• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
B.J. Porter

My Rep's Dumber than YOUR Rep, My Rep's Dumber than yours!

Recommended Posts

Sung to the tune of "My Dog's Better Than Your Dog" from the Ken-L-Ration ad campaign in the 70's

So I was poking at my horrible and useless Senator, Marco Rubio, about endorsing that GOP state rep rep (James Buchanon...really) who just lost, when I asked him to please endorse my Congresscritter because he's an utter dumbshit and needs to be replaced.

That got me thinking - we should take a vote to see who has the craziest, stupidest, most useful Congressional Delegation failing to represent them in DC.

 

MY NOMINATION, for my own useless, stupid, batshit crazy piece-of shit scum-sucking Tea-bagger...

  • After his first year in office, made Rolling Stones "50 Dumbest Things Right-Wing Said in 2013" list, with such august luminaries as Sarah Palin, Louis Gohmert, Steve King and Joe Barton
  • Earned Business Insider's "Stupidest Comment on the Debt Ceiling" notation, wherein he proves he really shouldn't be allowed near economic policy
  • Once stated the ACA was a "racist tax" because it included a tax on tanning beds, which was discriminatory against people with pale skin
  • Supported legislation to start a special birther investigation, and look into Obama's "real" mother.
  • Civilians should be able to own the same weapons as the military because it's our birthright.
  • Made sure to put his white mug on all his campaign literature, lest people mistake him for being Japanese

I GIVE YOU:

Ted Yoho ( R)

And don't worry, he's not Japanese:

YohoIntro-600x400.jpg

 

Really, this guy should have stuck to ramming his arm shoulder deep in cow vaginas instead of running for office.

 

Come on - SOMEONE has to have a dumber and more useless rep than me! Bring in your nominations, maybe we can set up a poll to have a dumb-off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barnaby joyce. Not my rep but he is deputy prime  minister. During our same sex marraige campaign,  he argued vehemently  for marriage being between one man and one woman. While putting forward his argument,  he was putting his dick in his assistant,  much to his wife and 4 daughters surprise.

Assistant  is now pregnant.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

Barnaby joyce. Not my rep but he is deputy prime  minister. During our same sex marraige campaign,  he argued vehemently  for marriage being between one man and one woman. While putting forward his argument,  he was putting his dick in his assistant,  much to his wife and 4 daughters surprise.

Assistant  is now pregnant.......

When is he due?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

When is he due?

I think he only has a few days left. Seems he has been lying about  his military  service  too...

 

 

Ps, i did see what you did there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For our gerrymandered district We have Lamar Smith.

The fact you have never heard of him pretty much makes the case for what a useless rep he is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gouvernail said:

For our gerrymandered district We have Lamar Smith.

The fact you have never heard of him pretty much makes the case for what a useless rep he is. 

Oh no, I've heard of him. I know exactly who this dumbfuck is. Unless we get someone here that lives in Louis Gohmert or Joe Barton's district I think you are now the odds on favorite to win.

”The greatest threat to America is not necessarily a recession or even another terrorist attack. The greatest threat to America is a liberal media bias.” ~ Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)

He's the science denying, ignoramus that is in charge of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

He's living proof (along with GW Bush) that you don't actually need to be intelligent to graduate from Yale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Civilians should be able to own the same weapons as the military because it's our birthright.

He's right about that. Though some say it doesn't just protect those who were born here.

That's an old article and this talking point has been obsoleted.

Quote

Gun technology has advanced significantly since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can prevent civilians from carrying "dangerous and unusual weapons," Think Progress reports.

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the second is like our other amendments and covers new technology that comes along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ease the sheet said:

Barnaby joyce. Not my rep but he is deputy prime  minister. During our same sex marraige campaign,  he argued vehemently  for marriage being between one man and one woman. While putting forward his argument,  he was putting his dick in his assistant,  much to his wife and 4 daughters surprise.

Assistant  is now pregnant.......

Australia, unlike the UK and the USA has a long tradition of NOT mixing a persons personal life and family with their politics.

I'd like to keep it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

He's right about that. Though some say it doesn't just protect those who were born here.

That's an old article and this talking point has been obsoleted.

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the second is like our other amendments and covers new technology that comes along.

You know how I feel about tactical nukes for home defense. But it's my birthright, dammit!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Australia, unlike the UK and the USA has a long tradition of NOT mixing a persons personal life and family with their politics.

I'd like to keep it that way.

You all don't call out people that want to push their values on others then don't actually live by the values they expect everyone to honor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ease the sheet said:

Barnaby joyce. Not my rep but he is deputy prime  minister. During our same sex marraige campaign,  he argued vehemently  for marriage being between one man and one woman. While putting forward his argument,  he was putting his dick in his assistant,  much to his wife and 4 daughters surprise.

Assistant  is now pregnant.......

it could have been worse......the assistant's name could have been Steve ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our local Provincial member was so dumb that when my son watched him picking up a MOB he was backing down his big twin engine MoBo to get to the man in the water.

I mean - that's where the boarding platform is - right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Australia, unlike the UK and the USA has a long tradition of NOT mixing a persons personal life and family with their politics.

I'd like to keep it that way.

Bj has it. The affair  is irrelevant. His hypocrisy is the issue. Personally,  I  hope is very happy with his new family. I also hope his cuckcolded wife leaves him destitute,  his party sacks him, he gets thrown out of Parliament  for improperly  getting his parliamentary  mate to hire his mistress and he gets syphilis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

Bj has it. The affair  is irrelevant. His hypocrisy is the issue. Personally,  I  hope is very happy with his new family. I also hope his cuckcolded wife leaves him destitute,  his party sacks him, he gets thrown out of Parliament  for improperly  getting his parliamentary  mate to hire his mistress and he gets syphilis.

+1 :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

You all don't call out people that want to push their values on others then don't actually live by the values they expect everyone to honor?

Yeah, its difficult to draw a line.

I just wouldn't like to see our polies generally descend into the muck raking yours do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Yeah, its difficult to draw a line.

I just wouldn't like to see our polies generally descend into the muck raking yours do

My hearts in peril, cheryl!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Innocent Bystander said:

Your Rep?

You could always move you PO Box to another tax haven state.  You would fit well in South Dakota or Wyoming.  

Land of Dick Cheney?

I'd go over out there like a fart in church.

I do miss my RI congressional delegation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My rep isn't dumb but he counts on his constituents to be - Pete Olsen proudly sponsored legislation to improve air quality. How? By decreasing and elimination the regulations that improved air quality. AFAIK I am the only one who asked if all his constituents were that stupid.  So far? Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Land of Dick Cheney?

I'd go over out there like a fart in church.

I do miss my RI congressional delegation. 

You could claim Texas. 

The RI delegation has been pretty impressive. Small state and lack of big commercial donors probably makes the Senators more approachable for a start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CA delegation takes it sliding away on a trail of slime, propelled by a miasma of corruption and decay. Note that they've redistricted as the state shrinks, so the incumbents map to different numbers over time. 

Senate: Feinstein & Harris (and Babs Boxer for the longer term dumbest pol in the capitol) 

Representatives: Pelosi, Waters, Schiff, Nunes, Lofgren (my personal one) , McCarthy, Eshoo, Honda et al 

The Governor and Ass Governor Jerry and Gavin

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got ya all beat.  Mine got put on the damn supreme court...  :unsure:

 

Associate_Justice_Neil_Gorsuch_Official_

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

You know how I feel about tactical nukes for home defense. But it's my birthright, dammit!

Actually I don't know. I'd expect the same as I do, that they're actually dangerous and unusual (unlike stun guns and squirrel assault weapons.) Well, I'm not at all sure you agree with the last two parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope my neighbor doesn’t have tactical nukes for home defense....But as his purpose is second amendment rights to protect the neighborhood with a well regulated militia, it’s obvious he needs unregulated nuclear devices ASAP to counter the North Korean threat.     We must also deregulate missils, or the unshielded device has limited utility except as a food warmer at the yearly block party.

6579B8D8-1AA8-41C4-9040-1F2C75C65AC7.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Innocent Bystander said:

You could claim Texas. 

The RI delegation has been pretty impressive. Small state and lack of big commercial donors probably makes the Senators more approachable for a start. 

I think my odds of picking up worse reps than Rubio and Yoho are pretty high in Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

You all don't call out people that want to push their values on others then don't actually live by the values they expect everyone to honor?

Yeah, we do. However, the Canberra press gallery tend to be too chicken-shit to do so when the focus of such stories is one of the "big guns" and have their precious "access" revoked. Aussie voters (as distinct from the Aussie press), however, are perfectly happy to slam people not only for not living the values they preach... but also for not living the values the voters agree with in general. Gillard copped disgusting vitriol from right-wingers who didn't like that she was an unmarried atheist. She never preached religion or getting married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yeah, we do. However, the Canberra press gallery tend to be too chicken-shit to do so when the focus of such stories is one of the "big guns" and have their precious "access" revoked. Aussie voters (as distinct from the Aussie press), however, are perfectly happy to slam people not only for not living the values they preach... but also for not living the values the voters agree with in general. Gillard copped disgusting vitriol from right-wingers who didn't like that she was an unmarried atheist. She never preached religion or getting married.

Yet bishop and cash are equally  barren...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

Its true.

 

Kinda like malcolm was for a republic....

She could simply be "anti marriage"

I was pissed off at having to either discriminate or support their right to do something that is an outdated institution..some people think that Marriage should ONLY be a religious practice and the whole legal contract thing sent the way of baptisms, christenings and barmitzfa's  and circumcision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

I think my odds of picking up worse reps than Rubio and Yoho are pretty high in Texas.

Understatement of the week at least.  Ted Cruz for starters - you know the guy when asked why people take an instant dislike to him are answered

because it saves time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

She could simply be "anti marriage"

I was pissed off at having to either discriminate or support their right to do something that is an outdated institution..some people think that Marriage should ONLY be a religious practice and the whole legal contract thing sent the way of baptisms, christenings and barmitzfa's  and circumcision. 

Consider  me 'some people '.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

she was against SS marriage though..

True, but from a political standpoint, not a "family values" one. The faction that helped her replace Rudd was solidly from the right-wing contingent of the Labor Party. Had she came out in favour of same-sex marriage, she'd have been turfed faster than Abbott retracts a promise written and signed for in his own blood. :lol: 

 

26 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Prolly her principles are stronger than mine :)

I doubt it. She back-flipped on quite a few things to get & keep her position as PM. As did Turnbull. Price of being the figurehead in charge is to lose those principles that got you there in the first place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

She could simply be "anti marriage"

I was pissed off at having to either discriminate or support their right to do something that is an outdated institution..some people think that Marriage should ONLY be a religious practice and the whole legal contract thing sent the way of baptisms, christenings and barmitzfa's  and circumcision. 

I don't see the issue at all. No-one is forcing them the join the "outdated institution" - simply allow them to participate if they want to. I am one of those people that would be happy to see the government get out of the marriage business... but until they do, I'll stand proudly with those arguing they cannot discriminate about who can partake in the legal benefits of such an arrangement without good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I don't see the issue at all. No-one is forcing them the join the "outdated institution" - simply allow them to participate if they want to. I am one of those people that would be happy to see the government get out of the marriage business... but until they do, I'll stand proudly with those arguing they cannot discriminate about who can partake in the legal benefits of such an arrangement without good reason.

The point is, there shouldn't BE any legal benefits. The whole SS marriage thing was kind of a straw man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

She could simply be "anti marriage"

I was pissed off at having to either discriminate or support their right to do something that is an outdated institution..some people think that Marriage should ONLY be a religious practice and the whole legal contract thing sent the way of baptisms, christenings and barmitzfa's  and circumcision. 

Yeah, me. Civil partnerships with the legal stuff WRT shared assets, mutual support etc, sure. Same sex, hetero sex, no sex, I don't care.

'Marriage' belongs to the religions, they can set any rules they like as far as I'm concerned.

Please, don't start on the legal benefits. The whole reason de-facto relationships started getting treated the same as formal marriages was to get the legal benefits, including the asset splitting after a relationship breakdown. And here's a news flash - it wasn't the *males* pushing this agenda......

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

True, but from a political standpoint, not a "family values" one. The faction that helped her replace Rudd was solidly from the right-wing contingent of the Labor Party. Had she came out in favour of same-sex marriage, she'd have been turfed faster than Abbott retracts a promise written and signed for in his own blood. :lol: 

 

I doubt it. She back-flipped on quite a few things to get & keep her position as PM. As did Turnbull. Price of being the figurehead in charge is to lose those principles that got you there in the first place. 

The one I never forgave her for is backing down on poker machine reform. Be interesting to see how the local election goes, with the ALP & Greens both saying they'll ban the damn things from pubs & clubs in the near future.

Cynical me waits for them to get elected and then find reasons why this simply cannot be done after all - but I live in hope.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sad realities of a nearly hung parliament and the NSW strongmen...maybe if we has a plebicite :D

I'd like to see the dam things go as well..I assume that the revenue they raise would have to result in raised taxes stamp duties etc if they were banned..

Makes me laugh when people say the poor don't contribute their fare share of taxes..Pokies, smokes and booze the solace of the masses.

 

but we digress :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

The point is, there shouldn't BE any legal benefits. The whole SS marriage thing was kind of a straw man.

Not even close, Meli. The issue was never about whether or not we should have legal benefits to marriage. There has never been, and I posit never will be, a push to abolish the legal benefits of marriage. There simply aren't enough people in Australia that think marriage should be abolished as a legally protected institution. 

On the other hand, there was a very active & vocal push (from both sides) on the matter of whether same-sex couples should be granted the same legal benefits as hetero couples. The argument was very much about "the whole SS marriage" thing and it was a very small and, I would posit, a vanishingly insignificant minority of people that considered this an opportunity to abolish the legal benefits of marriage for all people.

Frankly put, the strawman was being played by the the "marriage should be abolished altogether" crowd. They may have a solid argument for their case, but it was not the debate being held by the country no matter how much they wanted it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

The one I never forgave her for is backing down on poker machine reform. Be interesting to see how the local election goes, with the ALP & Greens both saying they'll ban the damn things from pubs & clubs in the near future.

Cynical me waits for them to get elected and then find reasons why this simply cannot be done after all - but I live in hope.

The Greens won't back down - there is no downside to them on the matter. On the other hand, Labor has a strong donor base amongst the clubs and they will face very strong pressure to do exactly what their federal counterparts did - which was to cowardly back down under the threat of not only losing them as donors, but having their money go to the Liberals & Nationals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

The Greens won't back down - there is no downside to them on the matter. On the other hand, Labor has a strong donor base amongst the clubs and they will face very strong pressure to do exactly what their federal counterparts did - which was to cowardly back down under the threat of not only losing them as donors, but having their money go to the Liberals & Nationals.

Agree there's no downside for the Greens. As for the ALP, we'll see. Tasmania has such a weird voting system and such a small lower house that it's difficult to guess what will happen. You get 5 representatives per electorate and it makes for interesting times (and lots of choices as to who is worst).

I do know quite a few people who say they're voting against the Libs on this issue alone. My local pub survives quite well without poker machines so I have a pretty hard time believing the 'we'll all be doomed' predictions. Nor do I care seeing as I have never put a single dollar into a gaming machine in my life and I never will.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Not even close, Meli. The issue was never about whether or not we should have legal benefits to marriage. There has never been, and I posit never will be, a push to abolish the legal benefits of marriage. There simply aren't enough people in Australia that think marriage should be abolished as a legally protected institution. 

On the other hand, there was a very active & vocal push (from both sides) on the matter of whether same-sex couples should be granted the same legal benefits as hetero couples. The argument was very much about "the whole SS marriage" thing and it was a very small and, I would posit, a vanishingly insignificant minority of people that considered this an opportunity to abolish the legal benefits of marriage for all people.

