Yep, it's not her mouth that will get her booted, and as I posted above, I doubt the ethics charges will go very far either...even if they prove she broke the law.
Yep, it's not her mouth that will get her booted, and as I posted above, I doubt the ethics charges will go very far either...even if they prove she broke the law.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (who is a friend of Gabrielle Giffords) is the appointed Democratic party TV attack dog of the 2012 election.
Incredibly, she has been going around loosely associating her friend's attempted murder by an insane person with the "tone" of the Republican party. Just waiting for someone to call her on this...
Yeah, good luck with that, and so what if someone does? Not like it'll change anything or the kinds of rabid morons who elect her will suddenly see the light if their moronery is remarked upon once more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
<shrug>
Only solution is to nuke from orbit and let nature try to get it right in another few hundred million years.
Isn't being a racist a prerequisite for being a key leader of the Black Congressional Caucus?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Just as soon as others call out the lunacy coming from the Republican party "attack dogs", too. We could start with the Birthers who are convinced Obama isn't our legitimate President because he's a Kenyan Muslim terrorist anti-white racist SSSocialist who's declared war on religion, and move our way into people (like Santorum) who believe Satan has targeted the US because we're such a great and exceptional nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
:eek:
Yeah, that's exactly the kind of blind justification, desultory rationalization, and moral equivalency I've come to expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Two wrongs have never looked so right.
Weren't you the one whining last week about how Republicans here need to come out and openly condemn the GOP policies they disagree with? Pot. Kettle. Black.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Our political climate is full of lunacy (and TV "attack dogs"), from both parties and all sides. That's just the way it is, but that doesn't make it 'right'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Sure, when it comes to policy. I'm not saying Wasserman-Schultz is 'right' in using inflammatory, divisive speech, or giving that a pass. Both sides do it, though, and we all know it. It's silly to single out R or D for that behavior, and that's how I replied to Dread. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You have a truly remarkable ability to never put together 2 consecutive posts on the same topic.
And you have a way of posting that's never really about the thread's topic....or even its semi-related tangents. I replied to Dread because his post had some content that caught my eye. Chiming in with your opinion on that content is one thing, but that's not what you're doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki