T1B

Dumbfucks everywhere, though there is absolutely no need for Sessions to have his granddaughter at a confirmation hearing. I hate when they introduce their families, nothing but showmanship.

That said, Sessions is a vile scumbag, he's probably Pikkkle's IRL handler.

What's this "MTV" thing?

Poor little racist snowflake.

So the moron is implying that Asian children are a commodity that are sold at Toys'R'Us?

Quite racist and offensive.

Dinsdale wrote:So the moron is implying that Asian children are a commodity that are sold at Toys'R'Us?

Quite racist and offensive.

Almost as offensive as the tradition of trotting out your family for confirmation hearings.

I think binging one's family to the hearings is pretty gay.

So is the "two wrongs make a right" defense.

I think the real victim here is...

...you and me.



We've been Sammed, folks.

Fuck, I set you up the Diego joke on a freaking tee.

88 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Poor little racist snowflake.

Aren't you being a little too hard on the MTV writer? I'm sure no harm was intended by that tweet.

Ok I'll play. The only snowflakes are the people whining about the treatment of Sekkkions.

88 wrote: Who doesn't bring their family to confirmation hearings?

Nobody should. Nobody gives a flying fuck about their fucking wives or their fucking kids. Leave 'em at home, or at least in the parking lot.

Moving Sale wrote: Ok I'll play. The only snowflakes are the people whining about the treatment of Sekkkions.

OK, I'll play too.

Since her grandfather is a douche, that justifies making racial slurs towards a young child?

You're remarkably inconsistent.

Yes you are a snowflake too. I get it. It's a brave new world, try and keep up.

I see what you did there -- you took the definition of an established term, and then applied a nearly-opposite definition to it, that only the Enlightened Few know the definition of.

Clever.

Of course, the Enlightened Few currently consists of... you.

But I think this movement of yours might really take hold and the members of your elite ranks will be... you.

Have no fear, though -- one person standing alone as the sole Enlightened person in the world is always perceived as genius. Just ask Poptart.

What the fuck are you babbling about now? It's just a tweet. Why are you so sensitive Dinsflake? Go bite a pillow Nancy.

Papa Willie wrote:

Like that?

It's a basketball game.

88 wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

88 wrote: Who doesn't bring their family to confirmation hearings?

Nobody should. Nobody gives a flying fuck about their fucking wives or their fucking kids. Leave 'em at home, or at least in the parking lot.

You are a very strange person with very strange notions. Why didn't you post about this outrage when HRC brought Chelsea to her SOS confirmation hearing?

Probably because Chelsea is an adult.

Did you get your law degree from the same mail-order school as Moving Fail?

88 wrote:Most men have adult wives... But I take it you draw a distinction between adult children and minor children? Wait a minute. Don't answer that.

If you removed your head from your ass for once, asswipe, you'd realize this isn't a partisan debate. NOBODY should be allowed to bring their FUCKING FAMILY to their confirmation hearing. Hillary nor Sessions.

Again, not a confirmation hearing. Either you're intentionally being obtuse (likely) or you're just a fucking idiot (very likely).

Screw_Michigan wrote:...their FUCKING FAMILY...

Sup?

Papa Willie wrote: Just showing your cherry-picking hypocrisy. You know I do that well. :grin:

So I guess I should go back in time to criticize HRC for bringing her FUCKING FAMILY to her confirmation hearing, though I clearly criticize the practice for both parties.

Party over country, right Spray?

88 wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:NOBODY should be allowed to bring their FUCKING FAMILY to their confirmation hearing. Hillary nor Sessions.

Why not? Seriously. Confirmation hearings are public. And speaking for myself, being confirmed to a cabinet position would be considered a major milestone and achievement in my life, which I would want to enjoy with my family. If my wife was being confirmed for a cabinet position, you can be certain I would be with her to provide whatever support I could (even if it was just a hug). What is your problem with having family members attend a public confirmation hearing of cabinet appointees?

Because your FUCKING family is irrelevant to your testimony. Are you such a delicate snowflake that you can't last through a confirmation hearing without the dog and pony show of introducing your FUCKING family? You're being nominated to one of the highest positions in the federal government and you need your wife in the room to reassure you. That's very reassuring.

You want to celebrate being confirmed to a cabinet position? Celebrate it AFTER the hearing...and the vote, if you are indeed confirmed. And provide your own cameras. You knew the hearing doesn't mean you're confirmed, right?

88 wrote:I don't give a fuck, really.

