OCinBuffalo

The question shows the ignorance in technicolor. For a project of this scope and scale, not even the project manager himself is privy to everything they are working on to get the site working on time, so of course I am not. It's a silly question, because that's not how we do this. I can't sit behind every programmer and watch him write every function, neither can the manager. That's why we talk in %s, goofball. This isn't the stockmarket. This is about people...doing a technical job. That's why the project manager, quite literally, said "the backend was only 60-70% done". He did not say: "we have 25 of the InsuranceCompanyforStateX database tables and procedures done, and we have 14 left to do." It's flat out dumb to talk in those terms, because even if he knows the answer: it's a point in time answer. What if one of the 25 has to be re-done? Then, he just lied to the client. And believe me when I tell you: clients just love that. The client guy who is looking to cancel your project because then he gets the other client guy who supported you fired, and he moves up? (Ahem, like the Republicans) He's all over that. However, whether I am able to observe them writing, testing, and committing each line of code, each database column(or member of collection...it depends), each integration script(or xml endpoint, again it depends), doesn't change the fact that Google boy and his "hook it to the search engine"... ...is not how you build backend software. The backend software...the issue at hand, is the issue you just can't address, isn't it?

What? What does my...whatever...have to do with you saying the media will back him, and now you saying they won't support/defend him? Go back and read your own post above, the first one I quoted: where you specifically say "and the media backs him". WTF? Yeah, tell me my problems again Don't take any time to focus on your own, like comprehending what you write. I am doing the deducing here, not you. You have that exactly backwards. When the value of a variable that has always been the same, and we have seen it to be causal to the outcome, suddenly changes? We aren't assuming the outcome will be different: we are deducing it. Otherwise, the entire thing must be scrapped. Your assumption is that the variable has no causal propeties or that they will be mitigated...by something. The "Obama likability" variable has been causal to his support, even through the IRS thing. Now, the value of that variable has changed. He isn't "liked". Not anymore. What should we deduce(or assume because, it won't make any difference)? I am saying that Obamacare sticks, because it effects everyone, in all classes, in all races. What could be more personal than your health care? What could be more personal than your wallet? You seem to think that the Wednesday's will somehow be able to overcome the "average Joes". What evidence is there that Wednesday's "gimme" has ever trumped Average Joe's "derp"? Reagan won how many states against Mondale?

Dude(we need a facepalm emoticon). Who's being naive? Consider the source. Don't embarrass yourself. You are taking their wishcasting at face value? For Pete's sake....why? (See, here I am again: I don't want to insult Chef. I actually am looking to help him here. Like a friend that tells you "Yeah, I see it, but look at her: she's probably a crackhead, so be careful and wrap it.") This doesn't sound wishy to you...at all? "It's all going to be a glorious day, approval ratings at 90!" Isn't this merely a variation, on what we have been hearing from the very same people in the very same Valley, for so very long: "When people get to know Obamacare, they will get to like it." Of course it is. That has been the wishcasting, right along, from 2009 until today. The new modifications to that: "When people get to see the website working, they will like Obamacare in general, and Obama specifically. And that's THE PLAN!" This is the new wishcasting. Apparently the fact that when they hit "enroll", as of now, 80% of the time they will get "ASSERTION ERROR.Something(parameter1, parameter2)...." doesn't matter at all, huh? Yeah, nothing ups user confidence more than untrapped technical error messages(that's what they look like, I figured I'd show you now), because the system hasn't undergone proper testing. I imagine it all looks like "win": moving those pieces on the map, in the bunker, to Googleboy. I have given you a buttload of empirical IT evidence that it won't be ready. Now, the project manager has come out and publicly stated that it won't(and, I believe him, because if this was my project? This IS NOT the time for "Look! We overdelivered. Surprise!" Any REAL project manager knows that.) And all you and Google boy have: "Hey Lucy is gonna hold the football one more time, and this time...." Chef, this is approaching pathetic now. I'm starting to think you are throwing the game: just you can make these people look as stupid as possible. That would be hilarious if you are, and I will give you all the credit for trolling me good.