Frankly put, the strawman was being played by the the "marriage should be abolished altogether" crowd. They may have a solid argument for their case, but it was not the debate being held by the country no matter how much they wanted it to be.

sorry, I should have said it was a straw man for me. of course I voted yes..but was mildly annoyed at having to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Understatement of the week at least.  Ted Cruz for starters - you know the guy when asked why people take an instant dislike to him are answered

because it saves time.

Ted Cruz is a real POS, to be sure. But I think he realizes that he's a completely detestable twat and doesn't try to be anything but repellent. Which is good, because it's hard to change your nature that much.

L'il Marco is a two faced, spineless little sneak that tries to be likeable. His twitter feed these days is mostly bible verses, and crocodile tears over things like today's school shootings. He's got almost 4 million rea$on$ from the NRA that he'll never take any meaningful action action to prevent school shootings. I really don't want to hear about his thoughts and prayers on the topic.

He likes to pretend that he's standing up to the big boys, then he does whatever McConnell tells him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lark said:

I hope my neighbor doesn’t have tactical nukes for home defense....But as his purpose is second amendment rights to protect the neighborhood with a well regulated militia, it’s obvious he needs unregulated nuclear devices ASAP to counter the North Korean threat.     We must also deregulate missils, or the unshielded device has limited utility except as a food warmer at the yearly block party.

6579B8D8-1AA8-41C4-9040-1F2C75C65AC7.png

So you have thoughts on whether nukes are covered by the second.

How about something more realistic?

Are you ready yet to answer my question about whether a magazine size limit lower than Puerto Rico's five round limit would be constitutional in your view?

I know you think the 5 round limit is constitutional, unlike regulations on nukes. OK, how about a 4 round limit? 3? Is any number greater than one too small?

Or would you prefer to just talk about nukes, on which we all agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

L'il Marco is a two faced, spineless little sneak that tries to be likeable. His twitter feed these days is mostly bible verses, and crocodile tears over things like today's school shootings. He's got almost 4 million rea$on$ from the NRA that he'll never take any meaningful action action to prevent school shootings. I really don't want to hear about his thoughts and prayers on the topic.

I'd like to hear your thoughts, if any, on the FL legislators who want to DO SOMETHING.

Do you think that making sure my grandson can't inherit my old .22 will reduce school shootings? How? And by how many per year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'd like to hear your thoughts, if any, on the FL legislators who want to DO SOMETHING.

Do you think that making sure my grandson can't inherit my old .22 will reduce school shootings? How? And by how many per year?

I'd happily turn in my great-grandfather's .22 that I inherited if it meant school-aged kids could go to school without fear of being gunned down.

Of course, I don't fetishize guns the way you do.

BTW, it's laughable that you - the guy that drags out eight year old posts to quibble over them anytime someone is stupid enough not to ignore you - fails to remember when you and I discussed tactical nuclear weapons for home defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So you have thoughts on whether nukes are covered by the second.

How about something more realistic?

I find the tactical nuke argument perfectly realistic as a counter to the idea technological improvements are encompassed by the Second Amendment and/or that it is intended as a means for the people to counter the government military if needed. I understand why you'd prefer that people didn't highlight those problems to your position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So you have thoughts on whether nukes are covered by the second.

How about something more realistic?

Are you ready yet to answer my question about whether a magazine size limit lower than Puerto Rico's five round limit would be constitutional in your view?

I know you think the 5 round limit is constitutional, unlike regulations on nukes. OK, how about a 4 round limit? 3? Is any number greater than one too small?

Or would you prefer to just talk about nukes, on which we all agree?

I’ve reversed my prior 5-10 round magazine size in light of yesterday’s tragedy, and in respect of tomorrow’s.   Gun owners are allowed the following choices.   I’ll allow an additional round for every year they avoid a mass murder, subtract one every time they fail.   The gun lobby will solve the problem very quickly.   

E8CABC00-C2C5-44DC-9614-841FE3C8D030.jpegEdit,   Gun owners will have to collectively earn the right to use the revolver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this