Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:

Profile Fields

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,785 profile views
  1. Have you actually read ANY of the report? Despite the declaration of Horowitz that there was no political bias (not believable, but whatever), there were myriad examples DOCUMENTED of apparent incompetence and blatant errors. So they (leadership in the FBI) were either grossly incompetent or corrupt. Which do you think it was?
  2. Who knows it may still die in the house. We have 2 of the 31 vulnerable Democrat house members in my local area. They are getting pummeled with ads, calls and emails. I prefer this to fail in the house, despite the juicy possibilities of a senate trial.
  3. Too effing bad. Also, it will not take "years". Stop being dramatic young lady. This is how we settle things in this country. Congress has NO inherent RIGHT to these documents or witnesses. Deal with it.
  4. TAKE IT TO COURT IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT. Just cause congress demands something, does not make it correct. Why won't they go to court to settle this like congress and the executive have forever.
  5. You do the math. LOL! Internet tough girl. Perhaps you could outline the equation for us?
  6. I am saying that it is not true that President Trump "does, indeed, display every single one of those traits". Some, perhaps. Every single one, no, of course not.
  7. Not happy with the "witnesses" at the hearing yesterday either. Surprise! Not. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-democrats-texas-al-green-not-one-person-of-color-house-judiciary-committee-experts " A Texas congressman slammed his fellow Democrats Wednesday after “not one person of color” was called as an expert to testify during the first day of impeachment hearings conducted by the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, rebuked his colleagues in a speech on the House floor before the committee hearing began. Three legal scholars later testified at the request of Democrats in the first Judiciary Committee impeachment inquiry hearing. Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, was the sole witness called by the GOP. HEAD OF PROGRESSIVE GROUP: IT'S 'SAD' DEM DEBATE STAGE WILL BE 'ALL WHITE' AFTER HARRIS' EXIT “I rise because I love my country, but I also rise today with heartfelt regrets. It hurts my heart, Mr. Speaker, to see the Judiciary Committee hearing experts on the topic of impeachment — one of the seminal issues of this Congress — hearing experts... and not one person of color among the experts,” Green told the House floor. “What subliminal message are we sending to the world when we have experts but not one person of color? Are we saying that there are no people of color who are experts on this topic of impeachment?” Green continued. He claimed the House committee was taking advantage of black voters without affording them equal representation in the impeachment process. “I refuse to be ignored and taken for granted. I came here to represent the people who are ignored and taken for granted. Not one person of color among the constitutional scholars,” he said. “It seems that there’s a desire among some to have the output of people of color without input from the people of color.” “I rise today to say that this is not about Democrats. It’s not about Republicans. It’s about fairness,” Green said. “It’s about whether or not we have matured to the point in this country where we’re going to treat all people equally.” "
  8. Medical malpractice? These TDS liberals will stop at nothing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809224/ Is it ever ethical for doctors to diagnose patients they haven’t examined? Allison Motluk Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer Psychiatrists should never provide professional opinions in the media about public figures they have not personally examined, the American Psychiatric Association reiterated in a statement. The association was reminding members about what is known as “The Goldwater Rule” — a guideline penned in 1973 after more than 1000 psychiatrists went public with views about US presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s fitness to hold office, calling him, among other things, “a dangerous lunatic.” Despite this longstanding principle, however, many medical professionals have continued to weigh in over the years, particularly on the health of US presidents. Richard Nixon was declared “paranoid.” Ronald Reagan was diagnosed from afar with Alzheimer disease. Bill Clinton was proclaimed a “narcissist.” More recently, cardiologists had a field day with Donald Trump’s cholesterol levels, belly fat and coronary calcium score. At what point, if ever, should doctors go public with their from-a-distance diagnoses? Are psychiatrists unique, or are all doctors bound by the same covenant? What are the potential harms?"
  9. Those that would take away someone's rights are fair game. "Fair game" for what exactly? To be voted out? Nope that won't work for judges. To be impeached? I suppose that is possible. What are the other options for these supposed "ramifications"?
  • Create New...