Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[1984Echoes]

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.

[1984Echoes]

29 minutes ago, Archie said:

Also your ideas of what a conservative is are off if you think McCain is one.

McCain, when still alive, was a conservative.

Edited October 14, 2021 by 1984Echoes

[1984Echoes]

29 minutes ago, Archie said:

Also your ideas of what a conservative is are off if you think McCain is one.

Better yet: give us your definition of conservative.

[Motown Bombers]

The real authentic people's conservative is the billionaire heir from Queens. 

[1984Echoes]

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. 

[1984Echoes]

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The real authentic people's conservative is the billionaire heir from Queens. 

HAHAHA!!!!

Good one.

[Motown Bombers]

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. 

[1984Echoes]

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.

[oblong]

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.  

[Archie]

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.  

[smr-nj]

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)

 

[Archie]

Why would they vote in favor of something that Nutty Nancy was going to control.  The Impeachment hearings were a joke with Shift and Nadler running it.  Why would they give her another chance to do this?  

[CMRivdogs]

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…

 

[Tiger337]

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 October 14, 2021 by Tiger337

[smr-nj]

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.

[Archie]

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.

[romad1]

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.  

[Archie]

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.

[pfife]

oh boy

[pfife]

 

[pfife]

 

[Tigerbomb13]

 

[Motown Bombers]

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.

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

... Who could blame her with the trail of bodies around the Clintons.

Show me your facts on this.

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, smr-nj said:

There needs to be accountability. ...

Archie Bunker has no interest in accountability.

None.

Whatsoever.

Not interested in the facts. Not interested in the truth. Not interested in Democracy.

One interest, and one interest only: Sycophancy.