Why do CUNTS always play the VICTIM CARD? Just admot it, CUNT, you be a DUMMY

[Busybody]

Dianne Feinstein Tells Wolf Blitzer She ‘Felt Patronized’ By ‘Arrogant’ Ted Cruz During Senate Gun Debate

Thursday afternoon on CNN, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) discussed the fiery debate with colleague Ted Cruz (R-TX) over gun control legislation that occurred earlier this morning during a Senate committee hearing. Feinstein told Wolf Blitzer she “felt patronized” by the “arrogant” junior senator and had to take some time to cool off afterward.

Asked by Blitzer to explain what happened, Feinstein said, “Well, I just felt patronized. I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it.” She elaborated on how her personal experience with gun violence shaped her reaction to Cruz’s objections to stricter gun measures and impromptu lesson on the Bill of Rights. “When you come from where I’ve come from and what you’ve seen, when you found a dead body and put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons.”

Blitzer also wanted to know if Feinstein and Cruz had a chance to talk privately after the very public confrontation. “No, I needed to cool down,” she replied. She indicated that she did apologize to Cruz later in the day for admonishing his “lecture” by saying, “I’m not a sixth grader.” But, she added, “this is one thing that I feel very passionate about,” and isn’t likely to change her views any time soon.

 

[Busybody]

A Constitutional lawyer (a real one, not like the NIGGER alleged one), vs an 80yr old hag who 2 rebuttals were

1-I been here a long time

2-You disrespect my CUNT

 

[Busybody]

Serious


By Jay Nordlinger

March 15, 2013 8:13 A.M.



An addendum regarding my post on Ted Cruz, Dianne Feinstein, and the Constitution, below. In 2009, a reporter asked Nancy Pelosi, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health-insurance mandate?” (For a write-up of this exchange, go here.) She answered, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The reporter said, “Yes, yes I am.” The Speaker of the House then shook her head and called on another reporter. Her press secretary later joined in the ridicule and dismissal: “You can put this on the record: That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

That has been the attitude in government — and in the country at large, I would say — for a very long time. People like Ted Cruz would like to try to change that attitude. For a long time, if you asked, “Is it constitutional?” you were looked at as though you’d just arrived from outer space. San Francisco Democrats such as Pelosi and Feinstein — and, again, the country at large, I believe — apparently regard questions about constitutionality as kooky nuisances. With the likes of Cruz around, they will have to get used to it. That can only be good for the country, I believe: a rediscovery, if you will, of the Constitution.

The Constitution is not a hindrance or a killjoy. It is not merely those things. It’s here to help us — to keep the country healthy. Of course, it can be amended, if the people wish.

By the way, John Roberts might have joined with the Democratic appointees to approve Obamacare as constitutional, but the Supreme Court at least thought the constitutional question serious — which was an improvement over our former Speaker of the House.

 

[Busybody]

That Old Piece of Parchment


By Jay Nordlinger

March 15, 2013 12:22 A.M.



In the matter of Ted Cruz versus Dianne Feinstein, I’d like to make one point. (For a news article on their recent exchange, go here.) I believe that Feinstein believes what a lot of people believe, in error: Congress and the president can do basically whatever they want. And if it’s unconstitutional, well, the Supreme Court will say so, and all will be well. That’s what a system of checks and balances is all about.

Here is DiFi: “Congress is in the business of making the law. The Supreme Court interprets the law. If they strike down the law, they strike down the law.”

We can go wild and crazy, here in Congress, and if we overstep constitutional boundaries, the Supreme Court can strike us down. We’ll go whatever speed we want on the highway, and if a copper should happen to catch us, so be it.

Thing is, congressmen and the president swear an oath to the Constitution too. The justices of the Supreme Court are not the only arbiters of the Constitution. They might be the ultimate arbiters, but others have a responsibility too. Members of the legislative and executive branches have a custodial role. A black robe does not confer a unique constitutional burden on you, and the absence of such a robe does not exempt you from a burden, or a responsibility.

This should be elementary. In my observation, however, it is the erroneous view that is widespread, and well entrenched.

P.S. We had the name “DiFi” years before we had the name “WiFi

 

[hogjack]

Had you not used such inflammatory language more might concur with you.

