Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
truly the only qualifications anyone needs to be elected to a public office is the votes of a majority of the people they represent.
Edwin Edwards and Ray Nagin and Bill Jefferson come to mind. elected but served jail time for actions while in office. I guess they were qualified----------------------------------------------------------
They were elected, so yeah.
You seem to be unable to answer a simple point that YOU brought up.
Why is that?
my point is that the people don't always elect the best to represent them, and the people get what they vote for.
"Who the best to represent them" is, is a decision left up to "them", is it not? Do you not have your own Rep to vote for/against? Is that not where your judgment "qualifies" a public official -- in your own district? In other words who the fuck are you, or I, or we, to dictate what "the best" is for somebody else? How is it our business at all? Do we not have our own Reps? I do.
The question remains what, to use your term "qualifies" a representative to be a representative. Fulfilling the legal residency and age requirements plus being elected are all the qualifications I'm aware of for any Rep, yours mine or theirs. Yet you implied her history as a bartender somehow disqualifies, or somehow fails to qualify, the subject for this position.
Why does it do that exactly? What's the "approved" occupational history for being a Rep? My last Rep, who also drained a swamp when he got elected, had been a football player. Did that make him "qualified" or "unqualfied"?
--- What's the previous job history "requirement" for a Senator? (Al Franken? John Glenn? Bill Frist? Fred Thompson? Rand Paul?)
---Or for a Governor? (Arnold Schwarzenegger? Jesse Ventura? Ronald Reagan? Dubya? Mitt Romney?)
--- Or for a POTUS, which oughta be especially interesting given we have a current one with no job history whatsoever, not even as a bartender, so ...... interesting choice of path, this here argument. Can't wait to see how it ends.
Obama almost destroyed this country in 8 years, but the people voted for him. did they vote to double the national debt, or did they vote for the "first black guy"? I think we both know the answer.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Pogo's Law clinks yet another nickel. This is why y'all can't find nickels any more folks -- they're all going to me. So now suddenly we're shifting to "Obama" as an alternative way of evading the question. This should end well too.
And yeah we do both know the answer. People voted for O'bama because the economy was in the crapper and they wanted change. But it's interesting that you want to make it about color in spite of that.
The economy was not "in the crapper". Obama was elected because a majority of americans wanted a change from a white president to a black (er, half black) president. That was the primary reason, but I don't expect you to ever admit that.
we were discussing why people get elected, Obama was an aberration, and a huge mistake. don't expect you to admit that either..
no nickels for you on this, or anything else, your self aggrandizement notwithstanding.
The economy WAS in the crapper, beginning in September. You could look it up. It's a matter of record.
That's why nobody associated with the then-current administration was going to have a chance. A 55-gallon drum filled with BB shot could have won in that setting. Interesting that you're so hung up on what color the candidate was, bending over backward to ignore the economic train wreck.
I already got my nickel the moment you switched tracks from "what qualifies a Congressional Rep" to "b---but...but O'bama".
Trump and republicans trying hard to avoid the shutdown. Meanwhile the crazy eyed girl who can’t do basic math is vacationing it up. All thanks to the tax payer expense.
I don't believe the taxpayers are actually paying her anything yet. And she has nothing better to do than vacation, at the moment, since she hasn't taken office yet.
Personally, I don't care that she's taking some time to do whatever it is she's into doing. It's not exactly unusual. I myself went out this week and got my hair cut and colored and my nails done. Difference is, I didn't feel the need to make a pompous, arrogant press event out of it.
And if you had, you would expect that some butthurt klown on this board wouldn't feel the need who lives a continent away to start a whiny thread crying the blues about how you were on "vacation".
And yet --- here we are aren't we.
the bottom line is if she just took the time and didn't crow about it, it would not ever have been discussed. The arrogant girl brought this on herself from the beginning, and it looks like she cannot shut up and stop making stupid ignorant statements.
Welcome to our planet and the bubblesphere of Twitter. Duh.
