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.

(The Atlantic Wire)   In a rare moment of bi-partisan consensus, almost all Senators on both sides of the aisle in the US Senate have come to the same conclusion: freshman Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a huge dick   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 270
    More: Amusing, senator, freshman, alternate ending  
•       •       •

8569 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2013 at 1:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



270 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-20 10:30:04 AM
Does he look kinda like Chris-chan to anyone else or is it just me?
 
2013-03-20 10:34:54 AM
So you are saying that he represents his constituents well?
 
2013-03-20 10:38:33 AM
The guy does look very punchable.
 
2013-03-20 10:52:39 AM
I heard some NPR reporter refer to Ted Cruz as a 'rising star' in the Senate.. funny, I thought he was a punchline already.
 
2013-03-20 10:57:07 AM

Alphax: I heard some NPR reporter refer to Ted Cruz as a 'rising star' in the Senate.. funny, I thought he was a punchline already.


He's a rocket ship on his way to Mars
On a collision course
He is a satellite he's out of control
He is a sex machine ready to reload
Like an atom bomb about to
Oh oh oh oh oh explode
 
2013-03-20 11:01:16 AM

Alphax: I heard some NPR reporter refer to Ted Cruz as a 'rising star' in the Senate.. funny, I thought he was a punchline already.


He was a punchline before he even got elected.  But since he's a Republican from Texas, his victory was pretty much guaranteed once he got through the primary.  Each of those two sure love their stupid, much less combined.
 
2013-03-20 11:15:04 AM
I don't give a shiat. Being 'nice' hasn't made the Senate any less broken.
 
2013-03-20 11:19:33 AM
"Jim Demint without the charm."

According to Robert's Rules of Order, that constitutes a burn.

Do I have a second?
 
2013-03-20 11:21:25 AM

Mentat: "Jim Demint without the charm."

According to Robert's Rules of Order, that constitutes a burn.

Do I have a second?


That's the baffling part.  I wasn't aware Demint had any measurable charm.  He's just Demint without the senority.
 
2013-03-20 11:21:34 AM

Snarfangel: On a collision course
He is a satellite he's out of control
He is a sex machine ready to reload
Like an atom bomb about to
Oh oh oh oh oh explode


Is that why they call him Mr. Fahrenheit?
 
2013-03-20 11:28:00 AM

Mentat: "Jim Demint without the charm."

According to Robert's Rules of Order, that constitutes a burn.

Do I have a second?


I believe there is a motion to re-commit on the table vis-a-vis whether an "Oh SNAP" would be an appropriate determination at this point
 
2013-03-20 11:29:33 AM
"Jim DeMint without the charm."

Yeah, that is diplomatic speak for "complete asshole"
 
2013-03-20 11:34:14 AM
When asked for comment his brother Pablo replied:
"Whatcha gonna do when she says goodbye
Whatcha gonna do when she is gone"
 
2013-03-20 11:39:13 AM

GAT_00: Alphax: I heard some NPR reporter refer to Ted Cruz as a 'rising star' in the Senate.. funny, I thought he was a punchline already.

He was a punchline before he even got elected.  But since he's a Republican from Texas, his victory was pretty much guaranteed once he got through the primary.  Each of those two sure love their stupid, much less combined.


It's a little more complicated than that. Dewhurst SHOULD have easily taken the GOP primary. What happened was that the Texas redistricting lawsuit pushed the primary back a few months. This gave Cruz the opportunity to shore up tea party support and smash Dewhurst in the primary. After that, he faced off against a Democrat so boring most people couldn't remember his name.

Basically, the Texas GOP's clumsy attempt at gerrymandering gave the senate seat to Ted "Crazy Motherf*cker" Cruz.
 
2013-03-20 11:40:27 AM

Shostie: GAT_00: Alphax: I heard some NPR reporter refer to Ted Cruz as a 'rising star' in the Senate.. funny, I thought he was a punchline already.

He was a punchline before he even got elected.  But since he's a Republican from Texas, his victory was pretty much guaranteed once he got through the primary.  Each of those two sure love their stupid, much less combined.

It's a little more complicated than that. Dewhurst SHOULD have easily taken the GOP primary. What happened was that the Texas redistricting lawsuit pushed the primary back a few months. This gave Cruz the opportunity to shore up tea party support and smash Dewhurst in the primary. After that, he faced off against a Democrat so boring most people couldn't remember his name.

Basically, the Texas GOP's clumsy attempt at gerrymandering gave the senate seat to Ted "Crazy Motherf*cker" Cruz.


Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.  He was the big money party.
 
2013-03-20 11:41:30 AM
A teabagger Senator is a dick?  No way!
 
2013-03-20 11:42:33 AM

GAT_00: Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.


Against Dewhurst he was. Once again, if it weren't for the gerrymandering, Cruz would have been knocked out in the primary.
 
2013-03-20 11:48:54 AM
One Senator decides to take on the establishment and suddenly all you libby libs are for protecting the good ole boys club... As a master of rebuttal, Senator Cruz has much more in common with Mr. Smith then any of you pinkos will ever know.
 
2013-03-20 11:50:37 AM

Shostie: GAT_00: Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.

Against Dewhurst he was. Once again, if it weren't for the gerrymandering, Cruz would have been knocked out in the primary.


How do you gerrymander a state?
 
2013-03-20 11:53:09 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: GAT_00: Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.

Against Dewhurst he was. Once again, if it weren't for the gerrymandering, Cruz would have been knocked out in the primary.

How do you gerrymander a state?


Huh?
 
2013-03-20 11:54:15 AM

Elzar: One Senator decides to take on the establishment and suddenly all you libby libs are for protecting the good ole boys club... As a master of rebuttal, Senator Cruz has much more in common with Mr. Smith then any of you pinkos will ever know.


LOLWUT?
 
2013-03-20 11:54:32 AM
An anonymous Senate Republican said, "It's becoming a trend when you're a new arrival,... They don't get to know the Senate or the other senators; they just start talking. And that takes away from [Cruz's] ability to be an influential legislator."

He doesn't care about being an influential legislator. He wants attention. He wants headlines. He wants the people back home to go, "Yea! That Cruz is a straight shooter! Give em hell, Cruz!" He's clown shoes.

He defied Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin, who told Cruz not to play audio of a call-in show during Hagel's hearing.

Pure clown shoes.
 
2013-03-20 11:58:52 AM
Most of the Republicans later changed their minds, stating that Ted Cruz is a great guy, and that they mistakenly had droolingly agreed with what they had misheard as "Ted Cruz HAS a huge dick."
 
2013-03-20 12:00:47 PM
Not my senator, not my problem.
 
2013-03-20 12:01:57 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: GAT_00: Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.

Against Dewhurst he was. Once again, if it weren't for the gerrymandering, Cruz would have been knocked out in the primary.

How do you gerrymander a state?


Texas' gerrymandering got properly challenged in court and that put the primary on hold.
 
2013-03-20 12:05:07 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: GAT_00: Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.

Against Dewhurst he was. Once again, if it weren't for the gerrymandering, Cruz would have been knocked out in the primary.

How do you gerrymander a state?


Have you seen how weirdly Texas is shaped?

www.enchantedlearning.com

Conclusion: Deliberately gerrymandered!
 
2013-03-20 12:09:23 PM
GAT_00:That's the baffling part.  I wasn't aware Demint had any measurable charm.  He's just Demint without the senority.

I'm pretty sure that's why it's funny. Saying he has less charm than someone generally regarded as completely charmless is like saying, "Slightly less svelte than Dom DeLuise."
 
2013-03-20 12:09:48 PM
Chris Hayes said that Ted Cruz was one of the best speakers he has ever seen before the Supreme Court. So, while the man may be a blithering idiot and a raving jerk, I wouldn't underestimate his potential appeal with his constituents.
 
2013-03-20 12:11:21 PM

Shostie: Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: GAT_00: Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.

Against Dewhurst he was. Once again, if it weren't for the gerrymandering, Cruz would have been knocked out in the primary.

How do you gerrymander a state?

Huh?


I guess I'm missing something...Cruz is a Senator, which is a statewide position, so I don't get how gerrymandering applies.
 
2013-03-20 12:13:37 PM
We need more people making waves in that stuffy institution. Ted Cruz is not one of those people.
 
2013-03-20 12:14:44 PM

Elzar: One Senator decides to take on the establishment and suddenly all you libby libs are for protecting the good ole boys club... As a master of rebuttal, Senator Cruz has much more in common with Mr. Smith then any of you pinkos will ever know.


8/10. the spelling error was a nice touch.
 
2013-03-20 12:16:08 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: GAT_00: Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.

Against Dewhurst he was. Once again, if it weren't for the gerrymandering, Cruz would have been knocked out in the primary.

How do you gerrymander a state?

Huh?

I guess I'm missing something...Cruz is a Senator, which is a statewide position, so I don't get how gerrymandering applies.


Oh, I get it. Earlier in the thread he said "What happened was that the Texas redistricting lawsuit pushed the primary back a few months. This gave Cruz the opportunity to shore up tea party support and smash Dewhurst in the primary. After that, he faced off against a Democrat so boring most people couldn't remember his name."

So it makes sense, but was oddly stated.
 
2013-03-20 12:17:23 PM

Car_Ramrod: Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: GAT_00: Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.

Against Dewhurst he was. Once again, if it weren't for the gerrymandering, Cruz would have been knocked out in the primary.

How do you gerrymander a state?

Huh?

I guess I'm missing something...Cruz is a Senator, which is a statewide position, so I don't get how gerrymandering applies.

Oh, I get it. Earlier in the thread he said "What happened was that the Texas redistricting lawsuit pushed the primary back a few months. This gave Cruz the opportunity to shore up tea party support and smash Dewhurst in the primary. After that, he faced off against a Democrat so boring most people couldn't remember his name."

So it makes sense, but was oddly stated.


Ah...so I suck at reading threads...my bad.
 
2013-03-20 12:24:35 PM
MaxxLarge:
I'm pretty sure that's why it's funny. Saying he has less charm than someone generally regarded as completely charmless is like saying, "Slightly less svelte than Dom DeLuise."

www.virtualplacebo.com

Looks pretty svelte to me.
 
2013-03-20 12:32:12 PM

Elzar: One Senator decides to take on the establishment and


people are shocked the establishment doesn't like him?
 
2013-03-20 12:35:48 PM

SlothB77: Elzar: One Senator decides to take on the establishment and

people are shocked the establishment doesn't like him?


In what way has he actually gone after the "establishment?"
 
2013-03-20 12:36:37 PM

SlothB77: Elzar: One Senator decides to take on the establishment and

people are shocked the establishment doesn't like him?


I'm glad he's a dick.  Makes him less likely to accomplish anything.

But the teabaggers will eat it up and vote for him.......................forever.
 
2013-03-20 12:36:59 PM

basemetal: Not my senator, not my problem.


Given that a single senator can currently put an anonymous hold on any piece of legislation or the confirmation of any cabinet appointee, he IS your problem, and the country's
 
2013-03-20 12:41:07 PM

SlothB77: Elzar: One Senator decides to take on the establishment and

people are shocked the establishment doesn't like him?


I Like this line from the article:
 he "was more down to earth than his Hermès tie and Patek Philippe watch suggested"

 that really wouldn;t be hard no would it?  I wonder how many of his ardent Tea Party supports realize that their people's champion wears a tie that is likely more expensive than their car, and has a watch that costs more than what they make in a year
 
2013-03-20 12:51:18 PM
ct.fra.bz
 
2013-03-20 01:00:08 PM

Magorn: Mentat: "Jim Demint without the charm."

According to Robert's Rules of Order, that constitutes a burn.

Do I have a second?

I believe there is a motion to re-commit on the table vis-a-vis whether an "Oh SNAP" would be an appropriate determination at this point


I filibuster. Because Fartbama.
 
2013-03-20 01:01:28 PM

basemetal: Not my senator, not my problem.


Sure it's not like senators from other states can obstruct important federal legislation that affects you. Right, genius?
 
2013-03-20 01:08:38 PM
He's Ron Johnson without the Ron Johnson Ron Johnson.
 
2013-03-20 01:10:56 PM

Magorn: basemetal: Not my senator, not my problem.

Given that a single senator can currently put an anonymous hold on any piece of legislation or the confirmation of any cabinet appointee, he IS your problem, and the country's


I can't vote for or against him, that makes him his constituents problem.  The rules of the senate have been that way since before I was born, so no, he's not my problem.
 
2013-03-20 01:13:02 PM

basemetal: The rules of the senate have been that way since before I was born, so no, he's not my problem.


Unless you're an infant, not so much.
 
m00
2013-03-20 01:19:31 PM
"Behind closed doors, some Republican senators report that Cruz, in his stone-cold serious prosecutorial style, speaks at length when it's far more common for freshmen to wait before asserting themselves - particularly ones who were just sworn in,"

I honestly don't know enough about Cruz to like or dislike his policies, but I have to say this is a point in his favor. You're elected to represent your state and contribute to the common good of the United States... you're not elected to keep your mouth shut until you have seniority.

This sounds like a rule by the establishment, for the establishment.
 
2013-03-20 01:20:32 PM
IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.
 
2013-03-20 01:21:07 PM
Graham told Politico, "[T]he one thing I will say to any new senator - you're going to be respected if you can throw a punch but you also have to prove you can do a deal." An anonymous Senate Republican said, "It's becoming a trend when you're a new arrival,... They don't get to know the Senate or the other senators; they just start talking. And that takes away from [Cruz's] ability to be an influential legislator."

I'd agree with this. It doesn't matter how much you ramrodded your way in... once you're there, you have coworkers to deal with. Because the rest of Congress are your coworkers now. When you're the FNG and you immediately start acting like you own the place, your coworkers will quickly act to make your life as miserable as possible. Just like any other workplace.
 
2013-03-20 01:26:54 PM
When you've been in the Senate for less than two months and you are being compared to Joe McCarthy you might want to re-think your behavior.
 
2013-03-20 01:27:14 PM
If I had the gumption, "Jim Demint sans charm" would make a nice new FARK handle.
 
2013-03-20 01:27:20 PM

Gosling: Graham told Politico, "[T]he one thing I will say to any new senator - you're going to be respected if you can throw a punch but you also have to prove you can do a deal." An anonymous Senate Republican said, "It's becoming a trend when you're a new arrival,... They don't get to know the Senate or the other senators; they just start talking. And that takes away from [Cruz's] ability to be an influential legislator."

I'd agree with this. It doesn't matter how much you ramrodded your way in... once you're there, you have coworkers to deal with. Because the rest of Congress are your coworkers now. When you're the FNG and you immediately start acting like you own the place, your coworkers will quickly act to make your life as miserable as possible. Just like any other workplace.


My suspicion is that Ted Cruz isn't interested at all in getting any legislation passed.  He's using the Senate as his platform to herp and derp for PAC money, in case he wants to run for President.

The same scam RAND PAUL is running, in other words.
 
2013-03-20 01:27:22 PM

randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.


you didn't read the article, did you?

His own party hates him.
 
2013-03-20 01:28:37 PM

randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.


Yeah, he made Feinstein look like a fool.  That's totally what happened.  And Romney really won the election!!

I think randombj is a closet liberal.  He sounds a lot like a fervently anti-gay preacher who snorts meth off a male prostitute's ass in a seedy motel when he thinks no one is watching.
 
2013-03-20 01:28:43 PM
"Behind closed doors, some Republican senators report that Cruz, in his stone-cold serious prosecutorial style, speaks at length when it's far more common for freshmen to wait before asserting themselves - particularly ones who were just sworn in,"

Fark your fake-ass civility and your Old Boys Club rules about who can speak and when. He's supposed to wait to talk? Wait until what, exactly? The fark is he supposed to do everyday? He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.
 
2013-03-20 01:29:33 PM

randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.


If you put half as much effort that you put into being wrong into something like, say, digging a hole, you'd be five miles down by now.
 
2013-03-20 01:29:50 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: "Behind closed doors, some Republican senators report that Cruz, in his stone-cold serious prosecutorial style, speaks at length when it's far more common for freshmen to wait before asserting themselves - particularly ones who were just sworn in,"

Fark your fake-ass civility and your Old Boys Club rules about who can speak and when. He's supposed to wait to talk? Wait until what, exactly? The fark is he supposed to do everyday? He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.


you wanna seat in the game you gotta learn to play by the rules.
 
2013-03-20 01:30:19 PM

Kuroboom: Does he look kinda like Chris-chan to anyone else or is it just me?


I observe no such resemblance.
 
2013-03-20 01:30:39 PM
Well, if it weren't for these gerrymandered-to-hell congressional districts, we wouldn't have nutjob congressmen like . . .

Oh wait, he's a senator?  Yeah, fark Texas then.
 
2013-03-20 01:31:21 PM
This is why we need a 2 term limit in the Senate.
 
