"
Mr. Rubio’s troubles behind the wheel predate his days in politics."
According to a search of the Miami-Dade and Duval County court dockets, the Rubios have been cited for numerous infractions over the years for incidents that included speeding, driving through red lights and careless driving. A review of records dating back to 1997 shows that the couple had a combined 17 citations: Mr. Rubio with four and his wife with 13. On four separate occasions they agreed to attend remedial driving school after a violation.
Twitter has a #RubioFacts hashtag trending...
I heard that, once, he ate a piece of pizza, chucked the crust and grabbed another piece of pizza. #RubioFacts
Left the faucet running while brushing his teeth. #RubioFacts
#RubioFacts Rubio used to run while carrying scissors. @nytimes
32 comments:
You know they're desperate when they don't even wait until the week before election.
Marco should have confessed these sins in a book so they couldn't be used against him later.
Dreams from my Buick: A Story of Race Against the Light
this is actual real "old news"
Clinton's time at State was just yesterday, and we must move on.
You have to drive a car before you can get a citation of your own. How's Hillary doing?
Dreams from my Buick.
Brilliant.
Hillary commits untold felonies and nary a word or questions. Rubio and his wife have traffic tickets, all of which have been taken care of and are irrelevant in any meaningful way and it's salacious leftist dirt. This is where the left has gone and beyond.
So the receptionist at my office and I are big GF's. Think a Jersey Shore Girl-North Shore Boston, workout body, big tits, tanned and huge hair.
Anywho, we were at her desk today talking about which economists we would do. We started laughing and I ended up shooting out a huge fart. Then she started laughing after I farted and then she farted and we could not stop laughing.
She has these special wipes she uses during her period. She said they clear out any dry blood and make her feel fresh. She told me she was in heavy flow mode today. I asked if I could have one for my ass and she wouldn't share-bitch.
I pretend I am sexually assaulting when I look over her computer and my hog touches her arm. She said her fag beautician always presses his hog into her when he does her hair.
She has been fucked up the ass, done a pearl necklace, but doesn't like her cooch eaten out.
tits.
OK, that's one for your side.
Now lets compare your candidates violations. They are serious, plentiful and directed against the rights of the American people. And if we're going to include spouses, well we have serial adultery, disbarment, impeachment, and I want to know what happened on that sex slave orgy island with convicted pedophile pal Jeffrey Epstein and those very young girls.
At least Rubio is capable of driving a car. Hilary keeps asking where the reset button is?
Reset button = restarting the car.
I am demanding the North Shore receptionist to show me her tits. She agreed she would but not in the office-I was like live dangerously whore-just a quick flash. She was like no, lets go out and I will flash you, but I was like I am not going to be seen with you outside of the office.
Anywhoo, she said she would give me a flash of her tits for $20.00. I said sure and asked what color her nips are? She said brownish/purple-I said gross but cool.
So next week she promised to flash me her tits.
That's funny.
The best nipples are soft, pink and so wide and puffy that they practically melt into the rest of the tit. But those are rare and you have to be fair-skinned to pull them off. They can even be inverted or flat enough to seem so.
The second best nipples are flat wide pepperoni shaped areolae (I guess I'm saying areolae are more important than nipples or tits here), and can be much darker. They work on a well-tanned Italian bitch or really anyone.
The tit itself is secondary to all that - as is, I guess you could say, even the nipple itself. But that's where shape matters. As long as its got a nice perky upturned vibe to it - not unlike a cute lip, then you're good from that standpoint. Size isn't as important, but B or C seems to work best.
So, to recap:
A. A WIDE nipple, puffy or flat. But WIDE.
B. A nicely upturned tittee. Size doesn't matter but anything larger than a C is unnecessary.
C. Nipples are secondary to what they're doing for the areola. Unless they're really pokey or something. That's cool.
Exam tomorrow on all this.
I support the Duggars too, who have 19 children-totally "normal" and fab, and son did his sisters....even when his father wanted incest peeps to go to prison for life.
No hugging in the family until marriage-I am so down with that.
Lena Dunham!
R&B and Titus: You two should do opo research for Hillary!
I knew Balls was in the bag for Hillary but Titus surprises me.
I would love to see Lena Dunham do another "your first time" video, but this time for Hillary. It could be targeted at younger females and helping them to feel more at ease in a "digital" world.
So, spouses are fair game for conflation?
Okey dokey
So, Lena is grand and everything and everyone forgiven in that scenario, not to mention celebrated, while Josh is shit and his entire family, including the specific sisters equally under scrutiny as he is, aren't worth the time of day.
Interesting parallelism.
Make no mistake, I could rewrite ^ that comment in the first paragraph and come up with something that would require no rewrite of the second paragraph.
That said, I find the whole Lena thing far, far more egregious, for the record.
And for very good, excellent, lived, precise, complex reason AND reasons.
Which is not to say that I'm all admiring of anyone. I'm not (including of Josh Duggar, for an example). Much less am I of any given group too flocked around[/to].
