You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Lord Jim »

Scooter wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:This idea must be the "brain child" of Mick Mulvaney...One gets the impression that he lies awake at night trying to think up new ways to screw over poor people...
Yesterday I caught one of Bernie Sanders's clips on Facebook, he is questioning Mulvaney about cuts to a home heating subsidy (I can't remember the actual name of the program) that was helping 7 million families pay their heating bills. Mulvaney's justification was that there were 11,000 dead people receiving that subsidy. Sanders's utterly reasonable response was, fix THAT then, don't make 7 million families freeze as punishment for 11,000 cheats.
Mick is the kinda guy who would not only answer "Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?" (like Ebenezer) when refusing to make a contribution to help the poor...

He would then also set about trying to find ways to cut the funding for prisons and work houses...

And he is rumored to be the current favorite to replace Kelly as White House COS should he depart...
ImageImageImage

Big RR
Posts: 14093
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

We were on food stamps briefly when my father had an extended period of unemployment, and I recall them being similar to what BP reported, although I do not recall anything having to do with what sort of meat could be bought, but clearly alcohol and tobacco were excluded. I remember shopping with my mother, and the coupons didn't go very far, even in supermarkets; you could get enough to eat for the family of you were very frugal and ate a lot of peanut butter and eggs; there was no UHT milk available at the time, but we did get powdered milk (something I hate to this day) and some canned vegetables--frozen were more expensive and there wasn't enough for any fresh produce. I guess you could just buy potato chips and cookies, but you wouldn't have enough for the month; it was pretty tough to make nourishing meals on the budget given and it took a lot of work.

User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

You really couldn't make this shit up

Post by RayThom »

I get a monthly SNAP/EBT benefit. I am a huge whole milk drinker (two gallons a week) and, ironically, this is all I use my benefit for. Of course, I will adapt if necessary but I see most of this "USDA Foods package" runs counter to my overall healthy diet.

I doubt if this proposal will gain much traction but I do find it odd that Lord Dampnut's court jesters know so little about personal nutrition needs... and don't care. Fuck 'em!
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9561
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Econoline »

Scooter wrote:So as I am reading this, these "reforms" will: (1) drastically reduce consumer choice, (2) create a massive new bureaucracy to implement this new model, (3) distort the market in favour of processed foods at the expense of farm-to-table foods, and (4) give an advantage to those suppliers whose brands will stock these boxes.

Do not all of these represent the antithesis of what the Republican Party is supposed to stand for? Please, anybody, correct me if I am wrong on this.
About 10 months ago I posted this video explaining that the Republican Prime Directive is now "What Would a Dick Do?"

People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16563
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Scooter »

And now in Arizona, turning back democracy over 100 years:
Arizona leaders say they (not you) should decide who can run for the U.S. Senate

Not content with simply shutting you out when it comes to knowing who is trying to buy elections, now Arizona’s leaders are hoping to shut you out when it comes to who you can vote for.

A committee of the Arizona Legislature this week approved a bill that would strip citizens of the power to nominate candidates for the U.S. Senate. Instead, the power would go to …

The Arizona Legislature.

No kidding.

It seems there are leaders who aren't happy that Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake have not given them due deference and so they want to have a hand – a heavy hand – in who Arizona sends to Washington.

“I’ve called a number of times to try and get help,” Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, told his colleagues on the House Federalism, Property Rights and Public Policy Committee. “I don’t even get a secretary. I get a voicemail that says, ‘We are currently not taking any more messages.’”

HCR 2022 proposes that the state Legislature, rather than voters, decide who will be on the November ballot. No need for you to have any say in the primary about who will be nominated.

And no need for independents – who comprise a third of the state’s voters – to apply. The bill includes no method for independents or third-party candidates to be nominated. Instead, Republican legislators would nominate two Republicans and Democrats would nominate two Democrats and you'd be limited to their choices on the general-election ballot.

The bill cleared the committee this week on a 6-3 party-line vote and now goes to the full House.