2013-03-20 01:32:43 PM

randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.


If liberals hated everyone who disliked Feinstein's gun fetish, there'd be no liberals in the Democratic par-

Hmm. Food for thought...
 
2013-03-20 01:32:49 PM

m00: I honestly don't know enough about Cruz to like or dislike his policies, but I have to say this is a point in his favor. You're elected to represent your state and contribute to the common good of the United States... you're not elected to keep your mouth shut until you have seniority.

This sounds like a rule by the establishment, for the establishment.


You're not ELECTED to keep your mouth shut, but Congressional protocol pretty much insists upon exactly that, whether the constituents like it or not. You're supposed to spend the first term learning the ropes and getting to know people. If you don't, if you just barge in and try to take over everything because The People Demand It, it's just going to go in one ear and out the other. The people with seniority are the ones that decide your committee assignments, and they're going to hand them out according to who they know and who they like. You're in all likelihood not going to get to chair anything for at least your first decade. The people they don't like can easily find themselves wasting away in backwater committees with next to no real influence for their entire Congressional careers no matter how many terms they win (which appears to have happened to Tom Petri, R-WI, who was my guy until redistricting, and is quickly on its way to happening to Ron Johnson.)

And Cruz appears to be on the fast track to getting frozen out as well.
 
2013-03-20 01:33:44 PM
Yup, the GOP insiders decided to repeatedly tell voters over the years not to trust government, not respect authority, etc. etc. to try to get them to vote for GOP.  Then you get the tea party and you get this guy who actually believe what the GOP was selling so they think it is their duty to 'fight for liberty' by being dicks at hearings and disrespecting people with opposing viewpoints.  Now they're shocked that they are hard to deal with?
 
2013-03-20 01:34:31 PM
www.dvdjournal.com

Welcome to the senate asshole.
 
2013-03-20 01:35:49 PM

Mentat: "Jim Demint without the charm."

According to Robert's Rules of Order, that constitutes a burn.

Do I have a second?


That's not just burn, that's "Al Simmons being set on fire by Chapel and burning in Hell" Spawn burn.
 
2013-03-20 01:37:11 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark your fake-ass civility and your Old Boys Club rules about who can speak and when. He's supposed to wait to talk? Wait until what, exactly? The fark is he supposed to do everyday? He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.


Cruz is a quintessential Tea Partier in that he assumes his interpretation of the constitution and beliefs about how government should function invalidates everybody else's.

There's nothing heroic about what Cruz does. Just like during his Chuck Hagel filibuster, I predict we're going to see a lot of Ted Cruz slowing and jamming up the works of traditionally non controversial Senate functions to put on his best Joe McCarthy impression to impress the Tea Party with baseless accusations against his political enemies.
 
2013-03-20 01:37:30 PM

jigger: This is why we need a 2 term limit in the Senate.


It takes time to learn the rules and how to properly write legislation. This is another reason seniority is valued. The new guys tend to not know WTF they're writing and need more experienced members to help them out. Removing the experience means nobody is going to know how to write a bill anymore, which means they're pretty much all going to get written by large corporations, and that's going to be the direction Congress goes in perpetuity because none of them are going to know how to write a bill that makes it stop.
 
2013-03-20 01:38:48 PM
So he's the Republican Senate version of Alan Grayson?
 
2013-03-20 01:38:54 PM
Cruz says he wasn't impugning Hagel's character.

He outright accused Hagel of being on the payroll of North Korea and terrorists.

jake_lex: My suspicion is that Ted Cruz isn't interested at all in getting any legislation passed. He's using the Senate as his platform to herp and derp for PAC money, in case he wants to run for President.

The same scam RAND PAUL is running, in other words.


Has Rand Paul ever had a law he wrote passed into law?  Said the day after Cruz was elected, I doubt he'll get anything passed in his life time.
 
2013-03-20 01:39:18 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: "Behind closed doors, some Republican senators report that Cruz, in his stone-cold serious prosecutorial style, speaks at length when it's far more common for freshmen to wait before asserting themselves - particularly ones who were just sworn in,"

Fark your fake-ass civility and your Old Boys Club rules about who can speak and when. He's supposed to wait to talk? Wait until what, exactly? The fark is he supposed to do everyday? He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.


The best way to get what your constituency wants is to be a flaming butthole to those who can help you pass legislation? Good luck with that.
 
2013-03-20 01:40:48 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.


The way he acts is counter to that goal.
 
2013-03-20 01:42:00 PM
Ted Cruz looks like he is star in a 1920s silent movie.
 
2013-03-20 01:42:07 PM
Does this have to do with him rustling old woman Feinstein's jimmies? Because if so, I support Cruz.
 
2013-03-20 01:42:31 PM

Weaver95: DROxINxTHExWIND: "Behind closed doors, some Republican senators report that Cruz, in his stone-cold serious prosecutorial style, speaks at length when it's far more common for freshmen to wait before asserting themselves - particularly ones who were just sworn in,"

Fark your fake-ass civility and your Old Boys Club rules about who can speak and when. He's supposed to wait to talk? Wait until what, exactly? The fark is he supposed to do everyday? He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.

you wanna seat in the game you gotta learn to play by the rules.


You mean the "unwritten" rule that he wasn't supposed to express his opinion? How are these rules doing at giving us a functioning Congress? Last I heard, no one is compromising with anyone else so how has this helped anything?
 
2013-03-20 01:45:22 PM

Frank N Stein: Does this have to do with him rustling old woman Feinstein's jimmies? Because if so, I support Cruz.


I suppose you think Cruz didn't look ridiculous in that exchange.
 
2013-03-20 01:45:29 PM

Fart_Machine: DROxINxTHExWIND: "Behind closed doors, some Republican senators report that Cruz, in his stone-cold serious prosecutorial style, speaks at length when it's far more common for freshmen to wait before asserting themselves - particularly ones who were just sworn in,"

Fark your fake-ass civility and your Old Boys Club rules about who can speak and when. He's supposed to wait to talk? Wait until what, exactly? The fark is he supposed to do everyday? He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.

The best way to get what your constituency wants is to be a flaming butthole to those who can help you pass legislation? Good luck with that.


I like how we're going to just accept that he's an asshole because John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and a chorus of other complete douchebags have said so. From the article, his biggest fault seems to be that he talks when thy think he should be shutting up.
 
2013-03-20 01:47:03 PM

Magorn: Mentat: "Jim Demint without the charm."

According to Robert's Rules of Order, that constitutes a burn.

Do I have a second?

I believe there is a motion to re-commit on the table vis-a-vis whether an "Oh SNAP" would be an appropriate determination at this point


Filibuster. Secret hold.
 
2013-03-20 01:47:07 PM

Fart_Machine: DROxINxTHExWIND: "Behind closed doors, some Republican senators report that Cruz, in his stone-cold serious prosecutorial style, speaks at length when it's far more common for freshmen to wait before asserting themselves - particularly ones who were just sworn in,"

Fark your fake-ass civility and your Old Boys Club rules about who can speak and when. He's supposed to wait to talk? Wait until what, exactly? The fark is he supposed to do everyday? He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.

The best way to get what your constituency wants is to be a flaming butthole to those who can help you pass legislation? Good luck with that.


I have a better idea!

Drox; if you ever get a job and get to attend a meeting, see how long you last by using this strategy of just yelling out whenever you feel like it.
 
2013-03-20 01:47:31 PM

Alphax: Frank N Stein: Does this have to do with him rustling old woman Feinstein's jimmies? Because if so, I support Cruz.

I suppose you think Cruz didn't look ridiculous in that exchange.


No, I don't think he did. Once he asked his question, all he had to do was sit back and let DiFi look like the dumb old coont she is. She seemed to oblige.
 
2013-03-20 01:48:08 PM
Big deal, like who gives a shiat about the Old Boy Network at the Senate?

As usual, any person of color that escapes the Democrat plantation gets treated like a serial killer by Democrats.
 
2013-03-20 01:49:00 PM
So assholes like mccain and graham don't like him? He just went up a notch.
 
2013-03-20 01:49:00 PM

Frank N Stein: Alphax: Frank N Stein: Does this have to do with him rustling old woman Feinstein's jimmies? Because if so, I support Cruz.

I suppose you think Cruz didn't look ridiculous in that exchange.

No, I don't think he did. Once he asked his question, all he had to do was sit back and let DiFi look like the dumb old coont she is. She seemed to oblige.


Right.  I thought you were that foolish.
 
2013-03-20 01:49:04 PM
No, I don't think he did. Once he asked his question, all he had to do was sit back and let DiFi look like the dumb old coont she is. She seemed to oblige.

She always does.
 
2013-03-20 01:49:26 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: You mean the "unwritten" rule that he wasn't supposed to express his opinion? How are these rules doing at giving us a functioning Congress? Last I heard, no one is compromising with anyone else so how has this helped anything?


It may be an unwritten rule, but the guys in the seats that matter most abide by it and can easily relegate anyone who violates it to the Subcommttee on Bowel Odor Comparisons.
 
2013-03-20 01:51:39 PM

Alphax: foolish


I bet you say things like "m'lady" and wear a fedora too.
 
m00
2013-03-20 01:52:07 PM

Gosling: You're not ELECTED to keep your mouth shut, but Congressional protocol pretty much insists upon exactly that, whether the constituents like it or not. You're supposed to spend the first term learning the ropes and getting to know people. If you don't, if you just barge in and try to take over everything because The People Demand It, it's just going to go in one ear and out the other. The people with seniority are the ones that decide your committee assignments, and they're going to hand them out according to who they know and who they like. You're in all likelihood not going to get to chair anything for at least your first decade. The people they don't like can easily find themselves wasting away in backwater committees with next to no real influence for their entire Congressional careers no matter how many terms they win (which appears to have happened to Tom Petri, R-WI, who was my guy until redistricting, and is quickly on its way to happening to Ron Johnson.)

And Cruz appears to be on the fast track to getting frozen out as well.


Yeah, Gosling I would agree with you  if Congress was effective or had high approval ratings. But you have to understand people are electing loud-mouth agitators because they want Congress to be shaken up. That's all. And I can't say I disagree with that sentiment. I am sick of "business as usual." Ted Cruz may be a jerk, but I don't think he's a "business as usual" slimebag. But again, I haven't really researched him so maybe I'm wrong.
 
2013-03-20 01:52:20 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: I like how we're going to just accept that he's an asshole because John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and a chorus of other complete douchebags have said so. From the article, his biggest fault seems to be that he talks when thy think he should be shutting up.


Well, no, his biggest fault is that he's a Republican.

For all his other faults, see the little performance pieces he likes to put on in committee hearings.
 
2013-03-20 01:52:29 PM

Frank N Stein: Alphax: foolish

I bet you say things like "m'lady" and wear a fedora too.


Half right.. I own no hats.
 
2013-03-20 01:54:08 PM

Gosling: DROxINxTHExWIND: You mean the "unwritten" rule that he wasn't supposed to express his opinion? How are these rules doing at giving us a functioning Congress? Last I heard, no one is compromising with anyone else so how has this helped anything?

It may be an unwritten rule, but the guys in the seats that matter most abide by it and can easily relegate anyone who violates it to the Subcommttee on Bowel Odor Comparisons.


This. No matter what side you are on there is a pecking order in Congress, especially the Senate. Piss off enough people and you'll be relegated to the committee who's meetings even cspan-3 doesn't cover.
 
2013-03-20 01:54:28 PM

Gosling: jigger: This is why we need a 2 term limit in the Senate.

It takes time to learn the rules and how to properly write legislation. This is another reason seniority is valued. The new guys tend to not know WTF they're writing and need more experienced members to help them out. Removing the experience means nobody is going to know how to write a bill anymore, which means they're pretty much all going to get written by large corporations, and that's going to be the direction Congress goes in perpetuity because none of them are going to know how to write a bill that makes it stop.


Wait, you think that corporations aren't writing the bills right now? I mean, who the hell wrote the Obamacare bill?

And why do you think that freshmen senators wouldn't know what they're doing? Maybe a few, but most of them are lawyers of some sort. Anyway, I'm sticking by my 2 term limit. I'd compromise on 3 terms.
 
2013-03-20 01:54:58 PM
Hmm... Cruz sounds foreign. I live in his district and I have yet to see his long form.
 
2013-03-20 01:55:25 PM
Apparently it's a massive act, he's doing WWE style heel/face politics because that's what his idiot base is in to.

Everything I've read from people in his past is summed up by "I don't WTF he's doing, he's never been like that."
 
2013-03-20 01:55:27 PM

DamnYankees: I don't give a shiat. Being 'nice' hasn't made the Senate any less broken.


I would argue that the growing preponderance of assholes in the Senate has contributed to it being broken. All of the criticisms of ye olde Senate being a club of old men of both parties drinking and smoking in back rooms were entirely justified, but the benefit of that system was that it smoothed relations between Senators so that their public actions were less contentious. You can argue whether or not that was worth it. Older Senators generally built careers as politicians on their ability to be personable and get a deal done. Now new Senators just ride the money train of some outside group (especially conservative Republicans), and have no interest in working with others, because they're the enemy.

When personal connections break down in a structured environment filled with people with competing goals what you get is perpetual war, which is what we've seen recently.
 
2013-03-20 01:56:06 PM

m00: Yeah, Gosling I would agree with you if Congress was effective or had high approval ratings. But you have to understand people are electing loud-mouth agitators because they want Congress to be shaken up. That's all. And I can't say I disagree with that sentiment. I am sick of "business as usual." Ted Cruz may be a jerk, but I don't think he's a "business as usual" slimebag. But again, I haven't really researched him so maybe I'm wrong.


In moderation, nothing wrong with that. But too many people sent shaker-uppers. If 535 people are all there to shake things up, you no longer have a deliberative body. You have an episode of Real Housewives of Capitol Hill.
 
2013-03-20 01:57:37 PM
A Tea Bagger doesn't understand how government/society/common decency works......shocking.
 
2013-03-20 01:58:05 PM

randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.


When you want to know what a liberal thinks, always ask a conservative dickbag. They know more about me than I do!

/betcha 100 bucks that I can out-shoot you at the range with either hand.
 
2013-03-20 01:58:40 PM
So the Senate is like Fark? New people should lurk for a year or two and then slowly start making themselves known?  So basically Cruz is a threadshiatter/troll.
 
2013-03-20 01:58:58 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Fart_Machine: DROxINxTHExWIND: "Behind closed doors, some Republican senators report that Cruz, in his stone-cold serious prosecutorial style, speaks at length when it's far more common for freshmen to wait before asserting themselves - particularly ones who were just sworn in,"

Fark your fake-ass civility and your Old Boys Club rules about who can speak and when. He's supposed to wait to talk? Wait until what, exactly? The fark is he supposed to do everyday? He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.

The best way to get what your constituency wants is to be a flaming butthole to those who can help you pass legislation? Good luck with that.

I have a better idea!

Drox; if you ever get a job and get to attend a meeting, see how long you last by using this strategy of just yelling out whenever you feel like it.



*Sigh*

Such intelletually dishonest debate. Speaking out of turn is not neccessarily having an outburst. No where in the article does it say anything about him yelling. Hopefully, I'll be able to take your job when your boss finds out that you can't read.
 
2013-03-20 01:59:08 PM

m00: Yeah, Gosling I would agree with you if Congress was effective or had high approval ratings. But you have to understand people are electing loud-mouth agitators because they want Congress to be shaken up. That's all. And I can't say I disagree with that sentiment. I am sick of "business as usual." Ted Cruz may be a jerk, but I don't think he's a "business as usual" slimebag. But again, I haven't really researched him so maybe I'm wrong.


Oh jesus christ.  Spare me this mindless drivel about "business as usual" and "shaking things up."  People who vote out of such sentiments have no idea what they're talking about and are just resorting to subversive-sounding catch phrases to make it sound like they've got some substantive beef with the way Congress works.

The last time people voted on a "shaking things up" platform, you know what we got?  The Teabagger House.  And not a damn bit of business, usual or otherwise, has been gotten done since.
 
2013-03-20 01:59:26 PM

barneyfifesbullet: Big deal, like who gives a shiat about the Old Boy Network at the Senate?

As usual, any person of color that escapes the Democrat plantation gets treated like a serial killer by Democrats.


You do know that "Hispanic" is an ethnicity and not a race, right?

Look at the census:

www.pewhispanic.org
 
2013-03-20 02:01:14 PM
Cruz 2016vox populi
 
2013-03-20 02:02:13 PM
 

DROxINxTHExWIND: You mean the "unwritten" rule that he wasn't supposed to express his opinion? How are these rules doing at giving us a functioning Congress? Last I heard, no one is compromising with anyone else so how has this helped anything?


so wait, your answer to "people are polarized in the senate and its hindering their ability to compromise" is "so they should be even less civil and more of a pack of a$$holes" to each other and surely that will mean compromise"? what planet do you live on?
 
