95 Replies to “Watching the Unbridled Hypocrisy of Leftists in Real Time”

  1. These vids are way too long. I just ignore them and move on. To me a blog vid should be no more than 5-10 minutes long. Scott Adams and this guy just like to hear their own voices. JMHO.

    1. YES, jaymo. The first thing I look at is the time. And as in this case, bail after 3-4 minutes. Same deal with Rogan, he of the 3 hr podcast.
      I’m retired but don’t have time for items of this length, nor the patience with people of such ponderousness.

      I’m VERY fond of Paul Joseph Watson; I notice that his clips are typically around 8-10 and are hugely informative and entertaining. I don’t think I’ve ever bailed on one of his.

      And, oh, this comment is too long too. LOL.

  2. That is a bit rich coming from Trump supporters who insisted that a vacant SCOTUS seat 10 months before the election should be left for the next president but now rush to fill one now.

    Or how about a Trump supporter who defends Trump/Barr using the justice department to go after enemies and protect friends while accusing Obama of doing exactly the same thing.

    And that is just the latest. There is no one on the planet that is more hypocritical than a Trump supporter.

    2. The President will appoint a new justice at his convenience, not yours. And it will not be a self-hating Jewess who always preferred ruining the lives of Gentiles to raising good Jewish children.

      I would have preferred a man, but if Judge Barnett is appointed I will respect the President’s authority to appoint a Christian woman who actually loves her children.

      Now go clean your room. Grown-ups are talking.

      1. A form guide (maybe!) – IMO

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/19/supreme-court-latina-judge-barbara-lagoa-eyed-possible-nominee/5840189002/

        Form guide points

        “She is a Cuban American from a battleground state Trump needs to win in November.”

        “The president nominated her for the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last September, and she was confirmed by an unusually lopsided 80-15 Senate vote in November.”

        Being Catholic wasn’t a worry then – so capital letters hypocracy if invoked now.

    3. So Tim:

      Are you uninformed?
      Are you misinformed?
      Are you prevarically friendly?

      Just in case it’s all of the above:
      See Clinton’s quote re 2016 SCJ appointment.
      ” Schumer’s ” ” ” ” ”
      ” Biden’s ” ” ” ” ”

      Note that Senate confirms.
      Note that Repubs have Senate majority.
      As they did in 2016.
      Politics of lies, poorly done.

      Leftism is its own reward.

      https://usbacklash.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Pretty-Conservative-Women-Ugly-Liberal-Women.jpg

    4. Oh you poor dear TG, you poor poor little Demtard.

      How small of a ball can you turn yourself into? Primal scream anybody?

      Please return Nov 4th, can’t wait for the “end of the world” gnashing of teeth from your cult!

    5. TimG: You are so Uniformed you need to do some more reading!! I find the DemoRATS supporters very hypocritical!! Trump has done more for the American people in 4 yrs than any other sitting President…get your head around that one!! And we are stuck with a dead end TRUDEAU!

    6. There there ,do you fell better now Timmy?
      Wait,any day now Trump will sanction killing American Citizens,with out trial, by Drone strike..
      This will be unprecedented…right?

    7. Almost like fighting tooth and nail over a lying, fake impeachment only a year away from an election, eh? We don’t owe you precedent; after all the bullshit you’ve pulled over the last four years you’re to be crushed. Payback is a bitch.

    8. Firstly, Timmy … there are things you do not yet understand about this situation. So you are ignorant on this topic.

      If you think the dems would not leap at the chance to load the court with lefties, which is what they have been trying to do for a couple of decades now. Fortunately, their timing is not working. It is, however, working for Trump. … Maybe there is a god.

      The GOP are trying to restore and preserve the country … not fundamentally transform it to a communist country.

      If you value freedom and prosperity, then wise up and get on-side, or shut you pie-hole and move to another, more suitable country …. try Cuba … they are the result of leftist thought. Venezuela may also suit your desires for collectivism.

    9. Hey Timmah! D’ya wanna talk about all that … “dark money” … flowing into the sham candidacy of Dementia-Joe? The type of “dark money” of the Koch Bro’s. that Sen. Reid spoke of? Or do we need to SILENCE any discussion of Soros dark money as Fox News just did? And what of Bloomberg’s $100M in dark money dedicated to defeating PDJT in FL?

