Here is why Obama “can’t work with Congress”:

Check out this official statement from John Boehner’s office, in response to Obama’s upcoming executive actions on immigration reform. Tell me if they sound like somebody you’d like to work with:

Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said in a statement: “If ‘Emperor Obama’ ignores the American people and announces an amnesty plan that he himself has said over and over again exceeds his constitutional authority, he will cement his legacy of lawlessness and ruin the chances for congressional action on this issue and many others.”

And it’s not unique. In fact, it’s pretty typical. That is how “Republicans” talk about (and to) the President, on a regular basis. And frankly, this writer wouldn’t wouldn’t feel all warm and fuzzy about working with anyone who talked that way about him.

Insults? Check.
Lies? Check.
Professional decorum? Nowhere to be found.

If the Teapubbies really want to know why they have such an awful relationship with the Prexy, they should try this little experiment: go into a low-class dive bar (the Speaker will be quite comfortable there), find a patron, and start talking this kinda s*** to them. They could say things like “you lie!”, or “Godless Communist Kenyan illegal immigrant!”, or any number of the slurs they have hurled at Obama over the past 6+ years.

Any bets on the sorts of “relationships” the GOPee will establish? Not many productive working arrangements, no. Far more likely that fists will “meet up” with faces.

Hey, Johnnie-me-lad: try using some manners for a change.
Because, dude, you are making a deliberately obnoxious blogger cringe. That says nothing good about your individual and collective social “skills”.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Wall Street Journal thinks that rape is not a crime, or Women are criminals for being raped

Christ on a fruitcake, really? Yes, really. Those are the only logical meanings one can draw from their writer, one James Taranto. According to a recent editorial, if a woman has had a drink or two, she is equally “at fault” for being raped.

You see, to Mr. Taranto, rape isn’t the fault of the rapist. He compares rape to an accident involving two drunken drivers: two people committing equally criminal acts. And this shows what a misogynistic f***wit he is.

Rape is a violent crime, with a perpetrator and a victim. It is not a crime committed by two criminals (like his flawed drunken driving analogy): in the case of rape, the rapist assaults the victim, who either does not consent or is not capable of consenting. The victim is not, repeat NOT committing a criminal act. Having a drink is not a crime.

Mark this well: if someone cannot legally consent, the answer is no. That is common law, understood for business dealings, elections, and other interactions: drunk people cannot legally enter into so much as a car loan or a poker game. And if you steal a drunk’s wallet, you are still a thief. If you break into a drunk’s house and beat the s*** out of them, you are still assaulting them.

But if you rape a drunk, that is somehow different, according to this guy:

Apparently, he does not think sexual assault is a crime. Shoot a drunk, beat a drunk, those are crimes, but if a penis is involved in a violent crime, then it’s somehow OK, right?

Wrong. Just ask the two scumbuckets from Steubenville who are doing time for raping a drunk girl. Ask anyone busted for drugging a girl and then raping her. These. Are. Crimes. Using a penis as a weapon does not excuse the criminal. Getting her drunk first doesn’t either.

The Wall Street Journal apparently thinks otherwise. And hey, a dick wrote that editorial, and bunch of dicks decided to print it, so maybe they are all thinking with the wrong head. But only a person who thinks solely with his dick would say that rape is not a crime.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky