Maher is incapable of being decent, but he’s not incapable of being correct. A very rare liberal who can criticize his side when they deserve it.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-maher-hunter-biden-left-wing-media

He’s had negative things to say afoot the left seems quite a bit lately.
Maybe he’s seen the light or maybe he’s terminally ill and wants to make penance with god for fear of ending up in hell for all the lies he’s been spewing for decades.

He hates the right. Thinks their a bunch of foul mouth dingbats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maher is incapable of being decent, but he’s not incapable of being correct. A very rare liberal who can criticize his side when they deserve it.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-maher-hunter-biden-left-wing-media


Maher is incapable of being decent,

But I’ll use his opinion because it suits my narrative.. lol

While conservatives are yelling

Media’s suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop was election interference

While ignoring Trump and others Tried to actually steal the election

Love conservatives logic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maher is incapable of being decent,

But I’ll use his opinion because it suits my narrative.. lol

While conservatives are yelling

Media’s suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop was election interference

While ignoring Trump and others Tried to actually steal the election

Love conservatives logic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i can differentiate between being a jerk, and being correct. you can’t.

Maher is right, they willfully buried the story, twitter and facebook censored it, they slandered people as russian agents who wanted to discuss it, until the story couldn’t hurt democrats politically. then they declared it was fair game

if the gop takes control of the house, which is a 95% likelihood, they’ll have hearings on this all day. maybe they’ll take a page out of “democrat logic” and impeach Biden. that’s what i sincerely hope they do.

the conservative logic seems
pretty popular with independents and hispanics at the moment, no?

A huge percentage of hispanics are catholics. they don’t want to be told
there’s no such thing as gender, and that ninth month abortions are swell.

if democrats could be moderate democrats, they’d be unstoppable outside of TX and SC. A democrat like Bill Clinton would win 40 states. 40. But they can’t.

their answer to all the failures at the moment, is to worsen the crisis at the border. is that “liberal logic”? keep shooting themselves in the d*ck? Keep pushing independents to the right?

seems to me that the DNC knows they’re going down, so they’re trying to empty out their wish list while they can, implement all the radical
liberal policies while
they still can.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So Trump lost the election so we’ll aka conservatives and sore losers will blame the media . And Transgenders . Suggesting he’s Sons Laptop had anything to do with his father..





And we’ll excuse Trump for attempting to steal the election.. believing he was treated badly

while they Dems implement all the radical
liberal policies

Spoken like a true cult member
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So Trump lost the election so we’ll aka conservatives and sore losers will blame the media . And Transgenders . Suggesting he’s Sons Laptop had anything to do with his father..





And we’ll excuse Trump for attempting to steal the election.. believing he was treated badly

while they Dems implement all the radical
liberal policies

Spoken like a true cult member
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

of all the things you’re claiming i said, i didn’t say any of them.

let me ask you, why did the media all work together to shut that story down, in the month before the election? why did they say it was russian disinformation?

there was never, ever a speck of proof it was russian disinformation. but that sounded great for democrats.

if the media wasn’t trying to protect biden, then you explain why they did what they did

you’re the one who gives your side a pass for trying to steal
an election. you refuse to comment of what congressional democrats did in 2016.

for the 100th time, let’s see who’s the cult member. tell us some
meaningful
policies on which you disagree with democrats

and again, why did you refer to desantis’ law as the don’t say gay bill, when there’s nothing in the bill
that treats homosexuality differently than heterosexuality?

I’d say you never had reason to believe it was an anti gay bull ( because it’s not anti gay), but you heard liberals say it, so you nodded like a good livestock and repeated it like a good sheep.

make that wrong. please make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ron passing a bill in the state where Republicans have been charge since 1999 passed this bill to protect
Heterosexual is comical it’s not even taught now k-3rd grade


teachings on sexual orientation or gender identity would be banned “in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”


For starters, criticism that the “Don’t Say Gay” bill does not in fact say “gay” anywhere in its text is true.

does, however, contain the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” each twice.

But legal experts say that whether the bill prohibits the word “gay” itself is a “distraction.”

In the same way that critical race theory isn’t being taught in schools, that hasn’t stopped people like the governor of Florida from deploying the term ‘critical race theory’ in efforts to engage in certain kinds of political maneuverings,” said Charlton Copeland, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law

Critics have said the language of this provision could open districts and educators to lawsuits from parents who believe any conversation about LGBTQ people or issues to be inappropriate, regardless of their child’s age.

Legal experts agree,


So like I’ve said these. Bill are all based on a lie a fantasy constructed by the GOP and fed to the base as truth and DeSantis, who is widely seen as eyeing a run for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination and has signaled his support for the measure several times,

It’s all an election Stunt
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ron passing a bill in the state where Republicans have been charge since 1999 passed this bill to protect
Heterosexual is comical it’s not even taught now k-3rd grade


teachings on sexual orientation or gender identity would be banned “in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”


For starters, criticism that the “Don’t Say Gay” bill does not in fact say “gay” anywhere in its text is true.

does, however, contain the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” each twice.

But legal experts say that whether the bill prohibits the word “gay” itself is a “distraction.”

In the same way that critical race theory isn’t being taught in schools, that hasn’t stopped people like the governor of Florida from deploying the term ‘critical race theory’ in efforts to engage in certain kinds of political maneuverings,” said Charlton Copeland, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law

Critics have said the language of this provision could open districts and educators to lawsuits from parents who believe any conversation about LGBTQ people or issues to be inappropriate, regardless of their child’s age.

Legal experts agree,


So like I’ve said these. Bill are all based on a lie a fantasy constructed by the GOP and fed to the base as truth and DeSantis, who is widely seen as eyeing a run for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination and has signaled his support for the measure several times,

It’s all an election Stunt
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re opposed to a bill, which prevents sex talk in grades k-3?

you think kids as young as 4, should have to hear about sex in school?

meanwhile his approval
ratings are soaring, and everyone thinks the democrats are in for a drubbing.

keep telling parents it’s bigoted to want to keep toddlers away from these topics. it’s a foolproof strategy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ron passing a bill in the state where Republicans have been charge since 1999 passed this bill to protect
Heterosexual is comical it’s not even taught now k-3rd grade


teachings on sexual orientation or gender identity would be banned “in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”


For starters, criticism that the “Don’t Say Gay” bill does not in fact say “gay” anywhere in its text is true.

does, however, contain the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” each twice.

But legal experts say that whether the bill prohibits the word “gay” itself is a “distraction.”

In the same way that critical race theory isn’t being taught in schools, that hasn’t stopped people like the governor of Florida from deploying the term ‘critical race theory’ in efforts to engage in certain kinds of political maneuverings,” said Charlton Copeland, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law

Critics have said the language of this provision could open districts and educators to lawsuits from parents who believe any conversation about LGBTQ people or issues to be inappropriate, regardless of their child’s age.

Legal experts agree,


So like I’ve said these. Bill are all based on a lie a fantasy constructed by the GOP and fed to the base as truth and DeSantis, who is widely seen as eyeing a run for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination and has signaled his support for the measure several times,

It’s all an election Stunt
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how could you possibly know what’s not taught in florida?

“it’s an election stunt.”

kind of like passing a federal
law against lynching? is there an epidemic of
lynchings that missed?

are there any states where it’s currently legal to lynch blacks, and the feds needed to step in?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how could you possibly know what’s not taught in florida?

“it’s an election stunt.”

kind of like passing a federal
law against lynching? is there an epidemic of
lynchings that missed?

are there any states where it’s currently legal to lynch blacks, and the feds needed to step in?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Children who know about sex know when someone is trying to abuse/groom them. Every parent should be talking to their kids about sex. My kids used proper anatomy words so if they ever came home with a private part nickname, I would have known that someone had been talking to them inappropriately.

Why would anyone object to a law against lynching?
Afraid you’ll lose the right to lynch?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Children who know about sex know when someone is trying to abuse/groom them. Every parent should be talking to their kids about sex. My kids used proper anatomy words so if they ever came home with a private part nickname, I would have known that someone had been talking to them inappropriately.

