Czernobog
Gold Member
Yeah...You guys love that "snowflake" bit. Just remember...
Winter is coming.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Kellyanne Conway Owns NBC Chuck Todd
- Thread starter Geaux4it
- Start date
Winter is coming.
Brynmr
Gold Member
- Jun 12, 2016
- 5,491
- 874
- 290
Oh, I got it when Spicer said it. Instead of just acknowledging that he never should have made the claim,
Not at all. Like all the Liberal media, you misinterpreted it because you hate Trump. You were looking for something to attack Trump with and you thought you had found it but you screwed up. Now you're just trying to save your hurt ego.
The error was all yours, not his.
Brynmr
Gold Member
- Jun 12, 2016
- 5,491
- 874
- 290
Yeah...You guys love that "snowflake" bit.
'Whiney babies' also fits.
Crowd size doesn't matter, you're right. However, a Press Secretary entering the Press Room for the very first time to disseminate a demonstrably untrue statement, particularly on something as minor as crowd size, calls into question the press' ability to ever believe anything that press Secretary says about anything, and that is an issue.None of which had anything to do with the verifiably untrue claim that the crowd at Trump's inauguration was larger than any in history, which was specifically the topic of Chuck's question. Why did Trump send Spicer out there to make a demonstrably untrue statement? You are doing the same thing Kellyanne did - trying to distract with completely unrelated questions, and claims to try to bury the fact that Spicer made a demonstrably untrue statement.Except that's not what Trump did. He sent Spicer to the Press Room to tell a verifiable lie. And Chuck repeatedly asked Kellyanne why Trump would do that, she refused to answer the question, and deflected, and attacked Chuck, and tried to reframe the question to be about what she wanted it to be about. Kinda like you are doing now.Yeah.....she kicked Chucky's balls up around his shoulders.
The media continues to lie about every little thing to try and de legitimize Trumps presidency through the death of a thousand cuts and Chucky wants to ask why Trump would call em out on it?
Yes Trump did call em out on it. Who do you think Spicer is speaking for?
The fake Bust story,the fake CIA story it's become obvious the press is trying to delegitimize Trumps presidency and I hope the left wing morons continue because Trump will thrash them.
The crowd count really doesnt matter,Trump is the President.
But to have the so called media constantly lie about Trump is an issue.
So you're shocked a politician would lie?
What about the dishonesty of the media that should be unbiased?
I find that to be much more disturbing,but less surprising.
Czernobog
Gold Member
Sure, and bragging about grabbing women's pussies was just "locker room talk"...Oh, I got it when Spicer said it. Instead of just acknowledging that he never should have made the claim,
Not at all. Like all the Liberal media, you misinterpreted it because you hate Trump. You were looking for something to attack Trump with and you thought you had found it but you screwed up. Now you're just trying to save your hurt ego.
The error was all yours, not his.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
None of which had anything to do with the verifiably untrue claim that the crowd at Trump's inauguration was larger than any in history, which was specifically the topic of Chuck's question. Why did Trump send Spicer out there to make a demonstrably untrue statement? You are doing the same thing Kellyanne did - trying to distract with completely unrelated questions, and claims to try to bury the fact that Spicer made a demonstrably untrue statement.Except that's not what Trump did. He sent Spicer to the Press Room to tell a verifiable lie. And Chuck repeatedly asked Kellyanne why Trump would do that, she refused to answer the question, and deflected, and attacked Chuck, and tried to reframe the question to be about what she wanted it to be about. Kinda like you are doing now.Yeah.....she kicked Chucky's balls up around his shoulders.
The media continues to lie about every little thing to try and de legitimize Trumps presidency through the death of a thousand cuts and Chucky wants to ask why Trump would call em out on it?
Yes Trump did call em out on it. Who do you think Spicer is speaking for?
The fake Bust story,the fake CIA story it's become obvious the press is trying to delegitimize Trumps presidency and I hope the left wing morons continue because Trump will thrash them.
The crowd count really doesnt matter,Trump is the President.
But to have the so called media constantly lie about Trump is an issue.
You're right............crowd size DOESN'T matter, he still got sworn in. So why do they feel a need to lie about the crowd size? Wouldn't a better use of Spicer's time have been to outline what Trump will do in the next 100 days, rather than bitching about who had the bigger crowds?
I fell the bigger question to be why is the press so biased?
