Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
27 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Ah, you missed the liabilities of their own making part.  Not difficult to misinterpret my sentence, I'm notably not a wordsmith.   Yes, I expect parents to feed their own children.   I can't say I ever actually did the math on whether I could feed my own before having them, but apparently that's actually math many should be doing.    #butthattaxcredittho

Ah yes, let's worry about the pennies spent on feeding the poor and ignore the dollars missing/wasted in defense/corporate welfare.   

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
Posted
7 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I wear anti-maga/trump shirts a few times a week.  I keep hoping some maga cunt like you says something but you're all cowards.  Fucking pussy.

ive never worn a political item in my life. i just ordered this last night. 

 

 

Screenshot_20251002_112340_Chrome.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Nobody gives a fuck what you think. Your opinion is less than worthless. Your life has no value. No one will miss you when you're gone. Like holy shit, you are actually a terminally online groyper-adjacent guy that's probably in his 40s or 50s. That might be the most embarrassing thing you can possibly be in TYOOL 2025.

I look forward to your "whatever you say, champ!" response that will do a poor job of hiding your rage and pain.

masterful. i totally read that in Andrew's voice 😄

image.gif.8993ef58b31bea81c8884ec6caf0fe4c.gif

  • Haha 3
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Actual question here because I haven't been paying much attention to this shutdown.

Didn't the Big Beautiful Bill include a huge increase to the debt ceiling? Is the government shutting down for some other reason this time?

The debt ceiling let's the government borrow to pay bills it already owes, while a shutdown happens when Congress can’t agree on new funding to keep agencies running. So even though the debt ceiling was raised, that doesn’t stop a shutdown, two separate issues.

Edited by pacman
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, Hmbre97 said:

image.png.fc5679f71c9b70967f70f8cd80f75f3e.png

Most sane people agree that having 'conditions' as to whether a child should starve or not would represent a severe impairment of empathy.

Most sane people agree that children should be able to eat and have shelter, regardless of the circumstances of their parents. I don't care if their parent is the laziest freeloader in the world; that is not a child's fault. 

That's a really good point, I'm certainly fine with pulling from other social programs/welfare to make that happen.  Not their fault who their parents are I suppose.   Also, would have been nice to see more than a snipped of the definition.  Unless lack of empathy is the only characteristic of Psychopathy. 

23 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Ah yes, let's worry about the pennies spent on feeding the poor and ignore the dollars missing/wasted in defense/corporate welfare.   

Pennies make dollars, and defense and corporations are actually purposeful.   

16 minutes ago, Foosters said:

what's funny is that fatty things he's going to heaven when all is done

Swing and a miss.  Aren't you in criminal defense?  I wouldn't worry about me. 

 

  • Fuck You 3
Posted
10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

That's a really good point, I'm certainly fine with pulling from other social programs/welfare to make that happen.  Not their fault who their parents are I suppose.   Also, would have been nice to see more than a snipped of the definition.  Unless lack of empathy is the only characteristic of Psychopathy. 

Pennies make dollars, and defense and corporations are actually purposeful.   

Swing and a miss.  Aren't you in criminal defense?  I wouldn't worry about me. 

 

swing and a miss? You're certain that you're going to heaven when you die? that's objectively funny

Posted
1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Ah, you missed the liabilities of their own making part.  Not difficult to misinterpret my sentence, I'm notably not a wordsmith.   Yes, I expect parents to feed their own children.   I can't say I ever actually did the math on whether I could feed my own before having them, but apparently that's actually math many should be doing.    #butthattaxcredittho

A movement defined by a population of people only worried about “I” without realizing that what actually makes America great is the “we”. By the time this is all settled, I hope there is a still a “we the people” to stand for because it doesn’t look good at the moment. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted

I actually don't understand what those two images are trying to say. are they even the same plan? one is an hsa. is the left today and the right what it will be in 2026? I has a confused. 

Posted
1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Look under your feet.  There's ground.  Touch it.  It's going to be OK - not everything has to be hyperbolic and hysterical. 

Yes, as always, it's nice to be born a white male in America. Thank you.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I actually don't understand what those two images are trying to say. are they even the same plan? one is an hsa. is the left today and the right what it will be in 2026? I has a confused. 

Monthly premiums for this person went from $307/mo to $964/mo.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

“Federal Judiciary Can Sustain Paid Operations Through Oct. 17 Amid Shutdown

The federal judiciary can maintain paid operations through Oct. 17 despite Congress's failure to pass spending legislation to avert a government shutdown, according to a memo from Judge Robert Conrad, who heads the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. This extended operational period is two weeks longer than a previous estimate. While the judiciary was able to remain fully operational during the 2019 government shutdown, it cited budget constraints in recent years as a reason it cannot do so now. The judiciary's more than 30,000 employees are still expected to receive their paychecks as scheduled on Oct. 10 and Oct. 24. However, if funding runs out after that, employees such as law clerks and probation officers would not be paid, and payments to jurors and court-appointed lawyers for indigent defendants would stop, though judges would still be paid. During a shutdown, courts would continue "essential work," including hearing criminal cases, while civil cases could face delays. Immigration courts, which are run by the Justice Department, would continue to hear cases involving detained migrants.”

 

Well, obviously, you don’t wanna provide funding for courts dealing with actual alleged criminals….but by all means, you must continue funding courts getting Jose’ and his brown skin brethren out of our country.

Posted
Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

and changed from an hmo to an hmo hsa?

Perhaps, yes.  Or maybe the old one was a high deductible plan as well and didn't list it.  You'd have to look at the plan details side by side to see how comparable the plans are.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Foosters said:

what's funny is that fatty things he's going to heaven when all is done

You people don't even pay a minimum level of attention. Just recycling shit off your bingo cards. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

 

I can be called a lot of things.  Dishonest is pretty tough, though.  

 

well it’s either that or stupid

 

i assume this has been covered but jtfc

IMG_6433.thumb.jpeg.b32a1a2f06760955c71e27d9b6105649.jpeg

Edited by Celery Man
  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

You people don't even pay a minimum level of attention. Just recycling shit off your bingo cards. 

One trick point decries one trick ponies.

How America got here in a nutshell. 

 

Edited by Huckleberry
Posted
4 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Perhaps, yes.  Or maybe the old one was a high deductible plan as well and didn't list it.  You'd have to look at the plan details side by side to see how comparable the plans are.  

Who cares.  Republican social media bytes aren't concerned with details, why should those from the Dems?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Who cares.  Republican social media bytes aren't concerned with details, why should those from the Dems?

I agree, was just providing some context.  I doubt any of the plans off the exchanges vary all that much in terms of coverage or premiums.  They are both Anthem Bronze Blue Value plans, so they should be relatively similar. /toomuchdetail

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

So anyway, day 2 of the shutdown. How long do we think until the Dems cave?  I give it 5 days, tops. 

Something tells me they're in it for the long haul. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Also, I want a Republican on this site to explain to me how Democrats are shutting down the government when Republicans control the rules of the Senate.

They can't, so they won't.  But they'll be sure to tell you how they are straight shooters.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Also, I want a Republican on this site to explain to me how Democrats are shutting down the government when Republicans control the rules of the Senate.

I want a billion dollars and a harem. guess we can both dream

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Also, I want a Republican on this site to explain to me how Democrats are shutting down the government when Republicans control the rules of the Senate.

Oh yeah, that would be a real good way to put the Senate on the right track. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Oh yeah, that would be a real good way to put the Senate on the right track. 

I want the filibuster gone yesterday, so yes, it would be a great way to put the Senate back on a democratic track.

Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

I want the filibuster gone yesterday, so yes, it would be a great way to put the Senate back on a democratic track.

A better way to put the whole system on a more democratic track would be campaign finance reform. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

A better way to put the whole system on a more democratic track would be campaign finance reform. 

And let's remove the rule that allows Senators to avoid difficult votes. 

Posted

Removing the filibuster to empower the "fascists" is an interesting take. 

I mean I don't love the filibuster, but just trying hold these takes together in some sort of logical coherence is kinda hard. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Foosters said:

what's funny is that fatty things he's going to heaven when all is done

He gets to line up next to Hitler every day to get a pineapple shoved up his ass.

Posted
53 minutes ago, speed817 said:

SIAP

 

 

44 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

and changed from an hmo to an hmo hsa?

Yeah that is quite misleading, however:

 

37 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Who cares.  Republican social media bytes aren't concerned with details, why should those from the Dems?

This

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

A better way to put the whole system on a more democratic track would be campaign finance reform. 

Good one, next you're going to say that congressmen should be limited to index funds in their investments. Preposterous!

  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

Both of you arguing over who makes more money is embarrassing. One of you I regularly agree with on political positions and one of you I do not. Both of you are too busy trying to stroke your ego to even be aware enough to realize how silly it is to have this argument . NO ONE CARES how much money you make. Just ridiculous to read this stuff on here. Having money does not make you a better person nor does it make you more intelligent apparently. I could say so much more on this topic, but I am tired and have to be up early.

Yeah, it wasn't a good look for me.  Fatty just pisses me off acting like he's singlehandedly paying for kids meals at school. He's just one of Trump's useful idiots and has now been added to my ignore list alongside a select few others.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
4 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Yeah, it wasn't a good look for me.  Fatty just pisses me off acting like he's singlehandedly paying for kids meals at school. He's just one of Trump's useful idiots and has now been added to my ignore list alongside a select few others.

Good call. The only dipshit I keep visible is incredulity because a) he’s entertaining in his dipshittery, b) he consistently gets pantsed when he tries to actually argue, and c) he specifically hates me for some reason, which makes me laugh even harder. 
 

image.gif.468a929b9ab8701507d64859d6a20d42.gif

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Removing the filibuster to empower the "fascists" is an interesting take. 

I mean I don't love the filibuster, but just trying hold these takes together in some sort of logical coherence is kinda hard. 

It's not to empower fascists, it's to make the institution more democratic and make Senators think before they vote for something that might get them voted out of office.

Edited by David Dennison
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Removing the filibuster to empower the "fascists" is an interesting take. 

I mean I don't love the filibuster, but just trying hold these takes together in some sort of logical coherence is kinda hard. 

It's almost like this is a forum of dozens of different people who have dozens of different viewpoints. Finding some that don't fit together isn't a gotcha, it's to be expected.

Unless you're someone who foolishly believes the forum is a single-minded behemoth against which you are pathologically obsessed with having painted yourself as a noble warrior fighting a glorious battle. Only then could someone be simple enough to be surprised that different people have different opinions.

But that wouldn't be you, right? 

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
42 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Removing the filibuster to empower the "fascists" is an interesting take. 

I mean I don't love the filibuster, but just trying hold these takes together in some sort of logical coherence is kinda hard. 

Being against the filibuster when Democrats were in charge and still being against the filibuster when Republicans are seems pretty coherent to me. Intellectual consistency can be tricky for some though.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 hours ago, Nivek said:

You stated she is the most toxic and inept politician you have ever seen. 

No, I said "she’s one of the most toxic and inept politicians I’ve ever seen."  Hillary Clinton is the most toxic and inept. But Warren is cancerous, because since she is positioned as a leader in the Democratic party, even though her bad habits and poor instincts matasticize into other parts of the party and cost votes. 
 

5 hours ago, Nivek said:

Because I think someone like Gym Jordan, Mitch McConnell, and Ted Cruz are more toxic.

More toxic to America? Of course. More toxic politically to their own party? The only one who comes close is Ted Cruz, who I compared Warren to. She's as damaging to her party's brand as he is to the GOP. 

5 hours ago, Nivek said:

We need MORE people like her serving and a cultural shift in our idea of what a politician is and does. 

No, We need more people like her serving as appointees, which is why I said "She should have stayed in the appointee lane like Samantha Power." Usually the best appointees make for middling to bad candidates/elected officials.  What you are asking for is a "cultural shift" away from elections being what they have always been, in all places at all times: popularity contests. Democrats need to accept reality and treat them that way, not attempt cultural shift through tone deafness.
 

5 hours ago, Nivek said:

We need serious people, not more gameshow hosts.  And that is a message that has to be made to the public.


No, we need serious people who can win elections.  

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No, I said "she’s one of the most toxic and inept politicians I’ve ever seen."  Hillary Clinton is the most toxic and inept. But Warren is cancerous, because since she is positioned as a leader in the Democratic party, even though her bad habits and poor instincts matasticize into other parts of the party and cost votes. 
 

More toxic to America? Of course. More toxic politically to their own party? The only one who comes close is Ted Cruz, who I compared Warren to. She's as damaging to her party's brand as he is to the GOP. 

No, We need more people like her serving as appointees, which is why I said "She should have stayed in the appointee lane like Samantha Power." Usually the best appointees make for middling to bad candidates/elected officials.  What you are asking for is a "cultural shift" away from elections being what they have always been, in all places at all times: popularity contests. Democrats need to accept reality and treat them that way, not attempt cultural shift through tone deafness.
 


No, we need serious people who can win elections.  

You have still not told me what is so insufferable about Warren.   She’s too smart and doesn’t appeal to the dumb rubes?  She’s too practical in her solutions and doesn’t appeal to the dumb rubes?  She’s a woman and doesn’t appeal to the dumb rubes?

 

I gotta tell you, I’m stumped here, other than a ton of Americans are dumb rubes. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Being against the filibuster when Democrats were in charge and still being against the filibuster when Republicans are seems pretty coherent to me. Intellectual consistency can be tricky for some though.

I'm very much for the pre 1970s "talking filibuster" with a 2/3 vote for cloture, not this slient filibuster shit. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...