig-and-berries photographed by a dozen horrified cell phone wielders, and the photos posted on the intertoobz for all to see.

So, yeah, J.D.  I disagree you're the proud owner of a penis.  But why don't you try to prove it to us at your next campaign rally, eh?

For another Con possessed of a way with words, we turn now to the Senate, and the Cons' determination to obstruct at all costs, even if that means obstructing legislative fixes that would get rid of some of what the Cons hate about health care reform after health care reform is a done deal.  Let's have a Con try to 'splain this, shall we?

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is one of those Republicans who has spent months “hammering the Nelson deal,” which he refers to as the “Cornhusker Kickback.” On Bill Bennett’s radio show today, Alexander — who admitted that health care reform would already be law if and when the Senate takes up reconciliation legislation — was pressed to explain why he would obstruct changes that would be positive in his view:
BENNETT: So what is the point of the obstruction — positive obstruction — of you all doing this if we’ve already lost the game?

ALEXANDER: Well, the point of our doing it is to not allow them to abuse the process further. I mean, they, we cannot allow the House or the president or any group of people to completely undermine the role of the Senate in American constitutional government, which is really to say that on big issues, we’re going to require consensus instead of majority and we need 60 votes.

BENNETT: I see. But the House bill that he would sign might be worse than the one with the amendments they’re trying to offer that you will debate.

ALEXANDER: Well, that’s a good point and but but but and we’ll…
That's a fantastic explanation, innit?  Really encapsulates the complexity, intellectual seriousness, and eloquence of the Con contingent.

They're so precious.  I can hardly wait to see what dribbles from their pieholes next.

*Update: no sooner than I ask...
REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): They're gonna pass this on the backs of the armed forces.  This should not be passed by anyone unless they eat it. If they eat it, then I'm in favor of them passing it, otherwise, don't pass it. 
This is, of course, Rep. Louie "There's a whole lot of demons going on" Gohmert.

I have a perfect plan for getting Cons to stop saying stupid shit.  I'll need several rolls of heavy-duty duct tape, some Superglue, and immunity from prosecution, but I can do it.


gruntled atheist said...

Lamar was governor of my state, Tennessee, from '79 to '87 and actually did a good job. He has really gone down hill since, not even recognizable. What a shame!

Cujo359 said...

Odd that Bill Bennett sees the point so clearly - what Sen. Alexander and his cohorts have done has made the bill worse. Or, at best, they have given the Democrats an excuse to make the bill worse than it could have been.

Woozle said...

Next step: Rachel needs to put a printout of the document in front of him and ask him to point at where in that document he believes the phrase "establishment of intimacy" is used or implied.

And if that doesn't work: take some object, put it on the desk, and ask -- can we "disagree" about whether this object is on the desk? No, we can't. So, can we disagree about whether a particular phrase is in a document which is right in front of both of us? I don't see how.

Don't allow these fuckers the dignity of retreating into polite catchphrases.