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 46
    More: Amusing, senator, freshman, alternate ending  
•       •       •

8570 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-20 12:36:59 PM  
6 votes:

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 02:25:44 PM  
5 votes:

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.
2013-03-20 02:18:46 PM  
5 votes:

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 10:34:54 AM  
4 votes:
So you are saying that he represents his constituents well?
2013-03-20 04:55:29 PM  
3 votes:

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 01:59:08 PM  
3 votes:

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 04:05:07 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:29:33 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:28:37 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:27:22 PM  
2 votes:

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.
m00
2013-03-20 01:19:31 PM  
2 votes:
"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 11:50:37 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:39:13 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:29:33 AM  
2 votes:
"Jim DeMint without the charm."

Yeah, that is diplomatic speak for "complete asshole"
2013-03-20 03:50:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:48:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:18:56 PM  
1 votes:

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".
m00
2013-03-20 03:00:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:54:42 PM  
1 votes:
Basically it boils down to "STFU noob."
2013-03-20 02:37:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:35:07 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:22:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:22:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:22:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:58:40 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:56:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:55:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:55:25 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:49:00 PM  
1 votes:
So assholes like mccain and graham don't like him? He just went up a notch.
2013-03-20 01:47:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:45:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:30:39 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:29:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:26:54 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:20:32 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:41:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:36:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:24:35 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:14:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:09:23 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:54:32 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:40:27 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:28:00 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:19:33 AM  
1 votes:
"Jim Demint without the charm."

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

Do I have a second?
2013-03-20 11:15:04 AM  
1 votes:
I don't give a shiat. Being 'nice' hasn't made the Senate any less broken.
2013-03-20 11:01:16 AM  
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report