pucho812
Well-known member
As I said previously there is/was enough evidence to give her, her day in court. What that outcome would have been had it happen is way beyond my crystal ball.
Pyrrhic
- Thread starter hodad
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
- Status
pucho812
Well-known member
I’ve decided the house should remove the news and the cameras. They should make people wait outside watching a chimney stack. If the smoke is white we have a new speaker, if it’s black it would mean they need to vote again.
You are not a court of law. You, I assume, have some ability to judge for yourself. There is public information about Vitter's whoremongering, and as noted he admitted it. You need a court of law to judge him guilty for you to believe it happened? If so, I'm sorry for your that your perception is apparently so woefully limited.
pucho812
Well-known member
Correct I am not. Neither are you. By law he was not charged. That’s where it ends for me.
Recording Engineer
Well-known member
Just say already: “Yes, I have double-standards and I do not care.”
To me, that is what you’re saying with all this round and round. That’s where it ends for me. Then we can have a laugh with our beer and move on.
I don’t remember if I read… Did you have Guinness across the pond? I be jealous! Maybe one day!
Last edited:
L´Andratté
Well-known member
Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas...
Well look who is speaker I though he was done. It will be interesting to see the rules change in the house. That’s really what this whole thing was about. Nancy changed the rules (when she became speaker) that Thomas Jefferson had established for 200 years. The freedom caucus wanted them changed back and Kevin did not want to do that. Could be a bumpy ride.
If that was all, why was one of the major concessions to bar the House Leadership PAC (I think that's the name) from backing candidates in open seat House races? Did Thomas Jefferson have any rules about political action committees?
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
Having the establishment effectively choose the next candidates is bad. Both sides do it. Maybe the Democrats can "lead the way" and show how it should be done. Or not.
https://bluetent.us/articles/campaigns-elections/leading-democratic-super-pacs-of-2020/
crazydoc
Well-known member
We'll see how all the ass licking and cock sucking turns out - you can bet it won't be for our benefit.
IMO some of the freedom caucus demands will be for the public good. They are pushing for "regular order" so formal budget bills in plenty of time for debate and negotiation. No more 11th hour, 4,000 page omnibus budget bill dumps.
===
The one vote to challenge speakership is unwinding a Nancy rule... good riddance.
Sausage making is always ugly to watch as all the huge egos flutter to the camera lights, like moths. It is interesting to see how people interpret this latest ink blot test.
Once again modern politics is teaching the public civics.
JR
===
The one vote to challenge speakership is unwinding a Nancy rule... good riddance.
Sausage making is always ugly to watch as all the huge egos flutter to the camera lights, like moths. It is interesting to see how people interpret this latest ink blot test.
Once again modern politics is teaching the public civics.
JR
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
Just an FYI, profanity doesn't improve your messaging.
fallout
Well-known member
For once I agree with you. McCarthy is as swampy as they get. Honestly, has it EVER been for our benefit?
Liberals should be thankful. Trump supporting McCarthy won't go over well. Or at least, I don't think it will. You can't 'drain the swamp' while supporting the swamp. Not a good look.
That said, I don't ever see myself voting blue for numerous reasons, so there's that.
Business as usual in DC.
Not really. Essentially the House Fascist Caucus will be the Speaker's puppetmasters. They've set themselves up to make him bend to their whims. It certainly won't be pleasant for McCarthy--not that he didn't choose his own fate here--and there's a strong potential for this to be unpleasant or even downright disastrous for the entire nation. Time will tell.
Perhaps not, but certainly succinct and accurate.
As a side note I read that at one point in this debacle, as McCarthy approached Gaetz to plead his case once again, an unnamed Dem shouted, "On your knees!" at McCarthy. Well-deserved. McCarthy's groveling and capitulation were pathetic.
crazydoc
Well-known member
I really don't give a motherfucking shit - nothing I say or do means squat to you or anyone else - just "freedom of speech".
pucho812
Well-known member
Tell us how you real feel?
About the only thing here that makes any sense is time will tell.
Let’s see how this plays out.
Out with the old in with the new, new year, new house speaker but same old politics. My side can beat your side because we have the moral high ground. Only problem is your moral high ground exists purely because you say so.
Matador
Well-known member
Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism. —Benito Mussolini
- Status