You are assuming that the public will listen to Obama/media psychophants this time. What has changed? The poll data. Yeah, I know...poll data. But think for a second: data that's been longitudinally set in one direction = "yeah but we still like the guy", for the first time, isn't. Again, I get your argument. But, doesn't this new poll data modulate that argument? Consider: the media runs marketing studies all the time, just like everybody else, the NFL, ESPN, the political parties, etc. Why has the term "the brand" invaded every conversation, for reasons passing understanding? Too much belief in marketing guys. Not enough in business process and quality control. When the media's marketing #s come back and look like the "we don't like him anymore" poll data....do you really think they're gonna ignore them? Do you really think their going to look at how they write stories, or how things become stories(business process), or ask themselves about the quality of their reporting now vs. then(quality control)? Nope. They are just gonna say "we have to protect the brand" ...and that means the daggers come out for Obama. Yes, Alan, so why the F didn't we just add 100k people to Medicare, and save ourselves this entire fiasco? You're telling me we bought a entire broken car, that isn't actually designed to be a working car, and therefore will never truly operate as a car, just so we can use the cigarette lighter? Look people, I've done the work on this, and, this is what I do anyway. This is an Enterprise Web Application, not a website. You can't get one tier of the architecture working, hook it to the Google search engine( and ), and call that a working Enterprise Web Application.

Well, given the fact that the order you've listed them in...is also the order of their "managerial experience" who should we expect the better manager to be? And if this was on a line, wouldn't it be 10_Bush Sr_9_8_7_6_5_4_Bush JR(Hey he was a governor and he managed the Texans)_3_2_1_0_-1_-2_-3_-4_Obama_-5 etc.? Obama's at 4.5 because while he has gotten some OJT, he "knows so many things that aren't so", that it is overcome, and getting to 0 may just be impossible, no matter how many hard lessons he has to learn.

OBAMACARE! (See, it's already working! All I have to do is invoke Obamacare, and the whole darwin = "we have to do something" argument falls apart. Why? Because the something they will do, if allowed? OBAMACARE! This is why we need reasonable adults, not progressive children, in charge of solving problems.) You forgot excuse #1, and quite possibly the most racist political statement that there is, that they state publicly all the time without OUTRAGE!: "If communism/socialism was implemented in the West, by educated people, in countries with educated people and a cultural work ethic, it would work!" This of course means that sole reason it has failed, is because it's been implemented by non-whites, and "the slavs". See? It's the most racist thing you could possibly say: but, do your google. You'll see it said, or some variation of it said, more than a few times.

Strike 2. You still don't know why I posted that? Man. Well? More confirmation of the theory. Boy, outside of history and physics(and that it's those 2 things confirms it again), you really are playing checkers, aren't you? Maybe a hint helps: You think the game is being played in one thread. Wrong. And, look at the responses. As designed, not that I expect you to get it, there, Mr. Double Jump. You are the best qualified person to answer that question, since you read every single thing I write looking for ways to "bust" me. So...why don't you tell us. Perhaps, but, if I write 3 things, and all 3 of them have little to do with what I'm really trying to accomplish? The empirical, not theoretical, evidence shows: that makes you divide by 0. So tell me, how is that division coming? Think you're close to an answer? EDIT: Oh, and you know? I would love to see ...lybob try to bill anyone for 1 day of his work. That meeting would be hilarious.

The project manager came out and said it won't be ready until after January. I WIN. They are building the rest of it "in January". That means it won't be ready until February, or, if they do the testing right, March. You need at least a month to perform the proper tests. It should take 3 months, but, I am giving you the "bute force resources" thing, because why not? It doesn't make you any less wrong. But, really, are you F'ing dense? You think some QA clown knows more than the project manager, talking about the project he runs, on the public record? You and Google boy are in serious need of a grip. Performance testing a web server(which is all your dopey kid is doing) to see if the url responds, is a far cry from making remote procedure calls in a 50+ server integration come back with the correct responses(with 99.999% guarnateed uptime), and holding them in memory both on client and server, so they can "hide the price until the end" as per the dopey design of this thing, as per the dopey requirements of this thing. This aggregates to: "I can get to the home page, but, I still can't do anything once there, because the backend still doesn't work". Great plan. "The Google search engine comes to the rescue"...of nobody and nothing. EDIT: I dare you to send what is bolded above, or any part of this, to Google boy. That's because I have no fear whatsoever of his response. He may, or may not, understand what I'm saying, but that's unimportant: because I do. Clarification: Deleted, because neither you or Google boy is paying my hourly rate, and I'm not going to listen to you whine about length of post. END Clarification I love how this "isn't about IT" but now, you're talking about how Google boy is running performance tests on a webserver. Hilarious. What does Google boy have to say about the confirmed fact that the 834 transactions are in the weeds, and, does he know anything at all, about database design? How many large databases has he designed? How many OLTP/OLAP DB achitectures? How many muliti-platform, multi-division, multi-national enterprise integrations has he built on those architectures? If he works at Google, his best answer is? 1(one): Google's. I've done 15, for some of the biggest companies there are, in addition to some of the biggest startups(then). St. Gobain had 50 American divisions, never mind the rest of the world. That's 50 CIOs and Division Presidents, all with their own agenda, and every reason to screw each other over. I still made it work. But yeah, you go ahead and listen to dopey Google boy, who clearly doesn't even understand the problem, yet has his solution all lined up. How progressive of him. "The google search engine" = the solution to everything. And what a surpirse that a clown from Google would think that it is. Just like: Obamacare is the solution to everything, huh? So ridiculous I literally spit out my Dr. Pepper when I read it.