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,091
- 2,180
None of which had anything to do with the verifiably untrue claim that the crowd at Trump's inauguration was larger than any in history, which was specifically the topic of Chuck's question. Why did Trump send Spicer out there to make a demonstrably untrue statement? You are doing the same thing Kellyanne did - trying to distract with completely unrelated questions, and claims to try to bury the fact that Spicer made a demonstrably untrue statement.Except that's not what Trump did. He sent Spicer to the Press Room to tell a verifiable lie. And Chuck repeatedly asked Kellyanne why Trump would do that, she refused to answer the question, and deflected, and attacked Chuck, and tried to reframe the question to be about what she wanted it to be about. Kinda like you are doing now.
Yes Trump did call em out on it. Who do you think Spicer is speaking for?
The fake Bust story,the fake CIA story it's become obvious the press is trying to delegitimize Trumps presidency and I hope the left wing morons continue because Trump will thrash them.
The crowd count really doesnt matter,Trump is the President.
But to have the so called media constantly lie about Trump is an issue.
You're right............crowd size DOESN'T matter, he still got sworn in. So why do they feel a need to lie about the crowd size? Wouldn't a better use of Spicer's time have been to outline what Trump will do in the next 100 days, rather than bitching about who had the bigger crowds?
I fell the bigger question to be why is the press so biased?
Yep! They feel it is okay for them to print lies, god forbid you challenge them.
Brynmr
Gold Member
- Jun 12, 2016
- 5,491
- 874
- 290
Sure, and bragging about grabbing women's pussies was just "locker room talk"...Not at all. Like all the Liberal media, you misinterpreted it because you hate Trump. You were looking for something to attack Trump with and you thought you had found it but you screwed up. Now you're just trying to save your hurt ego.
The error was all yours, not his.
Good to see you're finally moving on from your BS claim about Spicer.
Czernobog
Gold Member
The irony is that you don't see the link between the parsing, and the spin of the two statements.Sure, and bragging about grabbing women's pussies was just "locker room talk"...Not at all. Like all the Liberal media, you misinterpreted it because you hate Trump. You were looking for something to attack Trump with and you thought you had found it but you screwed up. Now you're just trying to save your hurt ego.
The error was all yours, not his.
Good to see you're finally moving on from your BS claim about Spicer.
Brynmr
Gold Member
- Jun 12, 2016
- 5,491
- 874
- 290
The irony is that you don't see the link between the parsing, and the spin of the two statements.Sure, and bragging about grabbing women's pussies was just "locker room talk"...Not at all. Like all the Liberal media, you misinterpreted it because you hate Trump. You were looking for something to attack Trump with and you thought you had found it but you screwed up. Now you're just trying to save your hurt ego.
The error was all yours, not his.
Good to see you're finally moving on from your BS claim about Spicer.
There is no irony here. You have no idea what I think about Trump's 'pussy' comment and your pathetic segue into a red herring won't save your ego. You lost the debate. Suck it up.
Czernobog
Gold Member
The only one lost is you. Spicer lied, and today he told everyone that he didn't really say what he said, and you have bought the spin.The irony is that you don't see the link between the parsing, and the spin of the two statements.Sure, and bragging about grabbing women's pussies was just "locker room talk"...Not at all. Like all the Liberal media, you misinterpreted it because you hate Trump. You were looking for something to attack Trump with and you thought you had found it but you screwed up. Now you're just trying to save your hurt ego.
The error was all yours, not his.
Good to see you're finally moving on from your BS claim about Spicer.
There is no irony here. You have no idea what I think about Trump's 'pussy' comment and your pathetic segue into a red herring won't save your ego. You lost the debate. Suck it up.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
By God, here we have a President and his Press Secretary lying through their teeth live. And the rightwingnutjobs are cheering for it. You are all a bunch of conscienceless fascists.
There is right now a lawsuit by a Constitutional Lawyer concerning the orange clowns overseas interests.
Guide to the Constitution
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8
Teacher's Companion Lesson (PDF)
Article VI of the Articles of Confederation was the source of the Constitution's prohibition on federal titles of nobility and the so-called Emoluments Clause. The clause sought to shield the republican character of the United States against corrupting foreign influences.
The prohibition on federal titles of nobility—reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4—was designed to underpin the republican character of the American government. In the ample sense James Madison gave the term in The Federalist No. 39, a republic was "a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during good behavior."
Republicanism so understood was the ground of the constitutional edifice. The prohibition on titles of nobility buttressed the structure by precluding the possibility of an aristocracy, whether hereditary or personal, whose members would inevitably assert a right to occupy the leading positions in the state.