Instead, you've made Sen. Feinstein's case for her.

Thanks.

 

[Busybody]

Had you not used such inflammatory language more might concur with you.

Instead, you've made Sen. Feinstein's case for her.

Thanks.

 

[Busybody]

you also play the victim card

YOU HAVE A CUNT?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[bra_man69]

Tee hee
http://t2.***********/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQipMnGWDFg25Yo2h58Q2wLUF5QpFTeAl7azRIMtacV1ygNb_SAcw

 

[Busybody]

Cruz was very polite, she resented being schooled on the Constitution by somebody who's male, and ten times smarter than she is.

CUNTS

play the CUNT CARD

somewhat like the RACE CARD

 

[Tryharder62]

CUNTS

play the CUNT CARD

somewhat like the RACE CARD

I have a cunt but it does not define me, and I don't play cards with it.

 

[Busybody]

that's cause YOU are NORmAL

 

[Busybody]

ANN ALTHOUSE not impressed with Gail Collins’ attack on Ted Cruz. “This woman-defending-woman column ends with a recipe metaphor. Is that good gender politics? It resonates with what I think is Collins’s effort to make us see this interplay between 2 U.S. Senators in terms of a man patronizing a woman.” If you can’t respond to a guy who’s been in the Senate for ten weeks, when you’ve been in the Senate forever, without playing the “damsel in distress” card, then you shouldn’t be in the Senate. So I guess the takeaway from Collins’ piece is that DiFi should resign in favor of someone more . . . masculine.

Plus, from the comments: “The media is testing their modes of attack against Cruz. Is he wacky, scary, a McCarthy; arrogant etc. They have to find the right theme that will stck so they can destroy him.”

And they’re so anxious to destroy him because he’s Latino.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Serious


By Jay Nordlinger

March 15, 2013 8:13 A.M.



An addendum regarding my post on Ted Cruz, Dianne Feinstein, and the Constitution, below. In 2009, a reporter asked Nancy Pelosi, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health-insurance mandate?” (For a write-up of this exchange, go here.) She answered, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The reporter said, “Yes, yes I am.” The Speaker of the House then shook her head and called on another reporter. Her press secretary later joined in the ridicule and dismissal: “You can put this on the record: That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

That has been the attitude in government — and in the country at large, I would say — for a very long time. People like Ted Cruz would like to try to change that attitude. For a long time, if you asked, “Is it constitutional?” you were looked at as though you’d just arrived from outer space. San Francisco Democrats such as Pelosi and Feinstein — and, again, the country at large, I believe — apparently regard questions about constitutionality as kooky nuisances. With the likes of Cruz around, they will have to get used to it. That can only be good for the country, I believe: a rediscovery, if you will, of the Constitution.

The Constitution is not a hindrance or a killjoy. It is not merely those things. It’s here to help us — to keep the country healthy. Of course, it can be amended, if the people wish.

By the way, John Roberts might have joined with the Democratic appointees to approve Obamacare as constitutional, but the Supreme Court at least thought the constitutional question serious — which was an improvement over our former Speaker of the House.

“The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.”
Fortney Hillman "Pete" Stark, Jr. (D)

It really doesn’t prohibit the government from doing virtually anything — the federal government. So I don’t know the answer to your question, because I am not sure there is anything under current interpretation of the commerce clause that the government couldn’t do.
John Yarmuth (D)

“Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Nancy Pelosi (D) (on being asked, “Can you find it in The Constitution?”)

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Call me SENATOR General!



Yes Ma'am...

 

[Busybody]

Whip out the

CUNT CARD

the

RACE CARD

the

FAG CARD

the

ISLAMAPHOBE CARD

whenever one looks like a total jackass

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://t0.***********/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT58rAHrKgra5TQKjgH3jJk6Xj8LMNo3Qxvzb16joDBP_kW-DJS
Obama Happy Meal with Fries

 

[Busybody]

CUNT CARD not playing well

A BAD REVIEW FOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN FROM HER HOMETOWN PAPER: Ted Cruz Gets A Scolding, Not An Answer. “Ironically, Feinstein told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that she felt the Texan was ‘arrogant.’ Look who’s talking. Arrogant is when a person feels so imperial that she doesn’t think that she should have to put up with questions from a colleague.”