Search results

Take it to court. Are you telling me no one has done that yet?

In August 2015, Club for Growth President David McIntosh said that Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz are "the real deal candidates, the gold standard of the race." In 2020, Club for Growth supported the re-election campaign of President Donald Trump...

The conservative Club for Growth gave Elise Stefanik a lifetime rating of 35%, lower than Squad member Ilhan Omar's: https://www.clubforgrowth.org/club-for-growth-statement-on-rep-chip-roy-and-house-republican-leadership/

You obviously don't want to stand by your own numbers. That's why you won't give them.

I'm simply asking you to provide your estimate for the number of people who have been killed by the coronavirus vaccines. Why won't you do that?

I'm asking for the numbers that you approve of.

Since I don't have those numbers would you do the math for me? Are you saying that more people have died from the vaccine than have died from COVID-19?

What is the provable death rate for the vaccines?

Has Trump's reaction to the coronavirus been harmful? Perhaps. Was Trump's lockdown harmful? In some ways, yes. Was it necessary? I think that is debatable. We've been through this before, with Spanish flu. Lockdowns and all. We'll recover, but it won't be easy. No one ever said it would be.

What good do you bring to the site? None that I can see. Do better.

Telll us all about "vaccine quantum entanglement," "Google credit scores" and "the dematrix." I'm sure I'm not the only one here who could use a good laugh!

1) "American Catholic"? It's the recommendations of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that you reject. 2) As we've established, you're not an "originalist."

None of which has anything to do with vaccinations.

Soros uses his money to fight poverty, racism, and income inequality? How horrible.

Well, you weren't lying when you called yourself "Idolater." You love your instruments of death more than you love your Church.

According to the current Supreme Court. But even with this decision, they admit that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. This leaves the waters murky as to where an individual's right to bear arms ends and regulation begins...

"It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

I love how Sherri Tenpenny makes it blatantly obvious that she's nuts, but you still fall for it:

The people have a right to bear arms within the context of "a well-regulated militia." This tells us two things: 1) Militias are to be well-regulated, and 2) You are not a militia unto yourself.