Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Delirium

GOP Congressman Is Not Sorry For Threatening Reporter, Says He Expects Respect

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) made no apologies for threatening a television reporter after the State of the Union address on Tuesday.

Far from it, in fact. Grimm said in a statement late Tuesday that he aggressively confronted NY1's Michael Scotto because he was "extremely annoyed" by the reporter's question.

Moreover, Grimm said he expects a "certain level of professionalism and respect" from reporters and that such skirmishes between lawmakers and journalists are typical.

"I doubt that I am the first Member of Congress to tell off a reporter, and I am sure I won’t be the last," Grimm said in the statement (posted below).

Scotto tried to pose a question about allegations regarding Grimm's campaign finances, but the Republican had none of it.

"I'm not speaking to you off-topic, this is only about the President," Grimm said before storming off camera.

Scotto explained Grimm's refusal to answer the question before ending the segment. Then, with the camera still rolling, Grimm turned belligerent.

"Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this f*****g balcony," Grimm said as he moved menacingly toward Scotto.

Scotto protested that it was a "valid question," leading to some inaudible crosstalk. Grimm then levied another threat.

"No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy," Grimm said.

Threat caught on camera here

Hotblack Desiato

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Impact of the split? Zilch. Tea Party and other hardliners will attempt to form a party. It will attract around 1% of Republicans. Thus leaving Democratics v Traditional Republicans as the two forces as is.

This is playing out a bit like Marxist entryism in the 70s. Like them, they know they can't achieve electoral success on their own but can try to bend a larger organisation towards their ends.

Bannasidhe

ninja900 wrote: »

This is playing out a bit like Marxist entryism in the 70s. Like them, they know they can't achieve electoral success on their own but can try to bend a larger organisation towards their ends.

Or Militant Tendency in the UK is the 80s.

I was never sure if I disliked Neil Ditch the Red Flag Kinnock or Derek Use taxis to deliver redundancy notices Hatton more - turns out it was Linda I Bankrupted Lambeth so I moved to Hackney Bellos who I really couldn't stand possibly because I had to work with her.

But...it was either Labour or Thatcher..

Or its like the Stickies and the Irish Labour Party now that I think on it...

joseph brand

24 House Republicans Just Voted To Deny The Reality Of Climate Change

The House Energy and Commerce Committee Tuesday voted down an amendment that would have stated conclusively that climate change is occurring.
E&C Committee members voted 24-20 against the amendment, introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) to H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act. That bill, if it makes it through Congress, would put an end to EPA regulations on emissions for new power plants until technologies like carbon capture and storage are commercially viable in at least six states for one year. It passed in Tuesday’s committee, but the amendment, which would have placed on the record that the committee accepts that climate change is happening and is caused by greenhouse gas pollution, did not.
Twenty-four E&C members — all Republicans — voted against the amendment. In total, the Republicans who voted to deny climate change have accepted about $9.3 million in career contributions from the oil, gas and coal industries, according to analysis by the CAP Action War Room.

Scientists, of course, disagree with the committee members. Ninety-seven percent of scientific studies that take a stance on climate change agree that human activity is causing climate change. In October, a study found that temperatures in the Canadian Arctic today are warmer than at any point in the last 44,000 years and possibly even as far back as 120,000 years.

Now we can't blame them all on bribes. Some believe 'jesus' will cool the planet, like Superman in the below (large) image:

http://www.preparednesspro.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Superman-freezing-a-lake-photo-co-capedwonder-com.jpg

Turtwig

Even if humans aren't causing the Climate Change (which is the only thing one might conceivably argue) you still have to accept that our planet's climate is changing and the projections are not good. Whatever the cause, less and less energy is being irradiated back into to space and the planet is warming. That's not good. Whether it's human caused or not you'd still have to do start planning for the future. That's the thing that confuses me the most. Almost no future prep is taking place. Fair enough deny humans are changing the planet but for the love of God do not deny Earth's energy budget. Barring a cosmic miracle Earth is going to heat up.

MilanPan!c

The lunatics have take over the GOP asylum.