What some Rep-elect from a district a thousand miles away from you elects (pun intended) to Twit about affects you exactly how? You're the one whining about what somebody else is doing with her personal time --- who does that make "arrogant"?
Trump and republicans trying hard to avoid the shutdown. Meanwhile the crazy eyed girl who can’t do basic math is vacationing it up. All thanks to the tax payer expense.
I don't believe the taxpayers are actually paying her anything yet. And she has nothing better to do than vacation, at the moment, since she hasn't taken office yet.
Personally, I don't care that she's taking some time to do whatever it is she's into doing. It's not exactly unusual. I myself went out this week and got my hair cut and colored and my nails done. Difference is, I didn't feel the need to make a pompous, arrogant press event out of it.
And if you had, you would expect that some butthurt klown on this board wouldn't feel the need who lives a continent away to start a whiny thread crying the blues about how you were on "vacation".
And yet --- here we are aren't we.
the bottom line is if she just took the time and didn't crow about it, it would not ever have been discussed. The arrogant girl brought this on herself from the beginning, and it looks like she cannot shut up and stop making stupid ignorant statements.
Welcome to our planet and the bubblesphere of Twitter. Duh.
What some Rep-elect from a district a thousand miles away from you elects (pun intended) to Twit about affects you exactly how? You're the one whining about what somebody else is doing with her personal time --- who does that make "arrogant"?
the idiot girl from NY has zero affect on me, or you. But she has made herself hard to ignore with her constant gaffes and misstatements, plus the media seems determined to put her on every news outlet as much as possible, even to the point of calling her the future of the dem party. If that's true, the dem party is over.
Drama queen much?
They were elected, so yeah.
You seem to be unable to answer a simple point that YOU brought up.
Why is that?
my point is that the people don't always elect the best to represent them, and the people get what they vote for.
"Who the best to represent them" is, is a decision left up to "them", is it not? Do you not have your own Rep to vote for/against? Is that not where your judgment "qualifies" a public official -- in your own district? In other words who the fuck are you, or I, or we, to dictate what "the best" is for somebody else? How is it our business at all? Do we not have our own Reps? I do.
The question remains what, to use your term "qualifies" a representative to be a representative. Fulfilling the legal residency and age requirements plus being elected are all the qualifications I'm aware of for any Rep, yours mine or theirs. Yet you implied her history as a bartender somehow disqualifies, or somehow fails to qualify, the subject for this position.
Why does it do that exactly? What's the "approved" occupational history for being a Rep? My last Rep, who also drained a swamp when he got elected, had been a football player. Did that make him "qualified" or "unqualfied"?
--- What's the previous job history "requirement" for a Senator? (Al Franken? John Glenn? Bill Frist? Fred Thompson? Rand Paul?)
---Or for a Governor? (Arnold Schwarzenegger? Jesse Ventura? Ronald Reagan? Dubya? Mitt Romney?)
--- Or for a POTUS, which oughta be especially interesting given we have a current one with no job history whatsoever, not even as a bartender, so ...... interesting choice of path, this here argument. Can't wait to see how it ends.
Obama almost destroyed this country in 8 years, but the people voted for him. did they vote to double the national debt, or did they vote for the "first black guy"? I think we both know the answer.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Pogo's Law clinks yet another nickel. This is why y'all can't find nickels any more folks -- they're all going to me. So now suddenly we're shifting to "Obama" as an alternative way of evading the question. This should end well too.
And yeah we do both know the answer. People voted for O'bama because the economy was in the crapper and they wanted change. But it's interesting that you want to make it about color in spite of that.
The economy was not "in the crapper". Obama was elected because a majority of americans wanted a change from a white president to a black (er, half black) president. That was the primary reason, but I don't expect you to ever admit that.
we were discussing why people get elected, Obama was an aberration, and a huge mistake. don't expect you to admit that either..
no nickels for you on this, or anything else, your self aggrandizement notwithstanding.
The economy WAS in the crapper, beginning in September. You could look it up. It's a matter of record.
That's why nobody associated with the then-current administration was going to have a chance. A 55-gallon drum filled with BB shot could have won in that setting. Interesting that you're so hung up on what color the candidate was, bending over backward to ignore the economic train wreck.
I already got my nickel the moment you switched tracks from "what qualifies a Congressional Rep" to "b---but...but O'bama".
there was no recession in 08. it was a market correction like the one that happened this month, but not as extreme. The "great recession of 2008" is a myth.
Obama and Clinton get brought up to point out the hypocrisy of you lefties, not to change the subject. I guess that's too complicated a concept for you.
I don't believe the taxpayers are actually paying her anything yet. And she has nothing better to do than vacation, at the moment, since she hasn't taken office yet.
Personally, I don't care that she's taking some time to do whatever it is she's into doing. It's not exactly unusual. I myself went out this week and got my hair cut and colored and my nails done. Difference is, I didn't feel the need to make a pompous, arrogant press event out of it.
And if you had, you would expect that some butthurt klown on this board wouldn't feel the need who lives a continent away to start a whiny thread crying the blues about how you were on "vacation".
And yet --- here we are aren't we.
the bottom line is if she just took the time and didn't crow about it, it would not ever have been discussed. The arrogant girl brought this on herself from the beginning, and it looks like she cannot shut up and stop making stupid ignorant statements.
Welcome to our planet and the bubblesphere of Twitter. Duh.
What some Rep-elect from a district a thousand miles away from you elects (pun intended) to Twit about affects you exactly how? You're the one whining about what somebody else is doing with her personal time --- who does that make "arrogant"?
the idiot girl from NY has zero affect on me, or you. But she has made herself hard to ignore with her constant gaffes and misstatements, plus the media seems determined to put her on every news outlet as much as possible, even to the point of calling her the future of the dem party. If that's true, the dem party is over.
Sooooooooooooooooo "the media" is determined, is it.
Who's starting all these butthurt threads then?
What a twisted memory of recent historyI didn't bring up anybody's "rights". Neither did you. You brought up "qualifications". I axed you what are supposed to be these "qualifications". I'll wait for an answer while I drive to New Orleans.
Probably won't be enough time.
truly the only qualifications anyone needs to be elected to a public office is the votes of a majority of the people they represent.
Edwin Edwards and Ray Nagin and Bill Jefferson come to mind. elected but served jail time for actions while in office. I guess they were qualified----------------------------------------------------------
They were elected, so yeah.
You seem to be unable to answer a simple point that YOU brought up.
Why is that?
my point is that the people don't always elect the best to represent them, and the people get what they vote for.
"Who the best to represent them" is, is a decision left up to "them", is it not? Do you not have your own Rep to vote for/against? Is that not where your judgment "qualifies" a public official -- in your own district? In other words who the fuck are you, or I, or we, to dictate what "the best" is for somebody else? How is it our business at all? Do we not have our own Reps? I do.
The question remains what, to use your term "qualifies" a representative to be a representative. Fulfilling the legal residency and age requirements plus being elected are all the qualifications I'm aware of for any Rep, yours mine or theirs. Yet you implied her history as a bartender somehow disqualifies, or somehow fails to qualify, the subject for this position.
Why does it do that exactly? What's the "approved" occupational history for being a Rep? My last Rep, who also drained a swamp when he got elected, had been a football player. Did that make him "qualified" or "unqualfied"?
--- What's the previous job history "requirement" for a Senator? (Al Franken? John Glenn? Bill Frist? Fred Thompson? Rand Paul?)
---Or for a Governor? (Arnold Schwarzenegger? Jesse Ventura? Ronald Reagan? Dubya? Mitt Romney?)
--- Or for a POTUS, which oughta be especially interesting given we have a current one with no job history whatsoever, not even as a bartender, so ...... interesting choice of path, this here argument. Can't wait to see how it ends.
Obama almost destroyed this country in 8 years, but the people voted for him. did they vote to double the national debt, or did they vote for the "first black guy"? I think we both know the answer.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Pogo's Law clinks yet another nickel. This is why y'all can't find nickels any more folks -- they're all going to me. So now suddenly we're shifting to "Obama" as an alternative way of evading the question. This should end well too.
