Carpe Libertatem
Member
Gays need to just not be flamboyant and shouldn't talk about how men are attractive Don't make that that stuff public, ugh. Keep your gay nonsense to yourselves
Gays need to just not be flamboyant and shouldn't talk about how men are attractive Don't make that that stuff public, ugh. Keep your gay nonsense to yourselves
NUNES moving ahead; tells us House Intel will have more public hearings but says "I doubt" they will occur before Easter
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/847153501780262912
Nice job Nunes.
Gays need to just not be flamboyant and shouldn't talk about how men are attractive Don't make that that stuff public, ugh. Keep your gay nonsense to yourselves
So what was the reason for cancelling everything to begin with? I guess I kinda understand Yates, but not the others.
Can you not? I'm a big supporter of him but this just reeks of YAAS QUEEN nonsense. If you want to speak positively of him, why not just focus on the positions and legislation he's supported or been a part of?
It's crazy how much more mature the Senate seems just by comparison.
It's crazy how much more mature the Senate seems just by comparison.
Did... the Montana Democratic Party not bother to do ANY vetting of Rob Quist?
http://billingsgazette.com/news/gov...cle_a660f016-9229-5e3c-9114-f831a0ba012f.html
Sounds like the Senate knows what it's doing.
It's crazy how much more mature the Senate seems just by comparison.
Well Senators have to appeal to the entire state, and there's usually enough pockets of "not completely batshit insane and stupid" in a state to prevent wholly unqualified people from winning. Representatives just have to appeal to that small segment of whatever a particular corner of a particular area thinks about an issue, where opinions are usually much less diverse. That's a recipe for single-issue politicians who are ill-prepared to deal with actual governance, especially when voters in those areas view compromise as failure.
Gays need to just not be flamboyant and shouldn't talk about how men are attractive Don't make that that stuff public, ugh. Keep your gay nonsense to yourselves
Can you not? I'm a big supporter of him but this just reeks of YAAS QUEEN nonsense. If you want to speak positively of him, why not just focus on the positions and legislation he's supported or been a part of?
Gays need to just not be flamboyant and shouldn't talk about how men are attractive Don't make that that stuff public, ugh. Keep your gay nonsense to yourselves
Asked at the Capitol on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wouldn't say one way or another if he thought the Democratic Party should embrace single-payer, only noting that he would review Sanders's legislation once it was ready. In the House, neither Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi nor Minority Whip Steny Hoyer has officially co-sponsored Conyers's bill, though Pelosi did tell the Washington Post's David Weigel that she's supported single-payer ”since before you were born."
He's sarcastically referring to this.
He's talking about this guy lolStraight people talking about how people are attractive is fine I'm sure, right?
Fuck off.
Can you not? I'm a big supporter of him but this just reeks of YAAS QUEEN nonsense. If you want to speak positively of him, why not just focus on the positions and legislation he's supported or been a part of?
It's crazy how much more mature the Senate seems just by comparison.
Can you not? I'm a big supporter of him but this just reeks of YAAS QUEEN nonsense. If you want to speak positively of him, why not just focus on the positions and legislation he's supported or been a part of?
Guys Carpe Libertatem was obviously be sarcastic about the guy who told whyamihere to stop calling O'Rourke hot.
In other news, Vox's token socialist Jeff Stein did an article where he asked a bunch of Democrats how they feel about the Sanders/Conyers Medicare for All bill
The only Democrats (at least in the article) who outright said no were McCaskill and Cardin, most of them said "it's more important right now to protect Obamacare until we're in power." Booker said it's an "option that must be considered." Schatz, Warren, and Blumenthal said they support the bill. Pelosi and Schumer didn't give an official opinion when he asked but I laughed at this
TIL that not a lot of people go back a page for context when a new page is just starting.
Gays need to just not be flamboyant and shouldn't talk about how men are attractive Don't make that that stuff public, ugh. Keep your gay nonsense to yourselves
People should quote things
That's why the technology exists
What? That's clearly not what I meant given the context of the post and which thread we're in. It was in reference to a ton of the comments on Hillary which drew focus away from policies and positions. No Fun Allowed and all that I guess but it just seemed to stick out compared to other discussions or topics.
It's true! Being at the top of the page made it worse, too!
still, that level of overt homophobia should obviously be taken as sacasm on a forum like GAF, unless people think I'm going for an account suicide
Sis...Beto O'Rourke is hot.
Beto O'Rourke is hot.
It's true! Being at the top of the page made it worse, too!
So wait...I would be fine if I came into this thread, posted a picture of a female politician and said nothing other than "She's hot"? That's ridiculous no matter what sexual orientation perspective it is coming from.
So wait...I would be fine if I came into this thread, posted a picture of a female politician and said nothing other than "She's hot"? That's ridiculous no matter what sexual orientation perspective it is coming from.
Can you think of any societal differences between the treatment of men and the treatment of women
You might not gotten much of a response but, yes I think it would have been fine and left alone. "She's one hot senator" for example.
Had you said something like "would bang" then there would likely be a problem.
fyi a lot of latinos in the central and imperial valley are unable to vote because of *reasons*R+10 *and* majority minority and is like 45% hispanic. It didn't even shift away from Trump compared to Romney really, though it did vote for Harris lol
He got 67% of the vote in a district that's only 42% white, gotta wonder what's up there
Yes. That makes it okay to flip the tables the other way?
As someone who has watched family members go through similar medical situations (in Montana no less) I'm not seeing much of an issue here. Plenty of americans have had their lives thrown into turmoil due to medial debt and health problems.
My first blush reaction to this, is that it won't affect him much in Montana.
I mean...maybe let's ask the question differently. Do you see a distinction between reifying a discriminatory institution that classifies women as only valuable for their attractiveness and not reifying that discriminatory institution?
TIL, I was just surprised after seeing the demographics for the district and it's not like there's no precedent for certain latino groups voting GOP.fyi a lot of latinos in the central and imperial valley are unable to vote because of *reasons*
Senators can't hide in gerrymandered districts. So they can't just appeal to a small slice of the electorate. A Conservative Ham Sandwich would win reelection over a Dem in some of those red districts.
Paging Michele Bachmann
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/senate-intelligence-committee-conference/index.html
20 folks possibly lined up to start testifying tomorrow
Tomorrow is the first public hearing. Not sure who's slated to show up though.Is this public or behind closed doors? (or will it depend on the people testifying or other things?)
I wonder how long until Breitbart starts attacking Burr?
Bachmann was once on the House Intel committee. Could you imagine if she still was?
Tomorrow is the first public hearing. Not sure who's slated to show up though.