Jump to content
IGNORED

United States Senate 2


Recommended Posts

GreyhoundFan

Lindsey's picture is now permanently installed next to sycophant in the dictionary.

 

  • Disgust 1
  • Eyeroll 4
  • WTF 4
  • I Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • GreyhoundFan

    37

  • fraurosena

    16

  • clueliss

    14

  • Cartmann99

    13

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I adore Elizabeth:

And of course that "book now" phone number is Cruz's WDC office     

Posted Images

clueliss

I had to pick myself off the floor in shock.  Hawley actually voted yes on a Biden nominee

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Thank You 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
fraurosena
4 hours ago, clueliss said:

I had to pick myself off the floor in shock.  Hawley actually voted yes on a Biden nominee

 

He probably only did it to be able to have some "plausible deniability" of blindly and consistently voting no on all of Biden's nominees.

  • Upvote 4
  • I Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyhoundFan

"It’s time to talk about term limits for the Senate"

Quote

As we age, several things occur: Death is no longer a curiosity; “old” becomes older and older; and people younger than 50 all seem like teenagers.

“Everybody’s a kid to me,” my not-so-old father used to say before he died at a mere 72.

As a factor in employment or public service, age is increasingly confounding. How old is too old to work or serve when people live into their 90s and beyond? President Biden, the oldest person ever elected to lead the country, was 78 on Inauguration Day. The U.S. Senate is so gray it’s beginning to look like a first-class flight to Palm Beach.

Several of its elder members were on display — and the talk of Twitter — this week as the Senate Judiciary Committee began its investigation of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Let’s just say the committee does not lack for maturity. Leading a ripe field of octogenarians was Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), 87, who has stepped down as the top Democrat on the committee but continues to serve. Joining her Tuesday in peppering FBI Director Christopher A. Wray with questions he had already answered in his opening statement were vintage Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), 87, and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), 80.

Sens. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) and James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) are 86, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will turn 80 this year, bringing the number of Senate octogenarians to six. There would have been more had two elder statesmen not decided to retire. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), 80, decided to retire last year, saying he didn’t want to make the mistake of staying too long. Rare words. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), 84, said much the same after discussions with his wife of 51 years and “at the level of maturity that I had reached, it was time.”

Wisdom may come with age, but it comes sooner to some than to others.

Yes, we all know people well into their 80s and beyond who are as active and mentally alert as others much younger. Moreover, we are what we do, and identity isn’t easily surrendered. For many people, ceasing to work feels like ceasing to be. A lawyer friend who retired and then became deeply depressed told me: “People used to pay me a lot of money for my advice, and now nobody cares what I think about anything.”

It’s silly to pretend that age shouldn’t be a consideration for certain kinds of employment. Physical labor is harder on most bodies as they age. Sure, sitting through committee meetings, attending events and showing up on a Sunday talk show while your staff writes your legislation can’t be all that taxing. But these jobs require a day-in, day-out stamina that many people in their 60s and 70s would struggle to sustain.

But features of aging, while not debilitating, are often seen as evidence of reduced vitality or mental acuity. Wrinkles and frowns take up residence in faces we no longer recognize as our own. Speech sometimes changes. Eyes become cloudy as vision fades. Gait, slowed or unbalanced, can convey uncertainty. There is a reason public people, especially women, resort to Botox and fillers. It isn’t vanity so much as job security.

Once upon a time, it was considered poor form to ask a woman’s age, and women were deemed justified in rebuffing the request. But when it comes to managing the country’s business, 80-somethings who believe their continued presence in Washington is essential to the country’s well-being may be placing pride before prejudice. The young savants following the judiciary hearing on Twitter were uncharitable toward the veterans. Time to go, they said. Retire already. One tweeted in effect: They know nothing about what this generation needs.

This may well be true, but also true is that most people don’t think of themselves as old. Inside every person over 30 is a forever-29-year-old. Some, such as Grassley and Leahy, aim to prove it. Grassley runs two miles multiple times a week. Leahy tests his mettle by scuba diving on his birthday each year, reaching the depth of his age and doing an underwater somersault.

Well, that’s something. But what? Proof that these men are ageless gladiators — or stubborn fools? Only elections will tell. Or, better yet, term limits. Not only would term limits fix most of what ails our political system, they would provide a graceful exit for old soldiers with stories to tell and miles to go before they sleep.

