Jump to content

The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

In fairness, one of my old man's high school buddies worked his whole career at Tinker.  We would periodically visit them at their home in Moore.

I enjoyed those visits very, very much, because dad's buddy had a daughter a year older than me who was a ridiculously attractive brunette with very large attention-getting.....things that got Brisket's attention.  Brisket had it bad for her, for many years.

Brisket has since learned that yes, she is an okie through and through, she is a single mom, lives on gov't assistance, and moved back in with her folks.  And, per my dad based on his last visit there, she looked like hell.  50 okie years is like 90 regular years, I think.

lol.  God damn.  From Moore.  Old man worked at Tinker.  I wonder if I knew dem tittiez…

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
59 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

Actually look at the districts and how they are drawn. Look at voter trends by zip. It’s way more complicated than your simple math. 

I think how they're drawn is stupid.

Go look at what my actual position is on this...

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Hagbard Celine said:

this is the way

Nah. Fatwas against our sports rivals are best for negging.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
7 hours ago, GenXer said:

The mayor of choctaw oklahoma weighs in on the tinker situation.

IMG_2557.thumb.jpeg.da53f54880230653124ce6c344722293.jpeg


IMG_2558.thumb.jpeg.b323c069895e4f21da4e9abd024bc44f.jpeg

IMG_2559.thumb.jpeg.f1cf992882681aae1dcc97889d99e5e5.jpeg
IMG_2556.thumb.jpeg.3ba6562b2e70d51c8d075fb8638566a8.jpeg
IMG_2560.thumb.jpeg.0933ba3bbb0f4e9db4fe8cda441c1a29.jpeg

IMG_2561.thumb.jpeg.fcb8c1097a1e24996bc5a884790b4272.jpeg

tldr

Mayor Chad is praying. Leopards are preying.

Zac is amused.

And the people of oklahoma county? What say you last november?

IMG_2562.thumb.jpeg.dd0751d0f3f94af0df54f29da1b4eeb4.jpeg

 

"Since the "Fork in the Road" e-mail, there have been at least 19 follow-ups, all contradicting each other"

Contradicting would be saying you support the movement the president has built while opposing the actions of Elon despite the president explicitly stating that he thinks Elon is doing a "great job" and wants him to get "more aggressive".

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Posted
11 hours ago, Born to Run said:

My wife is on a Lake Travis Moms group. I have no idea why except for the drip of idiocy dopamine hits, like sick fucks that frequent Tex Ags here. Anyway, lots of posts looking for Anti Vax pediatricians- apparently and the ground zero for patriot DRs is Marble Falls.  Least suprising news ever. At least DKR passed peacefully before the freaks killed him vía a previously cured disease.

You have no idea why, but in 8-9. On the when she starts talking to you about energy crystals you’ll know she fun goofed. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Okie State said:

Choc another one up to 'I support what they're doing, just not that they're doing it to us.'

Donald Trump could shoot their dog while Elon rapes their mother and MAGA would start by saying the same thing.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
15 hours ago, bolverk said:

My rule is to only neg: 1) lies, 2) trolling, and 3) bigotry. If someone comes in here and can't avoid doing one of those three things, they're not worth talking to.

I neg people who whine about negging. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

I think how they're drawn is stupid.

Go look at what my actual position is on this...

 

Not responding to questions about designing districts to produce predetermined outcomes?

Posted
8 hours ago, GenXer said:

The mayor of choctaw oklahoma weighs in on the tinker situation.

IMG_2557.thumb.jpeg.da53f54880230653124ce6c344722293.jpeg


IMG_2558.thumb.jpeg.b323c069895e4f21da4e9abd024bc44f.jpeg

IMG_2559.thumb.jpeg.f1cf992882681aae1dcc97889d99e5e5.jpeg
IMG_2556.thumb.jpeg.3ba6562b2e70d51c8d075fb8638566a8.jpeg
IMG_2560.thumb.jpeg.0933ba3bbb0f4e9db4fe8cda441c1a29.jpeg

IMG_2561.thumb.jpeg.fcb8c1097a1e24996bc5a884790b4272.jpeg

tldr

Mayor Chad is praying. Leopards are preying.

Zac is amused.

And the people of oklahoma county? What say you last november?