There is one saving grace. If the Legislature approves it, it’ll have to go on the November ballot, giving voters the final say on whether they want to give up their rights.

The bill is aimed at taking us back a century – to before 1913, when senators were chosen by state legislatures, with no chance for the voters to weigh in.

Then along came the 17th Amendment, providing for the direct election of senators.

But not, apparently, the direct nomination of senators.

The bill is the brainchild of Rep. Travis Grantham, R-Gilbert, who says his proposal would provide balance to Congress, with senators accountable to the Legislature and House members accountable to voters.

Or it’ll just solidify a sizable amount of power in the hands of the Legislature.

The same people who have refused to unmask the dark-money interests that increasing are buying Arizona’s elections.

The same ones who are headed toward preventing cities from requiring dark-money disclosure in local elections.

The same ones who have made it more difficult to mount petition drives to make law via citizen initiative. And easier to get initiatives thrown out in court should they, by some miracle, qualify for the ballot.

Yeah, those people are saying “trust us” to choose a slate a Senate candidates you can vote for.

Because they don’t trust you.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

rubato
Posts: 14213
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by rubato »

scooter:

The Anti-democracy party strikes again. Look for this idea to pop up in red states everywhere like mushrooms in horseshit; or voter disenfranchisement drives (voter ID laws).


My first thought about the food box idea is that it will cost so much for equivalent value even Republicans won't vote for it. But they voted for that budget-busting tax bill so whatdoIkknow?

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16563
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Scooter »

Missouri Third-Graders Selling AR-15 Raffle Tickets For Their Baseball Team

Children in a Missouri town are selling raffle tickets offering an AR-15 assault-style rifle as the prize to raise money for their baseball team. The rifle is the same type of weapon used last week in the Florida school shooting that killed 17 people.

The raffle was launched before the shooting, but Levi Patterson, the coach of the team in Neosho for boys 9 and younger, told The Kansas City Star he plans to continue with the fundraiser.

Patterson said he decided to “turn it into a positive thing” after “getting the hate” in the form of angry Facebook posts after the raffle was first reported.

The weapon was donated as a prize by a team father and co-founder of Neosho gun manufacturer Black Rain Ordnance Inc., which is currently pitching a Spec15 AR pistol on its Facebook page.

“Are you all tone deaf?” a Facebook user asked in a since-deleted post on Patterson’s Facebook page. “AR15 kills seventeen so you raffle a gun for child sports? Lord, people wake the hell up.”
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5442
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Do you have to pass a background check to buy a raffle ticket?

To answer my own question: (from https://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/missouri-gun-laws)
Since Missouri gun law has no regulations on dealers, and does not require background checks on all firearms sales, funneling of weapons to felons and convicts has become a substantial problem.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16563
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Scooter »

Trump holds notecard with apparent reminder to say 'I hear you' in meeting with shooting survivors

Image

Survivors of the Parkland shooting that saw 17 people killed last week met with President Donald Trump on Wednesday to plead for greater protections of American schoolchildren from gun violence.

While Trump listened to the survivors and their parents' calls for stricter gun control, the president held a notecard apparently containing talking points and social niceties.

"I hear you," read bullet point No. 5.

The top two items on the list were questions: "What would you most want me to know about your experience?" and "What can we do to help you feel safe?"

Those attending the White House listening session had ideas. Some called for an increase in the age limit for buying assault weapons.

"If you can't buy a beer, [you] shouldn't be able to buy a gun," said Cary Gruber, father of a Parkland High School student.

Andrew Pollack, whose daughter Meadow was killed in the shooting, said schools, not gun laws, need fixing.

"It should have been one school shooting and we should have fixed it and I'm pissed," he said.

For his part, Trump promised to be "very strong on background checks" and "do plenty of other things." He said his administration would look into the idea of providing concealed weapons to trained teachers.

More than 40 people assembled in the State Dining Room for the session, including six Parkland students and their parents and the parents of children killed in the Sandy Hook and Columbine school shootings.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5442
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Where can I get a shirt with my waist size embroidered on the cuff? I think that's so cool.

Big RR
Posts: 14093
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Big RR »

Waist? that's either his head or his neck.

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 14015
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Joe Guy »

# 6 - This side has no notes on it. See other side.

User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by RayThom »

Hey, where's Lord Dampnut's wedding ring? I could be wrong, but I get a vibe that he and Melania may be experiencing some stormy weather.

True love travels on a gravel road, I suppose.
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9030
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Bicycle Bill »

ex-khobar Andy wrote:Where can I get a shirt with my waist size embroidered on the cuff? I think that's so cool.
He's the 45th POTUS, and maybe this is the only way he can remember it so he doesn't get (even more) confused when making 'off the cuff' remarks?
Or it's meant to remind him that he is just the 45th POTUS and not King Dumb'old the First.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16563
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Scooter »

Iowa grants gun permits to the blind

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Here's some news that has law enforcement officials and lawmakers scratching their heads:

Iowa is granting permits to acquire or carry guns in public to people who are legally or completely blind.

No one questions the legality of the permits. State law does not allow sheriffs to deny an Iowan the right to carry a weapon based on physical ability.

The quandary centers squarely on public safety. Advocates for the disabled and Iowa law enforcement officers disagree over whether it's a good idea for visually disabled Iowans to have weapons.

On one side: People such as Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington, who demonstrated for The Des Moines Register how blind people can be taught to shoot guns. And Jane Hudson, executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, who says blocking visually impaired people from the right to obtain weapon permits would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. That federal law generally prohibits different treatment based on disabilities

On the other side: People such as Dubuque County Sheriff Don Vrotsos, who said he wouldn't issue a permit to someone who is blind. And Patrick Clancy, superintendent of the Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School, who says guns may be a rare exception to his philosophy that blind people can participate fully in life.

Private gun ownership — even hunting — by visually impaired Iowans is nothing new. But the practice of visually impaired residents legally carrying firearms in public became widely possible thanks to gun permit changes that took effect in Iowa in 2011.

"It seems a little strange, but the way the law reads we can't deny them (a permit) just based on that one thing," said Sgt. Jana Abens, a spokeswoman for the Polk County Sheriff's Department, referring to a visual disability.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 14015
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Joe Guy »

...who demonstrated for The Des Moines Register how blind people can be taught to shoot guns....
You'd think shooting accuracy might be a bit of a concern. They probably have blind shooting ranges in Iowa for people to learn that skill.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8570
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Sue U »

...who demonstrated for The Des Moines Register Jimmy Kimmel how blind people can be taught to shoot guns....
GAH!

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16563
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Scooter »

Psychiatrist who treated patients for their homosexuality had sex with male patients in his office

A long-time Toronto psychiatrist, who believes homosexuality is a “sexual disorder” that can be overcome, has been found guilty by Ontario’s medical regulator of sexually abusing two of his male patients.

Dr. Melvyn Iscove, 72, was described in a decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s discipline committee as having a “special interest in the treatment of patients with problems related to homosexuality.”

He also engaged in mutual masturbation and oral sex with two male patients on different occasions during therapy sessions, and once had anal intercourse with one of them in his office, the committee found.

“Neither complainant described any emotional or romantic aspects of the sexual activity with Dr. Iscove, and both said that at some point, they thought that the sexual activity was part of the therapy and an attempt to cure them of homosexuality by engaging in the acts, rather than fantasizing about them,” the five-member discipline panel wrote in a decision released this week.

Theories on homosexuality being an illness have long been discredited — the World Health Organization removed it from its list of mental illnesses in 1992 — and in 2015, Ontario became the first province to ban so-called “conversion therapy” that purported to change an individual’s sexuality.

As for Iscove, he denied the sexual abuse allegations, which mostly date back to the 1990s and early 2000s. His licence was immediately suspended after the guilty findings pending a penalty hearing that has yet to be scheduled.

During a penalty hearing, doctors found to have had sex with a patient automatically lose their licence.

“We're both very disappointed with the result, obviously,” said Iscove’s lawyer, Alfred Kwinter. “Dr. Iscove has always denied the allegations, he continues to do so, and he's seriously considering an appeal.”

The doctor still faces a separate discipline hearing for an allegation of “improper conduct in a public men’s washroom,” according to his profile on the College of Physicians’ online register.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16563
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Scooter »

I thought to myself, this had to have originated on The Onion or Borowitz and unwittingly reported as true, but no, Snopes says it happened:
‘Get out of the country!’: Navajo lawmaker harassed by Arizona Trump supporters accusing him of being here ‘illegally’

Supporters of President Donald Trump used racist language against dark-skinned public servants while rallying against immigration, the Arizona Capitol Times reported Saturday.

“Supporters of President Donald Trump singled out dark-skinned lawmakers, legislative staffers and children at the Capitol on Jan. 25 as they protested congressional efforts to pass immigration reform, according to staffers of the Arizona Legislature and two Democratic legislators, AZ Capitol Times reported. “Waving large flags in support of Trump while standing between the House and Senate buildings, the protesters, who were also armed, asked just about anyone who crossed their path if they ‘support illegal immigration.’”

One dark-skinned Arizonian who was asked if he was in the country “illegally” was Rep. Eric Descheenie (D-Chinle).

Rep. Descheenie is a Navajo lawmaker.


“I’m indigenous to these lands,” Rep. Descheenie said. “My ancestors fought and died on these lands. I just told them, ‘Don’t ask me that question.’”
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16563
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: You really, really, REALLY couldn't make this shit up

Post by Scooter »

Tennessee GOP Kills Bill Banning Child Marriage

Last week it was Kentucky, this week it’s Tennessee: After opposition from conservative Christians, Republicans kill bill banning child marriage in Tennessee.

A bill that would protect children from child marriage has been killed after objections from conservative Christians worried that the new law protecting children would damage their efforts in opposing gay marriage. (WTF?????)

The Hill reports:
State House Republicans in Tennessee on Wednesday effectively killed a bill to ban child marriages in an effort to bolster a conservative lawyer’s case against the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.
In essence, conservative Christians in the state are “arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling essentially nullified all Tennessee marriage licenses when it opened the spectrum of legal marriage beyond just between a man and a woman.”

According to this theory, “if Tennessee were to ban child marriages by modifying state marriage law, lawmakers would be acknowledging the existence of same-sex marriage.” (I'm sorry, but is anybody buying this bullshit?)

In other words, conservative Christians in the state are saying “to hell with the children, we need to stop gay marriage at all costs.”

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Darren Jernigan, a Democrat, would simply prohibit marriages where one of the parties is under 18 years of age.

Adding insult to injury, according to reports, the Nonprofit group Unchained at Last says it has found at least three marriages in Tennessee involving a child as young as 10 years old.

Times Free Press reports the bill was killed by House Majority Leader Glen Casada, who “acted at the request of former state Sen. David Fowler, R-Signal Mountain, an attorney who is now head of the Family Action Council of Tennessee.”

The Family Action Council of Tennessee is a powerful conservative Christian group that apparently has no problem with child marriage, but does object to same-sex marriage.

Commenting on the Republican effort to kill his bill banning child marriage, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jernigan, said:
Basically, what has happened is the Family Action Council wants to continue to let 13-year-olds get married in the state at the sake of their court case against same-sex couples. It’s disgraceful. I’m embarrassed for the State of Tennessee, and I can only pray that we bring this back next year and not let them get in the way.
The fact that conservative Christians would block a bill banning child marriage is not surprising. Last week a similar bill banning child marriage in Kentucky was blocked after opposition from the conservative Family Foundation of Kentucky, a powerful lobbying group backed by conservative Christians in the state.

Bottom line: Tennessee Republicans, facing pressure from a powerful conservative Christian lobby, refuse to protect children as young as 13 from being forced into marriage.

And they call it “Christian love.”
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Post Reply