The bill now gives the President the immediate power to issue a waiver of the military custody requirement, instead of the Defense Secretary, and gives the President discretion in implementing these new provisions.

“We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President’s senior advisors will not recommend a veto,” the White House statement said. [emphasis added]

On December 31, 2011, a day when most Americans weren’t paying attention, he signed it into law.

There are plenty of places where you can read what is wrong with this law. My biggest issue is that it takes Bush Era policies and expands them. No longer are we just hunting al Qaeda, but any terrorist organization that may have had contact with them. At one point, there was a defined end to this mythical war, but this new law removes that.Prior to this, the end of the “War on Terror” was defined as the point at which the leaders of this organization– “the people who knocked these buildings down”– were caught or killed. And that would be it. We would be done saving the world. Except the definition of “terrorist” has expanded. Or rather, it’s been made purposely vague.

Of course, there’s the part of this bill where our military can detain citizens of other countries until “the end of hostilities”. What hostilities? How will they end? Again, we’re dealing with nebulous non-definitions. Many are minimizing the impact of the bill by saying that Americans can/can’t be detained. It’s not just about Americans. It’s about human beings, even if they aren’t citizens of this country. Anyone the government identifies as a terrorist or someone who has provided support to a terrorist organization can be made to sit for however long our President deems appropriate without even getting a chance to defend themselves against the accusation that they are conspiring against us. And they can’t get representation so that this can come before our own Supreme Court, because our government doesn’t have to disclose that we even have them! But it’s not bad because, well, Obama signed it. And, well, he’s a Democrat.

I’m not writing this post about this abhorrent law though. I made my case against these kinds of abuses when Bush was doing them¹. Just because a Democrat signed this law does not make it acceptable. All it means is that a fucking Democrat signed a law that strips people of basic human rights. I’m writing this post because of the goddamned nuPUMAs who are twisting themselves silly trying to excuse this nonsense.

This isn’t about “debunking” anything, though the nuPUMAs are busy trying every manner of misdirection to “debunk”² our outrage that this shit was signed. This is about pointing out absolute hypocrisy, lies and apologia. Of course, this is to be expected from either side of the political divide, but it especially sickens me when people who claim they are progressive do this shit. Here is the basic logic:

1) Democrats are good.
2) Our guy is a Democrat.
3) Our guy embraces Neocon policy.
4) We embrace Neocon policy because our guy is good.

According to his most ardent supporters, Obama had no choice but to sign the bill. Here are some of the reason why he supposedly had no choice.

He has to work with that Congress. They forced him to sign that.

See this argument may have worked the first few times he “compromised” against the interests of his base, but it’s weak sauce at this point. Why? Because Obama has shown that he can absolutely get what he wants when he wants it if he wants it bad enough. Even with this Congress. Yes, there are a lot of whiny ass titty baby teatards playing silly games. But when it comes right down to it, Obama can get the important policy through the wall of obstinacy.

Example: The fight for extension of unemployment benefits. Eric Cantor and John Boehner were fools to try to push through their shit, but they’d done it before so probably expected to win that fight. But our leader took control of that situation. He didn’t want that mess with the XL pipeline in the UI bill. He told his people that it was a no-go. The Senate did what they were supposed to do, but the House, like petulant children, stomped, sputtered and refused to budge. The President got out in front of the American people and reminded them that it was the GOP that was holding unemployment hostage; it was the GOP that was trying to ruin Christmas for millions of struggling Americans; that it was the GOP that was working in a way that would cause millions of people to become homeless. He went on television and made speeches and did his job.

The GOP stood down. Obama won the message war and that two-month extension was passed without the XL pipeline bullshit stuck to it. He wanted that XL pipeline out of that bill. They let it go. Because he was strong.

To say that he was “forced” to sign this bill is to also say he is a weak leader. That doesn’t work when you look at the single incident which I just mentioned. He’s done it before, with the debt ceiling, with ending DADT. He has the power and the strength to use that power.

So, no, Congress didn’t force him to sign this bill against his own wishes. He made sure that the bill he signed was good enough for him. If he didn’t get what he wanted the veto pen would have been dusted off and finally used.

But they passed it with a veto-proof majority!

