RE: On nutsuckers and free speech

RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BoscoX -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/8/2017 11:36:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic http://www.inquisitr.com/3872373/trump-inauguration-sting-operation-conservative-group-caught-trying-to-pay-liberals-to-riot/ Fake news - your article cites this Huffpo article Here the author of the Huffpo article Ryann Grimm praises Project Veritas and James O'Keefe as doing "good work" in this case "Lives could be saved" http://projectveritas.com/2017/01/18/james-okeefe-on-hannity-with-huffington-post-writer-ryan-grim/

Lucylastic -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/8/2017 11:44:11 AM)
hahahahhahahahaahah project veritas yes yes its alllllllll lefties are paid protestors, even the dipshit in charge is pulling okeefe out of his hole, so alternative facts drool./ he asked for a link, I gave one....as I said before, whether YOU believe anything is true, false, or plain lying bullshit, is immaterial.

MrRodgers -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/8/2017 12:02:40 PM)
Yep, same old repub hypocrisy.

CreativeDominant -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/9/2017 3:22:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Thats alt-right nutsuckers doing that OKeefe is giving nutsuckers a 2500 welfare check to do it. Got proof of that? Legal opinion, other than your own, that the Republicans violated the Constitution by shutting down Warrens? You cant read? Layed out for you right here on this thread. The sting operation is proof of what, exactly? That some shit for brains jerk tried to pay people to riot? Where's the proof that the ones rioting at Berkley or at any other snowflake riot are actually paid by anybody, liberal or conservative? As for your claim, you've yet to provide proof...other than your opinion...that shutting Warrens down was unconstitutional.

mnottertail -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/9/2017 5:07:20 PM)
congress shall make no law...............pencil it out That some shit for brains jerk paying people to riot is a nutsucker, nutsuckers are rioting. How can nutsuckers be nazis and communists simultaneously sucking PutinJizz and HitlerJizz? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/college-republicans-sorry-hitler-valentines-card

bounty44 -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/10/2017 4:25:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant As for your claim, you've yet to provide proof...other than your opinion...that shutting Warrens down was unconstitutional. he cant---as indicated by his post above mine in reply to you, he's impotent and incompetent.

mnottertail -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/10/2017 4:55:18 AM)
you have to forgive this guy that follows me around and right on que felchgobbles retarded shit. He is mad because it has been pointed out that his soft on for PutinJizz is further deteriorating his syphilitic brain. And that aint good. He is an indolent felchgobbler, a drain on society, useless, without any prospect whatsoever, shunned, a voracious parrot for nutsucker propaganda, untutored, inept, in sum, a waste of American oxygen. Poor dogshit44, no pot to piss in, no window to throw it out of, and unable to cogitate as evidenced by his fuckheaded incoherence without a long meaningless retarded quote from townhall.

BoscoX -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/10/2017 6:52:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant As for your claim, you've yet to provide proof...other than your opinion...that shutting Warrens down was unconstitutional. he cant---as indicated by his post above mine in reply to you, he's impotent and incompetent. I can't believe nutsucker-felchgobbler man created a thread with this many replies

mnottertail -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/10/2017 9:07:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant As for your claim, you've yet to provide proof...other than your opinion...that shutting Warrens down was unconstitutional. he cant---as indicated by his post above mine in reply to you, he's impotent and incompetent. I can't believe nutsucker-felchgobbler man created a thread with this many replies OH, Felchgobbler Gobbles, you poor fucking retarded sap. It must be a great deal of stress on you to be a retarded felchgobbling nutsucker living in your mothers basement with your sock and your hand lotion. The fact you named it 'the compound' is still kinda cute though. You've been banging on your pots again, haven't you? I've told you... if you keep on doing it, you won't have any pots left.

WickedsDesire -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/10/2017 9:42:50 AM)
mnottertail original post I thought for the pantsbuster, or is it filibuster, they needed the 60%, or was it two thirds, before they could declare her a mad waffling bint. And that this should not be included in the simple circus majority...so i dont understand that bit. I've obviously missed something somewhere?

mnottertail -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/10/2017 9:54:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire mnottertail original post I thought for the pantsbuster, or is it filibuster, they needed the 60%, or was it two thirds, before they could declare her a mad waffling bint. And that this should not be included in the simple circus majority...so i dont understand that bit. I've obviously missed something somewhere? that is the rule that I believe is still at simple majority from 2013. I have no information anywhere I can find that it was changed back. In any case, quick change. Nuclear option my ass, it has always been an illegal act since Nixon first proclaimed it could be done. Obviously not much of a lawyer that one.

WickedsDesire -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/10/2017 10:09:01 AM)
I agree..... The filibuster thingie I was unaware it could be changed could look again On November 21, 2013, the Senate voted, in a 52 to 48 vote, to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of all executive and judicial nominees, excluding Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required. A 3/5 supermajority is still required to end filibusters on legislation and Supreme Court nominees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Senate - this is why I am getting confused with what going on across there.

mnottertail -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/10/2017 10:46:10 AM)
Oh, ok, so they will vote on the rule being extended to SCOTUS nominees, a much smaller nuclear device than big boy. And the theater is over.

WickedsDesire -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/10/2017 11:05:32 AM)
Hillbilly is in so they must have already did that but I couldn't find anything anwhere saying they had extended it to exclude Supreme Court nominees - this was the same senate who rejected Obama's nominee as it was to close to the end of his presidency for "senate" to decide - 10 months. In February 2016, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died. The following month, President Barack Obama nominated D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. However, the Senate was controlled by the Republican Party, which argued that the next president should instead appoint Scalia's successor.[45] Senate Republicans refused to hold hearings on Garland, and Garland's nomination remained before the Senate longer than any other Supreme Court nomination.[46] Garland's nomination expired with the end of the 114th United States Congress.[47] WTF is going on?

LadyDemura -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/11/2017 12:12:54 AM)
What happened is the Republicans routinely use these type of tactics and the Democrats are reluctant to.... While this pick was totally stolen from Obama, there's no real guarantee Gorsuch will end up being the Scalia replacement the Republicans hope he will be...once they get on the Supreme Court they can and often do have a mind of their own...

thompsonx -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/11/2017 12:37:16 PM)
ORIGINAL: Kirata ORIGINAL: mnottertail http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/318422-senate-votes-to-silence-warren-after-sessions-speech Feel free to add your own examples of their constant pantshitting hipocracy and trampling of the constitution. Yeah, bitch and moan. She broke a Senate rule. Well he got a chance to say shut up and sit down bitch to an old woman but when the men stood up and read the letter in total he seems to have run out of balls...so much for senate rules and the courage (or lack there of) of ones convictions? Was the punk afraid that bernie might bitch slap him into the middle of next week or did he just want to tell a girl to shut up and sit down.

thompsonx -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/11/2017 12:38:57 PM)
ORIGINAL: LadyDemura What happened is the Republicans routinely use these type of tactics and the Democrats are reluctant to.... While this pick was totally stolen from Obama, there's no real guarantee Gorsuch will end up being the Scalia replacement the Republicans hope he will be...once they get on the Supreme Court they can and often do have a mind of their own... Earl warren comes to mind.

BoscoX -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/11/2017 12:49:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyDemura What happened is the Republicans routinely use these type of tactics and the Democrats are reluctant to.... While this pick was totally stolen from Obama, there's no real guarantee Gorsuch will end up being the Scalia replacement the Republicans hope he will be...once they get on the Supreme Court they can and often do have a mind of their own... "Stolen" from the Dems? Hysterical much? The seat (which had been held by Samual Alito, a Republican pick) belongs to the people, not the Dems. Don't forget that Chuck Schumer vowed to keep President Bush from getting a SC confirmation in the last year and a half of his second term So you could say that the Republicans are simply following yet another Dem precedent Another way to look at it was, the Republicans deferred to the American voters to decide who got to pick Alito's replacement, and they chose Donald Trump.

mnottertail -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/11/2017 1:25:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: LadyDemura What happened is the Republicans routinely use these type of tactics and the Democrats are reluctant to.... While this pick was totally stolen from Obama, there's no real guarantee Gorsuch will end up being the Scalia replacement the Republicans hope he will be...once they get on the Supreme Court they can and often do have a mind of their own... "Stolen" from the Dems? Hysterical much? The seat (which had been held by Samual Alito, a Republican pick) belongs to the people, not the Dems. Don't forget that Chuck Schumer vowed to keep President Bush from getting a SC confirmation in the last year and a half of his second term So you could say that the Republicans are simply following yet another Dem precedent Another way to look at it was, the Republicans deferred to the American voters to decide who got to pick Alito's replacement, and they chose Donald Trump. Several things Felchgobbler Gobbles you fucking retard. Nothing stolen by Dems, never said, and not contemplated. Secondly, Samuel Fucking Alito aint going to be sharing his seat on the Supreme Court with anyone you fuckhead. I keep repeating this, and you keep felching PutinJizz. Samuel Alito is very much alive and sits on the Supreme Court of the United States. I know you have never heard of these things, being in the compound, your mothers basement with your sock and hand lotion, but no sense having OKeefe paid nutsuckers kill Alito yet, he isnt even gonna get a line of text anywhere else except by ignorant cockgarglers like you. You fucking stupid nutsucker retards are why we cant have nice things. Go stick a pitchfork up your ass and save America the oxygen.

thompsonx -> RE: On nutsuckers and free speech (2/11/2017 2:02:58 PM)
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant The sting operation is proof of what, exactly? Perhaps a grown up might be able to help you with the big words? That some shit for brains jerk tried to pay people to riot? Was he just any "shit for brains jerk" or was he some politically oriented shit for brains jerk? Where's the proof that the ones rioting at Berkley or at any other snowflake riot are actually paid by anybody, liberal or conservative? Till you show proof to the contrary the momemtum is against that thought.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.734375E-02