An Avalanche of Stupid

I’ve been away from the bizarro PUMA world for over a week now, and I want to thank Bettycracker and JohnD for keeping the lights on with their delightful skewering of the PUMAs. They’ve even enticed a number of PUMAs over into the fray, an amusing feat in itself! I was enjoying the real world, but every time I think I’m out, they pull me back in!

Here are a couple of the things I recently noticed in PUMAdon that I couldn’t resist sharing, in no particular order.

Just this morning at The Confluence, Sm77 (their resident frontpage birther) took the first PUMA stab at attacking the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It was a valiant if doomed effort, but it was also terribly stupid, about what you would expect from someone who thinks Obama’s not an American and writes for The Confluence.

Observe. After quoting from a piece that roughly explains the background of the Ledbetter act and the never passed Paycheck Fairness act (incidently, the piece she was quoting from was a press release from a law firm that defends corporate clients from such labor lawsuits as the one Ledbetter brought), sm77 says,

Help me understand this if I’m wrong: the Paycheck Fairness Act enforces and strengthens unequal pay claims while the Ledbetter Act just buys the claimant more time. Is that right? If that’s the case, it’s a another bamboozle by the Bamboozler -in-Chief.

Well, not really. You see, sm77, the entire fucking point of the Ledbetter Act was that the Roberts court ruled, astonishingly, that as long as an employer could conceal the discrimination beyond 180 days from the first paycheck, women had no legal right to sue for pay discrimination. It’s not “just buying more time,” it’s negating the travesty of that court opinion so that women are able to sue for pay discrimination at all. Someone who declares this “just buying more time” obviously doesn’t understand the first thing about the subject. But it gets worse!

Sm77, straining under her “car without wheels” analogy, concludes

If Obama co-endorsed the Paycheck Fairness act as a senator, what’s stopping him from signing it into law? Why sell us a car without the wheels? What good is it?

What’s stopping him from signing the Paycheck Fairness Act is that congress never passed the bill. Let me repeat that, with randomly capitalized words so that PUMAs can understand. Congress NEVER passed the FUCKING Paycheck Fairness Act SO OBAMA can’t SIGN it into LAW. Read your CONSTITUTION DUMBASS!

I’ll be posting the other bits of PUMA stupid that brought me back all day.

90 Responses

  1. You have a lot of nerve calling anyone stupid when you are actually describe a woman as a “birther” and you have absolutely no reading comprehension.

    No one is attacking Ledbetter — we understand quite clearly about Ledbetter extending the statute of limitations on unequal pay claims. We thinks that is great — and have said it several times already. However, unlike you we are smart enough to know that bringing a law suit against an employer for unequal pay or other unfair treatment basically means you are committing occupational suicide. Without a “fair pay” act to put teeth in the law, Ledbetter is a Pyrrhic victory. (No, i”m not defining Pyrrhic victory for you. Get off your stupid, lazy a$$ & look it up).

    Your mother should be so f*cking proud of you.

  2. Angienc2, I prefer the term “birfer,” which better conveys the intellectual abilities of the slack-jawed morons who believe the “Obama was not born in the US” conspiracy theories. Are you claiming this Sm77 person does not buy into those theories? Or do you spend so little time outside the PUMA echo chamber that you aren’t aware that the rest of the world points and laughs at the conspiracy theorists and calls them “birthers”? Did you leap to the assumption that it was some sort of sexist thing? How surprising.

    Oh, and as for your claim that no one in PUMA-land is pooh-poohing the importance of the Ledbetter Act, well, that’s just a flat-out lie. The post in question calls it a “bamboozle.” You could look up the meaning of that word if you get off your stupid, lazy ass.

  3. angie, as betty explained so patiently, birther (yes, birfer is a better term), I was mocking sm77’s Weekly Wolrd News proclivities, not her reproductive capacity.

    Also, not only do I know what Pyrrihic victory is, I thought it was a pretty well-known expression. So much so that when you smugly assumed it was esoteric or erudite I nearly spit out my coffee laughing at you. I say nearly because the preceeding bulk of your comment left me well prepared for whatever chunk of stupid you decided to end on.

    If you are taking this opportunity to Join Obama and Clinton to lobby for the passage of the Paycheck Fairness act, all the best to you. But I don’t remember that being an issue until today. In fact, I remember Riverdaughter lamenting that the only bad thing about Ledbetter was that Obama would get all the credit.

  4. Since I’m the person being criticized here – I’ll reply as well.

    Ledbetter buys time for a lawsuit to be enacted IF the claimant can prove that they were discriminated against. That’s it.

    Paycheck Fairness protects the claimant during an investigation and allows the claimant to build a case against the employer.

    So now, with just Ledbetter alone, we could ask for an extension or sue based on past acts, but we won’t be able to provide the proof without suffering the repercussions of getting fired in the process.

    My point is, that Obama & Comp., created this drama of “yay, this is so great Obama signed the Ledbetter Act!”

    But if Obama just pushed the Senate the same way he waltzed over to House Democrats to drop the Family Provision Act, Ledbetter AND Paycheck Provision would be signed into law, and we’d be more protected, especially in this economy.

    But whatever. I know you won’t take the time to analyze my point logically.

    And yes, I am a Liberal and Feminist Democrat.

  5. Angienc2–Before you attempt to insult our intelligence by telling us to look up ‘Pyrric victory’ perhaps you should endeavor to use it in an appropriate context.

    To my notice the Ledbetter act did NOT cost either feminists or democrats much of anything accept a whole lot of lobbying.

    I believe the term you were looking for is a hollow victory, though I readily admit that that sounds far less intellectual. (Please note that I don’t agree with you)

    Do write back, I’m already looking forward to your post about how this act is merely a smokescreen Obama uses to hide the womanlynching.

    sm77– Are you seriously telling the Executive branch of government to influence the legislative one?!
    Interesting…

    As always I find your little ‘I’m a feminist and liberal’ — disclaimer terribly amusing.
    Your political orientation is none of my concern, your willfull misrepresentation of the power of the president (namely, anything bad is his fault, anything good has nothing to do with him) is.

  6. Nikki – Obama ordered House Democrats to drop the Family Provision act:

    President Obama has asked House Democrats to cut a provision of their economic stimulus proposal that would give states more flexibility to expand Medicaid coverage of family planning services, the AP/Austin American-Statesman reports. According to the AP/American-Statesman, several Democratic officials said that House leaders likely would abandon the provision at Obama’s request, which was made “at a time when the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation.”

    here’s the link:

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/136926.php

    And if you think the Executive Branch doesn’t influence Congress, rewind the tape from 2000-2008.