Well, now who's so full of himself? I am tired of your nonsense Chef. Here: http://www.wsbradio....k-not-finished/ Now STFU, you ignorant clown. I, yes I, TOLD YOU THIS EXACTLY, and in nursery ryhme format no less. I told you what was wrong with this thing. Now, the head of the entire project is telling you the same thing, nitwit. I WIN. The rest of this is post is just me laughing at your inanity. What are you gonna say now? How much more inside does it get, than the F'ing project manager telling you it won't be ready...until perhaps January at the earliest? Yeah, talk about me some more, do whatever douchy thing you have to do. But keep running from what that project manager, and this one, are telling you. I figured this out by reviewing the code. I didn't get my answers, like you, by listening to the dopey plans of psyncophants talking about their leader. That's the important thing here. All your little pissant California programmers can't do schit about a bad design. WTF did you think about bunch of pissant Californian pseudo-Buddhists would do, once they realized they were all in very real danger of being made into massive fools? After all, it's their money Obama spent to get elected. Moreover, your statement them knowing 10x more? It's just lame. It shows how little you understand about IT. Are there guys in that group who are better, pound for pound Javascripit programmers tham me? Of course. There better be. If there wasn't all 3 companies are in serious trouble. That's why you hire young programmers...to be better than you are, at programming in the "language of the day" what...you...tell them to. So, yeah, do I expect them to know more about some things, especially javascript. Of course. I knew more about PowerBuilder than most people at Sybase. That fact simply doesn't matter at all in the job I have now. Whare you are saying: = "Look at those 292 pediatrists! They are better at foot medicine than you are, heart surgeon"! What I am saying = "Yeah? I'm a heart surgeon. So whatever, clown. Btw, I'm a pretty good brain surgeon as well". So la te da, Chef. Talk all you want, when you get done? I'll still be a "heart surgeon", and the people that matter know it. That's the funny part. You are trying to provoke me...by using something I have contempt for. That's hilarious.

Nail? This is the hammer. Exactly right Darin. Some of the people I was watching the game with said the same thing when it happened. I had my doubts because I thought "come on, he's taken plenty of hits" and it sounded like wishful thinking to me at the time. (Due to recent events, I'm a little sensitive to wishful thinking. ) I was wrong. Having just re-watched the game, there can be little doubt that Dareus Maximus got into Geno's head with that hit. You can see it in his body position.

It all hinged on that Pittsburgh game. We should have won that game...or..we should have won the KC game, we had them beat. Or, we should have won the damn Cincy game(that I was at). Or, we should have won that stupid Cleveland game, if EJ doesn't take a dumb risk. Or, we should have won that stupid Pats game, if we throw the ball against a weak secondary instead of trying to run into the 1 thing the Pats prepared for. Or.. That's what has already sucked about this season. Now, you are asking me to sign up all over again for a string of "we should win this game"? Of course I'm happy to do it! Where do I sign?

Hey give this guy some credit. At least he has the stones to be accountable. Now, had he paid attention to my avatar, most of this could have been avoided. Well, we live and we learn. However, in the end, he's doing the right thing. Now, what about the other 30+ posters here who've been saying the same, or worse? Well, you have a whole thread now, just for this purpose, don't you?

The original proposal was a piece of crap that nobody wanted. True. The alternative, single payer, was an even bigger piece of crap that nobody wanted. Also, true. The next thing is, no matter what, going to be predicated on NOT being Obamacare, which means it's almost certain to be a fine piece of conservative work product. You people have emoted and failed your way into preventing yourself from getting what you want, into getting the exact opposite. And, Republicans will, in the end, be able to take credit for healthcare reform. Regardless of your wishcasting, it WILL cover a lot of people for a lot of things. Not everyone for everything. Should we cover you, or me, for cirrhosis? Or, better, shouldn't both of us have to pay more, because we play more? But, look on the darker side, wawrow: you get to spend the rest of your life, in every political discussion you ever have again, dealing with the "Obamacare" aspect. Let me explain that to you: the next time you are talking about (insert issue here)? You'll have to contend with someone saying "yeah, but that sounds like Obamacare", or, "well we don't want to get into another Obamacare here", or, "that might lead to an Obamacare-like failure"..... ....which is exactly like taking a 15 yard penalty on offense, on 3rd and 10 for hands to the face, right after you THOUGHT you completed the 1st down. It's permanent 3rd and 25, forever, for you. That's what's going to happen...EVERY...time you are in a political discussion, even with people on your own "team". From here on out, every time you post something, you don't think I will say OBAMACARE! in response? You don't think I can find a way to make it relevant to the topic at hand? Of course I can. Enjoy that. I will. Think of it: next time you order a drink, this is what you'll be thinking. Next time I order a drink? So will I. The difference is: I will be laughing.

Yeah, that's what that post was about. Nice work, genius. DC_Tom. The single best living proof of the "7 different levels of intelligence" theory. Boy is he smart in some things, but boy is he dumb in others.

And that's why I am right and Tom is wrong. Once the average joe fully realizes that "Hey this was about communism, not saving me money!" (his words, or near, not mine), the backlash will be immense. He's just starting to get that now. Wait until Thanksgiving is over. Every liberal in America is dreading sitting at that Thanksgiving table, and having to take the beating they know is coming, in jest, or serious, it doesn't matter. The word "demoralized" comes to mind. The real effect may be demoralizing the Democratic base, which will kill turnout for 2014, and may even kill it for 2016. If they don't get their people out at the same historically high level they did last time? The "demographics" argument will be exposed as the fairy tale that it is. However, what would make Tom right in 2016? If the Rs nominate somebody who isn't personally likable, and therefore, can't deflect whatever nonsense "binders full of women" horsecrap the Ds gin up. The Rs have to think not just about who is most conservative, but also: who is most likable. And, likability is important as a qualification for actually doing the job, not just winning the election. Obama is the least likable, in person, guy there is, and that's why Congress, Ds and Rs, wants little to do with him. In any event, the Ds have a looooong way to go to overcoming Obamacare as an issue for both 2014 and 2016, no matter how many dogs end up on cars.

I'm in a tough spot as I see it: what if the IT guy doesn't win the IT discussion? Even if I win, that's like "beating a girl". Hence, the ryhmes. What Chef is doing, badly: a rope a dope. Too bad for Chef: I know that's what he's doing. That's why he picked the side he did. Chef is smart. However, I used that to my advantage, and denied it to him. That's why I made such a big deal about who was taking what side, and what that meant. I am smarter. That, and the only way to do it is to explain it fully, otherwise, it's "yeah but you said this before, and now you're saying this, but, this detail over here(that I left out for you precious brevity), says that, and that's not what you said..." the whole time. It's like dealing with conner. If you don't put every single thing into the first post you write, you spend the rest of the thread wih the "yeah buts". "Yeah but" infestation in a thread is annoying. I don't feel like insulting Chef, because frankly? He doesn't deserve it. If I lose because of it? So be it. There are many clowns past and current, who deserve what they get from me normally. Chef isn't one of them. My level of invective is directly proportional to what I have received, per poster.

