Sign in to follow this  
Sean

SCOTUS pick today

Recommended Posts

 

 

Hillary may well nominate someone left of Garland. She would certainly nominate someone younger. Republicans are being very dumb with this knee jerk opposition.

 

Agree, I don't see any benefit in not having hearings. When Hillary is leading in the polls by mid October, & if it looks

like they are going to lose the Senate, the Reps should just take the least liberal nominee BO puts up. Then

kiss your guns goodby.

 

I think BO putting up Garland, at his age, is just a trial balloon.

 

 

I think he's more like a sacrificial zinc.

 

 

Garland is the perfect nominee. He has more experience as a circuit judge than any nominee in history. He has had bipartisanship support in the past. He is a moderate.

 

For the casual voter it makes the Republicans look obstructionist for not considering "the most experienced judge" ever to be nominated to the SCOTUS. That narrative is easy to sell.

 

And most importantly for Garland his age window of being nominated under normal circumstances closed a few years ago. It is the extraordinary circumstances that opened the door for his nomination. He has nothing to lose by being a sacrificial zinc. If he is confirmed fantastic and if not he continues along as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

 

Other potential nominees are saving themselves for a more favorable climate. They could very well soon be nominated by Hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Hillary may well nominate someone left of Garland. She would certainly nominate someone younger. Republicans are being very dumb with this knee jerk opposition.

 

Agree, I don't see any benefit in not having hearings. When Hillary is leading in the polls by mid October, & if it looks

like they are going to lose the Senate, the Reps should just take the least liberal nominee BO puts up. Then

kiss your guns goodby.

 

I think BO putting up Garland, at his age, is just a trial balloon.

 

 

I think he's more like a sacrificial zinc.

 

 

Garland is the perfect nominee. He has more experience as a circuit judge than any nominee in history. He has had bipartisanship support in the past. He is a moderate.

 

For the casual voter it makes the Republicans look obstructionist for not considering "the most experienced judge" ever to be nominated to the SCOTUS. That narrative is easy to sell.

 

And most importantly for Garland his age window of being nominated under normal circumstances closed a few years ago. It is the extraordinary circumstances that opened the door for his nomination. He has nothing to lose by being a sacrificial zinc. If he is confirmed fantastic and if not he continues along as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

 

Other potential nominees are saving themselves for a more favorable climate. They could very well soon be nominated by Hillary.

 

 

Yup. He's saving the rest of the field from getting burned in the partisan shit fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely zero scenario where the Republicans don't hold hearings or a vote on an Obama nominee, lose the presidential election, and then aren't "punished" by the Democrats with a nominee far to the left of Garland.

 

The Republicans have said the next president has the right to nominate. They will have zero excuse to block the process for anyone nominated. Their only hope would be to have 51 no votes for the up or down vote.

Horseshit. The GOP doesn't need excuses to act in obstruction to the will of the people, the accepted scientific evidence, or Constitutional obligations.

 

They do so on "principle", which their lobbyist/donors/masters supply as necessary. Excuses are old school and show weakness in the face of the enemy, i.e., the will of the people, science, and the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is amusing. I peg Hillary as right of Obama.

I think on the subject of guns they are about equal, both saying they support the Australian gun

confiscation plan, and with the likelihood of a liberal Supreme Court, the boiling frog concept is very likely.

In incremental steps, confiscation of:

 

1. All center fire repeating firearms, including handguns

 

2. Any firearm capable of holding more than one shot

 

3, Any center fire firearm, including shotguns

 

Put the frog in a pan of cool water, slowly turn up the heat, then later, serve the frog with a nice sauce, & a glass, or two,

of fine California Chardonnay.

I'd love to see a position document even in the same universe as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say goodbye to your babies too. It's all but certain Hillary's supreme court nominee will legalize the institution of mandatory partial birth abortions and we can't rule out those being performed retroactively, if the parents so request.

 

Imagine when Killarys SCOTUS mandates that every clerk of every small podunk Regressive town MUST perform the marriages of "The Gays"!!