      When it comes to “dark money” … the Democrat Left has about 10x the cash as the Republican conservatives do to buy elections. SHE spent more than $1B in HER failed attempt on the White House. Much of that money dedicated to the Muh Russia Dirty trick. Why you’d almost think the Democrat Left stakes are soooooooo big … that they LOOT the US Treasury of soooooo much $$$$$ when they are in POWER … that they will spend $Billions to regain CONTROL.

      Sick. Sick in the fkcuing head.

    10. How easily you lie, Tim. Or are you actually so ignorant not to know that Harry Reid dismissed McConnell’s plea for fairness, thus setting a new precedent? Either way, you are a deeply disingenuous human being. One can only hope that you’re not sharing your warped value system with younger people.

    11. TimG:

      The difference is that the PTB behind the Dems have openly declared a domestic “colour revolution” against Trump and have war-gamed 4 election scenarios all ending in street violence.

      A possible 4-4 SCOTUS ruling after the election would be an unmitigated constitutional disaster.

    12. Tim: Nothing to do with hypocrisy and everything to do with conservatives (in the USA at least) learning that they have to play by the same changing rules that the commies keep making up.

      Republicans aren’t doing anything that the far left wouldnt be doing if they were in power.

      If only there were any conservatives in canada that could learn from this.

  3. As someone once put it, this Black Panther/Wakanda salute was too much. One would not see white people cry: “Long live Narnia!” or some such thing.

    Fantasy breeds the failure to have some dignity.

    Filling the late Ginsburg’s seat should be done by the end of October at the very least.

    I’m sure the Democrats will pull some hi-jinx in the mean time.

  4. Hypocrisy on both sides. Many Republicans invoked the Thurmond Rule (presidents will not nominate Supreme Court Justices in their fourth year) in 2016 to justify preventing Obama from filling the vacancy. Well, does the Thurmond Rule hold or not?

    1. “Well, does the Thurmond Rule hold or not?”

      It’s all political bullshit. How thick are you? A Republican Senate stopped Obama’s nominee because they could. A Republican Senate will approve Trump’s nominee because they can. The rulebook is called the Constitution and it seems to be operating exactly as intended.

      1. Garbage. I remember the controversy back in 2016. The Thurmond Rule was cited high and low by Republicans.

        You want to trade truth for partisanship go ahead. I’m not going to.

        1. Trump will simply act as he is constitutionally permitted in seeing a SCOTUS nominee appointed, as his his duty. The Dems are not owed precedent after their lying, fake impeachment with only a year to go before an election. After the last four years, right from the day he was elected, from the day he was inaugurated, hell even during the election campaign, the Dems lied, cheated, and broke the law in regards to their treatment of President Trump. They’ve proven to be treasonous enemies of the State. They’re not owed squat, they’re to be crushed, and payback is a bitch.

          1. Oh I agree, Trump is fully warranted in putting forward an SCJ nomination in short order. One might even argue that he is constitutionally compelled, just as Obama was in 2016.

            But that doesn’t change the fact that many Republican politicians who cited the Thurmond rule in 2016 are big, fat hypocrites.

        2. Politics is partisan. Again – exactly as intended. End of story. If the Democrats want more power, perhaps they might want to support policies more people will vote for and the Baath Party platform isn’t it.

          1. So you reject integrity in favour of partisanship, do you?

            Fine, but the electorate might have a different view, and they’re the ones who are ultimately in charge. People who get too mired in day-to-day political skirmishes tend to forget that. They lose sight of the big picture.

        3. The ONLY truth is POWER. BHO reminded us that “elections have consequences”. The Democrat Left play UGLY and win UGLY. And the check-pant, country club Republicans insist upon playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules … while they’re getting kicked in the nut sack by the Dem’s.

          Sorry, but playing FAIR or by some interpretation of the “moral” high ground is what LOSERS do. As soon as my opponent starts throwing concrete milkshakes in my face … I pull out my big barreled alum. baseball bat. Dirty players need to be met with a swift equal and opposite response … and when they return to the “rules” of the game … so will I

          In the game of futball (soccer) … when your opponent fouls and injures your star player … the response is swift. A hard tackle is put in on your opponent’s star player as soon as they get near the ball. Same in baseball … when the opposing pitcher intentionally throws beanballs at your star hitter. The response is swift. This is what MEN do … in response to worms like Harry Reid. The check-pant, Never-Trumpers, country club, “true conservatives” … are not MEN.