Inevitably, dispensable folks get crushed, more often than not thoughtlessly. That's the way it is, as always it has been.
Just to forestall an objection:
No, I didn't accidentally post my comments in a wrong thread. I posted my comments exactly where I wanted to post them and where I thought they belonged.
Bullshit conflation is bullshit conflation. I yearn for a better sort of honesty.
(Because, after all, here and there and everywhere, it's always been OK to conflate spouses with candidates, and it's always been OK to attack families. Don't try to tell me otherwise, or, to put it another way, go ahead and try to tell me otherwise.
[And lest you think I'm trying to protect the obvious elephant in the room: No, I am not. Hillary Clinton is a candidate, not a spouse, and her spouse is a former president, as opposed to just a spouse. Each--not to mention a grouped-together--is sui generis. Alas, but there it is.]
Because: So it goes, and I DO know that, as always I have. Do you?)
All of that said (and I do mean All):
How come/what for the sudden Rubio-defense, after having cast him and his aside for quite a while, after having entirely embracing him and his, etc., and so on?
Jeez. Y'all are also just so fickle, yet so bon vivant, yet so head-spinningly principled, yet so hard-assed, yet so changeable. It's hard to keep track of WTF it *is* that each of you, much less y'all together, actually do stand for, do care about, do believe in.
rcommal said...
How come/what for the sudden Rubio-defense, after having cast him and his aside for quite a while, after having entirely embracing him and his, etc., and so on?
Speaking for myself (I support Walker over Rubio), the article offends my sense of fairness. I don't like the NYT smearing people like that. I objected when they did it to Romney and Palin.
I realize you're a hopelessly, socially illogical person, Chickie - but let's see if your horizons can't be expanded a bit. Give me a good reason why I should support (insert name of interchangeable Republican Presidential Clown Car Passenger here) over their opponent.
@Ritmo/
You have written many things--some of which could be characterized as half-way intelligent/insightful--but your 11:38 post unalterably consignes you to those of the most vapid and shallow intellectual mien--actually to the level as an intellectual/political hack. I was foolish enough to think better of you..
I'll take that as admission vx that, not only can you not provide a good reason for voting for a generic Republican, but you resent the fact that anyone would ask in the expectation that you might actually have one.
@Ritmo: Why should I even begin to tell you what I like about Walker? You're just doing opposition research: find out what people like about someone and attack that.
You crack me up. For me, life is "research". I don't care necessarily about how to "use" something. But because you're a conservative, I suppose you have difficulty understanding the importance of knowledge for its own sake.
And besides, dingbat, I asked you to tell me the case for why I should like any one of your presidential pageant clown car contestants. If you can't even market the choice your party wants, good luck getting voters to elect him.
You are really one of the most confoundingly strange people I've ever spoken to. Paranoid about revealing what you like in a candidate for fear that others will use his own popularity to you against him. In what upside-down world does that even make sense? The reasons for one's popularity can't be turned into reasons for making them unpopular. Do you even understand the meaning of the words we're using?!!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!??!?!??!?
But because you're a conservative, I suppose you have difficulty understanding the importance of knowledge for its own sake.
What a weird supposition (not mention the conclusion of that sentence based on your start of it, but I'm putting that aside at present), R&B. It's hard for me to believe that you actually believe that Chickelit does not understand--or at least has "difficulty understanding"--the notion of "the importance of knowledge for its own sake," regardless of the disagreements between the two of you.
Was that supposed to be sarcasm? Humor? Cynicism?
WTF.
...I don't like the NYT smearing...
Are you saying it's the source? This is a serious question. Does "source" matter more than "smearing"? Again, this is a serious question. And does a target, should a target, trump issues of both smearing and source? This is yet another serious question. I am not asking these questions of you for fun. I am asking them because I am also asking them of me, and that definitely is not fun.
Are you saying it's the source? This is a serious question.
As I understand it, the NYT was not the source. They got the researched story somehow through the usual channels. But they deliberately chose the way data was presented- summing Rubio's and his wife's tickets to make the highest possible integer value. The simple summation (four plus thirteen) is not the sort of calculation any reasonable person would make and yet they did it. That was the smear.
I love chickelit, rcommal. But is it really necessary for me to explain my shock at his refusal to say what he likes about a candidate for fear of that fact being used against the candidate? It was just the weirdest response I can imagine. He told me I was being mean?/closed-minded/what have you for not considering a Republican presidential candidate, so I did the logical thing and asked him what he could convince me about one of theirs (any one) that would be worth changing my mind. Logical next step and simply decent conversation etiquette. But he backed away out of some fear of what doing so would bring. If that's not the biggest slap against basic, innocent information sharing, then what is?
I never know if anyone really follows the conversations that lead up to my responses. Sometimes I think they're just considered as if in a vacuum. Like, POOF, Ritmo said something. It wasn't in response to anything strange or noteworthy. Ritmo just appeared like a cyber-jinni and the magic lamp wasn't even rubbed. He popped out of nowhere and replied to nothing at all. Just said stuff.
Post a Comment