Let’s face facts, people. Other than 9/11, the greatest terrorist attacks in America have been predominately from conservative, Christian white males. You are far more likely to die from a Christian attack than a Muslim one here. It’s time we got rid of our political correctness and admit that these people all want us dead!
Who blew up a building in Kansas City? Conservative white guys. Who flew that plane into the IRS building? 
A conservative white guy. Who shot up the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin? Who murdered people in that church in Knoxville? Who blew up a bomb at the Olympic park in Atlanta? Who shot up the Holocaust Museum? And who, today, killed children in a church in South Carolina?
Hint: It wasn’t Muslims.
Those are only some of the examples. Clearly, we must start treating all conservative Christian white men as terrorists. Perhaps we should start deporting them all, regardless of whether we have evidence against them or not. And it’s not like we need to worry about rights like habeas corpus — these are terrorists we’re talking about. Simply being a conservative Christian white male is enough to be a suspect.
This policy of profiling and saying that every conservative white male is a potential terrorist and therefore deserves no rights should be quite popular among the people who have for years argued against giving rights to suspected terrorists: Conservative white males.
Oh, and we also need to start profiling babies. Last year, more people in America were killed by toddlers handling guns than by Muslims committing acts of terror. Clearly, babies cannot be trusted — our only solution is to profile them all and place restrictions on where babies can be taken. (I mean, duh, we’re not going to restrict guns, are we? They have rights, you know!)
* If you can’t see the point I am making here, please refrain from the angry responses.
Jeb Bush is now the 43,276th Republican candidate, and his logo screams excitement! Jeb! it says. 
Or maybe this is the logo for a new laundry detergent, I’m not sure. Can’t help but notice that it pointedly does not mention his last name. Can’t imagine why.
Compare this with Hillary’s logo. She’s so well known, she doesn’t even have to spell her entire name. Or maybe this is a sign pointing to the closest hospital.
Wait a minute. Hillary’s also ignores her last name. Is that a good thing? I will say, even though I like this logo much better than Jeb’s (hope he didn’t pay money for that thing), it does bother me that the logo for a Democratic candidate features a big red arrow pointing right.
Still, compared to the other candidates, Hillary’s is a model of good design. Like Obama’s, it doesn’t have to say the candidate’s name for you to know who it is. Have a look at some of the other campaign logos we’re being subjected to:
When I look at Rand Paul’s, I can’t help thinking of a quote from The Dark Knight: “Some men just want to watch the world burn.” Looks like an investment firm to me, not a political candidate. Black letters? Black letters are used for eeeeeeeevil.
Cruz’s logo is no better — It looks like he’s burning an American flag. Guess we shouldn’t expect more from a Canadian. At least it doesn’t have a maple syrup stain on it.
Rubio’s is just so cute, what with the little America over the “i” replacing the heart he was originally going to put there. 
Rubio, of course, like the rest of the GOP, wants to send America back to the 50s so that’s why you don’t see Alaska and Hawaii there.
Lincoln Chafee’s logo looks like it was designed back when we had the last President with “Lincoln” in his name. 
“Fresh ideas for America” does not include graphic design ideas.
Ben Carson’s is quite funny. 
He has that “A” bumped into his name in such a way that it looks like it’s just a little ribbon design or something, meaning his logo literally says “Merica” which should be pronounced as if you have a mouth full of chewin’ tobacco while saying it.
Bernie Sanders’ is pretty simple, but you know, I guess that kind of fits his personality — what you see is what you get. Nothing great with this logo, but nothing embarrassing either.
Forgive me for not covering the other thousands of candidates’ logos, but they’re all pretty boring. No one should be picking a candidate based on their logo anway.
by Guest Blogger Tom Haswell
There’s been a lot of coverage on the McKinney pool party, from both sides. I’m generally pretty critical of police, but right now, I want to shame both sides on this one.
Why?
Because they’re all focusing on the wrong officer.
Let’s look at Officer 227, first initial E. I cannot make out last name on the footage. This is who we should be talking about.
Notice around the fifty second mark. Officer 227 calmly speaks to people on the scene, explaining why they shouldn’t “take off running” when the police arrive — no abusive language, no demeaning tone … he could be talking to a family member. He politely thanks the boys that return police property to him. He not only backs up his fellow officer who drew, but tells him “you stay here, I’ll get him” regarding the person he drew on — who is returned to the scene cuffed but apparently unharmed.
“To Serve and Protect” is to control a situation in a method that diffuses it, not escalates it. He diffused the situation (as well as his fellow officer) in a manner which did not embarrass or shame either one. In fact, he do so in such a flawless manner that no one is talking about it. Which is a shame.
The left needs to hold this man up as an example of how officers should act, and the right needs to portray him as an example of how officers do act … and neither side wants to acknowledge him, because escalation sells airtime.
The term “Good Cop” gets used on a lot of people who, in my opinion, don’t deserve it. Officer 227 does. Whoever you are … thank you.
Tom Haswell is a freelance writer and rules designer in the Wargaming Industry, currently working for such titles as Ravage Magazine, CTC MAgazine, Prodos Games, Crushpop Productions and Skullduggery Press.
I understand the concept of libertarianism, I really do. The idea that government causes more problems than it solves is appealing in concept, and when it comes to most social issues (gay marriage, marijuana legislation, freedom of religion) liberals and libertarians see eye to eye.
The problem is that most libertarians hate government except when they do. They aren’t consistent. “Government shouldn’t be providing all these services!” they say. “But don’t take away our public schools, parks, and libraries. I need that subway and the highway system so they’re OK. And my parents need their social security so we’ll keep that. Those tax breaks that allow me to deduct home mortgages is good. And it’s probably a good idea to have health inspectors making sure the food I buy isn’t tainted with disease ….”
In some ways, they are like religious extremists — they have a clear concept of what they believe in, and then they find a bunch of loopholes and exceptions that allow them to ignore the parts of it they don’t like. (“We must obey every word of the Bible! Except that part about eating shellfish. And the part allowing slavery. Oh, and the stoning to death of people who get divorces…”)
I understand the concept of reducing government, but be honest, libertarians — you just want to reduce some government, the part that doesn’t benefit you directly.
You like government that helps you.
You’re just against anyone else being helped.
Nobody is saying that!
I am so sick of these kinds of arguments: “Oh, so you want $15 an hour for flipping burgers when our firefighters get paid less than that? Who do you think you are, scum?”
Stop making those stupid comparisons! No one asking for a decent wage for a crappy job of standing over a boiling vat of fries for eight hours a day is saying that they are the only ones underpaid. Fast food workers are underpaid and our military is underpaid. These concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Why can’t we all admit that a large percentage of our population is underpaid? Until Reagan dismantled our economy, whenever things improved, salaries increased for everyone, upper and lower class. Now an improved economy only benefits the 1% at the top. Can’t we all agree that pretty much everyone needs a salary increase?
After all, the money to pay firefighters doesn’t come from McDonald’s anyway. Raising the wage for hamburger flippers won’t decrease other people’s salaries. Let’s lift everyone up. And even if we only lift some up at first, it doesn’t mean others don’t deserve it, too and should also be lifted as soon as possible.
But this is what they want — they want us fighting over the scraps because then we’re ignoring the huge wealth inequality that really exists in our country, and it’s not about whether someone should get a few extra dollars an hour.
But back to the main point: Stupid comparisons. I’m seeing way too many of these.
“Caitlyn Jenner is brave.” “Yeah, well not as brave as these soldiers!” Yes, we know. No one said she was. It is possible for more than one person to be brave, you know.
“Black lives matter.” “All lives matter!” Yes, of course all lives matter, but sometimes we need to bring attention to some of them! It doesn’t mean they are the only lives that matter!
I mean, seriously, it’s gotten out of hand. As one comedian said recently, these kinds of arguments are like someone running into a fundraising event to fight cancer and yelling, “There are other diseases, you know!”
ventrellaquest.com 