Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Featured Replies

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Coming from you . . . 

I’m not going to go after you, Jimmy. I know how you like to get the moderators involved. 

  • Replies 17.6k
  • Views 1.1m
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • No, you guys went Republican to ethnonationalist.

  • Bozo_Casanova
    Bozo_Casanova

    When Georgetown Prep sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're

  • In 2016 I was a moderate.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not quite a libertarian.  I would have considered voting for Kasich had he won the nomination. Now?  I will probably never

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

You can't get into the FBI without passing a lie detector test on mundane issues like whether you've used drugs before.  Why shouldn't it be used for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court? 

Now this is a great idea.  I think that we should strap them all into the chair during their confirmation hearing moving forward.  Cspan can put the results up as a scroll across the bottom. No need to strap in the Senators.  We know that they are all totally full of shit. 

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Are you under the impression that the rules of evidence apply here?

That's adorable.

Rand Paul would not approve.

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Are you under the impression that the rules of evidence apply here?

That's adorable.

No, I think the Democrats will make it as big of a circus as they possibly can. If she accepts the invite of course. 

Just now, Chrispy said:

No, I think the Democrats will make it as big of a circus as they possibly can. If she accepts the invite of course. 

It's working.

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Now this is a great idea.  I think that we should strap them all into the chair during their confirmation hearing moving forward.  Cspan can put the results up as a scroll across the bottom. No need to strap in the Senators.  We know that they are all totally full of shit. 

They are also accountable to voters.

for the record someone else got to the homophobia before i could,m but it appears to have been taken care of. that's not something we tolerate around here. thanks.

  • Author

GOP EMERGENCY MID-TERM STRATEGY 

1. Withdraw Kavanaugh

2. Nominate Hillary

3. Put her on public trial in the Senate during confirmation

4.  Force democrats to vote for her confirmation while GOP votes against 

5. Profit.

9 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

So are we going to get testimony from this Mark Judge guy? 

Yeah.  Here's what he'll say:

Oh, I remember that!  That was the party at Steve's house.  Jim and Joe were there too.  The four of us used to get smashed together all the time.  And Steve told her his name was Brett.  Any time Steve was up to no good, or even ordering food he'd say his name was Brett because Brett was such a goody two shoes.  ... Yeah, Steve did that.  I was there.

Why does Bari Weiss have a public platform?  It's like she's paid to put forth the dumbest fucking opinion about every topic.  Is she paid to drive hate clicks?  

 

 

Just now, Fozzz said:

Why does Bari Weiss have a public platform?  It's like she's paid to put forth the dumbest fucking opinion about every topic.  Is she paid to drive hate clicks?  

 

 

Yes. It should absolutely disqualify you from a seat on the Supreme Court.

The consolation prize is a seven figure partnership in a white shoe law firm.

Whatever will Brett Kavanaugh do?

6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Why does Bari Weiss have a public platform?  It's like she's paid to put forth the dumbest fucking opinion about every topic.  Is she paid to drive hate clicks?  

 

 

the-rise-of-matthew-mcconaughey-09-a-tim

Now imagine that the 17 year old was black.

The Central Park Five were ages 14-16 at the time of their arrests.   They have been exonerated by DNA evidence, which conclusively pointed to another person, who has confessed.   Trump still claims that they are guilty. 

Fuck, being nominated by a Dem was enough to disqualify Gorsuch, and he never tried to rape anybody. 

50 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

The issue to me is the accusation alone is sufficient alone for some of y’all to sink his nomination.

Nobody I can recall has said that, but you keep telling yourself otherwise.

48 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I’m not going to go after you, Jimmy. I know how you like to get the moderators involved. 

What specifically are you referring to?  Are you concerned that you can't control yourself and will go outside the bounds of whatever the moderators deem appropriate?  That's not my problem.

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

You have no idea if it happened, you’re being silly.  

And yet you're the one who says you need "more" to tarnish a mans reputation. 

 

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Nobody I can recall has said that, but you keep telling yourself otherwise. 

Yep, but it's part of their general defense of this guy.

Not as persuasive as Armybrat's "but Hillary" argument, but still...

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

And yet you're the one who says you need "more" to tarnish a mans reputation. 

 

Yes, I need more evidence. 

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

Yes, I need more evidence. 

You never needed more evidence when it came to Obama or HILLARY!

You're a fucking fraud.

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

It’s possibe, but I’m going to need more to tarnish a man’s reputation and career. 

Lol. Whatever. There could be a video of it, Brett would deny its authentic calling it fake news, and then you’de want more to “tarnish a man’s reputation and career” 

2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Yes, I need more evidence. 

You realize the politics of this is going to take care of it for you, right?

I wonder who they'll send up next.

Edited by David Dennison

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What specifically are you referring to?  Are you concerned that you can't control yourself and will go outside the bounds of whatever the moderators deem appropriate?  That's not my problem.

I’m not getting into those details, suffice it to say that you’re more sensitive than you portray yourself. And that’s ok. 