I'm of two minds about this. I think it's ageist to say someone can't be in the senate past X age. However, I am unhappy that the relatively large group of elderly senators don't seem to be more proactive in formally and informally mentoring younger members and enabling younger members to step into official leadership roles. I'm a Gen-Xer and because the pre-Baby Boomers and Baby Boomers are loath to step aside, my generation will probably not get to spend any time in major leadership roles before the senators on the low end of the age leapfrog over my contemporaries.

  • I Agree 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyhoundFan

Ron Johnson, tool extraordinaire:

image.png.9d86cab1bc11a50dd943ae6f288b1582.png

  • Eyeroll 6
  • WTF 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
fraurosena
15 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"It’s time to talk about term limits for the Senate"

I'm of two minds about this. I think it's ageist to say someone can't be in the senate past X age. However, I am unhappy that the relatively large group of elderly senators don't seem to be more proactive in formally and informally mentoring younger members and enabling younger members to step into official leadership roles. I'm a Gen-Xer and because the pre-Baby Boomers and Baby Boomers are loath to step aside, my generation will probably not get to spend any time in major leadership roles before the senators on the low end of the age leapfrog over my contemporaries.

I agree with most of what you say, with the exception of you being ageist. You’re not, and you don’t seem it either.
Because let’s be honest, age not really what’s at issue in the current Congress. The problem is that because there are no term limits, people can stay in office for decades, thereby blocking those positions to other generations. Introducing term limits is not ageist, because one can be elected into office at any age (above 18, in my opinion). Only you can’t stay in office indefinitely. Ten years for example would be ample time to make your mark, and then make way for another to take your place. Term limits can also prevent those that do harm *cough* McConnell *cough* from remaining in that position of power too.

  • Upvote 9
  • Thank You 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alisamer
47 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

I agree with most of what you say, with the exception of you being ageist. You’re not, and you don’t seem it either.
Because let’s be honest, age not really what’s at issue in the current Congress. The problem is that because there are no term limits, people can stay in office for decades, thereby blocking those positions to other generations. Introducing term limits is not ageist, because one can be elected into office at any age (above 18, in my opinion). Only you can’t stay in office indefinitely. Ten years for example would be ample time to make your mark, and then make way for another to take your place. Term limits can also prevent those that do harm *cough* McConnell *cough* from remaining in that position of power too.

I agree. Term limits aren't ageist. Saying "OK, nobody over the age of 70 can run for office" could be ageist, but making it impossible for somebody to spend literally an entire lifetime in congress isn't, IMO. If the term limit is 15 years, and you run at 25, you're done at 40. If you run at 75, you're done at 90. If you know you've only got 4 more years in office, that'll give you incentive to mentor up and coming people who are hoping to take your place. As it stands now, there's no benefit to mentoring and helping others, as those others are your competition who are trying to take your job.

I think that congress should as closely as possible represent the population of this country. Right now, it very much doesn't. It represents a small fraction of the people, who have no incentive (other than basic decency, which many seem to lack) to bother even thinking of how what they are doing might affect other groups. 

I'd even be in favor of an advisory committee of teens and pre-teens to look at legislations being proposed, to offer their opinions and insights. They could even do it through the education department and make it a classroom thing - send a survey once a month or so to a selected group of classes in a variety of school situations and grades. Kids who feel like their opinions matter will become adults who make their opinions known, and who are more engaged with how the country is run. It is a massive problem IMO that whole groups and generations of people feel completely left out of government. And that adds to the problem by reducing the number of non-elderly non-white people who feel they CAN run for government offices.

I also strongly believe there should be some sort of qualifications to run other than age, however, for any federal office. Like at bare minimum getting pre-qualified for the level of security clearance required of the position. That would likely have disqualified the former guy from even running, and would have kept his children from being in such influential positions as well. Of course there's potential for that to be abused, but it could weed out some of the more criminal/traitorous/compromised people.

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Ron Johnson, tool extraordinaire:

image.png.9d86cab1bc11a50dd943ae6f288b1582.png

Somebody call John Moschitta! He's our only hope!

  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
47of74

Excellent suggestion.

Fuck you Ron Johnson.

  • Upvote 3
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyhoundFan
23 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Ron Johnson, tool extraordinaire:

image.png.9d86cab1bc11a50dd943ae6f288b1582.png

 

Well, Ron's little stunt didn't help him as much as he planned:

image.png.bc916d8107f700165d2a93273ecfa4cd.png

  • Upvote 7
  • Haha 8
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Becky

I hope someone put Sen Johnson in his chair and poked him with a stick periodically to make sure he stayed present and awake for the entire reading. 

  • Upvote 3
  • I Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyhoundFan

Some points to ponder: "What Ron Johnson’s latest stunt tells us about the next four years"

Quote

Being a United States senator comes with all kinds of privileges not afforded to lowly House members. One is that in many instances you can force the entire chamber to submit to your idiotic whims.

So it was that Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) used his power on Thursday to force Senate clerks to read every word of the 628-page covid relief bill out loud. As he said in a tweet, “If they’re going to add nearly $2T to the national debt at least we should know what’s in the bill.”

Like anyone else, Johnson was more than free to read the bill on his own time rather than forcing the clerks to perform this ritual. But 10 hours and 43 minutes later, they finally staggered to the end of their marathon.

There’s a context for this stunt, which was meant to delay debate on the bill in a particularly exasperating way: Republicans see it in their interest to make the legislative process appear as convoluted and ridiculous as possible.

That’s because an inevitable part of their message for the 2022 midterm elections — as it almost always is — will be that Washington Doesn’t Work. It’s a bunch of squabbling, partisanship and arcane procedural nonsense that does nothing to help you and your family, so what we need to do is toss out the people in charge and put in some folks with common sense, i.e., Republicans.

And the idea that legislation is too long is a regular Republican refrain, as though a bill’s page count proves that there must be something wrong with it.

Let me share a secret with you: Members of Congress don’t read the text of most of the bills they vote on. That’s true of both Republican bills and Democratic bills. But it’s not because they aren’t doing their jobs.

So why don’t they read most bills? The first reason is that there are just too many. In the last Congress, which ran from 2019 to 2021, there were over 20,000 bills introduced, and just under 1,900 that were considered on the floor. And that was not a particularly productive Congress.

So members have to rely on summaries prepared by staff and instructions from their party leadership on whether to vote yea or nay; otherwise the task is just too enormous.

But more importantly, legislative text is so impenetrable that it makes your iTunes terms and conditions look like “Hop on Pop.” It’s full of convoluted lines like “subsection (a)(1) of such section 314 shall be applied by substituting ‘91 percent’ for ‘89 percent’” and “without regard to requirements in sections 658E(c)(3)(E) or 658G of such Act (42 U.S.C. 9858c(c)(3), 9858e).”

Those are actual excerpts from the covid relief bill. They show why Congress has staffers who have expertise in writing and interpreting legislation.

But Johnson hopes that when you encounter that, you say, “What a bunch of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. Folks in Washington don’t care a lick about me.” Instead, of course, you could say, “Writing laws is incredibly complicated. I sure want to have skilled and knowledgeable people doing it.”

The advantage Republicans have is that even when they’re in charge, they don’t really have to care about whether government appears competent. Their own failures and inefficiencies can be taken as yet more proof that their fundamental argument that government can’t do anything right is correct.

Democrats, on the other hand, have an extra obligation to make sure that they carry out their programs effectively, since they’re the ones always arguing for more comprehensive and aggressive government action. That’s why missteps are particularly devastating; a prototypical example was the chaotic rollout of the portal for the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges. While eventually they worked out the kinks, it became a PR nightmare, making the entire bill look like a disaster.

This will be one of the most important grounds on which politics is fought for the next few years. Republicans will argue that under Democrats the legislative process is a mess, their bills are full of frivolous and wasteful boondoggles, and the Biden administration is mishandling implementation of everything. Democrats have to prove them wrong.

How can they do that? For a start, they have to pass their bills through Congress. And yes, that means eliminating or at least reforming the filibuster. Republicans will gleefully kill every bill Democrats offer, then turn around and tell voters that Democrats can’t get anything done.

Second, they have to emphasize — over and over — that what’s impeding progress isn’t “Washington” or “Congress” or “partisan politics” — it’s Republicans. There’s plenty of opportunity for Republicans to air substantive objections to Democratic policies, but if voters don’t like inaction, that’s where blame should lie.

And finally, when they do pass bills, Democrats have to take credit, loudly and emphatically and repeatedly. People won’t just figure out that the federal government did something to improve their lives; they have to be persuaded. Especially since the opposition will be working hard to convince them that nothing coming out of Washington ever helped them at all.

So yes, bills are mind-numbingly long, the legislative process is frustrating, and governing is complicated. But if you do it right, what comes out the other end can do extraordinary good in people’s lives. You just have to make sure they know it.

 

  • Upvote 11
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
fraurosena

Listen to Chris Murphy absolutely eviscerating Republican's claims about the rescue bill:

 

  • Upvote 5
  • Thank You 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
fraurosena

Ron Johnson attempting a tease:

A day after forcing marathon bill reading, Johnson says 'preference' to leave Senate

Quote

The day after he single-handedly delayed the U.S. Senate’s debate on President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill for 11 hours, Republican Senator Ron Johnson said on Friday that he could retire from office when his term expires.

The two-term Republican told Wisconsin media outlets that he has not decided whether to run for reelection in 2022 but added that not seeking another term is “probably my preference now.”

Johnson, a Trump ally, recently drew widespread criticism by peddling a debunked conspiracy theory that leftists posing as Trump supporters played a role in the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Political analysts say his seat could be vulnerable to Democrats next year.

The 65-year-old Republican, who was first elected to the Senate during the Tea Party surge in 2010, had pledged to spend only two terms in the Senate.

“That pledge is on my mind, it was my preference then, I would say it’s probably my preference now,” Johnson told reporters. “I’m happy to go home.”

But he added a caveat. “I think that pledge was based on the assumption we wouldn’t have Democrats in total control of government and we’re seeing what I would consider the devastating and harmful effects of Democrats’ total control just ramming things through,” the Wisconsin State Journal quoted him as saying.

Except he won't leave as long as Democrats hold the majority, of course. :pb_rollseyes:

  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ozlsn
On 3/4/2021 at 11:09 AM, GreyhoundFan said:

For many people, ceasing to work feels like ceasing to be. A lawyer friend who retired and then became deeply depressed told me: “People used to pay me a lot of money for my advice, and now nobody cares what I think about anything.”

I have to admit I read this and thought "volunteer your time and expertise with a charity. They will be more grateful than you could ever imagine, especially if they are small and running on a shoestring." 

  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Howl
On 3/4/2021 at 9:29 AM, fraurosena said:

Only you can’t stay in office indefinitely. Ten years for example would be ample time to make your mark, and then make way for another to take your place.

I'm conflicted on term limits as well, but I lean against them for this reason.  

Laws that are made need to be good laws reflecting good policy and sufficiently thought through that there are no disastrous unintended consequences or loopholes.  

Term limits, which could conceivably churn constant turnover,  could create it's on form of chaos and potentially result in bad laws. 

Lauren Boebert and Majorie Taylor Greene are examples of the worst of the worst, but what if you ended up with twenty of them at once because of term limits? 

I'd be more in favor of age limits than term limits.  Citizens can term limit by voting.  

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
fraurosena
19 minutes ago, Howl said:

I'm conflicted on term limits as well, but I lean against them for this reason.  

Laws that are made need to be good laws reflecting good policy and sufficiently thought through that there are no disastrous unintended consequences or loopholes.  

Term limits, which could conceivably churn constant turnover,  could create it's on form of chaos and potentially result in bad laws. 

Lauren Boebert and Majorie Taylor Greene are examples of the worst of the worst, but what if you ended up with twenty of them at once because of term limits? 

I'd be more in favor of age limits than term limits.  Citizens can term limit by voting.  

I get your point. But you are working from the premise that all members will leave at the same time, and from that standpoint I agree with you that it would have massive drawbacks with regards to continuity. But in reality that wouldn't necessarily be the case, because there are elections more than once in ten years (my fictitious term). Members can be voted out regardless of time in office. They can also leave earlier if they choose to do so themselves. It's not like people get voted in and automatically stay in office for ten years. The only thing term limits are for is to ensure that no one stays longer than a set period.

As to Boeberts and Greenes? Yes, they are really bad. But they are also dumb as rocks, and smart politicians will be able to work around their antics. However, the likes of McConnell, and Graham, and Cruz are far more dangerous, because they are not (that) stupid, but conniving -- especially McConnell. Just look at what they have wrought, and the devastation they continue to bring to the country. 