IMG_2562.thumb.jpeg.dd0751d0f3f94af0df54f29da1b4eeb4.jpeg

 

All Cox sucker and his shithole state is getting exactly what they deserve.  Fuck him.  Fuck them.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

 

Fake news!   We have been over run this year... SOOOOOOOO many Canadians down here.  It was supposed to be the one bright spot in this whole mess.  In words of Tangerine Palpatine, they're not sending the good ones! 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Okie State said:

Choc another one up to 'I support what they're doing, just not that they're doing it to us.'

choc?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 2/21/2025 at 8:58 AM, Degenerate Gardner said:

I’m going with Bonhoeffer. It doesn’t seem like a great sign when the words of a German theologian murdered by Nazis resonate so:
 

On Stupidity

Just wanted to say thanks for the Bonhoeffer link. Spot on. I'm sharing with friends/family. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
43 minutes ago, locodos said:

It's almost like the people who want small government, still want lots of things from the government.

Yep, as we've said on this thread the best part of the indiscriminate government slashing is that the idiot rubes genuinely don't understand that on the whole Democratic areas give money and Republican areas take money from the federal government. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

if you follow that logic, then Reagan‘s sweep of 49 states would result in a 98% Republican Congress.     Or - maybe that event was just one election with a candidate weakened by massive inflation, the Iran hostage crisis, and a bunch of other issues that decided the presidency that year. 

IMG_4193.thumb.png.4ed7d7fe00e5e607b862919d6ac3cfff.png

Enough of the voting population in the various states liked Democrats that 47 senators were democrats the year of Reagan’s election.

Saying that because of a single presidential election 98% of the Congress should be GOP as a result of that election is mind numbingly stupid.   that goes for his display of Trump votes in two states to justify a claim that those states are gerrymandered.

It is just more false facts to support why the GOP does not want actual democracy.  Which is why they gerrymand, why they interfere in elections by making it hard for Democrats in Democratic voting areas to find a polling booth, why they want to introduce owners restrictions on voting in general, because they know poor people have more difficulty proving the things they want, thereby diminishing democratic vote - and why they do things like pass bills that say you can’t give water to people standing in line in the hot sun to vote - because the GOP placed a reduced number of voting machines in that Democratic area to limit votes and make the weight in line so onerous that people give up. 

that is his team, and he won’t show up to admit any of that. 

 

If you are going to berate @Ag with kids for his position, you could at least understand it so you don’t completely misrepresent it.  In that 1980 landslide, Reagan got about 50.7% of the populace vote, which I believe @Ag with kids is saying should end up to approximate their control of Congress

Edited by Ghost of NMAS
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, hornmpa96 said:

I hate speaking for Ag with Kids but generally speaking most people view the effectiveness of a gerrymander as the delta between who wins House elections as compared to how a state votes on a statewide basis. That’s why he is pointing to the discrepancy between statewide totals and representation in the house.

 

I understand his point of view, but put another way that delta measures the extent to which the parties do not have to be responsive to local issues, which @Ag with kids puts in quotes, but has never responded to, going back literally two full decades. 
My position is really simple: gerrymandering on the basis of party is incompatible with representative democracy and corrosive to the Republic. 
 

12 hours ago, hornmpa96 said:

Both California and New York have several competitive seats.

And that is BECAUSE local issues often transcend party when districts are designed around communities of interest. 
 

 

54 minutes ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

which I believe @Ag with kids is saying should end up to approximate their control of Congress

But when he does that he’s begging the question (ie, that it should), because, again, local issues and candidates often transcend party when districts are designed around communities of interest. 
 

The only hypothesis I’ve been able to come with for why he thinks that (because he won’t explain why it “should” be that way) is that he genuinely believes that parties represent some kind of school of thought or ideology, which is of course suckerbait. 
 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:
My position is really simple: gerrymandering on the basis of party is incompatible with representative democracy and corrosive to the Republic. 
 

 

I completely agree with this point. I only posted because it appeared to me that Gator is essentially misrepresenting his point. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
41 minutes ago, Mittens said:

I know we're all pointing and laughing at the fools who voted for their own demise, but I'm also heartbroken for those who didn't vote for the orange asshole who are getting caught up in this bullshit.  My cousin was raised in an Army home, and when my uncle retired, he went to on work for the VA for another 20 years.  She's married to a Marine Corps Colonel.  Has worked for the VA for roughly 15yrs and other federal orgs here and there as she's moved w/ her husband.  She's never not been in service of this country, in one way or another.  Currently she is w/ the VA, helping elderly vets manage their benefits and lifestyle transitions (read: losing their spouse/living single, moving into managed housing, etc).  She is having to deal with this, and it wouldn't surprise me if she loses her job because helping vets navigate their elder years isn't considered mission critical.  Fuck Trump.  Fuck Musk.  Fuck every dumb cunt who voted for and supports those pieces of shit.