2013-03-20 02:02:44 PM
So Cruz can't run for president, right? I mean he had an American mother and a foreign father and he wasn't born on American soil, so he's not eligible, right birthers?
 
2013-03-20 02:03:37 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Fart_Machine: DROxINxTHExWIND: "Behind closed doors, some Republican senators report that Cruz, in his stone-cold serious prosecutorial style, speaks at length when it's far more common for freshmen to wait before asserting themselves - particularly ones who were just sworn in,"

Fark your fake-ass civility and your Old Boys Club rules about who can speak and when. He's supposed to wait to talk? Wait until what, exactly? The fark is he supposed to do everyday? He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.

The best way to get what your constituency wants is to be a flaming butthole to those who can help you pass legislation? Good luck with that.

I like how we're going to just accept that he's an asshole because John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and a chorus of other complete douchebags have said so. From the article, his biggest fault seems to be that he talks when thy think he should be shutting up.


When you've become a big enough douchebag to rival notorious hotheads like McCain it's time to turn it down a bit.
 
2013-03-20 02:04:00 PM
It's true that some people from Canada are dicks, but until Sen. Ted blew into town, this guy was the most famous:

p.twimg.com
 
2013-03-20 02:04:30 PM
When Lindsey Graham think your an a-hole it may be time to reevaluate your approach.
 
2013-03-20 02:04:38 PM
"Jim DeMint without the charm." Or. as Oscar Wilde put it, a peacock in everything but beauty.
 
m00
2013-03-20 02:05:35 PM

cram_hole: So Cruz can't run for president, right? I mean he had an American mother and a foreign father and he wasn't born on American soil, so he's not eligible, right birthers?


Not a birther, but (from wikipedia)

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of  "naturalization" to become a US citizen.

So, yes. If his mother is American he is entitled to US citizenship at birth.
 
2013-03-20 02:06:35 PM

Alphax: Frank N Stein: Does this have to do with him rustling old woman Feinstein's jimmies? Because if so, I support Cruz.

I suppose you think Cruz didn't look ridiculous in that exchange.


No that was one of the few times he didn't regardless of what kinda of crud Maddow tried to spin it as.  Feinstein was the one being a complete brat and throwing a temper tantrum on stage, she actually apologized for it.
 
2013-03-20 02:06:57 PM

JerseyTim: Chris Hayes


Who the fark is Chris Hayes?
 
2013-03-20 02:08:07 PM

ShadowKamui: Alphax: Frank N Stein: Does this have to do with him rustling old woman Feinstein's jimmies? Because if so, I support Cruz.

I suppose you think Cruz didn't look ridiculous in that exchange.

No that was one of the few times he didn't regardless of what kinda of crud Maddow tried to spin it as.  Feinstein was the one being a complete brat and throwing a temper tantrum on stage, she actually apologized for it.


Uh huh...
 
2013-03-20 02:11:26 PM
Well, you are what you eat.
 
2013-03-20 02:12:09 PM

Alphax: ShadowKamui: Alphax: Frank N Stein: Does this have to do with him rustling old woman Feinstein's jimmies? Because if so, I support Cruz.

I suppose you think Cruz didn't look ridiculous in that exchange.

No that was one of the few times he didn't regardless of what kinda of crud Maddow tried to spin it as.  Feinstein was the one being a complete brat and throwing a temper tantrum on stage, she actually apologized for it.

Uh huh...


So do you have anything other to add than "uh huh" and "foolish"?
 
2013-03-20 02:14:31 PM

Frank N Stein: Alphax: ShadowKamui: Alphax: Frank N Stein: Does this have to do with him rustling old woman Feinstein's jimmies? Because if so, I support Cruz.

I suppose you think Cruz didn't look ridiculous in that exchange.

No that was one of the few times he didn't regardless of what kinda of crud Maddow tried to spin it as.  Feinstein was the one being a complete brat and throwing a temper tantrum on stage, she actually apologized for it.

Uh huh...

So do you have anything other to add than "uh huh" and "foolish"?


What, like the questions he asked with false premises that a grade school student could poke holes in?  Or his patronizing manor?
 
2013-03-20 02:14:40 PM
This guy knows a thing or two about the effectiveness and influence that comes with being a freshman blowhard...

www.searchindia.com
 
2013-03-20 02:14:46 PM

Frank N Stein: Alphax: ShadowKamui: Alphax: Frank N Stein: Does this have to do with him rustling old woman Feinstein's jimmies? Because if so, I support Cruz.

I suppose you think Cruz didn't look ridiculous in that exchange.

No that was one of the few times he didn't regardless of what kinda of crud Maddow tried to spin it as.  Feinstein was the one being a complete brat and throwing a temper tantrum on stage, she actually apologized for it.

Uh huh...

So do you have anything other to add than "uh huh" and "foolish"?


Well, Cruz was the one who wasn't aware that the first amendment isn't absolutely unrestricted, so I think "uh huh" and "foolish" was all that needed to be said.
 
2013-03-20 02:16:27 PM

jigger: And why do you think that freshmen senators wouldn't know what they're doing? Maybe a few, but most of them are lawyers of some sort.


Because I'm watching the recent arrivals in there now. The bulk of the Tea Party is made up of recent arrivals.

Here is a seniority ranking of the 112th Congress, the one that left on January 3rd. (Nobody on Wikipedia's done the 113th yet.) Look at all the people who arrived on January 3, 2007- after the 2006 elections- or later.

Look at the chair assignments. Kevin McCarthy (entered January 3, 2007) was Republican Majority Whip. Other than that, nobody elected after 2003 had any chairmanship or ranking membership (chair of the minority party, basically) on any committee. You had to have been around at least eight years to have even the hope of running anything. That's natural. The plum seats generally go to people towards the tippy-top of the seniority scale. Again, that's natural. Boehner ranked 55th. Pelosi ranked 39th.
 
2013-03-20 02:16:34 PM

The Name: m00: Yeah, Gosling I would agree with you if Congress was effective or had high approval ratings. But you have to understand people are electing loud-mouth agitators because they want Congress to be shaken up. That's all. And I can't say I disagree with that sentiment. I am sick of "business as usual." Ted Cruz may be a jerk, but I don't think he's a "business as usual" slimebag. But again, I haven't really researched him so maybe I'm wrong.

Oh jesus christ.  Spare me this mindless drivel about "business as usual" and "shaking things up."  People who vote out of such sentiments have no idea what they're talking about and are just resorting to subversive-sounding catch phrases to make it sound like they've got some substantive beef with the way Congress works.

The last time people voted on a "shaking things up" platform, you know what we got?  The Teabagger House.  And not a damn bit of business, usual or otherwise, has been gotten done since.


Really? I thought the Teabaggers have been pretty successful in pushing their agenda down America's throat. You're saying that the Tea Party hasn't had any effect...in the middle of the sequester? Spare me with the, "this is just how things are" bull. You all like to frame arguments as if there is no middle ground. No one is suggesting that every new Congressman should rush into the committee meetings, cutting people off when they talk and pounding on tables. But, if I win an election, I'm an elected official just like them. The fact that some other guy is in his 50th year in Congress shouldn't have shiat to do with my ability to communicate my vision to the rest of my colleagues.
 
2013-03-20 02:17:31 PM

The Name: Well, Cruz was the one who wasn't aware that the first amendment isn't absolutely unrestricted, so I think "uh huh" and "foolish" was all that needed to be said.


He never said it was.
 
2013-03-20 02:18:44 PM
The more tea party folks that are elected to the Senate, legislation will bog down even more.  And, given it's lightning fast rate of movement at this point, this will be troubling.  Being a senator gives the power of fillibustering to folks who actively don't want government to work at all - but want to contribute to the government not working.  If an intelligent man wants to be a difficult man, it's actually pretty easy; all you have to do is not believe in anything and not care what anyone thinks about you, and be paid to do it in a job from which you can't be fired.

He's got 6 years to irritate everyone in front of him.

Harry Reid was definitely a fool to not press for a more robust retooling of the Senate fillibuster.
 
2013-03-20 02:18:46 PM

randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.


Correction: Nothing angers a liberal more than having to reiterate a truth to some idiot blabbering on with some inane falsehood.

Issues where the idiot (i.e., GOP) are wrong on:
* Evolution
* "Legitimate rape"
* The cost and constitutionality of Obamacare
* Tricke-down economics
* Defense spending
* Climate change
* Oil subsidies
* Social Security
* Education reform
* H1-B visa reform
* Immigration reform
* Abortion and family planning
* Voter Rights
* Civil Rights
* Stem Cell research
* Most NSF-granted research
* Science in general
* Technology in general
* Economic systems in general
* Medicine and health in general
* Gun control

Each and every one of these issues -- and more, the GOP have been on the wrong side and continue to make statements and stake positions that are patently wrong, unworkable, defeating, hypocritical, self-inconsistent, unfeasible, deliberately so in some cases; and continue to keep pushing those stupid points. That's what liberals are angered at.
 
2013-03-20 02:18:49 PM

Alphax: Frank N Stein: Alphax: ShadowKamui: Alphax: Frank N Stein: Does this have to do with him rustling old woman Feinstein's jimmies? Because if so, I support Cruz.

I suppose you think Cruz didn't look ridiculous in that exchange.

No that was one of the few times he didn't regardless of what kinda of crud Maddow tried to spin it as.  Feinstein was the one being a complete brat and throwing a temper tantrum on stage, she actually apologized for it.

Uh huh...

So do you have anything other to add than "uh huh" and "foolish"?

What, like the questions he asked with false premises that a grade school student could poke holes in?  Or his patronizing manor?


What was the false premises?
 
2013-03-20 02:20:05 PM

GoldSpider: This guy knows a thing or two about the effectiveness and influence that comes with being a freshman blowhard...

[www.searchindia.com image 318x245]


Actually he got kudos for doing that and was summarily targeted specifically during redistricting to try and get him out by the Florida GOP. He's back though and is on the Foreign Affairs and Science committee
 
2013-03-20 02:20:15 PM
" Marcus says Cruz's relationship with fellow Texas Sen. John Cornyn is "frosty."   frothy"

 FTFM

 Carry on
 
2013-03-20 02:22:04 PM

GoldSpider: So he's the Republican Senate version of Alan Grayson?


Apparently, the right is incapable of making apt analogies.
 
2013-03-20 02:22:06 PM

m00: cram_hole: So Cruz can't run for president, right? I mean he had an American mother and a foreign father and he wasn't born on American soil, so he's not eligible, right birthers?

Not a birther, but (from wikipedia)

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of  "naturalization" to become a US citizen.

So, yes. If his mother is American he is entitled to US citizenship at birth.


But rule this only applies to Republicans
 
2013-03-20 02:22:07 PM

tlchwi02:  DROxINxTHExWIND: You mean the "unwritten" rule that he wasn't supposed to express his opinion? How are these rules doing at giving us a functioning Congress? Last I heard, no one is compromising with anyone else so how has this helped anything?

so wait, your answer to "people are polarized in the senate and its hindering their ability to compromise" is "so they should be even less civil and more of a pack of a$$holes" to each other and surely that will mean compromise"? what planet do you live on?



Smh. I'm challenging the notion that SPEAKING is "acting like an asshole". There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone. There's no mention of him cursing or shouting people down.

YOU ARE BASING YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT HES AN ASSHOLE ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO YOU BY A BUNCH OF OTHER ASSHOLES.

These are the same people who say Barack farking Obama doesn't care about four dead Americans in Benghazi to win a political point. McCain is the same guy who tried to hold up a nomination to Obama;s cabinet because of a personal beef from 13 years ago. Why the fark are their words being taken as the gospel on ANYTHING?
 
2013-03-20 02:22:13 PM

m00: cram_hole: So Cruz can't run for president, right? I mean he had an American mother and a foreign father and he wasn't born on American soil, so he's not eligible, right birthers?

Not a birther, but (from wikipedia)

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of  "naturalization" to become a US citizen.

So, yes. If his mother is American he is entitled to US citizenship at birth.


When is all that talk about birth going to be changed to conception?
 
2013-03-20 02:22:54 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Really? I thought the Teabaggers have been pretty successful in pushing their agenda down America's throat. You're saying that the Tea Party hasn't had any effect...in the middle of the sequester?


You're not helping your "it's a good idea to elect blowhards" argument.

DROxINxTHExWIND: The fact that some other guy is in his 50th year in Congress shouldn't have shiat to do with my ability to communicate my vision to the rest of my colleagues.


You can send an email.  But when you're dealing directly with your colleagues in formal settings like committee meetings, you sit the fark down and STFU, because your vision is much more likely than theirs to be complete and utter bull, because you don't know shiat about how the institution you just how the institution you just joined works.
 
2013-03-20 02:25:41 PM

Frank N Stein: The Name: Well, Cruz was the one who wasn't aware that the first amendment isn't absolutely unrestricted, so I think "uh huh" and "foolish" was all that needed to be said.

He never said it was.


Yes, he pretty much did.

The Name: You can send an email. But when you're dealing directly with your colleagues in formal settings like committee meetings, you sit the fark down and STFU, because your vision is much more likely than theirs to be complete and utter bull, because you don't know shiat about how the institution you just how the institution you just joined works.


FTFM
 
2013-03-20 02:25:44 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Weaver95: DROxINxTHExWIND: "Behind closed doors, some Republican senators report that Cruz, in his stone-cold serious prosecutorial style, speaks at length when it's far more common for freshmen to wait before asserting themselves - particularly ones who were just sworn in,"

Fark your fake-ass civility and your Old Boys Club rules about who can speak and when. He's supposed to wait to talk? Wait until what, exactly? The fark is he supposed to do everyday? He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.

you wanna seat in the game you gotta learn to play by the rules.

You mean the "unwritten" rule that he wasn't supposed to express his opinion? How are these rules doing at giving us a functioning Congress? Last I heard, no one is compromising with anyone else so how has this helped anything?


Let's look at another freshman senator from the other side of the aisle, Elizabeth Warren. She's also making a lot of waves and being quite prominent and not willing to shut up. The difference? It's the content of what she is saying. She has the gravitas and knowledge and experience to talk down a Tim Geithner and a Jamie Dimon. She doesn't make false accusations of people. When she asks fed regulators how many people went to jail, she knows what the answer is and what the answer should be. She's not doing a Ted Cruz, "Hagel is not a patriot" hurr-durr-durr.

No one says that you can't make a big show in the Senate as a freshman senator. But, damn, you better be exactly spot on with what you're saying and not make a mockery of yourself, your party or the chamber.
 
m00
2013-03-20 02:26:47 PM

The Name: m00: Yeah, Gosling I would agree with you if Congress was effective or had high approval ratings. But you have to understand people are electing loud-mouth agitators because they want Congress to be shaken up. That's all. And I can't say I disagree with that sentiment. I am sick of "business as usual." Ted Cruz may be a jerk, but I don't think he's a "business as usual" slimebag. But again, I haven't really researched him so maybe I'm wrong.

Oh jesus christ.  Spare me this mindless drivel about "business as usual" and "shaking things up."  People who vote out of such sentiments have no idea what they're talking about and are just resorting to subversive-sounding catch phrases to make it sound like they've got some substantive beef with the way Congress works.

The last time people voted on a "shaking things up" platform, you know what we got?  The Teabagger House.  And not a damn bit of business, usual or otherwise, has been gotten done since.


I have a substantive beef with the way congress currently (doesn't) work. Don't you?
 
2013-03-20 02:26:49 PM

m00: cram_hole: So Cruz can't run for president, right? I mean he had an American mother and a foreign father and he wasn't born on American soil, so he's not eligible, right birthers?

Not a birther, but (from wikipedia)

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of  "naturalization" to become a US citizen.

So, yes. If his mother is American he is entitled to US citizenship at birth.


I'm well aware of that, I'm just saying if it works for Cruz, why doesn't it work with Obama? IOKIYAR?
 
2013-03-20 02:28:19 PM

m00: I have a substantive beef with the way congress currently (doesn't) work. Don't you?


Really?  What is the substance of this beef?
 
2013-03-20 02:28:30 PM

m00: cram_hole: So Cruz can't run for president, right? I mean he had an American mother and a foreign father and he wasn't born on American soil, so he's not eligible, right birthers?

Not a birther, but (from wikipedia)

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of  "naturalization" to become a US citizen.

So, yes. If his mother is American he is entitled to US citizenship at birth.


wHERE bIRTH cERTIFICT cRUZ wHAR
 
2013-03-20 02:29:02 PM

Frank N Stein: Alphax: Frank N Stein: Alphax: ShadowKamui: Alphax: Frank N Stein: Does this have to do with him rustling old woman Feinstein's jimmies? Because if so, I support Cruz.