Maybe age limits would rid you of McConnell. But Graham and Cruz aren't that old yet. And I shudder to think of how long Josh Hawley could remain in office.

There is another advantage to term limits. The current voting laws, or I should say, the voting restrictions that are in place right now, only ensure self-serving corrupt politicians keep getting voted back in office. Installing term limits would not only curtail their time in office, it would also bring limitations to the effectiveness of voter suppression. 

 

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
fraurosena

The look on Jonathan Swan’s face is all of us.

 

  • Upvote 8
  • Thank You 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
clueliss

Missouri’s Roy Blunt is retiring instead of seeking Reelection in 2022.  
 

Claire McCaskill announced she would not be seeking office.  Rumors are already swirling that Jay Ashcroft, Eric Greitens. And AG Eric Schmidt may run.  Also KC Mayor Quinton Lucas and some other names I didn’t recognize.

  • Thank You 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
danvillebelle

Lady G is so far up OFM's ass he's going to be peeking out of his mouth soon.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alisamer
On 3/7/2021 at 4:14 PM, Howl said:

I'd be more in favor of age limits than term limits.  Citizens can term limit by voting.  

Well, they COULD. If voting was actually fair. But it's not.

And when the people being voted for are the ones setting the rules on who gets to vote? Age limits would help, but you'd still get people managing to hang on to their seats for essentially their entire working lives. I think term limits (with associated transition procedures) would really be an advantage.

It works for the president. It could work for congress as well. Longer term limits than for president, sure, but definite limits. Requiring mandatory retirement at 70 (for example) would keep out or limit people for whom politics is a second career, but do nothing for the 25-year-olds who would then have potentially 45 years in office. We could end up in the same position, with a stagnant congress, only just averaging a little younger. I'd rather have Biden than Boebert, no matter the age... and I wouldn't want an active, intelligent 60-year-old to refuse considering running for office just because they'd age out in 5 or 10 years any more than I'd want someone like Hawley to be like "HA! I'm IN. Set for life!" 

I'm for supreme court term limits, too. As much as I loved RBG, it seems a little ridiculous to me that someone can get appointed to a job and then that's it. Forever. Until they die or decide to give in and retire.

It'd take a shift, definitely, but I think it could work well. 

I think the country would be better off if serving in the government was seen as a SERVICE people do, rather than a career all on it's own - where you can get elected at 25 or 30 and that's your job from then on, as you get farther and farther away from the realities most Americans are living in with every year that passes. 

The house of representatives is called that for a reason. They're supposed to represent us!

  • Upvote 8
  • I Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyhoundFan
17 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

I'm for supreme court term limits, too. As much as I loved RBG, it seems a little ridiculous to me that someone can get appointed to a job and then that's it. Forever. Until they die or decide to give in and retire.

I have always felt there should be term limits for SCOTUS and at least Circuit Court. I think the limits could be relatively long (like 20 years), but lifetime is a bit much.

For Senate, maybe a term limit of two or three six year terms, with a maximum age of, say 78. I do think there's value in having folks with institutional knowledge.

The current system that allows Supremes, Senators, and Congresspeople to fossilize in their seats is not good for the country.

 

 

  • I Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
church_of_dog

A related but separate topic is the concern about dementia, which seems to be heading toward epidemic proportions in the current era.  As relates to Congress, Senator Dianne Feinstein might be bringing that concern to the fore soon if she doesn't step down.

At some point in the coming decades, it seems likely SCOTUS would face a similar dilemma.

I'm not sure how to measure it beyond the basic cognitive disruption tests ("draw the clock" etc) perhaps given every other year or something along those lines, but I'm sure experts in that field have a sense of the best way to measure such things.

While I recognize the good that a long-time legislator can do (when I endorse their values, of course), I definitely see the downside of having "bad guys" stay in office too long.  And just think -- what other good works might be done out in society by those good folks who term out of national-level politics but still have the energy and desire to contribute?

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alisamer
28 minutes ago, church_of_dog said:

A related but separate topic is the concern about dementia, which seems to be heading toward epidemic proportions in the current era.  As relates to Congress, Senator Dianne Feinstein might be bringing that concern to the fore soon if she doesn't step down.

At some point in the coming decades, it seems likely SCOTUS would face a similar dilemma.

I'm not sure how to measure it beyond the basic cognitive disruption tests ("draw the clock" etc) perhaps given every other year or something along those lines, but I'm sure experts in that field have a sense of the best way to measure such things.