My older sister left her RN hospital job after 25 years and now works for a VA program to help pregnant veterans get support and resources they may need entering motherhood. I don't know if her job will be safe, I haven't talked to her about her thoughts, but I can't imagine it's the safest. She also voted for Trump because her and her husband (USPS worker) swore their retirement accounts only lose money under blue presidents and print money under red ....... so..... whatever. I have a suspicion they did fine the last 4 years and only talk about the wins when it suits their vote. Definitely not because her husband is a raging bigot and would have never voted for a black person, they swear it's only because of the retirement money. Not the "The Cowboys will never win a super bowl with a (hard R) at quarterback" at Thanksgiving style bigotry. If Kamala had a plan to personally make them wealthy in retirement they would have voted for her I'm sure. /s


....I love my sister, and realize there's a growing chance they have fucked around plenty and are entering the next phase,  but at least I know she will be fine because she can always go back to delivering babies, even if she was done with it after a couple decades. 

  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

If you are going to berate @Ag with kids for his position, you could at least understand it so you don’t completely misrepresent it.  In that 1980 landslide, Reagan got about 50.7% of the populace vote, which I believe @Ag with kids is saying should end up to approximate their control of Congress

Misrepresent? You are throwing the same nonsensical bullshit against the wall.  There is no nexus between one presidential election and the make up of Congress that should erase the considered individual congressional election results throughout the country.   

What are you suggesting? That in two years after Reagan won, we cancel the bi-elections?   I mean, we don’t have a presidential race to tell us how many congressmen should be from what party in every state two years later.   Cancel them,  I guess… or use the same percentage until the next presidential election?  That is stupidity on steroids.  You are arguing to cancel individual state congressional elections with some vague process that matches Congress party apportionment with a presidential election result.  

And what do you intend to do with winning candidates who are independents? They have no winning presidential candidate to allow them to latch onto their coattails and go to Congress.   So I guess we ban independents and replace them with GOP members?

It ignores the political maxim that all politics is local.   You provide no mechanism for how you decide who sits in Congress, or how we figure out off year election congressional seating.  Ag has not bothered to share that and you have not bothered to interpret that for him. 

The bottom line is, you can’t throw out some bullshit like this that eviscerates the constitution’s enactment of congressional elections - and not share one peep of how this presidential popular election result controls the make up of Congress mandate will work - or why it is not patently unconstitutional.  I mean, you can, and just did, but that doesn’t make the author of this plan immune from criticism for expressing it.

“Lets do some stuff nullifying the constitution and popular elections to get more GOP members in Congress” obviously holds some attractiveness to Ag and like thinking MAGA’s, but it would really be helpful for him to get a little more granular if he wants acceptance of that idea.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

if you follow that logic, then Reagan‘s sweep of 47 states would result in a 94% Republican Congress.     Or - maybe that event was just one election with a candidate weakened by massive inflation, the Iran hostage crisis, and a bunch of other issues that decided the presidency that year. 

IMG_4193.thumb.png.4ed7d7fe00e5e607b862919d6ac3cfff.png

Enough of the voting population in the various states liked Democrats that 47 senators were democrats the year of Reagan’s election.

Saying that because of a single presidential election 98% of the Congress should be GOP as a result of that election is mind numbingly stupid.   that goes for his display of Trump votes in two states to justify a claim that those states are gerrymandered.

It is just more false facts to support why the GOP does not want actual democracy.  Which is why they gerrymand, why they interfere in elections by making it hard for Democrats in Democratic voting areas to find a polling booth, why they want to introduce owners restrictions on voting in general, because they know poor people have more difficulty proving the things they want, thereby diminishing democratic vote - and why they do things like pass bills that say you can’t give water to people standing in line in the hot sun to vote - because the GOP placed a reduced number of voting machines in that Democratic area to limit votes and make the weight in line so onerous that people give up. 

that is his team, and he won’t show up to admit any of that. 

 

Yes, it's fitting apportionment to a predetermined outcome when the outcome doesn't necessarily correlate to the actual preferences of the electorate.

It's less common these days, because of gerrymandering among other things, but there are or have been states with governors and legislatures of different party than the state's voting for President.

Further, should it be how they vote for Pres?  Governor?  Senator?

