Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,065
- 12,662
- 2,400
I see that you can't address her post just swing for the backstop and fail epically.
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.
Leaving Them Speechless
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
I see that you can't address her post just swing for the backstop and fail epically.
- Thread starter
- #23
It isn't an intellectual flaw that makes them vote for the items I listed in the OP....it is something else.
I believe it is something else......the sort of mass psychosis we saw in Germany in the 30s and 40s.
And it didn't end well then, and probably won't now.
- Thread starter
- #24
Just a reminder that Russia is America’s enemy.
rump raised a fine crop of ANTIAMERICAN traitors.
So the best you can do is ignore the five items that brought you here?
This is exactly what I planned to highlight when I posted the OP.......there is something wrong with Democrat voters.
Thanks for your help in proving my thesis.
B. Kidd
Diamond Member
It isn't an intellectual flaw that makes them vote for the items I listed in the OP....it is something else.
I believe it is something else......the sort of mass psychosis we saw in Germany in the 30s and 40s.
And it didn't end well then, and probably won't now.
It's a guarantee it won't end well.
No magical freedom and liberty fairy is gonna appear and set things right.
PC you lose again
The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a final appeal by former President Trump in his dispute with congressional investigators pursuing his administration’s records as part of the probe into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
The court's move represented a finishing blow — at least for now — to Trump’s months-long legal bid to block lawmakers from obtaining schedules, call logs, emails and other White House documents the committee says it needs to flesh out the circumstances surrounding the deadly pro-Trump Capitol riot.
The defeat also likely lays to rest the concern that Trump might make use of a drain-the-clock litigation strategy he wielded so effectively as president — a range of delay tactics to drag-out lawsuits, hamper investigators and fend off records requests — to successfully stymie the Jan. 6 probe.
“While there is a non-trivial chance Mr. Trump may again try to block release of records through new litigation, the resolution of this case arguably should spell the end of this particular obstacle for the January 6th Committee’s effort to receive presidential records,” said Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer and partner in the Law Office of Mark S. Zaid.
“On the horizon, however, lays the more difficult issue for the Committee of whether to subpoena Mr. Trump and his family in an effort to compel actual testimony,” Moss added.
The justices’ ruling, which came in a brief unsigned order issued without comment, comes after the Supreme Court denied Trump's emergency request to block the transfer of his White House records from the National Archives to the House select committee, a process that began last month.
The order leaves intact a lower federal appeals court ruling that found Trump’s assertion of executive privilege and other legal theories unpersuasive in light of President Biden’s refusal to invoke the privilege, as well as the House panel’s pressing task.
Trump turned to the Supreme Court in December after lower federal courts rejected his requests to halt the National Archives from passing along his administration’s records. His attorneys had asked the justices to shield the disputed materials from disclosure while they considered his formal appeal.
Trump’s lawyers, in court papers, had also pushed back on the committee’s claim that a protracted legal fight threatens to undermine its work.
“Respondents will not be harmed by delay,” Trump attorneys wrote, referring to the House panel. “Despite their insistence that the investigation is urgent, more than a year has passed since January 6, 2021. Years remain before the next transition of power.”
“The Committee and the Court have time to make a swift but measured analysis of these important issues and make sure that in the rush to conduct its investigation, the Committee does not do irreparable structural damage in the process,” they added.
The justices, however, rebuffed Trump’s emergency request in a Jan. 19 ruling. Within hours, the Jan. 6 House committee began receiving records, a development that panel Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), and Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) hailed as “a victory for the rule of law and American democracy.”
Last month’s ruling came in an unsigned, one-paragraph order. Justice Clarence Thomas, a staunch conservative, was alone in indicating that he would have granted Trump’s request.
The justices wrote that although the unprecedented dispute between a former president and lawmakers raised “serious and substantial concerns,” the Washington, D.C.,-based federal appeals court had suitably analyzed the issues at hand.
“Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the court wrote.
The Jan. 6 attack saw the deaths of four people, all Trump supporters, including a woman shot by Capitol Police. Separately, a Capitol Police officer suffered a fatal stroke a day after sustaining injuries in the riot, and four other law enforcement officers who responded that day have since died by suicide.
