https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46841814

Texas Republicans fail to oust Muslim official over religion

What year is it ? Or is this another example on how republicans want to MAGA

Hey, at least they failed. Perhaps there is hope.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Embarrassing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another GOP peach

Steve King

I saw this earlier today. Not very surprising is it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

first of all..he's a Muslim Republican and an immigrant...who would have thought such a thing existed with the stupid liberal mantra

second the vote failed "by a vote of 139-49" so to make the generalization that it's "another example on how republicans want to MAGA" is stupid

"As an immigrant to this great country, I am honoured and privileged to receive the support of my fellow Republicans."

and if it had been argued that he ought to be ousted because he was more loyal to Christianity than the US(separation of church state and all that stuff)...I suspect a lot of leftist would celebrate :rude:

and the democrat us senators implying that a judicial candidates catholicism is problematic, is what, exactly?

andmthus was
disgusting, what they tried to do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

first of all..he's a Muslim Republican and an immigrant...who would have thought such a thing existed with the stupid liberal mantra

second the vote failed "by a vote of 139-49" so to make the generalization that it's "another example on how republicans want to MAGA" is stupid

"As an immigrant to this great country, I am honoured and privileged to receive the support of my fellow Republicans."



The only stupid mantra I see is your lame attempt to put a positive spin on the whole event ...

Its Simple its 2109 this vote should have never been Taken.. for the reason described.... period

and the democrat us senators implying that a judicial candidates catholicism is problematic, is what, exactly?

andmthus was
disgusting, what they tried to do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

again comparing things that are not remotely the same

and again you leave out contex the questing her in regards to a paper she had written 20 years earlier

but nice Try

again comparing things that are not remotely the same

and again you leave out contex the questing her in regards to a paper she had written 20 years earlier

but nice Try

I love it when you and Spence say "wrong", as if just saying it makes it so, with zero support. In both cases, bigots were using religion to disqualify someone from a position. True or false?

You reflexively disagree with anything that makes liberalism look bad, you can't explain why, because you don't know why.

I love it when you and Spence say "wrong", as if just saying it makes it so, with zero support. In both cases, bigots were using religion to disqualify someone from a position. True or false?

You reflexively disagree with anything that makes liberalism look bad, you can't explain why, because you don't know why.



you need to do more reading ,before you try to square your circles


you cant even understand the difference between a vote to remove some because of their religion

Or a question about someone religious teachings and background and if these things will influence their sentencing if the law goes against these teachings (death penalty) asked by a fellow catholic .... seeing the question arise from a written in a paper written by the person being asked the question
20 years earlier ?

you need to do more reading ,before you try to square your circles


you cant even understand the difference between a vote to remove some because of their religion

Or a question about someone religious teachings and background and if these things will influence their sentencing if the law goes against these teachings (death penalty) asked by a fellow catholic .... seeing the question arise from a written in a paper written by the person being asked the question
20 years earlier ?

the senators feel his religion disqualified him. that’s bigotry.

if it’s ok for a judge to have a conscience formed by listening to Ivy League professors, or by watching MSNBC, then it’s ok for a conscience to be informed by religion.

my moral compass isn’t inferior to anyone else’s, just because it’s partly based on Christianity.

if ginsberg retires while trump is in there, he’s probably going to pick Amy Barrett, a woman who is a devout catholic. that will be a problem for the bigots in the senate, attacking a woman. it would be fascinating to watch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the senators feel his religion disqualified him. that’s bigotry.

if it’s ok for a judge to have a conscience formed by listening to Ivy League professors, or by watching MSNBC, then it’s ok for a conscience to be informed by religion.

my moral compass isn’t inferior to anyone else’s, just because it’s partly based on Christianity.

if ginsberg retires while trump is in there, he’s probably going to pick Amy Barrett, a woman who is a devout catholic. that will be a problem for the bigots in the senate, attacking a woman. it would be fascinating to watch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


and where did the senators explicitly state that Her being catholic disqualified Her ?? ...

and where did the senators explicitly state that Her being catholic disqualified Her ?? ...
They didn’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and where did the senators explicitly state that Her being catholic disqualified Her ?? ...

when barrett was nominated for
an appeals court
position, the sente democrats grilled her about her catholicism. one of them ( feinstein?) said “ the dogma is loud in you.

should
gop senators ask judicial nominees if they watch msnbc or cnn?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They didn’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the hell they didn’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They didn’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but keep in mind, feinstein has no issue with sonya sotomayor
saying that hispanic females
make better judges than white men. but being a catholic, can’t have that .
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/dianne-feinstein-amy-coney-barrett-senator-attacks-catholic-judicial-nominee/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the hell they didn’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No they really didn’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No they really didn’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well, when you make THAT compelling a case, how can I attempt to rebut?

The best you can do is say "no".

well, when you make THAT compelling a case, how can I attempt to rebut?

The best you can do is say "no".
I could give you a detailed and well reasoned explanation of why you’re wrong but I’m guessing you wouldn’t buy into it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I could give you a detailed and well reasoned explanation of why you’re wrong but I’m guessing you wouldn’t buy into it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s like you are talking to a wall. Wait.. maybe that’s why they want one so bad. It’s their spirit animal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s like you are talking to a wall. Wait.. maybe that’s why they want one so bad. It’s their spirit animal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Hahahhaahhahahahhahhahah
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Embarrassing

Things that make you go hmmmmm

Separation of church and state mean anything to you?
I doubt it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s like you are talking to a wall. Wait.. maybe that’s why they want one so bad. It’s their spirit animal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are the People of Wall Mart.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are the People of Wall Mart.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are not as intellectual as you. You're a cut above.