House GOP seeks to bar the use of welfare funds at strip clubs. “A bill that GOP leaders are bringing to the House floor Wednesday would require states to prevent welfare recipients from accessing or spending their benefits at strip clubs, casinos and liquor stores.” Well craps! How am I supposed to visit my baby momma and get that lap dance? And don’t those evil republicans realize it’s an election year? You can bet Barry is going to veto that bill! GO BARRY!
This post was last modified on November 10, 2021
View Comments (257)
But just think of the trickle down effect! If my strippers aren't able to cause the trickle down the leg effect, then those welfare dollars ain't gonna get stuffed into the various orifices of my strippers. If dat happens den me and dem will have to go on welfare! My hat maker and tailor, who makes my Huggy Bear knock-off clothes and hats will be on welfare too! And de poor Cadillac dealer will have to file bankruptcy, not to mention Senior Juan in Tijuana who does my custom tuck and rip seat covers.
Pink and purple tuck and roll, I assume?
Author: sa_rose
Comment:
Uhhhh. I don't think that's a toupee!
**************
Okay, call it a wig if you prefer: It's still fake hair. Anyone who isn't blind can see it, just by looking at the synthetic uniformity of color, the impossibly lush growth around the hair line, or the seamline part. He seems to have two, in fact: one with absolutely straight hair; the other with a dip in the front.
Not that I blame him for wearing it (although its phoniness is a very effective symbol for his phony morality). Without it, he'd look just like Curly Joe De Rita, and I don't think that's a good look to cultivate if one hopes to be president of the United States.
TURKEY TURDS #2!
Guess his HAIR was never that important to me. Never paid too much attention. Though I found a photoshopped pic of him with ot the toupee. He looks like Terry Bradshaw.
Author: sa_rose
Comment:
Liberals don't like it nature either. Otherwise there would be no push to save every single species currently existant on the planet. Darwinism was a theory that has been shown to be only part of the answer, and THOUSANDS of species have gone extinct during the life of the planet. But now the liberal have all decided they must "save the ________" because they know better than nature, God, or anything else.
****************
Actually, you're dead wrong, as well as rather ignorant about evolution and the issue of saving species.
I'm well aware that thousands of species have ended up extinct over the years, Rose. Some of them occurred naturally; others as a result of man's interference with their habitat. The extinction of a species---even an insignificant little bug or plant organism that nobody knows or cares much about----upsets the natural balance, causing problems when other species that depended on that one for food or protection are now endangered themselves, or when the organisms it feeds on, having lost a natural predator, are now suffering from overpopulation. If that doesn't particularly bother you, perhaps the fact that such imbalances can cause big problems for industry, and cut seriously into a company's profits, will.
In fact, when we try to protect a species endangered by man's never-ending pursuit of status symbols, convenience or quick profits, we're not acting AGAINST God or nature, but in cooperation with it. The passenger pigeon, once very common across the continent, is one example of a species that was completely exterminated within a century, thanks to man's greed. Are you trying to tell me that that was God's will, and that trying to protect that bird's existence would somehow have been an act against "nature"?
If so, you've been thoroughly brainwashed by industry and the creationists (none of whom, in my experience, have much of an idea about what evolution says or doesn't say).
TURKEY TURDS!!!
First one today.
PEOPLE upset the natural balance. Do you want to eliminate them too? Every extinct species is extinct because they could not survive their environment. While I agree that man should be a better steward of the earth, if the species cannot adapt to the changes in the weather, habitait, food supply, etc., it will go extinct. But that hole in the larger ecological net will allow something else to clourish. It all balances out in Nature, just not always in favor of human opinion.
PEOPLE upset the natural balance. Do you want to eliminate them too? Every extinct species is extinct because they could not survive their environment. While I agree that man should be a better steward of the earth, if the species cannot adapt to the changes in the weather, habitait, food supply, etc., it will go extinct. But that hole in the larger ecological net will allow something else to clourish. It all balances out in Nature, just not always in favor of human opinion.