I suppose you think Cruz didn't look ridiculous in that exchange.

No that was one of the few times he didn't regardless of what kinda of crud Maddow tried to spin it as.  Feinstein was the one being a complete brat and throwing a temper tantrum on stage, she actually apologized for it.

Uh huh...

So do you have anything other to add than "uh huh" and "foolish"?

What, like the questions he asked with false premises that a grade school student could poke holes in?  Or his patronizing manor?

What was the false premises?


The one were you can't accept any limit at all on the 2nd amendment, just like you don't on the other amendments.. FALSE.

Child porn is an obvious exception to the 1st amendment.  The 4th amendment isn't particularly sturdy these days, either.
 
2013-03-20 02:31:41 PM

dericwater: DROxINxTHExWIND: Weaver95: DROxINxTHExWIND: "Behind closed doors, some Republican senators report that Cruz, in his stone-cold serious prosecutorial style, speaks at length when it's far more common for freshmen to wait before asserting themselves - particularly ones who were just sworn in,"

Fark your fake-ass civility and your Old Boys Club rules about who can speak and when. He's supposed to wait to talk? Wait until what, exactly? The fark is he supposed to do everyday? He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.

you wanna seat in the game you gotta learn to play by the rules.

You mean the "unwritten" rule that he wasn't supposed to express his opinion? How are these rules doing at giving us a functioning Congress? Last I heard, no one is compromising with anyone else so how has this helped anything?

Let's look at another freshman senator from the other side of the aisle, Elizabeth Warren. She's also making a lot of waves and being quite prominent and not willing to shut up. The difference? It's the content of what she is saying. She has the gravitas and knowledge and experience to talk down a Tim Geithner and a Jamie Dimon. She doesn't make false accusations of people. When she asks fed regulators how many people went to jail, she knows what the answer is and what the answer should be. She's not doing a Ted Cruz, "Hagel is not a patriot" hurr-durr-durr.

No one says that you can't make a big show in the Senate as a freshman senator. But, damn, you better be exactly spot on with what you're saying and not make a mockery of yourself, your party or the chamber.


Well said. Sorry, drox, but Cruuuuz is a farking dickhead.
 
2013-03-20 02:32:42 PM

Alphax: The one were you can't accept any limit at all on the 2nd amendment, just like you don't on the other amendments.. FALSE.


He never said that. He said the "same kinds" of limitations, which is different than "any" limitations. You're lying.
 
2013-03-20 02:33:09 PM

dericwater: Let's look at another freshman senator from the other side of the aisle, Elizabeth Warren.


Liz Warren is now a senior senator.   It took John Kerry 24 years to become a senior senator. It took Warren 10 days.

Granted it had nothing to do with anything she personally did, but still it's kinda cool.
 
2013-03-20 02:33:25 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Smh. I'm challenging the notion that SPEAKING is "acting like an asshole". There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone. There's no mention of him cursing or shouting people down.

YOU ARE BASING YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT HES AN ASSHOLE ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO YOU BY A BUNCH OF OTHER ASSHOLES.

These are the same people who say Barack farking Obama doesn't care about four dead Americans in Benghazi to win a political point. McCain is the same guy who tried to hold up a nomination to Obama;s cabinet because of a personal beef from 13 years ago. Why the fark are their words being taken as the gospel on ANYTHING?


In an open Senate session he accused the now current director of the CIA of being a paid agent of North Korea and Islamic terrorists.  But since assholes have talked about that, I guess it doesn't count?
 
2013-03-20 02:34:06 PM
Frank N Stein: You're lying.

You're quibbling.
 
2013-03-20 02:34:58 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Smh. I'm challenging the notion that SPEAKING is "acting like an asshole". There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone. There's no mention of him cursing or shouting people down.

YOU ARE BASING YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT HES AN ASSHOLE ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO YOU BY A BUNCH OF OTHER ASSHOLES


i'm basing my assumption on watching how he treated hagel in his confirmation hearing. He came out and accused him (using great weasel language, so he didn't even have the strength of his own convictions when all was said and done) of being disloyal to america. Chuck Hagel, who is distinguished veteran and former senator- without any evidence at all, mind you. You may not like hagel or his politics, but what he did was flat out disgusting. You should maybe learn a little bit about a topic before you go "well, someone i don't like doesn't like him so he must be AWESOME."
 
2013-03-20 02:35:07 PM
As a Texas resident, I knew this was going to happen. The choice in the Republican primary was between an asshole and a f*cking asshole.

Of COURSE Texans chose the f*cking asshole.
 
2013-03-20 02:35:13 PM

Frank N Stein: Alphax: The one were you can't accept any limit at all on the 2nd amendment, just like you don't on the other amendments.. FALSE.

He never said that. He said the "same kinds" of limitations, which is different than "any" limitations. You're lying.


How do you claim it's different?
 
2013-03-20 02:35:56 PM

Fart_Machine: The best way to get what your constituency wants is to be a flaming butthole to those who can help you pass legislation? Good luck with that.


Some constituency's don't care.  Bachmann has done exactly zero for her district and yet gets reelected every time.  Also see Ron Paul.

I always thought the Senate would be immuned to that sort of silliness but as we are seeing in the last couple of Senate elections that is no longer the case.
 
2013-03-20 02:37:25 PM

cram_hole: So Cruz can't run for president, right? I mean he had an American mother and a foreign father and he wasn't born on American soil, so he's not eligible, right birthers?


The birthers are saying exactly that.  No one else is.  But they are.
 
2013-03-20 02:37:29 PM

CorporatePerson: dericwater: Let's look at another freshman senator from the other side of the aisle, Elizabeth Warren.

Liz Warren is now a senior senator.   It took John Kerry 24 years to become a senior senator. It took Warren 10 days.

Granted it had nothing to do with anything she personally did, but still it's kinda cool.


She also happens to be a freshman senator with just as much time in the Senate as Cruz. But she's not getting the same flack because she's serious and everything she says and does is measured and cogent. Cruz is making waves to make waves.
 
2013-03-20 02:37:51 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone.


How would you feel if some new-hire rube came into your workplace and challenged your knowledge of an extremely basic component of the job?  Would you feel disrespected?

Because that's exactly what he did to Feinstein.
 
2013-03-20 02:39:39 PM
Would the Texas Tea Party have even given this yahoo a second look if he used his birth name? Rafael Cruz
 
2013-03-20 02:42:01 PM

Alphax: Frank N Stein: Alphax: The one were you can't accept any limit at all on the 2nd amendment, just like you don't on the other amendments.. FALSE.

He never said that. He said the "same kinds" of limitations, which is different than "any" limitations. You're lying.

How do you claim it's different?


Because "same kinds" of limitation indicates that there are different types and degrees of limitations. Some which pass constitutional muster, and some that do not.
 
2013-03-20 02:46:27 PM

Frank N Stein: Alphax: Frank N Stein: Alphax: The one were you can't accept any limit at all on the 2nd amendment, just like you don't on the other amendments.. FALSE.

He never said that. He said the "same kinds" of limitations, which is different than "any" limitations. You're lying.

How do you claim it's different?

Because "same kinds" of limitation indicates that there are different types and degrees of limitations. Some which pass constitutional muster, and some that do not.


That's a lot of nothing..
 
2013-03-20 02:46:38 PM

Frank N Stein: Alphax: Frank N Stein: Alphax: The one were you can't accept any limit at all on the 2nd amendment, just like you don't on the other amendments.. FALSE.

He never said that. He said the "same kinds" of limitations, which is different than "any" limitations. You're lying.

How do you claim it's different?

Because "same kinds" of limitation indicates that there are different types and degrees of limitations. Some which pass constitutional muster, and some that do not.


Please proceed, Frank N Stein . . .
 
2013-03-20 02:48:32 PM

Mentat: "Jim Demint without the charm."

According to Robert's Rules of Order, that constitutes a burn.


GAT_00: That's the baffling part. I wasn't aware Demint had any measurable charm.


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-03-20 02:48:33 PM
NewsFlash:  Old white men complain young Hispanic is too "uppity", should learn his place.
 
2013-03-20 02:51:19 PM

GAT_00: Mentat: "Jim Demint without the charm."

According to Robert's Rules of Order, that constitutes a burn.

Do I have a second?

That's the baffling part.  I wasn't aware Demint had any measurable charm.  He's just Demint without the senority.


That's the joke.
 
2013-03-20 02:54:42 PM
Basically it boils down to "STFU noob."
 
2013-03-20 02:55:26 PM
Meh. Typical christian conservative. His only fault with the party is that he wears it on his sleeve.
 
2013-03-20 02:56:37 PM

Mr. Breeze: Basically it boils down to "STFU noob."


If that's the case, they just need to kill him and teabag the corpse until he respawns.
 
2013-03-20 02:57:23 PM

Maud Dib: dericwater: DROxINxTHExWIND: Weaver95: DROxINxTHExWIND: "Behind closed doors, some Republican senators report that Cruz, in his stone-cold serious prosecutorial style, speaks at length when it's far more common for freshmen to wait before asserting themselves - particularly ones who were just sworn in,"

Fark your fake-ass civility and your Old Boys Club rules about who can speak and when. He's supposed to wait to talk? Wait until what, exactly? The fark is he supposed to do everyday? He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.

you wanna seat in the game you gotta learn to play by the rules.

You mean the "unwritten" rule that he wasn't supposed to express his opinion? How are these rules doing at giving us a functioning Congress? Last I heard, no one is compromising with anyone else so how has this helped anything?

Let's look at another freshman senator from the other side of the aisle, Elizabeth Warren. She's also making a lot of waves and being quite prominent and not willing to shut up. The difference? It's the content of what she is saying. She has the gravitas and knowledge and experience to talk down a Tim Geithner and a Jamie Dimon. She doesn't make false accusations of people. When she asks fed regulators how many people went to jail, she knows what the answer is and what the answer should be. She's not doing a Ted Cruz, "Hagel is not a patriot" hurr-durr-durr.

No one says that you can't make a big show in the Senate as a freshman senator. But, damn, you better be exactly spot on with what you're saying and not make a mockery of yourself, your party or the chamber.

Well said. Sorry, drox, but Cruuuuz is a farking dickhead.


I have to agree. I was going to respond that it is probably the tone other senators are responding negatively to, rather than the fact that Cruz has a tendency to speak up when he shouldn't.

Just look at his McCarthyesque rambling accusations of disloyalty against people like Hagel. The guy is damned disgrace, and I have little doubt he is equally bad if not worse behind closed doors.
 
2013-03-20 02:57:44 PM

Satanic_Hamster: DROxINxTHExWIND: Smh. I'm challenging the notion that SPEAKING is "acting like an asshole". There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone. There's no mention of him cursing or shouting people down.

YOU ARE BASING YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT HES AN ASSHOLE ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO YOU BY A BUNCH OF OTHER ASSHOLES.

These are the same people who say Barack farking Obama doesn't care about four dead Americans in Benghazi to win a political point. McCain is the same guy who tried to hold up a nomination to Obama;s cabinet because of a personal beef from 13 years ago. Why the fark are their words being taken as the gospel on ANYTHING?

In an open Senate session he accused the now current director of the CIA of being a paid agent of North Korea and Islamic terrorists.  But since assholes have talked about that, I guess it doesn't count?


How many different directions are you going to pull this debate in? For the record, I never said that he wasn't a dick or that his ideas don't suck. I said the reasoning behind the butthurt is bullshiat. "Shut up N00B" is ok for the internet. Its not how Congress should work. Frankly, I'm surprised that you all are this beholden to some ridiculous code that would make it more difficult for a representative to have an impact.
 
2013-03-20 02:58:52 PM
he interrupted Rand Paul's amazing speech of great length to say "the Alamo" what a retard
he really did I'm not makin that up
 
m00
2013-03-20 03:00:14 PM

The Name: m00: I have a substantive beef with the way congress currently (doesn't) work. Don't you?

Really?  What is the substance of this beef?



Well, from at least the Bush administration there has been a complete Congressional abrogation of responsibilities when it comes to military action on foreign soil. The whole concept of an "Authorization to use Force" under the War Powers Act is completely bogus in my eyes, and indicative of passing the buck to the Executive. Goes hand-in-hand with behaving cowardly, grandstanding, and protecting a political career over the good of the nation. Congress is supposed to control the budget, but why has the military budget increased by 50% since Bush? The "off the books" stuff Bush was doing was only 100 million. But Obama consistently raises the "defence" budget -- I use that term ironically, because I fail to see how we need 11 carrier groups for our defence. Where are the anti-war Democrats holding his feet to the fire? Every single year Obama has spent more money on defence than the last. Same reason nobody held Bush's feet to the fire, political careers hang in the balance! I don't know what's worse, the jackasses that didn't stand up to Bush after 9/11 for two ridiculously criminal wars and secret surveillance of US citizens, or the jackasses that don't stand up to Obama on for drone assassinations and secret surveillance of US citizens. Why does the TSA still exist? Why does Homeland security still exist? I get Bush had a murky understanding of civil liberties, but Obama is just doing the same thing. Congress is supposed to act as checks and balances. Surely when either Republicans controlled both houses, or Democrats controlled both houses, someone could have done something. But nope! Nothing substantial gets done then, either.

While we're also talking about the budget, all of these Congressmen that are "against bailouts" where were you during the bailouts? Where are the Congressional hearings after the bailouts to make sure the money taken from the pockets of taxpayers was not being given to corporate executives as bonuses? Justice department did shiat about that, and Congress didn't say shiat. At least Cruz is talking about the second amendment... why are the debate hotspots all about abortion and gay marriage? I don't care what side of the aisle you are on, but who the hell cares? We have like 20 simultaneous crises, that are all manufactured by the very same political bodies tasked with solving them!

Can't we table the trivial stuff? But see, we both know the answer to that. Congress thrives on the trivial stuff and grandstanding on "safe" issues, all the while collecting lobbyist money as this country slips into the depths of insolvency. Remember SOPA and PIPA? Various entertainment industries paid a lot of money for those laws, and they almost got passed. Dick Cheney got his oil buddy friends to write our energy policy, just like Obamacare is largely a payout to insurance companies and big Pharma. Obamacare isn't somehow courageous. Do you know what would be courageous? State run health-care... which, by the way, we're paying so much for health-care that if we got what we paid for we should have the best state run health-care in the world.

The sequester is also a joke. It's obvious to anyone with a brain we need to do a couple of things to fix the debt problem... it's not about raising taxes on the wealthy, it's about making the wealthy  actually pay any taxes at all.It's about ending corporate handouts. And then it's about cutting spending on defence, and reorganizing the healthcare and welfare systems so they do more with less money. I think per person, the US spends more money on these things than any other country. We are paying for a socialist utopia, but we are getting the services of warlord-run dictator state. Where is that money going? It's the black hole of bureaucracy -- corporate welfare and kickbacks.

We're spending $100 for a slice of wonderbread, and the left is saying we need to spend $200 for a slice of healthy wholegrain bread or people will die in the streets. Meanwhile, the geniuses on the right are going "who needs to eat? we can't afford that!" So Congress isn't even debating the right issue. Congress is supposed to "advise and consent" but they can't even be trusted to identify what the issues actually are.

That's my beef.
 
2013-03-20 03:00:58 PM

Satanic_Hamster: In an open Senate session he accused the now current director of the CIA Secretary of Defense of being a paid agent of North Korea and Islamic terrorists. But since assholes have talked about that, I guess it doesn't count?


It was Hagel, not Brennan. Rand Paul filibustered Brennan because he can't parse statements longer than two letters.

// notice that after Holder issued a simplified ("No.") answer, Rand Paul finally understood
 
2013-03-20 03:02:35 PM

monoski: When Lindsey Graham think your an a-hole it may be time to reevaluate your approach.


well Lindsey IS widely considered to be an expert in a-holes (NTTAWT)
 
2013-03-20 03:04:14 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Frankly, I'm surprised that you all are this beholden to some ridiculous code that would make it more difficult for a representative to have an impact.


You make an impact when you've earned it -by learning how to work well with your colleagues, learning the (spoken and unspoken) rules of the place, and establishing a power-base for yourself that isn't just the rubes back home who elected you.  Google the term "institutional memory" sometime and you'll figure out why institutions do (and, arguably, should) work this way.
 
2013-03-20 03:06:15 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: I said the reasoning behind the butthurt is bullshiat. "Shut up N00B" is ok for the internet. Its not how Congress should work. Frankly, I'm surprised that you all are this beholden to some ridiculous code that would make it more difficult for a representative to have an impact.


Getting shiat done in Congress requires teamwork. If he is there to get shiat done, he not only needs to reach across the aisle, he needs his own party at his back. They are letting him know he is quickly losing his grip on both.

If he is there just to throw bombs and shiat all over the institution, then well done, I guess.
 
