Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Disney Stock Jumps on “Epic” Quarter
Disney by Indy!     February 24, 2024 10:55 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (11 comments) [71 views]


Donald Trump's Weekend Gaffes: Accidentally Endorses Biden, And More
Humor by Curt_Anderson     February 25, 2024 6:56 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [54 views]


Clueless Sen. Tuberville 'running in circles' in response to IVF question
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 23, 2024 12:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (7 comments) [98 views]


Republicans are terrible at investigations and prosecutions.
Government by Curt_Anderson     February 25, 2024 3:12 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (7 comments) [76 views]


TAFKAP is going to fight this, but here's the reality
Disney by oldedude     December 25, 2023 8:54 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [141 views]


Obsequious Sen. Graham (R-SC) booed by South Carolina Republicans
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 24, 2024 7:03 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (5 comments) [47 views]


Trump’s new appeal to Black voters: I am a criminal too!
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 24, 2024 9:08 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (9 comments) [103 views]


South Carolina primary vote count:
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 25, 2024 3:52 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [17 views]


You don't have to be crazy to attend CPAC ...okay, you pretty much do.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 24, 2024 10:45 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (10 comments) [98 views]


Matt Gaetz says his GOP colleagues pushing the now indicted "highly credible confidential" source were a little "over-sauced".
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 22, 2024 10:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (9 comments) [130 views]


Politics selectors, pages, etc.
Jasmine Crockett, Dem Rep from Texas, kicks her some asinine GOP ass!
By Ponderer
September 29, 2023 7:01 am
Category: Politics

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)


Oh man. This gal! She tore them GOP Trump lackeys a new one in that chamber yesterday I tell you what. Keep your eye on this gal. I'm loving her already!

Worked as a civil rights attorney and a public defender. Had her own law firm. After the George Floyd protests, she and her associates worked pro-bono for Black Lives Matter protesters...

Boy are the MAGA Hats gonna be blowing their tops over her!


Democrat in impeachment hearing calls out GOP for ignoring Trump charges

Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) called Republicans out for ignoring former President Trump’s charges during the GOP-led impeachment hearing into President Biden.

The House Oversight and Accountability Committee held its first hearing Thursday after formally launching an investigation last month. Republicans alleged the president and his son, Hunter Biden, profited from foreign business deals.

During her questioning, Crockett criticized House Republicans for investigating Biden while showing no interest in “Trump’s shady business dealings with the Chinese government.”

The Texas Democrat presented a fact sheet from the Congressional Integrity Project detailing Trump’s financial dealings with China. Crockett said the GOP was too focused on Hunter Biden, instead of the allegations against the president.

“If they would continue to say ‘if’ or ‘Hunter’ and we’re playing a drinking game, I would be drunk by now because I promise you, they have not talked about the subject of this, which would be the president,” Crockett said.

She said she found it “disturbing” that no one can point to a crime committed by the president. . Each of the expert witnesses called by Republicans to the hearing said there wasn’t currently enough evidence to impeach Biden.

“I can’t seem to find the crime and no one has testified what crime they believe the president of the United States has committed,” she added.

She said the GOP is acting like they are blind to evidence, then referred to the documents found in Trump’s Mara Lago bathroom. She then listed the number of indictments and counts currently against Trump. “These are our national secrets – looks like in the sh—er to me,” Crockett said.


Cited and related links:

  1. thehill.com



Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Jasmine Crockett, Dem Rep from Texas, kicks her some asinine GOP ass!":

  1. by Ponderer on September 29, 2023 7:03 am

    I'm kicking myself for not watching that MAGA circus yesterday.


  2. by HatetheSwamp on September 29, 2023 7:15 am

    False equivalency, po. Bahahahahahahahahahaha, haha baha keehee, ha, ahhhhhhhhhhh!


  3. by Ponderer on September 29, 2023 7:25 am

    "False equivalency, po." -Hate

    Bill, did you intend to mean anything with that statement?

    I wasn't comparing anything to anything... So what was the false equivalency of which you mindlessly blabber?



  4. by HatetheSwamp on September 29, 2023 7:36 am

    po,

    Your video compares the GOP obsession with Joe's behavior to its unconcern with Trump's crimes. Did you actually watch the video you po-sted?


