Like the institution for which it’s named, Congress Fried Chicken has seen its popularity rating drop to 9%. What to do – better food? Wider selection? No! Blame apathetic diners for not taking interest.
Congress Fried Chicken
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
16 Comments. Leave new
What, no Freedom Fries?
DanD
Marketing’s function is to sell the people what they already have so as to avoid the expense of designing something new.
Since democracy is not on the menu, look forward to a new marketing campaign to sell what we already have, that being the cheap substitute of dumbocracy.
And another Ad Age award.
All that is needed is to add “New and Improved” to the label. The consumer will fall for it. 🙂
mmmmm Chicken Hawk. om nom nom nom.
Lessee now, a chicken hawk probably weighs around 200 lbs, gets salary for life – call it thirty years – that brings the price of chicken hawk meat to around 26,100 dollars a pound. Too bad the only appreciable cut is rump roast, but they are well marbled.
Just sayin’
Ted,
You are so heart-breaking close to the crux of the issue.
Nine percent approve of Congress? That’s the almost-statistic. The actual statistic is obtained by asking this question: “Rate your approval of Congress AND of your representative.”
I suspect that although many people will savage Congress, they will backpedal when it is “their” guy’s turn. A similar example? “If that girl got pregnant, maybe the little whor oughta kept her legs together.” When it’s the commenter’s daughter? “Well, she got taken advantage of. It wasn’t her fault.”
I would take great hope from a 9% Congress rating, but the douchebags will still get re-elected come the next elections.
I agree with what you said and it’s been that way for decades (if not centuries). Maybe we should let New York (etal) vote for or against Oklahoma’s candidates and vice versa – and mandate for all the U.S. States that the voter can only vote in out-of-state elections. Reckon that would fix the problem. 😀
Another valid complaint about the status quo invalidated by a complete lack of realistic, achievable solutions for the problem.
Seriously, Ted- grousing about problems without offering workable solutions is just whining.
:Another valid complaint about the status quo invalidated by a complete lack of realistic, achievable solutions for the problem.
Seriously, Whimsical- grousing about problems without offering workable solutions is just whining.
Nice try, but as opposed to Ted, I’m the one offering the only solution that stands a chance in hell of working.
Whimsey has a secret plan.
Just like Nixon’s secret plan, it is a secret plan to win an election.
Or not so secret. What I don’t get about Whimsy’s plan is, how does it create leftward political movement?
Yo, Whimsy –
The point – which you evidently missed – is that your comment offers no solutions, either. And so – by your own logic – it is “just whining.”
↑
Good one!
ROTFLMAO!!!!
😀
Why does anyone bother with this troll, whom I recognized immediately before even joining the forum? It reminds me of the six-year-old me together with playmates and siblings: “It’s your fault!”
“No, it’s not! It’s your fault!”
“Well, you started it!”
“Did not!”
“Did, too!”
“Did not!”
“Did, too!’
It would help if some substantiating material were offered as discourse. God, this is so-o-o-o-o-o infantile!
Dear Teacher:
HE HIT ME FIRST!!! :: giggle ::
I find “trolls” to be useful to the discussion. Without them, I’d have to resort to straw man arguments.
Republicans are soooo stupid…
(“How stupid are they?” responds the crowd.)
Republicans are so stupid that they believe in “supply side” economics!
Whereas with certain posters, we actually have someone who is stupid enough to believe in supply side economics.
I subscribe to an older definition of “troll” – one who posts solely to stir up trouble. The best way to deal with an old-fashioned troll is, indeed, to ignore him. But it’s awful hard to tell the difference between a troll and a True Believer as they sound a lot alike. Even if you can tell them apart, it’s hard to get *everyone* to ignore any given poster, so he’ll eventually get the attention he craves regardless.
Happily, the second-best way to deal with a troll is also the first-best way to deal with a True Believer: shoot down his arguments in a humorous manner.
A troll becomes the butt of his own joke, and it’s no fun anymore. A RW True Believer is an authoritarian. He doesn’t mind being screamed at by those he considers his inferiors, but he can’t *stand* to be laughed at by those lowlifes. Either way it’s a win, ‘sides it’s more fun than ignoring them.
And I do believe that it’s important to shoot down their arguments. We’ll never manage to change the trolls’ tiny, little minds; but for every poster there are thousands of lurkers. For every hard-right idjit, there are scores of middle-of-the-roaders whose minds *can* be changed. THOSE are the people we need to reach, and if some RW idjit wants to present himself as a handy foil, who am I to complain? OTOH, if we didn’t challenge their arguments then the lurkers would only hear the one side. (kinda like the Corporate owned Massive Media)
I’m not altogether certain about Whimsy in specific. He may be a troll, but I half-suspect he’s an agent provocateur. “Hey, let’s keep shooting ourselves in the foot until it stops bleeding!”
@ CrazyH –
” For every hard-right idjit, there are scores of middle-of-the-roaders whose minds *can* be changed. THOSE are the people we need to reach….”
.
Of course your conviction has its merits. Personally speaking, I just think it’s a waste of time responding to an :idjit post that has no substance at all (feeding the troll). Additionally, I give credit to the “lurkers” for an ability to cull out the garbage and “take home the bacon” (so to speak).
.
You mention specifically: “… shoot down his arguments in a humorous manner.” If there is no argument presented, why bother responding at all? That’s just me and the way I am. It simply invites more garbage.
🙂
[Thanks for your input.]