Cryin (& Lyin) Chuck Schumer

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,759
Reaction score
3,854
Points
113
I said he should recant what he said. You go in a huff about how that's not good enough.
He’s not “recanting”. He’s not apologizing. He’s saying that McConnell is misinterpreting.

Bullshit!

Your dispassionate suggesting for recanting is nothing like what your reaction would be if Trump has threatened Ginsberg using these same words.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,566
Reaction score
15,213
Points
113
He’s not “recanting”. He’s not apologizing. He’s saying that McConnell is misinterpreting.

Bullshit!

Your dispassionate suggesting for recanting is nothing like what your reaction would be if Trump has threatened Ginsberg using these same words.
He should recant/apologize/call it whatever you want.

Many on your side have been rooting for RGB's death for years. Rockhard has gleefully posted that it was near. Of course he was wrong like always.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,759
Reaction score
3,854
Points
113
He should recant/apologize/call it whatever you want.

Many on your side have been rooting for RGB's death for years. Rockhard has gleefully posted that it was near. Of course he was wrong like always.
No one was “rooting” for her death, here or anywhere. That’s stupid.

Saying so publicly would be appropriately shamed.

Schumer’s not apologizing, so either you don’t support his leadership or you are a total hypocrite and/or don’t care.

Isn‘t that your pitch against Trump?
 

Veritas

Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
573
Points
113
Anyone with over $500K in assets gets $0 effective immediately. I think Beeg and KGF will be on board. Fiscal responsibility!

What a silly number :"$500K". Who paid into the fund? Who paid taxes in general in this country? Who pays into the property tax pool? You really know nothing about wealth in this country at all. What percent of the population in this country has a net worth of $500K or more? And why would you want to punish them for making the right decisions so you can protect the income of those who have too often made the wrong decisions such that they reach age 65 without having a net worth of $500K? Finally, given the commonest of such a net worth, who is going to vote for your plan? Stick to things you know something about.
 



howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,566
Reaction score
15,213
Points
113
What a silly number :"$500K". Who paid into the fund? Who paid taxes in general in this country? Who pays into the property tax pool? You really know nothing about wealth in this country at all. What percent of the population in this country has a net worth of $500K or more? And why would you want to punish them for making the right decisions so you can protect the income of those who have too often made the wrong decisions such that they reach age 65 without having a net worth of $500K? Finally, given the commonest of such a net worth, who is going to vote for your plan? Stick to things you know something about.
Your sarcasm meter is broken.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,566
Reaction score
15,213
Points
113
No one was “rooting” for her death, here or anywhere. That’s stupid.

Saying so publicly would be appropriately shamed.

Schumer’s not apologizing, so either you don’t support his leadership or you are a total hypocrite and/or don’t care.

Isn‘t that your pitch against Trump?
Schumber did apologize. And yes there are those rooting for her death. But you can live in denial.
 

Veritas

Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
573
Points
113
Your sarcasm meter is broken.

I am not questioning your intelligence your post, but I am seriously questioning your ignorance. You think it is good to disqualify people like me and my wife who have no debts and a $500,000 home, but you would take away their only income or a big part of their income? For what sin? Being good citizens? Not being dead beats? No sarcasm intended. Is it that you have no idea what a house costs?
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
27,296
Reaction score
8,509
Points
113
I am not questioning your intelligence your post, but I am seriously questioning your ignorance. You think it is good to disqualify people like me and my wife who have no debts and a $500,000 home, but you would take away their only income or a big part of their income? For what sin? Being good citizens? Not being dead beats? No sarcasm intended. Is it that you have no idea what a house costs?

We've all seen your posts. Far more likely to have $500k in debts and a $0 house.
 




stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
27,296
Reaction score
8,509
Points
113
Analyzing. Maybe you inherited some money? If so...congratulations.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,566
Reaction score
15,213
Points
113
He’s not “recanting”. He’s not apologizing. He’s saying that McConnell is misinterpreting.

Bullshit!

Your dispassionate suggesting for recanting is nothing like what your reaction would be if Trump has threatened Ginsberg using these same words.

Such constant vulgarity from you! WWJD? Careful or Beeg will have removed from his party. Only the Best Christians are allowed.


Now, I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They didn't come out the way I intended to," Schumer said Thursday morning. "My point was that there would be political consequences, political consequences for President (Donald) Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices, stripped away a woman's right to choose."