Nearly 800 rioters face charges.
The court’s move Tuesday not only marked a denial of Trump’s formal request for appeal. It also sent what is likely to be the final signal that the courts would not intervene at Trump’s request, as the judiciary so often did when Trump was president.
A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump himself has remained mum on the Supreme Court’s rulings against him, though he has previously not shied away from criticizing decisions he disagrees with, or even calling out justices by name.
Had the court acted on either of Trump’s requests, it could have set in motion the kind of protracted court fight Trump waged while in the White House, often mounting one appeal after another, with cases sometimes ping-ponging between the district court, intermediate appellate court and Supreme Court — then back again.
For instance, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance obtained a grand jury subpoena for Trump’s tax returns in August 2019. But it took his office 18 months of fighting Trump in the courts before Vance finally obtained the documents in February of last year.
By the time Trump left office in January 2020, numerous cases against him and his administration still hung in the balance.
Although Trump’s litigation has been brought to a timely conclusion, the committee faces separate legal challenges to its investigative authority in ongoing court clashes with former Trump adviser Stephen Bannon and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, as well as Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich and post-election legal adviser John Eastman.
The Jan. 6 committee has not established a hard deadline for completing its investigation, but Thompson has said the panel hopes to wrap up by early spring. The upcoming midterm elections, which many expect to hand control of the House to Republicans who would be likely to shut down the committee’s operations, present the panel with a de facto January deadline.
Supreme Court deals final blow to Trump bid to stymie Jan. 6 panel
The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a final appeal by former President Trump in his dispute with congressional investigators pursuing his administration’s records as part of the probe into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
The court's move represented a finishing blow — at least for now — to Trump’s months-long legal bid to block lawmakers from obtaining schedules, call logs, emails and other White House documents the committee says it needs to flesh out the circumstances surrounding the deadly pro-Trump Capitol riot.
The defeat also likely lays to rest the concern that Trump might make use of a drain-the-clock litigation strategy he wielded so effectively as president — a range of delay tactics to drag-out lawsuits, hamper investigators and fend off records requests — to successfully stymie the Jan. 6 probe.
“While there is a non-trivial chance Mr. Trump may again try to block release of records through new litigation, the resolution of this case arguably should spell the end of this particular obstacle for the January 6th Committee’s effort to receive presidential records,” said Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer and partner in the Law Office of Mark S. Zaid.
“On the horizon, however, lays the more difficult issue for the Committee of whether to subpoena Mr. Trump and his family in an effort to compel actual testimony,” Moss added.
The justices’ ruling, which came in a brief unsigned order issued without comment, comes after the Supreme Court denied Trump's emergency request to block the transfer of his White House records from the National Archives to the House select committee, a process that began last month.
The order leaves intact a lower federal appeals court ruling that found Trump’s assertion of executive privilege and other legal theories unpersuasive in light of President Biden’s refusal to invoke the privilege, as well as the House panel’s pressing task.
Trump turned to the Supreme Court in December after lower federal courts rejected his requests to halt the National Archives from passing along his administration’s records. His attorneys had asked the justices to shield the disputed materials from disclosure while they considered his formal appeal.
Trump’s lawyers, in court papers, had also pushed back on the committee’s claim that a protracted legal fight threatens to undermine its work.
“Respondents will not be harmed by delay,” Trump attorneys wrote, referring to the House panel. “Despite their insistence that the investigation is urgent, more than a year has passed since January 6, 2021. Years remain before the next transition of power.”
“The Committee and the Court have time to make a swift but measured analysis of these important issues and make sure that in the rush to conduct its investigation, the Committee does not do irreparable structural damage in the process,” they added.
The justices, however, rebuffed Trump’s emergency request in a Jan. 19 ruling. Within hours, the Jan. 6 House committee began receiving records, a development that panel Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), and Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) hailed as “a victory for the rule of law and American democracy.”