Why would anyone object to a law against lynching?
Afraid you’ll lose the right to lynch?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Should there be a law specifically against stabbing? Or against bashing heads in with a baseball bat? Should there be a separate law for each method of murder? How about one law that covers all forms?

Oh yeah, we already have that.

In Michigan there’s four murder laws
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Children who know about sex know when someone is trying to abuse/groom them. Every parent should be talking to their kids about sex. My kids used proper anatomy words so if they ever came home with a private part nickname, I would have known that someone had been talking to them inappropriately.

Why would anyone object to a law against lynching?
Afraid you’ll lose the right to lynch?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s the parents job, to decide when their kid is ready for that.

you can teach kids not to be too trusting with strangers, without discussing the pros and cons of different kinds of gender identity. the FL law prohibits discussion of gender identity and personal
sexual choices. it doesn’t prevent all safety discussions.

you’re misinformed or lying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s the parents job, to decide when their kid is ready for that.

you can teach kids not to be too trusting with strangers, without discussing the pros and cons of different kinds of gender identity. the FL law prohibits discussion of gender identity and personal
sexual choices. it doesn’t prevent all safety discussions.

you’re misinformed or lying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Floriduh’s latest political bill is just the resurrection of an old trope.

The bill’s proponents insist that the measure has nothing to do with harming the dignity of gay individuals but rather is aimed at ensuring age-appropriate sexual education. A series of tweets by Governor DeSantis’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, however, suggests otherwise. “The bill that liberals inaccurately call ‘Don’t Say Gay’ would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill,” Ms. Pushaw wrote. “Grooming” is a term for the tactics sexual predators use to manipulate and exploit their victims. “If you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill,” she said in a second tweet, “you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children.”

The conflation of gay people, and gay men in particular, with pedophiles is an old and pernicious stereotype. In 1988 the British Parliament passed a measure preventing local authorities from “promoting homosexuality” or “the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.” Known as Section 28, it stayed on the books until 2003. Ten years later, the Russian Duma unanimously passed legislation “for the purpose of protecting children from information advocating for a denial of traditional family values” prohibiting the dissemination of “propaganda” of nontraditional sexual relationships.

While branding gay people as child molesters has been a staple of right-wing rhetoric around the world, there has long existed a strain of American libertarian conservatism that deems the legal enshrinement of such prejudices as an invasion of privacy and a dangerous enhancement of state power. During a similar episode of anti-gay moral panic, none other than Ronald Reagan — whose record on L.G.B.T. issues is most often defined by his shameful inaction around H.I.V. and AIDS during his presidency — turned to his libertarian roots to thwart such bigotry, rather than promote it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Floriduh’s latest political bill is just the resurrection of an old trope.

The bill’s proponents insist that the measure has nothing to do with harming the dignity of gay individuals but rather is aimed at ensuring age-appropriate sexual education. A series of tweets by Governor DeSantis’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, however, suggests otherwise. “The bill that liberals inaccurately call ‘Don’t Say Gay’ would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill,” Ms. Pushaw wrote. “Grooming” is a term for the tactics sexual predators use to manipulate and exploit their victims. “If you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill,” she said in a second tweet, “you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children.”

The conflation of gay people, and gay men in particular, with pedophiles is an old and pernicious stereotype. In 1988 the British Parliament passed a measure preventing local authorities from “promoting homosexuality” or “the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.” Known as Section 28, it stayed on the books until 2003. Ten years later, the Russian Duma unanimously passed legislation “for the purpose of protecting children from information advocating for a denial of traditional family values” prohibiting the dissemination of “propaganda” of nontraditional sexual relationships.

While branding gay people as child molesters has been a staple of right-wing rhetoric around the world, there has long existed a strain of American libertarian conservatism that deems the legal enshrinement of such prejudices as an invasion of privacy and a dangerous enhancement of state power. During a similar episode of anti-gay moral panic, none other than Ronald Reagan — whose record on L.G.B.T. issues is most often defined by his shameful inaction around H.I.V. and AIDS during his presidency — turned to his libertarian roots to thwart such bigotry, rather than promote it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

read the bill, then tell us what’s bigoted against gays.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete you call it flori-duh.

it’s a state with zero income tax yet a booming economy.

it’s a state that managed covid far better then NY, which is governed by the guy Biden said was “the gold standard” in terms of managing covid. But FL had lower death rates, despite having a larger elderly population, and despite not locking down as strictly, despite not closing schools as long. That’s called “winning.”.

People are moving from NY to flori-duh in massive numbers, so clearly the country doesn’t agree with your assessment. but you know better!


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

read the bill, then tell us what’s bigoted against gays.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To persuade him to oppose Proposition 6, Mr. Mixner used Mr. Reagan’s own language: “Anarchy,” he told the former governor, who had used that word to describe campus unrest at Berkeley, would be unleashed in classrooms statewide as students lodged spurious charges of homosexuality against their teachers. Disciplinary proceedings would in turn spark court challenges, and the power of state authorities over school boards would increase — a development that ought to raise alarms with any advocate of local control, as Mr. Reagan was. Finally, endless witch hunts against teachers would swell administrative budgets and legal costs, bugbears of every small-government conservative.

Mr. Reagan, Mr. Mixner told me four decades later, “almost grinned” as he heard the case, “like he was looking for an excuse not to support these people.”

A few days later, Mr. Mixner’s gambit paid off. “I don’t approve of teaching a so-called gay lifestyle in our schools,” Mr. Reagan announced. But Proposition 6 “has the potential of infringing on basic rights of privacy and perhaps even constitutional rights.” He made a more substantive case in his syndicated column published a week before the election, refuting the claim that gays had a greater propensity to be child molesters and the canard that they joined the teaching profession to recruit impressionable youngsters.

On Election Day, voters rejected Proposition 6, 58 percent to 42 percent, a nearly exact reversal of what the polls indicated just two months earlier. “That one single endorsement — Ronald Reagan’s — turned the polls around,” Mr. Briggs groused after the election. The Rev. Jerry Falwell, then emerging as a leader of an increasingly powerful voting bloc, evangelical Christians, declared that Mr. Reagan had taken “the political rather than the moral route” and would “have to face the music from Christian voters two years from now.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To persuade him to oppose Proposition 6, Mr. Mixner used Mr. Reagan’s own language: “Anarchy,” he told the former governor, who had used that word to describe campus unrest at Berkeley, would be unleashed in classrooms statewide as students lodged spurious charges of homosexuality against their teachers. Disciplinary proceedings would in turn spark court challenges, and the power of state authorities over school boards would increase — a development that ought to raise alarms with any advocate of local control, as Mr. Reagan was. Finally, endless witch hunts against teachers would swell administrative budgets and legal costs, bugbears of every small-government conservative.

Mr. Reagan, Mr. Mixner told me four decades later, “almost grinned” as he heard the case, “like he was looking for an excuse not to support these people.”

A few days later, Mr. Mixner’s gambit paid off. “I don’t approve of teaching a so-called gay lifestyle in our schools,” Mr. Reagan announced. But Proposition 6 “has the potential of infringing on basic rights of privacy and perhaps even constitutional rights.” He made a more substantive case in his syndicated column published a week before the election, refuting the claim that gays had a greater propensity to be child molesters and the canard that they joined the teaching profession to recruit impressionable youngsters.