    Obama has all the power Bush had.

    As always I find your little ‘I’m a feminist and liberal’ — disclaimer terribly amusing.

    I was accused of being a Weekly Worlder – so I responded to that.

  7. Paycheck Fairness protects the claimant during an investigation and allows the claimant to build a case against the employer.

    So now, with just Ledbetter alone, we could ask for an extension or sue based on past acts, but we won’t be able to provide the proof without suffering the repercussions of getting fired in the process.

    You are, I presume, aware that the Paycheck Fairness Act will, if passed (I’d guess that’s more likely without McCain and Palin in the White House, but I assume you knew what you were doing when you tried your best to get them elected), update the already-existing Equal Pay Act 1963?

    So, in what sense do you now have “just Ledbetter alone”?

  8. yetanotherfreakingbrit, on January 30th, 2009 at 1:09 pm Said:

    Paycheck Fairness protects the claimant during an investigation and allows the claimant to build a case against the employer.

    So now, with just Ledbetter alone, we could ask for an extension or sue based on past acts, but we won’t be able to provide the proof without suffering the repercussions of getting fired in the process.

    You are, I presume, aware that the Paycheck Fairness Act will, if passed (I’d guess that’s more likely without McCain and Palin in the White House, but I assume you knew what you were doing when you tried your best to get them elected), update the already-existing Equal Pay Act 1963?

    So, in what sense do you now have “just Ledbetter alone”?

    I do realize that – and it should’ve been attached like it was until it hit the senate. LedBetter Act without Paycheck Act leaves us no better off than we were before, except that the statute of limitations are extended.

    AND???

    What happens if the claimant needs to gather evidence for the case since their employer won’t allow them to access employee pay information to investigate and fires the person in the process? Then what?

    This is what Paycheck Fairness addresses that the Ledbetter Act doesn’t.

  9. This thread is so much PUMA fail.

    Also, thanks nikki, I meant to point out to angie that beyond smugly using the term Pyrrhic victory, she used it very much incorrectly.

    Why can’t the PUMAs realize that Ledbetter was a statutory fix to a glaring problem, a problem created by their Republican friends on the court? Sure, we can keep advancing the cause to make harder for employers to discriminate, but Ledbetter has no downside.

    It’s not a car without wheels, it’s the new tire to fix the one that the Republican court slashed.

  10. oh brother-dumber than a bag of rocks, the whole lot of you.

    attempts to insult your “intelligence??

    This is what “intelligent” people do?

    this is seriously how you choose to spend your time??

    holy shit.

  11. I do realize that

    Good. It wasn’t clear from what you wrote.

  12. It is heartwarming to know that this blog has now devoted themselves as the “watchdogs” of the PUMAs. All 50 of us lamebrained, uneducated, ill informed, bitter knitters, are flattered!

    But like it or not, we are opinionated and those opinions are based on more than what is being fed to us along with the daily of dose of acclaim for “he, who does no wrong”. Chalk it up to our life experiences and career choices and stabs at parenting that appeals to our b.s. meters.

    “Delightful skewering” works both ways. And because we all are not as delighted with The One as you would like, don’t dismiss our feminist credentials and liberal outlook as arcane or foolish. There is too much at stake for us to weigh one against the other.

    I would suggest you keep your eyes more on Obama than on us. You made it happen.

  13. Nikki
    As a women who worked for over 50 years in male dominated industries and raised 4 children while doing it, I have an understanding of the limitations of the bill.
    If the paycheck fairness act had been passed as well as the ll act women would be much better off.
    I am glad that he signed one part that would help women to a degree but sad that he did not use his power to get the other more important bill to sign .
    I have daughters in the working world that would have been help by the paycheck fairness act.
    I still wish you well even though I will never agree about backtrack. I think he is the worst thing to happen to this country in my lifetime. His is a bush clone and will hurt this country before he will help this country.

    WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE, MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

    PUMAS,BUBBAS, AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

  14. OMG y’all are a bigger bunch of morons than I could have even imagined. You think I was trying to be condescending & failed? You all just proved that you actually don’t know what Pyrrhic Victory means but have your heads shoved so far up your asses that you think you do! LOL!! And you think you are “erudite” to boot! Bless your hearts, but your pathetic explanations & justifications of just how “smart” you are & your little frat-boy birther insult are just that: pathetic. It is a wonder how you can get up in the morning, look in the mirror & not vomit on your feet.
    Because you see, none of your little smart ass insults, excuse the fact that not one of you “erudite” scholars understood what SM wrote. And this is the person, whom you deride as a mouth-breather? You’d think you would be able to understand what she wrote & not mischaracterize it since you are sooo much smarter. So I’m finding it difficult to reconcile you geniuses with that fact that this drivel states that SM attacked Ledbetter when she did not. Point.Blank.Period. She did not attack Ledbetter. And before you go denying it, right here you wrote:

    Just this morning at The Confluence, Sm77 (their resident frontpage birther) took the first PUMA stab at attacking the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

    Please, explain, exactly how is that SM is the mouth breather & you are the erudite genius again?

  15. It is heartwarming to know that this blog has now devoted themselves as the “watchdogs” of the PUMAs. All 50 of us lamebrained, uneducated, ill informed, bitter knitters, are flattered!

    Pat, this blog isn’t just devoted to it, it was founded for that purpose. Well, more accurately, it was founded to highlight salient examples of PUMA stupidity for our amusement, mostly because PUMAs aren’t important enough to bother the bigger blogs we hang out at.

    And to be fair, I think there are more than 50 of you “lamebrained, uneducated, ill informed, bitter knitters.” Judging by the prowls, there are as many as 200 of you. Very impressive for a national organization that has raised tens of thousands of dollars and given three months of free appearances on cable news.

    Very impressive. Your message really resonated.

  16. pumarubbernecker, on January 30th, 2009 at 1:17 pm Said:

    Ledbetter has no downside, true, but its lacking core elements to protect the claimant – and THAT’s what I blogged about.

    Call me whatever you like, but at least I have the “birther” ovaries to come to your blog to face your critique.

    Have a nice time PUMA hunting!

  17. Sorry sm77. Consider this my official apology for criticizing what you wrote, rather than what you meant.

    I’ll try to read your mind next time.

  18. “this is seriously how you choose to spend your time??”

    Well, we could ransack 100% pro-woman legislation in a vain attempt to find some angle to piss and moan about, but that would make us as dumb as the PUMAs. I can’t speak for any other PUMA critics, but I have sound reasons for holding the kitties up to ridicule as a hobby: I want the PUMA movement to remain a cohesive group that is distinctly separate from the Democratic Party.

    Sure, back before the election, it seemed like a bad thing to have a schism in the party. But as it turns out, the PUMAs were wildly ineffective at anything except separating the most embarrassing, ineffectual, intellectually deficient and paranoid elements from rank-and-file Dems.

    Once upon a time, the gaffes of pretentious twits like Lady Lynn Forrester de Rothschild and Larry “Whitey Tape” Johnson, et al, would have been laid at the door of my party. But thanks to the PUMA movement, now the Republicans own all the stupid, whiny, embarrassing shit people like that spew.

    I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Obama’s victory so resoundingly exceeded the margins achieved by Bill Clinton. Without the albatross of the brain-dead PUMA contingent, the Democratic Party is collectively smarter and more agile, hence the higher margin of victory.

  19. It is a wonder how you can get up in the morning, look in the mirror & not vomit on your feet.

    It was a lame line when you wrote it to NOW.

    It’s not improved with age.

    And if you’ve led too sheltered a life to know what a “birther” or “birfer” is, maybe you need to spend a little less time flirting with myiq2xu and a bit more reading other blogs.

  20. betty
    I’m going to look into one of those free neuter certifs for you
    you’d make a good “mandatory sterilization” poster child.
    get some therapy.

  21. And also.

    angienc2 : I guess we could play games with you for a while and try to get you to explain what you think a “Pyrrhic Victory” is, but life’s too short.

    A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor.

    In this context, the posters above are correct and you are wrong – a more appropraite phrase for what sm77 was apparently trying to convey would be “hollow victory.”

    If you’re going to call people morons, it works better if you actualy get things right.

  22. catarina – Your criticisms of people here would probably carry more import if they didn’t come from a dimwit who spends her days on a loser blog posting such insightful crap as:

    catarina, on January 30th, 2009 at 11:38 am Said:

    holy shit, Pat-you can just MELT the ice off your car, with your eyes, like a superhero!
    And no, you don’t sound like an idiot-you make perfect sense
    oh and I hate these people too!!!!

    Jeez.

  23. Catarina, check with the clinic that performed the free lobotomy on you. I hear they’re running a special.

  24. Angienc2: “We understand quite clearly about Ledbetter extending the statute of limitations on unequal pay claims. We thinks that is great.” (Also, “we thinks?” What the hell? Do you guys spend so much time talking about “Teh Precious” that you’ve all turned into Gollum?)

    Sure you think (‘thinks?”) it’s great! Which is why all you PUMA idiots wanted McCain, a fervent opponent of Ledbetter, to win the election instead of Obama. It’s more important for the Hurt Widdle Fee-Fees of PUMA-World to punish the uppity “inadequate black male” who “stole” the nomination from your goddess Hillary than to actually support candidates who have pro-feminist stances. Think the Mexico City policy would have been overturned by McCain?

    See, if there actually were “18 million strong” PUMAs who had been capable of throwing an electoral hissy fit and handing the White House to anti-feminist McCain, instead of a handful of bitter clueless dead-ender PUMA losers, THAT would have been a Pyrrhic victory. Instead, President Barack Hussein Obama won a sweeping landslide in the electoral college and got 52% of the popular vote — more than Bill Clinton ever got.

    But PUMAs don’t achieve victory, Pyrrhic or otherwise, Ever. Only fail.

    Paying down Hillary’s campaign debt? FAIL. (Thanks for lying about that on national television, Will Bower, you piece of shit!)

    Holding HUGE protests in Denver and derailing the nomination? FAIL

    Voting in such huge numbers as to hand the White House to McCain? See above — FAIL!

    “Prowling” the Electoral College to get them to change their votes? Hoo boy, was that ever a FAIL!

    “Prowling” the Supreme Court to ask them to rule on Obama’s citizenship? Bigtime FAIL!

    “Prowling” Patrick Fitzgerald’s “blog” to provide “evidence” of Obama’s corruption in the Blagojevich case? Astronomically hilarious FAIL!

    Harriet Christian for U.S. Senate? Well, you see where this all ends up.

    Also: Darragh Murphy filing her paperwork with the FEC as legally required? FAIL.

    And sm77, nice attempt to backtrack, but you clearly said vis a vis the Paycheck Fairness Act – “What’s stopping him from signing it into law?” As was patiently explained to you, what’s stopping him is that it hasn’t passed Congress yet. Dumbass. If what you meant to write was “Is he going to pressure Congress on Paycheck Fairness?,” then maybe you should have written that, instead of putting out an idiotic clueless question as above. If you want your point examined logically, then it might help if you utilized logic in making your points initially.

    A pleasure as always kicking PUMA ass.

  25. Betty for the win! ha ha ha..

  26. Ever read the New York liberal Times? Go there and take a look at their prospective on it. Idiot.

  27. I’ve got to run back to work, but it look like betty’s got the situation handled pretty nicely.

  28. PUMAS,BUBBAS, AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

    goddamn I know I’m gonna get a laugh when I see that.

  29. Laugh over this one – GO FUCK YOURSELVES!

  30. Ever read the New York liberal Times? Go there and take a look at their prospective on it. Idiot.

    New York Times is liberal.
    New York Times advocates gender fairness agenda.
    New York Times is in the tank for Obama.
    Obama is a conservative woman-lynching closet Republican.

    Error. Does not PUMA-compute.

  31. Laugh over this one – GO FUCK YOURSELVES!

    Thanks Kim!

    Sometimes I wonder why I bother, but it’s times like this that remind me that we actually do get under your skin by pointing out how hilariously stupid you all are! You make it all worthwhile.

    Now I really do have to go. It’s been fun!

  32. This isn’t even close to a fair fight. It’s even more gruesome than the staple gun scene in The Wrestler. I am now 100% convinced that pumarubbernecker is Darren Aronofsky.

  33. Laugh over this one – GO FUCK YOURSELVES!

    Anyone want to take a guess as to how many blood vessels were snuffed out of existence by the time she laid down the exclamation point?

  34. The New York Times has a “prospective on it?” A prospective WHAT on it? You really ought to finish that sentence and not leave us hanging, Sheri. (Sometimes trying to decipher PUMA-speak is like reading an Agatha Christie mystery! One written by brain-damaged wombats, but still.)