 

And then, she will confiscate all the guns from every gun-toting Regressive from coast to coast!!??

 

 

Yes,,, Imagine...LOL!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

Hillary may well nominate someone left of Garland. She would certainly nominate someone younger. Republicans are being very dumb with this knee jerk opposition.

 

Agree, I don't see any benefit in not having hearings. When Hillary is leading in the polls by mid October, & if it looks

like they are going to lose the Senate, the Reps should just take the least liberal nominee BO puts up. Then

kiss your guns goodby.

 

I think BO putting up Garland, at his age, is just a trial balloon.

 

 

I think he's more like a sacrificial zinc.

 

He might outlast a few sets of zincs? I doubt BO will seriously nominate anyone over 50. He

will want a super liberal in there for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hillary may well nominate someone left of Garland. She would certainly nominate someone younger. Republicans are being very dumb with this knee jerk opposition.

Agree, I don't see any benefit in not having hearings. When Hillary is leading in the polls by mid October, & if it looks

like they are going to lose the Senate, the Reps should just take the least liberal nominee BO puts up. Then

kiss your guns goodby.

 

I think BO putting up Garland, at his age, is just a trial balloon.

I think he's more like a sacrificial zinc.

He might outlast a few sets of zincs? I doubt BO will seriously nominate anyone over 50. He

will want a super liberal in there for a long time.

And yet, that's exactly what he did. Does it hurt the self esteem to realize you're wrong, wrong and then wrong, again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is absolutely zero scenario where the Republicans don't hold hearings or a vote on an Obama nominee, lose the presidential election, and then aren't "punished" by the Democrats with a nominee far to the left of Garland.

 

The Republicans have said the next president has the right to nominate. They will have zero excuse to block the process for anyone nominated. Their only hope would be to have 51 no votes for the up or down vote.

Horseshit. The GOP doesn't need excuses to act in obstruction to the will of the people, the accepted scientific evidence, or Constitutional obligations.

They do so on "principle", which their lobbyist/donors/masters supply as necessary. Excuses are old school and show weakness in the face of the enemy, i.e., the will of the people, science, and the Constitution.

Principal indeed. Al Frankenstein had this to say today -

 

"First, it was we should let the people decide. Well, we would argue the people decided. The President has a four-year term. Scientists tell us that there are approximately ten months left in his term. But then I hear, let the people decide, and the presidential election should decide, but then I hear colleagues from the other side saying well, you know what? If the election goes the wrong way, I’d be happy to consider this nomination during the lame duck.

 

How absurd is that?

 

So, it’s let the people decide unless they decide on Hillary Clinton, in which case let us decide.

 

Do you guys talk to each other?

 

That’s what I want to know. I just hear such contradictory stuff coming out from your side.

 

…..

 

Let’s at least be honest while we’re talking about this stuff. You can’t say I want the people to decide wait for the next president. Oh wait a minute, if we lose the election, then we’ll vote for this guy. Then we’ll have this. Will you at least admit to me that is contradictory?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

This is amusing. I peg Hillary as right of Obama.

I think on the subject of guns they are about equal, both saying they support the Australian gun

confiscation plan, and with the likelihood of a liberal Supreme Court, the boiling frog concept is very likely.

In incremental steps, confiscation of:

 

1. All center fire repeating firearms, including handguns

 

2. Any firearm capable of holding more than one shot

 

3, Any center fire firearm, including shotguns

 

Put the frog in a pan of cool water, slowly turn up the heat, then later, serve the frog with a nice sauce, & a glass, or two,

of fine California Chardonnay.

I'd love to see a position document even in the same universe as that.

 

 

Yes, I did stretch it a bit, but the concept is alive, in Australia, & more so in England. It is unlikely "They" will attempt

a total confiscation. Bad black military appearing weapons will be first, just ask the frog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not every Republican gets and reads the memos.

 

It is funny when someone gets way off message. Saw a Senator today who completely forgot about letting the people have a say and couldn't shut up about how hopefully a Republican would win the election and they would get the right nominee.

