She's selling fear of an irrelevant and misrepresented position as a reason to not impeach.So what ?
She's selling fear of an irrelevant and misrepresented position as a reason to not impeach.
Let's be honest about it though, Nancy pelosi was banging that drum a few years back, and O'Rourke was as well.When you have nothing else, peddle the false notion that a Democrat government will take your guns away.
Republicanism 101.
One need only look at NYC and DC before Heller to know where Democrats want to go with gun control.
Which is ???
Why do you suppose the Democrats want to ban guns ?
Just to spoil your fun ?
Or let me guess, set up a communist dictatorship in the USA and we all know that the first thing dictators do is ban guns.
You desperately need to be more precise in the way you write. I honestly have no idea what you are actually asking me, so I'll answer in the way that makes most sense to me:
I suppose that Democrats want to ban guns because they have done so in the past, and have campaigned on doing it again.
They claim they want to do this because it will make us safer, except that's obviously bullshit because nothing about the laws they have proposed to ban certain types of guns will actually make us safer.
So I can't even begin to guess at their motives.
The most generous interpretation I can come up with is that they're doing it to create a wedge issue to get votes from people who are ignorant about guns but generally dislike them, while fooling these people into thinking they're trying to do something useful when they really aren't.
Then you admit to not knowing what you were actually saying
No. I said that I didn't know what YOU were saying, because of your general lack of clarity. If you feel that anything I wrote was not responsive, feel free to clarify.
As for the rest of your post, I have a rule that I tend to follow most of the time: As soon as I hit a wall of blatant bullshit, I stop reading, on the assumption that reading further will be an even bigger waste of time.
If you would care to respond again and attempt to be even a little honest, maybe I'll read it and respond. Then again, maybe not.
Or in other words, you have no response
The word for that, in debate, is concession. Or if you prefer, surrender
I accept your "sword"
Don't stab yourself. Somehow I doubt there was anything to rebut. Your comments tend to be self-rebutting.
But beyond your capacity to do so.
As a sheriff buddy of mine says "There ain't enough Kevlar in the USA to pull it off".Part of a Republican Congresswoman's argument against impeachment.
Part of a Republican Congresswoman's argument against impeachment.
seriously?
Which nutcase was this, specifically?
Seriously. Does that surprise you? Qballs were elected!seriously?
Which nutcase was this, specifically?
Seriously. Does that surprise you? Qballs were elected!
I don't remember. One of the new younger House members. Probably a Qball. You search; I'll search.
How about a compromise; The Left leave the 2nd amendment alone and the right do the same for women's right to choose. These are red meat issues that both parties use to divide the moderates and control us.
How about a compromise; The Left leave the 2nd amendment alone and the right do the same for women's right to choose. These are red meat issues that both parties use to divide the moderates and control us.
“Red meat” is rhetoric on an issue used to inflame supporters. It is often associated with populist ideas and campaigns.Red meat issues?
OMFG
We have Covid, riots, unemployment setting records... and you think these trite issues "red meat?"
This is exactly teh trouble with Trumpists, their priorities are in the toilet.