    Do you mean “perspective,” perhaps? I doubt you meant “prospectus,” unless the New York Times is selling shares in legislation now.

    Seriously, PUMAs — Obama isn’t holding you back. The evil media aren’t holding you back. Your lack of literacy, on the other hand. . .

    And wow — GO FUCK YOURSELVES! Hard to compete with that level of verbal and intellectual dynamism.

    Oh PUMAs, don’t ever stop failing!

  35. Wow, you go and rejoin the real world for half an hour and look what you get.

    I appreciate you writing some cordial replies to me and will try to do the same. Perhaps we can find at least some common ground on this issue?

    sm77 — I don’t agree with Obama about dropping the Family Provision act, it might be a political victory, but I think it was a moral loss for the democrats (albeit a small one).
    If he asks congress to look at Paycheck Fairness, fine, I’ll even applaud him for that.
    But I will never approve of one of the branches of government attempting to strongarm another branch into anything, no matter how much power we granted Bush, no matter how noble the cause.
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions after all.

    Helenk — I can understand that older women have a much stronger opinion about this than I do. I will admit to being young, and perhaps, slightly naive.
    Again, I’m all for passing the paycheck fairness act (as I believe is everyone on this blog), my beaf with you lies in the fact that you seem to hold Obama responsible for not getting it passed.
    That’s not his job though, it’s ours, and that of the democrats who are sitting in the legislative branch.
    I would never wish ill on anyone simply because we disagree on a political matter, I thank you for your wellwishes and return them to you.
    I feel obligated to point out that you’ve ruined a perfectly good (and surprisingly pleasant) argument with your last paragraph though. It did not do you justice, at all.

    And now for the less courteous of you:

    catarina — nobody on this blog claimed to have a superior intelligence, if you derive that from the quality of our comments, than so be it. But yes, when I’m not babysitting my sisters, volunteering at the Arch or tutoring immigrants, this is how I chose to spend my time. Does that bother you?

    Angienc2 — To the best of my knowledge, a phyrric victory is a victory that comes at so high a price to the victor that it is a de facto loss (I refuse to look it up, just to spite you).
    E.g. : the ledbetter act would’ve been a phyrric victory if the democrats had to promise not to pass the paycheck fairness act to get it.
    Your argument however is that it doesn’t matter that it passed, because you can’t do anything with it in the real world. That would make it a hollow (or meaningless) victory. Clear now?

    TheRealKim — As a single woman I do in fact occasionally fuck myself, being a sexually liberated feminist and all that. You should try it some time, it’s excellent stress relief.

  36. Kerry, how dare you accuse PUMAs of failing! Didn’t you see that they got Gillibrand appointed Senator by aggressively supporting Carolyn Maloney and/or Harriet Christian?

  37. I Like Pistachios! — Could it be they’ve figured out they must do the opposite of what they want to achieve in order to be succesfull? If so we might be in trouble…

  38. Hmmmm….I wonder if PUMA is making a Superbowl pick.

  39. I guess this is as good a place as any to drop Google links to various results for “birther” and “birfer,” since angienc2 et al. seem incapable of finding this sort of information out for themselves (hint: you can ignore the first two results for each of them – they’ll just confuse you further):

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=birthers&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=birfers&btnG=Search&meta=

  40. Wow, Sinister, good point! PUMAs are the political equivalent of the “coolers” at the craps table. (Ever see William H. Macy in “The Cooler?” Great performance!)

    Anyway, if they had really wanted to pay off Hillary’s campaign debt, they all should have asked Darragh about what horses, sporting teams, etc. they should place bets on — and then placed their bets on the EXACT OPPOSITE!

  41. I Like Pistachios! — Could it be they’ve figured out they must do the opposite of what they want to achieve in order to be succesfull? If so we might be in trouble…

    Shhhhh, don’t tell them the secret formula. If they start supporting Obama in 2012, I don’t know if I can survive four years of President Palin.

  42. Nikki, on January 30th, 2009 at 2:15 pm Said:

    Wow, you go and rejoin the real world for half an hour and look what you get.

    I appreciate you writing some cordial replies to me and will try to do the same. Perhaps we can find at least some common ground on this issue?

    sm77 — I don’t agree with Obama about dropping the Family Provision act, it might be a political victory, but I think it was a moral loss for the democrats (albeit a small one).
    If he asks congress to look at Paycheck Fairness, fine, I’ll even applaud him for that.
    But I will never approve of one of the branches of government attempting to strongarm another branch into anything, no matter how much power we granted Bush, no matter how noble the cause.
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions after all.

    Screw hell and good intentions. I won’t allow my rights, your rights, anyone’s rights to be eked out. It’s all or nothing. IF we continue with that type of mentality, there will never be true equality for all.

    And as Liberal Democrats, we SHOULD be doing a checks and balances on all of our elected officials, no matter how much we love them. I love Hillary, but dammit, I’m the first to call her out on a mistake (which I have done a few times).

    Where is the critical thinking with regards to Obama on most progressive sites? If anyone dares to do so, we are considered Republicans. Whatever. I’m so done with being called names, etc., but the only reason why I’m here on this blog is because the author called me out and respond to his critique.

    And yes, Obama is strong-arming his way, and as always, for the wrong reasons. He had the chance to earn some respect from me through the Ledbetter Act, but sorry, it’s just not enough.

    BTW, Mr. PUMArubbernecker, I did put up an update to the post:

    UPDATE for the PUMA paparazzi stalkers: If Obama co-endorsed the Paycheck Fairness act as a senator, what’s stopping him from (signing it into law) – from forcing the Senate to vote on behalf of the Paycheck Fairness Act like Obama did to House Democrats when he ordered them to drop the Family Planning Provision?:

    I’ll own that and I fixed it. But I still disagree with you. And of course I’m a bitch about it. But that makes all this more fun anyways.

  43. sm77, good for you! How nice it must be that you didn’t have to post that while you’re sequestered in the gaping maw of “Spammy” and everyone in the comments is mocking you without the ability to respond. Right?

  44. I like Pistachios –

    I have zero control over that. Sorry.

  45. I like Pistachios:

    Regardless, I still think Obama could sign it into law if he really wanted it to be a part of the Ledbetter Act.

    After all, he is the Messiah, right?

