Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Rep. "Shoulder thing that goes up" may be redistricted out of Congress by her own party   (nydailynews.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Carolyn McCarthy, Long Island Rail Road, Gary Ackerman  
•       •       •

6626 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Feb 2012 at 1:26 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-02-09 09:43:01 AM  
Good.
 
2012-02-09 09:49:00 AM  
Just as well. The NY House delegation as a rule are mediocrities when they're not being straight-up corrupt.

As the pic in TFA shows, McCarthy is a single-issue congresswoman, the one the statists haul out for emotional appeals on gun control.
 
2012-02-09 10:00:36 AM  
Is she going to activate her self destruct?

You know, that thing on the arm, goes kinda like this?
 
2012-02-09 11:38:13 AM  
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
redistricting is so insane.

why do we vote in districts to start with?
sure, it made sense in the dark ages, but now??

while we are at it, why havent we increased the number of representatives to keep in line with the growth in population?
the constitution has a lower limit, we should use twice that as the upper limit.

Were the amendment ratified while the 2010 United States Census population figure of 308,745,538 was current, the 1:50,000 Representative to constituent ratio maximum would allow up to 6175 Representatives. This is more than 14 times the number of 435 set in Public Law 62-5, which as of the 2010 Census translated on average to each Representative in Congress representing 709,760 persons [2]. However, Public Law 62-5 is not any different in wording or scope than the previous reapportionment acts of 1881, 1891, and 1901. It was anticipated that the House would continue to grow every 10 years following each census; that there would be a new "reapportionment act" after each census as there had always been.

this would be so awesome ....
poor little tards would have much less power each and we would have a true peoples house instead of the crap we have now.
they would also have to vote from home, which save a shiat ton of money.
 
2012-02-09 12:23:33 PM  

namatad: words


i249.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-09 12:23:52 PM  
Colin Ferguson's client is overjoyed by this news.
 
2012-02-09 01:36:58 PM  
I did not get the headline

I had to youtube "shoulder thing that goes up" to get it.
 
2012-02-09 01:41:06 PM  

namatad: up to 6175 Representatives


Actually... That would make third parties much easier to get a foot hold. And thus at the same time degrade the power of both the Republican and Democratic party.

LET'S DO IT!
 
2012-02-09 01:43:13 PM  

namatad: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
redistricting is so insane.

why do we vote in districts to start with?
sure, it made sense in the dark ages, but now??

while we are at it, why havent we increased the number of representatives to keep in line with the growth in population?
the constitution has a lower limit, we should use twice that as the upper limit.

Were the amendment ratified while the 2010 United States Census population figure of 308,745,538 was current, the 1:50,000 Representative to constituent ratio maximum would allow up to 6175 Representatives. This is more than 14 times the number of 435 set in Public Law 62-5, which as of the 2010 Census translated on average to each Representative in Congress representing 709,760 persons [2]. However, Public Law 62-5 is not any different in wording or scope than the previous reapportionment acts of 1881, 1891, and 1901. It was anticipated that the House would continue to grow every 10 years following each census; that there would be a new "reapportionment act" after each census as there had always been.

this would be so awesome ....
poor little tards would have much less power each and we would have a true peoples house instead of the crap we have now.
they would also have to vote from home, which save a shiat ton of money.


Of course, then we'd have to pay 6175 Representative salaries, plus all their Chiefs of Staff, Deputy Chiefs of Staff, Legislative Assistants, Legislative Directors, and all the rest of it. There are already over 23,000 staffers and support personnel for the 535 Congressmen and Senators. Each congressman is authorized, by law, up to 18 full time and 4 part time staffers. And you know none of these bastards would vote to have all that support staff cut. Congress would wind up costing more than the Marine Corps. And the Marine Corps at least occasionally does valuable things.
 
2012-02-09 01:48:17 PM  

hurdboy: Colin Ferguson's client is overjoyed by this news.


images2.fanpop.com

She even got up to make him a sandwich!
 
2012-02-09 01:49:29 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: I did not get the headline

I had to youtube "shoulder thing that goes up" to get it.


May you be disemboweled by a pack of rabid beavers.
 
2012-02-09 01:49:47 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: I did not get the headline

I had to youtube "shoulder thing that goes up" to get it.


Remy and Jake are on their way over to your place to repo something important.
 
2012-02-09 01:52:23 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: I did not get the headline

I had to youtube "shoulder thing that goes up" to get it.


That was hilarious. Still can't believe she never let that thing down from her shoulder.
 
2012-02-09 01:52:28 PM  

devildog123: namatad: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
redistricting is so insane.

why do we vote in districts to start with?
sure, it made sense in the dark ages, but now??

while we are at it, why havent we increased the number of representatives to keep in line with the growth in population?
the constitution has a lower limit, we should use twice that as the upper limit.

Were the amendment ratified while the 2010 United States Census population figure of 308,745,538 was current, the 1:50,000 Representative to constituent ratio maximum would allow up to 6175 Representatives. This is more than 14 times the number of 435 set in Public Law 62-5, which as of the 2010 Census translated on average to each Representative in Congress representing 709,760 persons [2]. However, Public Law 62-5 is not any different in wording or scope than the previous reapportionment acts of 1881, 1891, and 1901. It was anticipated that the House would continue to grow every 10 years following each census; that there would be a new "reapportionment act" after each census as there had always been.

this would be so awesome ....
poor little tards would have much less power each and we would have a true peoples house instead of the crap we have now.
they would also have to vote from home, which save a shiat ton of money.

Of course, then we'd have to pay 6175 Representative salaries, plus all their Chiefs of Staff, Deputy Chiefs of Staff, Legislative Assistants, Legislative Directors, and all the rest of it. There are already over 23,000 staffers and support personnel for the 535 Congressmen and Senators. Each congressman is authorized, by law, up to 18 full time and 4 part time staffers. And you know none of these bastards would vote to have all that support staff cut. Congress would wind up costing more than the Marine Corps. And the Marine Corps at least occasionally does valuable things.


We would also need to build a new capitol building. While the Verizon Center would be available when the Wizards aren't playing I don't think that could be a viable long term solution.
 
2012-02-09 01:54:27 PM  

ThatGuyGreg: namatad: words

[i249.photobucket.com image 300x562]


That's right. You recognize a good idea when you see one and know to STFU.

It's already a constitutional amendment just waiting to be ratified. It was the first article in the original Bill of Rights. Ratify that motherfarker and lets have a real House of Representatives.


devildog123: Of course, then we'd have to pay 6175 Representative salaries, plus all their Chiefs of Staff, Deputy Chiefs of Staff, Legislative Assistants, Legislative Directors, and all the rest of it. There are already over 23,000 staffers and support personnel for the 535 Congressmen and Senators. Each congressman is authorized, by law, up to 18 full time and 4 part time staffers. And you know none of these bastards would vote to have all that support staff cut. Congress would wind up costing more than the Marine Corps. And the Marine Corps at least occasionally does valuable things.



When you've got 6000 Representatives most of them can do a lot of their own damned work. They wouldn't need huge salaries or huge staffs. They certainly wouldn't be getting the current criminal pension program.
 
2012-02-09 01:57:36 PM  

max_pooper: We would also need to build a new capitol building.


Not really. Just change the rules as to how where people vote and how many lying, thieving farkwads need to be in the same room during voting. We have the technology.
 
2012-02-09 01:58:32 PM  

BigBooper: May you be disemboweled by a pack of rabid beavers.


Well, you asked for it. Remember the other day when you told me to say the opposite of these words?

Always
coming
from
receive
me
down


/Neither do I.
 
2012-02-09 02:02:04 PM  
Serves the democratic party hacks in Queens right.
Fark 'em. They blew it, now they get filleted.
 
2012-02-09 02:06:56 PM  

namatad: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
redistricting is so insane.

why do we vote in districts to start with?
sure, it made sense in the dark ages, but now??

while we are at it, why havent we increased the number of representatives to keep in line with the growth in population?
the constitution has a lower limit, we should use twice that as the upper limit.

Were the amendment ratified while the 2010 United States Census population figure of 308,745,538 was current, the 1:50,000 Representative to constituent ratio maximum would allow up to 6175 Representatives. This is more than 14 times the number of 435 set in Public Law 62-5, which as of the 2010 Census translated on average to each Representative in Congress representing 709,760 persons [2]. However, Public Law 62-5 is not any different in wording or scope than the previous reapportionment acts of 1881, 1891, and 1901. It was anticipated that the House would continue to grow every 10 years following each census; that there would be a new "reapportionment act" after each census as there had always been.

this would be so awesome ....
poor little tards would have much less power each and we would have a true peoples house instead of the crap we have now.
they would also have to vote from home, which save a shiat ton of money.


You want more Congresscritters?

Go be Canadian somewhere else.
 
2012-02-09 02:07:28 PM  

max_pooper: We would also need to build a new capitol building. While the Verizon Center would be available when the Wizards aren't playing I don't think that could be a viable long term solution.


3.bp.blogspot.com

Meesa think this good fix!
 
2012-02-09 02:12:54 PM  
...and nothing of value was lost.
 
2012-02-09 02:14:45 PM  
It's why RON PAUL is retiring.
 
2012-02-09 02:26:17 PM  

max_pooper: Of course, then we'd have to pay 6175 Representative salaries, plus all their Chiefs of Staff, Deputy Chiefs of Staff, Legislative Assistants, Legislative Directors, and all the rest of it. There are already over 23,000 staffers and support personnel for the 535 Congressmen and Senators. Each congressman is authorized, by law, up to 18 full time and 4 part time staffers. And you know none of these bastards would vote to have all that support staff cut. Congress would wind up costing more than the Marine Corps. And the Marine Corps at least occasionally does valuable things.

We would also need to build a new capitol building. While the Verizon Center would be available when the Wizards aren't playing I don't think that could be a viable long term solution.


nope
they meet virtually, they should never be allowed to leave their district except for vacation
they already have a campaign staff, they should have to pay their own staff. period.
they cant do their job without a staff? not my problem.
1 clerk each. TADA
 
2012-02-09 02:27:07 PM  
and yes, you are right, they WOULD NEVER vote to cut their own power.
we the people need to get contol over these assholes
 
2012-02-09 03:06:33 PM  
FTA: 'too many mouths to feed and not enough population'

Yeah, that sounds about right for congress. If we could just get all of our schools in the top ten percent of our schools...
 
2012-02-09 03:31:09 PM  

namatad: max_pooper: Of course, then we'd have to pay 6175 Representative salaries, plus all their Chiefs of Staff, Deputy Chiefs of Staff, Legislative Assistants, Legislative Directors, and all the rest of it. There are already over 23,000 staffers and support personnel for the 535 Congressmen and Senators. Each congressman is authorized, by law, up to 18 full time and 4 part time staffers. And you know none of these bastards would vote to have all that support staff cut. Congress would wind up costing more than the Marine Corps. And the Marine Corps at least occasionally does valuable things.

We would also need to build a new capitol building. While the Verizon Center would be available when the Wizards aren't playing I don't think that could be a viable long term solution.

nope
they meet virtually, they should never be allowed to leave their district except for vacation
they already have a campaign staff, they should have to pay their own staff. period.
they cant do their job without a staff? not my problem.
1 clerk each. TADA


Um, so you want people to vote on legislation that they don't actually understand or haven't had explained to them, at least to some degree. What you're talking about would result in a Congress even more inept and uninformed than they already are. Just when I thought you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this...

//AND TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF
 
2012-02-09 03:31:16 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

I am disappointed in the absence, thus far, of this image.
 
2012-02-09 03:37:56 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: I did not get the headline

I had to youtube "shoulder thing that goes up" to get it.


dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ dQw4w9WgXcQ.

REMEMBER



i used to
 
2012-02-09 03:39:50 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: I did not get the headline

I had to youtube "shoulder thing that goes up" to get it.


That didn't help. Anyone going to bother explaining this headline?
 
2012-02-09 03:43:28 PM  

sabreWulf07: Guidette Frankentits: I did not get the headline

I had to youtube "shoulder thing that goes up" to get it.

That didn't help. Anyone going to bother explaining this headline?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_McCarthy#Gun_Control
 
2012-02-09 03:44:05 PM  

sabreWulf07: Guidette Frankentits: I did not get the headline

I had to youtube "shoulder thing that goes up" to get it.

That didn't help. Anyone going to bother explaining this headline?


The headline references Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), who is an idiot.
 
2012-02-09 03:48:07 PM  
YouTube link for the lazy (not a Rick roll)
 
2012-02-09 04:24:09 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Um, so you want people to vote on legislation that they don't actually understand or haven't had explained to them, at least to some degree. What you're talking about would result in a Congress even more inept and uninformed than they already are. Just when I thought you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this...

//AND TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF


wait wait wait wait
they are already voting on things that they know nothing about.
FFS, people vote for president based on things like foreign policy of the candidate, when the voters already have no clue.
so yah, at least if I got to vote for a rep, there could be some hope that they had some clue.

or is it time for a different people's house??
when the only people allowed to vote on an issue were people who actually could demonstrate knowledge of that ??
 
