Assholes's Speech

And while we're on the subject of pussycat spewing right fringe, debunked nonsense, let's revisit another nugget he has yet to explain:

For example. Every time they mention his assertion that three million votes were fraudulent they tag it with, "Trump's unfounded claim that has no evidence.."

What bullshit.

It's not up to them to claim his assertion has no evidence. If it's a commentary then okay. But in news reporting the idea that his assertion is or is not founded on evidence they accept is biased.

His assertion is actually founded on evidence. There's been several University studies documenting that millions of votes have been cast by illegal aliens that are ineligible to vote. Originally Posted by pussycat

So, pussycat, Where are these "University studies documenting that millions of votes have been cast by illegal aliens"?

Federal judge just blocked one of Asshole's executive orders to stop funding for "Sanctuary Cities", and yet another defeat for Asshole.

I would agree with you, speedy, except for the Biden Rule. And the Schumer Rule. And the Reid Rule.

All 3 of those Democrats are on videotape stating as a matter of policy and principle the Senate should NOT consider any Supreme Court nominee during the last 12-18 months of a Republican President's term. You can look those videos up on youtube.

So it's utterly untrue to say there was "no justification" for what the Republicans did to Garland. In fact, they specifically justified waiting until after the November election by pointing to the public statements of Biden, Schumer and Reid!

The Dems made their bed, but didn't want to sleep in it! What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Originally Posted by lustylad

I never said I agreed with Biden, Shumer or Reid. Biden's statements were hypothetical since a Supreme Court opening did not occur at the end of daddy Bush's time in office. So you have 3 Democratic Senators who MIGHT have taken action to block a nominee vs. 54 (I believe) Republican Senators who DID take action to block a nominee. I think in all cases the Senators in question were wrong. They had a duty to at least VOTE on the nominee. Two wrongs do not make a right.

My point is, it's funny how you want to talk about the Biden Rule as a reason to hold open a SC seat because it was a statement about a hypothetical seat. Originally Posted by Milly23

I never said I agreed with Biden, Shumer or Reid. Biden's statements were hypothetical since a Supreme Court opening did not occur... Two wrongs do not make a right. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Give me a break. Should we NOT take Biden, Schumer or Reid seriously when they go on the public record as all 3 of them did? They didn't have to make such public pronouncements on a hypothetical question. Why would they say such things if they didn't mean them and weren't prepared to act on them?

I agree two wrongs don't make a right, but it bothers me that Democrats lead the race to the bottom, then turn around and become indignant when Republicans follow, act upon and copy their precedents. Bad behavior breeds bad behavior. If you don't want others to follow, don't blaze the trail.

You stated there was "no justification" for blocking Garland. My point is that's obviously incorrect. Whether you agreed with the Biden Rule or not, it provided a handy justification for denying a vote.

Give me a break. Should we NOT take Biden, Schumer or Reid seriously when they go on the public record as all 3 of them did? They didn't have to make such public pronouncements on a hypothetical question. Why would they say such things if they didn't mean them and weren't prepared to act on them?

I agree two wrongs don't make a right, but it bothers me that Democrats lead the race to the bottom, then turn around and become indignant when Republicans follow, act upon and copy their precedents. Bad behavior breeds bad behavior. If you don't want others to follow, don't blaze the trail.

You stated there was "no justification" for blocking Garland. My point is that's obviously incorrect. Whether you agreed with the Biden Rule or not, it provided a handy justification for denying a vote. Originally Posted by lustylad

Okay there was some justification for blocking Garland. Remember that I voted Republican all my life until Obama so I am not a lifelong Democrat. I would love to see both parties do what is right for the country rather than what is best for their party.

Give me a break. Should we NOT take Biden, Schumer or Reid seriously when they go on the public record as all 3 of them did? They didn't have to make such public pronouncements on a hypothetical question. Why would they say such things if they didn't mean them and weren't prepared to act on them?

I agree two wrongs don't make a right, but it bothers me that Democrats lead the race to the bottom, then turn around and become indignant when Republicans follow, act upon and copy their precedents. Bad behavior breeds bad behavior. If you don't want others to follow, don't blaze the trail.