  46. I have zero control over that. Sorry.

    Well, I’m sure you strong women over there could wrest the controls from myiq2xu and the other moderators if you put your minds to it. dakinikat also disclaimed any responsibility for the cesnorship policy on The Confluence.

    Something about liberation starting at home?

    Then people could have discussions with you, rather than talking about you. Like here and most other blogs.

  47. sm77 — Did I not just say I didn’t agree with him about family provisions? And doesn’t that count as a critique?
    There just isn’t much to agree/disagree with yet cause, you know he’s only been president for less than 2 weeks…

    Sorry but I can’t hold one man accountable for the failure to pass ANY legislation, especially not if that man doesn’t have the AUTHORITY to pass it.
    The separation of powers is important to me, I’ll defend it, Bush set a very dangerous precedent and I won’t have it followed.

    For someone who claims all of us have drunk Kool-aid and refuse to criticise Obama, you seem hellbent on turning him into some sort of supervillain (the Messiah, oh please) that controls everything and everyone.
    And there lies the heart of our disagreement and I fear neither one of us will change the other’s mind about it.

  48. yetanotherfreakingbrit, on January 30th, 2009 at 3:05 pm Said:

    I have zero control over that. Sorry.

    Well, I’m sure you strong women over there could wrest the controls from myiq2xu and the other moderators if you put your minds to it. dakinikat also disclaimed any responsibility for the cesnorship policy on The Confluence.

    Something about liberation starting at home?

    Then people could have discussions with you, rather than talking about you. Like here and most other blogs.

    The reason why The Confluence was formed is because the dialogue on many progressive blogs shut down the moment anyone said anything positive about other candidates other than Obama.

    Not just critique, but very hardcore insulting crap & harassment that make George Carlin’s 7 dirty words look like a nursery school rhyme.

    Everyone there was either banned from Kos & other progressive blogs because they were Hillary supporters. So we formed our own little network of blogs, minding our business and doing our thing.

    Until of course the “Obama Tr*ll” was formed and started to astroturf on our blogs.

    Would you want to have dialogue with someone who calls you offensive names? No, you ignore them. And that’s what happened.

    If someone was banned or spammy eats their comments, it’s because it was either sexist, offensive or propagandist.

  49. Nikki – if we can have that disagreement, and disagree respectfully, then hey – its all good!

  50. For someone who claims all of us have drunk Kool-aid and refuse to criticise Obama, you seem hellbent on turning him into some sort of supervillain (the Messiah, oh please) that controls everything and everyone.

    Nikki, snark is a part of blogging.

    And yes, I think that President Obama is Ronald Reagan’s love child with Clarence Thomas when it comes to women’s rights.

    But hey, we agreed to disagree.

  51. Right on, Nikki — it’s the PUMAs who see Obama as some sort of purely evil Anti-Christ, and the idea that we worship him as a messiah is a load of crap.

    Personally, I think Obama is a politician who will disappoint us on some occasions (we were all howling over the Warren issue at Rumproast, for example) but who is overall a decent human being. But to the PUMA hive, either you recognize him as E-Ville!, or you’re a kook-aide drinking Obot. Whatever.

    And Sm77, I don’t know you from Adam’s house cat, but if you voted for McCain, you’re not a liberal democrat, and you certainly have a helluva lot of nerve whinging about Obama’s failure to magically eliminate discrimination against women in his first 2 weeks in office.

  52. I like Pistachios:

    Regardless, I still think Obama could sign it into law if he really wanted it to be a part of the Ledbetter Act.

    After all, he is the Messiah, right?

    I don’t think anyone here would argue with you that that would be a good thing. I also don’t think you have any evidence that it won’t happen down the road. You do realize he was sworn in ten days ago, don’t you? You do realize the Dem leadership is still getting a feel for what they can/can’t get passed? I think it’s safe to say none of us are jumping on Hillary’s neck about not solving all of the world’s problems yet as Sec of State.

    And the Messiah shit is oooooold. You guys worship at the altar of Hillary far more than I’ve ever seen any Obots do with Barack.

  53. But, sm77, the reason I became interested in PUMA as a movement was because I saw people who actually identified themselves PUMAs doing exactly what you describe on a whole load of other people’s blogs – and they still do it. Witness some of the insulting posts on here just today. (I don’t think anyone here gives a damn, given the nature of this blog, but I still see plently of other relatively blameless blogs where people you rub shoulders with over there pop up and openly insult people.)

    And you either don’t know what’s been going on, or you’re dissembling (I hope, the former).

    To give a very recent example, the other day I saw a post from Astraea, who was being spirited but in no way abusive in any way you’ve described, deleted after I’d read it simply because it didn’t suit what bostonboomer or myiq2xu wanted to appear on the blog (I’d have taken a screen cap but it happens all the time). Myiq2xu trumpeted that as an argument he’d won. Do you wonder why we hold that blog in contempt (and yes, I’m willing to make personal exceptions to that, as others here may be, too)?

    There have been plenty of other instances that I alone know of where posts that would have been accepted as perfectly reasonable on other blogs have been deleted on The Confluence, or even edited to say something ccompletely diffetent to what the author wanted to convey (I can fish out a blatant example or two if you don’t want to take my word for it).

    So, sorry, I’m not buying it. If you’re happy with a man having control over what passes as reality over there, good luck to you. But I still say liberation starts at home.

  54. Oh you silly sm77! We don’t think Obama is the Messiah! We just think he’s going to pay all of our bills, erase our debts, end racism, and bring us all together in loving peace and harmony.

    And if we’re wrong I’m sure you will be the bigger person and not rub it in by “telling us so.”

  55. If PUMAs really think they’re so tough that they can take on the world, they should start by taking a few verbal knocks here and there without retreating back into their heavily moderated fortresses of failure. They seem to have the contemporary disease of conflating criticism with “oppression” and opposition as “sexism.” (As in, it was sexist of Obama to run against Hillary Clinton when it was “her turn!”)

    But if you’re gonna dish it out, be prepared to take it. When you throw out bullshit about “inadequate black males” and uncritically allow your PUMA peers to engage in racist dialogue (i.e., “Sambo,” Michelle as “Scoop Mouth”), or genocidal fantasies about how great it will be when there are mass riots, starvation, and death, then you will be called out for being racist and inhuman pieces of shit. Even though you’re kitty-kats, when you lay down with those dogs, you get up with their fleas. Enjoy scratching!