Musta been a good book.

Sudden Sam wrote:Personally I don't like the idea of reverting to the Reagan era as far as federal drug policy, thus filling our prisons with harmless citizens. I thought we were getting beyond that, but I fear that Sessions will take us back there.

Also, we in Alabama may end up with an even worse senator as his replacement. Hell, Roy Moore has been interviewed by the governor!

What the fuck did you think would happen when you vote Republican?

BSmack wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:Personally I don't like the idea of reverting to the Reagan era as far as federal drug policy, thus filling our prisons with harmless citizens. I thought we were getting beyond that, but I fear that Sessions will take us back there.

What the fuck did you think would happen when you vote Republican?

Drug users are hardly harmless. They cause all sort of issues and harm just within their own families. They also have a high tendency to rob and steal. I do believe they need help with the addiction end, but just because they chose to use drugs doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for the crimes they committed in order to finance their next hit.

And what a telling comment from BSmack about Dems views. So Repbulicans want criminals to answer for their crimes and to be held accountable. Clearly he and therefore Dems don't want criminals held accountable.

Mattis left his family at home for his nomination hearing. He gets it. Delicate Snowflake 88 obviously doesn't.

Left Seater wrote: Drug users are hardly harmless. They cause all sort of issues and harm just within their own families. They also have a high tendency to rob and steal. I do believe they need help with the addiction end, but just because they chose to use drugs doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for the crimes they committed in order to finance their next hit.

And what a telling comment from BSmack about Dems views. So Repbulicans want criminals to answer for their crimes and to be held accountable. Clearly he and therefore Dems don't want criminals held accountable.

This is a consequence of the illegality of drugs, not solely of addiction.

You are also very silent on the role of alcoholism in those issues, yet alcohol is legal.

Left Seater wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:Personally I don't like the idea of reverting to the Reagan era as far as federal drug policy, thus filling our prisons with harmless citizens. I thought we were getting beyond that, but I fear that Sessions will take us back there.

What the fuck did you think would happen when you vote Republican?

Drug users are hardly harmless. They cause all sort of issues and harm just within their own families. They also have a high tendency to rob and steal. I do believe they need help with the addiction end, but just because they chose to use drugs doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for the crimes they committed in order to finance their next hit.

Exactly right. Drugs being a "victimless crime" is a big lie.

And what a telling comment from BSmack about Dems views. So Repbulicans want criminals to answer for their crimes and to be held accountable. Clearly he and therefore Dems don't want criminals held accountable.

Unfortunately, this is largely true. From what I've seen in the two democratically-led states I've lived in effective crime-fighting legislation is difficult to get due to democratic obstruction & justices.

People do drugs. Always have, always will. Sane drug policy = fewer victims. Bad drug policy, which is what we have = more victims. And anybody who suppprts our present policy, or anything like it, have those peoples' blood on their hands. I'm looking at you LS and DiS.

Moving Sale wrote:People do drugs. Always have, always will. Sane drug policy = fewer victims. Bad drug policy, which is what we have = more victims. And anybody who suppprts our present policy, or anything like it, have those peoples' blood on their hands. I'm looking at you LS and DiS.

People who enable drug users are the ones who have blood on their hands.

Lawyers would be on the top of that list, shorty.

Hey Diego, where do you fall on civil asset forfeiture?

Diego expects all of the kiddies to forfeit their asses in a civil manner.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Hey Diego, where do you fall on civil asset forfeiture?

Similar to the way I feel about Freddie Gray.

I don't use drugs, much less sell them. So I'm not worried about the consequences of doing so.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Copsucker in Seattle only cares about one thing: keeping police budgets fat, damn the Constitution.

Which drugs DiS? Lights yet?

Screw_Michigan wrote:Copsucker in Seattle only cares about one thing: keeping police budgets fat, damn the Constitution.

What about the rights of those victimized by these criminals who engage in "victimless crimes?"

Stay on topic. We're talking about civil asset forfeiture which is clearly against the fourth amendment. But you're cool with it. Because you don't care, as long as police wallets are fat.

Screw_Michigan wrote:civil asset forfeiture which is clearly against the fourth amendment.

Which was deemed as such in Oregon many years ago. Just like "sobriety checkpoints."

Rape is rape. Robbery is robbery. Motive doesn't matter nor does it (usually) matter if you were high during your crime. The FACT is that prohibition causes more victims than it stops and their blood is on YOUR hands.

Sugar is the most abused drug in the world. And it's not even close.