Now that Christie has dropped (25pts dropped) into third in the GOP Presidential rankings, the person with the highest rating, as chosen by the Republicans....?




Sarah Palin.

Now who was saying they were gonna beat the Dems in the next Pres election?

The second most popular is Huckabee.

Pathetic really:
m.dailykos.com/stories/1273626

Brian Shanahan

Jernal wrote: »

Even if humans aren't causing the Climate Change (which is the only thing one might conceivably argue) you still have to accept that our planet's climate is changing and the projections are not good. Whatever the cause, less and less energy is being irradiated back into to space and the planet is warming. That's not good. Whether it's human caused or not you'd still have to do start planning for the future. That's the thing that confuses me the most. Almost no future prep is taking place. Fair enough deny humans are changing the planet but for the love of God do not deny Earth's energy budget. Barring a cosmic miracle Earth is going to heat up.

Hell, even if climate change weren't happening (or it were a good thing) it is best to cut back on our resource usage, because we are going to eventually (aside : Peak oil is largely a myth cooked up by Royal Dutch Shell, yes we'll eventually run out but we honestly don't know when, for example King Hubbard's original curve postulated total reserves much lower than the current known reserves of Venezueala) and when we do what do we do?

MilanPan!c

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Hell, even if climate change weren't happening (or it were a good thing) it is best to cut back on our resource usage, because we are going to eventually (aside : Peak oil is largely a myth cooked up by Royal Dutch Shell, yes we'll eventually run out but we honestly don't know when, for example King Hubbard's original curve postulated total reserves much lower than the current known reserves of Venezueala) and when we do what do we do?

It's funny, but few people ask:

Will we have access to as much oil in 100 years?

MilanPan!c

More bad new for the GOP.

If you were alive over the last few years, you know the main GOP plan for healthcare was simply: Repeal Obamacare. In fact they've tried to do this close to 50 times already. Funny enough.

They've been telling their base for years that the US didn't need to change healthcare, Obama had broken a working system, etc., etc.

Buuuuuut... Just last night the GOP/Tea Party announced that this is a lost battle.

Check out this line from the official GOP response

"No, we shouldn’t go back to the way things were, but the president’s health-care law is not working."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mcmorris-rodgers-comes-through-for-gop-in-response-to-state-of-the-union/2014/01/29/3e8f3dd0-88b1-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html

What about the Tea Party??

"We can’t just return to the old system. Healthcare policy used to give too much power to insurance companies; Obamacare now gives far too much power to government."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/80423/mike-lee-tea-party-rebuttal-full-transcript-and-full-text


So now that the enrolment is actually moving faster than expected, the GOP has decided to walk away from the very simple to maintain "repeal and return to the good old days" line. Instead they've moved onto, "the good old days weren't great and now we'll have to come up with an alternative and price it out and convince people to switch healthcare again".

Hilariously stupid.

Brian Shanahan

MilanPan!c wrote: »

So now that the enrolment is actually moving faster than expected, the GOP has decided to walk away from the very simple to maintain "repeal and return to the good old days" line. Instead they've moved onto, "the good old days weren't great and now we'll have to come up with an alternative and price it out and convince people to switch healthcare again".

Hilariously stupid.

I think the actual plan is "lets pretend we are accepting that the state has some role to play in healthcare while doing everything to return the power and profits to our friends at the head of the healthcare [sic] companies". It's the same kind of policy adopted by Call me Dave when he said there would be "no top down reorganisation of the NHS".

MilanPan!c

LOL:

"GOP CRAFTS PLAN TO WRECK THE COUNTRY, LOSE VOTERS"

- by Ann Coulter

www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-01-29.html

And now Cruz is turning on Boehner:

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/30/Exclusive-Ted-Cruz-House-GOP-leadership-s-amnesty-plan-would-destroy-chances-at-retaking-Senate-this-year?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

They can't even decide on a policy much less retake the Senate or the White House.