On Election Day, voters rejected Proposition 6, 58 percent to 42 percent, a nearly exact reversal of what the polls indicated just two months earlier. “That one single endorsement — Ronald Reagan’s — turned the polls around,” Mr. Briggs groused after the election. The Rev. Jerry Falwell, then emerging as a leader of an increasingly powerful voting bloc, evangelical Christians, declared that Mr. Reagan had taken “the political rather than the moral route” and would “have to face the music from Christian voters two years from now.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not sure what any of that no
sense had to do with the bill.

for the second time, point to language that’s actually in the bill, which is bigoted against gays, please?

you guys keep saying it’s anti gay, i keep asking which specific language is anti gay, then you go on some rant.

which means even you know it’s not anti gay.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not sure what any of that no
sense had to do with the bill.

for the second time, point to language that’s actually in the bill, which is bigoted against gays, please?

you guys keep saying it’s anti gay, i keep asking which specific language is anti gay, then you go on some rant.

which means even you know it’s not anti gay.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then answer this

If a classroom is discussing a book about a picnic, and a girl says she went on a picnic with her two moms, and her brother who used to be her sister, and the other kids ask the teacher questions because their parents didn't tell them this happens, how does the teacher respond?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then answer this

If a classroom is discussing a book about a picnic, and a girl says she went on a picnic with her two moms, and her brother who used to be her sister, and the other kids ask the teacher questions because their parents didn't tell them this happens, how does the teacher respond?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so you dodged my question twice, then expect me to answer yours?

the answer is simple. the teacher says to the kids, “ask your parents. it’s their job, not mine, to discuss the pros and cons of different lifestyle choices. “

how is that answer favoring any one group, over any other group?

i answered your question, so show me the same courtesy and answer mine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so you dodged my question twice, then expect me to answer yours?

the answer is simple. the teacher says to the kids, “ask your parents. it’s their job, not mine, to discuss the pros and cons of different lifestyle choices. “

how is that answer favoring any one group, over any other group?

i answered your question, so show me the same courtesy and answer mine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What’s a “lifestyle”?

Ostensibly, HB 1557 is about protecting the rights of parents, which sounds laudable enough. But a close read of the text shows it to be an overly broad piece of legislation that requires school mental-health counselors to “out” LGBTQ+ children to their parents and makes any discussion of LGBTQ+ issues or identities practically forbidden because parents could start a state investigation and sue for damages any time they feel aggrieved. As a result, the bill endangers the lives of children who already suffer disproportionately high rates of houselessness and self-harm. Really, it’s the “Don’t Discuss Anything About Queer or Trans Existence and Don’t Counsel Trans or Gay Kids (Instead, You Must Out Them to Their Parents) or Else Parents Can Force a State Investigation of the School, Get Money Damages, and Probably Get You Fired” bill.

The bill states that classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity is barred “in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

Florida Rep. Joe Harding — the House bill’s sponsor — said at a Feb. 17 hearing that classroom instruction on such topics could be restricted beyond third grade if it is determined not to be age or developmentally appropriate.

“Anytime a law is vague there’s going to be litigation,” Jane Windsor, a Florida attorney who specializes in education law, told PolitiFact. “They did not draft it well, so it could be clearly understood past the third grade.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What’s a “lifestyle”?

Ostensibly, HB 1557 is about protecting the rights of parents, which sounds laudable enough. But a close read of the text shows it to be an overly broad piece of legislation that requires school mental-health counselors to “out” LGBTQ+ children to their parents and makes any discussion of LGBTQ+ issues or identities practically forbidden because parents could start a state investigation and sue for damages any time they feel aggrieved. As a result, the bill endangers the lives of children who already suffer disproportionately high rates of houselessness and self-harm. Really, it’s the “Don’t Discuss Anything About Queer or Trans Existence and Don’t Counsel Trans or Gay Kids (Instead, You Must Out Them to Their Parents) or Else Parents Can Force a State Investigation of the School, Get Money Damages, and Probably Get You Fired” bill.

The bill states that classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity is barred “in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

Florida Rep. Joe Harding — the House bill’s sponsor — said at a Feb. 17 hearing that classroom instruction on such topics could be restricted beyond third grade if it is determined not to be age or developmentally appropriate.

“Anytime a law is vague there’s going to be litigation,” Jane Windsor, a Florida attorney who specializes in education law, told PolitiFact. “They did not draft it well, so it could be clearly understood past the third grade.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you couldn’t answer. you’re such a coward it’s unbelievable.

your long repost says that by forbidding teachers in grades k-3 to celebrate homosexuality, that puts kids’ lives in danger.

ok. show me the data which says that kids age 4-8 were committing suicide before we started ramming this down everyone’s throats in school. show me the data to say that the only thing saving these kids ( grades k-3, mind you) is the ability to discuss their homosexuality in school.

Nonsense.

the bill applies to grades K-3. And a majority of floridians want it. have you seen Desantis’ approval ratings? a tad higher than Biden’s.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim you never watched the show did you. You saw the headline and ran with it!
I guess you missed what he said next

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U9MX37aA6lM
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim you never watched the show did you. You saw the headline and ran with it!
I guess you missed what he said next

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U9MX37aA6lM
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



i’m aware maher hates republicans and foxnews. that doesn’t mean he’s wrong, when he attacks the left for burying a story i. order to help biden get elected.

a lot of reliable liberals are scared for november. are you going to claim you aren’t aware of that?

chuck todd is losing his marbles over what he sees coming.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In Michigan there’s four murder laws
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are not about the type or form weapons used. Lynching will fit nicely into one of the laws. A separate law for lynching is not required.

They are not about the type or form weapons used. Lynching will fit nicely into one of the laws. A separate law for lynching is not required.

it is required when everyone on the left knows what’s coming in november, unless they convince voters that republicans are in favor of lynching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As we wake to pictures and reports of horrifying war crimes committed by Vladimir Putin's forces in Ukraine, innocents, hands tied behind their backs, lined up and executed, children, women, men, thrown into ditches or left in the streets, I would remind you of this:
"Why do I care what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? I'm serious. Why shouldn't I root for Russia? Which by the way I am."
-- Tucker Carlson

"This is genius. Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine -- of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that's wonderful."
-- Donald J. Trump

"I'd say that's pretty smart. He's [Putin] taking over a country -- really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people, and just walking right in."
-- Donald. J. Trump

Russia learned from the Nazi invasion of their own country. They took that brutal lesson to heart, target the innocents, burn the hospitals, slaughter civilians, destroy the infrastructure.

Trump, Carlson, et al look upon that horror and they see ... strength.
You have only to look to Fox News and OAN right now to see those who speak for Republican ideology threatening similar revenge on Americans for imagined slights. See the comment of Ron DeSantis, Florida Republicans, Laura Ingraham, et al.
That's how it starts.

That rhetoric. Revenge. Getting even. Using the power of government and the military to crush your opponents. That's where it starts.

And it ends with the bodies of innocents shot in the head and dumped in a ditch.

You remember when Trump as President threatened to send the Army into Chicago?

And Republicans cheered that idea?

When he paraded tanks through our capitol?

And Republican cheered?

Do you?

It's all part of the same mindset, one that ends in genocide. Every time.

We must not only stop what's happening in Ukraine, we must stop it before it happens HERE.

Case in point, right here.

This is how you justify genocide. This is how you justify the same sort of slaughter that's happening in Ukraine right now.

This is how you see Vladimir Putin as strength. Right here. This right here.

Rep. Lisa McClain (MI) says that migrants crossing the border are all “terrorists, convicts, murderers and rapists.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As we wake to pictures and reports of horrifying war crimes committed by Vladimir Putin's forces in Ukraine, innocents, hands tied behind their backs, lined up and executed, children, women, men, thrown into ditches or left in the streets, I would remind you of this:
"Why do I care what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? I'm serious. Why shouldn't I root for Russia? Which by the way I am."
-- Tucker Carlson

"This is genius. Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine -- of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that's wonderful."
-- Donald J. Trump

"I'd say that's pretty smart. He's [Putin] taking over a country -- really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people, and just walking right in."
-- Donald. J. Trump

Russia learned from the Nazi invasion of their own country. They took that brutal lesson to heart, target the innocents, burn the hospitals, slaughter civilians, destroy the infrastructure.

Trump, Carlson, et al look upon that horror and they see ... strength.
You have only to look to Fox News and OAN right now to see those who speak for Republican ideology threatening similar revenge on Americans for imagined slights. See the comment of Ron DeSantis, Florida Republicans, Laura Ingraham, et al.
That's how it starts.

That rhetoric. Revenge. Getting even. Using the power of government and the military to crush your opponents. That's where it starts.

And it ends with the bodies of innocents shot in the head and dumped in a ditch.

You remember when Trump as President threatened to send the Army into Chicago?

And Republicans cheered that idea?

When he paraded tanks through our capitol?

And Republican cheered?

Do you?

It's all part of the same mindset, one that ends in genocide. Every time.

We must not only stop what's happening in Ukraine, we must stop it before it happens HERE.

Case in point, right here.

This is how you justify genocide. This is how you justify the same sort of slaughter that's happening in Ukraine right now.

This is how you see Vladimir Putin as strength. Right here. This right here.

Rep. Lisa McClain (MI) says that migrants crossing the border are all “terrorists, convicts, murderers and rapists.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you’re uneasy with the republicans aggressive flexing of muscles now, wait until november pete.

obama’s IRS was targeting conservatives when he was potus. Where was your concern for political retribution then? or for Carter Paige?

oh, you’re going to have a rough november.

if trump had sent the army into places like chicago, more blacks would be alive right now. those places are third world cities

you have come completely unhinged. trump speaks for all
republicans? when Hilary slut shamed her husbands victims on national tv, did that cause you to vote for someone else? seriously, why is it on when you support a morally bankrupt candidate? but a character flaw when anyone else does it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As we wake to pictures and reports of horrifying war crimes committed by Vladimir Putin's forces in Ukraine, innocents, hands tied behind their backs, lined up and executed, children, women, men, thrown into ditches or left in the streets, I would remind you of this:
"Why do I care what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? I'm serious. Why shouldn't I root for Russia? Which by the way I am."
-- Tucker Carlson

"This is genius. Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine -- of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that's wonderful."
-- Donald J. Trump

"I'd say that's pretty smart. He's [Putin] taking over a country -- really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people, and just walking right in."
-- Donald. J. Trump

Russia learned from the Nazi invasion of their own country. They took that brutal lesson to heart, target the innocents, burn the hospitals, slaughter civilians, destroy the infrastructure.

Trump, Carlson, et al look upon that horror and they see ... strength.
You have only to look to Fox News and OAN right now to see those who speak for Republican ideology threatening similar revenge on Americans for imagined slights. See the comment of Ron DeSantis, Florida Republicans, Laura Ingraham, et al.
That's how it starts.

That rhetoric. Revenge. Getting even. Using the power of government and the military to crush your opponents. That's where it starts.

And it ends with the bodies of innocents shot in the head and dumped in a ditch.

You remember when Trump as President threatened to send the Army into Chicago?

And Republicans cheered that idea?

When he paraded tanks through our capitol?

And Republican cheered?

Do you?

It's all part of the same mindset, one that ends in genocide. Every time.

We must not only stop what's happening in Ukraine, we must stop it before it happens HERE.

Case in point, right here.

This is how you justify genocide. This is how you justify the same sort of slaughter that's happening in Ukraine right now.

This is how you see Vladimir Putin as strength. Right here. This right here.

Rep. Lisa McClain (MI) says that migrants crossing the border are all “terrorists, convicts, murderers and rapists.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Propaganda Pete selects together a montage of past quotes from different contexts, some with different intents when taken out of context, some being sarcastic rather than serious, all of which were said before present conditions and all pasted together to create a picture of Republicans being bloodthirsty NAZI Stalinistic insurgent insurrectionists who are about to commit genocide on the American people if they are not stopped.

As Pete has warned--be very afraid!

Meanwhile in Tennessee

Tennessee Republicans are advancing a bill that creates a separate, privileged class of marriage for heterosexual couples, acting as a loophole to the Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage. The bill would also legalize child marriage by eliminating age requirements.
Because you’re not molesting a 10 year old if you’re married
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m aware maher hates republicans and foxnews. that doesn’t mean he’s wrong, when he attacks the left for burying a story i. order to help biden get elected.

a lot of reliable liberals are scared for november. are you going to claim you aren’t aware of that?

chuck todd is losing his marbles over what he sees coming.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nate Silver just reported that Democrats are INCHES away from expanding their Senate majority from coast to coast.
--WINNING by 1 in Ohio
-- WINNING by 4 in Wisconsin
-- WINNING by 7 in New Hampshire
-- WINNING by 9 in Arizona

WINNING by 9 in the ultimate swing state of Pennsylvania

The Republican vote against $35 insulin gifted Dems a brilliant campaign message: What medical necessity will R's put out of reach next?

Sunsetting Social Security and Medicare?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nate Silver just reported that Democrats are INCHES away from expanding their Senate majority from coast to coast.
--WINNING by 1 in Ohio
-- WINNING by 4 in Wisconsin
-- WINNING by 7 in New Hampshire
-- WINNING by 9 in Arizona

WINNING by 9 in the ultimate swing state of Pennsylvania

The Republican vote against $35 insulin gifted Dems a brilliant campaign message: What medical necessity will R's put out of reach next?

Sunsetting Social Security and Medicare?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yup, a blue wave is on the way for sure!!! all signs point to it.

i don’t see huge gop gains in the senate. it’s not a favorable rotation for the gop. way more republicans up.

what did silver say about the house? you forgot to mention that for some reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

funny, back on march 2 Silvwr predicted the gop would take the senate.

https://emorywheel.com/fivethirtyeight-founder-nate-silver-predicts-gop-winning-senate-majority-at-emory-event/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why is the “everyone who disagrees with me is a pedophile” message working better there?
Or does the base think they’ll be all set with child marriages?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

funny, back on march 2 Silvwr predicted the gop would take the senate.

https://emorywheel.com/fivethirtyeight-founder-nate-silver-predicts-gop-winning-senate-majority-at-emory-event/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Things change when you say things like
Captain Venmo Matt Gaetz voted against capping insulin prices for people who have diabetes b/c he believes, “people should just lose weight."

Once again, MAGA proves they don't understand SCIENCE & must be the loudest & most ignorant in the room.

But the base loves it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Meanwhile in Tennessee

Tennessee Republicans are advancing a bill that creates a separate, privileged class of marriage for heterosexual couples, acting as a loophole to the Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage. The bill would also legalize child marriage by eliminating age requirements.
Because you’re not molesting a 10 year old if you’re married
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

meanwhile in Palm Springs, they want to give $900 a month to anyone who identifies as gay, trans, non binary etc…

is that discriminatory pete?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-city-universal-income-transgender-residents
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

meanwhile in Palm Springs, they want to give $900 a month to anyone who identifies as gay, trans, non binary etc…

is that discriminatory pete?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-city-universal-income-transgender-residents
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Feel free to file suit if you feel discriminated against or are you worried that 200K budget won’t cover you?

Or is this your kind of guy?

Robert Foster, a Mississippi Republican businessman who ran for governor in 2019, says he wants supporters of transgender rights "to be lined up against (a) wall before a firing squad to be sent to an early judgment."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Feel free to file suit if you feel discriminated against or are you worried that 200K budget won’t cover you?

Or is this your kind of guy?

Robert Foster, a Mississippi Republican businessman who ran for governor in 2019, says he wants supporters of transgender rights "to be lined up against (a) wall before a firing squad to be sent to an early judgment."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then you can also feel free to sue TN for what they're doing.

Why is it valid for you to complain about discrimination based on sexual orientation, but not me? I'm curious.

Now you’re equating liberals 200K in spending with Republicans in Tennessee legalizing pedophilia
Okay, it’s pretty obvious where you’re at
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now you’re equating liberals 200K in spending with Republicans in Tennessee legalizing pedophilia
Okay, it’s pretty obvious where you’re at
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope. You also complained about this...

"Tennessee Republicans are advancing a bill that creates a separate, privileged class of marriage for heterosexual couples,"

You complained that the GOP was discriminating against gays on the basis of sexual orientation.

I complained that CA is discriminating against heterosexuals on the basis of sexual orientation, and you won't comment on it.

"it’s pretty obvious where you’re at"

It's more obvious where you're "at", and it's a sad place where you deny and pathologically lie about every single little thing that doesn't favor the left.

You can't even be honest about what you posted a couple of hours ago.

obama’s IRS was targeting conservatives when he was potus.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is a not a complete or totally true statement. The IRS unit that reviews 501(c)(4) applications had been using the names of organizations as an initial filter to try to decide who was likely to be involved in inappropriate political activity. The IRS had flagged not just political sounding names but names that signaled a conservative orientation, including tea party, patriot, 9/12, etc. And that is what the Rs ran with. What was ignored is that the unit was also looking for words like occupy, progressive, etc.