Apparently. But we don’t know how that really would’ve played out had he not announced he was going to sign prior to the vote. He gave political cover to Democrats³ who don’t want to go home to ads claiming they didn’t support the War on Terror. They were safe to vote with the next election in mind, because he told them he was signing anyway. Politicians make deals with each other. All the time. They give and take so they can vote yea or nay on whatever issue. That’s a fact. So, we really won’t know what might have happened had this to gone back to Congress after a veto. He didn’t do it.

On the other side of that excuse, so what if he did? So, they override his veto and it gets passed anyway. It wouldn’t be Obama’s law at that point. It actually would be the fault of Congress. And he, along with other Dems, could’ve used that against any GOP member who voted in favor. Scary voice says: “John Boehner wants to end habeas corpus for American people. He voted to remove your civil liberties and voted to gut the Constitution.” Cut to Teabaggers behind bars, Grannies for Peace behind a fence, Lactivists and their nursing infants sitting inside a fenced box.

I believe that if he’d have held his ground and pushed, as he did with the unemployment extension and the debt ceiling, there would have been no veto-proof majority. In the end, the Dems would have fought tooth and nail to get their people to fall in line. It was an important bill and they would have needed to stand behind him during an election year. I refuse to believe that President Obama is so weak and powerless that he couldn’t have safely vetoed that bill. I’ve decided that he’s strong enough that when it matters, he gets his people in line. I’ve seen him do it and I think he’d have done it here.

He got what he wanted in the bill and he supported it. So he signed it. The signing statement was for our benefit, to ease our outrage. Not because portions of the bill were so terrible that he felt uncomfortable they were included.

But the GOP would have called him “weak” on terror and use that against him in the election!

That’s just fucking tomfoolery. The GOP is probably at this very second doing up ads showing Americans behind fences, dressed in orange and a sign overhead that says “Guantanamo”. The scary voice will warn Americans who are already afraid that the scary black mooslim president is going to throw them in jail. The people in “Obama’s prisons” will be holding bibles in one hand and little crying blonde children in the other hand. The voice will insinuate that Obama will lock away anyone who speaks against him– roll scene with teapartiers locked in Gitmo. BAM!

There is nothing this president will do or has ever done that will not be used against him to scare the fuck out of white, christian voters. This just gave them a bit of a larger demographic– those who do not trust government and who are afraid of what happens when the president gets too much power like that. You may laugh and call them kooks. But they’re also voters. They may not be afraid of scurry mooslims, but those people are scared to death that our country will become some goddamned totalitarian/fascist/nazi strong hold. They will see those fucking ads.

The really bad ones have already lost their minds and have run from Obama when news of the signing came out. But there are the others that will see those ads. I can see them now, al Awalaki will become a martyr to them because he was a citizen that our President assassinated without benefit of trial. “Who else will he assassinate?”, the scary voice whispers.

So, he was afraid of looking “weak” in a GOP ad. Which one of those ads would Democrats prefer to see at this point?

But the military families would have gone without FOOD.

Besides the fact that military paychecks would not have stopped, that’s just overall bullshit. He shamed the GOP with the unemployment extension, and those people were going to lose their money right before Christmas. Yet, he was willing to risk that their benefits. That was ok for the unemployed to potentially lose their holiday, get their utilities disconnected or lose their homes. Democratic leadership was going to keep Congress in D.C. until the UE extension passed. President Obama went on the offensive and asked Americans to call their congresscritter and demand they pass the extension. And then the GOP caved.

He threatened to veto the bill already. He was already playing hardball. He got what he wanted and if that hadn’t happened then hypothetically military families were going to suffer⁴. So, no, he wasn’t forced to sign the NDAA in order to ensure military families received their money. That’s a bullshit excuse.

But the signing statement!

You can read the entire signing statement here. I’m putting a portion of it here.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

The biggest problem with the signing statement is very clear: President Obama will not be the president forever and ever amen. He is, as of now, restricted to two terms by the highest law of the land. Because I am not an idiot, I realize that this law in the hands of someone, I dunno, like George W. Bush is going to be very, very bad for our Constitution. Especially if we get some nutter who decides that “belligerent acts” against the U.S. include pitching a tent in Zucotti Park without a permit. Those protesters can be deemed hostile, become “terrorists” and are then potentially thrown into a cell somewhere until the “end of hostilities”–which probably will never come because we’ll be fighting the War on Terror until god knows when. It’s no longer just about al Qaeda. It’s about anyone “hostile” to the United States and our “interests”⁵. Let another GWB get a hold of that and see what happens.