Further, the prohibition on titles complemented the prohibition in Article III, Section 3, on the "Corruption of Blood" worked by "Attainder of Treason" (i.e., the prohibition on creating a disability in the posterity of an attained person upon claiming an inheritance as his heir, or as heir to his ancestor). Together these prohibitions ruled out the creation of certain caste-specific legal privileges or disabilities arising solely from the accident of birth.
In addition to upholding republicanism in a political sense, the prohibition on titles also pointed to a durable American social ideal. This is the ideal of equality; it is what David Ramsey, the eighteenth-century historian of the American Revolution, called the "life and soul" of republicanism. The particular conception of equality denied a place in American life for hereditary distinctions of caste—slavery being the most glaring exception. At the same time, however, it also allowed free play for the "diversity in the faculties of men," the protection of which, as Madison insisted in The Federalist No. 10, was "the first object of government." The republican system established by the Founders, in other words, envisaged a society in which distinctions flowed from the unequal uses that its members made of equal opportunities: a society led by a natural aristocracy based on talent, virtue, and accomplishment, not by an hereditary aristocracy based on birth. "Capacity, Spirit and Zeal in the Cause," as John Adams said, would "supply the Place of Fortune, Family, and every other Consideration, which used to have Weight with Mankind." Or as the Jeffersonian St. George Tucker put it in 1803: "A Franklin, or a Washington, need not the pageantry of honours, the glare of titles, nor the pre-eminence of station to distinguish them....Equality of rights...precludes not that distinction which superiority of virtue introduces among the citizens of a republic."
Similarly, the Framers intended the Emoluments Clause to protect the republican character of American political institutions. "One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption." The Federalist No. 22 (Alexander Hamilton). The delegates at the Constitutional Convention specifically designed the clause as an antidote to potentially corrupting foreign practices of a kind that the Framers had observed during the period of the Confederation. Louis XVI had the custom of presenting expensive gifts to departing ministers who had signed treaties with France, including American diplomats. In 1780, the King gave Arthur Lee a portrait of the King set in diamonds above a gold snuff box; and in 1785, he gave Benjamin Franklin a similar miniature portrait, also set in diamonds. Likewise, the King of Spain presented John Jay (during negotiations with Spain) with the gift of a horse. All these gifts were reported to Congress, which in each case accorded permission to the recipients to accept them. Wary, however, of the possibility that such gestures might unduly influence American officials in their dealings with foreign states, the Framers institutionalized the practice of requiring the consent of Congress before one could accept "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from...[a] foreign State."
Like several other provisions of the Constitution, the Emoluments Clause also embodies the memory of the epochal constitutional struggles in seventeenth-century Britain between the forces of Parliament and the Stuart dynasty. St. George Tucker's explanation of the clause noted that "in the reign of Charles theecond of England, that prince, and almost all his officers of state were either actual pensioners of the court of France, or supposed to be under its influence, directly, or indirectly, from that cause. The reign of that monarch has been, accordingly, proverbially disgraceful to his memory." As these remarks imply, the clause was directed not merely at American diplomats serving abroad, but more generally at officials throughout the federal government.
The Emoluments Clause has apparently never been litigated, but it has been interpreted and enforced through a long series of opinions of the Attorneys General and by less-frequent opinions of the Comptrollers General. Congress has also exercised its power of "Consent" under the clause by enacting the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, which authorizes federal employees to accept foreign governmental benefits of various kinds in specific circumstances.
Robert J. Delahunty
There is right now a lawsuit by a Constitutional Lawyer concerning the orange clowns overseas interests.
Guide to the Constitution
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8
Teacher's Companion Lesson (PDF)
Article VI of the Articles of Confederation was the source of the Constitution's prohibition on federal titles of nobility and the so-called Emoluments Clause. The clause sought to shield the republican character of the United States against corrupting foreign influences.
The prohibition on federal titles of nobility—reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4—was designed to underpin the republican character of the American government. In the ample sense James Madison gave the term in The Federalist No. 39, a republic was "a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during good behavior."
Republicanism so understood was the ground of the constitutional edifice. The prohibition on titles of nobility buttressed the structure by precluding the possibility of an aristocracy, whether hereditary or personal, whose members would inevitably assert a right to occupy the leading positions in the state.