The IRS used political sounding names but it did not do so on a partisan basis. And then they stopped using those search terms. There was later a report from the inspector general which said there was no political bias from the IRS but the gov apologized for using the search terms.

Obama had zero part in anything.

That is a not a complete or totally true statement. The IRS unit that reviews 501(c)(4) applications had been using the names of organizations as an initial filter to try to decide who was likely to be involved in inappropriate political activity. The IRS had flagged not just political sounding names but names that signaled a conservative orientation, including tea party, patriot, 9/12, etc. And that is what the Rs ran with. What was ignored is that the unit was also looking for words like occupy, progressive, etc.

The IRS used political sounding names but it did not do so on a partisan basis. And then they stopped using those search terms. There was later a report from the inspector general which said there was no political bias from the IRS but the gov apologized for using the search terms.

Obama had zero part in anything.

in which “inappropriate political activity”, means conservative activity.

no evidence whatsoever obama played a direct role. i didn’t say that he did. but why do you suppose those people at the IRS felt, that at a time when obama
was potus, it was a good idea to target conservatives?

when you’re an executive, the people who work for you, are an extension of your policy.

is there any evidence that progressive groups got unfavorable treatment from the IRS, just for being progressive? i didn’t hear about any.

the point was whether or not conservatives are ever unfairly targeted for being conservative. that was one example. Brett Kavanaugh would be another pretty solid example.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in which “inappropriate political activity”, means conservative activity.wrong. they looked at both

no evidence whatsoever obama played a direct role. i didn’t say that he did. but why do you suppose those people at the IRS felt, that at a time when obama
was potus, it was a good idea to target conservatives? but they didn't "target conservatives"

when you’re an executive, the people who work for you, are an extension of your policy.

is there any evidence that progressive groups got unfavorable treatment from the IRS, just for being progressive? i didn’t hear about any.They did. There were more conserv. leaning org. filing though.

the point was whether or not conservatives are ever unfairly targeted for being conservative. that was one example. Brett Kavanaugh would be another pretty solid example.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
But they weren't being unfairly targeted any more or less than liberal ones.

The problem was that the IRS was starved for $ and took shortcuts bc of staffing/$ issues

Nope. You also complained about this...

"Tennessee Republicans are advancing a bill that creates a separate, privileged class of marriage for heterosexual couples,"

You complained that the GOP was discriminating against gays on the basis of sexual orientation.

I complained that CA is discriminating against heterosexuals on the basis of sexual orientation, and you won't comment on it.

"it’s pretty obvious where you’re at"

It's more obvious where you're "at", and it's a sad place where you deny and pathologically lie about every single little thing that doesn't favor the left.

You can't even be honest about what you posted a couple of hours ago.

I was told Roe was settled law. Now it’s pretty clear Roe is gone. I was told that LGBTQ rights were settled law, now I see Republicans attacking them ferociously. It’s hard not to see where this is going.

Busy day for the GQP:

- 63 Republicans vote no to supporting NATO
- TN GOP proposes “Marry Little Kids” bill
- Tom Cotton calls Ketanji Brown Jackson a Nazi
- OH pushes Don’t Say Gay/Race bill
- GOP to host CPAC with Orban in Hungary
- Oklahoma GOP passes total abortion ban
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was told Roe was settled law. Now it’s pretty clear Roe is gone. I was told that LGBTQ rights were settled law, now I see Republicans attacking them ferociously. It’s hard not to see where this is going.

Busy day for the GQP:

- 63 Republicans vote no to supporting NATO
- TN GOP proposes “Marry Little Kids” bill
- Tom Cotton calls Ketanji Brown Jackson a Nazi
- OH pushes Don’t Say Gay/Race bill
- GOP to host CPAC with Orban in Hungary
- Oklahoma GOP passes total abortion ban
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there was a time ( thanks to democrats) hat slavery was settled law. There was a time ( also thanks to democrats) that segregation was settled law. There was a time when prohibition was settled law. There was a time when gay marriage prohibition was settled law.

from where do you get the idea, that laws can never be overturned?

roe isn’t even close to gone. and even if it were, that just means states get to decide. liberal states will always allow abortion, so the worst case scenario is that women in red states need to go to a blue state. that’s the worst it can ever get. and we’re nowhere near that today.

And Cotton did not come close to calling her a nazi. check your facts, liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there was a time ( thanks to democrats) hat slavery was settled law. There was a time ( also thanks to democrats) that segregation was settled law. There was a time when prohibition was settled law. There was a time when gay marriage prohibition was settled law.

from where do you get the idea, that laws can never be overturned?

roe isn’t even close to gone. and even if it were, that just means states get to decide. liberal states will always allow abortion, so the worst case scenario is that women in red states need to go to a blue state. that’s the worst it can ever get. and we’re nowhere near that today.

And Cotton did not come close to calling her a nazi. check your facts, liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdGQfgsVB4k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdGQfgsVB4k

i am aware of the clip. saying a lawyer would defend nazis, isn’t the same thing as saying she’s a nazi. it’s not even close.

pete, is every lawyer who has ever defended a murderer, also a murderer? is the lawyer a murderer?

Its hard to tell if you’re kidding, lying, stupid, or crazy. but it’s one of those.

lawyers defend people all
day, every day. that doesn’t mean the lawyers “are” what they defend.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and pete, OK didn’t vote on a total abortion ban. it voted on a ban of abortions that weren’t necessary to save a pregnant woman in an emergency. it voted to ban voluntary abortions.

What’s the longest you can go without lying? you’re a lot like trump
in this regard.

you’re totally unhinged.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and pete, OK didn’t vote on a total abortion ban. it voted on a ban of abortions that weren’t necessary to save a pregnant woman in an emergency. it voted to ban voluntary abortions.

What’s the longest you can go without lying? you’re a lot like trump
in this regard.

you’re totally unhinged.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not rape or incest, how else would you get more Okies

The bill would criminalise performing an abortion in almost all cases, except where it could "save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not rape or incest, how else would you get more Okies

The bill would criminalise performing an abortion in almost all cases, except where it could "save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
you said it was a total ban. you lied.

you said Cotton called the judge a Nazi. you lied. to support your claim, you posted a video where Cotton didn’t call her a Nazi.

off to a good start today.

as to rape/incest. if you believe that the baby is a human being at conception, then the circumstances surrounding the conception don’t change the status of the baby. i’m not saying i agree with that, but it’s a consistent principle.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you said it was a total ban. you lied.

you said Cotton called the judge a Nazi. you lied. to support your claim, you posted a video where Cotton didn’t call her a Nazi.

off to a good start today.

as to rape/incest. if you believe that the baby is a human being at conception, then the circumstances surrounding the conception don’t change the status of the baby. i’m not saying i agree with that, but it’s a consistent principle.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can’t compete with Jim’s logic

Tom Cotton Says Jackson Has 'Interest in Helping Terrorists,' Such as Nazis

So what was his meaning ? She’s a Nazi Sympathizer

Yet Jim claimed Jackson just by defending people as a lawyer. Agrees with them

And I love we’ll there an exception for the life of the mother so there’s not a total ban

Like I said disingenuous
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you said it was a total ban. you lied.

you said Cotton called the judge a Nazi. you lied. to support your claim, you posted a video where Cotton didn’t call her a Nazi.

off to a good start today.

as to rape/incest. if you believe that the baby is a human being at conception, then the circumstances surrounding the conception don’t change the status of the baby. i’m not saying i agree with that, but it’s a consistent principle.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You think that anyone would risk the exposure to a felony charge?
That these political laws currently being proposed by Trumplicans are designed to do any less than that?

Senator Tom Cotton says Ketanji Brown Jackson would defend Nazis.