And we’re supposed to believe that the NDAA is too broad for President Obama with regards to detentions and fighting this “war”. However, the words “restricting” and “minimally acceptable” and “flexibility” stand out to me. There are too many restrictions in this law. The restrictions inhibit their ability to get information and keep us safe⁶. That is alarming to me. This is a Bush policy. It is codified into law and now he’s signed it.

We can blame Congress until the cows come home. But I said it on Twitter and I’ll say it here– when he signed it, it became his. Just like the laws Bush signed– they became his, not the Congress that gave them to him. There’s this amazing tool that Presidents have to prevent abhorrent bills from becoming laws: the veto pen.

It was current law/status quo/nothing changed. It was like this since Bush, so what’s so bad about it now?

Because Bush was a wonderful President, right? Nothing at all wrong with his policies. No one expected those policies to change drastically. I mean, Progressives who voted for the end to Bush military policy regard the War on Terror certainly have no reason to complain. Nothing changed! Why, that right there is why it’s good enough.

That weak sauce is worth nothing but total mockery. It’s a serious case of cognitive dissonance. Instead of being pissed at our guy for signing this piece of shit, we’re just going to pretend it was never that bad to begin with. It’s the “Our Guy is the good guy so everything he does is SUPER” argument. Similar to “My kid is the good kid so if she regularly steals from the store that’s SUPER.”

Why do we care about terrorists? They’re not Americans and want to kill us.

Ah, it’s always refreshing when that freaking worm turns. Here we have Nutter talking points spewed by so-called progressives. Isn’t that so cute? As they sit on Twitter, attacking any progressive who doesn’t agree with them, they sometimes laugh at Teatards for being hypocrites and misinformed, but have no problem spouting talking points straight from Rove circa 2005. I’ll consider, for a split second, that they aren’t hypocrites themselves. That must mean they really did support these policies under Bush and are, therefore, fake fucking liberals/ratfuckers.

Since this thing has been signed, I have seen many self-described progressives poo-pooing the rest of us as deranged and hair-on-fire, while they twist themselves silly trying to excuse Bush so they can’t be decried as hypocrites and/or liars. They will claim that our President is so weak that he can get nothing done because of Congress⁷, but that he is a strong leader for having to compromise. Or some such shit.

So, while I was working on this long-ass post⁸, another interesting thing happened. More Bush apologia from one of the biggest opportunists on Twitter:

Bush’s complex issues were distorted by Glenn Greenwald.

This was probably made because he has a huge flame-war going on with Greenwald. I get that. People are generally stupid when they’re trying to smash someone else’s argument. Greenwald’s argument is the civil liberties violations that the NDAA contains are bad; they were bad when Bush did it and they’re bad now that Obama is doing it. So, the argument used against that is Bush’s issues were “distorted” for all those years. We’re so eager to make the furtherance of Bush policy palatable that we’ll go ahead and make the entire Bush era ok. I can’t even properly mock that because it’s so fucking ridiculous that it mocks itself.

nuPUMAs, fauxgressives, PragHags, what-the-fuck-ever you want to call it these excuses are made in a way that’s dishonest and laughable. Well, I guess I can’t say “dishonest” because I’m wondering if those pushing these arguments the hardest were actually progressives to begin with. So let’s call them “revealing” instead. I’m having a really hard time believing, at this point, that they ever had a problem with Bush’s War on Terra. If that’s true, then they aren’t being dishonest, are they? They aren’t being inconsistent in their beliefs, either. I will maintain that their arguments are inconsistent and dishonest, though. If they can’t make that round peg fit into the square hole, they sure will force that motherfucker in there.

I supported Obama⁹ through most of the insurance fight. I was not crying in my beer wishing for my pony. I was glad that he signed Lily Ledbetter and that he increased Pell grants. I was glad when GLBT servicemen and women were allowed to serve openly. We were all happy that the occupation of Iraq ended¹⁰. I’m happy he didn’t cave on the XL pipeline (yet). He did some recess appointments today that were good. This post isn’t about all of those other things. And anyone who knows my history, knows that I did support him when I decided against Clinton. I knew I would have some disappointments¹¹ from what he said and to whom he said them. He was very good at talking out of both sides of his mouth. I knew there would be no change, rainbows or lollipops. I did not, however, believe that he would continue with the idiocy Bush/Cheney began with this War on Terra. If there was a single issue that glued the Progressive blogosphere together throughout GWB’s entire tenure, it was our hatred of that “war”. By signing the NDAA, Obama told that portion of his base that he didn’t hear a fucking thing we said about the war.

For the people who have been screaming, writing, and hair-on-fire against this war since Bush started it, that really does matter. There’s nothing inconsistent with that. There most certainly was no distortion of Bush policies. The people who supported Bush and have no problem with the continuance of those policies, who also support Obama, well, I guess they’ll find any reason to support their guy– even if it means making up bullshit excuses.

Reviewed by Tricia

1. The same Bush that progressives were screaming be brought to trial for war crimes.
2. “Debunk” usually means there is a myth being exposed as false. The NDAA is not a myth. It’s a fact and it’s a law. There’s no “debunking” that bullshit.
3. Possibly even Republicans.
4. Not really because they would’ve continued to get their pay, but we’ll play along for now.
5. Considering who decide those interests at this point, that bit is terrifying by itself.
6. Where have we all heard that before?
7. And couldn’t get anything done with the previous Congress, mind you, though they do credit him solely for passing the Affordable Care Act.
8. Considering how unfocused I am anymore, it’s a surprise I’ve made it this far.
9. I hate having to put this disclaimer, damn it all. My history stands in my archives.
10. Not the War on Terror, though. Just the occupation of Iraq.
11. Like when he came to my school and promised to rein in NAFTA and fill our manufacturing plants with solar panels and other new innovation. Then he went to Brownsville, TX and told them he would keep NAFTA because they were doing well on the border. Pandering bullshit.

I hate John Kasich. I hate him deep in the depth of my soul. The man is ripping my home state apart and shitting down our collective throats. And I hate the people who stayed home instead of voting because they gave him to us. We can’t recall him and he doesn’t give two flying fucks about getting re-elected. This is a man who’s looking to get into the national spotlight by proving to the teabaggers how bad he can fuck up the lives of the people in this state. He’s running along merrily slashing benefits to poor folks, selling off state property and pissing away good jobs. You know he’s a real piece of work when my wingnut father-in-law hates him as much as I do.

I went off of politics when that man was elected. I couldn’t stand it anymore. I trekked my happy ass to the voting booth and cast my ballot for Strickland, who isn’t a miracle worker but who also isn’t trying to become Teabagger King ™. I told people I worked with and family members that they’d better vote against the nutters or the shit was going to hit the fan. Pfft. They didn’t care. I heard a lot of “My vote doesn’t matter” crap. Well, considering Kasich won with less than half the vote of half the registered voters in the state, I’m going to say that yes, their votes did matter.

I got even more discouraged when we went down to our cabin in the state park and there was logging going on. That beautiful forest is going bye-bye because that man is willing to allow drilling and logging there. Hundreds of thousand of acres of land are going to be sacrificed to the corporate gods. Not to bring jobs to Ohioans, of course, but to give money to those corporations. The lake will be polluted and the wildlife will be killed off, but who cares? There’s money to be made in them thar hills and, by golly, he’s going to get it out!

As he does this, he sends back money that was allocated for a state high-speed rail² and money that was to provide operating costs for the state schools, while simultaneously trying to dismantle the state’s unions and taking money away from those that need it most– the Department of Aging can say good-bye to 90% of it’s funding³. Today we find out that Kasich has sacrificed $250mil that is to go to schools.

So, while Ohioans are laughing their asses off at King James’ loss to the Dallas Mavericks⁴, our oh-so-funny governor, elected by a minority of registered voters⁵, is burning this beautiful state to the ground and pissing all over it’s actual citizens. I guess the Obama Democrats really got the message with this one, huh? You showed him not to ignore you⁶. My beautiful home state is dying a slow and painful death, but Lebron James got the what-for and Obama supporters were shown the power of the Firebagger. Yay us!

And that man, fucking John Kasich, is the reason I can’t do politics anymore. I’ve lost hope. I see no silver lining or any end. It doesn’t matter one fucking bit to me what’s going on in Washington⁷ because my state and the people who live here are suffering so bad. I don’t give a fuck about some dude who may or may not have committed espionage because my favorite state park (and all the beauty within) is getting sold off, acre by acre. But if I pay too much attention to what that evil, piece of shit teabagger puppet is doing, I’ll lose my mind. The man is staying put until the end of his term and what can I do about it? I hear from people around me “this got cut off” or “record foreclosures in the county” or “no money for medicine” or “I can’t get a home because I’m disabled and there is no funding to help me.”⁸ He would’ve lost, you know, if Democrats would’ve gotten to the goddamned polls. He won by a minority and he was given the power to rape our state by the people who stayed the fuck home. It’s truly maddening. How can that not piss a normal person off?

It’s no wonder the number of drunk neighbors in my neighborhood seems to be growing. Fuck, John Kasich.

1. I’ll pretend not to notice that Cleveland pro teams suck anyway and the dude was never going to get a ring here. That is not the point.
2. And 16,000 jobs, of course.
3. Those damned elderly, retards and crazy folks don’t need help and fuck the poor people on Medicaid. Let them all wither and die!
4. Yesterday’s honorary Ohioans.
5. Fuck you, Ed Shulz and any other Firebaggers who encouraged people to stay home in November. I do absolutely blame the Democrats who stayed home.
6. This post can be rewritten with a number of different state governors as the subject.
7. Except that shit with Anthony Weiner took my mind off of it for a minute. Asshole.
8. That one comes from The Mother, by the way.

“Obama doesn’t mention [Qaddafi]¹”

This is heard on both the left and the right. I was going to do a direct search for the Firebagger brigade, but I didn’t want my brain to stab me.

“OMG! Obama isn’t doing enough!”

Today we sent unmanned drones into Libya. But I didn’t know about it when it happened. I just happened to look into my Twitter stream. What do I see?

“OMG! Obama’s bombing Libya!”

Motherfuckers. I did check in on the Firebagger brigade for their reaction to this news. Dur. I almost punched my laptop in it’s throat.

I’m glad that we’re bombing Libya– with help from France, Canada, the UK and Qatar. I’m glad that we’re not going to let that man continue to kill the people of Libya. Unlike in Egypt, where the police and army refused to fire on the citizenry, the Libyan army is following Qaddafi’s orders to massacre people who are exercising their right to protest an egregious government. Yes, the Egyptians were able to peacefully overthrow their government. But that only happened because the army didn’t turn on them. What are Libyans supposed to do? They are fighting for their lives and their freedom– going against unbelievable odds; sacrificing their lives for a cause that seemed to be lost. Finally, we sent help. And that thrills me. I’m not someone who thinks that all war and death are avoidable. Humans are not by nature a peaceful species. We are violent and territorial by nature. I’m not lost so far up into the clouds to think that Qaddafi can be reasoned with or that we should ignore what’s happening to his people. I certainly don’t want to ignore it.

Of course, I’m not one that thinks that turning the other cheek works in all situations or that simply talking to a bully really works. I’m of the school that believes sometimes a bully needs smacked the fuck down. In this case there will be people killed. There have been people killed. Now it’s time to throw down. Good for us².

Now that I’ve got that out of my system, I have a question:

What the fuck was Obama supposed to do with regards to Qaddafi? Should he have challenged him to a thumb wrestling match with the winner getting control of the Libyan government?

“Hey, Q, how about we thumb wrestle this out? You win, you get to keep killing people. I win, you stop and GTO. K?”

Because, yeah, I can see that totally working.

Wait, even thumb wrestling is too violent? Qaddafi might get a cramp in his thumb? How about a gentlemanly game of “Go Fish” then? Would that work better?

I don’t get it. I really don’t. I think that some Progressives need a reason to be pissed off at the government. They need a reason to pull at their hair and gnash their teeth. Any fucking reason to scream and run around with their hair on fire. How goddamned tiring. I can’t tell you how exhausted this makes me. I can’t take it anymore.

I have a suggestion for the Hair on Fire Brigade™: How about you be pissed off at the state governments that are stripping away any kind of progress that we’ve made in the last 100 years? How about you focus on motherfuckers like Kasich, Scott, Snyder, Corbett, Perry and Walker³? There should be plenty of outrage to keep you busy until well after 2012. Get busy, screamers. Help take this fight back to the 50 state strategy to which Dean introduced us.