BuilderPlumber

jank wrote: »

Putin is now to blame for Islamic terrorism and its associated Islamofascism? Ok, guess you can stop blaming the USA for that now, until of course it will be convenient to do so again…

So-called 'Islamic terrorism', 'Islamofascism' and other nasty movements are all leftovers from the horrid cold war period. The poor old Middle East happened to have two traits: oil and it being on the doorstep of the USSR.

So, The US have to get in there to keep Stalin at bay and away from the oil. So, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the like all received huge sums of money from the US and deals with them for their oil were made. Stalin was replaced and while relations improved under Brezhnev and other moderate Soviet leaders, war divisions remained. The US and USSR more or less said they would refrain from direct conflict. Vietnam was fought well after Stalin was gone for example.

Three countries of particular interest were the USSRs Southwestern borders: Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan. The US propped them up. The US preferred secular capitalism in all, but Islamic fascism with capitalist economy was the second choice, but the third option was off. A communist republic. Iran's popular revolution of 1979 was suddenly hijacked by powerful Islamic fascists (who pretended to be against the US, who never invaded Iran by the way!! Would a regime supposedly giving the two fingers to Bush and Reagan last 2 years if it was for real!!!!). The US had some truck with the rulers of 1980s Iran and the fascist takeover kept the country from falling into a communist revolution, which could have happened. Afghanistan fell into a period of coup d'etats in the mid 1970s with the King ousted by his cousin and prime minister and then the cousin ousted by communists, and then the communists ask for help from the USSR while the US support Saudi backed 'Islamic' fanatics that would one day become the Taliban and al Qaeda. Compared to these guys, the Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guards) junta that hijacked Iran's 1979 revolution and ruled there with an iron fist in the 1980s were complete liberal, moderate, enlightened and gentle democrats!

The Ronald Reagan era forged the current Republican ethos. It was anti-communist, pro free market. The peasant 'Islamists' were not exactly perfect partners but they forged a useful alliance to scare the commies. They could be disgarded and forgotten later!

Very soon, the problem of the US backing of these came to a head. Iran, instead of becoming the strongest Asian economy along with post-WW2 Japan, sunk into a long, protracted period of war with Iraq, poor governance, medieval laws, general incompetence and internal bickering. With the election of Hassan Rohani, and hopefully continued unity in the country behind his efforts to roll back decades of backwardness, instability and isolation, a new Iran and a velvet revolution can be born. It is the only country there is any hope in. Afghanistan, however, shows no signs of peace any time soon. Iraq is only marginally better. The Israel/Palestine situation may seem 'under control' but more like a volcano ready to erupt any time. 9/11 and other major terrorist attacks show us how this problem is not just one that kills ordinary Arabs, Israelis, Persians or Indians: it is a problem that threatens all major cities from Lahore to Los Angeles, from Tehran to Toronto and from Beirut to Birmingham.

Putin, Obama, etc. not to mention the current leaders of the Middle East have all inherited a toxic legacy that the likes of Mullah Omar, the al Saud family, Colonel Gadaffi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, certain Israeli PMs, George W Bush, Saddam Hussein, etc. all contributed to.

Nodin

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

So-called 'Islamic terrorism', 'Islamofascism' and other nasty movements are all leftovers from the horrid cold war period. The poor old Middle East happened to have two traits: oil and it being on the doorstep of the USSR.

So, The US have to get in there to keep Stalin at bay and away from the oil. So, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the like all received huge sums of money from the US and deals with them for their oil were made. .............

Israel has no oil reserves worth the name.

The US did not give huge sums of money to Iran. The British, having had their colonial oil agreement deemed illegal in every applicable court in the world still refused to renegotiate it. The democratically elected Iranian government decided enough was enough and nationalised it, and the British, with French and American co-operation, began to plan a coup against Mossadergh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat#Execution_of_Operation_Ajax

BuilderPlumber

Nodin wrote: »

Israel has no oil reserves worth the name.

The US did not give huge sums of money to Iran. The British, having had their colonial oil agreement deemed illegal in every applicable court in the world still refused to renegotiate it. The democratically elected Iranian government decided enough was enough and nationalised it, and the British, with French and American co-operation, began to plan a coup against Mossadergh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat#Execution_of_Operation_Ajax

The West and the US did give money to help Iran back in the 1940s to 1970s period. However, it was all spent on military purposes and the like. And to strengthen forces against communism.