This is very true. I think that people with that much (worldwide, really) influence need to have some regular monitoring. Maybe somewhat similar to how pilots and others are monitored - required yearly health checkups including basic cognitive and psychological reviews? There's got to be a system existing that could just be modified to suit. It doesn't have to even be that in depth - just "doesn't have clear signs of dementia and is not likely to shoot up the place or randomly declare war somewhere" would be beneficial.

ETA: And I definitely agree about the good that could be done by people who have term-limited out - mentoring programs, charity work, etc... it'd especially give those "let private charities help people, not the government!" republicans a chance to put their money and time where their mouths are. Think that people should have to rely on private charities instead of public safety nets? Get out there and help!

Or just fly to Cancun. Whatever.

Edited by Alisamer
  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dandruff
3 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

This is very true. I think that people with that much (worldwide, really) influence need to have some regular monitoring. Maybe somewhat similar to how pilots and others are monitored - required yearly health checkups including basic cognitive and psychological reviews? There's got to be a system existing that could just be modified to suit. It doesn't have to even be that in depth - just "doesn't have clear signs of dementia and is not likely to shoot up the place or randomly declare war somewhere" would be beneficial.

I'd add some similar integrity monitoring.  Have all candidates agree to have some of their affairs under scrutiny if elected which, at a minimum, would hopefully weed out some of the hard cases before they even ran.

  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Recent Status Updates

    • 47of74

      47of74

      Went up to the Iron Range of Minnesota last weekend to talk to guy about a job.  I ❤️ the area and hope to get said job up there.  Course got to pass the bar first but I'm really taken with the area.  And it's not an area that overall treats fuck face as the second coming or some goddamn thing.
      · 0 replies
    • HarryPotterFan

      HarryPotterFan

      Happy Shavuot to all those who celebrate! I have no idea why, but for some reason God commands us to eat ice cream. Well, dairy. So eat cheese! Eat pizza! Eat ice cream! Eat cheesecake! It has no calories because God commands us to do so!
      · 8 replies
    • Jinder Roles

      Jinder Roles

      I know it’s just a beauty contest but this is the 4th time Jamaica was snubbed in favour of 5 contestants who were clones (with the exception of Peru) 
      Still can’t believe Mexico won. Even Olivia Culpo was looking at the results confused😂
      Shoutout to Haiti, Canada, Thailand and Myanmar who were also snubbed. 
      · 0 replies
    • Mela99

      Mela99

      I really love gobs.
      · 1 reply
    • EmCatlyn

      EmCatlyn

      Tired and confused,
      · 0 replies
    • Jinder Roles

      Jinder Roles

      I've somehow invested in this year's Miss Universe pageant. After watching the prelims my favorites are: 
      1. Jamaica (naturally lol but she's doing well)
      2. Haiti (love her energy) 
      3. Great Britain 
      4. Bahamas 
      5. Canada (a beauty! absolutely stunning!)
      6. Japan (adorable) 
      7. Cameroon (also adorable w/ an amazing costume) 
      8. Myanmar (seems sweet)
      9. Vietnam 
      10. Thailand 
      11. USA (I'm rooting for everybody black lol) 
      Not a fan of these but I think they'll place: South Africa, Mexico, Columbia, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Peru, Australia, Denmark, Ireland, Dom Rep. 
      If they make Zozi (the current Ms. Universe) give the crown to a white girl from Pretoria, I will scream. 
      · 1 reply
    • WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?

      WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?  »  church_of_dog

      I just made a lovely discovery! Type a colon, then a ) without any spaces. Then type a space. 
          
      I am ridiculously happy to discover this! (I also have a nagging feeling that I should have figured this out sooner...)
      · 11 replies
    • louisa05

      louisa05

      I’ve got a pack of rude sixth graders this morning. Ugh. 
      · 6 replies
    • HerNameIsBuffy

      HerNameIsBuffy

      Aren't I too old to forget to eat lunch?  
      So now....do eat a late salad and be cranky before bed because I want dinner and it's too late to eat or....do I tough out the afternoon cranky at my desk and eat dinner?  
      The dilemma is real.  
      · 3 replies
    • feministxtian

      feministxtian

      2nd Pfizer tomorrow!
      · 10 replies
  • Recent Blog Entries

×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.