Nonsense. Why would she ever want to defend him?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can’t compete with Jim’s logic

Tom Cotton Says Jackson Has 'Interest in Helping Terrorists,' Such as Nazis

So what was his meaning ? She’s a Nazi Sympathizer

Yet Jim claimed Jackson just by defending people as a lawyer. Agrees with them

And I love we’ll there an exception for the life of the mother so there’s not a total ban

Like I said disingenuous
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Cotton said she might defend them
as a lawyer. lawyers defend bad people all the time.

you’re lying too. sign of desperation because even you sense what’s coming.

if the ban still allows for abortion, please explain how it’s a total ban.

it’s impossible having an adult conversation with you.

a total ban, means no abortions whatsoever.

i called it exactly what it was, a ban on abortions except in cases where the moms life was in danger

pete lied and called it a total ban

but i’m being disingenuous.

gotcha.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, you’re projecting again.
Pretty typical for a Trumplican

As Republicans accuse others of being “groomers,” new details are surfacing about Congressman John Rose (R-TN), who met his now-wife in his 40s while she was an underage teenager. He paid her with a scholarship that she says “made everything possible” and then married her.

Well within the norm…..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, you’re projecting again.
Pretty typical for a Trumplican

As Republicans accuse others of being “groomers,” new details are surfacing about Congressman John Rose (R-TN), who met his now-wife in his 40s while she was an underage teenager. He paid her with a scholarship that she says “made everything possible” and then married her.

Well within the norm…..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what did i project, exactly?

you lied about the OK bill. And you lied about what Senator Cotton said.

yes, every single republican is a pervert

Pete, any 12 year old
knows that the only reason you distort republican behavior so crazily, is that you are terrified at the thought of having an honest and accurate discussion of what each side believes and does. you know you can’t win an honest discussion, so you frame it by painting both sides in an absurd extreme fashion- liberals are saints who walk on water, republicans are monsters who can’t do a single thing well. There are no facts to support that, but you so desperately want us to believe it


NO ONE who is secure and comfortable in their beliefs, needs to demonize everyone who disagrees with them on anything, the way you do

It’s clearly, obviously, a defense
mechanism.

Bitch slapped.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdGQfgsVB4k

What Cotton was ticked off about, was her volunteering on multiple occasions to defend the Guantanimo Bay terrorists, and accuse the US soldiers of war crimes. She sought these cases out. I didn't know that before. It's not much of a leap to say that if you'd defend murdering terrorists, you MIGHT (Cotton said "might", which you conveniently left out) defend Nazis.

Does saying we're the bad guys and the terrorists are the real victims, mean she shouldn't be on SCOTUS? Maybe. Unlike you, I have no problem calling out jerk son my side. I have no huge issue with Cotton despising this woman based on that.

She's a radical liberal. That doesn't mean she'd be incapable of setting her personal beliefs aside and decide cases based just on the law, but radicals are risky to give a lifetime appointment to.

What Cotton was ticked off about, was her volunteering on multiple occasions to defend the Guantanimo Bay terrorists, and accuse the US soldiers of war crimes. She sought these cases out. I didn't know that before.

Probably because it’s not true.

Probably because it’s not true.

funny the reporter he said that to, didn’t tell him he was wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Probably because it’s not true.

He thinks she’s a radical liberal he loves using radicalized terms of the far right

And he thinks public defender’s volunteer

Her brother was an US Army infantry man in Iraq. At the same Time

Ps US soldiers did comment war crimes. Trump pardoned them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Facts First: Both Graham and Cornyn left out important context. Specifically, neither mentioned that Jackson's allegation of war crimes was about torture. Also, Jackson didn't explicitly use the phrase "war criminal."

It was about torture

Here’s another little fact

None of Jackson's four Guantanamo clients was ever convicted. Each of them was eventually released from Guantanamo.

Do some researching please
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Probably because it’s not true.

here’s fact-check saying she did defend gitmo detainees and said it was deplorable that we put them
there.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/the-facts-on-judge-jacksons-defense-work-for-gitmo-detainees/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Facts First: Both Graham and Cornyn left out important context. Specifically, neither mentioned that Jackson's allegation of war crimes was about torture. Also, Jackson didn't explicitly use the phrase "war criminal."

It was about torture

Here’s another little fact

None of Jackson's four Guantanamo clients was ever convicted. Each of them was eventually released from Guantanamo.

Do some researching please
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OJ was also acquitted and released.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OJ was also acquitted and released.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your point is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your point is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the fact that her clients were released, doesn’t mean much.

she also wrote amicus briefs for
terrorists who weren’t her clients.

she’s going to get confirmed, no chance of a different outcome

the other point is this. Cotton didn’t even come close to calling her a Nazi.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The people in Gitmo have been there for over twenty years.
Put your money where your rhetoric is
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

here’s fact-check saying she did defend gitmo detainees and said it was deplorable that we put them
there.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/the-facts-on-judge-jacksons-defense-work-for-gitmo-detainees/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That doesn’t say what you think it says.

That doesn’t say what you think it says.

it says she defended gitmo defames and criticized the us military while
doing so. it also
says she wrote amicus briefs for detainees that she wasn’t formally representing, but who she wanted to help on her own time.

we know what it means when you lib these baseless insults spence. usually, not always, it means i’m right but you can’t bring yourself to admit it.

what did cotton say, specifically, that was wrong?

maybe she said the military was merely “deplorable” instead of specifically accusing it of war crimes. maybe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That doesn’t say what you think it says.

oh and here, according to CNN, she very specifically accuses the US of war crimes.

now, of course she has the right to say that. and others have the right to judge her for saying it, and to conclude that saying it makes her a potentially dangerous candidate for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS.

Lindsay Graham voted for Kagan and Sotomayor. But he has concerns about Jackson. Maybe there’s a chance he has valid reasons to be concerned since he doesn’t blindly oppose all democrat nominees. A reason besides racism, that is.

You have to wonder if they picked a radical intentionally, just so that when the GOP questioned her about some of the controversial
things she’s said, the left could
claim “racism”. All they have to talk about, is Trump and racism.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/23/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-hearings-fact-check/index.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the fact that her clients were released, doesn’t mean much.

she also wrote amicus briefs for
terrorists who weren’t her clients.

she’s going to get confirmed, no chance of a different outcome

the other point is this. Cotton didn’t even come close to calling her a Nazi.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tom Cotton attacked Ketanji Brown Jackson by invoking name of American judge Robert Jackson who went to Nuremberg to prosecute Nazi war criminals, claiming Brown Jackson would've gone to Nuremberg to defend Nazis.
This smear of Ketanji Brown Jackson was especially odious & offensive in view of Tom Cotton's previous lie that he served as an Army Ranger under combat conditions in Iraq & Afghanistan. Same Tom Cotton who never condemned Trump for calling Nazis "very fine people."
Tom Cotton is a despicable racist lowlife.
Under the Constitution everyone has the right to legal representation. John Adams defended the British soldiers from the Boston massacre because everyone deserves legal representation.
Not just the wealthy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tom Cotton attacked Ketanji Brown Jackson by invoking name of American judge Robert Jackson who went to Nuremberg to prosecute Nazi war criminals, claiming Brown Jackson would've gone to Nuremberg to defend Nazis.
This smear of Ketanji Brown Jackson was especially odious & offensive in view of Tom Cotton's previous lie that he served as an Army Ranger under combat conditions in Iraq & Afghanistan. Same Tom Cotton who never condemned Trump for calling Nazis "very fine people."
Tom Cotton is a despicable racist lowlife.
Under the Constitution everyone has the right to legal representation. John Adams defended the British soldiers from the Boston massacre because everyone deserves legal representation.
Not just the wealthy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Tom Cotton attacked Ketanji Brown Jackson"

He sure did.

But he didn't call her a Nazi. Not even close. You lied.

Only in Jim’s world unless it’s actually said by a Conservatives exactly. It’s not True . Even if everyone understands the message
Yet every thing Biden says is emblazoned with hidden meanings and intent. Funny how that works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Tom Cotton attacked Ketanji Brown Jackson"

He sure did.

But he didn't call her a Nazi. Not even close. You lied.

And he keeps repeating the bald faced and debunked lie that Trump said NAZIs are very fine people.

oh and here, according to CNN, she very specifically accuses the US of war crimes.
Not really. First she was assigned to the cases as a public defender, second the briefs she filed were to document the clients assertions of torture which certainly could be considered a war crime. She was simply doing her job.

We tortured a number of Taliban Jim, just because they're bad guys doesn't make it not illegal under the Geneva Convention.