I am well aware of operation Ajax and other policies the West took against Iran that have seen a succession of poor governments there since at least the mid 1970s and probably really ever since Mossadeq was ousted. The West indeed got cheap oil (and continue to) from Iran, while giving them nothing in return.

The West has made sure over the last 60 years that Iran has either been lead for the most part by a puppet king or an incompetent, rag tag regime unfit to govern. When Shah Pahlavi was becoming too independent by the 1970s, the West did not step in to save him. The chaotic period of the 1980s where Iran was lead by an incompetent regime and had to face a war with Saddam's Iraq impoverished the country. And there was no one apart from PM Mir Hossein Mousavi who had any talent in economics in the regime and he was sidelined. The West liked what it saw. What really scares the West is the prospect of an intelligent, competent person ruling Iran such as 1997-2005 president Khatami and current president Rohani. Ahmadinejad suited the interests of the 'keep Iran poor and down' brigade just perfect (again, why they kept quiet in the Mousavi (moderate, intelligent, competent) v Ahmadinejad (inexperienced, silly, incompetent) issue).

Israel is supported to the extent by the West for many reasons. Some of it is the guilt left over from WW2, more of it is that they are a convenient regional power who can police a crucial region and keep Arab nationalists, possible USSR interventions and now 'Islamic' terrorism in its place. Israel has no oil much itself sure but it is the policeman of the region for the West.

Hotblack Desiato

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The West indeed got cheap oil (and continue to) from Iran, while giving them nothing in return.

> $100 a barrel isn't cheap.

These 'America went to war for oil' arguments are false. They (and us) are paying multiples of what we used to pay. The wars cost America trillions of dollars.

MilanPan!c

Look at who the right are favouring for Pres candidate in a recent poll:

www.nationaljournal.com/politics/mitt-romney-is-the-2016-republican-front-runner-20140130

So funny.

Sarky

Romney again? Didn't he fail to win even his home state last time?

MilanPan!c

Sarky wrote: »

Romney again? Didn't he fail to win even his home state last time?

It depends what you mean by home state... even his tax returns don't know the answer to that.

joseph brand

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Look at who the right are favouring for Pres candidate in a recent poll:

www.nationaljournal.com/politics/mitt-romney-is-the-2016-republican-front-runner-20140130

So funny.

Read any of the comments under the article?

AVA:
YES!

Signed,
a Democrat

Fairly innocuous comment. Still, some dimwit thought it merited the below tirade:

Herman:

Hmmm... My reading of :

Signed,
a democrat..

A communist, anti-American, Anti-Constitution, pro union, pro globalist, global warming worshiper, hater of liberty and freedom. Someone who I would not pi55 on if they were on fire.
If he walked into my office looking for a job, I'd tell him to move to China so he could feel at home.

Richard:
With all due respect Herman, when a liberal like ArlingtonVA's Finest begins to see the light and think in more conservative and patriotic ways, we shouldn't be discouraging that. On contrary. I feel that conservatism should be a large tent and we should be welcoming to people who express an enlightenment to the cause freedom and liberty.

Herman:
The problem is they don't see the light until it's too late. Think of all the Russians that embraced the revolution, yet were horrified to what the outcome was. "Peace and Brotherhood" turned into political prisoners, enemies of the state, late night raids, dissidents vanishing, hard labor camps.

I would hate to see him have a change of heart after he reaches the point of no return. There's not much one can do after you're loaded up in a cattle car at gun point and heading to a labor camp.

"Freedom, rabble rabble, Liberty, rabble rabble, Patriotic, something something. . ."

It's a real cesspool of brainwashed ignorance, coupled with ill-deserved feelings of 'enlightenment'. They've 'seen the light' and jesus speaks to them. Obamacare has lit a fire under their gun-toting asses and instead of looking towards the existing models in Europe (England, Germany . . ) they mention China and Soviet Russia. And if anyone wants to improve healthcare, and make it available to those who desperately need it, they're automatically a 'commie'. The same buzzwords are regurgitated over and over. Words they hear from unscrupulous GOP mouthpieces such as Hannity, O' Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh et al.