Of course I didn't intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court


I shouldn't have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat. I never, never would do such a thing.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,566
Reaction score
15,213
Points
113
I am not questioning your intelligence your post, but I am seriously questioning your ignorance. You think it is good to disqualify people like me and my wife who have no debts and a $500,000 home, but you would take away their only income or a big part of their income? For what sin? Being good citizens? Not being dead beats? No sarcasm intended. Is it that you have no idea what a house costs?
It was a sarcastic post. Beeg always wants to cut spending. That would certainly do it!

I do think means testing Social Security is a good idea. But they should receive a lump sum buyout. And the bar would obviously be much much higher than $500K.
 



Veritas

Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
573
Points
113
It was a sarcastic post. Beeg always wants to cut spending. That would certainly do it!

I do think means testing Social Security is a good idea. But they should receive a lump sum buyout. And the bar would obviously be much much higher than $500K.

Once you remove the universality of any program you strongly imply a duel reality which seriously undermines the argument that the concept is a basic right because it no longer is any such thing. "If you are a screw up you get this money taken away from the capable and given to you idiots." Build a consensis out of that reality. Move the threshold up to the very wealthy and you won't save any money worth spit. You Dims never figure out that the only way to increase real amounts of money is to tax the middle class and the only way to really cut spending on entitlement programs is deny entitlements to the middle as well.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,759
Reaction score
3,854
Points
113
Such constant vulgarity from you! WWJD? Careful or Beeg will have removed from his party. Only the Best Christians are allowed.


Now, I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They didn't come out the way I intended to," Schumer said Thursday morning. "My point was that there would be political consequences, political consequences for President (Donald) Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices, stripped away a woman's right to choose."

Of course I didn't intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court


I shouldn't have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat. I never, never would do such a thing.
I got the denial part, but I missed the remorse and apology parts.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
14,213
Reaction score
4,701
Points
113
How about a comment on Schumer’s recent SC Justices personal threat?

It was bad and he shouldn't have said it.

I saw Schumer at a press conference today stating that ”Trump says” that he’s going to “cut Social Security”. Crazy Mazie Hirono followed him by saying that he’s definitely going to cut SS.

In fact, Trump only said he’s “going to look at it”.

Without any context or details, the Dems are howling that Trump is going to cut SS just b/c he said he would look at SS in a 2nd term.

Trump, or any politician, is not going to cut SS for those that have been paying in and are over 55, maybe less. And by “cut”, it’s likely that it means decreasing the growth, not actual cuts as in less than previous years.


 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,759
Reaction score
3,854
Points
113
It was bad and he shouldn't have said it.

OMG, you mean the President is going to address Debt, which you always complain about that he isn’t?

He said before, we’ll “look at it”. He said last night “we’ll be cutting”, and you forgot what followed, that ”we’ll also have growth...”. Economic growth offsets cuts. And “cuts” are declines in INCREASES, not actual cuts. But that’s the language of Washington spendocrats.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
14,213
Reaction score
4,701
Points
113
OMG, you mean the President is going to address Debt, which you always complain about that he isn’t?

He said before, we’ll “look at it”. He said last night “we’ll be cutting”, and you forgot what followed, that ”we’ll also have growth...”. Economic growth offsets cuts. And “cuts” are declines in INCREASES, not actual cuts. But that’s the language of Washington spendocrats.

So you spent 3 paragraphs complaining about how Schumer said Trump would cut entitlements, and when Trump says he'll cut entitlements you say it's a good thing?

I never actually complain about Trump addressing the debt. I don't care that much about the debt. I care that Republicans use the debt as a way to constrain Democrats and then completely ignore it whenever they're in power.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,759
Reaction score
3,854
Points
113
So you spent 3 paragraphs complaining about how Schumer said Trump would cut entitlements, and when Trump says he'll cut entitlements you say it's a good thing?

I never actually complain about Trump addressing the debt. I don't care that much about the debt. I care that Republicans use the debt as a way to constrain Democrats and then completely ignore it whenever they're in power.
In a previous quote, I quoted what Trump actually said. I didn’t say that it was bad, good, or indifferent. Just that that’s what he said.

Yesterday, he said something different. I’m fine with what Trump said on both occasions.

I’ve said before, the Debt will only be addressed in a president’s second term. Anyone who wants to be re-elected won’t push that issue in a first term regardless of political affiliation.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
27,296
Reaction score
8,509
Points
113
In a previous quote, I quoted what Trump actually said. I didn’t say that it was bad, good, or indifferent. Just that that’s what he said.

Yesterday, he said something different. I’m fine with what Trump said on both occasions.

I’ve said before, the Debt will only be addressed in a president’s second term. Anyone who wants to be re-elected won’t push that issue in a first term regardless of political affiliation.

