Dem Senators Displaying "The kind of thuggish behavior we expect from third world dictators"

a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Chuck Schumer caught colluding with Vladimir Putin!
twitter.com...

a reply to: Blaine91555

JFK can best be compared to Reagan. Both were uniters and moderates. Both scared the bigots and haters. Both were shot.

From my observations, civil unrest is planned.

Marxists hate religion or belief in God period. Their standard is the state and the all inclusive politically correct moral high ground is their flag UNTIL THEY GAIN TOTAL POWER. When that happens freedoms the LGBT community gets now will be reduced to ashes. Out of a Marxist regime will birth a tyrant whom will have no need of your support any more. You will be nothing but cannon fodder. Wake up lefties!!!!

a reply to: shawmanfromny

The Republicans are in power. I don’t know why the Republicans aren’t just f’king the Democrats up left and right like they have always tried to do the Republicans. I know there’s something to be said about character and not lowering oneself to the level of insane Democrats, but insanity, hurdles and underhanded tactics seems to be the only thing that Democrats understand, and they don’t know how to be anything else. Why are the Republicans just sitting back taking this sh!t, when they’re holding all the cards now? I persoanliy, would be getting some major payback.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: shawmanfromny

The Republicans are in power. I don’t know why the Republicans aren’t just f’king the Democrats up left and right...

The reason is that Republicans and Democrats are just politicians cut from the same cloth. It's like the NFC vs the AFC in the NFL. On the field they're out to crush the other side but off the field, they're birds of a feather.

Politicians today are the elitists we should be afraid of. Instead, we the people are dragged into siding with one or the other and we are manipulated into fighting each other over petty sh*t.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

So you are arguing that since JFK was a member of this group, Democrats should never ever criticize people who are a member of that group? Are you serious?

Times change, things that were once acceptable are no longer acceptable. Slavery used to be acceptable now it is deplorable. Being a member of the KKK used to be accepted (at least in the South) but not any longer. So by your logic, if someone is a member of the KKK today we shouldn't question them about it. For that matter, if we find someone who still owns slaves, we shouldn't question that guy because it was once acceptable. Can you see how crazy that argument is now?

It was once acceptable to have all male groups that specifically excluded women. That time has past thought and even though there are still some groups(like the Knights) which still hold onto days gone by, they do not represent the morals or laws of the current day. The questioning is appropriate because his group is anti-gay but he will be a judge for a government in which it is not against the law to gay. The lawmakers are questioning him to make sure that his personal beliefs will not bleed over into the area of law.

a reply to: carewemust

Ryan is leaving for a reason. He had a choice. For his sake, he chose wisely.

Look at how many "retired" or simply resigned. Funny, if the MSM actually were reporters, they would be digging into why so many are not returning, but that will never happen.

Fred..

I'm okay with dissenting political views, but it's getting tiresome how many views espoused here are not based on fact. All this does is further divide America at a time when we badly need to come together. America is crumbling before our feet and the powers that run the show are keeping us misdirected while continuing to take nearly everything from nearly everyone. Wake up, people.

a reply to: BlackJackal

We're not talking about someone belonging to a hate group, like the KKK in this particular case, are we? You know what else is unacceptable? Ruling out candidates for political office due to their religious beliefs.

Congress may not require religious tests for an office under the United States. Thus, Congress may include the customary words "so help me God" in an oath, but an individual would be under no compulsion to utter them, as such a requirement would constitute a religious test.

During the 1960 presidential campaign, the issue of whether the nation would for the first time elect a Catholic to the highest office in the land raised the specter of an implicit, but no less effective, religious test. John F. Kennedy, in his Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on 12 September 1960, addressed the question directly, saying,

Part of JFK's address:

[N]either do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it. . . . [C]ontrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views – in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

en.wikipedia.org...

You can spin this anyway you see fit, but the fact is, many people, including a civil rights leader for the Seymour Institute for Black Church and Policy Studies, sees this as a religious attack.

Having read the posts the following can be stated:

The Op is stating that the Dem senators are being kind of thuggish and displaying their true colors. However, it is shown that this is par for the course, and ultimately both parties engage in this kind of behavior and have done such for years. One side gets into power, the other side is the minority, seeking and pointing out the flaws of the majority and then the roles reverse and it is the same thing over and over.

What is worse is that the Op fails to see that both parties also use and exploit rules that are made to short cut the process, to the point it forces the other side to go more extreme. And then there is the blatant hypocrisy that is shown on the part of both when it comes to their party, failing to uphold the same standards, depending on which party holds the majority.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Obama never used whatever religion he believes in to make political decisions. These judges would possibly use their religious beliefs to make decisions. Thus going against the separation of church and state.

On a related note shouldn't the SCOTUS be somewhat representative of the people it serves?
Today there are 6 Catholic and 3 Jewish members on the Supreme Court.
These are minorities?
en.wikipedia.org...