Jump to content

Josh Hawley - a man whose soul is dipped in dogshit

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4,640

Posted
Posted
On 5/11/2022 at 3:31 PM, High Plains Drifter said:

 

gotta spend that sweet sweet border security money on something.

 

These YF’s made a big stink when they were purchased.  The response was it was purchased with confiscated cash from drug busts.  And no, some LEO isn’t picking up a 400k+ YF for $500 in an auction.  That’s politician level fuckery.  Even dumber, all the trailers had mud terrains on them.  Legitimate BFG Mud Terrains. We used to see them up and down the coast ALOT mid coast. Also say them in Baytown Buccees often, for some reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 762
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Beau Vine
Beau Vine
NAVY
NAVY

Precisamente 

Longhorn_Fan68
Longhorn_Fan68

Posted Images

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46,990

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

"Big business is no friend to conservatives"???

Come on.  Conservatives and big business have been fucking for decades.

Joe Meth in the Ozarks has no idea what political stripe big business has been aligning with.  Hence, the strategy works.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 29,180

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

"Big business is no friend to conservatives"???

Come on.  Conservatives and big business have been fucking for decades.

He means businesses not politically supportive of the Republican party will be punished by the government. This is worse than Rent-Seeking behavior with politicians accepting political donations for favorable legislation. This is a political party using the government to punish one company for publicly disagreeing with them on a social issue. 

It's really fucked how blatant they are by declaring this part of their culture war.

 

  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Posted
Posted
Just now, F250 said:

He means businesses not politically supportive of the Republican party will be punished by the government. This is worse than Rent-Seeking behavior with politicians accepting political donations for favorable legislation. This is a political party using the government to punish one company for publicly disagreeing with them on a social issue. 

It's really fucked how blatant they are by declaring this part of their culture war.

 

Yep.

Remember when we were talking about this when companies were saying they would stop donating to pols who pushed election fraud and the Jan. 6th insurrection but they didn't really stop? Somewhere in that discussion the topic of how companies in rising fascist regimes have to make a choice pretty early on and if they don't get in bed with the fascists/authoritarians then they better grab a stout group of like-minded companions and push back hard.

This is likely how they would hurt companies headquartered in blue majority states, too. Similar to the threats during the pandemic with regards to aid and supplies.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8,875

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:


Picking winners and losers in business now? Definitely what the founding fathers has in mind.

I know the GOP said this when Obama was president but it’s a stupid criticism. Govt has picked winners and losers forever. Bailouts, tax breaks, subsidies, selection for gov contracts, and on and on. It’s a pretty non controversial function of funding decisions 

Edited by Pig Bellmont
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fastbreak

Fastbreak 4,012

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I know the GOP said this when Obama was president but it’s a stupid criticism. Govt has picked winners and losers forever. Bailouts, tax breaks, subsidies, selection for gov contracts, and on and on. It’s a pretty non controversial function of funding decisions 

There is a bit of a difference between the govt bailing out a business sector and the government actively trying to tank a business.  I don't agree with either, but the difference is more than "but Obama..."

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 29,180

Posted
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Fastbreak said:

There is a bit of a difference between the govt bailing out a business sector and the government actively trying to tank a business.  I don't agree with either, but the difference is more than "but Obama..."

Agree. In those cases it's a policy decision made to bring about a desirable corrective course that is believed to be beneficial for the country. Criticism of those decisions is valid and I don't agree with a lot of them. But those are nothing like "disagree with our party and we will punish your company with the power of the state." That’s not policy meant to benefit the nation. That's just straight up Nationalist State Capitalism authoritarianism.

 

Edited by F250
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 28,093

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

You know what corporation rhymes with 'woke'? Koch. So start with them first, Josh. What's that you say? They pay your salary? Well then, no more handouts to them or to you Mr. Seditionist.

I’m pretty sure Koch rhymes with ‘rock’

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18,096

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I know the GOP said this when Obama was president but it’s a stupid criticism. Govt has picked winners and losers forever. Bailouts, tax breaks, subsidies, selection for gov contracts, and on and on. It’s a pretty non controversial function of funding decisions 

It was less about the validity of the criticism itself, and more about the ever present hypocrisy of the GQP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Gourmand

Gourmand 7,778

Posted
Posted

Happy Joe Tessitore GIF by ABC Network

Prof. Bridges just destroyed that dirtbag transphobic traitorous asshole. 

The right wing is gonna flip their shit over a strong black woman dragging a white man senator across the floor of that hearing room and then gagging him with his own ballsac. She was brave to do that and I salute her because they are not going to let that slide without threats of violence from their seditionist goon army. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2,495

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Happy Joe Tessitore GIF by ABC Network

Prof. Bridges just destroyed that dirtbag transphobic traitorous asshole. 

The right wing is gonna flip their shit over a strong black woman dragging a white man senator across the floor of that hearing room and then gagging him with his own ballsac. She was brave to do that and I salute her because they are not going to let that slide without threats of violence from their seditionist goon army. 

Man, I wish more people would do this.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gourmand

Gourmand 7,778

Posted
Posted

I can't stop watching that exchange. What Prof Bridges did should serve as a textbook communications example for those weak-ass Dem pols and TV bobbleheads in how to pivot against the all-too-predictable GQP alphabet soup talking points and go on the attack to expose their intellectual silliness and their cowardice in the face of a stronger, smarter, dignified adversary who refuses to be put on the defensive. 

Her immediate instinct to call out Hawley's line of questioning and the intent behind it was masterful, especially when she blew apart his "so this is a women's issue, right?" by saying "we can recognize this impacts women while also recognizing that it impacts other groups as well, those things are not mutually exclusive SENATOR HAWLEY." 

That. was. fucking. brilliant. 

And then the cherry on top was him playing the aggrieved crybaby GQP Republican after she ran Socratic circles around him and got him to admit he essentially was proving her point about denying the existence of trans people. "IS THIS HOW YOU RUN YOUR CLASSROOM???? Are students allowed to question you, or are they also treated like this?" 

"Oh no, we have a good time in my classroom. You should join, you might learn a lot."

 

There are not enough chefskiss gifs for that. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tigol

tigol 2,470

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Gourmand said:

I can't stop watching that exchange. What Prof Bridges did should serve as a textbook communications example for those weak-ass Dem pols and TV bobbleheads in how to pivot against the all-too-predictable GQP alphabet soup talking points and go on the attack to expose their intellectual silliness and their cowardice in the face of a stronger, smarter, dignified adversary who refuses to be put on the defensive. 

Her immediate instinct to call out Hawley's line of questioning and the intent behind it was masterful, especially when she blew apart his "so this is a women's issue, right?" by saying "we can recognize this impacts women while also recognizing that it impacts other groups as well, those things are not mutually exclusive SENATOR HAWLEY." 

That. was. fucking. brilliant. 

And then the cherry on top was him playing the aggrieved crybaby GQP Republican after she ran Socratic circles around him and got him to admit he essentially was proving her point about denying the existence of trans people. "IS THIS HOW YOU RUN YOUR CLASSROOM???? Are students allowed to question you, or are they also treated like this?" 

"Oh no, we have a good time in my classroom. You should join, you might learn a lot."

 

There are not enough chefskiss gifs for that. 

Unfortunately, my racist Uncle will not understand any of that shit.  He saw a "black uppidy California (probably trans....the nose ring...) libtard" disrespect a United States Member of Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Disco Strangler

Disco Strangler 1,911

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

Counterpoint: Cruz’ Cancun exit didn’t make much of a dent. The cult doesn’t rationally assimilate available information unless it comes from approved sources. The Jan 6 committee ain’t it.

Cruz’ re-election happened in Nov 2018, 26 months before he acted seditiously by voting against certification of fat guy’s complete election loss.  His evacuation to Cancun happened during our darkest hour, 29 months after he won re-election.  RIP Snowflake.  
 

By the way, right now Texas has 28.6M people.  Ted beat Beto (does admitting defeat make me a DINO?) by a margin of 4.26M to 4.04M.  

30% of the current population voted in in the 2018 election.  Not a presidential year, kinda like this year.  Will more than 30% of our population vote this year?   Let me make that goal my mission.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...