I'll admit that I don't frequent right wing sites as much as I could (studying gets in the way), just to see what they're saying, but they're filled with propaganda, superstition and childish drivel. Glenn Beck is probably the worst offender but I'm not sure whether he's insane or just a money-hungry degenerate.

The GOP/ Tea Partiers presidential hopefuls are awful. If all they have is runner-up-Romney, Paul, Cruz and Huckabee, then they may as well wait for 2020. Romney, as soon as he was approached with the prospect of running again, probably thought "please don't make me sing for votes in retirement communities again."

MilanPan!c

joseph brand wrote: »

The GOP/ Tea Partiers presidential hopefuls are awful. If all they have is runner-up-Romney, Paul, Cruz and Huckabee, then they may as well wait for 2020. Romney, as soon as he was approached with the prospect of running again, probably thought "please don't make me sing for votes in retirement communities again."

What he actually said was:

'Oh, No, No, No. No, No, No, No, No. No, No, No.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/18/mitt-romney-president_n_4624365.html

BuilderPlumber

ninja900 wrote: »

> $100 a barrel isn't cheap.

These 'America went to war for oil' arguments are false. They (and us) are paying multiples of what we used to pay. The wars cost America trillions of dollars.

It certainly is not cheap but it is a total myth that Iran or others get the 100 or near it. Iran and the other ME countries are actually very very poor (bottom rank second world bordering on third world). Iran is about the 'richest' of them simply because it has not had a war on its soil since 1988, a luxury compared to the rest!

Who gets most of the revenue? Not the US government either. But corporations do. Greedy corporations who refine the oil. Iran at several times attempted to rectify this but were shot down each time. The big oil companies and 'OPEC' (which represents the big companies moreso than the oil states) set their prices.

Norway is one of the few countries with oil that benefits from it. If Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. all could benefit from the oil, the likes of the very repressive al Saud family, the ethnic divisions of Iraq, and a theocratic regime in Iran would not exist.

BP, Shell, etc. all have done well and have always supported regimes that were bad for their countries. The moderate nationalist Mossadeq was well on the way to fighting this injustice but was shot down by a Western coup. The Shah Pahlavi eventually saw the light too but had to go when he challenged oil companies' policies.

The 1979- Pasdaran regime in Iran has been vocal about many things but mainly to do with religion and Western interference but I have not heard them go on much about oil injustices. Ahmadinejad and others of his kind were always on about Israel, Western imperialism, injustice at the hands of secular Arab dictators, and - in later times - his brand of 'anti-clerical Islamic Iranian Nationalism' (which put him on a collision course with Khamenei). But never heard him say anything about oil. I may be wrong, but it is not emphasised at all.

Hotblack Desiato

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Who gets most of the revenue? Not the US government either. But corporations do. Greedy corporations who refine the oil.

Ah c'mon.
Refiners get most of the crude oil price :pac: that's a good one

The 1979- Pasdaran regime in Iran has been vocal about many things but mainly to do with religion and Western interference but I have not heard them go on much about oil injustices. Ahmadinejad and others of his kind were always on about Israel, Western imperialism, injustice at the hands of secular Arab dictators, and - in later times - his brand of 'anti-clerical Islamic Iranian Nationalism' (which put him on a collision course with Khamenei). But never heard him say anything about oil. I may be wrong, but it is not emphasised at all.

Or maybe they're actually OK with what the evil western infidels are paying them? They did nationalise their oil industry after the revolution, after all. And it's not like they've been reticent to complain about anything and everything else in relation to the US, Israel, the West in general...

MilanPan!c

Breakdown on who makes the profits off of oil:

switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/smui/oil_industry_claims_to_make_on.html

Nodin

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The West and the US did give money to help Iran back in the 1940s to 1970s period. However, it was all spent on military purposes and the like. And to strengthen forces against communism.
.

....you realise that a vast share of Irans oil revenue was given to the US for over twenty years after the coup?