    Seriously, PUMAs? Stop being such goddamn whiny pantywaists. Good lord, it’s not like anyone is siccing police dogs on you, turning on fire hoses, or busting your skulls on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Yet somehow you delusional kitty-kats who lose your shit over all criticism, direct or implied, think you have the intestinal fortitude (let alone the brains, which, hello, STUPID PUMAS!) for a real grassroots movement? Do you actually KNOW how hard it is? I’ve been fighting feminist battles for 30 years, and while there have been a lot of victories, there have also been setbacks. Same as with the civil rights movement. Only ignoramuses who thought feminism began and ended with Hillary Clinton’s political aspirations wouldn’t understand that.

    “Messiah?” Give it a goddamn rest, losers. PUMA was founded solely on the basis of Hillary Worship (and in some cases, out of Republican ratfuckers). It didn’t exist as a “feminist” or “electoral reform” organization a year ago, no matter how much you all try to spin those agenda items as your raison d’etre now. So pardon me if I don’t give a fuck for your “feminist” analysis and activism. You’re all a little late to the party. And when you started screaming about voting for McCain in order to “punish” Obama, you definitely showed up at the wrong fucking house.

    Kinda like how you’re showing up to the wrong one here and now.

  56. But if you’re gonna dish it out, be prepared to take it. When you throw out bullshit about “inadequate black males” and uncritically allow your PUMA peers to engage in racist dialogue (i.e., “Sambo,” Michelle as “Scoop Mouth”), or genocidal fantasies about how great it will be when there are mass riots, starvation, and death, then you will be called out for being racist and inhuman pieces of shit. Even though you’re kitty-kats, when you lay down with those dogs, you get up with their fleas. Enjoy scratching!

    So much BS I don’t even know where to begin.

    There has never been a time at the Confluence where that sort of dialogue was allowed. NEVER! If another PUMA site allowed it, we cannot be held responsible.

    Genocidal mass riots???

    That scenario was brought up by Ms. Donna Brazile, not at the Confluence because we dismissed it as the rhetoric it was.

    I was a team leader for Obama for America for seven months, until I found the race baiting that was being used by his campaign to be overwhelming. Anyone at the Confluence who uses racial slurs are immediately moderated and banned. We left other sites for being called racist simply because we felt Barack Obama was not yet ready for POTUS.

    When you start slamming another site, you should have your shit together enough to show exactly where those slurs are mentioned. Which post? What date, and who said it. I can guarantee you that you can’t, because it never happened.

  57. Genocidal mass riots???

    That scenario was brought up by Ms. Donna Brazile, not at the Confluence because we dismissed it as the rhetoric it was.

    When you start slamming another site, you should have your shit together enough to show exactly where those slurs are mentioned. Which post? What date, and who said it. I can guarantee you that you can’t, because it never happened.

    Kim, let me introduce you to one of murphy’s lieutenants, jenniforhillary (she’s well known in your circles. I’d be surprised if you haven’t heard of her.)

    November 8th, 8:49 pm, at the PUMA PAC.

    That being said, I CANNOT WAIT for the suffering to begin. I hope there is starvation, I hope there is rioting, and i hope that there is massive death…

    WHY you ask? Because the spoiled rotten ingorant masses need to realize TRULY what they have done…and it appears (and MURPHY you are in my mind sometimes) from the SECOND election of GW that they learn REALLY REALLY SLOWLY…

    How would you like your crow prepared?

  58. Oh, and also such as…

    I was a team leader for Obama for America for seven months,

    And I was Sarah Palin for 7 months. Also, it’s all about job creation and taxes, also.

  59. Instalment 1

    “Scoopmouth” (and variants) – So commonly adopted as an apparently hilarious name for the now First Lady among PUMA sites (many frequented by Effluencers) that the best I can do is give you a Google link: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=scoopmouth+puma&btnG=Search&meta=

    Ah, you say, that didn’t happen or wasn’t tolerated on The Effluence? I respectfully suggest that you’re full of shit:

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ariverdaughter.wordpress.com+scoopmouth&btnG=Search&meta=

    I can guarantee you that you can’t, because it never happened.

    Would you like some ketchup with those words?

  60. Kerry said:

    But if you’re gonna dish it out, be prepared to take it. When you throw out bullshit about “inadequate black males” and uncritically allow your PUMA peers to engage in racist dialogue (i.e., “Sambo,” Michelle as “Scoop Mouth”) …

    Kim declared:

    There has never been a time at the Confluence where that sort of dialogue was allowed. NEVER!

    Oops!

    23 results for “scoop mouth” at the Confluence including at least one from … sm77.

    I love this game!

  61. I Like Pistachios – I’d love to be a fly on the wall at Google HQ right now as their fabled display shows a sudden glitch for PUMA racial epithets! 😀

    (Sorry, I will learn other smileys that work on here son, I promise.)

  62. Crap. I can’t be bothered waiting for moderation (limit seems to be one link per post), so:

    Scoopmouth” (and variants) – So commonly adopted as an apparently hilarious name for the now First Lady among PUMA sites (many frequented by Effluencers) that the best I can do is give you a Google link: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=scoopmouth+puma&btnG=Search&meta=

  63. Ah, you say, that didn’t happen or wasn’t tolerated on The Effluence? I respectfully suggest that you’re full of shit:

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ariverdaughter.wordpress.com+scoopmouth&btnG=Search&meta=

    I can guarantee you that you can’t, because it never happened.

    Would you like some ketchup with those words?

  64. And as I Like Pistachios mentioned, it’s not just in the comments, it also occurs in the frikking posts – here’s good old sm77:

    … (Michelle Obama, look out, your face will freeze if you keep making that “scoop mouth!” – h/t Sugar @ Sugar n Spice Blog.) …

    http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/the-show-must-go-on-2008-2012/

  65. As for riots, I can’t be bothered sifting through more of the Effluence’s crap. Some of these links are general discussions of riots, which isn’t what we’re talking about, others are exactly as described above. So do your own donkey work:

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ariverdaughter.wordpress.com+riots&btnG=Search&meta=

  66. So which is it, TheRealKim?

    Are you:
    A) a pathetic pathological liar?

    B) in complete delusional denial about the extent to which xenophobia and racism is encouraged by your PUMA peers?

    C) too fucking stupid and feckless to recognize such xenophobia and racism even when it shows itself in all its glory?

    Oh hell, I’m feeling generous, so I’m gonna say you’re ALL of the above! (Sure you were an Obama for America leader. And I am Marie of Romania.)