You've addressed nothing I've said, and it is you, not I, that needs the explanations here. I could have just said: "something technical" in a paragraph, (EDIT: I did, and took it out. I am saving it for you.) and leave it to you to figure it out, and then try and fail to argue against it. Too easy. Instead, I've explained it in detail, and in way that makes the techincal able to processed, even by a luddite such as yourself, so that you can't whine, and throw your hands up an say "technobabble" or "This has nothing to do with IT". (Yet, it is I, not you, that must "look under the hood"? Amazing contradiction) I even did it in verse to make it harder on me. I could have just said the same thing every post, like you have, and not even tried to address what you've said, like you have. I didn't. In fact, I've won both your argument, and mine. Your argument = throw money at it, and...some weird hypothetical about loyalty to Obama/Democratic party. Throwing money at it solves nothing, because not only have they already thrown money at it, they've thrown 3 years at it. Are you telling me that the political appointee douches at CMS have an Obama loyalty problem, or a Democratic party loyalty problem? It's hard to find a Federal government agency in this administration hasn't gotten in trouble due to Obama loyalty problem! So that's me: winning your argument. My argument? You haven't even tried to win. I win that one by default. What's left? More discussion of typos? Emoticons? Complaining because I have to explain the IT reasons it fails to you, when, if you had a clue, I wouldn't have to?

The RG3 trade is merely another instance in the pattern of idiot Redskin behavior. I've said that since the day that trade was announced, I've said it right along, and I'm saying it right now. How's Tavon Austin and a backup safety doing...for EJ/Kiko/Goodwin/Gragg? All the Rams did: extend Dan Synder's FAIL...to us. Thanks Rams! Thanks Redskins! Some have even touched on it in this thread: the Redskins took 3 potential pro bowlers off their team(that's what mid-high 1st round draft picks are)...and RG3 is supposed to not only mitigate that, but make it a "no-brainer"? Never. Not ever. My favorite excuse now: "they have to build a team around RG3". Um, doesn't that require draft picks? Perhaps more Redskin FA signings? 2 words for that: Adam Archuleta Need 2 more? Albert Haynesworth. Now, in the latest installment of this...whatever it is: Shanahan is going to prevent Synder from being the dope he's been for the last 15 years, and that is both why he won't get fired, AND, why the RG3 trade isn't awful? What % chance do either of those have of being true? 10? 15? What chance does both of them being true have? Actually, I know what this is. RG3 is no different than Tony Romo or Mark Sanchez. They are all ESPN contraptions, that are built for one purpose: telling a lot of people, in big markets, what they want to hear....because then they will tune in, and that = $. Eli Manning has more results than all 3 contraptions, so does Andrew Luck, but, Eli plays for the "other NY team", and Luck plays for a "flyover country" team, so....

Threads like this are always fun...later. EJ Manuel blew the doors off Geno Smith today. Hands down. Now what? Geno smith was benched because he looked like he didn't belong in an NFL uni today. What does it mean? It means both QBs are rookies. And, as my avatar advises: Keep Calm. Running around making sweeping conclusions based on the small amount of data we have on both EJ and Geno? Recipe for failure. This isn't some work thing, where we know what we see and it's a fixed environment, so we don't need to see more. QB play is about as open-ended and subjective as it gets, when we are talking rookies. Now, if you remember: I posted a thread in preseason that says Tannehil sucks, with pretty pics to prove it. I was right, especially when he played against us. I can do that, because we have the data on Tannehill. Sure strange things happen, and with some guys it's always going to be confounding: Just ask Eli Manning, especially today. However, with Rookies, you can't tell until after the first 2 seasons are complete. Then, it should be obvious what you have. Anbody think Russel Wilson is great? How about RG3? However, Luck is playing well. See? Small sets of data prove nothing.

My dad demanded I start this thread. So, here it is: Doug Marrone should take the Bills to Dave and Busters tonight. Then the real war with Rex Ryan can begin. **************** I'll add: the Bills should call Willis McGahee and, since The Flats(in Cleveland) apparently now look like a "Scooby Doo Ghost Town"*, ask him if he wants to come along. McGahee probably missed Dave and Busters. *WTF I'm taking about = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75MxugBmNsw

I wonder now....who are the "anarchists", exactly? Consider: when a whole lot of people either disobey the law on purpose, ignore the law, and break the law, and other laws, because the law itself creates so many opportunities for it, and no real remedy against it....isn't that the definition of anarchy? What else should we call the conditions Obamacare is bringing about, besides anarchy? So, if you continue to support this crap, aren't YOU the anarchist? And what's worse? We have the birdog's of the left, singing the praises of anarchy, because they think that if they create enough chaos, that will lead us all to single payer, as the only way to restore order. Supporting/creating chaos? That is the definition of anarchist. They admit they are the anarchists here. Anarchists who want full authority? I've never heard of such a thing. It's absolutely illogical. It's a contradictory conclusion only the wacky left can arrive at. As if anyone but them will ever forget who created the mass chaos, and as if anyone but them trusts them to make an even bigger system than Obamacare, that controls every aspect of health care. These Fs can't even do some of it right, and now they want the keys to the whole factory? F you, anarchists.