I’m going back to not being affiliated with any political ideology. Seriously, I can’t stand this nonsense. Republican governments all over the country are destroying the middle class, the poor and women, while these WATBs are busy caterwauling that Obama just isn’t doing enough for them. Guess what? Doesn’t matter what Obama does for you at this point. The teabaggers have decided to do their damage state by state and they’re winning. So, why is he still being given magical powers?

I’m glad that we’re not sitting on our asses with regards to Libya. The people there are fighting for their lives and they deserve to have someone stand up for them. Good for us. Now I’m going to go back to feeling utterly hopeless because I live in Ohio and Ohio elected Kasich. I’m a big believer in a silver lining, but I don’t see it with that guy. No more Progressive politics for me. I can’t take the goddamned hair pulling.

I’m done with politics. I’m done participating in online politics. Over it all. Before Bush was elected I was more of a centrist. I’m going back to that position. Seriously, if being a Progressive requires being angry all the damned time, I don’t want any part of it. Fuck it.

1. Spell it however you want.
2. I supported operations in Afghanistan too. Because I hate bullies and because I think sometimes we need to stand up for the weak.
3. That’s just a short list of teabagging idiots who are raping our states.

I have more respect for GOPers who continue to vote for their beliefs than for #firebaggers whose vote depends on who’s kissing their ass.

Dude jumps in and says this:

@Jennyjinx You dummy Where do all you crazy people come from? Like wow man I mean you guys are special. The election of Obama exposed y’all.

So, I tell this person to fuck off:

@bromoore Fuck off, piece of shit spammer. No one here’s asking for your egg-head opinion.

Then I get this:

@Jennyjinx My first amendments rights are just as valid as yours I am an American citizen BITCH tea bagger freak triple fuck U Bring it YEA

Mwahaha! Holy shitballs, that’s funny. Poor Twitter n00b.

Here’s my reply– follow the “in reply to” link and you can see the whole thing. And, yes, I am that childish. You didn’t know?

That’s all.

The first one might not amuse you generally, but it made me laugh my evil laugh¹. I was looking at my stats yesterday and saw that a couple of people were coming here via a search for the term “what is a firebagger“. Well, the 2nd result on the page is my post “Firebaggers“. I already knew that post was high on that particular search, but then I noticed this TPM post. It points to the Urban Dictionary definition of “firebaggers”:

2. Firebagger
A person nominally of the political left viewed as excessively critical of President Barack Obama, especially if the tendency is to reflexively or obsessively criticize him and seemingly not other political figures. Etymology: Jane Hamsher’s popular, left-leaning FireDogLake blog was regarded by Democratic moderates as having gone around the bend in being hypercritical, such as when Hamsher appeared on Fox News to denounce Obama’s Health Care Bill, got involved with Neocon zealot Grover Norquist and even reportedly Tea Party activists. Thus, <b>FireDogLake + Teabagger. </b>

The best part? Whoever decided to post that definition quoted my post for the example on it’s usage (2nd to last paragraph):

Firebaggers are just pissed because Obama hasn’t invited them into the Whitehouse and/or isn’t the Great Liberal Savior they thought he was going to be (depending on the firebagger doing the bitching).

That makes me giggle just because I really don’t like firebaggers and they get all pissy when anyone calls them that.

To anyone searching for that term: There’s your definition of “firebagger”. You can stop reading now.

My 2nd story is more personal. Last week I went into work and saw a flier for a self-defense course. On that flier was a bulleted list of things that will be covered. One of the bullet points read:

5 Ques to look out for when an attacker is approaching [emphasis mine]

Well, I’m all kinds of helpful, so I scratched out “Ques” and wrote “cues”. Then I went about my merry way.

I come back into the alley and Chick is losing her mind. “Who changed that? Who changed that?!” She’s looking all around, her arms flailing.

Me: “I did.”

Her: “Well, you’re wrong. That’s not how you spell it.”

Me: “Yes, it is. I’m not wrong.”

So, we go back and forth for a minute. I laugh and leave the alley. I had work to do, guests to take care of, blah blah blah. Besides, doesn’t everyone (besides her) know how to spell “cues”?

