The Goat Pen

"hedge is a flagrant raging homophobe. This is pretty obvious after he used that horrible disgusting slur “faggot” not just once, but twice."

You suck Trump's cock...

They ain't tracking my movements, not on this flip phone they ain't....

Prof. Impressive if true

sardis wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:47 am Democratic congress passes a bill to help the wealthy.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/4753 ... uction-cap

The Republicans' motion would prevent the repeal of the SALT deduction cap from applying to taxpayers with income more than $100 million

The 14th Amendment called. It says fuck you too.

Welcome to Pelosi's new legal doctrine of "impeachmentus interruptus."

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has blasted his Republican counterpart Mitch McConnell in recent days after he described himself as "not an impartial juror" ahead of President Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial, but Schumer himself repeatedly expressed similar sentiments in the late 1990s when senators weighed the removal of President Bill Clinton.
Schumer's past comments are the latest example of how lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are having to confront their prior positions on impeachment that appear to conflict with their present-day statements.
In recent days, Schumer has slammed McConnell ahead of Trump's trial, saing he was "utterly amazed" by McConnell describing himself as not impartial.

"Let the American people hear it loud and clear, the Republican leader said, proudly, 'I'm not an impartial juror. I'm not impartial about this at all.' That is an astonishing admission of partisanship," Schumer said in a floor speech.

But in several appearances on television in 1998 and 1999 reviewed by CNN's KFile, Schumer noted that senators had previously formed opinions heading into the trial and that the Senate was "not like a jury box." Schumer was elected to the Senate in 1998 after saying during his campaign that a vote for him would be a vote to not impeach Clinton.

A spokesman for Schumer told CNN in an email on Friday that his statements came after the conclusion of the Starr investigation.
"These quotes all came after the Starr investigation, which included testimony from key witnesses including President Clinton, had concluded and been made public for months and as Sen. Schumer was in the anomalous position of having already voted on impeachment in both the House Judiciary Committee and on the House floor," his spokesman said. "As is reflected in these quotes, Schumer believed then and still believes now that all of the facts must be allowed to come out and then a decision can be made -- in stark contrast to the Republicans today in both the House and Senate who have worked to prevent all the facts and evidence from coming out."

Speaking on CNN's "Larry King Live" in January 1999, Schumer said the trial in the Senate was not like a jury box.
"We have a pre-opinion," Schumer said, citing himself and two newly-elected Republican senators who had voted on impeachment in 1998 as members of the House of Representatives who said they would vote in the Senate. "This is not a criminal trial, but this is something that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics."

"So therefore, anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it's not a jury box," King asked Schumer.

"Many do," Schumer responded. "And then they change. In fact, it's also not like a jury box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don't have jurors called and lobbied and things like that. I mean, it's quite different than a jury. And we're also the judge."

A day later, the Republican National Committee attacked Schumer in a press release for previous comments in the House saying there was no basis for impeachment.

"No self-respecting jury would allow somebody who's already formed an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused," then-RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson said, "but Chuck Schumer has loudly proclaimed that he's pre-judged the case. He's already announced that he's decided the President shouldn't be impeached, much less removed from office."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

As if Schiff’s little witch hunt was fair, impartial, and hadn’t prejudged the case.

The Dem-media complex has spent three years screaming that Trump is a national emergency, an imminent threat to our democracy, and we can’t wait until the next election to remove him.

But now, all of a sudden, they are sitting around, halting their own attempted lynching, doing nothing.

Must not have been much of a national emergency after all.

You're an idiot

This is why we have a second amendment:

https://images.app.goo.gl/uR1bcYdhV2osBqKx5

The guy in the red circle on the right was the shooter in a church. The dumbass forgot he was in Texas.

The guy in the red circle was the armed, trained citizen.

The guy in the red circle on the right only had enough time to get a couple of shots off before the guy in the red circle ventilated him.

God bless Texas.

I submit Virginia as the biggest cocksucking state in the nation

Exhibit A

Democrats in Virginia may override local zoning to bring high-density housing, including public housing, to every neighborhood statewide — whether residents want it or not.

The measure could quickly transform the suburban lifestyle enjoyed by millions, permitting duplexes to be built on suburban lots in neighborhoods previously consisting of quiet streets and open green spaces. Proponents of “upzoning” say the changes are necessary because suburbs are bastions of segregation and elitism, as well as bad for the environment.