********************
Not just human opinion, Rose: it could also eventually affect human survival.
The business world doesn't look that far, though---they tend to be more interested in short term profits. Which is why they're inclined to be careless about those species that might be endangered by wholesale industrial practices-----and why they can't necessarily be trusted to do right by the environment on their own.
I am in limited agreement. But saving the spotted owl in the Northwest, which is not a native species and in fact thrives in its home environment in Mexico, is senseless. I am much more concerned about reducing irresponsible logging than saving the spotted owl.
burok will staff his government brothel with chitown trannies.
Author: poppajoe49
Comment:
He was a Senator, was he not?
No my bitch, he was Speaker of the HOUSE!
Moron.
**************
Whoops----that WAS dumb of me. But it doesn't change the fact that he's changed wives about as often as he changes his toupees. ;)
Uhhhh. I don't think that's a toupee!
It isn't; she's just blowing smoke again.
I guess that's a step up from blowin' homeless muzzies.....
Apparently it is. Who knew? I never paid that much attention to his HAIR. Didn't seem critically important to me!
Apparently it is. Who knew? I never paid that much attention to his HAIR. Didn’t seem critically important to me!
***************
But the First Lady's derriere does? ;)
No. I dislike her physical representation as first lady. She dresses like a tramp and wears inappropriate clothing for a FLOTUS. If you note, I even defended her derriere somewhere. So stick it in your ear. Keep staight to whom you are speaking!
No. I dislike her physical representation as first lady. She dresses like a tramp and wears inappropriate clothing for a FLOTUS. If you note, I even defended her derriere somewhere. So stick it in your ear. Keep staight to whom you are speaking!
******************
So tell us: what's your idea of "appropriate" dress for a First Lady, and why would you see it as "inappropriate" for her to wear up-to-the-minute fashions?
TURKEY TURDS AGAIN!
it still isn't important
Try to pay attention here, My Dear Sweet Olivia. Even people who don't make much money have a percentage of it taken from them by Socialist Insecurity. Then it is squandered, borrowed without repayment, and given to people who didn't do anything to support the Ponzi scheme. Then, years later, some of what is being taken from others is handed out to the original supporter of the illegal scam.
In other words, the money is already gone, the person no longer has it. How are they going to invest it?
Try to pay attention here, My Dear Sweet Olivia. Even people who don’t make much money have a percentage of it taken from them by Socialist Insecurity. Then it is squandered, borrowed without repayment, and given to people who didn’t do anything to support the Ponzi scheme. Then, years later, some of what is being taken from others is handed out to the original supporter of the illegal scam.
In other words, the money is already gone, the person no longer has it. How are they going to invest it?
******************************
Gosh, Flash, I don't know anyone who's paid into social security and lost it (although I do know a few people who lost their pension plans, thanks to corporate mismanagement). Would you like to tell me about the victims of that (what's that popular Rush Limbaugh buzzword you dittoheads so love to parrot in reference to social security?) "Ponzi scheme," who qualify for, but are currently being denied, social security funds?
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what you propose we should do with destitute elderly people, if we do away with social security. Did you want to reinstitute work houses? Or just let them die, with the comfortably lazy attitude "Hey, if they can't find family members or some charity to take care of them, it's their own fault, and they deserve to starve and die")? Or were you just sort of hoping that, if we didn't think or talk about them too much, they might just magically vanish?
I knew it was a Ponzi scheme before Rush even went national. And one big group of people who paid into it and never saw any money back would be people who died before they got old enough to collect. A decent retirement plan, after taking money from you for decades, would at least be able to be left to your survivors. Especially one that you were REQUIRED to participate in. What did old people do before Socialist Insecurity?
I knew it was a Ponzi scheme before Rush even went national. And one big group of people who paid into it and never saw any money back would be people who died before they got old enough to collect. A decent retirement plan, after taking money from you for decades, would at least be able to be left to your survivors. Especially one that you were REQUIRED to participate in. What did old people do before Socialist Insecurity?
*****************
Well, it depends. If they had money of their own, they lived out their lives in reasonable comfort. If they didn't, then they hoped some relative would find it in his heart to take them in, or bring them baskets of food on occasion. If they had expensive medical needs, those needs went unmet. Of course, back then, a lot of them were carried off by illnesses that are treatable today: pneumonia, urinary tract infections (yes, this can be a killer for an elderly person, if it goes untreated), broken bones, heart attacks, stroke.
Would you like us to go back to those days, Flash? Should we start telling our elderly population that they shouldn't expect medical care when they're sick, unless they have a good sized bank account? Would you be okay with poor elderly people dying of malnutrition, exposure, treatable infections and so on, in order to spare yourself the inconvenience of taking any social responsibility?
Listen to Congress. For decades they have stolen the money out of Social Security funds, and periodically try to keep from paying it out at all. The current scheme is to delay retirement to 70. That may work for desk jobs, but very few people, even those in excellent health, can continue to work in physically demanding jobs into their 70's. Especially when business days are gorwing increasingly longer, and the expected productivity is increasingly higher.
Ni! Ni! Ni!
Author: flashingscotsman
Comment:
While it IS true that many people are paid back what they paid into SS, then continue receiving benefits, just imagine what retirement would be like if all the money you had paid in had actually been put into a retirement account and received interest during all those years.
*********************
No one is stopping you from doing that, you know.
As for those who can't afford to do so (and there are many out there who can't, since they have 20 places to put every dollar they earn), they'd end up destitute after retirement.
We can't afford that as a nation. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the philosophy of social Darwinism----letting the poor and infirm die off, in order to allow the strong and affluent to survive more comfortably. But I don't think that kind of mentality belongs in any civilized society.
This seems to work pretty well in nature. You love your Darwin when you're using it to make fun of Christians and 'prove' them wrong. Not so much when it applies the voters you need to keep the dumbass in office? That's another double standard dipshit, want a do-over?
Liberals don't like it nature either. Otherwise there would be no push to save every single species currently existant on the planet. Darwinism was a theory that has been shown to be only part of the answer, and THOUSANDS of species have gone extinct during the life of the planet. But now the liberal have all decided they must "save the ________" because they know better than nature, God, or anything else.
This seems to work pretty well in nature. You love your Darwin when you’re using it to make fun of Christians and ‘prove’ them wrong. Not so much when it applies the voters you need to keep the dumbass in office? That’s another double standard dipshit, want a do-over?
****************
I'm afraid you're hopelessly confused, my boy. Acknowledging that natural selection (the strong competing against the weak for survival) exists in nature isn't the same thing as wanting to create an artificial version of same in society.
As for the rest of your post: please produce a post of mine in which I've "made fun of Christians." Let's remember, too, that neither all nor most Christians reject Darwin's teachings.
Author: MGAP
Comment:
Oops, you lost me again.
*****************
That seems to be a chronic problem with you.
*****************
You want to create an artificial version of the natural selection process, only in reverse? Using the strong to prop up the weak? Wait, what?
****************
If what you're trying to say is that I want a civilized society that takes care of its most vulnerable members (the elderly, the destitute, the infirm, the sick), you're right. You righties have been programmed to scream "SOCIALISM!" whenever such concepts are brought up, but you're wrong----that's what's called "civilization." And, by the way, it's also considered to be "Christian." Do unto others, and all that sort of thing?
******************
Oh and believe it or not, every time you call Christians intolerant because they are reluctant to embrace the "religion of peace"... you're making fun of them.
*******************
No, that's what's known as "calling a spade a spade." At no time have I asked anyone to "embrace" any religion in particular----just to stop demonizing and telling lies about selected religions. That is indeed intolerance, and intolerance toward others has no place in Christian doctrine.
*******************
Every time you make your broad sweeping generalizations of right wing fanatics, you're making fun of them.
*******************
No, just expressing my viewpoint. Although I admit that right wing fanatics, like all absurdities and gross excesses, are often easy to make fun of.
*********************
You hate Christianity and all it stands for. Put on the girl panties and say it. I for one would at least admire you for saying it and not beating around the bush pretending you don't.
*********************
But I AM A Christian, my boy. Why in the world would I subscribe to a religion that I hated? What I DON'T like, though, is the ABUSE of Christianity----using it as an excuse to hate, or to lie about the political opposition, or to belittle others, or to force one's personal views or goals on others. Jesus often spoke out about this kind of hypocrisy and dishonesty----so, if you have a problem with that attitude, I'd suggest you take it up with Him. ;)
Oops, you lost me again. You want to create an artificial version of the natural selection process, only in reverse? Using the strong to prop up the weak? Wait, what?
Oh and believe it or not, every time you call Christians intolerant because they are reluctant to embrace the "religion of peace"... you're making fun of them. Every time you make your broad sweeping generalizations of right wing fanatics, you're making fun of them. You hate Christianity and all it stands for. Put on the girl panties and say it. I for one would at least admire you for saying it and not beating around the bush pretending you don't.
Oh, I don't want to kill off the weaker and less capable members of our society. Someone has to make the fries at Whataburger and when I'm too old to mow my own lawn....well, I'll need to hire some dumbass downtrodden Democrat to do it for me.
Oh, I don’t want to kill off the weaker and less capable members of our society. Someone has to make the fries at Whataburger and when I’m too old to mow my own lawn….well, I’ll need to hire some dumbass downtrodden Democrat to do it for me.
***************
I don't blame you. They're likely to have a better work ethic than Republicans, who bitch about "entitlements," but aren't above gobbling them up for themselves. ;)
Author: sa_rose
Comment:
His marriages do not constitute a brothel, oh brilliant one.
****************
Ah, but his sexual mores certainly do. ;)
What makes him worse than Spongebill "Nopants" Klintoon, Bawney Fwank, and all of the Kennedys?
Oh, I forgot, they're Democrats, so they get a pass.
What makes him worse than Spongebill “Nopants” Klintoon, Bawney Fwank, and all of the Kennedys?
Oh, I forgot, they’re Democrats, so they get a pass.
*******************
Oh, stop whimpering. None of your above "but but but what about" names dumped TWO ailing wives for mistresses, all the while sanctimoniously preaching family values and morality to others.
It's bad enough to cheat on one's wife (which, admittedly, many Democrats as well as Republicans do). It's worse to discard a sick wife for the young chick one cheated with. Worse still to discard the erstwhile young chick for yet ANOTHER, younger chick, after the former is sick herself. But worst of all is being a hypocrite while doing all of these things, and pretending that it's all okay because God forgave him.
Of course, none of this registers with you, any more than it registers with any other wingnut. You're so used to turning a blind eye to blatant hypocrisy (as dictated by your talk radio heroes) that you no longer recognize it when you see it.
The problem with your "hypocrisy" charge is that it falls flat. Hypocrisy would be holding other people to standards you do not hold yourself to. The antithesis to hypocrisy would be to not judge others, but that is way too deep for your sound-bite powered racist mind.
Ghandi warned about you, when he said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Never mind the fact that John Edward's pretty much dumped a sick wife for another woman too. But I guess, once again, if it's a Democrat...
And Weiner's wife was pregnant when he was Tweeting his privates on the internet.
That was not the subject of the post. Remember, we READ first, then respond.
Starve the beast, rose.
WTF does that mean, O Racist One?
And if someone in the group had objected to a male coworker (or a female now, but that was less commong when I was young) giving me a hug, he could have been reproted for sexual harrassment because they had to see it. Perlcat, PLEASE try to get through to her!
******************
Once again: to qualify as sexual harassment, the attentions have to be UNWELCOME, and to create a hostile or threatening work environment for those targeted by it. The example you gave doesn't qualify on either of these points. Therefore, even if it were reported, chances are that your boss would simply ask you both to tone it down a bit, as your behavior was annoying coworkers. NOT the same thing as accusing your of sexual harassment.
If the OTHER person feels that being exposed to that behavior is unwelcome, the two involved are off to the pokey. Try to grasp the obvious. Check with an attorney who handles these cases. Maybe you'll believe them.
If the OTHER person feels that being exposed to that behavior is unwelcome, the two involved are off to the pokey.
*****************
Again, you're skipping criteria, Rose (to say nothing of chain of command and due process). Sexual harassment is much more than making a nuisance of oneself in the workplace----and addressing complaints of sexual harassment involves much more than just shipping people "off to the pokey."
What's interesting is that I posted the government's specifics earlier....yet you and Perlcat are now both trying to tell me that I'm wrong, and that you know better than the government what sexual harassment is, and how it's properly addressed under the law. :D
Evidence once again that the far right is allergic to facts and logic, when either of them get in the way of a prescribed political stance. :D
I know how the COURTS have interpreted those laws, and the people who have been prosecuted under sexual harrassment in just such scenarios as I have described. I also know accusations have been made of even more innocuus behaviour that got people fired. I understand you don't live in the real world, but try to keep up.
Clearly you have not been briefed by anything resembling professionals in regards to sexual harassment.
"Unwelcome" may be the keyword in many scenarios, but there are scenarios where the power imbalance is so profound that sexual harassment is presumed to have taken place -- e.g. a president and a 19 year old intern.
In the military, for example, a superior officer in such a position would face courts martial over something like this. There's no way that any person in such an inferior position would have any reasonable way to prove/disprove consent -- and sex without consent is rape.
Actually whenever Olivia is here it is unwanted and unwelcome, just like harassment...
Clearly you have not been briefed by anything resembling professionals in regards to sexual harassment.
******************
Gosh, you think so? The information I posted was taken directly from the U.S. EEOC website. I suppose you're now going to try to claim that you know better than they do how sexual harassment is defined under U.S. law? ;)
**********************
“Unwelcome” may be the keyword in many scenarios,
**********************
It's key in ALL scenarios, my boy. If attentions are welcome, it isn't harassment. It can, of course, be regarded (and treated) by one's boss as unprofessional behavior, but that's not the same thing as harassment.
**********************
but there are scenarios where the power imbalance is so profound that sexual harassment is presumed to have taken place — e.g. a president and a 19 year old intern.
**********************
Nonsense, my boy. The Lewinsky/Clinton scandal, as ridiculously overblown as it was, was never about sexual harassment. You're trying to sneak your own "rules" here, which have nothing to do with the definition or criteria of sexual harassment. Either that, or you're getting it confused with the concept of statutory rape.
************************
In the military, for example, a superior officer in such a position would face courts martial over something like this. There’s no way that any person in such an inferior position would have any reasonable way to prove/disprove consent — and sex without consent is rape.
************************
Military regulations and etiquette are very different from those in most civilian workplaces, so it's pretty unrealistic to try to use the one to define the other.
Third.
Sorry folks, I'll stop feeding the monkey. All we ever get in return is a flying turd.
Yes do not reply to the troll. I speak to others and the troll responds like I am speaking to it. I laugh, ignore and thumb down. The troll replies to you, ignore and thumb down. The troll sticks around because people want to continue to educate the troll. Leave the troll alone. Been saying it for over a year now. I do not understand why this troll is still around. I am not here to speak to trolls, nor to read trollish posts.
The stupidity is beyond belief, and no-one can grasp that it cannot be corrected. I am as guilty as the next.