          1. The ONLY truth is POWER.

            So power is what it’s all about it, is it? A lot of progressives agree with you, whether they say so or not. They measure everything in terms of power. That’s what they mean by “privilege” and “oppression”; who has power over who. They don’t like to admit that they’re making a naked power grab, of course, preferring to claim it’s all about justice. It’s an extraordinarily limited view of life, and not one that is likely to be rewarding.

            And in regards to masculinity, we’ll put on the boxing gloves and see if you have a left hook.

          2. They only tell us to “play fair” while they never do.
            We are told to nominate moderates who can see both sides of an issue, but they nominate RBG, Sotomayor and Kagan. We are supposed to confirm the latter to “play fair” (and RBG was confirmed with 96 ayes) while they character assassinate Kavanaugh. He had been vetted numerous times in hearings for lower courts, so they invented lies about his teenage years.
            A Republican Senate should have rejected Garland, at any time. A Democratic Senate majority would have confirmed him, regardless of the timing. There is nothing in the Constitution about “the Thurmond rule.” We are not playing games here, we are talking about the survival of the Republic, nothing less. Any attempt at stealing the election by fraud should be summarily beaten down, in the USSC if necessary. I don’t trust Roberts. He may make it 6-3 if we get our new justice. OTOH he may make it 4-4 just to prove how important he is.
            Okay, I’ll say it. The Republican Senators who invoked “the Thurmond rule” were wrong, because “the Thurmond rule” is wrong. They should have just said they will not confirm Garland.

          3. Killer Marmot – it’s about applying the golden rule. We started out acting in good faith. As time went along, they tried every trick in the book, and a number of illegal ones not in the book, to implement their agenda (regardless of whether they were in power or had the legal right to do so). We are now using the world of the law to treat them as they treated us.

            When blatantly illegal actions by Dems and swamp result in jail time for non-discretionary illegal activities (cough, cough, Hillary, Strzok) then we’ll go back to the intent of the law. Until then, all we have to hold onto is the letter of the law, and we’ll follow it.

          5. C_Minor:

            I made one main assertion — the Republicans are every bit as hypocritical as the Democrats on the issue of whether to nominate a SCJ before the election. You guys seem to be agreeing with me. Your main argument appears to be that you don’t care.

            Fine. You don’t care. But I’m right.

          6. The POWER I am speaking of derives from the Voters. The Voters put PDJT and a majority Rep. Senate into office for many reasons and purposes … one of which is to FIX our activist Courts! Esp. the FINAL legal authority … the SCOTUS. The VOTERS want a new Judge nominated, and confirmed NOW!

            And it is more essential than ever to seat a 9th Justice lest a contested election ends up in a 4-4 tie (Roberts has proven himself to be an unreliable Constitutional Justice). Can you IMAGINE the shitshow of a contested election ending with a tied court vote!? What? Ties go to the incumbent? We need a new Justice on the bench NOW.

            The voters have spoken … and EMPOWERED the Senate to Act.

        4. Obama nominated Garland retard. Then the Senate stopped the process. Trump will also nominate and let the Senate do it’s job.

    2. Turn the tables and ask yourself, What Would Zero do?

      Zero would do the exact same thing, name the nominee and rush the vote through his DeMarxist senate.

      The GOP has nothing to apologize for, this is a WAR! The stupid party of yesteryear, would wait, wait, wait. There are at least 3 members of the stupid party still around though, and they need to be accounted for.

      2. No it’s not war. War is where you try to kill each other, and there are very few rules. This is politics. Both the Republicans and Democrats are being grossly hypocritical here, switching views as soon as the situation is reversed.

        It’s astonishing how often people justify this nonsense because “the other side is worse.” But the voters make the final decision, and despite rumours to the contrary, they are seeking candidates with integrity. People who justify rolling around in the mud because the other side is doing it are forgetting that it’s a democracy, not a war.

        1. ‘No it’s not war. War is where you try to kill each other, and there are very few rules. ‘. As evidenced by the BLM and ANTIFA crowds, their violence and assassinations. Now, exactly what is your point?

          1. My point is that a politician who cites the Thurmond Rule in 2016 but claims it doesn’t apply in 2020 is a big fat hypocrite.