And yeah we do both know the answer. People voted for O'bama because the economy was in the crapper and they wanted change. But it's interesting that you want to make it about color in spite of that.
The economy was not "in the crapper". Obama was elected because a majority of americans wanted a change from a white president to a black (er, half black) president. That was the primary reason, but I don't expect you to ever admit that.
we were discussing why people get elected, Obama was an aberration, and a huge mistake. don't expect you to admit that either..
no nickels for you on this, or anything else, your self aggrandizement notwithstanding.
Have you ever dealt with the insurance company bureaucracy?I have talked to them. Haven’t found one that would prefer our system of haves and have nots
Met a guy from Britain once and we started talking about healthcare. He told me he had heart bypass surgery the previous year and never even received a bill. Just show your card at admittance and it is taken care of
In this country you spend months arguing over medical bills and copays and in network vs out of network
I have been to London many times, have many friends and business associates there. they all hate the NHS. Its not free, they pay a very high tax rate for mediocre care. there aint no free lunch, winger. Someone has to pay the doctors and hospitals and drug companies, Scandinavians have "free" medicine too, and a 65% income tax rate on everyone, very few can afford to buy a house or a car---------but medical care is free free free free. Careful what you wish for.
All depends on what pocket it comes from. You spend either way
Does it matter if you pay $3000 a year into your employers healthcare plan or $3000 more in taxes?
What matters is what you get for your money.
They get free treatment and may have to wait for nonemergency treatment
We have huge copays and deductibles and may get in a little quicker
the huge copays and deductibles came about because of obozocare. and the difference is that under socialized medicine you also have to pay for a huge government bureaucracy to administer it.
there was no healthcare crisis in the USA before ACA, it was an attempt of fix a non existent problem, and an attempt to federalize 1/6 of the economy-------------a government takeover of the free market.
of course, but that bureaucracy is paid for by the company, not the taxpayers and they have incentive to keep customers by being efficient and responsive, unlike the government.
Have you ever dealt with the IRS or SS administration? or heaven forbid, the VA?
The champion of the working class needs a service dog, crayons, binkie and juice boxes.
“I’m taking a few days to take care of myself before what is sure to be an eventful term. For working people, immigrants, & the poor, self-care is political — not because we want it to be, but bc of the inevitable shaming of someone doing a face mask while financially stressed. So I’ve decided to take others along with me on IG as I learn what self-care even means and why it’s important.”
You don't say! Everyone of you working slobs, call in to your boss and let him know you are taking time off because SELF CARE IS POLITICAL!
Stock up on popcorn and head desk protection, folks. Congress in 2019 is in for one helluva bumpy ride!
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announces 'self-care' break before congressional session even starts - NY Daily News
Perhaps she can use the word “vacation”.
Why would Conservatives be so outraged that she would want a few days off before she reports to Congress?
They're not. They're laughing that she went public with such a concern. There's no problem taking a break before you start a new job if you can afford to miss the income, but we wonder how she's doing that if she can't yet afford housing in DC.
Apparently, you cannot distinguish between outrage and mocking, or simply pretend you can't.
Actually she says nothing about "days off" in the first place.
And you're not "missing income" before it starts.
I think it's a safe bet to assume that she means days off when she talks about taking a few days to take care of herself.
You do huh.
When you're not yet employed, what exactly are you taking days "off" -- from?
Besides which, and I'll just repeat this until it sinks in --- she says nothing about "taking days off". The OP simply pulled that out of his ass. He thinks he can just fabricate titles and no one will check him on it.
So much for "days off". All we have left is "for taking care of herself". Soooo you think she should not take care of herself? Naah, that doesn't make sense, you just think she shouldn't talk about it. You're against speech.