You stated there was "no justification" for blocking Garland. My point is that's obviously incorrect. Whether you agreed with the Biden Rule or not, it provided a handy justification for denying a vote. Originally Posted by lustylad

It's an excuse man. How about this. When they can't get 60 votes to pass legislation. What will be the justification when they use the nuclear option on legislation votes? There isn't any. Yet they will do it. It's not about anything other than one party not wanting to do their job. The point of the Senate was always being a counter to the House where party lines ruled everything. You are suppose to reach across for a few voted in the Senate. So there will be no justification for it. Yet Republicans will say it's ok.

Give me a break. Should we NOT take Biden, Schumer or Reid seriously when they go on the public record as all 3 of them did? They didn't have to make such public pronouncements on a hypothetical question. Why would they say such things if they didn't mean them and weren't prepared to act on them?

I agree two wrongs don't make a right, but it bothers me that Democrats lead the race to the bottom, then turn around and become indignant when Republicans follow, act upon and copy their precedents. Bad behavior breeds bad behavior. If you don't want others to follow, don't blaze the trail.

You stated there was "no justification" for blocking Garland. My point is that's obviously incorrect. Whether you agreed with the Biden Rule or not, it provided a handy justification for denying a vote. Originally Posted by lustylad

Abuse of power, ignorance of the constitution is the hallmark of this failed administration. 100 days in, the world is a DISASTER. SAD!

Trolling again?

Must be quiet in PGH. Or ... getting ready for a Splash Day road trip?

That's the thing, you started out by saying you can't measure how much he offends me. She did not in her response. She said she can get it because the Clintons offend her. And there is a difference between being offended by say coal miners and being offended by things that are racist in nature. If you can't understand the difference than I'm sorry. Coal mining is a job. Coal miners get paid for their work. Slaves did not. There weren't separate but equal laws for coal miners. If you can't see the difference in being offended by the racial aspects, idk what to tell you. I said I could understand being offended by the Clintons. I was empathetic to that. But to try to but the two feelings on the same footing, I won't do that. It's not the same. It isn't being narcissistic either. Originally Posted by Milly23

Ellen said she gets it that you're offended by Trump, but you spurned her by insisting that your feelings are more legitimate than hers. You look desperate when you bring up slavery and separate but equal laws. Trump doesn't condone either. If he did, it would offend everyone, not just you. And coal mining is only one example where people were offended by Hillary Clinton. Your own comments can also be construed as offensive... as if you're saying “get over it, it's only a job.” Even people outside the coal belt were offended that a politician thinks it's ok to shut down an entire industry. Trump isn't a racist. He says things that make everyone cringe, not just African Americans. I think you go out of your way looking for anything to accuse him of being racist, so you can insist he offends you more than the Clintons offend others.

Ellen said she gets it that you're offended by Trump, but you spurned her by insisting that your feelings are more legitimate than hers. You look desperate when you bring up slavery and separate but equal laws. Trump doesn't condone either. If he did, it would offend everyone, not just you. And coal mining is only one example where people were offended by Hillary Clinton. Your own comments can also be construed as offensive... as if you're saying “get over it, it's only a job.” Even people outside the coal belt were offended that a politician thinks it's ok to shut down an entire industry. Trump isn't a racist. He says things that make everyone cringe, not just African Americans. I think you go out of your way looking for anything to accuse him of being racist, so you can insist he offends you more than the Clintons offend others. Originally Posted by lustylad