    Go back to your kitty den and eat another bowl of fail. That’s one resource they never run out of in PUMALand!

  67. I don’t know if I need to point out that a search on terms like that is a very crude way of gauging the level of discourse on any site.

    The culture and “dogwhistle”-type assumptions are more damaging than blatant outbursts as documented above, and far more pervasive.

    … we cannot be held responsible.

    Isn’t that The Effluence’s motto?

    I may just invoke Godwin in a minute if this keeps up.

  68. Were we just lectured by a PUMA on getting our shit together?

    Oh boy, as everyone else has kindly given you examples of racism and riots at the PUMAsphere (and that term still cracks me up), I’ll restrain myself to mentioning that you are in no position to tell anyone to get anything together until PUMA manages to accomplish, well, anything.

    The irony, it’s killing me!

  69. Now, now, Nikki, be fair.

    PUMAs are very good at getting their shit together.

    The problem is that they then start throwing it at each other like deranged chimpanzees on crack.

  70. Oh, yeah, where’s that high-minded goon Fredster that posted here earlier moaning about supposed “personal attacks”?

    Fredster, on August 27th, 2008 at 3:12 pm Said:

    Mawm: I love the way Sugar describes her: scoop mouth

    http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/obamas-temple-towell-who-else-would-it-be-himself/#comment-112025

    Another hypocrite to add to the trophy board.

  71. Especially true after Pumarubbernecker got rid of MountainDong so efficiently.

    See PUMAs, we walk the walk. You, not so much…

  72. What’s kinda hilarious to me is that TheRealKim apparently thought (though ascribing cognition to PUMAs is always dangerous) that I would come up with an epithet about Michelle Obama like “Scoop Mouth” on my own.

  73. Oh lord. “All or nothing?” So, sm77, were you then one of the ones trying to throw the election to McCain/Palin? Because, yeah, that’d have given you “nothing.” As a -liberal feminist,- that is. No gag rule reversal; no signing of Ledbetter at all; active working -against- the Fair Pay Act; and much much more!

    As for Kos: yes, Kos is a sexist wanker (among other things) and the joint’s been crawling with fratboy lunkheads for -years-. AGoogle The New Gilligan’s Island ad (something of that sort), and be sure to cross-reference it with a lot of feminist blogs (most of which you seem blissfully unaware of), mkay?

    And, what on earth gave you the impression that it was the Obama- campaign that suddenly brought all these misogynists out of the woodwork? Among zomg yes liberal mens, too, even. Where’ve you been all this time, anyway?

    Anyway, it’s lovely that you’re planning to hold your breath until your very own version of the “Messiah” comes along, whether that be Hillary or (gag, head explode) Palin or someone yet to be proven worthy, I suppose. Me, I live in reality, which often fails to live up to one’s ideals. But do drop us a postcard from this interesting alternate universe where only abstractions matter, and the real effect of things like the global gag rule being reversed and who’s nominated to the Supreme Court isn’t as important as some sexist fuckhead on the Internets, amazingly enough, continuing to be a sexist fuckhead when it comes to speaking of female politicians.

    and someday, I’m sure y’all will explain exactly -how- throwing the thing to McCain/Palin would’ve helped -discourage- sexist fuckwittery, what with McCain’s propensity for rape jokes and calling his wife a “cunt” and all. In a way that makes Earth sense, even. Really, I’m sure that’ll happen any day now…

  74. p.s. Ronald Reagan and Clarence Thomas? Care to elaborate on why them, particularly?

    I mean, I’m sure it’s something spectacularly keen and subtle about each of their -actual policies- somehow resembling Obama’s– particularly when it comes to womens’ rights, yes–and not, oh, say, a glib superficial dismissal of Obama as a combination of Reagan’s vapid charisma and Thomas’…um. Gee. What -could- it be, now -think think think-

    It’s exactly the sort of penetrating, in-depth analysis one would expect from people who still don’t seem clear on how a bill becomes a law in this fine country, or the three branches, or, well, just a hell of a lot of things, really.

  75. Well, it looks like YAFB, Rubbernecker, Nikki, Pistachios and Kerry have prepared a lovely banquet of crow for TheRealKim. Will she return to dine with us? I don’t know this particular PUMA, but as a group, they’re a pretty craven bunch, so I’m not holding my breath.

    But if she does return, maybe she can explain why her account of her time as an Obama volunteer on her blog doesn’t match her description of it here? I mean, if she was driven away from the Obama campaign by ceaseless race-baiting, wouldn’t she mention that in an extremely long post about how she came to switch from Obama to Clinton? Let’s take a look,
    shall we
    ?

    “When Barack Obama announced his candidacy, I was on board immediately. What could I do to help? Just tell me where you need me, no questions asked. I started out phone banking, I had done this before, so I didn’t need much help. I started making the calls and although this may sound racist, it did not take me long to figure out, I was only calling African Americans. This surprised me, because I thought this campaign was all about UNITY; not black, not white, nor red or blue, but coming together. My loyalty was true though, so I blocked it out and kept on calling.

    Several months passed and I was given new call sheets. These call sheets were to white registered democrats. I won’t go into detail, but the responses I was getting were not what I had expected. Most were hateful, vile, mean and cruel. The more calls I made, the more depressed I became. Were we still bigots and racist here in the South? After a month or so, I completely withdrew from the campaign. I wanted nothing more to do with politics.

    But, I had been a political junkie and activist too long and I needed to get out of this funk. I started working with the HuffingtonPost “Off the Bus” citizen journalist project. I had to know if the rest of the world felt like so many I had spoken with, while phone banking for Obama. Soon enough I got my answer.

    I had met many Obama supporters while I campaigned for him and they had an almost blind loyalty to him. There had been some, I had spoken with while phone banking, that mentioned backgeound issues. I knew nothing of these things they mentioned and decided to do some investigating of my own. I had always looked at a candidate’s history, their previous policies and experience, evertime, except this time. I started looking into his background and history and saw there wasn’t much there, it was almost a blank. On important issues, he had voted present and sometimes voted the wrong way, and then claimed that he had flubbed and pushed the wrong button. He had some dubious affiliations and friends that had questionable backgrounds. He did not have a great resume, because, no sooner did he land one position or seat, than he was out campaigning for another. Was it possible that I had let my emotions control me and had jumped on a bandwagon for someone who could do more harm than good? Could his candidacy be more for his own ego, than the good of the country?