Which is no different than what Wal Mart does. So, coming back to the original friggin point: Both ADM AND Wal Mart keep prices low, for food and clothing, which helps the poor! Much more so than every jagoff Democrat program has ever even come close to doing. You gatorman to thank for the harping. Yes, I will focus unrelentingly on busting morons who talk out thier ass.

"It's Wawrow! Wawrow. You always know what he's gonna do next. It's Wawrow, Wawrow, 3 in the morning? Time for his retarded text." Gigidy, gigidy gooo.

So your entire argument(which as I said, is weak and hypothetical) is predicated upon the notion that throwing $ at it solves all? Then you are done. Pack up your schit, Mr. "IT has nothing to do with this", and, "we have to look under the hood", at the same time. We already have empirical evidence from this project that "throw money at it" has FAILed: the existing budget. (Yep, you're done) Now listen, you twit, a project like this doesn't cost $300 million to build. It doesn't. Not ever. So, they've already "thrown money at it" haven't they, you unmitigated moron. And, did that work, nitwit? No. Now, you are proposing that they throw more? What a clown you are. Yeah, talking about me as if I'm the nut here? Yeah, I'M the one that needs meds. I doubt they make medications strong enough to penetrate the amount of delusion/denial required to not see that they've already thrown FAR too much money at it and/or to not realize that you've just argued yourself into losing. But enough of this hypothetical $ nonsense. Throughout this thread I've made several empirical points that you've yet to address. Either you can't address them, because you're a moron, which means I win, or, you won't address them, because there's no refuting them. Which means I've won. I'm rapidly growing tired of hearing the same hypothetical "it will work because of money/Valley people" argument, which is flimsy and lame. Deal with the facts I've laid out, or concede defeat. Well, you can always talk about medication, or drinking, or whatever... Fact #1: the insurance company IT people are flat out telling the guy in my link: there's no way this will be ready, due to the 834s. That's the thing here Chef, one of many things I know, and you don't, every time you do an integration in a big organization, or among big organizations, there are ALWAYS 2 sides at least, and, these sides are like political parties. Each side has their own concerns, and project to support/defend. These insurance company people quite literally live under the hood, every day. They are telling this "insider" guy it's not ready, because it isn't. They have every reason to tell the truth, and absolutely MUST NOT LIE, in this situation. What purpose would be served by lying? As if every single thinking person in the USA doesn't have at least one eyeball on this story, looking for the next lie. As if the Democrats aren't desperately looking for another liar, so they can try to justify their liars. No. Insurance company IT people have no reason to lie. They have EVERY reason to tell the truth and say it won't be ready, because it won't be, and they aren't going to allow yet another ObamaFAIL to blow up, and get some, or ALL of it on them. IF I was them, I'd be EXTREMELY wary of the Democrats(I had "the government" here, but, is this the really the government anymore?) trying to use me as a scapegoat. So wary, that I'd make damn sure I went out to some insurance comany insider, set the record straight, and told him why it was going to not be ready be Dec 1, in detail, long before Obama and his Lie Machine get a chance to lie about me, and blame me for their incompetence.

Ok, given the feedback.... Here is the low information voter version: even if they stop hiding how much you pay, it still won't be "working", because the chance that they can enroll/disenroll your personal signup by the Dec 1 deadline is ~5%. That's directly due to the FACT that the 834 transactions won't be working by then. That's not "working". That is "working ~5% of the time". Unmitigated moron version: On Dec 1 go to the website, you sign up for what you want, you hit save, and nothing happens(because you can't be enrolled). Does that mean it's working? No. Have you purchased anything? NO! Can this website be powered by distilled birdog wishful thinking? NO! Or, the conner version: nobody can do enroll in stuff, cause da website don't say nothing when you do. But I like Obama, cause he is cool. Repugs are dorks.