  5. by Ponderer on September 29, 2023 7:43 am

    Pardon me. With such a brief and brusque statement, I wasn't sure to what you were referring.

    So you think it's a false equivalency to compare the crimes of Trump to the crimes of Biden? Why is that? Because you believe that Biden's crimes are far worse than any of Trump's crimes? Could you explain it for us...? Where's the false equivalency?


  6. by HatetheSwamp on September 29, 2023 7:54 am

    So you think it's a false equivalency to compare the crimes of Trump to the crimes of Biden?

    Duh, po. Not at all.

    Both have the presumption of innocence and have the right to due process as is appropriate.

    But, po. Jasmine is calling on congressional GOPs to impeach Donald Trump, who at the moment is an, as you'd say, EFFINprivate citizen.

    I know that you are the SS Constitutional scholar in residence so, pleeeeeeease...

    Show me chapter and verse in the Constitution where the House impeaches a private citizen, baha!


  7. by Ponderer on September 29, 2023 8:06 am

    "But, po. Jasmine is calling on congressional GOPs to impeach Donald Trump," -Hate

    What a tremendously huge liar you are, Bill. But I know how you sometimes throw a blatant lie into the discussion just to obfuscate and change the focus on the fact that you have nothing of any substance whatsoever to argue with.

    She never said any such thing. She was calling out the MAGA Republican party for not giving ashit about the crimes that Trump was accused of and there was mountains of actual evidence for. Very much like you didn't in fact.

    She was calling out the ludicrous asininity of holding an impeachment hearing when the MAGA Republicans don't even have a shred of actual evidence of any crime that Biden could be impeached for while comparing it to the mountains of real evidence against Trump that the GOP couldn't be bothered with.


  8. by oldedude on September 29, 2023 8:09 am
    jjpo- I think Crockett is a POS for bring in another, RESOLVED CASE as far as Congress is concerned.

    This is the part where I talk about you actually not shitting all over the Constitution of the US. Maybe not in China, maybe not in Russia, maybe not in your favorite country Nicaragua, But in the US. You ought to at least be familiar with the duties of the three branches of government and WTF they do. And DON'T do. That goes for Crockett also.


  9. by Ponderer on September 29, 2023 8:21 am

    jjod, your party is currently making an absolute three-ring circus mockery of the congressional hearing process by "investigating" a president for impeachable crimes when they don't even have a shred of evidence of any crime to back up an impeachment whatsoever. They are weaponizing the hearing process solely for the purpose of political gain and at the behest of a former president who controls their party. And they are about to force the country into bankruptcy for reasons that they can't even verbalize...

    And you think the Dems are the ones wiping their asses with the Constitution?????


  10. by Donna on September 29, 2023 8:25 am

    Republicans hate intelligent outspoken Democratic women, especially women of color.



  11. by Ponderer on September 29, 2023 8:30 am

    'Republicans hate intelligent outspoken Democratic women, especially women of color." -Donna

    No kidding! It's like a reflexive defense for them to call such women "bonkers" and crazy and whatever. Regardless of the fact that they might know nothing about such women other than what they were shown in one video. They sense what an existential threat to their authoritarian plans such women are and they immediately attack them and call them names to try to tear them down. We've seen it and seen it. Over and over again.


  12. by Curt_Anderson on September 29, 2023 8:40 am
    OD and Ponderer,
    It is comical to hear olde dude complain that Democrats are disrespecting the Constitution. Ponderer, and others here are correct when they say the Republicans have no evidence of impeachable offenses. HtS says be patient that evidence will come eventually.

    Here is the punchline: even the Republicans’ imagined wrongdoings by Joe Biden happened when Biden was not president. For much of it he was not even in any elected office. The US Constitution gives reasons for removing a president from office, but it is for crimes committed while IN office.


  13. by oldedude on September 29, 2023 8:55 am
    Republicans hate intelligent outspoken Democratic women, especially women of color.
    First, I don't give a shit what race, gender (preference), height, weight, whatever. There are two issues here. This is what I was given, and all you sent. Not my concern WTF you think.

    Secondly. trumpster is a private citizen. Once they leave office, it's up to DOJ to do what they do. NOT CONGRESS! as y'all have said many times. You keep saying that pedojr is a private citizen and is therefore out of reach of Congress. Why wouldn't it be the same?
    Although congressional authority to investigate is broad, it is not unlimited. Because Congress’s authority to investigate is tied to its authority to legislate, limits on congressional investigations are necessarily linked to the limits on Congress’s constitutional authority. For example, Congress has no general authority to investigate the purely private affair of an ordinary citizen.

    If the trumpster said it, he wouldn't know WTF he was talking about either (and it wouldn't shock me if he would). Since you can't quite seem to think on your own, or come up with a reasonable argument, why should I even listen (which I'll usually read what you said, but when your wheels fall off, it's just comical).
    mololamken.com


  14. by HatetheSwamp on September 29, 2023 9:10 am

    HtS says be patient that evidence will come eventually.

    No.

    pb says no thing.

    Did you watch the Nancy Mace video? There's evidence. That's evident. Subjectivity is, however, truth...as you demonstrate.


  15. by HatetheSwamp on September 29, 2023 9:11 am

    First, I don't give a shit what race, gender (preference), height, weight, whatever. There are two issues here. This is what I was given, and all you sent. Not my concern WTF you think.

    OD. You take them seriously at your own peril.


  16. by oldedude on September 29, 2023 9:18 am
    The wheels on the bus go round and round! except when they fall off.


  17. by oldedude on September 29, 2023 9:30 am
    curt- It is comical to hear olde dude complain that Democrats are disrespecting the Constitution. Ponderer, and others here are correct when they say the Republicans have no evidence of impeachable offenses. HtS says be patient that evidence will come eventually.

    First, there is nothing at all you will accept as evidence. That is a known quantity. Y'all will never quit being the absolute little germans, goose-stepping in time to what they tell you. And ONLY what they tell you.

    Again, I know the dims were horrible at this. They GUARANTEED trumpster would be found guilty of FELONIES (plural). And they finally "got" him on some weakass nothing burger on the third "try." because they couldn't legally use the one piece of "evidence" all the little germans were trusting and had secured.

    How many days has this been in AN INVESTIGATION? mmmm..... So they haven't even started "impeachment." That is why I'm telling you that y'all are shitting on the Constitution. You don't even know how this works. When Vanna lets you buy a clue, let me know.


  18. by HatetheSwamp on September 29, 2023 9:42 am

    First, there is nothing at all you will accept as evidence. That is a known quantity.

    That's why I think that, in dialog with po, the only issue is the blind subservience to the preferences and prejudices that po won't even try to evade...

    ...because po lacks self-awareness...

    ...because po's heart runs on hate.

    At the moment any dialog interacts with po's subjectivity, intelligent conversation is an impossibility.

    We're there now.


  19. by Curt_Anderson on September 29, 2023 10:41 am
    I’m not the only one saying that there is no evidence for impeachment. Fox News’ Neil Cavuto says there’s no evidence. Jonathan Turley says there’s no evidence. The Republicans on witness a forensic accountant says there is no evidence. Yesterday, the headlines and top stories of the news media said Republicans presented no evidence for impeachment.


  20. by HatetheSwamp on September 29, 2023 10:50 am

    I'm neither omnipresent nor omniscient as po claims to be but I doubt that any of these people have declared, ultimately and finally, that there's no evidence.


  21. by oldedude on September 29, 2023 11:03 am
    It doesn't matter. You're taking hearsay and conflating that with fact. There are very few that at any time will know the full list of "evidence." I'm pretty sure there's a better chance of this evidence, better than the Steele dossier. Considering it was illegal to bring into a court as evidence. Totally different things. You do this a lot when it comes to being a good little german. With trumpster, it was

    "Oh! we got 'em! Oh. no we don't🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗...

    Oh! "we got 'em! Oh. no we don't🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗...

    "Oh! we got 'em! Oh. no we don't🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗...


    Both sides in this are lying. Welcome to politics. It may be the GOP is lying about not having anything for people just like you. That's why I just wait all of this out. Who cares what the prelims look like. What the investigation looks like. It's immaterial to the end result.

    jjpo never answered my question about what Crockett was responding to. This is part of the issue. You (all) read something. You don't know the context, but they said exactly what you want to hear, therefore it's true.