 

And then the Representatives who admitted that the Benghazi hearings were a partisan fishing expedition against Hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Say goodbye to your babies too. It's all but certain Hillary's supreme court nominee will legalize the institution of mandatory partial birth abortions and we can't rule out those being performed retroactively, if the parents so request.

 

Imagine when Killarys SCOTUS mandates that every clerk of every small podunk Regressive town MUST perform the marriages of "The Gays"!!

 

And then, she will confiscate all the guns from every gun-toting Regressive from coast to coast!!??

 

 

Yes,,, Imagine...LOL!!!

 

 

You never know. She does want Aussie style gun confiscation and sometimes they get what they want.

 

Can your kids inherit your scary registered magazine or have they lost that freedom to people like Hillary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Say goodbye to your babies too. It's all but certain Hillary's supreme court nominee will legalize the institution of mandatory partial birth abortions and we can't rule out those being performed retroactively, if the parents so request.

 

Imagine when Killarys SCOTUS mandates that every clerk of every small podunk Regressive town MUST perform the marriages of "The Gays"!!

 

And then, she will confiscate all the guns from every gun-toting Regressive from coast to coast!!??

 

 

Yes,,, Imagine...LOL!!!

 

 

You never know. She does want Aussie style gun confiscation and sometimes they get what they want.

 

Can your kids inherit your scary registered magazine or have they lost that freedom to people like Hillary?

 

 

No way Killary can pass that shit, my post was totally tongue in cheek. sorry that I forgot to use the purple "sarcasm" font.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This is amusing. I peg Hillary as right of Obama.

I think on the subject of guns they are about equal, both saying they support the Australian gun

confiscation plan, and with the likelihood of a liberal Supreme Court, the boiling frog concept is very likely.

In incremental steps, confiscation of:

 

1. All center fire repeating firearms, including handguns

 

2. Any firearm capable of holding more than one shot

 

3, Any center fire firearm, including shotguns

 

Put the frog in a pan of cool water, slowly turn up the heat, then later, serve the frog with a nice sauce, & a glass, or two,

of fine California Chardonnay.

I'd love to see a position document even in the same universe as that.

 

 

Yes, I did stretch it a bit, but the concept is alive, in Australia, & more so in England. It is unlikely "They" will attempt

a total confiscation. Bad black military appearing weapons will be first, just ask the frog.

 

The delusion is strong in this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

This is amusing. I peg Hillary as right of Obama.

I think on the subject of guns they are about equal, both saying they support the Australian gun

confiscation plan, and with the likelihood of a liberal Supreme Court, the boiling frog concept is very likely.

In incremental steps, confiscation of:

 

1. All center fire repeating firearms, including handguns

 

2. Any firearm capable of holding more than one shot

 

3, Any center fire firearm, including shotguns

 

Put the frog in a pan of cool water, slowly turn up the heat, then later, serve the frog with a nice sauce, & a glass, or two,

of fine California Chardonnay.

I'd love to see a position document even in the same universe as that.

Yes, I did stretch it a bit, but the concept is alive, in Australia, & more so in England. It is unlikely "They" will attempt

a total confiscation. Bad black military appearing weapons will be first, just ask the frog.

England and Oz have no 2nd amendment. Thanks for playing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Hillary may well nominate someone left of Garland. She would certainly nominate someone younger. Republicans are being very dumb with this knee jerk opposition.

Agree, I don't see any benefit in not having hearings. When Hillary is leading in the polls by mid October, & if it looks

like they are going to lose the Senate, the Reps should just take the least liberal nominee BO puts up. Then

kiss your guns goodby.

 

I think BO putting up Garland, at his age, is just a trial balloon.

I think he's more like a sacrificial zinc.

He might outlast a few sets of zincs? I doubt BO will seriously nominate anyone over 50. He

will want a super liberal in there for a long time.

And yet, that's exactly what he did. Does it hurt the self esteem to realize you're wrong, wrong and then wrong, again?

 

That would require some sort of self introspection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe not quite so centrist.