The move, which aims to provide “affordable housing,” might be fiercely opposed by local officials throughout the state, who have deliberately created and preserved neighborhoods with particular character — some dense and walkable, others semi-rural and private — to accommodate people’s various preferences.

But Democrats tout a state-level law’s ability to replace “not in my backyard” with “yes, in your backyard.”

House Delegate Ibraheem Samirah, a Democrat, introduced six housing measures Dec. 19, coinciding with Democrats’ takeover of the state legislature in November.

“Single-family housing zones would become two-zoned,” Samirah told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Areas that would be impacted most would be the suburbs that have not done their part in helping out.”

“The real issues are the areas in between very dense areas which are single-family zoned. Those are the areas that the state is having significant trouble dealing with. They’re living in a bubble,” he said.

He said suburbs were “mostly white and wealthy” and that their local officials — who have historically been in charge of zoning — were ignoring the desires of poor people, who did not have time to lobby them to increase suburban density.

In response to a question about whether people who bought homes in spacious suburbs have valid reasons, not based on discrimination, for preferring to live that way — including a love for nature and desire to preserve woods and streams — he said: “Caring about nature is very important, but the more dense a neighborhood is, the more energy efficient it is.”

He said if local officials seek to change requirements like setbacks to make it impossible to build dense housing in areas zoned to preserve a nature feel, “if they make setbacks to block duplexes, there’d have to be a lawsuit to resolve whether those zoning provisions were necessary.”

It quoted Alex Baca, a Washington, D.C., urbanist with the site Greater Greater Washington, saying that single-family zoning is a tool for wealthy whites to maintain segregated neighborhoods and that the abolition of low-density neighborhoods is necessary for equity.

CityLab acknowledged that “residents might reasonably desire to keep the neighborhoods they love the way they are,” but said that implementing the law at the state level makes sure that those concerns can be more easily ignored.

“By preempting the ability of local governments to set their own restrictive zoning policies, the state policy would circumnavigate the complaints of local NIMBY homeowners who want to block denser housing,” it wrote.

Exhibit B

Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill say local police who do not enforce gun control measures likely to pass in Virginia should face prosecution and even threats of the National Guard.

After November's Virginia Legislature elections that led to Democrats taking control of both chambers, the gun control legislation proposed by some Democrats moved forward, including universal background checks, an “assault weapons” ban, and a red flag law.

Legal firearm owners in the state, however, joined with their sheriffs to form Second Amendment sanctuary counties, which declare the authorities in these municipalities uphold the Second Amendment in the face of any gun control measure passed by Richmond.

Over 75 counties in Virginia have so far adopted such Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions in the commonwealth, the latest being Spotsylvania County. The board of supervisors voted unanimously to approve a resolution declaring that county police will not enforce state-level gun laws that violate Second Amendment rights.

Virginia Democratic officials, however, already say local law enforcement supporting these resolutions will face consequences if they do not carry out any law the state Legislature passes.

“I would hope they either resign in good conscience, because they cannot uphold the law which they are sworn to uphold, or they're prosecuted for failure to fulfill their oath,” Democratic Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly told the Washington Examiner of local county police who may refuse to enforce future gun control measures. “The law is the law. If that becomes the law, you don't have a choice, not if you're a sworn officer of the law.”

McEachin also noted that Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam could call the National Guard, if necessary.

“And ultimately, I'm not the governor, but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law,” he said. “That's his call, because I don't know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that's obviously an option he has.”

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring blamed the numerous Second Amendment resolutions in the state on the “gun lobby” as a tactic to frighten state residents.

“The resolutions that are being passed are being ginned up by the gun lobby to try to scare people. What we’re talking about here are laws that will make our communities and our streets safer,” Herring told CBS 6.

“So, when Virginia passes these gun safety laws that they will be followed, they will be enforced,” he added.

Cranky

So, when Virginia passes these gun safety laws that they will be followed, they will be enforced,” he added.

Good luck with that.

Amazing how Democrats cheer sanctuary cities who refuse to comply with federal immigration laws, but want to get all Kent State on conservative counties that do the exact same thing with gun laws.

And oh by the way, Virginia also has no problems with a black-face governor, a rapist lieutenant governor, and legalized infanticide.

Die

Is that the governor who likes to dress up as a negro?

It was a prime minister of Canada costume

sardis wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 12:43 pm Is that the governor who likes to dress up as a negro?

Hedge does that daily. Corn fucker