    Right now, I'm assuming that everything I see is for all the "sucker's born every minute." and the rest of the Tammen and Barnum's dog and pony show. It's a show for gullable that will empty people's pockets as their watching. If there's a guy named Soapy Smith, just smile and wave, boys, smile and wave as you walk away.


  22. by Curt_Anderson on September 29, 2023 11:18 am
    Well obviously, HtS. Nobody is omniscient. People like me are saying that there has been no evidence presented as of now. That includes the Republican witnesses yesterday, Mr. Turley and Mr. Dubinsky. And existing evidence (not suppositions, not suspicions, nor allegations), is all we can use to make an intelligent decision. I can also say that Republicans having been investigating Biden with all their Congressional powers for about a year and came up with nothing in their big televised presentation yesterday.

    However, I think they have enough evidence to possibly impeach Hunter Biden (if he happens to be holding an elected office, we don’t know about). They might catch him on a “high crime or misdemeanor“


  23. by HatetheSwamp on September 29, 2023 11:23 am

    I can also say that Republicans having been investigating Biden with all their Congressional powers for about a year and came up with nothing in their big televised presentation yesterday.

    No evidence? Of anything untoward? At all? You're kidding, right!!!!!?

    What do you do with the Nancy Mace video that I linked?


  24. by Curt_Anderson on September 29, 2023 11:25 am
    That Nancy Mace video where she was interviewed on Fox about a week ago? She presented no evidence. She simply claimed she had evidence.


  25. by Indy! on September 29, 2023 11:32 am

    People... get a better hobby.


  26. by Ponderer on September 29, 2023 11:52 am

    "First, there is nothing at all you will accept as evidence." -olde dude

    WRONG! It is not our fault that the baloney the MAGA Hats are gleefully dancing around like they're at a witch burning, claiming to be evidence simply does not meet the minimum requirements of what admissible, legal evidence actually is.

    If you ever presented some real evidence, we'd certainly examine it. It's what we've been begging you MAGA Hats to present to us for months! Don't blame us because you can't do it.

    "Again, I know the dims were horrible at this. They GUARANTEED trumpster would be found guilty of FELONIES (plural)." -olde dude

    Do you mind terribly if the trials go on to eventually result in guilty verdicts?

    olde dude, are you seriously laboring under the misapprehension that of the ninety-some odd felonies he's already been charged with (so far), that none of them will result in a guilty verdict?

    Care to put some money on that?



  27. by HatetheSwamp on September 29, 2023 11:56 am

    Question for OD:

    If you ever presented some real evidence, we'd certainly examine it.

    Does po completely lack self-understanding or is po simply, as po'd say, an EFFINliar?


  28. by Ponderer on September 29, 2023 12:16 pm

    Okay, Bill. If I'm lying, tell us what the "real" evidence is that you have. Just go ahead and give us a quick rundown of the evidence you believe you have. In fact, if you want to make it really look like evidence, present the evidence with the statute of the law that he broke.

    We were quite capable of and forthcoming in doing that left and right all through Trump's impeachments. Here's the law he broke, and here's the evidence that he broke it. That was us back then. Bing, bang, boom. Right down the line.

    But you pathetic clowns got nothing.



  29. by HatetheSwamp on September 29, 2023 12:38 pm

    po,

    Watch the Nancy Mace video. Then dispute her account of the facts.


  30. by Ponderer on September 29, 2023 1:29 pm

    But Curt just debunked it. So why should I bother? It's not evidence of anything.


  31. by HatetheSwamp on September 29, 2023 1:35 pm

    No. He didn't.


  32. by oldedude on September 29, 2023 1:56 pm
    curt #22- People like me are saying that there has been no evidence presented as of now. That includes the Republican witnesses yesterday, Mr. Turley and Mr. Dubinsky.
    So have you seen all the evidence? Have your two GOP members seen all the evidence the GOP has right now.


    And existing evidence (not suppositions, not suspicions, nor allegations), is all we can use to make an intelligent decision.
    And you know for a fact you have seen all the evidence. I'm very sure I haven't seen all the evidence. I would bet paychecks on that.

    jjpo #26- "First, there is nothing at all you will accept as evidence." -olde dude

    WRONG! It is not our fault that the baloney the MAGA Hats are gleefully dancing around like they're at a witch burning, claiming to be evidence simply does not meet the minimum requirements of what admissible, legal evidence actually is.

    First, you just argued with yourself and lost.

    What if you saw BSA data? Would you accept that? My guess is you wouldn't because curt read an article about it and now is an expert on banking law and says it doesn't prove anything.

    Caselaw says that BSA stands on it's own. You don't need a "witness" to support it. Sometimes Agents from Treasury will validate in court this is a true copy of what the financial institution sent. But it's not necessary. Also remember, this is NOT a criminal court (your rules), so there is no need to anyone do that. And the bar is far lower than a criminal court. Remember the rules dims created are now the rules the GOP is bound by.

    As curt once said, "Chapo" Guzman is not going to do his own banking. Others will do that for him (which is absolutely true). So don't look for that in this case either. And trust me, Chapo is vastly smarter than pedojoe.



  33. by Ponderer on September 29, 2023 2:06 pm

    "So have you seen all the evidence?" -olde dude

    NO ONE HAS!!! No one has seen ANY evidence! You can't see what doesn't exist! That's the funny part!


    Tell me something, olde dude. If there is all this evidence that Biden committed a crime that warranted impeachment, why aren't any of the MAGA Faithful in the House presenting any of it in these hearings? All they are presenting is suggestions of implications about rumors of overheard conversations full of hearsay about somebody supposedly doing something they may or may not have done is not evidence of anything.

    If they have the real deal, then why keep hiding it from everyone when these hearings are the place and the time to shout it to the heavens?



  34. by oldedude on September 29, 2023 3:07 pm
    Tell me something, olde dude. If there is all this evidence that Biden committed a crime that warranted impeachment, why aren't any of the MAGA Faithful in the House presenting any of it in these hearings? All they are presenting is suggestions of implications about rumors of overheard conversations full of hearsay about somebody supposedly doing something they may or may not have done is not evidence of anything.

    If they have the real deal, then why keep hiding it from everyone when these hearings are the place and the time to shout it to the heavens?


    If I have evidence that's been confirmed, why would I go through gathering that evidence? That doesn't make any sense.

    Again, you "ass ume" this is the "IMPEACHMENT HEARING" it isn't. It's the investigation. You've said it over and over again but you're forgetting this isn't the hearing. This is the process before that. It's to gather information, nothing more. I've said this over and over again.

    For them to bring forth "evidence" you have to wait until they're in that part of the process. They're not there yet. One thing that may be confusing is the dims didn't really have an "investigation" mostly because they were going to use the Steele Dossier to convict. Then they were told they couldn't, but they were already in through with the "investigation" and just moved into the evidence and charges portion.


  35. by Indy! on September 29, 2023 3:18 pm

    ...or get a room.


  36. by Ponderer on September 29, 2023 5:39 pm

    "If I have evidence that's been confirmed, why would I go through gathering that evidence?" -olde dude


    Ummm.................

    To present in an impeachment inquiry...? As evidence that there is cause to begin an actual impeachment...? As kinda the whole point of this MAGA Hat circus that McCarthy was pussied by the House clowns into letting them have...?


  37. by oldedude on September 29, 2023 7:25 pm
    To present in an impeachment inquiry...? As evidence that there is cause to begin an actual impeachment...? As kinda the whole point of this MAGA Hat circus that McCarthy was pussied by the House clowns into letting them have...?

    But I don't need to publicly confirm anything if I have it confirmed and collaborated. You're still not getting it. It drives you flat apeshit that you're not in control of this. And you're not. At all. Welcome to the real world, the subsector of the legal world.

    I would present it as fact along with all my other information that I can actually claim is fact according to eyewitnesses, banks, DNA, Title III information, and the like. Your insecurity about not knowing every fukking thing is irrelevant to everyone but you.

    FYSA. You don't "present" at an impeachment inquiry. You question. For the fifth, or sixth fukking time. This is to GAIN information, NOT to release it.