2012-02-09 04:43:18 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Um, so you want people to vote on legislation that they don't actually understand or haven't had explained to them, at least to some degree. What you're talking about would result in a Congress even more inept and uninformed than they already are. Just when I thought you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this...


so yah
this part of our democracy is terrifying

congressman dont know jack shiat about pretty much everything.
how can a congressman ever vote on patent law, esp patent law concerning things like websites and "buy it now buttons"
I guess we shouldnt be surprised that congressmen let lobbyist write the legislation.

Things are only going to get more complex and the people who are voting on the issues will have no clue except that a lobbyist told them to vote for it. I guess that is how we got into the problems we are in now.
 
2012-02-09 04:47:57 PM  

namatad: they are already voting on things that they know nothing about.


Their staffers do. At least they know a little. Members of Congress can't be experts on everything from the judiciary to energy policy to technology to foreign policy to healthcare. There have to be people who focus on individual subjects. Think about the internet. How far are you on reading the whole thing? I haven't even gotten through Asian massage porn yet, and I need to start understanding German scheise videos. It's a big world, my friend, and having people to help you understand it is key.

//And then there's 2 Girls 1 Cup, which will take me at least a year to understand, much less form a position on.
 
2012-02-09 04:49:06 PM  

devildog123:
Of course, then we'd have to pay 6175 Representative salaries, plus all their Chiefs of Staff, Deputy Chiefs of Staff, Legislative Assistants, Legislative Directors, and all the rest of it.


Why do you pay their hangers-on? They should get a wage and a basic office and personal travel to-from their home.
 
2012-02-09 05:30:25 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: I did not get the headline

I had to youtube "shoulder thing that goes up" to get it.


Bummer. I was hoping she had some type of growth on her shoulder that swelled up when she got mad. Maybe an eye and vestigial mouth on it.

Oh well.
 
2012-02-09 05:32:46 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: namatad: they are already voting on things that they know nothing about.

Their staffers do. At least they know a little. Members of Congress can't be experts on everything from the judiciary to energy policy to technology to foreign policy to healthcare. There have to be people who focus on individual subjects. Think about the internet. How far are you on reading the whole thing? I haven't even gotten through Asian massage porn yet, and I need to start understanding German scheise videos. It's a big world, my friend, and having people to help you understand it is key.

//And then there's 2 Girls 1 Cup, which will take me at least a year to understand, much less form a position on.


sure
but that being said, even with their current staffers, they have NO clue what they are voting on.
someone in the party leadership says vote this way ... and they do
unless it is a big bill which they actually know something about or their voters have phoned in on ... and still then, I bet they vote the way the money flows ....

this is how we run our government?
guess we are lucky that it works as well as it does.
 
2012-02-09 07:21:48 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: I did not get the headline

I had to youtube "shoulder thing that goes up" to get it.


goddammitsomuch
 
2012-02-09 11:50:17 PM  

Gulper Eel: Just as well. The NY House delegation as a rule are mediocrities when they're not being straight-up corrupt.

As the pic in TFA shows, McCarthy is a single-issue congresswoman, the one the statists haul out for emotional appeals on gun control.


This is true. But precisely because it is true so often it should be noted that Congresswoman McCarthy has never been creditably been accused of any form of corruption.
 
2012-02-10 08:18:06 AM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: namatad: they are already voting on things that they know nothing about.

Their staffers do. At least they know a little. Members of Congress can't be experts on everything from the judiciary to energy policy to technology to foreign policy to healthcare. There have to be people who focus on individual subjects. Think about the internet. How far are you on reading the whole thing? I haven't even gotten through Asian massage porn yet, and I need to start understanding German scheise videos. It's a big world, my friend, and having people to help you understand it is key.

//And then there's 2 Girls 1 Cup, which will take me at least a year to understand, much less form a position on.


So what you're implying is that not only did a representative believe that Guam the island was vulnerable to capsizing, but that his aides also thought Guam was vulnerable to capsizing.
 
2012-02-10 08:56:14 AM  
Sorry to the pundit, but the Supreme Court did say that districts need to make SOME sense geographically. And when you're sandwiched in by NYC, you can't just cut the districts through Second Street and reach all the way to Albany from Long Island. That's some Fox News levels of trying in vain to illicit drama from the "outrage".

That geography and demographics....such troublesome things, if only we didn't have either and every district was a Blue district as god intended.
 
2012-02-10 11:15:16 AM  
Her being forced out is like Cynthia McKinney leaving. Rather sad.

Someone who is so wildly popular with the DNC base yet so nuts the only way to get rid of them is to force them out. They were so insane that there was no out of context soundbites needed or reinterpretation of what was said to show how nuts they were.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report