Why are Conservatives so obsessed with looks?yea, and i can keep ignoring people who create them but at times i already come into a forum with only 6 threads on the front page. turn off ignore and i see why. usual NO YOU SUCK BULLSHIT YOU SUCK DOPE MORON FUCKFACE.Don't click on them then? Seems the obvious solution to me but I could be wrong....
after awhile you just gotta vent back, i suppose. you can also bypass my venting and ignore it - seems easy enough.
She needs medical treatment. She needs an eye reduction and somehow fix that over bite.
I would also suggest a lobotomy but I doubt it would change her in any way.
Seen Huckabee Sanders lately?
That sounds an awful lot like a value judgement on a woman's appearance. Why would you do that?
It does huh.
What "value" did he append to the subject then? It's not on my screen.
l don't understand why Republicans are so freaked out about this young lady who is not even seated in Congress.
Perhaps they should be more concerned with Trump's criminality?
I don't believe the taxpayers are actually paying her anything yet. And she has nothing better to do than vacation, at the moment, since she hasn't taken office yet.
Personally, I don't care that she's taking some time to do whatever it is she's into doing. It's not exactly unusual. I myself went out this week and got my hair cut and colored and my nails done. Difference is, I didn't feel the need to make a pompous, arrogant press event out of it.
And if you had, you would expect that some butthurt klown on this board wouldn't feel the need who lives a continent away to start a whiny thread crying the blues about how you were on "vacation".
And yet --- here we are aren't we.
the bottom line is if she just took the time and didn't crow about it, it would not ever have been discussed. The arrogant girl brought this on herself from the beginning, and it looks like she cannot shut up and stop making stupid ignorant statements.
Welcome to our planet and the bubblesphere of Twitter. Duh.
What some Rep-elect from a district a thousand miles away from you elects (pun intended) to Twit about affects you exactly how? You're the one whining about what somebody else is doing with her personal time --- who does that make "arrogant"?
the idiot girl from NY has zero affect on me, or you. But she has made herself hard to ignore with her constant gaffes and misstatements, plus the media seems determined to put her on every news outlet as much as possible, even to the point of calling her the future of the dem party. If that's true, the dem party is over.
Sooooooooooooooooo "the media" is determined, is it.
Who's starting all these butthurt threads then?
Have you ever dealt with the insurance company bureaucracy?I have been to London many times, have many friends and business associates there. they all hate the NHS. Its not free, they pay a very high tax rate for mediocre care. there aint no free lunch, winger. Someone has to pay the doctors and hospitals and drug companies, Scandinavians have "free" medicine too, and a 65% income tax rate on everyone, very few can afford to buy a house or a car---------but medical care is free free free free. Careful what you wish for.
All depends on what pocket it comes from. You spend either way
Does it matter if you pay $3000 a year into your employers healthcare plan or $3000 more in taxes?
What matters is what you get for your money.
They get free treatment and may have to wait for nonemergency treatment
We have huge copays and deductibles and may get in a little quicker
the huge copays and deductibles came about because of obozocare. and the difference is that under socialized medicine you also have to pay for a huge government bureaucracy to administer it.
there was no healthcare crisis in the USA before ACA, it was an attempt of fix a non existent problem, and an attempt to federalize 1/6 of the economy-------------a government takeover of the free market.
of course, but that bureaucracy is paid for by the company, not the taxpayers and they have incentive to keep customers by being efficient and responsive, unlike the government.
Have you ever dealt with the IRS or SS administration? or heaven forbid, the VA?
Insurance corporations
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
What a twisted memory of recent historytruly the only qualifications anyone needs to be elected to a public office is the votes of a majority of the people they represent.
Edwin Edwards and Ray Nagin and Bill Jefferson come to mind. elected but served jail time for actions while in office. I guess they were qualified----------------------------------------------------------
They were elected, so yeah.
You seem to be unable to answer a simple point that YOU brought up.
Why is that?
my point is that the people don't always elect the best to represent them, and the people get what they vote for.
"Who the best to represent them" is, is a decision left up to "them", is it not? Do you not have your own Rep to vote for/against? Is that not where your judgment "qualifies" a public official -- in your own district? In other words who the fuck are you, or I, or we, to dictate what "the best" is for somebody else? How is it our business at all? Do we not have our own Reps? I do.