    The primary in my state was gearing up and I was determined to check out the rest of the candidates. I went to hear John Edwards and he was okay, but I was still looking for the thrill factor. Hillary and Bill were making the rounds, but I wasn’t paying a lot of attention to them. The day of our primary came and I still did not know who I was voting for when I walked into the booth. I voted for Sen. Clinton, it wasn’t the Bradley effect, it wasn’t because I was a woman; it was her experience and nothing more. I wasn’t ecstatic about my choice, but just very comfortable with it. It wasn’t until the New Hampshire primary that I got my wow factor, Senator Clinton found her voice and I found my goosebumps. “

    Awwwww, that last line sure is touching. But where are the accounts of “overwhelming” race baiting mentioned above? Is the fact that she initially received a phone banking sheet featuring African American voters supposed to count? Because I hate to break it to you, TheRealKim, but phone banking sheets are sorted by neighborhood. And I have further sad news: Neighborhoods aren’t 100% integrated in America, so a phone bank sheet might very well be dominated by a single ethnic group.

    Shocking, I know. But if you’re trying to use the African American call sheet as evidence that the Obama campaign was race baiting, you undermined your own point with the anecdote about receiving a call sheet featuring mostly white folks later from the Obama campaign. And that’s where you describe encountering bigotry and racism.

    So not only is TheRealKim completely wrong about what goes on at The Effluence and PUMAPAC (which she links from her blog), she’s even wrong about her own story! Do y’all ever get tired of being wrong?

  76. “You have a lot of nerve calling anyone stupid when you are actually describe a woman as a “birther”…” First spit-take of the day. Thanks, angienc!

  77. bettycrackerfl — I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for TheRealKim, she’s more the type to hit and hide I’m afraid. And she did score 2 devastating blows today, calling us out for being unprepared and telling us to go fuck ourselves. Truly, she is the queen of blogwars.

    I’ll give props to sm77 for sticking around and actually debating, it’s just sad that everything has to be about Obama’s (supposed) failings, I get a feeling we might actually have some principles in common (despite her, rather interesting, aversion to the seperation of powers…), oh well.

  78. Today? Better make that yesterday, stupid time difference…

  79. catarina — “This is what “intelligent” people do?” Yes. Many intelligent animals (e.g. ravens), once they satisfy their basic needs, engage in “play.” You’re the toy here.

  80. Nikki — Written yesterday for me too, but I’m just now catching up on the Pumidiocy.

  81. Sean — and what a glorious day it was! I vote we always ‘invite’ them over to play. It’s more fun when they try to defend themselves…

  82. sm77 — “Screw hell and good intentions.” Um, what? And I don’t think you go far enough; we should be doing a Dirty Sanchez on our officials, not just a “Checks and Balances.” Yes, all of them

  83. Sean — She’s trying to justify hating Obama for not passing the paycheck fairness act even though by law he can’t.
    As you can see the argument’s not working on a blog where people use logic…

    The guy can NEVER win, when he asks the house to ammend a bill it’s blatant abuse of power, when he doesn’t, he’s throwing us under the bus.
    Either way, he’s a misogynist…

  84. Good catch, Betty!

    I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for TheRealKim …

    For sure. But I bet you a large sum that they sneak over here quite regularly and look in without posting!

    After months and months of seeing a number of them spread gross and often highly personal libels across the Web, let alone the revolting things they post in the “safety” of the PUMA blogs they – as a number of us have observed – don’t like it when the tables are turned, and especially when the’re caught totally off guard when you can provide them with evidence of what they’ve said in the past (a symptom of their ultra-slow adjustment to the realities of the Web).

    And yes, OK, props to sm77 for sticking around a while. But like dakinikat and others in the past, she soon reverted to type when she returned to patriarchal den that is The Effluence.

    And this:

    And of course I’m a bitch about it. But that makes all this more fun anyways.

    just reinforces the conclusion I’ve come to about this lot, and Riverdaughter in particular – apparently, it’s just a game and a way to pass the time for them. I even saw one of yesterday’s invaders say on the Effluence that she had PMS and so was extra-touchy over here – let’s play into some hoary stereotypes into the bargain!

    I certainly don’t see any missives from any PUMA group among those who’re listed as lobbying for either of these Acts that have been discussed (NOW, on the other hand …):

    http://www.nwlc.org/fairpay/pendinglegislation.html

    But then The Effluence has always been about negativity, not positive action.

  85. YAFB — If it’s just a game, all the more power to her, it’s not like I take this dreadfully serious.

    Besides, PMS or not, I can outbitch any PUMA, anywhere, anytime 😉

    You’re right though PUMAS are all about negativity, they wallow in their selfpity and believe everyone should feel sorry for them.
    And you know, sometimes I do (they are rather pathetic), and than they tell me to go fuck myself and the moment passes.

  86. Nikki — “‘Misogyny’ under a bus,” eh? I’m not sure I want to read about their repressed childhood memories, but I understand them much better now…

  87. More BS from TheRealKim: “He did not have a great resume, because, no sooner did he land one position or seat, than he was out campaigning for another.”

    Except for those six years he served in the Illinois State Senate before he ever began running for the U.S. Senate, which gives him a total of eight years in elected office before joining the U.S. Senate. Or in other words, eight years more than Hillary Clinton had.

    And as an Obama volunteer, I can tell you that there was an overwhelming amount of information on his past votes available. The “present” votes in the Illinois State Senate are recycled desperate Hillary smears, debunked by Planned Parenthood of Illinois, among others.

    She never fucking volunteered for Obama. She’s just a bad liar. And a tool.

  88. She never fucking volunteered for Obama. She’s just a bad liar. And a tool.

    I suspect you’re right, Kerry. I was an Obama volunteer too, and there certainly was an overwhelming amount of info available on Obama’s positions and past voting records. Like you said, the “present” thing has been thoroughly debunked. Hell, any fool with a web connection could access that information, Obama volunteer or not.

    TRK probably imagines that bogus story makes her eventual conversion to PUMAdumb all the more poignant, but it actually makes her look like a weak-minded fool: By her own account, she campaigned for a presidential candidate on the basis of white guilt and one speech. That’s just flat-out stupid.

  89. […] clowns are so monumentally incompetent that they are incapable of substantiating their claims or providing credible analysis of fairly straightforward legislation. It’s all FAIL, all the time with the hairball-horkers, […]

  90. Though now I feel a little bit bad for TheRealKim. Should we all chip in and buy some anti-scar cream for that backwards “B” she carved into her cheek?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: