laughedatbytime Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 44 Ignorant Fools :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: And that mulligan remark by Mike Lee. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:The one that was completely taken out of context? :facepalm: indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 44 Ignorant Fools :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: And that mulligan remark by Mike Lee. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:The one that was completely taken out of context? :facepalm: indeedI'm not sure any context could make that phrasing appropriate, considering the circumstances. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhyta Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 Lee is my Senator and he makes me do a facepalm all the time :rage: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible airwave Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 (edited) Watching the trial on Hal Sparks' livecast on Youtube and it has this snowflake Schoen "fighting" the side of truth and justice with whataboutism. It's called a metaphor, not a freaking insurrection and the murder of a cop and Heather Heyer in 2017. One of my biggest pet peeves is intentionally dense and self awareness lacking individuals and he is on it like Tony Montana's nose on coke. Edited February 12, 2021 by invisible airwave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible airwave Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 (edited) Lee is my Senator and he makes me do a facepalm all the time :rage: Him and Rand Paul were against compensation for 9/11 first responders. Even if they were democrats or anti Trump republicans, they'd be anti American scum to me just for that. Scum is scum no matter what letter you have next to your name. Edited February 12, 2021 by invisible airwave 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted February 12, 2021 Author Share Posted February 12, 2021 Scum is scum no matter what letter you have next to your name. 2021 Post of The Year. All human beings - without exception - have something in common: They all have the potential to become corrupt and hypocritical and even turn to evil. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible airwave Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 Scum is scum no matter what letter you have next to your name. 2021 Post of The Year. All human beings - without exception - have something in common: They all have the potential to become corrupt and hypocritical and even turn to evil. Even though she's in that "fight" montage and did not act upon what she said, I called out Madonna for what she said on the spot. She went too far. Those like her, Lena Dunham and Gwyneth Paltrow are basically the James Woods of the anti Trumpers. They don't speak for me. She's gone crazy even more than usual as well. Remember her praising the "demon sperm" epidemiology quack months ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted February 12, 2021 Author Share Posted February 12, 2021 Scum is scum no matter what letter you have next to your name. 2021 Post of The Year. All human beings - without exception - have something in common: They all have the potential to become corrupt and hypocritical and even turn to evil. Even though she's in that "fight" montage and did not act upon what she said, I called out Madonna for what she said on the spot. She went too far. Those like her, Lena Dunham and Gwyneth Paltrow are basically the James Woods of the anti Trumpers. They don't speak for me. She's gone crazy even more than usual as well. Remember her praising the "demon sperm" epidemiology quack months ago? I pay no attention to anything said or done by celebrities. The Cult of Celebrity is one of the worst human inventions of all time. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 Scum is scum no matter what letter you have next to your name. 2021 Post of The Year. All human beings - without exception - have something in common: They all have the potential to become corrupt and hypocritical and even turn to evil. Even though she's in that "fight" montage and did not act upon what she said, I called out Madonna for what she said on the spot. She went too far. Those like her, Lena Dunham and Gwyneth Paltrow are basically the James Woods of the anti Trumpers. They don't speak for me. She's gone crazy even more than usual as well. Remember her praising the "demon sperm" epidemiology quack months ago? I pay no attention to anything said or done by celebrities. The Cult of Celebrity is one of the worst human inventions of all time.One silver lining of the pandemic is the waning exposure and influence of celebrities. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted February 12, 2021 Author Share Posted February 12, 2021 Scum is scum no matter what letter you have next to your name. 2021 Post of The Year. All human beings - without exception - have something in common: They all have the potential to become corrupt and hypocritical and even turn to evil. Even though she's in that "fight" montage and did not act upon what she said, I called out Madonna for what she said on the spot. She went too far. Those like her, Lena Dunham and Gwyneth Paltrow are basically the James Woods of the anti Trumpers. They don't speak for me. She's gone crazy even more than usual as well. Remember her praising the "demon sperm" epidemiology quack months ago? I pay no attention to anything said or done by celebrities. The Cult of Celebrity is one of the worst human inventions of all time. One silver lining of the pandemic is the waning exposure and influence of celebrities. Especially when they run for public office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted February 13, 2021 Author Share Posted February 13, 2021 Impeachment Defense Lawyer Bruce Castor: “Let’s touch now on the second absurd and conflated allegation in the House managers’ single article. President Trump’s phone call to Georgia secretary of state Ben Roethlisberger, surreptitiously recorded…” Georgia's Secretary of State is Brad Raffensperger. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted February 13, 2021 Share Posted February 13, 2021 (edited) Impeachment Defense Lawyer Bruce Castor: “Let’s touch now on the second absurd and conflated allegation in the House managers’ single article. President Trump’s phone call to Georgia secretary of state Ben Roethlisberger, surreptitiously recorded…” Georgia's Secretary of State is Brad Raffensperger. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:That's awesome. Here it is... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ7o518UrCI It's actually a blend of the two names, "Ben Raffensberger", but still funny. Edited February 13, 2021 by goose 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible airwave Posted February 13, 2021 Share Posted February 13, 2021 43 racist traitors really believe the Peter Griffin terrorist skin color chart meme is the way of justice. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhyta Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 McConnell.."..this limited tool (impeachment) exists to "secure the state against gross official misdemeanors." That is, to protect the country from government officers. ...If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the House managers proved their specific charge." But you made sure that didn't happen didn't you? :facepalm: :facepalm: :16ton: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick N. Backer Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 We need witnesses! No! Don’t let them call witnesses! OK, you can have witnesses. We can? Oh, you know what, never mind. We don’t need them. :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted February 14, 2021 Author Share Posted February 14, 2021 We need witnesses! No! Don’t let them call witnesses! OK, you can have witnesses. We can? Oh, you know what, never mind. We don’t need them. :facepalm: OK. We weren't gonna listen to anything they said anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick N. Backer Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 We need witnesses! No! Don’t let them call witnesses! OK, you can have witnesses. We can? Oh, you know what, never mind. We don’t need them. :facepalm: OK. We weren't gonna listen to anything they said anyway.... Why even ask for them, then? So that if the request was denied they could complain they were denied the ability to call witnesses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbanezJem Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 Senators vote that it is constitutional to convict. North Carolina GOP Senator Richard Burr disagreed but accepts this verdict. Mitch advises GOP senators this is a vote of conscience. Burr`s decision is "Guilty" after considering the evidence. Within half an hour, condemned by the NC GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted February 14, 2021 Author Share Posted February 14, 2021 We need witnesses! No! Don’t let them call witnesses! OK, you can have witnesses. We can? Oh, you know what, never mind. We don’t need them. :facepalm: OK. We weren't gonna listen to anything they said anyway.... Why even ask for them, then? So that if the request was denied they could complain they were denied the ability to call witnesses? The vote to allow witnesses was 54-46 in favor, which was not a good sign. Some Republican senators who were seen as possible votes for conviction voted against allowing witnesses. The Impeachment managers were then informed that Republican senators were ready to vote and go home for the weekend. Less than two hours after the witness vote, the Impeachment managers told the Senate that they had no further motions. Three hours later, the acquittal was done. The Impeachment managers simply threw in the towel, IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemiBeers Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 Impeachment Defense Lawyer Bruce Castor: “Let’s touch now on the second absurd and conflated allegation in the House managers’ single article. President Trump’s phone call to Georgia secretary of state Ben Roethlisberger, surreptitiously recorded…” Georgia's Secretary of State is Brad Raffensperger. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:That's awesome. Here it is... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ7o518UrCI It's actually a blend of the two names, "Ben Raffensberger", but still funny. Is Brad there? No dipshit, this is Ben... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick N. Backer Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 We need witnesses! No! Don’t let them call witnesses! OK, you can have witnesses. We can? Oh, you know what, never mind. We don’t need them. :facepalm: OK. We weren't gonna listen to anything they said anyway.... Why even ask for them, then? So that if the request was denied they could complain they were denied the ability to call witnesses? The vote to allow witnesses was 54-46 in favor, which was not a good sign. Some Republican senators who were seen as possible votes for conviction voted against allowing witnesses. The Impeachment managers were then informed that Republican senators were ready to vote and go home for the weekend. Less than two hours after the witness vote, the Impeachment managers told the Senate that they had no further motions. Three hours later, the acquittal was done. The Impeachment managers simply threw in the towel, IMO. It seems like they spent a fair amount of time yesterday arguing for witnesses. Did they think they had 67 votes to convict when they argued for witnesses? Did they not truly believe witnesses would convince anyone to vote to convict? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemiBeers Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 (edited) We need witnesses! No! Don’t let them call witnesses! OK, you can have witnesses. We can? Oh, you know what, never mind. We don’t need them. :facepalm: OK. We weren't gonna listen to anything they said anyway.... Why even ask for them, then? So that if the request was denied they could complain they were denied the ability to call witnesses? The vote to allow witnesses was 54-46 in favor, which was not a good sign. Some Republican senators who were seen as possible votes for conviction voted against allowing witnesses. The Impeachment managers were then informed that Republican senators were ready to vote and go home for the weekend. Less than two hours after the witness vote, the Impeachment managers told the Senate that they had no further motions. Three hours later, the acquittal was done. The Impeachment managers simply threw in the towel, IMO. The verdict was fully cooked before the trial. This was a process of padding stats after the outcome of the game was determined. From a political standpoint, both sides got what they could reasonably accomplish. The loser is the constitution, since we've now determined that impeachment is impossible if both parties are intrenched. Now I wonder at what point does the GOP splinter off into two parties, the Trumper Party of crazies and the 'Lincoln Party' of the former rational country club GOP. Edited February 14, 2021 by HemiBeers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted February 14, 2021 Author Share Posted February 14, 2021 We need witnesses! No! Don’t let them call witnesses! OK, you can have witnesses. We can? Oh, you know what, never mind. We don’t need them. :facepalm: OK. We weren't gonna listen to anything they said anyway.... Why even ask for them, then? So that if the request was denied they could complain they were denied the ability to call witnesses? The vote to allow witnesses was 54-46 in favor, which was not a good sign. Some Republican senators who were seen as possible votes for conviction voted against allowing witnesses. The Impeachment managers were then informed that Republican senators were ready to vote and go home for the weekend. Less than two hours after the witness vote, the Impeachment managers told the Senate that they had no further motions. Three hours later, the acquittal was done. The Impeachment managers simply threw in the towel, IMO. It seems like they spent a fair amount of time yesterday arguing for witnesses. Did they think they had 67 votes to convict when they argued for witnesses? Did they not truly believe witnesses would convince anyone to vote to convict? And when the impeachment process began, did they believe that they had a chance of getting a conviction? We may never know the answer to that. We do know that the impeachment managers felt duty bound to at least try to hold the former president accountable for his crimes. Maybe a different group of managers would have fought longer and harder. Maybe.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick N. Backer Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 1613314185[/url'>' post='4888780']1613313540' post='4888774']1613313008[/url'>' post='4888768']1613311753' post='4888757']1613311220[/url'>' post='4888752']1613308334' post='4888748']We need witnesses! No! Don’t let them call witnesses! OK, you can have witnesses. We can? Oh, you know what, never mind. We don’t need them. :facepalm: OK. We weren't gonna listen to anything they said anyway.... Why even ask for them, then? So that if the request was denied they could complain they were denied the ability to call witnesses? The vote to allow witnesses was 54-46 in favor, which was not a good sign. Some Republican senators who were seen as possible votes for conviction voted against allowing witnesses. The Impeachment managers were then informed that Republican senators were ready to vote and go home for the weekend. Less than two hours after the witness vote, the Impeachment managers told the Senate that they had no further motions. Three hours later, the acquittal was done. The Impeachment managers simply threw in the towel, IMO. It seems like they spent a fair amount of time yesterday arguing for witnesses. Did they think they had 67 votes to convict when they argued for witnesses? Did they not truly believe witnesses would convince anyone to vote to convict? And when the impeachment process began, did they believe that they had a chance of getting a conviction? We may never know the answer to that. We do know that the impeachment managers felt duty bound to at least try to hold the former president accountable for his crimes. Maybe a different group of managers would have fought longer and harder. Maybe.... But my :facepalm: was a little different. They argued that they needed witnesses yesterday. When they got them, on the same day, they changed their position. Seems disingenuous to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted February 14, 2021 Author Share Posted February 14, 2021 We need witnesses! No! Don’t let them call witnesses! OK, you can have witnesses. We can? Oh, you know what, never mind. We don’t need them. :facepalm: OK. We weren't gonna listen to anything they said anyway.... Why even ask for them, then? So that if the request was denied they could complain they were denied the ability to call witnesses? The vote to allow witnesses was 54-46 in favor, which was not a good sign. Some Republican senators who were seen as possible votes for conviction voted against allowing witnesses. The Impeachment managers were then informed that Republican senators were ready to vote and go home for the weekend. Less than two hours after the witness vote, the Impeachment managers told the Senate that they had no further motions. Three hours later, the acquittal was done. The Impeachment managers simply threw in the towel, IMO. It seems like they spent a fair amount of time yesterday arguing for witnesses. Did they think they had 67 votes to convict when they argued for witnesses? Did they not truly believe witnesses would convince anyone to vote to convict? And when the impeachment process began, did they believe that they had a chance of getting a conviction? We may never know the answer to that. We do know that the impeachment managers felt duty bound to at least try to hold the former president accountable for his crimes. Maybe a different group of managers would have fought longer and harder. Maybe.... But my :facepalm: was a little different. They argued that they needed witnesses yesterday. When they got them, on the same day, they changed their position. Seems disingenuous to me. Disjointed and discordant, IMO. There was no strong consensus among Democratic leaders regarding how strongly they should prosecute the case. They was certainly much indecision on what to do, especially after the managers were told that the Republicans - and some Democrats - were ready to go home. “We could have had 500 witnesses, and it would not have overcome the kinds of arguments being made by Mitch McConnell and other Republicans who were hanging their hats on the claim that it was somehow unconstitutional to try a former president.” -- Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), Lead impeachment manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now