The question remains what, to use your term "qualifies" a representative to be a representative. Fulfilling the legal residency and age requirements plus being elected are all the qualifications I'm aware of for any Rep, yours mine or theirs. Yet you implied her history as a bartender somehow disqualifies, or somehow fails to qualify, the subject for this position.
Why does it do that exactly? What's the "approved" occupational history for being a Rep? My last Rep, who also drained a swamp when he got elected, had been a football player. Did that make him "qualified" or "unqualfied"?
--- What's the previous job history "requirement" for a Senator? (Al Franken? John Glenn? Bill Frist? Fred Thompson? Rand Paul?)
---Or for a Governor? (Arnold Schwarzenegger? Jesse Ventura? Ronald Reagan? Dubya? Mitt Romney?)
--- Or for a POTUS, which oughta be especially interesting given we have a current one with no job history whatsoever, not even as a bartender, so ...... interesting choice of path, this here argument. Can't wait to see how it ends.
Obama almost destroyed this country in 8 years, but the people voted for him. did they vote to double the national debt, or did they vote for the "first black guy"? I think we both know the answer.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Pogo's Law clinks yet another nickel. This is why y'all can't find nickels any more folks -- they're all going to me. So now suddenly we're shifting to "Obama" as an alternative way of evading the question. This should end well too.
And yeah we do both know the answer. People voted for O'bama because the economy was in the crapper and they wanted change. But it's interesting that you want to make it about color in spite of that.
The economy was not "in the crapper". Obama was elected because a majority of americans wanted a change from a white president to a black (er, half black) president. That was the primary reason, but I don't expect you to ever admit that.
we were discussing why people get elected, Obama was an aberration, and a huge mistake. don't expect you to admit that either..
no nickels for you on this, or anything else, your self aggrandizement notwithstanding.
Looks like the op can't get over his jealousy of AOC. She'll soon be a congresswoman and he's resigned to complaining/fantasizing about her while posting right wing talking points he's been brainwashed with by hannity, limbaugh and the crew.
Why are Conservatives so obsessed with looks?yea, and i can keep ignoring people who create them but at times i already come into a forum with only 6 threads on the front page. turn off ignore and i see why. usual NO YOU SUCK BULLSHIT YOU SUCK DOPE MORON FUCKFACE.
after awhile you just gotta vent back, i suppose. you can also bypass my venting and ignore it - seems easy enough.
She needs medical treatment. She needs an eye reduction and somehow fix that over bite.
I would also suggest a lobotomy but I doubt it would change her in any way.
Seen Huckabee Sanders lately?
That sounds an awful lot like a value judgement on a woman's appearance. Why would you do that?
It does huh.
What "value" did he append to the subject then? It's not on my screen.
Why don't you ask him? I was able to see what he was insinuating. Apparently you missed it.
And if you had, you would expect that some butthurt klown on this board wouldn't feel the need who lives a continent away to start a whiny thread crying the blues about how you were on "vacation".
And yet --- here we are aren't we.
the bottom line is if she just took the time and didn't crow about it, it would not ever have been discussed. The arrogant girl brought this on herself from the beginning, and it looks like she cannot shut up and stop making stupid ignorant statements.
Welcome to our planet and the bubblesphere of Twitter. Duh.
What some Rep-elect from a district a thousand miles away from you elects (pun intended) to Twit about affects you exactly how? You're the one whining about what somebody else is doing with her personal time --- who does that make "arrogant"?
the idiot girl from NY has zero affect on me, or you. But she has made herself hard to ignore with her constant gaffes and misstatements, plus the media seems determined to put her on every news outlet as much as possible, even to the point of calling her the future of the dem party. If that's true, the dem party is over.
Sooooooooooooooooo "the media" is determined, is it.
Who's starting all these butthurt threads then?
not butthurt, laughing at the "future of the democrat party".
and its true, if the media was not obsessed with this moron, none of us would be aware of her ignorant ramblings.
