Backing the Blue, huh? Do these folks consider themselves ‘Muricans? It’s only going to get worse. Just wait until POOTWH is indicted, arrested and charged. Get ready for major domestic terrorism.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.
I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...
The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.
I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.
If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.
It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.
I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
the "reason" they gave, or at least some of them gave, was that it was because the bill mentioned the word "insurrection".
So if the bill said the Capitol Police deserved medals for defending the Capitol against "normal every day tourists". they'd have voted in favor I guess.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.
I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...
The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.
I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.
If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.
It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.
I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
I think you meant "prosecute?" Those two words are not interchangeable.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.
I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...
The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.
I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.
If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.
It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.
I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
You can only be prosecuted (not persecuted) when you violate a criminal statute. Political statements are not criminal statutes.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.
I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...
The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.
I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.
If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.
It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.
I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
I think you meant "prosecute?" Those two words are not interchangeable.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.
I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...
The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.
I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.
If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.
It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.
I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
I think you meant "prosecute?" Those two words are not interchangeable.
Since you both get that I wrote the wrong word and "prosecute" is it. Do you understand it now?
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.
I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...
The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.
I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.
If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.
It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.
I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
I think you meant "prosecute?" Those two words are not interchangeable.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.
I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...
The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.
I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.
If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.
It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.
I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
I think you meant "prosecute?" Those two words are not interchangeable.
Since you both get that I wrote the wrong word and "prosecute" is it. Do you understand it now?
Holy shit… I shouldn’t be surprised considering republicans abandoned all shame years ago, but really?
I saw the video and it's a shame she wouldn't stop. He was pointing the gun for a while and that was a clear message that "you need to stop now." The insurrectionists were breaking glass and trying to break down the doors and he didn't fire until she tried to climb through the opening.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.
I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...
The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.
I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.
If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.
It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.
I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
I think you meant "prosecute?" Those two words are not interchangeable.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.
I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...
The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.
I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.
If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.
It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.
I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
I think you meant "prosecute?" Those two words are not interchangeable.
Since you both get that I wrote the wrong word and "prosecute" is it. Do you understand it now?
Words matter. Words matter.
I know, I know, but you both knew what I meant, I didn't proof read, bad habit...
when all these numbskulls decided to try to deny the obvious the should have been consistent on which BS to feed us.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.
I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...
The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.
I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.
If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.
It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.
I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
this bill is simply to award a congressional gold medal to captial police on duty that day.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
There are a lot of ignorant hateful conspiray theorists in the world. Millions in America A few hundred on Capital Hill Too many in elected office And a few on here as well
Holy shit… I shouldn’t be surprised considering republicans abandoned all shame years ago, but really?
I saw the video and it's a shame she wouldn't stop. He was pointing the gun for a while and that was a clear message that "you need to stop now." The insurrectionists were breaking glass and trying to break down the doors and he didn't fire until she tried to climb through the opening.
She could have had anything in her backpack. The officer made the right decision.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.
I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...
The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.
I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.
If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.
It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.
I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
I think you meant "prosecute?" Those two words are not interchangeable.
Why would they not back this? The language used in the bill they say...
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
Politically is on the other end of the spectrum from "prosecutors". I don't understand what you mean.
I shortcut when I write instead of explaining it all sometimes...
The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.
I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.
If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.
It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.
I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
I think you meant "prosecute?" Those two words are not interchangeable.
Since you both get that I wrote the wrong word and "prosecute" is it. Do you understand it now?
Words matter. Words matter.
I know, I know, but you both knew what I meant, I didn't proof read, bad habit...
I don't make assumptions. Otherwise I would assume you knew you can only be charged under the criminal code.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he disagreed with the description of the Capitol and worried that the “insurrection” label could be used by prosecutors.
If this gets used politically, the wording in the bill, then we really are in bad shape.
The reasoning for some NOT to back it was because of the language used in the bill.
I find it preposterous to look at the bill that way.
If, and only if the language in this bill gets used down the road to legally persecute people, we as a country are in really bad shape.
It boils down to if you make a bill to honor people then cherry pick statements from it to use in court cases to me, is bad.
I do take time to hear the counterpoints and put them in reason.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Republicans are more concerned with retconning the events of 1/6 than anything else.
That's all this boils down too.
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
The FBI?
Sightseeing?
when all these numbskulls decided to try to deny the obvious the should have been consistent on which BS to feed us.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Millions in America
A few hundred on Capital Hill
Too many in elected office
And a few on here as well
They're everywhere
Republicans don't want to call this an attempted insurrection because that would mean admitting they took part in an attempted insurrection.