daz28

The rule that took an hour to come up with was, wait for this: House members may not criticize the king. I'm not kidding either. Even though everything stated was factual. As McGovern continued through Trump’s legal woes, Rep. Erin Houchin (R-Ind.) grew impatient. “Take down his words,” she said. “Mr. Speaker, I demand that his words be taken down.” “The gentleman from Massachusetts will now be seated,” Carl ordered McGovern. The House then came to an abrupt pause as the House parliamentarian, staff and Carl figured out whether McGovern’s words broke any rules that would merit having them struck from the record. Clerks rifled through a transcript of McGovern’s remarks as members of the Rules Committee crowded around the Democratic and Republican work stations. McGovern, meanwhile, leaned back in his chair sporting a large smirk. Across the chamber, Houchin leaned forward in her chair and covered herself with a large white shawl. A little over an hour later, Carl returned to the rostrum. “The chair is prepared to rule,” he said, in a slow Southern drawl. He would be striking down McGovern’s words. The Democrat stared back at him with his hands in the air, then rolled his eyes at the decision. Carl cited the archaic House rule McGovern had referenced earlier that prohibits House members from criticizing the king. Carl argued that, per that rule, House members in the chamber can’t accuse a presidential nominee of engaging in illegal activities — even if that nominee has been legally charged. “This is warranted even though a candidate may not have officially obtained the party’s nomination once there’s no reasonable dispute that the candidate will receive the nomination,” Carl said. The Republican added that while the House rules allow for criticism of a candidate’s official positions, “it is a breach of order to refer to a candidate in terms [that are] personally offensive.” McGovern, thus, was blocked from speaking on the House floor for the rest of the day.

You're a little confused about the definitions of religion, platform, and state, but alternative facts are fine in the bubble.

I mean at least this time you actually posted the same spam post in the sh!+ post thread. It's amazing your comrades give you a free pass. Heck, I bet they wouldn't care if you shot a guy on 5th Avenue.

I don't know, maybe ask the party who consists almost completely of the same religious group, and has massive PACS and lobbies to legislate accordingly with their religious beliefs???

Yes, but is it socially acceptable for a "lady" to sip them neat? We already know that's how men should drink them, apparently.

Thanks for describing conservatism to a T. Edith Bunker had it good(watching cartoons and playing video games), and Alice Hyatt should have married a safer trucker, or found some other guy to be dependent upon, then she wouldn't have had to be bullied by Al Sharples, right? Conservative revisionist history is always so spot on. LOL

Yeah, women were shaping a world, in which they were fighting for equality? You don't think lots of women were stuck in bad situations, because being a single mother with no education was a really bad prospect? Ever watch 'Alice' or 'All in the Family', because I lived through it personally and around it? My mind is open, and it allows me to see and understand these things. Either you didn't live it, or your eyes are/were wide shut.

Were the rules followed? The procedural complaints will be ignored. Carl said that McGovern had “accused the presumed nominee for the office of president of engaging in illegal activities,” describing the words as “offensive” and stating that a presumptive nominee of a party is subject to the same rules of decorum as those that apply to a sitting president — a bold claim considering how often Republicans themselves accuse President Joe Biden of committing crimes. McGovern’s statement was not a slanderous accusation of criminality, but rather an acknowledgment of the various existing legal proceedings against the former president. Ahead of Carl’s ruling, McGovern raised several points of inquiry before the floor, asking if it was “correct that members can mention the trial, call it a sham, and question the integrity of the judge, but a reference to the mere existence of that same trial without any characterization, that’s out of order?” Carl refused to provide a response.

We've already covered that hours ago, so instead of going back to the question that I have already answered yes, could you please answer mine? I'll add another one, has your opinion of how classified documents cases are handled changed since Hillary's servergate??

So disseminating stolen classified documents is fine, and shouldn't be a crime? Remember, we can look back on your opinion of Hillary's server.

So you'd only charge someone AFTER they were caught disseminating the stolen classified documents? Am I getting this down right???

Costello is a complete clown: 'Jeez!' Costello said in the witness box, at a normal volume − but with an exasperated tone − after a sustained objection. "Sorry?" "I'm sorry?" Merchan said heatedly to Costello. Costello then said "strike it," seeming to refer to striking his own testimony from the court record. Costello continued testifying, and then he dramatically sighed after another objection was sustained. Merchan then excused the jurors from the courtroom and said to Costello: "I want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom." Costello said when jurors left. "Right," Costello responded. "If you don't like my ruling, you don't say, 'Jeez!'" Merchan continued. He reminded Costello, who is a veteran lawyer, that Costello also isn't permitted to say, "Strike it," because Merchan is the only one in the courtroom with the power to strike testimony. Merchan also made reference to Costello rolling his eyes. "Do you understand that?" Merchan asked Costello, who was sitting within six feet of the judge, in the witness box to the judge's left. Merchan then said to Costello in an inflamed tone: "Are you staring me down right now?" "Clear the courtroom, please. Clear the courtroom," the judge then ordered. Court security officers then forced all reporters to leave the courtroom.

Here's the censorship THEY were so worried about. She wasn't allowed to speak the rest of the day. They'll probably be ecstatic, because it's a dem, and hypocrisy doesn't exist in the bubble.

Yeah no difference between an attorney-judge at a hearing, and an unruly witness trying to strike testimony from his witness stand during a trial. LOL

Joe Biden was made for bad lip reading.

This will be a fun question come debate time. "What exactly is a wokie military. Were you referring to any certain group of people in the military there?"

I have no issue with anyone following a traditional role or any other role. It's just that role, which kept women down then, is even more dangerous for them now. Being left with a few children is a sentence to life on social services for the stuck mothers. The current model of college, career, family is what works best now. Butker is a 28 years old rich kid(thanks some to his mother). He has no notion of the poverty that women who may take his advice could go through.

Ya this bothers me more than 2 SCOTUS justices standing behind Jan 6th. 🙄

You'd think by 90 years old you'd know what totally berserk meant. Then again to his ancient self, swatting a fly off your shoulder is going berserk. Let's make it about the judge and not Costello or trump. Thanks Al. LOL

The only problem with me quoting trump is that he was probably lying. LOL A cap here and there is for emphasis. ALL caps is yelling. If the biggest complaint you have about the facts I posted is trumps probably lying, then I AM DOING GREAT!!! Does don the con come off as a tool when he tweets, TODUHL EXHONERASHUN!!!, TOO?

So two SUPREME COURT justices, who either themselves or spouse were behind or in support of Jan 6th, which aren't recusing themselves, is a big yawn to you, but the idea that someone's kid in politics got rich off their dad's status, POTENTIALLY(nothing found yet) is bothering. One guys claim, because he probably didn't get security clearance, said part of the investigation was non-standard. OK. I'll be keeping an eye on the one thing, because it MAY be bothersome, but the justice part that already happened, I'm finding VERY bothersome. I'd rather the guy put up a KKK flag, than a stop the steal flag. I'll deal with a bigot over a traitor any day.

Except that the numbers listed in the strategic PERTOLEUM reserve ARE actually crude oil(A fact I found not you), so I wasn't wrong at all. I even led you to the chart(that you likely purposely ignored) that shows what our crude oil reserves have been since 1900. The Yom Kippur war, which eventually drew both the United States and the Soviet Union into indirect confrontation in defense of their respective allies, WAS the reason for the gas crisis, which caused the formation of the SPR(which is the crude oil reserves in ONLY 4 specific locations). Trump-“So, after 50 years of being virtually empty, I built up our oil reserves during my administration- So yes, it has been historically low, according to Mr. Trump, "VIRTUALLY EMPTY'. and remember he's only referring to those 4 specific locations known as the SPR, when he says that So if and I mean if I was wrong about anything, it wasn't anything you documented to be false. The crude oil reserve DID increase under Obama more than at any time in history, according to the EIA chart: U.S. Crude Oil Reserves - 110 Year Historical Chart

What major impact? If you mean Hillary correctly claiming there was Russian interference, then the impact of that would have been to STREGTHEN AGAINST it happening again. Was she a sore loser? yup, but you're comparing a mountain in 2020 to a mole hill in 2016. It's actually quite laughable. Making objections is nowhere close to a plot to reinstate fake electors to CHANGE the LEGITIMATE outcome. Did you see how the possibly not lying judge was flying YET ANOTHER flag at his beach house, which was also flown on Jan 6th? Maybe her bad neighbor ALSO had a beach house next to theirs, or an eerily similar bad neighbor like that one??? He's LYING.

I may have made a mistake about one reserve being oil and the other being petroleum, but it doesn't make anything else I said less factual, because it had a 'but' before it. Jesse Kelly is claiming it makes us less safe(treasonously LOL), and we aren't less safe. Instead of the silly argument that Biden is a traitor, I tried to shift the conversation to something that may be actually productive, such as why do we talk so much about oil independence when we're exporting 10M barrels every day, while were importing 8.5M barrels every day. It doesn't make much sense to me at all. At worst, it proves we have more than enough oil to sustain ourselves. Ok, I just found out this is what the EIA considers "PETROLEUM": Petroleum includes crude oil, hydrocarbon gas liquids (HGLs), refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel, and biofuels. So maybe I didn't make a mistake at all. If I did, you can have your gotcha moment, but you didn't prove anything to the contrary, AND Jesse Kelly is definitely wrong, because he's a fear mongering hack.

I know he knew what he was saying, but TONS of people were saying he didn't say keep women in the kitchen doing laundry, and cleaning house, because he didn't list those duties. Those duties are implied, because that's literally the job description. Like I said originally, there's too much huh bub about this, but the hypocrisy of those supporting his opinions, while being against players speaking about other causes bothers me. I disagree with him, because it's not 1950 anymore, and that's a good thing for women, because they're more self-empowered now. It's also a slap in the face to families that have stay at home dads.