Proverbs 20:17
Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel.
Discuss.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
But his pockets will still be filled with other people’s gold.
Did you know that the suns sets every day in a muddy spring?
At least that’s what my boy, Muhammad, says.
My Dad’s dentist once said to him, “Yeesh, what do you do with these teeth, chew gravel??”
He did not then say, “You need to knock it off with the sweet bread of deceit,” though. Just the usual lecture about flossing.
Yeah, a lot of dentists are going to be busy.
Meanwhile, the fact-free crowd are trying to rationalize Hillary’s 1.5 million vote lead over Drumpf by convincing themselves she got millions of votes from illegals.
Who got “deceived” eh, progressives?
Weren’t you all promised that Our Leader could never happen. Didn’t the Mighty O even make that promise (mike drop)?
Didn’t the Bush Crime Syndicate make you that promise?
Didn’t you believe it? Right up until election night. Then tears. Sweet, sweet, progressive tears.
Admit it. You supped mightily on the bread of deceit all this past year. You hungered for it. And your lying media fed it to you on demand.
Still hungry? There’s plenty more where that came from.
@7 When are you going to start rounding up liberals and putting us in concentration camps? My burrow is under the big tree on the east side of Green Lake Park.
I think this is all about Eagles football. Perhaps there is some hope for a wild card berth. The true believers will enjoy that sweet bread. Ahh the promises of the pre season, now the gravelly reality of the season where the jewels are separated from the gravel.
@6 Fact she won California and is going to get still more votes as they are counted. Once she has a majority those other votes are wasted votes. Of course California and Washington could choose to act in this Democratic vein and split their votes proportionally. Maybe other states would follow and the whole thing tossed into the House. Increasing the number of electors in the House would be more democratic. Odd the Democrats are not in support of that kind of Democracy. Perhaps they are practicing some deceit here.
Oh and since the Senate was not and is not Democratic in its composition then lets get rid of it. Lets have a Unicameral Congress that is purely Democratic. Democrats should support that, or perhaps you all are complaining a bit much over spilled milk.
@8 All they need is your bar number to find you my friend, and these people may agree whole heartedly with the bard about lawyers.
@10,
A great many Democrats, including the majority of the 11 states that have agreed to the NPV bill, are in support of the National Popular Vote agreement.
You should take a moment today to bring yourself up to speed.
You can learn all about NPV here:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
National Popular Vote is a constitutionally conservative approach that ensures that the President will be elected by the majority of voters participating in that election. It remedies the politically distorting influence of having the election for President decided in only a small handful of non-representative states. NPV is a non-partisan approach that promotes nationwide elections in which candidates and campaigns compete for votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Both President Barack Obama and President Elect Trump have signaled their support for NPV.
Add some cement, sand and water then dump them in a river.
@7 not I. The only tears for me will be from laughter, seeing people sink like a rock with the mouths full of stupidity!
Hahahaha. Literally eat shit conservatives!
@10,
So far as history can judge, the nearest relationship between the adoption by the framers of the electoral college and the composition of the U.S. Senate regards political support for the institution of human slavery that was an economic underpinning for the less populous southern states.
But you are incorrect to presume that the “winner-take-all” approach to the electoral college was something the framers envisioned or supported. There was deep suspicion of the power of a Federal Executive among the framers. Giving the authority over how the electors were to be chosen over to the various states legislatures (who retain it to this day) was an effort to make the Executive more answerable to the states. At the time of ratification only three states chose to employ winner-take-all. And all had abandoned it by the early 19th century. Electoral winner-take-all is a more modern feature of U.S. Presidential elections. Even to this day, U.S. voters have no Constitutionally guaranteed right or power to vote in Presidential elections.
National Popular Vote preserves our current system, retaining the electoral college, while enabling the selection of President to be determined by the majority of voters.
@15 Sorry, Trumpies, but the coal mining jobs aren’t coming back.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/20.....iners.html
@11 I want them to find me. Do you get it yet?
@15 As you point out, the electoral college was a sop to the slave states. But it’s still useful IF electors are willing to act as a circuit breaker. Right now, the circuits are being fried. So, are they willing to perform their constitutional role, or will they let the house burn down? I would be okay with them electing Romney or Kasich. They have the power to do that.
@18 So the Connecticut Compromise and New Jersey Plan were a sops to slave states?
Wow. They really grow geniuses here in the sewers of HorsesAss.
@17. Im with you Rabbit.
I’m very close to posting on Fuckbook to Family and Friends (all 3579 of them – such good, good friends) that they may have to see the whites of my eyes in the crosshairs of thier guns, if they aren’t unlucky enough to be staring down the barrel of my gun.
I’m not going along with this Nazi plot, no sireee! I know some of them are white supremiscts, I even tried warning HA’s resident Ape, but he’s having problems with Chrome.
@19 keep debating an issue like that while the Nazis roll right over, or are you a Nazi sympathizer?
I bet you can talk and chew gum at the same time. So talented you are.
@12 It’s a bullshit movement. Designed by Democrats and Republicans to keep the game rigged. Is there some time limit on when 105 more votes are gotten or is this indefinite. Can states pull out of the agreement?
Of course can this whole endeavor survive a challenge in the courts? Appears to be unconstitutional on its face. I think it would be a six to three ruling that it’s unconstitutional.
There are other solutions out there such as increasing the number of representatives in the house that would accomplish a lot more than this pipe dream.
If you think Abraham Lincoln was a great President then he would never have become President under your proposed plan here. .
@15 There are discussions tat are in the those things called the Federalist and anti Federalist papers that clearly show having a unicameral Congress was also discussed and seriously considered. It was also discussed that the members of the Senate to be elected by popular vote, but there were these entities called states and their interests to consider. Of course the model being the British parliament and nearly all the colonies and then states having an upper and lower house.
If you wish to make this argument that popular democracy is totally pure and a good thing then your organization should support a unicameral congress, or are you composed of Democrats and Republicans trying to game the system to the parties advantage?
I’m very much aware that the framers did not want factions to occur and wanted the voters to vote for intelligent and wise electors who would choose the best President for the office. Of course making the runner up Vice President turned out being not the best solution and that quickly was remedied. Yet the basic set up of the electoral college was not changed. Just we are going to have a separate vote for VP. It’s not until the election of Van Buren that someone who was not involved in the Revolution and/or the Constitutional Congress was elected and that was an odd election. And just perhaps there was some winds blowing to do away with the electoral college, but Van Buren gets elected and the nation got busy doing other things.
@17 With that particular tree at the location you want to be found I should hope you have a deal with the man with no name.
@!7, @20 and @21 Well if the two of you are talking about the mob I’m with you, but if Uncle Sam calls me back I’ll be on the other side as part of that oath I took to defend the US Constitution is all enemies domestic and foreign. Or course Uncle Sam loves using drones. I seem to recall you took that same oath RR maybe you should look it up, as you said something similar when you became a member of the bar in any of these United States.