Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label scenarios

"God-fearing..."

I may not be religious, but it still cracks me up sometimes to hear people describe themselves as "God-fearing." The reason for this is because, regardless of what a former druggie says he witnesses during a flashback, I've personally never seen nor heard "God," so when someone says they're "God-fearing," my first thought is, "Okay then. So, what you're saying is you fear someone you've never seen nor heard? An invisible man so to speak? Interesting..." When thinking about it, this thought-process isn't so far removed from many kids whom fear a boogeyman - a monster in their closet or under their bed. No, they may not be able to see or hear this beast, yet they're so frightened by this figment of their imagination, they swear they can hear it. In fact, let's further compare the two beliefs, shall we? Setting: A little boy screams while in bed late at night Joseph Pansyazz (the father): "What's wrong? Are...

Ben Stein: "Michael Brown was armed with big and scary arms and stuff..."

To say that conservative pundit Ben Stein has seriously lost it is not really open for debate. To say he ever had "it" in the first place is quite debatable. Just last week, Stein appeared on Newsmax to discuss the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, where he made the following statements: - "He wasn't unarmed. He was armed with his incredibly strong, scary self." - "It's a very sad state of affairs. I mean it used to be, there was a time ... when lynchings of African-Americans were not that incredibly rare. Now the lynchings are the police and it's just an outrage." - "...it's the very large, so-called victim attacking the policeman who winds up dead." (with regard to Brown and Trayvon Martin) - "I mean if they didn't just, would not attack the policeman, if they would just talk to the policeman in a reasonable way instead of attacking the policeman, nobody would be dead." First off, George Zimme...

The Shaq vs. Sterling comparison is ridiculous...

Former NBA All-Star, current NBA analyst, and future Hall-of-Famer Shaquille O'Neal has run into some hot water of late due to the fact he mocked a man with ectodermal dysplasia via a picture on Twitter. Of course, O'Neal wasn't aware of this at the time due to his ignorance on the condition, and has since apologized to the man he was mocking - Jahmel Binion. After he apologized, O'Neal said, "Made a new friend today when I called and apologized to Jahmel Binion. Great dude." Once this story broke, a line of Donald Sterling defenders rushed to the scene, and said, "He (Shaq) should be banned from the NBA for life and fined $2.5 million for his comments (mockery)! Let's see how hypocritical Adam Silver is! Both Sterling and Shaq made derogatory comments against people! They did the exact same thing!" Others even pulled out the race card and said that Shaq, like other African-Americans, was getting a free pass, which wasn't fair, because ...

Stand-Your-Ground against non-threats!

One of the most controversial aspects of the stand-your-ground laws (I'm talking to you, Florida...) is the fact it can give one an excuse to kill a person and then claim self-defense. In this type of scenario, the deceased individual is left with no opportunity to tell their side of the story, and with no other witnesses, it becomes the word of the living killer against that of the deceased victim. This is why it appears the shooter is more prone to being punished if his or her targets survived the shots than if one of them was killed. Michael Dunn is the most recent example of this. He shot three African-American teenagers in their car at a gas station and wound up killing one of them. While he's been found guilty with attempted murder of the two kids whom survived, it couldn't be determined one way or the other whether or not he killed the one kid in an act of self-defense. Not to make light of the Michael Dunn tragedy or others like it, but to depict just how ridiculo...

Not everyone seems happy about the peace talks with Syria

With Syria appearing to accept Russia's proposal to hand over its chemical weapons, it will most likely prevent any U.S. strike on the country. In my mind, this is a very good thing. Achieving what we want through diplomatic means and not military force will save us money, lives, and drastically decrease potential terrorist backlash from Syrian extremists. However, not everyone feels this way. Many bobblehead dolls over at Fox News and even some war-hungry politicians (::ahem, Senator McCain::), without the need for Viagra, seemed to get hard at the thought of war, and are beginning to go limp in light of these proposed peace talks. According to them, if President Obama doesn't follow through with air strikes on Syria, then not only will all of them go limp, so too will the Washington Monument and the rest of America! Yes, because even though using military force on Syria would increase the chance for another war, more money spent, more lives lost, and falling victim to ano...

Blind people with guns? Yeah, that sounds like a good idea...

While it's perfectly understandable for people to sympathize with those whom are blind, how would we feel if such a person was our cab driver or pilot? For as much sympathy as we might have for them, I'm guessing that sympathy would transform into fear. How about if we saw a blind person carrying around a gun and even firing the weapon? While there's no chance a blind person would legally be permitted to operate an automobile or plane due to a required vision test, the state of Iowa has just granted blind people permits to acquire and carry guns in public. Yes, you read that correctly. If you couldn't read that, never fear, for if you live in Iowa, you'll be able to acquire and carry a firearm. Supporters of the permits had some chuckle-worthy quotes for The   Des Moines Register . Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington, who has a blind daughter, said: "If sheriffs spent more time trying to keep guns out of criminals' hands and not people with disabilit...

Republicans try to woo minorities with history of the semi-ancient variety

The Republican Party's re-branding effort has gone about as smoothly as a man with Tourette's Syndrome hitting on a blind woman. Some members of the GOP have admitted the party needs to reach out to a broader range of voters, including women and minorities. However, that hasn't gone so well and an increasing number of Republicans are starting to suggest there's really no point in trying to reach out to such voters. In a last ditch effort, the party has tried resorting to history to woo the vote of minorities, African-Americans in particular. Members have said, "Which party was mainly responsible for passing the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act? It was the Republican Party! Come on! Why don't you support the party that supported you back in 1964?" That's the thing. While it's true that under then Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson, approximately 80% of Republican House and Senate members voted for the Civil Rights Act and close t...