2013-03-20 03:07:49 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: How many different directions are you going to pull this debate in? For the record, I never said that he wasn't a dick or that his ideas don't suck. I said the reasoning behind the butthurt is bullshiat. "Shut up N00B" is ok for the internet. Its not how Congress should work. Frankly, I'm surprised that you all are this beholden to some ridiculous code that would make it more difficult for a representative to have an impact.


I have to say, I disagree with you on this.

The reasoning that I've seen is that Cruz is disrespectful to pretty much everybody.  And there is an expectation that the new guys defer to the more experienced, but still get a chance to discuss their views / points.  The argument wasn't that he couldn't say anything at all, but that he went on instead of wrapping it up, and that he didn't let the more senior members speak first.

If I'm the new guy on a team, unless I've been chosen by said team to be the leader of something, I'd usually show some deference and respect to the other members of the team until I've established myself as an authority on one or more topics.  If I instead jump the gun and just start taking over discussions, I'm going to be viewed as rude, immature, and disrespectful.  Those are traits that have a tendency to irk people.
 
2013-03-20 03:08:22 PM
"Weak men alwas take strong positions on small issues" - John Thompson III
 
2013-03-20 03:10:20 PM
He turned the derp to 11 on his first few months on the job. To all but the biggest Tea Tards, he's going to continue looking like a grandstanding dick.

The comparison with Warren is spot on. She knows her stuff, is measured in how she presents it and sticks to an area where she is an expert.
 
2013-03-20 03:18:56 PM

EighthDay: DROxINxTHExWIND: How many different directions are you going to pull this debate in? For the record, I never said that he wasn't a dick or that his ideas don't suck. I said the reasoning behind the butthurt is bullshiat. "Shut up N00B" is ok for the internet. Its not how Congress should work. Frankly, I'm surprised that you all are this beholden to some ridiculous code that would make it more difficult for a representative to have an impact.

I have to say, I disagree with you on this.

The reasoning that I've seen is that Cruz is disrespectful to pretty much everybody.  And there is an expectation that the new guys defer to the more experienced, but still get a chance to discuss their views / points.  The argument wasn't that he couldn't say anything at all, but that he went on instead of wrapping it up, and that he didn't let the more senior members speak first.

If I'm the new guy on a team, unless I've been chosen by said team to be the leader of something, I'd usually show some deference and respect to the other members of the team until I've established myself as an authority on one or more topics.  If I instead jump the gun and just start taking over discussions, I'm going to be viewed as rude, immature, and disrespectful.  Those are traits that have a tendency to irk people.


John McCain, supporter of the Bush tax cuts, the War in Iraq,...the man who introduced Sarah Palin to the world...what the fark is he an authority on? His entire justification for being a leader on matters of foreign intelligence is that he was a POW. And he can't even get THAT shiat right. You all are the reason that the country is in the current position. Don;t mean to make this personal, but this ridiculous logic is what allows do-nothings like Graham and others to lord over us for years and years without any accountability. Deferring to someone because they've been there longer is STUPID. I'll take another poster's example, Elizabeth Warren. Now, I'm SURE that Republicans feel disrespected by her candid approach and her uncomfortable questions. But, when they gripe about HER we just assume its partisanship. For all we know, Cruz is trying to do something similar from a Republican perspective and he's just being smacked down because they don't like the new guy making waves. That's what the article says, anyway. Tell me that he's disruptive, sexist, stupid, racist...give me some other reason to dislike his approach besides, "cause he talks more than freshmen normally do".
 
2013-03-20 03:22:10 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: "Weak men alwas take strong positions on small issues" - John Thompson III


www.rawstory.com
 It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Some guy named Bill

 
2013-03-20 03:23:11 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: YOU ARE BASING YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT HES AN ASSHOLE ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO YOU BY A BUNCH OF OTHER ASSHOLES.


Not me.  I've heard the guy talk.
 
2013-03-20 03:24:43 PM

The Name: DROxINxTHExWIND: There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone.

How would you feel if some new-hire rube came into your workplace and challenged your knowledge of an extremely basic component of the job?  Would you feel disrespected?

Because that's exactly what he did to Feinstein.


Yes keep repeating the lie enough times and maybe its true....

He was a complete ass on the Hegel nomination, and I expect far more crud like that out of him to come.

On the Feinstein incident, its pretty much her fault for throwing a massive fit about bazookas and getting all high and mighty about how dare you question me on the constitution.  She needs to go, she's either blatantly lying or is going senial; and is turning crotchety old hag when she gets called out on it.  Keeping her in the spot light does nothing but cost Democrats seats in the rural areas and reenforces the right wing derp brigades paranoid delusions w/ a small bit of reality.
 
2013-03-20 03:27:16 PM
Why are they so afraid of a strong, conservative woman?
 
2013-03-20 03:28:11 PM

Weaver95: randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.

you didn't read the article, did you?

His own party hates him.


Name names.......go on....we'll wait.
 
2013-03-20 03:31:35 PM

ShadowKamui: The Name: DROxINxTHExWIND: There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone.

How would you feel if some new-hire rube came into your workplace and challenged your knowledge of an extremely basic component of the job?  Would you feel disrespected?

Because that's exactly what he did to Feinstein.

Yes keep repeating the lie enough times and maybe its true....

He was a complete ass on the Hegel nomination, and I expect far more crud like that out of him to come.

On the Feinstein incident, its pretty much her fault for throwing a massive fit about bazookas and getting all high and mighty about how dare you question me on the constitution.  She needs to go, she's either blatantly lying or is going senial; and is turning crotchety old hag when she gets called out on it.  Keeping her in the spot light does nothing but cost Democrats seats in the rural areas and reenforces the right wing derp brigades paranoid delusions w/ a small bit of reality.


Feinstein is not going senile. She has a personal reason to be as anti-gun as she is. I believe she is the one who discovered the bullet riddled body of Harvey Milk when he was assassinated.

That doesn't make her right, of course, and I agree with you that she is overboard on gun control and it is hurting the democrats. But Cruz was still a condescending little prick to her. And to top it off, his first amendment analogy to Congress restricting certain books was all sorts of retarded.

I mean, I think if you are going to be a condescending prick, you at least need to make sure your logic is sound.
 
2013-03-20 03:34:40 PM

GoldSpider: NewsFlash:  Old white men complain young Hispanic is too "uppity", should learn his place.


Well no but you seem to be hungry for bites here.
 
2013-03-20 03:39:19 PM

Giltric: Weaver95: randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.

you didn't read the article, did you?

His own party hates him.

Name names.......go on....we'll wait.


you didn't read the article, did you?
 
2013-03-20 03:41:42 PM

ShadowKamui: On the Feinstein incident, its pretty much her fault for throwing a massive fit about bazookas and getting all high and mighty about how dare you question me on the constitution.


Given the question that preceded that "massive fit," I think she gave the little twerp a much too respectful and measured response.  I would have facepalmed, rolled my eyes and said, "next question?" had I been in her place.

ShadowKamui: She needs to go, she's either blatantly lying or is going senial; and is turning crotchety old hag when she gets called out on it.


Sexism much?

ShadowKamui: Keeping her in the spot light does nothing but cost Democrats seats in the rural areas


Oh, we Democrats aren't worried about the rural areas in the long term.  The Republicans better get to work on finding the Fountain of Youth if they hope to hold on to them.
 
2013-03-20 03:43:10 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: For all we know, Cruz is trying to do something similar from a Republican perspective and he's just being smacked down because they don't like the new guy making waves


but we do know, the hearings with Hagel were televised. We saw the sort of crap he pulls publically, and we saw other senators rebuke him. you keep going on about how we're buying into some back room things mccain said about him... mccain isn't even mentioned in the linked article!

stop pretending like this is all just back room chatter and he's being unfairly maligned when you can go on youtube and watch exactly the stuff we're complaining about on youtube
 
2013-03-20 03:45:41 PM

gilgigamesh: ShadowKamui: The Name: DROxINxTHExWIND: There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone.

How would you feel if some new-hire rube came into your workplace and challenged your knowledge of an extremely basic component of the job?  Would you feel disrespected?

Because that's exactly what he did to Feinstein.

Yes keep repeating the lie enough times and maybe its true....

He was a complete ass on the Hegel nomination, and I expect far more crud like that out of him to come.

On the Feinstein incident, its pretty much her fault for throwing a massive fit about bazookas and getting all high and mighty about how dare you question me on the constitution.  She needs to go, she's either blatantly lying or is going senial; and is turning crotchety old hag when she gets called out on it.  Keeping her in the spot light does nothing but cost Democrats seats in the rural areas and reenforces the right wing derp brigades paranoid delusions w/ a small bit of reality.

Feinstein is not going senile. She has a personal reason to be as anti-gun as she is. I believe she is the one who discovered the bullet riddled body of Harvey Milk when he was assassinated.

That doesn't make her right, of course, and I agree with you that she is overboard on gun control and it is hurting the democrats. But Cruz was still a condescending little prick to her. And to top it off, his first amendment analogy to Congress restricting certain books was all sorts of retarded.

I mean, I think if you are going to be a condescending prick, you at least need to make sure your logic is sound.


Overboard?  She's on farking record saying she would completely get rid of the Second Amendment if she could.  I don't care whether you think we should have more restrictions or not, but I don't want ANYONE with that view on ANY of our Bill of Rights amendments anywhere near the levers of power.
 
2013-03-20 03:45:47 PM

dericwater: randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.

Correction: Nothing angers a liberal more than having to reiterate a truth to some idiot blabbering on with some inane falsehood.

Issues where the idiot (i.e., GOP) are wrong on:
* Evolution
* "Legitimate rape"
* The cost and constitutionality of Obamacare
* Tricke-down economics
* Defense spending
* Climate change
* Oil subsidies
* Social Security
* Education reform
* H1-B visa reform
* Immigration reform
* Abortion and family planning
* Voter Rights
* Civil Rights
* Stem Cell research
* Most NSF-granted research
* Science in general
* Technology in general
* Economic systems in general
* Medicine and health in general
* Gun control

Each and every one of these issues -- and more, the GOP have been on the wrong side and continue to make statements and stake positions that are patently wrong, unworkable, defeating, hypocritical, self-inconsistent, unfeasible, deliberately so in some cases; and continue to keep pushing those stupid points. That's what liberals are angered at.


Interesting list. I don't think a number of the line items could be considered proven fact that only one side could possibly be right (thus there being a right or wrong side). It's a tad arrogant to unilaterally declare a different view on a topic as being the wrong side.  Now on topics that can be factually and methodically proven sure (the rather inane myths about rape/abortion that the GOP fields for instance) but several of those do not have such clear and concise facts to prove them. In fact a number of those are such complicated issues that there may not be a single right answer and neither party might be right due to the number of variables.
 
2013-03-20 03:48:10 PM

Giltric: Weaver95: randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.

you didn't read the article, did you?

His own party hates him.

Name names.......go on....we'll wait.


So you blunder into a thread, obviously without having read the article (or the rest of the thread, for that matter) in the same way Cruz blundered into the senate, spouting ignorance. Is that your idea of a joke?
 
2013-03-20 03:50:49 PM

moanerific: Overboard? She's on farking record saying she would completely get rid of the Second Amendment if she could. I don't care whether you think we should have more restrictions or not, but I don't want ANYONE with that view on ANY of our Bill of Rights amendments anywhere near the levers of power.


Why not?  We've gotten rid of amendments before.  The constitution itself gives us a procedure for doing so.  And we're the only first-world country that has constitutional protections for gun ownership.  Seems one could well make the argument that the second amendment is, at best, superfluous.
 
2013-03-20 03:55:32 PM
He's a twat.
 
2013-03-20 03:55:45 PM

gilgigamesh: ShadowKamui: The Name: DROxINxTHExWIND: There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone.

How would you feel if some new-hire rube came into your workplace and challenged your knowledge of an extremely basic component of the job?  Would you feel disrespected?

Because that's exactly what he did to Feinstein.

Yes keep repeating the lie enough times and maybe its true....

He was a complete ass on the Hegel nomination, and I expect far more crud like that out of him to come.

On the Feinstein incident, its pretty much her fault for throwing a massive fit about bazookas and getting all high and mighty about how dare you question me on the constitution.  She needs to go, she's either blatantly lying or is going senial; and is turning crotchety old hag when she gets called out on it.  Keeping her in the spot light does nothing but cost Democrats seats in the rural areas and reenforces the right wing derp brigades paranoid delusions w/ a small bit of reality.

Feinstein is not going senile. She has a personal reason to be as anti-gun as she is. I believe she is the one who discovered the bullet riddled body of Harvey Milk when he was assassinated.

That doesn't make her right, of course, and I agree with you that she is overboard on gun control and it is hurting the democrats. But Cruz was still a condescending little prick to her. And to top it off, his first amendment analogy to Congress restricting certain books was all sorts of retarded.

I mean, I think if you are going to be a condescending prick, you at least need to make sure your logic is sound.


She did find the bodies, however they were killed by an ex-cop w/ his service revolver not an assault weapon w/ exploding bullets that she was trying to claim.  Then she kept doubling down on the derp w/ stuff about bazooka's and a how dare you question me rant.  Its crap like that and McCain's antics, that feed into the see the whole Cruz isn't a jack-ass the entrenched establishment is just against him.
 
2013-03-20 03:56:02 PM

moanerific: She's on farking record saying she would completely get rid of the Second Amendment if she could. I don't care whether you think we should have more restrictions or not, but I don't want ANYONE with that view on ANY of our Bill of Rights amendments anywhere near the levers of power.


And Bush is on record - as President - saying things would be a lot easier if he was a dicator. We have Senators (and Reps too, but let's stay in the Upper House) claiming that the First Amendment doesn't cover atheists and that the 4th doesn't cover Muslims. We have Senators saying that the US is more than legally able to hold prisoners indefinitely without charge or trial "because terrorism".

Feinstein is one Senator out of 100. She can't unilaterally do anything, and even her party's majority leader doesn't like her bill. If you don't like that Feinstein is a Senator, take it up with the stubborn Californians who keep electing her. Take solace in the fact that Democrats, nationally, are out-of-step with Ms Feinstein's desire to curb the 2nd so drastically, not to mention the other 60ish% of Americans.

// Rand Paul wants to undo the CRAs - that, to me, would have a far more disastrous effect on America's day-to-day life than melting all the guns into plowshares
 
2013-03-20 03:56:54 PM

gilgigamesh: ShadowKamui: The Name: DROxINxTHExWIND: There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone.

How would you feel if some new-hire rube came into your workplace and challenged your knowledge of an extremely basic component of the job?  Would you feel disrespected?

Because that's exactly what he did to Feinstein.

Yes keep repeating the lie enough times and maybe its true....

He was a complete ass on the Hegel nomination, and I expect far more crud like that out of him to come.

On the Feinstein incident, its pretty much her fault for throwing a massive fit about bazookas and getting all high and mighty about how dare you question me on the constitution.  She needs to go, she's either blatantly lying or is going senial; and is turning crotchety old hag when she gets called out on it.  Keeping her in the spot light does nothing but cost Democrats seats in the rural areas and reenforces the right wing derp brigades paranoid delusions w/ a small bit of reality.

Feinstein is not going senile. She has a personal reason to be as anti-gun as she is. I believe she is the one who discovered the bullet riddled body of Harvey Milk when he was assassinated.

That doesn't make her right, of course, and I agree with you that she is overboard on gun control and it is hurting the democrats. But Cruz was still a condescending little prick to her. And to top it off, his first amendment analogy to Congress restricting certain books was all sorts of retarded.

I mean, I think if you are going to be a condescending prick, you at least need to make sure your logic is sound.


She's not senile. He just got her dander up. (warning: auto play)
 
2013-03-20 03:57:37 PM
Cruz's mission in the Senate is to make it unpleasant to even be there, much less to oppose his views.  Attrition by bad manners is working; how many Senators have already left or announced they were not going to seek re-election because of the 'partisan bickering'?  Snowe, Harkin, Chamblis, Johanns, Bayh, and Demint, Levin...

Fist fights and obscene screaming matches are the Teabagger ideal for government and society and Ted Cruz is the bleeding edge of that movement.
 
2013-03-20 03:57:59 PM

The Name: moanerific: Overboard? She's on farking record saying she would completely get rid of the Second Amendment if she could. I don't care whether you think we should have more restrictions or not, but I don't want ANYONE with that view on ANY of our Bill of Rights amendments anywhere near the levers of power.

Why not?  We've gotten rid of amendments before.  The constitution itself gives us a procedure for doing so.  And we're the only first-world country that has constitutional protections for gun ownership.  Seems one could well make the argument that the second amendment is, at best, superfluous.


We have created amendments that take the power of other ones yes.  But you don't just start nullifying the Bill of Rights!  Once you get rid of one, who gives a shiat about the rest of the BoR?
 
