Billboards target neutracidal congresscreeps

Originally published at:


Important link:
Donate to Fight for the Future


I have to say I’m disturbed, because at first I thought it was a billboard by some astroturfing anti-neutrality group. The words make perfect sense either way. (And I don’t know much about Marsha Blackburn’s record.)

Also, wasn’t Fight the Future that really bad X-Files movie?


I sure don’t expect new regulations now governing what can and can’t be put on billboards (as I whistle in the dark).


Oh, wow, you’re right, the way they’re phrased it could reinforce either side depending on your existing stance. There’s probably a name for that kind of mistake.


I’m not sure about elsewhere, but here in WiscoDisco Paul Ryan hasn’t been answering his phone since November. :frowning:

So awesome!
Now we need legislation to make “our” representatives post their corporate sponsorship on their clothing much like nascar leathers.
We as a country need to have a discussion, if we have elected officials bought and paid for by corporate interests, do we really have representation?


Once AR (augumented reality) becomes more advanced, could you imagine a plugin that automatically did that to elected officials? Just overlay their clothing or put a scrolling box over their heads with a ‘word cloud’ kind of graphic of the funding sources they have, maybe?

1 Like

I hate when my congresscritter is on the wall of shame.

Edit: aaand answering machine. Eh well simple statement asking her to reconsider her position.

1 Like

The unflattering head shot (old political strategy) of Blackburn helps to indicate the intended message… I think.

1 Like

Hey, there, I wasn’t gonna judge. We’ve all had bad hair days.

1 Like

True. Even the most attractive people (maybe tired, depressed, whatever) can look off every now and then. In politics, the most unflattering pics of opponents are sought out. Re Trump, it’s difficult to find a flattering one.

1 Like

Oh, snap!

Maybe I just see a lot of memes of celebrities not looking their best.

I just do my best not to show up on “People of Walmart”.

“People of Walmart”. That’s always bothered me. Not exactly a scientific study proving that a Walmart patron is more likely to not look their best, is it. How does anyone know that the people gathering these pictures are not just focusing on who they consider to be less attractive? Perhaps there’s bias in the process, because I’m here to tell you that not every person I see in Whole Foods looks like a beauty pageant winner. Perhaps there APPEARS to be a link between said crowd and Walmart due to the fact that there are much greater crowds there than at Whole Foods or boutique food stores, which means that one would be more likely to see some ‘unattractive’ people at Walmart just because of the greater sample size.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.