How embarrassing for Texas GOP:
7 Likes
Come, come- you know how much Dr. Milker disapproves of these dedicated threads.
3 Likes
Why? Does she have nothing to wear?
One might think that someone blue was next.
Too bad they didnât do a fashion portion.
Have fun finding AOCâŚhintâŚscroll down.
More specifically, to calculate Legislative Effectiveness Scores for the House, we identify the number of bills that each member of the House of Representatives sponsored (BILL); and the number of those bills that received any action in committee (AIC), or action beyond committee (ABC) on the floor of the House. For those bills that received any action beyond committee, we also identify how many of those bills subsequently passed the House (PASS), and how many became law (LAW).
Wow, a rep who is on the left fringe of her party and who has been in office since 2019 has not passed many bills- shocking!
Still sheâs above such Democratic lightweights as Nancy Pelosi, Jim Costa and Pete Aguillar, and way above losers like Louie Gohmert, Mo Brooks, Matt Gaetz or Steve Scalise- you know, the Republican minority whip.
Getting a lot of bills passed is indicative of many things- whether your party is in power, your standing in the party, whether you are in the center of the party, whether you work with the opposition, whether you are close to the leadership, your seniority.
It also depends on your role- âthereâs workhorses and thereâs showhorsesâ. Some, like AOC on the left, and Matt Gaetz on the right (pretty unsuccessfully, Matt), try to gather a number of outliers like themselves, to push the party farther in their direction. I wonder how many bills Marjorie Taylor Greene will get passed?
Some Congresscritters do more of their work directing votes than introducing bills- Nancy Pelosi and the aforementioned Steve Scalise both rank below AOC.
This index focuses on one aspect of a Reps work- some pursue it; others see their roles differently.
1 Like
Her red guard and corporatist comrades at work it seems. And her fans think they and she are the âresistanceâ:
Why not post someoneâŚanyone but Carlson, who doesnât argue in court that they shouldnât be taken seriously?
Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocilâs opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Foxâs lawyers: The "âgeneral tenorâ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not âstating actual factsâ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in âexaggerationâ and ânon-literal commentary.â "
She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlsonâs reputation, any reasonable viewer âarrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticismâ about the statement he makes."
1 Like
This seems to be a deliberate misstatement of the legal argument. Is there a part of the case that you failed to mention which actually supports your characterization?
I literally linked the whole case for you. 
If you think people on TV who engage in non-facts and rhetorical hyperbole should be taken seriously, thatâs certainly your prerogative! Not my perspective though.
I will take a pass on Carlson always, in part because of this kind of stuff, and in part because the dude seems extremely racist. Not the kind of guy Iâd recommend defending.
See my post in the media thread about his comments the other day, so this one doesnât get derailed. Let me know what you think!
Letâs not pretend you guys donât do an ad hominem attack on every source of news outside of the left wing circle jerk media bubble and an ad hominem attack on the person posting such information.
Not sure who âyou guysâ refers to but Iâll assume for discussion purposes its the non-regressives in the house.
Can you list a single publication thatâs been attacked unfairly? Iâd like to hear which ones.
I think what youâre calling âad hominem attacksâ may just be what most consider âstandardsâ or âvetting their sources properlyâ.
1 Like
Iâm pointing out the illegitimacy of Carlson, by his own hand, and therefore why itâs better to quote just about anyone else. Pretty simple stuff.
1 Like
Itâs your guys MO, itâs a lazy form of argument to go the ad hominem attack route and if it was occasionally I wouldnât point it out, except itâs done every time.
A quick look on the name âRyan Wentzâ doesnât seem to be a common name and lo and behold a few articles pop up with his name and this story right away.
Iâm not here to weigh in on the story, but to point out your lack of effort.
The Capitol Police confirmed to Fox News that the Ocasio-Cortez did not flag any tweets from @queeralamode as threatening and police started this investigation as part of its regular effort to monitor threats.
âUSCP investigates all threats that are reported by Congressional offices. The Department also monitors open and classified sources to identify and investigate threats,â the Capitol Police said in a statement to Fox News. "This is standard operating procedure for the Department.
it pertains to this incident, the Congresswomen did not request that USCP initiate an investigation."A Capitol police official further clarified that the podcaster came on their radar not for the tweet on Ocasio-Cortezâs Israel policy or anything else that he wrote.**
Rather, the Californian was tagged in a tweet authored by another user that was deemed threatening.
âThey were tagged in a tweet that was perceived as threatening that prompted us to look into this,â the United States Capitol Police official told Fox News.
From the Yahoo article. So we know the whole thing is standard wingnut BS.
2 Likes
From the Mail article
They told FOX that it was not because of a tweet he wrote, but one he was tagged in though they have not disclosed the contents of that tweet.
Also
Wentz told The Gray Zone that he thought the officers were purely trying to intimidate him and silence the right.
âŚ
Tucker Carlson fumed on his FOX show on Friday night that it is the latest in a string of examples of the left trying to censor conservative voices.
But I thought the Post said he was lefist? It must have been that |ant-warâ thing tht confused them, most rightists being for any war they see.
Oh, that might explain it:
The Twitter user, @queeralamode, does not list a name on the profile but describes himself as a co-host of two podcasts. But the user posted a letter about the incident from his purported employer, Maffick LLC, that identified him as Ryan Wentz. (Twitter has labeled Maffick as Russia state-affiliated media)
.So, two cops visited a right-wing podcaster asking for information on a different tweeter who they thought had threatened AOC. No connection to the broadcast about Palestine; the complainant is a rightist who works for a Russian disinformation site
1 Like
Annnd another one bites the dust. Youâve more patience for this nonsense than I, kudos.
1 Like
I know. I looked at this and thought âI already know this is garbage considering the sources- do I have the patience to follow-up every falsehood to uncover the actual truth behind it, knowing they will just drop it and move on to the next made-up story?â
2 Likes
And if you donât follow up on the next wingnut hit job piece, theyâll complain you donât read the articles.
Right leaning news is fine. Think WSJ. Or Fox news. But not low credibility fox talking heads that literally win lawsuits because you shouldnât believe the words that are coming out of their mouths.
2 Likes
True of WSJ, not so much for Fox IMO. I donât believe their news is trustworthy either. maybe on some non political issues. sports, etc.
1 Like