Failing a bipartisan test with Schumer and Pelosi is like failing to kiss a rattlesnake and a coral snake. He’s foolish for trying. He should crush them as the vipers they are.
It would not surprise me if there were a picture of this guy in the dictionary reference, “asshole.” He should review some videos of himself.
We don’t want or need your input Schmuck.
What The democRAT Party represents is so odious, so immoral and so manifestly insane that democRATS have – in my estimation – have essentially forfeited their right to participate in the discussion of public policy
He’s not there for that, Chuck.
He’s there to kick your ass.
Ignore Chuckie... the dimms bring NOTHING to improve our country.
They are done.
I almost hope Trump mentions Schumer by name tonight...
I always thought the democratic definition of “bipartisan” was bend over....
He says that like its a bad thing. LOL!
Yea chucky is bipartisan uh huh sure !
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/discussion_of_holocaust_182.html
Group defamation can create a social climate that is receptive to and encourages hatred and oppression. If a minority group can be made to appear less than human, deserving of punishment, or a threat to the general community, oppression of that minority is a likely consequence.
We know also that language itself can hurt, that there are words that, by their very utterance, inflict injury. . . .When the message is violent, language can itself be violence.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) spoke of the “psychic pain” inflicted by language. Another speaker, self-described “Holocaust survivor” Elie Wiesel, injected his opinion that those engaging in group defamation should be “fought” and “dealt with harshly.”
The conference featured a moot court argument of the winning submission of a competition among law students around the nation to write a model statute that could be used to prosecute those who engage in so-called “group defamation.”
The first prize winner was a model statute defining group defamation as:
Any oral, written or symbolic speech, published with malice, that debases, degrades or calls into question the loyalties, abilities or integrity of members of a group based on a characteristic that [is] allegedly common to the members of that group, or that by its very utterance inflicts injury upon members of a group, or that promotes animosity against a group.
A “group” was defined as “an aggregation of people identified by a common race, religion, national origin, ethnicity or gender, or based upon heterosexuality or homosexuality.”
Under the proposed statute, an agency would be established to monitor acts of group defamation; assess the impact of any speech that defames a group; and counteract the actually and potentially adverse effects of that speech. That agency would also review all films and movies before they could be shown and, if deemed to be offensive, ban public viewing.
In a similar vein, on November 2, 1995, then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)—now a powerful U.S. senator—joined with the aforementioned Congressman Conyers in promoting legislation of the character proposed at the ADL conference. The Schumer measure, H.R. 2580, was deceptively called “The Republican Form of Government Guarantee Act.”
A longtime ADL spokesman in Congress, Schumer proposed to outlaw discussion of what he called “baseless conspiracy theories regarding the government” that he said endangered public order. Already he was known as the leading congressional enemy of the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners. Schumer’s new target—the First Amendment—would have been scrapped had the bill been passed.