Last month’s ruling came in an unsigned, one-paragraph order. Justice Clarence Thomas, a staunch conservative, was alone in indicating that he would have granted Trump’s request.
The justices wrote that although the unprecedented dispute between a former president and lawmakers raised “serious and substantial concerns,” the Washington, D.C.,-based federal appeals court had suitably analyzed the issues at hand.
“Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the court wrote.
The Jan. 6 attack saw the deaths of four people, all Trump supporters, including a woman shot by Capitol Police. Separately, a Capitol Police officer suffered a fatal stroke a day after sustaining injuries in the riot, and four other law enforcement officers who responded that day have since died by suicide.
Nearly 800 rioters face charges.
The court’s move Tuesday not only marked a denial of Trump’s formal request for appeal. It also sent what is likely to be the final signal that the courts would not intervene at Trump’s request, as the judiciary so often did when Trump was president.
A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump himself has remained mum on the Supreme Court’s rulings against him, though he has previously not shied away from criticizing decisions he disagrees with, or even calling out justices by name.
Had the court acted on either of Trump’s requests, it could have set in motion the kind of protracted court fight Trump waged while in the White House, often mounting one appeal after another, with cases sometimes ping-ponging between the district court, intermediate appellate court and Supreme Court — then back again.
For instance, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance obtained a grand jury subpoena for Trump’s tax returns in August 2019. But it took his office 18 months of fighting Trump in the courts before Vance finally obtained the documents in February of last year.
By the time Trump left office in January 2020, numerous cases against him and his administration still hung in the balance.
Although Trump’s litigation has been brought to a timely conclusion, the committee faces separate legal challenges to its investigative authority in ongoing court clashes with former Trump adviser Stephen Bannon and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, as well as Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich and post-election legal adviser John Eastman.
The Jan. 6 committee has not established a hard deadline for completing its investigation, but Thompson has said the panel hopes to wrap up by early spring. The upcoming midterm elections, which many expect to hand control of the House to Republicans who would be likely to shut down the committee’s operations, present the panel with a de facto January deadline.
Diversity has given us all a choice.Just a reminder that Russia is America’s enemy.
rump raised a fine crop of ANTIAMERICAN traitors.
Whodatsaywhodat.
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2020
- 6,915
- 7,048
- 1,938
My God, you must be a Russian. Or a democrat.PC buy American
f this doesn't prove Putin had pee tapes of rump nothing does. rump still undermining our Nation.
------
If you were at all intelligent, you would be able to speak instead of cutting and pasting. I know you went to college in Colombia, but they must teach better than that.Here's your chance to prove that I am never wrong:
1.Democrats support censorship in opposition to the United States Constitution:
. Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors 2of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
2. Gun laws empower criminals. Democrats favor all sorts of limitations on folks defending themselves, but can’t name a single gun law that criminals obey…..only law abiding citizens, the ones that become sitting ducks to criminals.
3. What benefit does America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?
Why???
4. And a perfect example of Democrat’s inability to think, ….I can name dozens of Biden policies I voted against.....and Trump policies I voted for.
Let's see you name the Biden policies you voted for, or the Trump policies you voted against.
Orwell predicted the Pavlovian Conditioning that Democrats are subjected to, susceptible to, but named it for Emmanuel Goldstein.
5. Days after his inauguration, Biden banned the Keystone Pipeline, and ended the energy independence that Trump gifted to American….
…..and at the same time removed any bar to enriching Putin…..removed sanctions and OK’s Nord Stream 2.
Had both policies not been put in place, we’d be able to keep control of the gas station masquerading as a nation, Russia. Yet the brain-dead will claim Republicans favor the Kremlin.
OK….you voted for Democrats…..clearly an irrational action.
Can you explain the above five queries, or would you use an insanity defense????
You're not insane, just completely amoral. If a lie advances your ideology it is acceptable. Trump would be proud of you.Lie???
You know I never lie....and I'm never wrong.