2013-03-20 03:58:55 PM

xaldin: dericwater: randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.

Correction: Nothing angers a liberal more than having to reiterate a truth to some idiot blabbering on with some inane falsehood.

Issues where the idiot (i.e., GOP) are wrong on:
* Evolution
* "Legitimate rape"
* The cost and constitutionality of Obamacare
* Tricke-down economics
* Defense spending
* Climate change
* Oil subsidies
* Social Security
* Education reform
* H1-B visa reform
* Immigration reform
* Abortion and family planning
* Voter Rights
* Civil Rights
* Stem Cell research
* Most NSF-granted research
* Science in general
* Technology in general
* Economic systems in general
* Medicine and health in general
* Gun control

Each and every one of these issues -- and more, the GOP have been on the wrong side and continue to make statements and stake positions that are patently wrong, unworkable, defeating, hypocritical, self-inconsistent, unfeasible, deliberately so in some cases; and continue to keep pushing those stupid points. That's what liberals are angered at.

Interesting list. I don't think a number of the line items could be considered proven fact that only one side could possibly be right (thus there being a right or wrong side). It's a tad arrogant to unilaterally declare a different view on a topic as being the wrong side.  Now on topics that can be factually and methodically proven sure (the rather inane myths about rape/abortion that the GOP fields for instance) but several of those do not have such clear and concise facts to prove them. In fact a number of those are such complicated issues that there may not be a single right answer and neither party might be right due to the number of variables.


Well, I listed them. Please indicate which ones are still in the grey area. I do agree that there are some that are in the grey area. I just want to know what you think are in the grey area.
 
2013-03-20 04:00:20 PM
Farkers claim to want to see politicians telling the establishment to fark off, but then they are shocked and offended when a politician tells the establishment to fark off.
 
2013-03-20 04:01:06 PM

Dr Dreidel: Take solace in the fact that Democrats, nationally, are out-of-step with Ms Feinstein's desire to curb the 2nd so drastically, not to mention the other 60ish% of Americans.


Actually, in the link LibertyHiller just supplied, it looks like 57% of Americans favor an assault-weapons ban. So it looks like your position, moanerific, is increasingly a minority one.

// and one I share, but whatevs
// it's not the size of the gun, it's who got it and how - which is why I support BG checks like a mortherfarker
 
2013-03-20 04:02:00 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: Weaver95: randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.

you didn't read the article, did you?

His own party hates him.

Name names.......go on....we'll wait.

you didn't read the article, did you?


article had one name......that means Saul Alinsky is automatcally president and the ashes of Ronald Reagan have to be used to fertilize a row of soy beans?
 
2013-03-20 04:04:09 PM

verbal_jizm: Giltric: Weaver95: randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.

you didn't read the article, did you?

His own party hates him.

Name names.......go on....we'll wait.

So you blunder into a thread, obviously without having read the article (or the rest of the thread, for that matter) in the same way Cruz blundered into the senate, spouting ignorance. Is that your idea of a joke?


How many republicans are on record as hating him according to the article and does that number equate to the whole party?

He laid the smack down on Feinstein, we get it, democrats are butthurt and grasping at straws in outrage.
 
2013-03-20 04:04:20 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: How many different directions are you going to pull this debate in? For the record, I never said that he wasn't a dick or that his ideas don't suck. I said the reasoning behind the butthurt is bullshiat. "Shut up N00B" is ok for the internet. Its not how Congress should work. Frankly, I'm surprised that you all are this beholden to some ridiculous code that would make it more difficult for a representative to have an impact.


You said, and I quote:
"There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone. "

Dr Dreidel: It was Hagel, not Brennan. Rand Paul filibustered Brennan because he can't parse statements longer than two letters.

// notice that after Holder issued a simplified ("No.") answer, Rand Paul finally understood


Eh.  All them old white guys look the same to me...
 
2013-03-20 04:05:07 PM

moanerific: We have created amendments that take the power of other ones yes. But you don't just start nullifying the Bill of Rights! Once you get rid of one, who gives a shiat about the rest of the BoR?


Um, there is literally no legal distinction between the first ten amendments and all the other amendments, except that we have a religio-nationalist mythology built up around the former that makes us see them as absolutes bestowed on us from the very hand of God himself.
 
2013-03-20 04:09:53 PM

Giltric: He laid the smack down on Feinstein, we get it, democrats are butthurt and grasping at straws in outrage.


This is hilarious.  I think Feinstein goes too far, but this "he made her look like a fool" shiat is ridiculous.

Hi, I've been in the Senate for like five whole weeks...so I'mma lecture a long-time Senator on the Constitution.

He look rude, childish, and downright stupid.  But that appears to be what teabaggers like.


Palin / Bachmann
2016!!

 
2013-03-20 04:16:31 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: He laid the smack down on Feinstein, we get it, democrats are butthurt and grasping at straws in outrage.

This is hilarious.  I think Feinstein goes too far, but this "he made her look like a fool" shiat is ridiculous.

Hi, I've been in the Senate for like five whole weeks...so I'mma lecture a long-time Senator on the Constitution.

He look rude, childish, and downright stupid.  But that appears to be what teabaggers like.


Palin / Bachmann
2016!!


All Feinstein did was deflect......derp derp BAZOOKA!!!!! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM!!!!! I'VE BEEN HERE FOR DECADES, HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!

Cruz worked on the Heller case...Feinstein holds her finger on the trigger of weapons pointed at crowds during speeches about how unsafe guns are.

Advantage Cruz.
 
2013-03-20 04:16:48 PM

Giltric: we get it...


No, sadly, you really don't...
 
2013-03-20 04:19:36 PM

keylock71: Giltric: we get it...

No, sadly, you really don't...


we do...infinity. What are you, 12?
 
2013-03-20 04:19:55 PM

Satanic_Hamster: DROxINxTHExWIND: How many different directions are you going to pull this debate in? For the record, I never said that he wasn't a dick or that his ideas don't suck. I said the reasoning behind the butthurt is bullshiat. "Shut up N00B" is ok for the internet. Its not how Congress should work. Frankly, I'm surprised that you all are this beholden to some ridiculous code that would make it more difficult for a representative to have an impact.

You said, and I quote:
"There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone. "



Huh? How does that contradict my point? In the article it does not say that he was being disrespectful to his Republican colleagues who are biatching about his approach. That is my point. Not sure what you're trying to say.
 
2013-03-20 04:21:27 PM

dericwater: xaldin: dericwater: randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.

Correction: Nothing angers a liberal more than having to reiterate a truth to some idiot blabbering on with some inane falsehood.

Issues where the idiot (i.e., GOP) are wrong on:
* Evolution
* "Legitimate rape"
* The cost and constitutionality of Obamacare
* Tricke-down economics
* Defense spending
* Climate change
* Oil subsidies
* Social Security
* Education reform
* H1-B visa reform
* Immigration reform
* Abortion and family planning
* Voter Rights
* Civil Rights
* Stem Cell research
* Most NSF-granted research
* Science in general
* Technology in general
* Economic systems in general
* Medicine and health in general
* Gun control

Each and every one of these issues -- and more, the GOP have been on the wrong side and continue to make statements and stake positions that are patently wrong, unworkable, defeating, hypocritical, self-inconsistent, unfeasible, deliberately so in some cases; and continue to keep pushing those stupid points. That's what liberals are angered at.

Interesting list. I don't think a number of the line items could be considered proven fact that only one side could possibly be right (thus there being a right or wrong side). It's a tad arrogant to unilaterally declare a different view on a topic as being the wrong side.  Now on topics that can be factually and methodically proven sure (the rather inane myths about rape/abortion that the GOP fields for instance) but several of those do not have such clear and concise facts to prove them. In fact a number of those are such complicated issues that there may not be a single right answer and neither party might be right due to the number of variables.

Well, I listed them. Please indicate which ones are still in the grey area. I do agree ...


Well I would say:
Cost of Obamacare (constitutionality the supreme court answered, though reading their arguments really meant they stretched to do it. I'm not sure it'd get the pass if revisited in the future) I'd say is still out and we may honestly never really know how much it truly costs due to opportunity costs and the way government barely tracks costs properly.

Oil subsidies could be argued as cutting (or increasing) them could have unintended side effects. They've been in place just so long that the entire system functions around them.

Social Security has always been a problem, in part because the government raided the funds leaving paper IOUs and in part because of the demographics.

Education reform is always contentious because nobody is honestly sure exactly what works. I don't think there is such a thing as right answer for it.

Immigration reform. Sure the system needs to be changed. I don't think there is a correct answer on how to this either. Too many variables in play for it. Plus you add the whole morality aspect. For instance most wouldn't go for my solution of just summary execution for anyone crossing the border without papers. Something about seeing babies lined up and shot upsets people. I don't see the problem. That said just tossing the borders open presents its own costs that have to be born.

Voter rights is a broad and vague topic. It too has many side effects of minor tweaks to it. I think GOP is overly aggressive but the Democrats tend to be the under-aggressive towards checks and balances to it.

NSF granted research. I like science and the things it produces. I'm not entirely convinced that program is run very well. I think the political aspects have crept in from both sides of the aisle and compromised it's original goals.

Economic systems. There isn't one that works fully. To date every one has had unintended side effects or means of abuse. I'm not sure you can have a system that doesn't. Sometimes lowering taxes works, other times it doesn't. Sometimes levies work, other times they don't. Flat taxes might work from a financial perspective but what are the social costs. Do social costs even matter? Why should they be considered, what is the cost of ignoring them.

Medicine and health. Again super broad category. Ideals are everyone taken care of but is that even possible? What cost is there to trying. Should it be tried? I think there's room for differing opinions here.

Gun control. I'm not really opposed to well designed control. I'm opposed to outright bans or things that simply don't have any measurable effect.  Nobody knows how many clips I have or when I bought them. Far as Colorado would know with it's 'over 15' ban I always had 1000 50 round clips in my house. I can always buy them then say I've always had them. Nothing in what they signed will prevent that or even be trackable. Friend in another state buys them, ships them to me. Heck now I could just print the darn things. Bans and limits might have worked 200 years ago. Maybe. Now, I don't see it as a horse that is going back in the barn. Look for other answers.

Both parties tend to be fail for alternative answers. It's either do nothing or an extreme position. On complicated topics with many moving parts that pretty much assures both that there is no true right or wrong answer but that anything done will just be flailing around blindly believing they know the 'One Truth to rule them all'.
 
2013-03-20 04:21:51 PM

Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: He laid the smack down on Feinstein, we get it, democrats are butthurt and grasping at straws in outrage.

This is hilarious.  I think Feinstein goes too far, but this "he made her look like a fool" shiat is ridiculous.

Hi, I've been in the Senate for like five whole weeks...so I'mma lecture a long-time Senator on the Constitution.

He look rude, childish, and downright stupid.  But that appears to be what teabaggers like.


Palin / Bachmann
2016!!

All Feinstein did was deflect......derp derp BAZOOKA!!!!! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM!!!!! I'VE BEEN HERE FOR DECADES, HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!

Cruz worked on the Heller case...Feinstein holds her finger on the trigger of weapons pointed at crowds during speeches about how unsafe guns are.

Advantage Cruz.


If you say so.

I say "keep up the good work, Teddy!"

The more he acts like an ass, the less influence he will have, which is fine by me.
 
2013-03-20 04:24:54 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: He laid the smack down on Feinstein, we get it, democrats are butthurt and grasping at straws in outrage.

This is hilarious.  I think Feinstein goes too far, but this "he made her look like a fool" shiat is ridiculous.

Hi, I've been in the Senate for like five whole weeks...so I'mma lecture a long-time Senator on the Constitution.

He look rude, childish, and downright stupid.  But that appears to be what teabaggers like.


Palin / Bachmann
2016!!

All Feinstein did was deflect......derp derp BAZOOKA!!!!! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM!!!!! I'VE BEEN HERE FOR DECADES, HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!

Cruz worked on the Heller case...Feinstein holds her finger on the trigger of weapons pointed at crowds during speeches about how unsafe guns are.

Advantage Cruz.

If you say so.

I say "keep up the good work, Teddy!"

The more he acts like an ass, the less influence he will have, which is fine by me.


I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests

Christie/Cruz 2016
 
2013-03-20 04:25:27 PM

The Name: moanerific: We have created amendments that take the power of other ones yes. But you don't just start nullifying the Bill of Rights! Once you get rid of one, who gives a shiat about the rest of the BoR?

Um, there is literally no legal distinction between the first ten amendments and all the other amendments, except that we have a religio-nationalist mythology built up around the former that makes us see them as absolutes bestowed on us from the very hand of God himself.


So you be fine with lawmakers who wanted to scrap entire amendments because they don't like them?

Religion, speech, search/seizure, incriminating yourself?

There probably plenty of repubs that would love to outlaw other religions, i dont want people like that running things either.
 
2013-03-20 04:27:17 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Satanic_Hamster: DROxINxTHExWIND: How many different directions are you going to pull this debate in? For the record, I never said that he wasn't a dick or that his ideas don't suck. I said the reasoning behind the butthurt is bullshiat. "Shut up N00B" is ok for the internet. Its not how Congress should work. Frankly, I'm surprised that you all are this beholden to some ridiculous code that would make it more difficult for a representative to have an impact.

You said, and I quote:
"There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone. "


Huh? How does that contradict my point? In the article it does not say that he was being disrespectful to his Republican colleagues who are biatching about his approach. That is my point. Not sure what you're trying to say.


I'm pretty sure those GOP colleagues were reacting to his rudeness to Feinstein.

But I'm also pretty sure you knew that and are just trolling at this point.
 
2013-03-20 04:29:42 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: GAT_00: Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.

Against Dewhurst he was. Once again, if it weren't for the gerrymandering, Cruz would have been knocked out in the primary.

How do you gerrymander a state?

Huh?

I guess I'm missing something...Cruz is a Senator, which is a statewide position, so I don't get how gerrymandering applies.



The gerrymander was not for the senate seat, but was part of a plan (along with voter ID law and other things) to cut down on minority HOUSE seats. The DOJ and others got an injunction and that delayed the primaries for everything including the Senate race. That allowed the Palinites and others to coalesce around Cruz over Dewhurst.
 
2013-03-20 04:30:14 PM

Giltric: I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests


Politics is a popularity contest, but, OK.  Good luck with that.  I'm super-OK with Teddy being all talk and no accomplishment.
 
2013-03-20 04:31:30 PM

moanerific: So you be fine with lawmakers who wanted to scrap entire amendments because they don't like them?


Yeah, I would, because we have a constitution preventing them from doing that.  I'm sure there are tons of things each of us would like to see done that wouldn't pass constitutional muster as determined by your average sixth-grader -but that's why we have a constitution to begin with.
 
2013-03-20 04:32:18 PM

moanerific: So you be fine with lawmakers who wanted to scrap entire amendments because they don't like them?


Which is why we require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate.  One lawmaker doesn't make a difference.
 
2013-03-20 04:33:32 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: He laid the smack down on Feinstein, we get it, democrats are butthurt and grasping at straws in outrage.

This is hilarious.  I think Feinstein goes too far, but this "he made her look like a fool" shiat is ridiculous.

Hi, I've been in the Senate for like five whole weeks...so I'mma lecture a long-time Senator on the Constitution.

He look rude, childish, and downright stupid.  But that appears to be what teabaggers like.


Palin / Bachmann
2016!!


He's a constitutional scholar who's argued before the supreme court and won, she's a career politician w/ nothing more than a BS in History and a lot of $$$ in the bank to keep getting reelected.

Cruz isn't Bachmann or Palin, under estimating him or trying to belittle his intelligence is a very bad thing (he's still an ass though).  Feinsteins on the other hand is simply thinks sitting in the same chair long enough gets her +10 intelligence bonus and lets her freely throw tantrums.
 
2013-03-20 04:43:40 PM

ShadowKamui: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: He laid the smack down on Feinstein, we get it, democrats are butthurt and grasping at straws in outrage.

This is hilarious.  I think Feinstein goes too far, but this "he made her look like a fool" shiat is ridiculous.

Hi, I've been in the Senate for like five whole weeks...so I'mma lecture a long-time Senator on the Constitution.

He look rude, childish, and downright stupid.  But that appears to be what teabaggers like.


Palin / Bachmann
2016!!

He's a constitutional scholar who's argued before the supreme court and won, she's a career politician w/ nothing more than a BS in History and a lot of $$$ in the bank to keep getting reelected.

Cruz isn't Bachmann or Palin, under estimating him or trying to belittle his intelligence is a very bad thing (he's still an ass though).  Feinsteins on the other hand is simply thinks sitting in the same chair long enough gets her +10 intelligence bonus and lets her freely throw tantrums.