Apparently not. I come back into the alley and there’s quite the scene. People are telling me I’m wrong– I laugh because I’m not. They’re just thinking she can’t possibly be wrong. She decides she’s going to prove I’m wrong (without benefit of a dictionary, of course).

Her: “That’s how you spell a pool cue. That’s not how you spell a regular cue. A pool cue is a thing, but this isn’t.”

Didn’t make any sense to me either. I mean, a noun is a noun is a… whatever. This is funny shit to me. I can’t believe she’s arguing some kind of difference.

Me: “That’s how your spell the pool cue and the cue that indicates some kind of mark or sign. They’re spelled the same. Maybe you’re thinking of q-u-e-u-e, which is pronounce ‘cue’ but doesn’t mean the same thing.”

Kitchen Key²: “Yeah, my Netflix says q-u-e. So she’s right.”

Me: “No. Your Netflix says ‘Instant q-u-e-u-e’. Queue means that something is lined up, such as ‘We’re in the queue to get into the movie’. It doesn’t indicate a mark or sign. You’re wrong. However, ‘q-u-e-s’ does spell “what” in Spanish– kind of.”

Her: “No, I’m not. You’re wrong. And we’re going to prove it. Who’s got internet on their phone?”

So, I laugh again. Another girl comes up to me and whispers “I think you’re right. She’s not going to admit that though.” I laugh some more. This is funny to me. Better than some stupid ass prank. This is some chick losing her mind because she misspelled a word and someone called her on it. I said “She probably thinks that her spell check was wrong too.”

Note: My spell checker is blowing up with the squiggly line on “ques”. Just so ya know.

Next thing I know, Chick and Key are huddled over someone’s phone, frantically (and I mean frantically) looking for their “aha!” moment. Me and the other girl just sat there³ and watched. The other two were typing and looking at each other and we knew they weren’t finding their proof. My friend says “They’re not going to find it.” I look at her and say “Nope. They’re not.” Then we walk out into the dining room⁴.

Oh! But she’s not done! She gives up on the phone because “we can’t find a dictionary”⁵. Of course she can’t find a dictionary. The dictionary proves her wrong. So she goes and asks my friend, The Teacher, to prove her point. My friend tells her we’re both right. Huh? She comes strutting over to me and says “We’re both right. Ha!” Really? So I ask my friend what the fuck she’s thinking. I tell her that Chick was trying to spell q-u-e-u-e and not only misspelled that, but used it wrong. She says “Oh.” Of course, that’s the end of her involvement.

It’s time to go home. Chick hasn’t been able to find anyway to prove that she ignored the spell check on her Word program. She’s pissed and just scratches out “cues” and replaces it with “signs”. I told her that’s what cues meant, after all, and it was better than admitting she was wrong about anything. Meh. That should have ended it, of course. Because we’re all grown and don’t rub salt into the wounds. Right? Wrong.

I came home and looked up both “cues” and “ques”. Only one online source tells me “que” (sans the ‘s’) means “half farthing”. I don’t even care what a half farthing is so I ignore it. I did print out the definition of “cue“, though. Who was right? Well, me of course!

I go to work to rub the salt. This heifer says to me “I meant to spell it ‘q-u-e-u-e’. We’re still both right.” She thought that was the end. Nope. She made such a big deal of it previously, right? She actually convinced other coworkers that I was wrong. Of course I wasn’t done.

Me: “Nope. You’re still wrong. You meant to use it as ‘signs’, which is spelled c-u-e-s. You argued with me about that. You also argued with me about the spelling of the other queue. You’re wrong on all counts. It’s ok. You’re allowed to be wrong here. Next time you should trust that spell check, though.”

With that she literally stormed off and I got yet another chuckle. I love when people get that pissed because there’s just no way they could possibly be wrong⁶. It’s sad but comical. Poor spoiled baby…

1. The one that my friend requested I stop because it gives her the creeps. The “Mwahaha!”. You didn’t know I really do that? I also really say “bomb-diggity”.
2. Assistant to the assistant manager
3. And here I found a typo! Oops. Ironic?
4. Yeah, it was funny and a little dramatic. Ha!
5. Most of her supporters at this time realized she’s full of shit.
6. My mother is exactly the same way. No lie.