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.

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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.

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

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

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/th...tmo-detainees/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
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

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

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

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/polit...eck/index.html
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

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

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

He only kinda, sorta said that….
Baloney
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.

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

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 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/ar...of_139815.html

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