Apportionment needs to be pretty much purely geographic/demographic.  End of story.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

if you follow that logic, then Reagan‘s sweep of 47 states would result in a 94% Republican Congress.     Or - maybe that event was just one election with a candidate weakened by massive inflation, the Iran hostage crisis, and a bunch of other issues that decided the presidency that year. 

IMG_4193.thumb.png.4ed7d7fe00e5e607b862919d6ac3cfff.png

 

 

Look at those Electoral vote numbers. Imagine you had the Franklin Mint Chess Set concession for upstate New York in those days, you'd be printing your own money for 4-8 years, especially if you bought up a bunch of farms right outside Atlanta.

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, BurdineBandit said:

....I love my sister, and realize there's a growing chance they have fucked around plenty

I mean she’s not in the same league as South Austin’s mom, but with persistence and hard work, who knows?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I think we can effectively ignore this guy.  He is team GOP.  Democrats won’t “play nice.” Whatever the fuck that means.    

I think it means he is part of the cult.   I challenged him to be a conservative when he pretends it, listed out a few of their own core principles and how none of them are being upheld by the Republican party, and of course this is ignored, because at the root of it, he knows he cannot challenge my assertion which is a insulting to him and feels like violence, that he is unprincipled and has no political values, only a membership and identity tied to a social club.  

Like the aggys, they frequently get caught cheating and justify their mediocrity simply because if they lose, they must have been cheated.   Admitting the Randolph Duke laid out evidence of their school's mythology instead of actually just being proud of who they are requires a little self introspection which they refuse to undertake, because they are far to insecure to admit, "I was wrong."

California had 26 counties vote for Harris and 33 vote for Trump.   That is 9.3 million people in those 26 counties and 6.1 million in the 33 counties, winning 10 counties more that previously went to Biden.   Which means 36 counties voted for Blue and 13 voted Red in the previous election.   Of the congressional districts, Harris won 41 of 52 congressional districts.  

So let us look at how this breaks down.  In the previous (2020) voting 73% voted blue by county, and 79% voted blue by district.    In the previous election Biden carried the state by 65% of the total votes.   Well maybe this is totally rigged right?  Who draws these districts?   It is handled by an independent commission consisting of 5 Rs, 5 Ds, and 4 Independents, and they whittle it down and then draw names at random.  You can read about it here.  

Read about how Texas does it here.   Here is an excerpt. 

Spoiler

Federal census population data is delivered to the legislature no later than April 1 of the year following the decennial census, and the data is usually provided several weeks earlier. As soon as the census data is verified and loaded in the computer systems, the members of the legislature and other interested parties begin drawing plans. Bills to enact new state redistricting plans follow the same path through the legislature as other legislation.

If Texas senate or house districts are not enacted during the first regular session following the publication of the decennial census, the Texas Constitution requires that the Legislative Redistricting Board (LRB), a five‐member body of state officials including the lieutenant governor and speaker of the house, meet and adopt its own plan. The LRB has jurisdiction only in the months immediately following that regular session.

So @Ag with kids  we have one system which uses an independent system to draw congressional districts to make sure they have and equal population, which has members of both political parties present an in equal numbers, drawn at random, which more or less is close to the outcome of the counties, and this you cite as being unfair.  However, in Texas we have the republican legislature draw it up, or the members of the republican party executives and house, decide on how the districts will be drawn.   

Let's look a little bit more into it.    We have 254 counties, of which 91% voted republican in 2020.  We have 36 districts of which 61% voted republican.   Yet based on popular vote, we have only 52% vote Republican.  

This article outlines something important.  While they have to have an equal population in each district, they do not in-fact have to have equal number of voters.  So felons, kids, immigrants, can be counted towards a districts population, even if they include people who are not permitted to vote.   So this is kind of like the 3/5ths compromise all over.  We count people when we need to boost the numbers, but they have cannot have a voice or role in their own governance.  Furthermore, Federal law allows for up to 10% discrepancy off the total number of members per district.    

So which system is inherently unfair?  The bipartisan commission based district drawing or single party redrawing?  

 

 

Edited by Nivek
clarity
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Watching the Today Show and they are interviewing a fired IRS worker who voted for trump.  “Where are our congressional leaders?” he asks when questioning the President’s overreach.

“Why did the people I voted against fail to save me from the evil maniac I voted for???”

It’s always someone else’s job to prevent the consequences of these stupid fuckers’ willing stupidity. How about paying attention and not voting for an asshole, you overgrown toddler? 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2


×
×
  • Create New...