Nodin

On a general note I might recommend giving "Alpha House" a look. Quite funny.

BuilderPlumber

Nodin wrote: »

....you realise that a vast share of Irans oil revenue was given to the US for over twenty years after the coup?

Yes, I am well aware of this. Any money given to Iran was taken back in the form of free or near free oil.

BuilderPlumber

joseph brand wrote: »

It's a real cesspool of brainwashed ignorance, coupled with ill-deserved feelings of 'enlightenment'. They've 'seen the light' and jesus speaks to them. Obamacare has lit a fire under their gun-toting asses and instead of looking towards the existing models in Europe (England, Germany . . ) they mention China and Soviet Russia. And if anyone wants to improve healthcare, and make it available to those who desperately need it, they're automatically a 'commie'. The same buzzwords are regurgitated over and over. Words they hear from unscrupulous GOP mouthpieces such as Hannity, O' Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh et al.

I'll admit that I don't frequent right wing sites as much as I could (studying gets in the way), just to see what they're saying, but they're filled with propaganda, superstition and childish drivel. Glenn Beck is probably the worst offender but I'm not sure whether he's insane or just a money-hungry degenerate.

The GOP/ Tea Partiers presidential hopefuls are awful. If all they have is runner-up-Romney, Paul, Cruz and Huckabee, then they may as well wait for 2020. Romney, as soon as he was approached with the prospect of running again, probably thought "please don't make me sing for votes in retirement communities again."

Terms like conservatism or neo-conservatism are often thrown out there to refer to movements like The Tea Party. The term conservative has many meanings: set in one's ways, cautious, stay as we are, etc. All tend to actually equate with not taking massive risks and goes the opposite to what these so-called 'conservatives' stand for.

Sarah Palin is a gun-toting hunter from Alaska who married and had children very young. ANYTHING BUT conservative. Conservatives also generally like the stability of big government, not the mean spirited cutbacks desired by the Tea Party (what Tea Party don't mention is where the jobs and the money will come from if taxes are cut to nothing and the government does not give people jobs (apart from the army!!) while the Tea Party-lead US goes around invading every country not obedient to their dogma). Taking huge risks with wars on or in perhaps Pakistan, North Korea or Syria would also not be in the keeping of conservative mentality. Instead, the so-called 'conservatives' are actually reckless risk takers unafraid to take down societal barriers but all in a totally unintelligent, nasty and foolish way.

MilanPan!c

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Terms like conservatism or neo-conservatism are often thrown out there to refer to movements like The Tea Party. The term conservative has many meanings: set in one's ways, cautious, stay as we are, etc. All tend to actually equate with not taking massive risks and goes the opposite to what these so-called 'conservatives' stand for.

Sarah Palin is a gun-toting hunter from Alaska who married and had children very young. ANYTHING BUT conservative. Conservatives also generally like the stability of big government, not the mean spirited cutbacks desired by the Tea Party (what Tea Party don't mention is where the jobs and the money will come from if taxes are cut to nothing and the government does not give people jobs (apart from the army!!) while the Tea Party-lead US goes around invading every country not obedient to their dogma). Taking huge risks with wars on or in perhaps Pakistan, North Korea or Syria would also not be in the keeping of conservative mentality. Instead, the so-called 'conservatives' are actually reckless risk takers unafraid to take down societal barriers but all in a totally unintelligent, nasty and foolish way.

Actually, there's been, for a long, long time, in America and the UK, a push by people who label themselves "conservative" to dismantle government and social safety nets.

While the "word" conservative may not intrinsically mean that, the people that label themselves that - politically - would be more often than not - for dismantling big chunks of government - including social safety nets.

Brian Shanahan

This young woman is young, she's black, she's from a poor background. Why do I say she's a republican fruitcake you ask?

Because she's a republican! The three things republicans hate the most, she is. The three things republicans victimise the most she is. It must take a really self hating or idiotic person to join and promote the values of a party which is the complete anthesis of what you are.

Hotblack Desiato

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The three things republicans hate the most, she is. The three things republicans victimise the most she is.

She's actually four of those things!