Alice in Wonderland Div ** (Oh sh**t, not again subsection)

Donald of Orange today stated that "... the President can't have a conflict of interest."

Just what does that mean ?? .... Can't ?
Normally, it's defined as, " ... a contraction, .... can not."
OK, let's see here, .....

"Can" .............

auxiliary verb, present singular 1stperson can, 2nd can or (Archaic) canst, 3rdcan, present plural can; past singular 1stperson could, 2nd could or (Archaic) couldst,3rd could, past plural could.

1.

to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to:

She can solve the problem easily, I'm sure.

2.

to know how to:

He can play chess, although he's not particularlygood at it.

3.

to have the power or means to:

A dictator can impose his will on the people.

4.

to have the right or qualifications to:

He can change whatever he wishes in the script.

5.

may; have permission to:

Can I speak to you for a moment?

I kinda like #3 - heh!

 ------------------------------------------and then, there's .........................
"Not"....... [not] 

adverb

1.

(used to express negation, denial, refusal, orprohibition):

You must not do that. It's not far from here.

OK, those are what the dictionaries say. But, how can it be argued ??  Does it mean that the President is a) "unable" to have a conflict of interest ? Or could it mean the President, b)  "may not"  (or in the future tense will not) have a conflict of interest ??
I'll leave it up to the lawyers (thank Dog I decided to give up on that profession years ago) to argue about it: but I'm voting for option "B."

Of course, Donald of Orange won't agree and has even gone so far as to invoke the ghost of Richard Nixon  ... (we know how that ended up, eh?).

No Donald, you CAN'T use the office to promote your businesses, endorsements, children or anything else related to your "business," (I guess that now means your life - get used to it). So, sell all  your shit, tell the kids to get real jobs, get on with raping the country or decide if you want to give the job to Ayatollah Mike.

Of course, I'm old enough to recall the controversy of the meaning of "is."

Oh well .......  maybe the slogan should have been MAKE AMERICA GRIFT AGAIN.

** ** 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' Lewis Carroll - Through the Looking Glass

Geography Div (VOTE !! subsection)

Tomorrow, is the end of this seeming endless "election campaign" (and the start of the next).
Here's what will be decided tomorrow  - -

You do know that you don't vote for a "candidate," eh ?? ... but "electors who may (or may not  - depending on stste law) vote for your winning choice. Reference those revered "Founding Fathers" if you have a problem with the the way things go.

Campaign Div (Incitement to Idiocy subsection)

“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,” he said. “By the way, and if she gets to pick — if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Those were DDT's words to a crowd  er, mob in Wilmington, NC today. 

His campaign immediately started spinning the reaction and blaming rational, sane people of "mis-understanding" his threat. Oh well, what can you do ?

Maybe DDT should take Mr Kahn up on his offer to provide him with a copy of the  Constitution of the US.

 There is a specific method for amending our governing document; and neither the President nor the Supreme Court has one wit to do with it.

After you get your copy,  read Article V (I know, the words are big, but they are in English).  Its the one that tells how amendments are made and ratified (and yes, some amendments can rescind others  - think Prohibition, dummy).

Just in case that's too difficult (oh yeah, right, you don't read), here's a picture:

         (Just go down either the left or right column - there, isn't too hard, eh ?)

So, ya see, there ain't no Preznit or Supremes ever mentioned. 

Can't you go twenty-four hours without lying or simply showing your ignorance ??

Terrorism Div (gunfire subsection)

Just an observation: mass shootings have become the American equivalent of car bombs in the Middle East.

The part that flummoxes me is that they aren't called terrorist acts. If someone set off a car-bomb, it most certainly be so identified; but guns ?? Nah, just a "mentally deranged, lone wolf (or wolves)" and strangely, mostly committed by young Caucasian males.

Trust me, I know terrorism. I lived with it daily (and was present in Regent's Park on 20 July 1982   and additionally, had to redeploy and reroute a cruise missile convoy due to the Hungerford Massacre in 1987) when I resided in England and was present for the rampage of the "DC Sniper" - which caused so much mind bending terror. I remember being called  by a motorist who was afraid to buy gasoline and asked my advice.

Seems like that "well regulated militia" portion of our Constitution has been ignored by our spineless Congress.

Mr Obama keeps saying that "enough is enough." Trust me, there'll be more until people are so scared and/or fed up that something might be done ..... but, I'm not holding my breath.

Bipartisanship This ..... Div

I hear the VOICE OF DOOM on the radio droning on about the Government shutdown. They keep interviewing the republican retartds that are responsible and we keep hearing them say "if only the President (caps mine out of respect) would just be reasonable and compromise."  WTF are these people saying ???  I thought the man has been more than reasonable over the past four -plus years. Isn't this the guy who's motto seems to have been, " .... here's my bottom line but I'm willing to settle for less" ?? Maybe he should try this approach ......

Just What the Fuck are you idiots in Congress talking about. You lost. Goddamit, get over it, take your medicine!! Being an asshole does have consequences. Losing elections has consequences. Why should you hold ME hostage ??? Don't I have the right to defend myself from people threatening me ???

Take this asshole ( I wish someone would): “We’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.” — Rep.MARLIN STUTZMAN 
( h/t TenGrain at Mock Paper Scissors).

Hey Martlin, You don't GET anything out of being a republican; or a democrat, or a congressman or a working puke or anything other citizen for that matter (and just who's this fucking "we" you're referencing?). What you get as an elected representative of the people, is the same obligation  I incurred  in wearing the uniform of this country for over twenty years. I pledged my life, my fortune and MY SACRED HONOR to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic (and right now Marlin, you are beginning to resemble one of those enemies).  I didn't agree to use that Constitution for my own purposes or get anything else than what I played
 " ....you bet your blood" to receive. You, Marlin,  may have a life (such as it is), a fortune (probably inherited), but you sir, certainly have no honor   - -  sacred or otherwise.
             
Someone once said that integrity is doing what's right even when no one else is looking. Well Marlin,  if integrity is a requirement for serving in this nation's Congress, you are supremely unqualified (and I shudder to think of the qualifications of those that voted for you).

Maybe what you deserve (since you haven't figured it out yet) is a 230 grain JHP .45ACP round forced through your fuckin' teeth into your pie-hole at 900FPS. But then again, I'm sure that you haven't considered that and I would never be the one to execute the act. ( I'm sure that NSA will be knockin' on the door within 20 minutes of me hitting send).

What is wrong with these people  - - - and that includes the press ???? When are we going to stand up and say BULLSHIT ????? The world ain't fuckin' flat !!! There becomes a point when "both sides" engulf everyone in total crap ........... and right now even those of us with a partially functioning brain know who's on first .........  and who's right.

Because we can Div (eavesdropping subsection)

Well, if ya ain't gonna use whatcha got to keep tabs on your love interest, what good is it ??
Jeebus H. Christ with earphones ...........
Why in hell don't they have any good stuff on the bankers ???

Whatever was he thinking Division (2nd Amendment subsection)

You really have to question the reasoning of some folks - -  those who own guns (and, yes, I do) and those who allow others to own them.

Tuesday, down in the GWTP they arrested another one.
Apparently, he was good to his word as he was "confronted" and arrested without shots being fired. No mention was made of what direction he was going to fire, but several targets of opportunity west of the White House readily come to mind  - including the headquarters of the American Red Cross and the Corcoran Gallery, but I don't think he was considering anything on the west side of 17th St. It's been wicked hot and humid here, maybe the weather's to blame.

Then, there's this guy. Originally, he wanted to organize a "peaceful march" (I kinda thought of it as an armed mob) across the Memorial Bridge from Arlington Cemetery into DC on July 4th. Just a benign expression of that Second Amendment all hold so dear.
Instead, he brings a shotgun downtown and videos himself loading it. Talk about self-incrimination.

A couple of years ago, someone attempted to organize an armed rally in Virginia. I wonder what would have happened if legal gun owners of a darker hue had shown up to participate ??

The news and the inner tubes are all awash with opinions (again) on what constitutes "responsible" gun ownership. I'm not going to opine on the subject except to say that once someone has demonstrated that  he or she isn't responsible, then the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment takes precedence.

What If ??? div (civics subsection)

Probably ain't gonna happen, but what if the President doesn't sign the "fiscal cliff relief act" just passed by the House ??

Article I, Section VII, subsection 2 of the Constitution deals with the procedure for bills to become law. The President must either sign the bill or return it (veto) to the congress within ten days of passage. Congress has the power to override the veto with a two-thirds majority of each house. However (and this is the tricky part):

 "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."


In political parlance, it's called a "pocket veto."

So, I guess the President could just go up to Camp David, kick back and watch TV while the press, pundits and poobahs spin themselves into ever decreasing circles, eh ???