Yeah, and he was endorsed and vetted by the tea party, the same group that's full of nativists, racists, and the "speak english or you kin git out!" crowd. Hilarious.
I heard he was gay OMG
It's not confirmed, it may just be a rumor, though I wouldn't be surprised.
Oh my God! You mean to tell me, that republicans commit crimes too? Please say it isn't so!
Don't forget her threatened to throw that reporter off the senate balcony.
It's easier when they have no legal recourse.
I guess Nancy cleans her house before that. But I have not seen what your talking about.
Well I hope the Republicans keep it up. I would hate to see they are blamed in 6 to years from what Obama and hillary has done. I will not for them aways.
Yep, he has some problems. Too many , both Republicans and Democrats, have lots of skeletons. All politicians from NJ evidently have problems.
Who is the congressman?
And California Senator LeLand Yee (D-San Francisco) was arrest and charged with arms trafficking, your point?
When republicans get caught flouting the same values they got elected on like "family values", "traditional marriage", or "enforcing our immigration laws" and they get caught cheating, or doing a homosexual act, or hiring illegal immigrants it hits them MUCH harder than it does when democrats do it. Secondly if there was a pattern of Democrats who supported gun control getting caught trafficking arms we'd be harder on them, but there IS a strong pattern of Republicans breaking the very same principles they claim to uphold.
So a strong voice for gun control being involved with the sale and trafficking of RPGs isn't worse? What a strange world you live in
So, a democrat being involved with the trafficking of RPGs isn't worse? What a strange world you live you in.
Nope, I am talking about the guy that tried to broker a deal for 2 million dollars in weapons (which would include the shoulder fired missiles purchased from Islamic rebels in the Philippines) with an undercover federal agent.
Really? The majority? I'd love to see some proof of that
So, the majority oppose something but only a few are hypocritical about it? What happened to "all the right wingers who employ illegals all over the country."?
Missing punctuation? I was simply pointing out that you claimed right wingers hiring illegals was a rampant problem before changing your argument to 'why are you changing the subject, we are talking about one guy" invalidating your previous point.
You have no point, the point you attempted to make was 'all conservatives are hypocrites when it comes to illegal aliens' but you failed miserably.
How exactly is giving an example of another politician being incredibly hypocritical diversionary? It is called a counterpoint, Leland Yee was a "The veteran Democrat, an advocate for gun control and campaign finance reform in Sacramento, is now one of about two dozen people charged in a sprawling racketeering case brought by the U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco (CNN)" which is pretty much the Democratic version of this story (with the obvious exception that the Conservative wasn't dealing in shoulder fired missiles). Are you new to this debate thing
Thousands of republicans are hiring illegal immigrants? I ask a gain, where is the proof? Also, a counterpoint is answering your question was basically (even though it was more of a statement meaning it doesn't belong in the Q&A section) 'What do you think of this hypocrite on the right?' to witch my response was 'This hypocrite on the left is 10 times worse'. So, are you new to this whole debate thing?
Dammmm, that's some list of crooks!!! SOW, where's the King Rat, Tricky ****?
So you can't provide any proof of the 'majority' of republicans employing illegal aliens? So in a fit you try to change the argument (the argument that you originally used)? Coincidentally, this has answered the question I have asked twice, you must be very new to political debating. You basically just said 'I can't prove my own claim so let me change the subject'. You also make the hilarious claim "he's not proven guilty yet" ignoring the fact that the Republican you originally mentioned in your question is also yet to be found guilty. You are entitled to your views, but you should really learn how to debate to avoid making your side look bad.
Looks like he is debating in the the same way as you tried, gives you more examples of dispicable republicans. By your own methods..enjoy!
I gave a direct (and recent) comparison to the exact case he was talking about.
You seem to be confusing conjecture with fact, you really need to learn how to debate.
You don't know what "conjecture" means do you?
I asked for proof, you failed to provide it yet continued to make the same claims, that is the definition of conjecture. One day you may figure out this whole debate thing, sadly today is obviously not that day.
My defense? At least he wasn't hocking shoulder fired missiles, you don't seem to have a valid response for that. Why did you start saying that the majority of republicans profit off of illegal aliens if you can't back it up(that is the definition of "conjecture", look it up)?
It is cute how you actually think you know how to debate a topic, it is okay, you can pic up your toys and go home if you want. Maybe one day you will learn to debate like an adult.
What a wonderfully mature remark that has shaken me to my very core. Also, nice job sticking to your convictions (you said "goodbye" but you couldn't let me get the last word in). I will leave you with just one question, when exactly did I attack you ("Attacking the presenter")? I never insulted you, called you name, tracked you down on another question to troll you (that was like handing me the intellectual high ground gift wrapped with a bow). So when exactly did I attack you?
That doesn't answer my question, when exactly did I "Attack" you? Also, link 1: "Christian Science" is enough, link 2: if you did further research on the bill you would know that many of the jobs given amnesty are ones where the employer is often unaware of the immigration status of their employee, link 3: you obviously didn't read all the way through and link 4: the title doesn't even fit. The article is no about "fortune 500 companies" but rather much lower tier regional managers. It also does nothing to distinguish which political party the owner of these corporations is a member of. What is next? Are you going to complain about Hobby Lobby investing in the company that makes the "Plan B" pill and ignore the fact that they are a global leader in generic drug manufacturing? Or that they also invested in Pfizer even though they make drugs used in abortions ignoring the fact that they are also one of the largest pharmaceutical research companies in the world?
My comments regarding your debate skills are based on absolute fact, not conjecture, therefore they are not insults but statements of fact.
They are irrelevant eh? Do driving skill are irrelevant on the highway? Swimming skills are irrelevant in the middle of a lake? We are debating (you can say we are discussing but in reality we are debating), therefore your debate skills are quite relevant. Do you really not know what the word conjecture means?
Actually, yes I can....
(Bloomberg LP mad over 8 billion last year)
You have been questioning my use of it in your previous comments, but my usage was 100% correct...............So do you know what it means?
con·jec·ture [kuhn-jek-cher] Show IPA
the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
Obsolete . the interpretation of signs or omens.
verb (used with object), con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing.
to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability
You can't provide proof of a "majority" of conservatives hiring illegal aliens, therefore your evidence is insufficient, ergo you statement is the definition of conjecture. There, now you know, and now you will see that my usage of the word was 100% correct. Also, once again you say goodbye ("goodbye forever" yet you keep responding. Your words carry so much conviction..........
You directly question my usage of the word conjecture yet when I explain exactly why I was correct in using it I am being diversionary? On a side note, your last link regarding the Ty plush toy company, that company's founder and sole owner is notoriously secretive regarding his personal life and his political views are unknown at this time. Do you even read your links before you attempt to use them in a debate?
Result = a slap on the wrist from his criminal buddies and then back to business as normal