Republican senators and staffers stormed out in anger as the first Black woman was confirmed to the highest court in America. Don’t ever forget what we all just saw.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And he keeps repeating the bald faced and debunked lie that Trump said NAZIs are very fine people.

He only kinda, sorta said that….
Baloney
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not really. First she was assigned to the cases as a public defender, second the briefs she filed were to document the clients assertions of torture which certainly could be considered a war crime. She was simply doing her job.

We tortured a number of Taliban Jim, just because they're bad guys doesn't make it not illegal under the Geneva Convention.


the DOJ looked into it, and decided it wasnt illegal under the geneva convention. there was a legal
finding before we engaged in it.

if you’re telling me you wouldn’t water board someone to save your kids, you’re lying. if nuking two cities wasn’t a war crime, and it wasn’t, water boarding is nothing.

if you have a terrorist and have reasonable suspicion he can prevent an attack, it would
be immoral not to waterboard him.

how many american children are you prepared to sacrifice on the altar of not waterboarding jihadists, exactly? for me the answer is exactly zero.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the DOJ looked into it, and decided it wasnt illegal under the geneva convention. there was a legal
finding before we engaged in it.
It was deemed justified by a Bush attorney who came up with a convoluted letter to support the policy. Take it to the Hague.

He only kinda, sorta said that….
Baloney
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He didn't say it in any way at all. It's baloney to say he did. It should be very easy to come up with an actual quote by him saying it. There is no such quote. As for the Charlottesville statement, he explained exactly to whom he was referring. He has condemned Neo Nazis and White Supremicists many times and many times incluing before Charlottesville.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html

It was deemed justified by a Bush attorney who came up with a convoluted letter to support the policy. Take it to the Hague.

You take it to the Hague. you made the accusation,,the burden is on you.

The president relies on a lawyer who’s be friendly to him. he’s supposed to ask a lawyer who hates republicans?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republican senators and staffers stormed out in anger as the first Black woman was confirmed to the highest court in America. Don’t ever forget what we all just saw.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete, is it possible to criticize a black person, and not be a racist?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He only kinda, sorta said that….
Baloney
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He didn’t even come close to saying it. You got caught lying red handed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, why do Trumplicans always project?
Former Trump aide, RNC operative, and “pro-life” activist Ruben Verastigui has just been sentenced to 12+ years in prison for child porn. He posted about how the sexual abuse of babies is his “absolute favorite.” There are allegedly more Republican staffers to come.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, why do Trumplicans always project?
Former Trump aide, RNC operative, and “pro-life” activist Ruben Verastigui has just been sentenced to 12+ years in prison for child porn. He posted about how the sexual abuse of babies is his “absolute favorite.” There are allegedly more Republican staffers to come.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

dun dun dun!!!

Anthony Weiner, Harvey Weinstein, Eric Swalwell, Bill Clinton, Tex Kennedy, Eliot Spitzer, Andrew Cuomo, more republican perverts.

if that guy was sentenced by Jackson, she’d probably have given him community service.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

dun dun dun!!!

Anthony Weiner, Harvey Weinstein, Eric Swalwell, Bill Clinton, Tex Kennedy, Eliot Spitzer, Andrew Cuomo, more republican perverts.

if that guy was sentenced by Jackson, she’d probably have given him community service.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But the child molesters are of your ilk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A great day for the USA. A typical day for Republicans. They never miss an opportunity to take the low road.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A great day for the USA. A typical day for Republicans. They never miss an opportunity to take the low road.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Authoritarian, omniscient Pete F says the Republicans take the low road. Pete seems to know everything. And he keeps telling us.

Authoritarian, omniscient Pete F says the Republicans take the low road. Pete seems to know everything. And he keeps telling us.

Republicans are all about protecting kids, except for when it comes to poverty, healthcare, education, environment and vaccines.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A typical day for Republicans. They never miss an opportunity to take the low road.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.wmal.com/2022/04/07/governor-youngkin-donates-q1-salary-to-state-law-enforcement-assistance-program/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when Thurgood Marshall was confirmed in 1967 to become the first black man on the Supreme Court, 16 of 22 senators from the 11 states of the old Confederacy voted no or didn't vote

when Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed today to become the first black woman, 18 of 22 voted no
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when Thurgood Marshall was confirmed in 1967 to become the first black man on the Supreme Court, 16 of 22 senators from the 11 states of the old Confederacy voted no or didn't vote

when Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed today to become the first black woman, 18 of 22 voted no
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the second time...is it possible to oppose the nomination of a black person, without being a racist?

Almost seems like you're afraid to answer that question, sort of, for some reason...

Republicans are all about protecting kids, except for when it comes to poverty, healthcare, education, environment and vaccines.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Authoritarian Pete spreads propaganda.

How did they vote for Thomas?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How did they vote for Thomas?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was DIFFERENT, it’s OK when democrats do it.

Only racist when republicans do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was DIFFERENT, it’s OK when democrats do it.

Only racist when republicans do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Once agin Jim making false equivalences


Thomas vote


Voting yes were 11 Democrats and 41 Republicans. Voting no were 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

Yep exactly the same
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So 46 democrats voted against the black guy, sounds pretty racist to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So 46 democrats voted against the black guy, sounds pretty racist to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When did the Democratic South become Republican?

Once agin Jim making false equivalences


Thomas vote


Voting yes were 11 Democrats and 41 Republicans. Voting no were 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

Yep exactly the same
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So 47 democrats voted against the black nominee then, the exact same number as the 47 republicans who opposed Jackson this week. Sounds to me like the democrats were as racist then, than the GOP is now.

So unless the vote totals are identical. it's a "false equivalence". If one event took place on a Monday and the other on a Tuesday, you'll say "false equivalence". You find some meaningless detail that's different, then say they aren't comparable.

Lindsay Graham voted for both of Obama's nominees. Last time I checked, he voted to conform every single Biden federal judge nominee, until Jackson. So he's not a racist, not someone who refuses to ever support a democrat nominee. He voted for Sotomayor and Kagan. But maybe there was a reason why he drew the line with Jackson.

You keep shrieking racism and false equivalence.

Have you ever, and i mean ONCE, in all your posts, ever criticized a democrat or praised a republican? EVER?

When did the Democratic South become Republican?

When it decided to become less racist.

That’s obviously why there’s so few Republicans of color
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That’s obviously why there’s so few Republicans of color
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is the South as racist now as it was from 1920 to 1970?

So 47 democrats voted against the black nominee then, the exact same number as the 47 republicans who opposed Jackson this week. Sounds to me like the democrats were as racist then, than the GOP is now.

So unless the vote totals are identical. it's a "false equivalence". If one event took place on a Monday and the other on a Tuesday, you'll say "false equivalence". You find some meaningless detail that's different, then say they aren't comparable.

Lindsay Graham voted for both of Obama's nominees. Last time I checked, he voted to conform every single Biden federal judge nominee, until Jackson. So he's not a racist, not someone who refuses to ever support a democrat nominee. He voted for Sotomayor and Kagan. But maybe there was a reason why he drew the line with Jackson.

You keep shrieking racism and false equivalence.

Have you ever, and i mean ONCE, in all your posts, ever criticized a democrat or praised a republican? EVER?


You keep shrieking racism ? Really How so love to see it . that's what your brain hears when ever republicans are called out on their Comments.. you Have a great ability to not see insinuation in Conservatives.. But here OMG you See insinuation where non exist Like "Bidens said he will use chemical weapons "



The late Republican senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in his 2000 autobiography “Passion for Truth”: Bush announced that Thomas was the “best qualified” nominee he could find for the high court and that “the fact he was black and a minority had nothing to do with this.” Immediately I said publicly that Thomas was not the best-qualified nominee available and that race was a factor — and properly so. I did not object to Thomas’s nomination because I thought he was entitled to a hearing and because on the record, with his degrees from Holy Cross and Yale Law School plus his tenure on the court of appeals, he appeared at least marginally qualified.

What we had hoped to learn was more about Clarence Thomas the jurist. The American Bar Assn. rated him “qualified” but withheld its highest rating, “well qualified.” On that score, Thomas’ sometimes lucid, sometimes stumbling testimony at the hearings did nothing to invalidate the ABA’s estimation of his legal prowess. Thomas did not distinguish himself as a legal mind.


