Recent Comments

1. about 9 years ago on Prickly City

   You are ignoring the fact that the democrats made promises on compromise, then went back on them. You also ignore the fact the democrat-led senate has sat on over 400 bills passed by the house, and refused to vote on those bills.

2. over 9 years ago on Prickly City

   Unfortunately, it’s the democrats in congress and their failure to vote on over 400 bills passed by the house.

3. over 9 years ago on [Deleted]

   You did not cite forty. You cited Nancy Pelosi’s opinion on them being junk.

   But then again, even if I grant you those, you still ignore the other 400 bills the Senate refused to vote on.

   Why do we need an immigration bill? We have immigration policies. The simple solution is to enforce them. Oh, that’s right… it’s more important for our president to seek a role in Ferguson than to do his job, just like the rest of the politicians in DC.

   And no, the immigration reform bill had very little bipartisan support.

   However, thanks for proving my point. You are a partisan hack that either refuses or does not have the capacity to think for yourself. You attack the House for not voting on a bill, yet you excuse the Senate from voting on bills.

   Not to mention, that bill did nothing to address what is going on at the border today. It was nothing more than an amnesty bill that rewarded illegal behavior.

   To use your words, it was, and is, a junk bill. There was no provision on how the bill would be paid for.

   But if you want to talk bipartisanship, as if it were the standard, then you must also be against Obamacare, as it did not have bipartisanship. The bipartisanship was actually against it.

4. over 9 years ago on [Deleted]

   what is the required vote for an Impeachment? Simple majority in the house

   What is the required vote for a conviction in an impeachment hearing?

   What is the required vote to expel a member of congress?

   Yeah, both 2/3.

   There is still great debate over whether a member of congress can be impeached. Impeachment MUST involve both house and senate. Expulsion only requires the particular House involved. Expulsion has just been the preferred method.

   No legal precedent has been established to officially declare that Congressmen are not Civil Officers.

   Nice try though.

5. over 9 years ago on [Deleted]

   Yeah, Nancy Pelosi is an honest source…. Secondly, check the records. Over 400 bills. Senate did not vote on them. YOU crawl away in shame.

   Even if they were special interest bills, such as the left claims, why not vote them down? Nope, Dirty Harry just doesn’t vote on bills. So I ask you this, what about the other 400 bills they didn’t vote on?

   Oh, and if you’re going to cite something as a source in a political discussion, it’s best to use a non-partisan source, not a left-wing bias blog. It pretty much proves you don’t think on your own.

   Secondly, learn to interpret what you read. It’s called comprehension. Art II, Sect. IV means that if a President, VP or civil officer SHALL be removed in those cases (treason, bribery, etc).

   Can Senators be impeached? ABSOLUTELY!

   William Blount of South Carolina was in 1797. However, during those procedings, they established a principle that senators are not civil officers. But keep in mind, that’s a principle, not a law or ruling. So yes, Senators could still be impeached if one were to choose to challenge that principle.

   So, instead of revising history, actually go read some.

   Oh, and it’s typical that you resort to name calling as usual. Mature. It pretty much shows you know your argument is weak. Otherwise why would you have to resort to name calling?

   Oh, and Governors can be impeached. Just not by the federal Congress, but by their respective states.

6. over 9 years ago on Prickly City

   Yeah, talking points from shows I don’t listen to and a network I don’t watch. Sure. But please, name one bill that was a junk bill. Explain why the senate couldn’t be bothered to debate and add amendments to those bills to make them good bills.

   I’d love to hear the answer. You asked me a question, I answered it. I’m still waiting for you to give an answer, and you refuse.

   And you claim I’m the one that doesn’t think for myself?

7. over 9 years ago on Prickly City

   Admittedly, sometimes, fewer bills are better. But it’s disingenuous to call the Republicans the do nothings, when it’s actually been the Democrats in the Senate that have done even less.

   Every bill is fixable. That’s why they have debate and amendments to bills.

8. over 9 years ago on Prickly City

   And yet you come back every day. So what’s that say about you?

9. over 9 years ago on Prickly City

   I’ll remember that next time I see you bash Fox News. (And no, I don’t watch Fox News or any cable news programs for that matter)

10. over 9 years ago on Prickly City

    It’s irrelevant if they were junk bills. They can add amendments to the bills to make them non-junk. The current Senate has passed the least amount of bills in decades.