Watch me force you to prove it.....leaving your speechless:
one can never get answers as to why they support the following:
1.Support censorship in opposition to the United States Constitution:
. Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors 2of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
2. Gun laws, when they can’t name a single gun law that criminals obey…..only law abiding citizens, the ones that become sitting ducks to criminals.
3. What benefit does America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?
4. And a perfect example of Democrat’s inability to think, ….I can name dozens of Biden policies I voted against.....and Trump policies I voted for.
Let's see you name the Biden policies you voted for, or the Trump policies you voted against.
5. Days after his inauguration, Biden banned the Keystone Pipeline, and ended the energy independence that Trump gifted to American….
…..and at the same time removed any bar to enriching Putin…..removed sanctions and OK’s Nord Stream 2
Had both policies not been put in place, we’d be able to keep control of the gas station masquerading as a nation, Russia.
OK….you voted for Democrats…..clearly an irrational action.
Can you explain the above five queries, or would you use an insanity defense????
If you wish to see my refuting of these recycled bits of trash, feel free to look for my previous posts.
If one of 'em is me, I've previously answered all your recycled cut & pastings. When you get something new to post be sure to ping me.Let's see.....that's three of 'em who chimed in to carp about the OP......yet none of 'em could answer the five questions.
I must be winning again.
B. Kidd
Diamond Member
You're not insane, just completely amoral. If a lie advances your ideology it is acceptable. Trump would be proud of you.
If you wish to see my refuting of these recycled bits of trash, feel free to look for my previous posts.
Do you seriously believe that she really thinks that you're worth it??
You're a legend in your own mind!
Why should I bother? She has her pre-programmed responses:I see that you can't address her post just swing for the backstop and fail epically.
- insult any who dare to differ with her
- attempt to change the subject
- post a 'whataboutism'
- post a graphic meme
- repost the original again
Neither of us are worth it.Do you seriously believe that she really thinks that you're worth it??
You're a legend in your own mind!
B. Kidd
Diamond Member
Neither of us are worth it.
Speak for yourself.
- Dec 28, 2011
- 59,225
- 52,570
- 3,600
Why would you listen to Iran?You have a good point there hon. None obviously!
But in the case of the 5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, all the parties to the agreement -1 had accomplished a deal that prevented nuclear weapons. Or at least was supposedly preventing nuclear weapons in Iran, which supposedly didn't wish to possess nuclear weapons.
And now in reference to Iran at least, it appears that they are imagining a fate as horrible as Iraq's in which they have learned that they do indeed need the nuclear deterrent!
It's hard to say, when weighed against Iran's claims that their religion prohibits nukes?
Currently America is the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism in that the US has started and led 40 +- wars of aggression since the end of WW2!
My other example of Iran, has started none, or possibly 'one' on Iraq, with US support.
- Sep 28, 2010
- 56,188
- 16,343
- 2,180
Most are speechless because they see right through you. For example:
Obama vetoed the XL extension legislation. Biden reversed a Trump EO.
Oil production had steadily increased since 2010. Biden was not president when the industry reduced production due to the sharp drop in demand.
It's par for your course. You always lie.
Biden banned the Keystone Pipeline, and ended the energy independence that Trump gifted to American….
Obama vetoed the XL extension legislation. Biden reversed a Trump EO.
Oil production had steadily increased since 2010. Biden was not president when the industry reduced production due to the sharp drop in demand.
It's par for your course. You always lie.
Last edited:
Don't feel bad, you're pretty worthless too, defending the indefensible as you are.Speak for yourself.
B. Kidd
Diamond Member
Don't feel bad, you're pretty worthless too, defending the indefensible as you are.
I only defend sovereignty, secure borders, and freedom and liberty, necessarily, in that order.
How about truth, justice, and the American way? I don't see lies and propaganda as worthy of defending, do you?I only defend sovereignty, secure borders, and freedom and liberty, necessarily, in that order.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 322
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 158
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 3K
- Views
- 42K
- Replies
- 3K
- Views
- 45K
- Replies
- 1K
- Views
- 12K
- Replies
- 4K
- Views
- 56K
- Replies
- 3K
- Views
- 40K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8158
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 474
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-