Thomas did flatly reject Robert H. Bork’s belief that the Constitution must be interpreted only as its 18th-Century authors originally intended. “The world didn’t stop with the framers,” Thomas said. The meaning of the Constitution “is not frozen in time” but instead “moves with our history and our tradition.” yey now he's an Justice Thomas, originalist

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-09-24-me-2988-story.html



After Hill’s testimony, Thomas told the committee that he would not answer any further questions, angrily calling the hearing “a high-tech lynching.”

Bar Association Splits on Fitness Of Thomas for the Supreme Court

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/28/us/bar-association-splits-on-fitness-of-thomas-for-the-supreme-court.html


Have you ever, and i mean ONCE, in all your posts, ever criticized a democrat or praised a republican?

Still waiting on a reason PS if I Did praise a Republican you more like would call them a rino anyway :kewl:

You keep shrieking racism ? Really How so love to see it . that's what your brain hears when ever republicans are called out on their Comments.. you Have a great ability to not see insinuation in Conservatives.. But here OMG you See insinuation where non exist Like "Bidens said he will use chemical weapons "



The late Republican senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in his 2000 autobiography “Passion for Truth”: Bush announced that Thomas was the “best qualified” nominee he could find for the high court and that “the fact he was black and a minority had nothing to do with this.” Immediately I said publicly that Thomas was not the best-qualified nominee available and that race was a factor — and properly so. I did not object to Thomas’s nomination because I thought he was entitled to a hearing and because on the record, with his degrees from Holy Cross and Yale Law School plus his tenure on the court of appeals, he appeared at least marginally qualified.

What we had hoped to learn was more about Clarence Thomas the jurist. The American Bar Assn. rated him “qualified” but withheld its highest rating, “well qualified.” On that score, Thomas’ sometimes lucid, sometimes stumbling testimony at the hearings did nothing to invalidate the ABA’s estimation of his legal prowess. Thomas did not distinguish himself as a legal mind.


Thomas did flatly reject Robert H. Bork’s belief that the Constitution must be interpreted only as its 18th-Century authors originally intended. “The world didn’t stop with the framers,” Thomas said. The meaning of the Constitution “is not frozen in time” but instead “moves with our history and our tradition.” yey now he's an Justice Thomas, originalist

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-09-24-me-2988-story.html



After Hill’s testimony, Thomas told the committee that he would not answer any further questions, angrily calling the hearing “a high-tech lynching.”

Bar Association Splits on Fitness Of Thomas for the Supreme Court

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/28/us/bar-association-splits-on-fitness-of-thomas-for-the-supreme-court.html


Have you ever, and i mean ONCE, in all your posts, ever criticized a democrat or praised a republican?

Still waiting on a reason PS if I Did praise a Republican you more like would call them a rino anyway :kewl:

oh my god, you’re bothered that race was a factor in nominating Clarence Thomas. But not bothered with this nominee, when Biden said explicitly race was a factor.

No irony or hypocrisy there, no sir!

everything is ok when democrats do
it!!’

are you denying race was a factor here? when biden said two years ago, that he’d only consider a black person?

How can you keep a straight face.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dietrich specifically mentioned Austin, who is Black, and claimed the measure was in fact a plot “to remove conservative, freedom-loving Americans from the roles.”

He added, “These so-called ‘leaders’ are so vile and racist, there’s no way to describe them other than in terms their own people understand. They are nothing more than dirty, stinking ni***rs.

“We are being forced into a corner by these enemies of the People. If it is a civil war they want, they will get it in spades. Perhaps the best way to pull us back from the brink is a good public lynching.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hunter is prob. kicking himself for not starting an investment fund so the Saudi's could have given him $2B to invest.

No experience, no problem.

Hunter is prob. kicking himself for not starting an investment fund so the Saudi's could have given him $2B to invest.

No experience, no problem.

are you expecting trump supports to Have ethics ?

Jarred was an unelected or congressional approved appointment ! He was The POTUS son in law . but yet six months after leaving the White House his firm gets $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, which is led by MBS

but but hunter Like Ive said republicans are dishonest to the bone

are you expecting trump supports to Have ethics ?

Jarred was an unelected or congressional approved appointment ! He was The POTUS son in law . but yet six months after leaving the White House his firm gets $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, which is led by MBS

but but hunter Like Ive said republicans are dishonest to the bone

Just curious how you'd know that what Jared did was unethical, but what Hunter did was OK?

Can you admit they should both be investigated?

Can you admit they should both be investigated?

What grounds are there to investigate either?

What grounds are there to investigate either?

Both look like influence peddling.

Before he was married to Ivanka, Kushner helped run a multi-billion dollar real estate company. If the Saudis gave him money to invest in real estate, that's not obviously fishy, though it could certainly be suspicious.

Hunter was a hot mess loser that all of a sudden was getting millions of dollars thrown his way, by an amazing coincidence, in Ukraine, where his dad was Obama's point man.

Come on...if there was nothing there, why did the media and big tech bury the story before the election. If the GOP takes the house, which is at least 99.8% likely, we will learn what Hunter did, they'll do a brutal investigation.

Both look like influence peddling.agree but other than the perception there doesn't seem to be much there. No evidence

Before he was married to Ivanka, Kushner helped run a multi-billion dollar real estate company. If the Saudis gave him money to invest in real estate, that's not obviously fishy, though it could certainly be suspicious.

Hunter was a hot mess loser that all of a sudden was getting millions of dollars thrown his way, by an amazing coincidence, in Ukraine, where his dad was Obama's point man.

Come on...if there was nothing there, why did the media and big tech bury the story before the election. If the GOP takes the house, which is at least 99.8% likely, we will learn what Hunter did, they'll do a brutal investigation.

Jarod (who actually worked for the admin.) got double the amount to invest than the much more experienced Munchin and a higher fee = 1% fee vs 1.25% I believe. Jarod's RE company had some financial problems and has no experience in the private equity area. The due diligence review gave the fund an unsatisfactory rating and said they could only invest 1/2 the $ until they had a qualified investment team. The Saudi investment fund did not want to invest w/Jarod but was overruled by the Prince Mohammed.

Jarod (who actually worked for the admin.) got double the amount to invest than the much more experienced Munchin and a higher fee = 1% fee vs 1.25% I believe. Jarod's RE company had some financial problems and has no experience in the private equity area. The due diligence review gave the fund an unsatisfactory rating and said they could only invest 1/2 the $ until they had a qualified investment team. The Saudi investment fund did not want to invest w/Jarod but was overruled by the Prince Mohammed.

Jared helped run a multi billion dollar real estate investment company before marrying into the family, before working for the administration. His father was convicted of fraud, is that what you're referring to? Were there problems when Jared took over?

Hunter was booted from the navy for snorting coke.

Jarod was born into a wealthy and crooked father, and married a girl with a wealthy and crooked father.

Who knows. But if the GOP takes the house, Hunters laptop will get looked into. They're not going to let that go.

Jared helped run a multi billion dollar real estate investment company before marrying into the family, before working for the administration. His father was convicted of fraud, is that what you're referring to? Were there problems when Jared took over?No, his biggest investment was I think 666 fifth ave. or something like that and had to have a huge bailout.

Hunter was booted from the navy for snorting coke.

Jarod was born into a wealthy and crooked father, and married a girl with a wealthy and crooked father.

Who knows. But if the GOP takes the house, Hunters laptop will get looked into. They're not going to let that go.

Jarod's investment results are mixed. certainly no where near Munchins.

Jarod's investment results are mixed. certainly no where near Munchins.

guy don’t have to do convince me that the investment use elated to his having served in the white house.

every recent president made hundreds of millions after leaving office.

it all stinks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

every recent president made hundreds of millions after leaving office.

Wha?

Wha?

obama…north of 100m

https://amp.scmp.com/magazines/style/news-trends/article/3084793/are-barack-and-michelle-obama-really-worth-us135
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wha?

clinton… north of 100m

https://www.the-sun.com/news/3612129/what-is-bill-clintons-net-worth/amp/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently attaining wealth is good except when you’re a teacher or a president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device