Wrong again. I told you I get why she can be offended by Clintons. I just pointed out that she was trying to equate my feelings of being offended to hers. Which they aren't the same. Sorry if you don't get it. But that's part of the issue. You want to tell my that it is the same. That the feeling of a person degrading your who race is the same as whatever the Clintons have done. It's ok to hate their policy or whatever but it's not the same. I never said my feelings were more legitimate. I said don't try to equate them. And where did I say Trump condoned slavery? I was point out the institutional racism that exists. And the fact that Trump has said things that go inline with that. Where did I say "only"? I like how you added that in there to make a point. I said coal mining is a job. Because coal mining is a job. Losing your career sucks, no doubt. But it's not the same as racism. They didn't lose their job because they were coal miners. They lost their job because the industry is going away. Mainly because of natural gas but no need to talk about that right? Because fracking is the competition and it's cheaper and so coal is going away. That's entirely different than losing a job or not getting a job your the most qualified for because you are black. And where did I ever call him a racist at? I said he has said racist things. And that he is racial insensitive. But I never called him a racist. And where exactly did I go out of my way? Please show me. Because again I never called him a racist nor have I reached to show how he was racists. Maybe you should stop going out of your way to try to downplay how different the two offenses are. The Clintons can be offense. I've said they rub people the wrong way. But that's entirely different than refusing to rent to African Americans, or saying we are lazy by birth, or that we all live in crime ridden communities. Those are offense beyond policy, jobs, or campaign talk. Those are racial insensitive. And that's why it's not the same. If you can't see that. You are helpless and not worth having a conversation with.

(Lustylad)Those are offense beyond policy, jobs, or campaign talk. Those are racial insensitive. And that's why it's not the same. If you can't see that. You are helpless and not worth having a conversation with. Originally Posted by Milly23

Milly, that last sentence, I could have told you a long time ago! Think about it: lustyturd trolls boards outside of where he lives. And why? Rejected everywhere he turns? That makes perfect sense. Time after time, he encounters people who feel he is not worth having a conversation with. So he trolls another city.

It's the "Lustyturd Tour of Rejection!"

Milly, that last sentence, I could have told you a long time ago! Think about it: lustyturd trolls boards outside of where he lives. And why? Rejected everywhere he turns? That makes perfect sense. Time after time, he encounters people who feel he is not worth having a conversation with. So he trolls another city.

It's the "Lustyturd Tour of Rejection!" Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

Too bad you feel threatened by intelligent conversation that challenges all of your liberal orthodoxies, crunchyass.

Everyone knows you prefer superficial talking points and snarky one-liners to genuine debate. Maybe you should try posting over in the Political Forum. You would feel right at home with the other libtards there. But you would have to take a deep breath, leave your comfort zone, listen to contrary views and deal with rejection. Much safer to hunker down here in your own little snarkpit.

TMaybe you should try posting over in the Political Forum. You would feel right at home with the other libtards there. But you would have to take a deep breath, leave your comfort zone, listen to contrary views and deal with rejection. Much safer to hunker down here in your own little snarkpit. Originally Posted by lustylad

Lusty, I agree with you that there are a handful of rather astute individuals on the Political Forum. However the majority of the contributors add little and feel it necessary to try to belittle those with whom they disagree. Few are open to actual discussion on issues.

Lusty, I agree with you that there are a handful of rather astute individuals on the Political Forum. However the majority of the contributors add little and feel it necessary to try to belittle those with whom they disagree. Few are open to actual discussion on issues. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Which is why crunchyass would fit right in with the majority there. Insults are de rigueur. But he would need to up his game. It's safer for him to stay here in the minor leagues.

Which is why crunchyass would fit right in with the majority there. Insults are de rigueur. But he would need to up his game. It's safer for him to stay here in the minor leagues. Originally Posted by lustylad

Here is something funny: lustyturd talking about upping one's game. LOL

This backwoods troll has no game. He has zero wit, zero ability to make a point and his "arguments" are based on far-right propaganda with only a rare glimpse of fact. This is why people, like milly, grow tired of trying to explain things to him. Lustyturd is a rightwing radical simpleton. We put him in his place and he slinks off like the loser he is.

The lustyturd Rejection Tour Continues!

Here is something funny... Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

Here is something funnier... the last time crunchyass dared to set foot in the Political Forum, this is what he posted:

BTW, Hillary Clinton is going to be our next President... Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

No wonder the little snowflake won't dare to show his face there anymore! He is afraid he will be laughed off the board!

His understanding of politics is stunted by his insecurity and ignorance. And his prognosticating skills rank right up there with Wretching Madcow!