Further, the prohibition on titles complemented the prohibition in Article III, Section 3, on the "Corruption of Blood" worked by "Attainder
In addition to upholding republicanism in a political sense, the prohibition on titles also pointed to a durable American social ideal. This is the ideal of equality; it is what David Ramsey, the eighteenth-century historian of the American Revolution, called the "life and soul" of republicanism. The particular conception of equality denied a place in American life for hereditary distinctions of caste—slavery being the most glaring exception. At the same time, however, it also allowed free play for the "diversity in the faculties of men," the protection of which, as Madison insisted in The Federalist No. 10, was "the first object of government." The republican system established by the Founders, in other words, envisaged a society in which distinctions flowed from the unequal uses that its members made of equal opportunities: a society led by a natural aristocracy based on talent, virtue, and accomplishment, not by an hereditary aristocracy based on birth. "Capacity, Spirit and Zeal in the Cause," as John Adams said, would "supply the Place of Fortune, Family, and every other Consideration, which used to have Weight with Mankind." Or as the Jeffersonian St. George Tucker put it in 1803: "A Franklin, or a Washington, need not the pageantry of honours, the glare of titles, nor the pre-eminence of station to distinguish them....Equality of rights...precludes not that distinction which superiority of virtue introduces among the citizens of a republic."
Similarly, the Framers intended the Emoluments Clause to protect the republican character of American political institutions. "One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption." The Federalist No. 22 (Alexander Hamilton). The delegates at the Constitutional Convention specifically designed the clause as an antidote to potentially corrupting foreign practices of a kind that the Framers had observed during the period of the Confederation. Louis XVI had the custom of presenting expensive gifts to departing ministers who had signed treaties with France, including American diplomats. In 1780, the King gave Arthur Lee a portrait of the King set in diamonds above a gold snuff box; and in 1785, he gave Benjamin Franklin a similar miniature portrait, also set in diamonds. Likewise, the King of Spain presented John Jay (during negotiations with Spain) with the gift of a horse. All these gifts were reported to Congress, which in each case accorded permission to the recipients to accept them. Wary, however, of the possibility that such gestures might unduly influence American officials in their dealings with foreign states, the Framers institutionalized the practice of requiring the consent of Congress before one could accept "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from...[a] foreign State."
Like several other provisions of the Constitution, the Emoluments Clause also embodies the memory of the epochal constitutional struggles in seventeenth-century Britain between the forces of Parliament and the Stuart dynasty. St. George Tucker's explanation of the clause noted that "in the reign of Charles the
The Emoluments Clause has apparently never been litigated, but it has been interpreted and enforced through a long series of opinions of the Attorneys General and by less-frequent opinions of the Comptrollers General. Congress has also exercised its power of "Consent" under the clause by enacting the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, which authorizes federal employees to accept foreign governmental benefits of various kinds in specific circumstances.
Robert J. Delahunty
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
On the site, you don't see the crossouts. Looks like they are now regretting the words they wrote and endorsed.
Brynmr
Gold Member
- Jun 12, 2016
- 5,491
- 874
- 290
By God, here we have a President and his Press Secretary lying through their teeth live.
False narrative.
The only one lost is you. Spicer lied, and today he told everyone that he didn't really say what he said, and you have bought the spin.The irony is that you don't see the link between the parsing, and the spin of the two statements.Sure, and bragging about grabbing women's pussies was just "locker room talk"...Not at all. Like all the Liberal media, you misinterpreted it because you hate Trump. You were looking for something to attack Trump with and you thought you had found it but you screwed up. Now you're just trying to save your hurt ego.
The error was all yours, not his.
Good to see you're finally moving on from your BS claim about Spicer.
There is no irony here. You have no idea what I think about Trump's 'pussy' comment and your pathetic segue into a red herring won't save your ego. You lost the debate. Suck it up.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Just curious, Czernobog...are you far left shills going to spend the entire four years Trump is President obsessing about things like "crowd size"?
Here's a novel concept...how about you worry about the success or failure of Trump's agenda and leave this nonsense to idiots like Chuck Todd?
Penelope
Diamond Member
- Jul 15, 2014
- 60,260
- 15,767
- 2,210
Where is that bust of MLK? Was it a fact when the press said Trump removed it? Notice how the libtards ignore this "fact"?
He may of and brought it back in to take a pic, I would not doubt it. Now you would think MLK would be more imp than Churchill, since MLK was an American.
- Nov 14, 2011
- 121,821
- 68,965
- 2,635
TKO
Complete interview beat down
-Geaux
-------------------------
Not answering questions is your idea of a beat down?? I guess you too live in a world of alternative facts.
- Thread starter
- #160
TKO
Complete interview beat down
-Geaux
-------------------------
Not answering questions is your idea of a beat down?? I guess you too live in a world of alternative facts.
meh, one thing for sure is I now live in Red, White and Blue America again
FACT
-Geayx
Similar threads
- Replies
- 23
- Views
- 391
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 59
- Views
- 265
- Poll
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8108
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-