I never said he was dumb.  But he is tactless.  His actions are only taking away from his potential influence.  Which is good.  So, keep it up, Teddy Teabag!
 
2013-03-20 04:45:46 PM

ShadowKamui: He's a constitutional scholar


He should start acting like it.
 
2013-03-20 04:47:24 PM

The Name: DROxINxTHExWIND: Satanic_Hamster: DROxINxTHExWIND: How many different directions are you going to pull this debate in? For the record, I never said that he wasn't a dick or that his ideas don't suck. I said the reasoning behind the butthurt is bullshiat. "Shut up N00B" is ok for the internet. Its not how Congress should work. Frankly, I'm surprised that you all are this beholden to some ridiculous code that would make it more difficult for a representative to have an impact.

You said, and I quote:
"There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone. "


Huh? How does that contradict my point? In the article it does not say that he was being disrespectful to his Republican colleagues who are biatching about his approach. That is my point. Not sure what you're trying to say.

I'm pretty sure those GOP colleagues were reacting to his rudeness to Feinstein.

But I'm also pretty sure you knew that and are just trolling at this point.


Smh. Come on with that arrogant bullshiat. I'm a troll because I won't bend to your illogical point? Just say you disagree.

/Suddenly, Republicans are white-knighting farking FEINSTEIN? Yeah, ok.
 
2013-03-20 04:52:47 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Republicans are white-knighting farking FEINSTEIN? Yeah, ok.


Well, yeah, you got me on that one.  I'm sure they weren't reacting to THAT rudeness in particular, but it sounds like there's been plenty going around from Cruz.

But you're the one who initially tried to imply that he wasn't being rude to anyone, and then moved the goalpost to say that he wasn't being rude to Republican colleagues in particular, so I dunno what the hell you want, man.
 
2013-03-20 04:55:29 PM

xaldin: Well I would say:


Cost of Obamacare (constitutionality the supreme court answered, though reading their arguments really meant they stretched to do it. I'm not sure it'd get the pass if revisited in the future) I'd say is still out and we may honestly never really know how much it truly costs due to opportunity costs and the way government barely tracks costs properly.

Obamacare was created (by the Heritage Foundation) as a way to still use a free market approach AND save money. That it does both is not in contention. What is in contention is whether a less free market approach could save even more money (such as universal health or single-payer). The $716 billion that the GOP uses either to add into the budget as a costs savings or as a political hammer to hit Obama by claiming that that amount is being taken away from medicare/medicaid is real and not in dispute. The dispute is whether we could save even more using a less free market approach.

Oil subsidies could be argued as cutting (or increasing) them could have unintended side effects. They've been in place just so long that the entire system functions around them.

The only people who can make this claim are in the oil business. fark'em. There are no unintended side effects because side effects are always the uncertainty of the future, and we can always make new solutions to new problems. It has never stopped us before.

Social Security has always been a problem, in part because the government raided the funds leaving paper IOUs and in part because of the demographics.

Social Security as a concept is not a problem. Social security as a physical means of holding money for seniors is not a problem. It's existence and liquidity and ability to pay out are not problems. Tweaking with the amount to pay out or the amount to collect are what the government should do. But the GOP is doing all it can to gut it by not collecting and trying to add burden to the system (much like requiring a 75 year retirement plan funding for the US Postal Service... a deliberate attempt to kill the system). Bottom line Social Security works. People shouldn't rely on it as their sole retirement income, but some do and live all right with it. But it works as intended.

Education reform is always contentious because nobody is honestly sure exactly what works. I don't think there is such a thing as right answer for it.

I have to agree with you here. But we clearly know that the GOP's idea of Education reform is beyond ludicrous. Rewriting history so that Nixon is painted in better light; to show that FDR was wrong; to show that the Vietnam War was right; to exclude noncontroversial science topics in science (evolution?); to require religion in classes... that's the education reform that the GOP wants to offer. The rest of the country is wondering whether a <20 students per class is effective, or could we stretch it to 25, whether a Montessori method of teaching is better than other teaching method, or whether a "back to basic" is what's needed. The GOP isn't even in the same league of educational discussion.

Immigration reform. Sure the system needs to be changed. I don't think there is a correct answer on how to this either. Too many variables in play for it. Plus you add the whole morality aspect. For instance most wouldn't go for my solution of just summary execution for anyone crossing the border without papers. Something about seeing babies lined up and shot upsets people. I don't see the problem. That said just tossing the borders open presents its own costs that have to be born.

Except that there are people on the right who are advocating for pretty much what you're saying is beyond the fringe. I don't hear anyone on the left or center suggesting that we have active people with guns policing the borders and shoot on sight.

Voter rights is a broad and vague topic. It too has many side effects of minor tweaks to it. I think GOP is overly aggressive but the Democrats tend to be the under-aggressive towards checks and balances to it.

The GOP has done whatever it can to make voting rights inconsequential. They're adding needless paperwork and obstacles to prevent people from voting. This past 2012 election showed how a 1st world country has to force its people to stand hours in line to vote. All done in red states to people in blue districts in those red states. You have GOP secretaries of state who openly claimed that the new legislation will help secure the state for Romney.

NSF granted research. I like science and the things it produces. I'm not entirely convinced that program is run very well. I think the political aspects have crept in from both sides of the aisle and compromised it's original goals.

You don't know jack about what they do because you're not doing it on a daily basis. NSF grant research has a much high rate of success in producing valuable and useful items than almost any VC or angel funding program in the country. Politics only gets in when you have GOP administrations trying to carve some piece of that pie for themselves or their cronies. Otherwise, it's rather apolitical.

Economic systems. There isn't one that works fully. To date every one has had unintended side effects or means of abuse. I'm not sure you can have a system that doesn't. Sometimes lowering taxes works, other times it doesn't. Sometimes levies work, other times they don't. Flat taxes might work from a financial perspective but what are the social costs. Do social costs even matter? Why should they be considered, what is the cost of ignoring them.

Why don't you look at other countries and other economic systems from the past and learn from them? There are plenty of very successful countries now and see what they're doing. There's no need to be totally hypothetical about it.

Medicine and health. Again super broad category. Ideals are everyone taken care of but is that even possible? What cost is there to trying. Should it be tried? I think there's room for differing opinions here.

I would basically lump this as part of the over all Obamacare or health care issue. Obamacare was a compromise. The real solution is clear. Of the 186+ countries in the world, almost all use some sort of socialized medicine program, whether it's single payer or universal health and many of them yield much better results than us. And if you were to measure results per dollar spent, then the US is dead last. There should be no thinking involved: look over there and say, "let's do what they're doing". Any rational person would do that. But no, the GOP has to go with this stupid "American Exceptionalism" idea and force us to take a unique solution that is a hack.

Gun control. I'm not really opposed to well designed control. I'm opposed to outright bans or things that simply don't have any measurable effect.  Nobody knows how many clips I have or when I bought them. Far as Colorado would know with it's 'over 15' ban I always had 1000 50 round clips in my house. I can always buy them then say I've always had them. Nothing in what they signed will prevent that or even be trackable. Friend in another state buys them, ships them to me. Heck now I could just print the darn things. Bans and limits might have worked 200 years ago. Maybe. Now, I don't see it as a horse that is going back in the barn. Look for other answers.

The AWB had measurable effect. We saw what happened after it was passed and what happend after its passage expired in 2004. Allowing the CDC to do the study would help gather more and better data to help give better policy and legislation. But the GOP stopped that. They rather be ignorant and have people dead than understand the causes and propose solutions. No answer will be permanent. That's why we have a living government. We don't write laws (like the farking bible) and expect that to explain everything for eternity. When new problems crop up, we propose new solutions. When printable guns come into being, we'll deal with them then. Just because the possibility of printable guns in the near future doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with the problems of the present. People SHOULD know how many clips you have. People with exception amount of weapons and ammo are a danger to society and should be monitored. Don't want to be monitored? Don't have them.

Both parties tend to be fail for alternative answers. It's either do nothing or an extreme position. On complicated topics with many moving parts that pretty much assures both that there is no true right or wrong answer but that anything done will just be flailing around blindly believing they know the 'One Truth to rule them all'.

No, both parties are not "nothing or extreme positions", only one party is. Deliberately writing legislation to make things fail is an extreme position. Only one party does that: the GOP. Only one party is wiling to write legislation or execute in ways that are inherently wrong, inept and in many cases, intentionally bad. That's the GOP.
 
2013-03-20 04:56:07 PM
In his defense, he is a member of homo neandertalis.
 
2013-03-20 05:04:15 PM

The Name: But you're the one who initially tried to imply that he wasn't being rude to anyone, and then moved the goalpost to say that he wasn't being rude to Republican colleagues in particular, so I dunno what the hell you want, man.


Maybe Cruz is going to reward him with sweet sweet man love if he white knights him enough on the internets.
 
2013-03-20 05:04:40 PM
 
2013-03-20 05:25:18 PM

Satanic_Hamster: The Name: But you're the one who initially tried to imply that he wasn't being rude to anyone, and then moved the goalpost to say that he wasn't being rude to Republican colleagues in particular, so I dunno what the hell you want, man.

Maybe Cruz is going to reward him with sweet sweet man love if he white knights him enough on the internets.


Smh. I pray that Fark really is the gaggle of freckle-faced man-boys that I imagine it to be because if you all are adults, I weep for the country. "You disagree with me so you're gay". Yeah, nice job.
 
2013-03-20 05:26:30 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Satanic_Hamster: The Name: But you're the one who initially tried to imply that he wasn't being rude to anyone, and then moved the goalpost to say that he wasn't being rude to Republican colleagues in particular, so I dunno what the hell you want, man.

Maybe Cruz is going to reward him with sweet sweet man love if he white knights him enough on the internets.

Smh. I pray that Fark really is the gaggle of freckle-faced man-boys that I imagine it to be because if you all are adults, I weep for the country. "You disagree with me so you're gay". Yeah, nice job.


Well, you're a poopy-head too.
 
2013-03-20 05:27:02 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests

Politics is a popularity contest, but, OK.  Good luck with that.  I'm super-OK with Teddy being all talk and no accomplishment.


Of course it is. Thats how C students who run companies into the ground get elected, thats how constitutional scholars who continue if not expand unconstitutional programs get elected etc...and in both cases...twice.
 
2013-03-20 05:27:23 PM

Elzar: One Senator decides to take on the establishment and suddenly all you libby libs are for protecting the good ole boys club... As a master of rebuttal, Senator Cruz has much more in common with Mr. Smith then any of you pinkos will ever know.


Oh my lord, you're PRECIOUS!
 
2013-03-20 05:30:35 PM

randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.


Oh, bless your sweet little heart!
 
2013-03-20 05:32:13 PM

dericwater: The AWB had measurable effect. We saw what happened after it was passed and what happend after its passage expired in 2004. Allowing the CDC to do the study would help gather more and better data to help give better policy and legislation. But the GOP stopped that. They rather be ignorant and have people dead than understand the causes and propose solutions. No answer will be permanent. That's why we have a living government. We don't write laws (like the farking bible) and expect that to explain everything for eternity. When new problems crop up, we propose new solutions. When printable guns come into being, we'll deal with them then. Just because the possibility of printable guns in the near future doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with the problems of the present. People SHOULD know how many clips you have. People with exception amount of weapons and ammo are a danger to society and should be monitored. Don't want to be monitored? Don't have them.


Cite on the measurable part regarding the AWB?

How many spree killers or murderers who have used a firearm to kill have had an exceptional amount of weapons targetted under the proposed or expired AWBs?

Don't want a trans vaginal ultrasound?....don't get an abortion....good analogy or no? If not why?
 
2013-03-20 05:49:37 PM

Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests

Politics is a popularity contest, but, OK.  Good luck with that.  I'm super-OK with Teddy being all talk and no accomplishment.

Of course it is. Thats how C students who run companies into the ground get elected, thats how constitutional scholars who continue if not expand unconstitutional programs get elected etc...and in both cases...twice.


Oh, now you know better than SCOTUS?

Quite an ego you've got there.
 
2013-03-20 05:49:48 PM

Giltric: How many spree killers or murderers who have used a firearm to kill have had an exceptional amount of weapons targetted under the proposed or expired AWBs?


I think you just made a good argument for a much more expansive AWB, perhaps even a handgun ban.
 
2013-03-20 05:50:13 PM

dericwater: Obamacare was created (by the Heritage Foundation) as a way to still use a free market approach AND save money.


Can someone in the class tell us what's wrong with this sentence?
 
2013-03-20 05:55:09 PM

The Name: Giltric: How many spree killers or murderers who have used a firearm to kill have had an exceptional amount of weapons targetted under the proposed or expired AWBs?

I think you just made a good argument for a much more expansive AWB, perhaps even a handgun ban.


They pulled the one targetting firearms that have killed children,  things that go u,p and safety items that keep people from burning their hands on the barrel due to lack of votes.

Do you think one that includes shotguns and handguns will pass?
 
2013-03-20 05:58:48 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests

Politics is a popularity contest, but, OK.  Good luck with that.  I'm super-OK with Teddy being all talk and no accomplishment.

Of course it is. Thats how C students who run companies into the ground get elected, thats how constitutional scholars who continue if not expand unconstitutional programs get elected etc...and in both cases...twice.

Oh, now you know better than SCOTUS?

Quite an ego you've got there.


Probably just an average sized one as far as Fark is concerned.

A history of giving government an inch has lead to them taking miles.
A history of appointing Justices who will judge the way you want them to hasn't helped either.
 
2013-03-20 06:06:52 PM

Giltric: Do you think one that includes shotguns and handguns will pass?


No, but that doesn't mean it isn't needed.
 
2013-03-20 06:15:30 PM

Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests

Politics is a popularity contest, but, OK.  Good luck with that.  I'm super-OK with Teddy being all talk and no accomplishment.

Of course it is. Thats how C students who run companies into the ground get elected, thats how constitutional scholars who continue if not expand unconstitutional programs get elected etc...and in both cases...twice.

Oh, now you know better than SCOTUS?

Quite an ego you've got there.

Probably just an average sized one as far as Fark is concerned.

A history of giving government an inch has lead to them taking miles.
A history of appointing Justices who will judge the way you want them to hasn't helped either.


Nice bumper stickers.
 
2013-03-20 06:15:32 PM

The Name: Giltric: Do you think one that includes shotguns and handguns will pass?

No, but that doesn't mean it isn't needed.


Free and easy access to abortions would have a more noticeable affect.

Gun control works in homogenous countries with low income disaprity who are subjects with little to no rights. It will never work in the US.
 
2013-03-20 06:19:48 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests

Politics is a popularity contest, but, OK.  Good luck with that.  I'm super-OK with Teddy being all talk and no accomplishment.

Of course it is. Thats how C students who run companies into the ground get elected, thats how constitutional scholars who continue if not expand unconstitutional programs get elected etc...and in both cases...twice.

Oh, now you know better than SCOTUS?

Quite an ego you've got there.

Probably just an average sized one as far as Fark is concerned.

A history of giving government an inch has lead to them taking miles.
A history of appointing Justices who will judge the way you want them to hasn't helped either.

Nice bumper stickers.


K.I.S.S.

Bumper stickers often tell the truth........

www.impactweaponscomponents.com
 
2013-03-20 06:21:53 PM

Giltric: Gun control works in homogenous countries with low income disaprity who are subjects with little to no rights.


Translation: "Gun control works in places without poor blacks and mexicans, and I think Europe still looks like England in Monty Python and the Holy Grail."
 
2013-03-20 06:45:05 PM

Kuroboom: Does he look kinda like Chris-chan to anyone else or is it just me?


I've been thinking the exact same thing ever since the runoff against Dewhurst.

/Sounds just like him too
//Chris is probably smarter though
///Threes
 
2013-03-20 06:47:09 PM

cram_hole: So the Senate is like Fark? New people should lurk for a year or two and then slowly start making themselves known?  So basically Cruz is a threadshiatter/troll.


Surprisingly accurate.
 
2013-03-20 06:52:26 PM

rufus-t-firefly: You do know that "Hispanic" is an ethnicity and not a race, right?


You do know that "M-16" is a gun and not a firearm, right?

http://thesaurus.com/browse/ethnic
 
2013-03-20 06:54:36 PM

shanrick: When asked for comment his brother Pablo replied:
"Whatcha gonna do when she says goodbye
Whatcha gonna do when she is gone"


Snicker.
 
2013-03-20 07:14:12 PM

Kuroboom: Does he look kinda like Chris-chan to anyone else or is it just me?


Woohoo! A Chris chan reference! I'm so hungry for content these days that I felt a tingle at the mention of similarity.
 
2013-03-20 07:19:15 PM

The Name: Giltric: Gun control works in homogenous countries with low income disaprity who are subjects with little to no rights.

Translation: "Gun control works in places without poor blacks and mexicans, and I think Europe still looks like England in Monty Python and the Holy Grail."