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

You never needed more evidence when it came to Obama or HILLARY!

You're a fucking fraud.

Huh? 

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Lol. Whatever. There could be a video of it, Brett would deny its authentic calling it fake news, and then you’de want more to “tarnish a man’s reputation and career” 

Just show me the proof, no need to get snippy. 

Just now, Chrispy said:

Just show me the proof, no need to get snippy. 

There is no proof. It's her word against his.

You believe him.

It's not going to be enough. He's finished. They're gonna cut him loose because the politics of Republicans peppering this woman with questions a la Anita Hill are terrible.

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Just show me the proof, no need to get snippy. 

What, to you, would constitute "proof"?

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

Just show me the proof, no need to get snippy. 

Back to the reasonable troll act eh? 

The proof will be when she testifies, provides evidence of a lie detector test, and therapists notes. Brett will then refuse to take a lie detector test. 

then you will argue there’s no “proof” and around and around we go with the troll, the reasonable sounding troll. 

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

There is no proof. It's her word against his.

You believe him.

It's not going to be enough. He's finished. They're gonna cut him loose because the politics of Republicans peppering this woman with questions a la Anita Hill are terrible.

That’s all it takes? What a time to be alive. 

Just now, Chrispy said:

That’s all it takes? What a time to be alive. 

That's politics. It's brutal.

Just now, MaybeACoordinator said:

What, to you, would constitute "proof"?

Good question, there’s a reason there’s a statute of limitations. Our memories serve us terribly. 

What does it mean to say that his reputation and career are "tarnished" by him not being appointed to the SC?

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Back to the reasonable troll act eh? 

The proof will be when she testifies, provides evidence of a lie detector test, and therapists notes. Brett will then refuse to take a lie detector test. 

then you will argue there’s no “proof” and around and around we go with the troll, the reasonable sounding troll. 

Circumstantial at best. 

23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Nobody I can recall has said that, but you keep telling yourself otherwise.

What are you saying then? Posters like Mojo and DD are saying the standard of proof is practically irrelevant.

Just now, Chrispy said:

Circumstantial at best. 

Like I said. Nothing will ever convince you since that’s your job. 

49 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Fuck, being nominated by a Dem was enough to disqualify Gorsuch, and he never tried to rape anybody. 

You mean Garland. 

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

What are you saying then? Posters like Mojo and DD are saying the standard of proof is practically irrelevant.

The standard of proof lies with each individual senator. This is a political arena, not a court of law.

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Like I said. Nothing will ever convince you since that’s your job. 

Sorry, that’s just not very convincing.

I see you’re negging all my posts, you’re such a crybaby. I love it. 

Edited by Chrispy

So a liberal activist sends a letter to Dianne Feinstein claiming she was grouped by Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago, while they were drinking at a High School party. Is that correct?

Just now, Stros said:

So a liberal activist sends a letter to Dianne Feinstein claiming she was grouped by Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago, while they were drinking at a High School party. Is that correct?
 

No.

Just now, Stros said:

So a liberal activist sends a letter to Dianne Feinstein claiming she was grouped by Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago, while they were drinking at a High School party. Is that correct?
 

She also told her therapist six years ago. 

That's important.

She obviously knew Trump would later become president after Mitt Romney predictably lost in 2012.  And of course she knew Trump would nominate that same guy for the supreme court.  Women are all the same.  Crafty and scheming.

It's obvious... she was a sleeper cell.

Edited by Onboard 2.0

5 minutes ago, Stros said:

So a liberal activist sends a letter to Dianne Feinstein claiming she was grouped by Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago, while they were drinking at a High School party. Is that correct?
 

5 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

No.

lol. Sorry I haven't read the last 10 pages. Just catching up. blah blah blah.

Fuck, being nominated by a Dem was enough to disqualify Gorsuch, and he never tried to rape anybody. 

Wut?

If the republicans don’t nominate Brett Kavanaugh the dems will get there blue wave. If Ted Cruz doesn’t support Brett Kavanaugh, Beto might win the seat.

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:


Wut?

Naming is hard. 

7 minutes ago, retread said:

lol. Sorry I haven't read the last 10 pages. Just catching up. blah blah blah.

just

asking

questions

15 minutes ago, Stros said:

So a liberal activist sends a letter to Dianne Feinstein claiming she was grouped by Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago, while they were drinking at a High School party. Is that correct?
 

So, you didn't have time to read about the story because you were handing out free candy to little boys near the schoolyard. Is that correct?

13 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

What are you saying then? Posters like Mojo and DD are saying the standard of proof is practically irrelevant.

No, we're saying that courtroom standards of proof are irrelevant.   That doesn't mean the allegations and denials shouldn't be evaluated for credibility by each Senator.   And they don't need to be convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or even a preponderance of evidence, to conclude that there is enough merit to decide not to give him the job.   Because this is essentially just a high-profile job interview, and you don't need to have a court judgment to reject a job applicant who has some question marks. 

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.