Why wouldn't he address the debt in the first term? Republicans claim to be for fiscal responsibility, right? So attacking the debt would be right up their alley. So repubs are just a bunch of massive hypocrites (confirmed many times over)....and/or too stupid to realize that those cuts may hit them too.
 


saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,796
Reaction score
5,317
Points
113
This is a dumb game when you have Trump as your President.
Stolen from the Nation.
During the campaign, he told supporters at a rally that if they saw someone about to throw a tomato, they should “knock the crap out of them,” adding that he would “pay for legal fees.” In fact, Trump did say that he was thinking of paying the legal fees of a supporter who sucker-punched a man at a rally in North Carolina (Trump didn’t, of course, because Trump is a cheap liar). Trump also warned that the “Second Amendment people” might do something about Hillary Clinton, if she won. Just recently he suggested that there might be violence if he was impeached.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,759
Reaction score
3,854
Points
113
Why wouldn't he address the debt in the first term? Republicans claim to be for fiscal responsibility, right? So attacking the debt would be right up their alley. So repubs are just a bunch of massive hypocrites (confirmed many times over)....and/or too stupid to realize that those cuts may hit them too.
B/c they wouldn’t be re-elected b/c people, the voters, don’t want cuts to their social entitlements, even if it means running up deficits and debt. DUMMY (included for the requisite insult).
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,759
Reaction score
3,854
Points
113
OMG- Breaking news! Trump makes a nasty, suggestive comment (4 years ago). It was a stupid joke. He makes many.

I’m sure you condemned Chuck Schumer for suggestively threatening two SC Justices by name, and was not joking.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,796
Reaction score
5,317
Points
113
B/c they wouldn’t be re-elected b/c people, the voters, don’t want cuts to their social entitlements, even if it means running up deficits and debt. DUMMY (included for the requisite insult).
He's just gonna balance the budget by cutting welfare and medicaid, which lazy Democratic voters get, and leave Social Security and Medicare, which are for the righteous.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
27,296
Reaction score
8,509
Points
113
B/c they wouldn’t be re-elected b/c people, the voters, don’t want cuts to their social entitlements, even if it means running up deficits and debt. DUMMY (included for the requisite insult).

Ah. So republicans are hypocrites and really don't care about entitlements and the debt at all. Got it.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,566
Reaction score
15,213
Points
113
OMG- Breaking news! Trump makes a nasty, suggestive comment (4 years ago). It was a stupid joke. He makes many.

I’m sure you condemned Chuck Schumer for suggestively threatening two SC Justices by name, and was not joking.
Trump wasn't joking either, you pathetic shill. Could you lick Trump's boot's any harder?
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,566
Reaction score
15,213
Points
113
He's just gonna balance the budget by cutting welfare and medicaid, which lazy Democratic voters get, and leave Social Security and Medicare, which are for the righteous.
The sad thing is it would hurt so many his voters in the rural south and they will still vote for him.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,759
Reaction score
3,854
Points
113
He's just gonna balance the budget by cutting welfare and medicaid, which lazy Democratic voters get, and leave Social Security and Medicare, which are for the righteous.
That’s a pretty specific conclusion from a general statement.

If you want to know what I think, just ask. I might answer and then you wouldn’t have to answer for me.

But it’s so much easier making the argument and giving the answer yourself.
 

mjfelton15

Banned
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,059
Reaction score
797
Points
113
I saw Schumer at a press conference today stating that ”Trump says” that he’s going to “cut Social Security”. Crazy Mazie Hirono followed him by saying that he’s definitely going to cut SS.

In fact, Trump only said he’s “going to look at it”.

Without any context or details, the Dems are howling that Trump is going to cut SS just b/c he said he would look at SS in a 2nd term.

Trump, or any politician, is not going to cut SS for those that have been paying in and are over 55, maybe less. And by “cut”, it’s likely that it means decreasing the growth, not actual cuts as in less than previous years.

And howie and other lefties complain about conservatives not doing anything about the Debt and annual deficits? But as soon as it is brought up, the Dem leadership uses it as a cudgel to scare the old folks.

Spare me your phony complaints and whining howie. This is the Democrat Party. Liars, extortionists, and fear mongers. They are what they complain about.
Schumer is a total creep. Not to mention, he married a man. No way this isn’t a tranny.
 

Attachments

  • 682E810E-477D-4531-98A5-BED28D9B3863.jpeg
    682E810E-477D-4531-98A5-BED28D9B3863.jpeg
    225.8 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:




Top Bottom