            Would you like to rebut that point?

        2. “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew you forth out of my mouth.”

          1. You want to overlook hypocrisy when it’s politically expedient. I won’t. Your “holier than thou” scripture quoting falls flat.

          2. KM – But YOUR “holier than thou” … “when they go low, we go high” … nonsense is better? Puhleeze.

          3. Buzzard: Blind partisanship is a bad idea, as it causes one to overlook the plain facts. You may think that blind partisanship is the only way to win. I think it’s a good way to lose. The electorate are not quite as dumb as we think they are.

          4. If you want to “play by the rules” when your opponent patently does not, then by all means, just lie down…..take a dive; its what they want you to do and evidentally you’re doing it spectactularly anyway.

            And its the only quote from Scripture I’ve ever jotted down. Another is to turn the other cheek, but most intelligent people here realize that just results in getting a welt on both cheeks while your adversary laughs in your face. You might want to put some polysporin on that, Bud.

        3. Those country club checkered pant suits must be REAL comfy.

          The Stupid party. Direct cousins of the Conservative Party.

          1. I notice that no one here actually denies that the Republicans are being hypocritical . Rather it’s all about trying to justify the hypocrisy.

          2. Yes, we know what principled losers of the Stupid party look like. And what are they remembered for?

            LOSING. As POTUS is wont to remind everyone of that. Losing is for losers.

            You beat the Demarxists by shoving their rules AT them.

            Its a political WAR, winner takes all.

          3. DanBC:

            You want to win politically? Give the voters something to vote for. Bring something other than a shear lust for power. Blind stupid partisanship doesn’t sell that well.

          4. “I notice that no one here actually denies that the Republicans are being hypocritical.” To clarify, are you saying that the only opposition in 2016 was because of the Thurmond rule? That all Republicans and moderates who told the Democrats not to nominate someone who wouldn’t pass the Senate did so on the basis of the Thurmond rule?

            Are some Republicans hypocritical? Of course, they’re human. Are you intending to mislead on the nature of the opposition to a late nomination in 2016? That’s sure how it seems to me when you’re constantly bringing up one argument that I don’t remember even hearing back then. And I do recall the accusations of hypocrisy on Harry Reid in 2016 when he tried to change the standard from when GWB was nearing the end of his presidency… why isn’t that applicable here?

          5. C_Miner:

            I clearly remember the Thurmond Rule being cited numerous times by Republican politicians in 2016. That’s where I first heard the term. Just Google for “Thurmond Rule Garland”.

            Here’s a quote from Senate Majority Leader McConnell in 2016, responding to Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland.

            “The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

            No, I’m sure not every Republican politician invoked the Thurmond Rule in 2016. But then, not every Democratic politician is invoking it now, and yet they are being called hypocrites in this posting. Let’s ditch the double standards.

          6. The funny thing about the net is that when you tell it the answer you want, it will give it back to you. I used DuckDuckGo to search for “2016 senate supreme court rule”. McConnell’s name shows up a lot, but never in the context of applying a rule. The term “Biden Rule” appears twice in the top 25. “Thurmond rule” shows up at number 27, and it’s a Wikipedia entry.

            If you hadn’t resurrected the term, most of us wouldn’t have heard of it. Please review the clip I posted at the bottom, here’s a repost:
            https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/ted-cruz-teaches-georgie-stephanopoulos-a-lesson/
            It should present why whether any hypocrisy is present doesn’t matter in the context of history. It’s only 90 second long.

        4. “No it’s not war. War is where you try to kill each other, and there are very few rules. This is politics.”

          For the past sixteen years there has been only ONE rule, and that rule has been “guilty until proven Democrat”.

          And this year more blacks have been killed by BLM protests-turned-riots than by rogue cops. A retired black police officer was killed. People have been assaulted for declining to parrot the BLM propaganda and slogans. I think that covers “where you try to kill each other.”

          Fortunately, the political right is not yet convinced that it’s time for all-out war. Pelosi Clinton and Company haven’t persuaded us quite that far yet. But I’m afraid they’ll keep trying.

  5. The left are alternating between claiming the RBG was one of the 36 Righteous and cursing her for not retiring when Obama still had a chance of replacing her with someone more radical than she was.

    Lord knows they had time to get their talking points straight.

    I agree, Jaymo. Robert, not all of us have ample enough free time to watch rabbiting-on videos. A couple of sentences with the speaker’s key message would be helpful—assuming he had anything new to say.

  6. “Appealing to fairness and not the law” – sounds like “Social Justice”.

    As the Supreme court appointment is a life long job, it’ll probably outlive any Administration. Meaning that waiting for the next administration is simply stupid politics regardless of what side of reality your on.

    Never give in to the Left.

  7. Democrats would and did do everything imaginable to ensure their nominee would fill any vacancy and only a McCain / Romney squish would worry about “playing fair”.

  8. Fair play?
    With Demon Possessed Rats?
    After the “Summer of Love” AkA Burn Loot Murder,only a retard would give the D Party any benefit of doubt.
    Rules for radicals brags about holding decent people to their own ethical standards,whilst having none of your own.
    The only rational response to the “Modern D party” is no bag limit.
    President trump has seen and felt the “love” of Social Justice” morons,there will be no quarter,he will troll them mercilessly and drag them to his reelection,while the Ds rant and rave incoherently ,lost in the madness of their trump Derangement Syndrome.

    1. Perfectly stated Mr Robertson. If memory recalls, (and I admit it’s getting fuzzy with age) didn’t Reid lie outright while on the senate floor and while a majority senate leader, and when called on it later, said, “well, it achieved the objective, so I’m happy with that”, I’m paraphrasing, but that was the gist. The Dems will do anything, ANYTHING, if it serves their objective, and will bleat and decry at any opponents doing the same thing. They have no morals or ethics, and as stated above, this a political war. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. Besides the fact that Obama, not having a senate majority, was the main difference. Trump does have a senate majority. Besides the fact that the Obama admin is turned out to be one of the most corrupt admins of any presidency, they weaponized every department from the CIA to the IRS, and now they bleat because Trump plans to put forward a name for appointment forthwith, as is his legal right, and it’s not “unfair” it’s legal, constitutional, and it’s politics as usual. If the situation were reversed, the Dems would pounce in on the last heartbeat of a passing supreme court justice. Now is not the time to pause! Now is not the time to play fair by only your opponents rules.

  9. There there ,do you fell better now Timmy?
    Wait,any day now Trump will sanction killing American Citizens,with out trial, by Drone strike..
    This will be unprecedented…right?

    2. Remember when Mike Tyson bit a chunk of Evander Holyfield’s ear off? Hint: That’s the way Democretins play. The check pant republican Never-Trumper’s play golf … they don’t know the first thing about rabbit punches or clinching

  12. Ginsberg didn’t retire while Obama was in a position to select her replacement because she didn’t want to give up the power she had as a member of the Supreme Court. Countering any suggestion that she should consider retiring to ensure her replacement was selected by a Democrat president her preference for hanging on to the bitter end could be justified by a belief that Obama would be succeeded by a Democrat, probably Clinton the second. And she would have wanted to still be in her own Office when the U.S.A. got its first woman President, a Democrat to boot.

    If there ever was any belief in the idea that a President ought to leave judicial appointments late in his term of office to whoever succeeded him, it is without justification now. The left has been using judicial activism to end run around apparent intentions of the Founding Fathers and the legislatures at all levels for long enough that the right has adopted the same ways to try to conserve the republic.

    Democrats are for democracy, i.e. there should be no limit to what the government can do to anyone it dislikes for anyone it likes, once the mob has been persuaded to install them to despotic power. Republicans are for a republic, which the founders understood to mean there must be limits to government power, no matter how much how many voters want to screw over any particular person.

    And too many careerist politicians on both sides are for the enrichment and aggrandizement of themselves and their family and friends. Back when Trump was campaigning for the Republican nomination and I didn’t like him for the job (because I don’t like his manner, mainly) I thought his one redeeming quality that recommended him was that he was a careerist politician, he had done enough in his live before to sometimes do what he thought needed to be done, not for party loyalty.

    2. “The left has been using judicial activism to end run around apparent intentions of the Founding Fathers and the legislatures at all levels for long enough that the right has adopted the same ways to try to conserve the republic.”

      Yes, for decades now, maybe a hundred years, they have been pushing from the bench what has not been accepted at the ballot box. The long march needs to be stopped, and counter-revolutionaries have to start tearing down the bureaucratic palaces they have built for themselves.

    3. Too er

      You posit the comment regarding Trump’s manner, and it’s been stated often, usually by Never Trumpers.

      My take on it, from very early on, is to compare and contrast, then revisit the decision.

      What is better for a country, a brash, outspoken person, who uses language like a blunt object, yet, it is used to tell the blunt truth, or a nice, smiling, soothsayer, telling you what you want to hear, yet lying like the devil himself?

      Trump vs Hussein/Trudeau/ Merkel/Macron or a wishy washy conservative, like Bush, Andy Panda etc.

      Those that don’t like Trump for that reason tend to have daddy issues. I prefer the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be

      1. I didn’t like his manner because it hid from me other things I can see now that signaled he would be a good President. By the time he was elected to office I had come to realise that if only because he was an outsider and that would rock the system at least somewhat, electing him was the best choice not just between him or Hillary, but between him and all the other contenders from both parties, and I had seen reason to hope that wasn’t the only good thing that would come of his election. Since then he has greatly exceeded my hopes and expectations for a U.S. President.

        And though a good style is good, it is only ever style: the substance always matters much, much more.

        1. “And though a good style is good, it is only ever style: the substance always matters much, much more.”
          +1

          Conservatives should always value substance over style. Progressives always seem to look more at style than substance. It’s one of the most blatant differences in outlook between the two sides.

  13. In terms of the firm “constitutionalists” in SCOTUS, has Scalia every actually been replaced? It would be nice to see someone who has memorized both the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers that they were a response to. Someone who has a deep understanding of both Madison, and Jefferson, and how their visions compete and compliment.

    One less activist on the bench is always good news. They get no “decorum” from me, because they have never given any in return. Thet go after the children, the families, every and any tactic.

    So, ding dong the witch is dead. Which old witch? The wicked witch! Ding dong, the wicked witch is dead.

    1. Scalia admitted without shame to neglecting the mother of his nine children. He was happiest when consorting with ugly Jewish women (Kagan as well as Ginsburg), motivated, no doubt, by the anti-Semitic folklore of Church of Rome schoolyards that held that Jewish girls were easy.

      Scalia’s replacement was supposed to be Gorsuch, until Gorsuch proved to be a queer “ally.”

      I hope Ginsburg’s replacement understands that pleasing the enemies of the rule of law does not make them your friends.

  14. The biggest hypocrisy of Trump supporters and Republicans in general is the notion that forcing people to were a mask to stop the transmission of deadly disease is a violation of people’s rights but they see nothing wrong with forcing a woman to carry a child that they do not want.

    As they say: people in glass houses should not throw stones.

    1. Now there are weremasks? When someone has been bitten, they become a mask themselves? Oh, the horror!

      Compulsion is wrong, Tim. The choice of the mom is 100% fatal to her child, and the child has no say in it. That’s why abortion is wrong.

      People in glass houses means they’re in a zoo or a menagerie. Please stop flinging poo.

        1. You seem to miss the point.
          The issue is the same rule should apply no matter who is power.
          If Obama’s pick was accepted the Trump’s pick would be fine.
          Saying the Obama can’t have his pick but Trump can have his is hypocritical nonsense.

          One of the things that makes Trump such a vile president is he cares only for the letter of the law. He does not care about consequences, conventions, ethical or moral considerations.

        2. Are you deliberately ignoring the senate’s roll in this? In 2016 senatorial approval was unlikely, so it would be a long and drawn out approvals process. Today, senatorial approval (without filibusters… whoops Democrats!) is likely to be quick.

          You’re trying to apply a rain delay rule mid-way through the game not because it’s raining, but because the last time the two teams played it started raining and there was a rain delay. It’s not supposed to work that way.

          And thank you for agreeing that President Donald Trump follows the letter of the law. It’s a pleasant change from the Democratic mayors who ignore the rule of law and have poo or rioters in their streets. Whether something is hypocritical is far less important than whether it is legal. Ideally, it should be right, also, but we’re dealing with humans and not angels. Angels would never have elected Trump, because they wouldn’t need to. Humans interested in preserving and extending civilization need someone who can get things done following the established laws. To our surprise, that turns out to be Trump.

    2. Hey, TimG; my body, my choice. Get your rosaries, off my face. Fundamentalist Karen whack jobs.

    3. How is wearing a mask equivalent to squashing a baby’s head in the womb retard? Please explain how murdering a baby for convenience sake has any relation to “were”ing a mask.

  15. Ah so.
    And concern trolls could learn to spell.
    So masks work to “Stop the transmission of a deadly disease”?
    Great I will recommend all safety inspectors wear a piece of cloth,face covering to protect them from all industrial hazards,who needs the proper respirators,when a magic piece of cloth does all.
    Love the desperation you post with,when failing to convince anyone,then its..”But Abortion”.
    Next”But Bush”?Or straight to “orange man Bad”?
    The generosity of you progressive cretins is endless,as long it it is other peoples money you are wasting.
    Why should I or any other taxpayer fund the abortion of a woman who is pregnant,with a child she does not want?
    When drugstores are awash in pregnancy prevention and chemical abortive agents..
    Or are you a misogynist?
    Another of these vile cretins who profess to support women while secretly considering them too stupid to manage their own affairs?
    Pound Me Too was about your speed?

    1. The point is hypocrisy. Someone who thinks that a woman should be forced to carry a biological construct until it turns into a baby has no business whinging about masks. The harm caused by wearing a mask is insignificant compared to the harm caused by an unwanted pregnancy.

        1. Tim is referring to reproductive ability, not a fetus or baby. I agree with Tim, a woman should be allowed to choose sterilization.

  16. A charge of hypocrisy in politics is TRITE.
    Calling out a politican for hypocrisy is like saying life is not fair.
    Eye roll.
    Lying in politics is like skating in hockey: foundational.
    In politics, if you don’t lie you don’t win.
    THE PEOPLE DEMAND LIES and will crucify you if you don’t.

    1. This post was a whinge about lefty hypocrisy. Pointing out that Trump supporters are much worse is completely appropriate. If you want to argue that hypocrisy is fine ten stop whinging about lefty hypocrisy.

      1. Timmy,if you were able to point out the “Much worse hypocrisy” of Trump Supporters,you might have a point to make.
        But your “What aboutism” is shallow pathetic drivel,the joke is you.
        Trump Supporters have standards to violate,thus they can be hypocrites,your kind, having no standards cannot be hypocrites?

  17. The best argument for pushing it through is the threats by the left to pack the court and remove the Electoral College.

    Trump should get his Justice and, after his win in November, increase the court to 11 justices. Two more Conservatives in their 30’s.

    1. Two more Christian men in their thirties with distinguished careers outside the lawyers’ cabal, preferably military men who have demonstrated their devotion to a constitutional republic by putting their lives on the line for it.

      A younger Tom Cotton would be ideal.

  18. I picked up a bit of Phycological trivia that fits the Democrat rage….The Common RAT is so afraid of Cats that they “Scream” continuously for >4 Minutes (You can’t hear them) if they even smell a CAT…..The Democrats have spent their Time Rioting & looting (screaming) and “NOW” any BLM or Antifa demonstration will damage them beyond repair… Pelosi has had her 4 minute Orgasm ….

    JMHO

  19. Does everyone here think Trump’s appointee’s senate confirmation is assured? There may be more than Linzie who do not wish to expose their hypocrisy. There may be others who think a vote to confirm will cost them their seat. The important thing is that the appointment be MADE so that the bile of the left will flow and be seen.
    Well said GerryK and I shall go so far as to suggest that the left HAS pounced BEFORE the last heart beat. No autopsy was all the evidence I needed!

    1. I believe that in general, Jewish people forego autopsies if given the choice. There are also rules about how quickly the funeral has to be, etc. .

      1. It may have been presumptuous of me, but the fact that I heard of no request by the family that no autopsy be performed, meant that no such request had been made. Did you hear of any such request?

    1. Thanks Walter, great to see how the Democrats don’t think it’s a rule, and shouldn’t apply in 2015.
      From your link:

      In December 2015, Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, argued that the rule was invalid.

      A 2012 study by the Brookings Institution showed that the pace of judicial nominations and confirmations slowed, but did not stop, in four previous election years.

      It looks like Killer Marmot may be the only one who considers it a discussion point in this case. A more thorough search using Thurmond Rule as a search item brought up a number of law school papers discussing it, and noting that it has never had any legal standing.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation