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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report