It’s almost like I’m talking to you about your comments, and not SNL about their skits, putting aside totally different context, so of course I would exclude similar incidents (and no, I’m not really aware of how SNL mocks Christie; I can’t remember the last time I watched that show).
Well, I am. So there’s that. Crenshaw is a small timer right now, and honestly iirc, this is the first time I’ve called him eye patch Dan. It used to be eye patch guy. I’m not sure where you’re going with this. Do you need a personal apology or what? 
I’m not going anywhere with it, nor do I need anything, any more than you do. We just talking. 
1 Like
No it’s fine. I don’t enjoy the thought that someone thinks I’m being insensitive. I hear you.
You’d also probably know who I was talking about if I said stub legged Tammy… Factual, defining, but cringe, no? Maybe because eye patches are all like arrrrrgggh, it’s less cringe. 
No, who’s this?
Tammy Duckworth.
1 Like
This is getting really colorful.
Wouldn’t Tammy Stumpworth be more fitting?
2 Likes
Actually, Tammy Duckworth you couod give me the whole name and I’d know who you meant. I’d prefer Thai Tammy
Your strawman is cringe, in more than one way, yes
Maybe. Maybe because i respect JD. Maybe you dont need to get so offended over such a small thing and we can all get back to the point JD was making 
Or just Stubby
Now that’s a bridge too far!
1 Like
I don’t know all that much about her. She came to Taiwan recently. She hollowed out some scumbags years ago for taking advantage of a VA program. Her injuries were extensive. She listed them. Impressive but I know nothing about her positions on anything.
You’re absolutely spot on. Of course I didn’t mean it doesn’t serve a purpose at all – certainly a horse-and-pony show serves all the purposes you mentioned. But the real intended, or Potemkin-village purpose was to find crime, which the article about Christie was trying to encourage. If there is a there there, then they ought to make credible criminal referrals. Certainly Liz Cheney wants to. But in the end, they can’t, coz there’s no there there. And Democrats knew that going in.
If Trump weren’t coming back in 2024, there wouldn’t be these hearings. Democrats fear he’s gonna be more unbeatable than ever before, with election laws being tightened, MAGA people running and winning elections from the local precincts level, and primarying RINOs at state and national levels, the GOP in effect having now become the MAGA party.
Polls have Trump more popular than ever after they started these hearings. Not sure it’s connected, since no one’s really watching, the ratings are abysmal – the other day, one of the networks flipped from the hearings to cover a Golf tournament, (which in the minds of many people is the most boring sport, but better than dead-air hearings).
2 Likes
Not sure why everyone keeps thinking I’m offended. I can totally think something is kind of a dick move without being offended. Hell, I might even think it’s hilarious. 
1 Like
Lawyers? I wasn’t talking about lawyers. By definition, lawyers are supposed to be good at taking any side of any debate and arguing it and persuading. When I think of a great lawyer, I always think of Sir Lionel Luckhoo, who argued 245 murder cases and got every one acquitted, which is in Guiness records. You know not all those were innocent. He was a good lawyer.
But I’m talking about judges. They’re not supposed to be advocating, but keep their nose in the books, objectively, and keep their subjective opinions out (about which side they hope wins). And in a way, you’re right. Democrat judges operate a lot like lawyers do, trying everything in their power to go against the grain of law and court precedent to achieve a hoped-for outcome. That’s what we call legislating from the bench. If you are that subjective about outcomes, you shouldn’t be a judge, but rather a representative, and then you can legislate along with 400 other people. Judges have too much power for that kind of function, they tend to be autocratic when they legislate. They should be keeping their nose in the books.
1 Like
It’s over. Give us something to go on.
You can post all you like from the one sided and completely biased Jan 6th hearings. There is no avenue to hear “the other side”, no one there is representing an alternative view. No one is pushing back against any of the claims, it’s a kangaroo court only interested in creating an echo chamber of like minded individuals.
But that doesn’t mean there is no other side to this, if the Jan 6th committee had an ounce of integrity they would allow an other side to present what they think happened. The fact they don’t and won’t speaks volumes about how much they care about the truth, or lack thereof, but rather a charade to try and convince the public, or the parts of it that don’t see this as the farce that it is.
The short of it is this, after the election there was a fire hose of claims of fraud, some of which panned out to be false, but many, if not the majority simply have never been adjudicated and some like the example in the article above are not minor.
Bill Barr is adamant that there was nothing substantive to any of the claims Trump’s people brought forth. He also says the Rudy was out of control, drunk on power and literally drunk.
Books have been written. Good on the news for debunking the stupid ones, Trump and Russia for example. But the facts are lining up of Barr’s side. Eastman and Rudy look really bad. If they go down, Trump will wave bye to them just like he did to Manafort. He will play dumb and slither away. Read some of what Barr says, and for sure read what he said under oath. He takes that stuff for real.
2 Likes
The better man won, fair and square