  38. by Ponderer on September 30, 2023 7:15 am

    The impeachment inquiries for Trump's impeachments had evidence and witness testimony. I mean a lot of the evidence was already out there, as it had been well reported on and everyone could see the blatant evidence for what it was. But it was still evidence that was there for all to see even before the articles of impeachment were drawn up. There is absolutely nothing stopping the MAGA Republicans from presenting any actual evidence in this inquiry if they in fact had any.

    I guess we were spoiled by the way the Democrats had tons of evidence that everyone could see before anything got off the ground. There was plenty of evidence of direct criminal acts that everyone saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears, so theorizing and assumptions and hearsay and jumping to unsupported conclusions weren't all they had, like they are with this current impeachment endeavor.



  39. by islander on September 30, 2023 7:48 am

    Ponderer ~ I haven't been posting much here lately but I do occasionally scan the posts and I have to say it's been comical watching our two local Trump voters hang themselves and twist in the wind as they try to foolishly make this failed impeachment inquiry sound legitimate !! LoL !!

    Charlie Sykes of The Bulwark wrote: “The charitable view is that the first hearing was a dumpster fire inside a clown car wrapped in a fiasco. To put it mildly, the GOP did not bring their best.”

    Heather summed it up quite well this morning !!

    "At the end of the day, it seemed as if Democrats had flipped the script that has worked so well for so long on right-wing media. Rather than being on the defensive themselves, they put Republicans on the defensive. And because their hits were based in reality, rather than a false narrative, they left the Republican committee members with few options today other than to take to social media, once again, to boast of all the [invisible] evidence they have accumulated against President Biden." 🤣



  40. by oldedude on September 30, 2023 8:15 am
    The impeachment inquiries for Trump's impeachments had evidence and witness testimony. I mean a lot of the evidence was already out there, as it had been well reported on and everyone could see the blatant evidence for what it was. But it was still evidence that was there for all to see even before the articles of impeachment were drawn up. There is absolutely nothing stopping the MAGA Republicans from presenting any actual evidence in this inquiry if they in fact had any.

    So other than satisfying your ego, why would they tip their hand? I know that since YOU "think" they must, they (like everyone but you and isle) (oh, don't forget muffy) don't really care about what you think. It's not in procedures they should, or have to. Welcome to the legal system.


  41. by Ponderer on September 30, 2023 9:32 am

    “The charitable view is that the first hearing was a dumpster fire inside a clown car wrapped in a fiasco. To put it mildly, the GOP did not bring their best.”

    Yeah no kidding, Isle. That's putting it quite mildly, eh?



  42. by Ponderer on September 30, 2023 9:33 am

    Oh it's okay, olde dude. We're used to watching MAGA Republicans squirm and wriggle around like worms on hot pavement trying to make a big thing out of nothing because that's all they got. It's a classic tactic of you people.

    We get it. We're supposed to react with shock and awe at the collection of "evidence" that your side has but find impossible to show anyone. We're supposed to be terrified by evidence that you refuse to show anyone, just on the merits of your having said you have it. We're supposed to just take your word that it's HUGE, but you don't have to show it to anybody. The word of MAGA Republicans. Seriously???

    Yeah, no. Pass.




  43. by oldedude on September 30, 2023 5:04 pm
    When you actually pull your head out of the "sand" let us know. I'm sure there's a real human being in there. Somewhere. maybe.


  44. by Ponderer on October 1, 2023 3:56 pm

    And when you people pull your heads out of Trump's ass...



    Oh never mind.


  45. by oldedude on October 1, 2023 8:38 pm
    I'm not on team trumpsters arse. What I am on is the law of the land and the constitution. You're wiping that rather large arse with the entire page of the original bill of rights with it. Learn how your government works. Actually read the basic bill of rights and all of the amendments to the constitution that have been laid out. Take a class at the junior college, there's plenty in Phoenix.8 It might surprise you that you're in a rather PITA vocal minority. All I want is for the constitution to be applied. That's it. Nothing more.


  46. by Ponderer on October 1, 2023 9:23 pm

    Okay.


Go To Top

Comment on: "Jasmine Crockett, Dem Rep from Texas, kicks her some asinine GOP ass!"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page