You have not discussed anything yet. You may start anytime you are capable of logical and rational discussion.
 
2013-03-20 07:22:39 PM

GAT_00: He was a punchline before he even got elected.  But since he's a Republican from TexasCanada, his victory was pretty much guaranteed once he got through the primary.  Each of those two sure love their stupid, much less combined.


Yo, Texas...quit electing carpetbaggers from Canuckistan, mkay?
 
2013-03-20 07:29:23 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: GAT_00: Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.

Against Dewhurst he was. Once again, if it weren't for the gerrymandering, Cruz would have been knocked out in the primary.

How do you gerrymander a state?


In the vein of "I'm Just A Bill (on Capitol Hill)"
 
2013-03-20 07:32:47 PM

Giltric: The Name: Giltric: Gun control works in homogenous countries with low income disaprity who are subjects with little to no rights.

Translation: "Gun control works in places without poor blacks and mexicans, and I think Europe still looks like England in Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

You have not discussed anything yet. You may start anytime you are capable of logical and rational discussion.


Well, I kind of just called you out on your nonsense about "homogenous countries" and "subjects with little to no rights."  Would you care to elaborate so maybe you won't look like such a rube?
 
2013-03-20 07:35:54 PM

zenobia: Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: GAT_00: Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.

Against Dewhurst he was. Once again, if it weren't for the gerrymandering, Cruz would have been knocked out in the primary.

How do you gerrymander a state?

In the vein of "I'm Just A Bill (on Capitol Hill)"


Sorry. I see what you said there. Still a good illustration for House seats, though.
 
2013-03-20 07:42:02 PM

The Name: Giltric: The Name: Giltric: Gun control works in homogenous countries with low income disaprity who are subjects with little to no rights.

Translation: "Gun control works in places without poor blacks and mexicans, and I think Europe still looks like England in Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

You have not discussed anything yet. You may start anytime you are capable of logical and rational discussion.

Well, I kind of just called you out on your nonsense about "homogenous countries" and "subjects with little to no rights."  Would you care to elaborate so maybe you won't look like such a rube?


As a side note, I have to say that I find it hilarious when a Republican says something blatantly ignorant or offensive, someone gives it the response it deserves, and then the Republican gets all butthurt because they're not treating it like a debate on Charlie Rose.
 
2013-03-20 08:04:18 PM
If I were a freshman senator, I wouldn'tw worry too much about the opinions of people who couldn't pass a budget for the last four years. Least of all Feinstein.
 
2013-03-20 08:43:14 PM

The Name: Giltric: The Name: Giltric: Gun control works in homogenous countries with low income disaprity who are subjects with little to no rights.

Translation: "Gun control works in places without poor blacks and mexicans, and I think Europe still looks like England in Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

You have not discussed anything yet. You may start anytime you are capable of logical and rational discussion.

Well, I kind of just called you out on your nonsense about "homogenous countries" and "subjects with little to no rights."  Would you care to elaborate so maybe you won't look like such a rube?


The gun control crowd inevitably brings up Australia and Great Britain...as well as a Scandanavian country or two. Countries with less income disparity and a more homogenized population than the US....as well as being monarchies where it's populace are subjects with far less rights than are celebrated in the US.

You claim gun control is needed yet have chosen to not back up your claim.

Do you think the US has a low income disaprity and is a homogenized country or are you projecting your own racism?
 
2013-03-20 08:44:49 PM

The Name: The Name: Giltric: The Name: Giltric: Gun control works in homogenous countries with low income disaprity who are subjects with little to no rights.

Translation: "Gun control works in places without poor blacks and mexicans, and I think Europe still looks like England in Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

You have not discussed anything yet. You may start anytime you are capable of logical and rational discussion.

Well, I kind of just called you out on your nonsense about "homogenous countries" and "subjects with little to no rights."  Would you care to elaborate so maybe you won't look like such a rube?

As a side note, I have to say that I find it hilarious when a Republican says something blatantly ignorant or offensive, someone gives it the response it deserves, and then the Republican gets all butthurt because they're not treating it like a debate on Charlie Rose.



Those damned republicans! The nerve of them to question my statement!
 
2013-03-20 08:54:01 PM

xaldin: dericwater: randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.

Correction: Nothing angers a liberal more than having to reiterate a truth to some idiot blabbering on with some inane falsehood.

Issues where the idiot (i.e., GOP) are wrong on:
* Evolution
* "Legitimate rape"
* The cost and constitutionality of Obamacare
* Tricke-down economics
* Defense spending
* Climate change
* Oil subsidies
* Social Security
* Education reform
* H1-B visa reform
* Immigration reform
* Abortion and family planning
* Voter Rights
* Civil Rights
* Stem Cell research
* Most NSF-granted research
* Science in general
* Technology in general
* Economic systems in general
* Medicine and health in general
* Gun control

Each and every one of these issues -- and more, the GOP have been on the wrong side and continue to make statements and stake positions that are patently wrong, unworkable, defeating, hypocritical, self-inconsistent, unfeasible, deliberately so in some cases; and continue to keep pushing those stupid points. That's what liberals are angered at.

Interesting list. I don't think a number of the line items could be considered proven fact that only one side could possibly be right (thus there being a right or wrong side). It's a tad arrogant to unilaterally declare a different view on a topic as being the wrong side.  Now on topics that can be factually and methodically proven sure (the rather inane myths about rape/abortion that the GOP fields for instance) but several of those do not have such clear and concise facts to prove them. In fact a number of those are such complicated issues that there may not be a single right answer and neither party might be right due to the number of variables.


That's how Democrats operate. Throw in some distracting arguments, a few leftist blogs and forums, a few media outlets such as MSNBC, Huffington Post, CNN, and a few popular celebrities and the left becomes very successful at making the right look stupid on all these issues. The Democrats are also very good at taking one person's stupid opinion (ie "legitimate rape") and making that the official opinion of the Republican party.
 
2013-03-20 08:55:08 PM

Giltric: Countries with less income disparity and a more homogenized population than the US


You have yet to explain how that is relevant at all.

Giltric: monarchies where it's populace are subjects with far less rights than are celebrated in the US.


www.rigsofrods.com
 
2013-03-20 08:57:27 PM

Mr. Breeze: That's how Democrats operate. Throw in some distracting arguments, a few leftist blogs and forums, a few media outlets such as MSNBC, Huffington Post, CNN, and a few popular celebrities and the left becomes very successful at making the right look stupid on all these issues. T


The first issue was evolution. How exactly does the media and celebrities make the GOP so wrong on that?
 
2013-03-20 08:59:45 PM

Elzar: One Senator decides to take on the establishment and suddenly all you libby libs are for protecting the good ole boys club... As a master of rebuttal, Senator Cruz has much more in common with Mr. Smith then any of you pinkos will ever know.


0
 
2013-03-20 09:11:33 PM

Mr. Breeze: That's how Democrats operate. Throw in some distracting arguments, a few leftist blogs and forums, a few media outlets such as MSNBC, Huffington Post, CNN, and a few popular celebrities and the left becomes very successful at making the right look stupid on all these issues. The Democrats are also very good at taking one person's stupid opinion (ie "legitimate rape") and making that the official opinion of the Republican party.


Democrats don't have to make Republicans look stupid.  All they have to do is let Republicans talk for five minutes.

And if you don't want stupid Todd Akin comments becoming the official opinion of the Republican Party, then your Vice Presidential candidate shouldn't co-sponsor bills with Todd Akin that try to legalize his stupid comments.
 
2013-03-20 09:11:59 PM

Mr. Breeze: That's how Democrats operate. Throw in some distracting arguments, a few leftist blogs and forums, a few media outlets such as MSNBC, Huffington Post, CNN, and a few popular celebrities and the left becomes very successful at making the right look stupid on all these issues. The Democrats are also very good at taking one person's stupid opinion (ie "legitimate rape") and making that the official opinion of the Republican party.


It's not that Republicans make stupid arguments it's just that there's a huge conspiracy to make them look stupid.  Yeah, that's the ticket.
 
2013-03-20 09:15:52 PM

Mr. Breeze: The Democrats are also very good at taking one person's stupid opinion (ie "legitimate rape") and making that the official opinion of the Republican party.


I sure didn't hear any Republicans talking about how reprehensible that stupid opinion was; I just heard a whole lot of them talking about how bad it "sounded."  Kind of implies that they actually somewhat agree with that opinion, doesn't it?
 
2013-03-20 10:39:52 PM

The Name: Mr. Breeze: The Democrats are also very good at taking one person's stupid opinion (ie "legitimate rape") and making that the official opinion of the Republican party.

I sure didn't hear any Republicans talking about how reprehensible that stupid opinion was; I just heard a whole lot of them talking about how bad it "sounded."  Kind of implies that they actually somewhat agree with that opinion, doesn't it?


I remember during the campaign, Rmoney not only refused to denounce the birther bullshiat, he made this "joke" at an appearance: "No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised."

The Republican Party not only refuses to denounce this crazy shiat, they give it winks and nods.
 
2013-03-20 11:27:15 PM

The Name: Giltric: Countries with less income disparity and a more homogenized population than the US

You have yet to explain how that is relevant at all.

Giltric: monarchies where it's populace are subjects with far less rights than are celebrated in the US.

[www.rigsofrods.com image 500x389]


Not sure if trolling or mad.

Can you elaborate?
 
2013-03-21 12:11:54 AM
He made Feinstein look like the idiot she is.  Good work!  If he is a dick, Obama is a herpes infected donkey dick x 1,000.
 
2013-03-21 12:23:46 AM
"dick" is putting it mildly
 
2013-03-21 12:30:09 AM

Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests

Politics is a popularity contest, but, OK.  Good luck with that.  I'm super-OK with Teddy being all talk and no accomplishment.

Of course it is. Thats how C students who run companies into the ground get elected, thats how constitutional scholars who continue if not expand unconstitutional programs get elected etc...and in both cases...twice.

Oh, now you know better than SCOTUS?

Quite an ego you've got there.

Probably just an average sized one as far as Fark is concerned.

A history of giving government an inch has lead to them taking miles.
A history of appointing Justices who will judge the way you want them to hasn't helped either.

Nice bumper stickers.

K.I.S.S.

Bumper stickers often tell the truth........

[www.impactweaponscomponents.com image 400x272]


ah, double plus smug.
 
2013-03-21 12:55:32 AM
Favoriting The name for excellent work in this thread.
 
2013-03-21 01:47:09 AM
Good.  Somebody needs to shake things up in that cesspool.
 
2013-03-21 02:50:45 AM

Giltric: dericwater: The AWB had measurable effect. We saw what happened after it was passed and what happend after its passage expired in 2004. Allowing the CDC to do the study would help gather more and better data to help give better policy and legislation. But the GOP stopped that. They rather be ignorant and have people dead than understand the causes and propose solutions. No answer will be permanent. That's why we have a living government. We don't write laws (like the farking bible) and expect that to explain everything for eternity. When new problems crop up, we propose new solutions. When printable guns come into being, we'll deal with them then. Just because the possibility of printable guns in the near future doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with the problems of the present. People SHOULD know how many clips you have. People with exception amount of weapons and ammo are a danger to society and should be monitored. Don't want to be monitored? Don't have them.

Cite on the measurable part regarding the AWB?

How many spree killers or murderers who have used a firearm to kill have had an exceptional amount of weapons targetted under the proposed or expired AWBs?

Don't want a trans vaginal ultrasound?....don't get an abortion....good analogy or no? If not why?


Before the 2004 AWB rescinding versus after the 2004 rescinding of the AWB, doubled the number of mass murders.  Here's the link:  http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assau l t-weapons-matter/  From 1995 to 2004, 1.6 shootings per year with 20.9 people shot per year. From 2005 to 2012 (after the expiration of the AWB by GW Bush), 3.4 shootings per year with 54.8 people shot per year.  Is that pretty clear to you? If not fark YOU, MOTHER farkER!!!

Get an abortion, don't need an unnecessary trans vaginal ultrasound.  What the fark does that ultrasound do other than shame the pregnant woman? Huh? What THE fark DOES IT farkING DO? fark YOU, MOTHER farkER!!!!
 
2013-03-21 03:14:17 AM

moanerific: We have created amendments that take the power of other ones yes. But you don't just start nullifying the Bill of Rights! Once you get rid of one, who gives a shiat about the rest of the BoR?


I don't really see why one amendment should be treated differently from another amendment just because of its number. Basically you're arguing that, for example, the 3rd is more important than the 13th, just because the 3rd is in the Bill of Rights and the 13th isn't. The hell with its number. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.
 
2013-03-21 04:17:42 AM

dericwater: Giltric: dericwater: The AWB had measurable effect. We saw what happened after it was passed and what happend after its passage expired in 2004. Allowing the CDC to do the study would help gather more and better data to help give better policy and legislation. But the GOP stopped that. They rather be ignorant and have people dead than understand the causes and propose solutions. No answer will be permanent. That's why we have a living government. We don't write laws (like the farking bible) and expect that to explain everything for eternity. When new problems crop up, we propose new solutions. When printable guns come into being, we'll deal with them then. Just because the possibility of printable guns in the near future doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with the problems of the present. People SHOULD know how many clips you have. People with exception amount of weapons and ammo are a danger to society and should be monitored. Don't want to be monitored? Don't have them.

Cite on the measurable part regarding the AWB?

How many spree killers or murderers who have used a firearm to kill have had an exceptional amount of weapons targetted under the proposed or expired AWBs?

Don't want a trans vaginal ultrasound?....don't get an abortion....good analogy or no? If not why?

Before the 2004 AWB rescinding versus after the 2004 rescinding of the AWB, doubled the number of mass murders.  Here's the link:  http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assau l t-weapons-matter/  From 1995 to 2004, 1.6 shootings per year with 20.9 people shot per year. From 2005 to 2012 (after the expiration of the AWB by GW Bush), 3.4 shootings per year with 54.8 people shot per year.  Is that pretty clear to you? If not fark YOU, MOTHER farkER!!!

Get an abortion, don't need an unnecessary trans vaginal ultrasound.  What the fark does that ultrasound do other than shame the pregnant woman? Huh? What THE fark DOES IT farkING DO? fark YOU, MOTHER farkER!!!!


You do realize that a change of 0.308% in the number of people killed by guns (used the total of 11000 from 2010).  Its a crap study based on a horrible law full of loopholes (guess I'll have to buy the brown one) and doesn't actually break apart mass shootings w/ hand guns, high cap,  whatever flaky term is used to define an assault weapon and "normal" rifles/shotguns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everythin g- you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/
http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Hell if you just wanna make a graph and try and prove something the number of overall murders has been going down significantly since the AWB expired, that's about the same level of thought that went into what you linked.
 
2013-03-21 04:49:15 AM

red5ish: When you've been in the Senate for less than two months and you are being compared to Joe McCarthy you might want to re-think your behavior.


Except Cruz (and many of his back-home supporters) would take that comparison as a compliment.
 
2013-03-21 12:01:27 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Magorn: Mentat: "Jim Demint without the charm."

According to Robert's Rules of Order, that constitutes a burn.

Do I have a second?

I believe there is a motion to re-commit on the table vis-a-vis whether an "Oh SNAP" would be an appropriate determination at this point

I filibuster. Because Fartbama.


Senator Mike Lee, is that you?
 
2013-03-22 02:27:05 AM

Weaver95: DROxINxTHExWIND: "Behind closed doors, some Republican senators report that Cruz, in his stone-cold serious prosecutorial style, speaks at length when it's far more common for freshmen to wait before asserting themselves - particularly ones who were just sworn in,"

Fark your fake-ass civility and your Old Boys Club rules about who can speak and when. He's supposed to wait to talk? Wait until what, exactly? The fark is he supposed to do everyday? He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.

you wanna seat in the game you gotta learn to play by the rules.


Does Elizabeth Warren play by those rules?  I think it's Cruz's style that really gets to people.  He needs a coach.
 
2013-03-22 03:08:18 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Weaver95: DROxINxTHExWIND: "Behind closed doors, some Republican senators report that Cruz, in his stone-cold serious prosecutorial style, speaks at length when it's far more common for freshmen to wait before asserting themselves - particularly ones who were just sworn in,"

Fark your fake-ass civility and your Old Boys Club rules about who can speak and when. He's supposed to wait to talk? Wait until what, exactly? The fark is he supposed to do everyday? He was elected to represent his constituents by trying to influence legislation that will benefit them, not to sit in a room deffering to old clowns.

you wanna seat in the game you gotta learn to play by the rules.

Does Elizabeth Warren play by those rules?  I think it's Cruz's style that really gets to people.  He needs a coach.


I've never heard anyone claim that she does not.

But she does draw headlines by.. (gasp) doing her job.
 
Displayed 270 of 270 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report