Jump to content

Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)


chasfh

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Archie said:

I wouldn't show up to that either so good for Bannon for avoiding the circus.  The entire hearing is as much of a sham as the impeachment hearing were.  Nutty Nancy kicked Republicans off the so-call committee because they wouldn't automatically side with her.  Now her sham committee is packed with Trump haters.  A lot of you guys could have been on that committee.  The verdict was in before it the hearings started. 

Sounds like a lot of crocodile tears to me.

Trump supporters tried to overthrow the Constitution of the United States.

They should all be executed for treason.

BTW: The only sham is Republicans. They are, presently, a sham party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Archie said:

This is an example of what is wrong with our country.  People will allow their hate of a man to destroy a country.

https://news.yahoo.com/anti-trump-republicans-back-vulnerable-115315092.html

An example of what is wrong with our country:  People that allow their fascist/ cultish sycophancy to destroy a country = Trump supporters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Better yet: give us your definition of conservative.

He really tipped his hand on what a conservative is. Cheney cannot be trusted even though she was one of the most conservative votes in congress. Interesting choice of words in trust. All she did was criticize Trump. Her replacement was much harsher in her criticism of Trump but can be trusted now since she has now publicly pledged her full support for Trump. It's a cult and that means supporting the leader. That is your definition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

He really tipped his hand on what a conservative is. Cheney cannot be trusted even though she was one of the most conservative votes in congress. Interesting choice of words in trust. All she did was criticize Trump. Her replacement was much harsher in her criticism of Trump but can be trusted now since she has now publicly pledged her full support for Trump. It's a cult and that means supporting the leader. That is your definition. 

I agree.

Sycophancy is the current definition of "conservative".

There is no other acceptable definition (in certain peoples' minds...).

If I call myself a Teddy Roosevelt Republican (I do), I'd be laughed out of the room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Archie said:

I wouldn't show up to that either so good for Bannon for avoiding the circus.  The entire hearing is as much of a sham as the impeachment hearing were.  Nutty Nancy kicked Republicans off the so-call committee because they wouldn't automatically side with her.  Now her sham committee is packed with Trump haters.  A lot of you guys could have been on that committee.  The verdict was in before it the hearings started. 

So your litmus test on whether something is credible or not is dependent upon feelings towards Trump.  That’s interesting because my litmus test on intelligence is their feelings towards Trump.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oblong said:

So your litmus test on whether something is credible or not is dependent upon feelings towards Trump.  That’s interesting because my litmus test on intelligence is their feelings towards Trump.  

My litmus test on if something is credible or not is someone is stacking the deck to get the result they want.  Nutty Nancy and her clan have stacked the deck.  Nothing worthwhile will come out of it that way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Archie said:

My litmus test on if something is credible or not is someone is stacking the deck to get the result they want.  Nutty Nancy and her clan have stacked the deck.  Nothing worthwhile will come out of it that way.  

Lol.
Does this even ring a ____ing bell with you???

(no censor. Ha. I’ll censor myself)

 

EA030ABF-E733-4D64-BD83-C98C818D5890.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Archie said:

My litmus test on if something is credible or not is someone is stacking the deck to get the result they want.  Nutty Nancy and her clan have stacked the deck.  Nothing worthwhile will come out of it that way.  

Sounds like Cocaine Mitch and the rest of your party stacking the decks to get the people they want to be eligible to vote while stacking the deck against minorities.

I grew up with leaders like Everett Dirksen, Hugh Scott, Charles Percy, Mark Hatfield. Linwood Holton, Richard Poff, John Dalton here in Virginia. They were true to the conservative values of the 1960s and ‘70s. No Trumpublican can hold a candle to these statesmen. The Republican Party has killed the Party of Lincoln, Taft and Eisenhower in favor of the thoughts of Chairman Putin…

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Archie said:

I wouldn't show up to that either so good for Bannon for avoiding the circus.  The entire hearing is as much of a sham as the impeachment hearing were.  Nutty Nancy kicked Republicans off the so-call committee because they wouldn't automatically side with her.  Now her sham committee is packed with Trump haters.  A lot of you guys could have been on that committee.  The verdict was in before it the hearings started. 

I agree the committee is a waste of time.  I already know Trump and those around him including everybody involved in the insurrection are a disgrace.  Trump broadcast the whole thing ahead of time.  There's not much to analyze.  

Edited by Tiger337
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There needs to be accountability. 
If you are called to testify before Congress, and you don’t even show up, charge them with contempt of Congress. You can’t just throw up your hands and let it go.

They can come when subpoenaed, and refuse to answer. That’s their right. That’s reasonably in the realm of normalcy.

Complete disregard and refusal to appear just should not be tolerated. Period.

from what I’ve been reading, it doesn’t look like even past the charge of contempt of Congress, and a conviction,  that they can be sent to imprisonment. There isn’t , after all , a specific “congressional” jail, and they wouldn’t be sent to a federal jail… because this is congressional, not federal. I suppose they can sequester them in a room in Congress until they come to their senses, but who needs that circus.

But it needs to be on the record somewhere that they were held in contempt of Congress. You cannot just disregard this.

I find this more infuriating every damn day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

There needs to be accountability. 
If you are called to testify before Congress, and you don’t even show up, charge them with contempt of Congress. You can’t just throw up your hands and let it go.

They can come when subpoenaed, and refuse to answer. That’s their right. That’s reasonably in the realm of normalcy.

Complete disregard and refusal to appear just should not be tolerated. Period.

from what I’ve been reading, it doesn’t look like even past the charge of contempt of Congress, and a conviction,  that they can be sent to imprisonment. There isn’t , after all , a specific “congressional” jail, and they wouldn’t be sent to a federal jail… because this is congressional, not federal. I suppose they can sequester them in a room in Congress until they come to their senses, but who needs that circus.

But it needs to be on the record somewhere that they were held in contempt of Congress. You cannot just disregard this.

I find this more infuriating every damn day.

You have a point that it might be better to show up but not say anything.  I don't think there's much they can do.  I can't remember the specifics or the hearing (Benghazi?) but it was led by Republicans that some people refused to show and nothing happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

There needs to be accountability. 
If you are called to testify before Congress, and you don’t even show up, charge them with contempt of Congress. You can’t just throw up your hands and let it go.

They can come when subpoenaed, and refuse to answer. That’s their right. That’s reasonably in the realm of normalcy.

Complete disregard and refusal to appear just should not be tolerated. Period.

from what I’ve been reading, it doesn’t look like even past the charge of contempt of Congress, and a conviction,  that they can be sent to imprisonment. There isn’t , after all , a specific “congressional” jail, and they wouldn’t be sent to a federal jail… because this is congressional, not federal. I suppose they can sequester them in a room in Congress until they come to their senses, but who needs that circus.

But it needs to be on the record somewhere that they were held in contempt of Congress. You cannot just disregard this.

I find this more infuriating every damn day.

Concur.  Susan McDougal standard applies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Concur.  Susan McDougal standard applies.  

Susan McDougal was put in jail because she refused to answer questions before a grand jury.   I think she stated her name and that was it.  It had nothing to do with Congress.  Who could blame her with the trail of bodies around the Clintons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Archie said:

Susan McDougal was put in jail because she refused to answer questions before a grand jury.   I think she stated her name and that was it.  It had nothing to do with Congress.  Who could blame her with the trail of bodies around the Clintons.

For someone who claims they are about facts, you sure do like to dabble in conspiracy theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      285
    • Most Online
      625

    Newest Member
    Hinchman11
    Joined
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...