Why Obama Nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Courthttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/us/politics/garland-supreme-court-nomination.htmlScreen_Shot_2016-03-17_at_12.10.37_PM.pn

 

Well jesus christ it's a in a fucking graph. It must be true.

the methodology in creating the graph is super suspect to me

 

Measures of ideology by four political scientists show where the justices stand in relation to one another. Judge Garland’s score is based on the score of his appointing president, Bill Clinton. This methodology is considered to be a “reasonably good predictor of voting on the Supreme Court,” says Prof. Lee Epstein of Washington University.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think she's a hawk. Sol+Mark have argued persuasively that she's a NeoCon. I don't agree. You can make your case.

 

I think NeoCons are basically Israel Firsters. That ain't Hillary. Mark uses a term, RTP, for Rice. Dunno if that applies to Hillary. Lastly, I don't see the Libya intervention at all as neoconservative. I saw it as revenge.

 

I don't think Netanyahu would welcome a Hillary Presidency. Putin sure wouldn't.

McCain's favorite democrat. McCain is a neo-con, the roots of the term stem from Jacksonian democrats of the cold war era. It's not simply IFers, at least to me it isn't. Although Israel has been their raison d'etre du jour, Putin's head rears.

 

Her State Dept had Mrs Kagan trying to foment another color revolution in the Ukraine. The experiment of splitting Sudan which she championed is not going well. I can only hope that these experiences will give her reason to pause when she is President. The Great Clintonian Regret is Rwanda, and rightfully so, but the ideology they adopted because of that has led them to yet more Great Regrets. If the lessons of Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, even Egypt, get rationalized away or ignored there will be others.

 

You're presenting a history of ideas. I look at interests which is why I see NeoCons as Israel Firsters. Iraq was full employment for NeoCons. That's pretty much all it was. But it wasn't about ideas and it damn well WASN'T about American national interest.

 

I wish I could believe that ideas matter. But I really think they're just the clothes we wear when we talk about interests.

 

BTW, Kagan (Mr.) is on the State Department Foreign Affairs Advisory Board. As is Pickering. You want diversity of opinion on such a board.

 

Does Bill Clinton really regret Rwanda?? Was there anything we could have done? I think this is just latter day posturing.

 

Is splitting countries along ethnic/tribal/religious lines a neoconservative idea? We war gamed Iraq in a class at Cal and the first idea we had was ethnic partition. Really, all Iraq is doing is holding together the borders drawn by drunk English mappers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Clinton publicly stated many times that he believes Rwanda to be his greatest mistake. If Bill is just making that up for posturing purposes, what benefit do you see him reaping from doing so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got nothing more than Aw shucks Mr President, you did your best. Us feeling sorry for him. It also lampshades the problem by him bringing it up first.

 

I think Bill got a lot done, particularly budget-wise and to a degree FP-wise. He learned quickly not to expend political capital on social justice issues. (DADT+Lani Guinier) I prefer Obama, something really I didn't expect in 2009. He's had a much much tougher go than Bill did. Degree of difficulty.

 

But fundamentally, Bill is always selling Bill. And I see this as an attempt to sell Bill, one more time. So I'm just not taking him on face value. I could be wrong on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Say goodbye to your babies too. It's all but certain Hillary's supreme court nominee will legalize the institution of mandatory partial birth abortions and we can't rule out those being performed retroactively, if the parents so request.

 

Imagine when Killarys SCOTUS mandates that every clerk of every small podunk Regressive town MUST perform the marriages of "The Gays"!!

 

And then, she will confiscate all the guns from every gun-toting Regressive from coast to coast!!??

 

 

Yes,,, Imagine...LOL!!!

 

 

You never know. She does want Aussie style gun confiscation and sometimes they get what they want.

 

Can your kids inherit your scary registered magazine or have they lost that freedom to people like Hillary?

 

 

No way Killary can pass that shit, my post was totally tongue in cheek. sorry that I forgot to use the purple "sarcasm" font.......

 

 

She unquestionably wants to.

 

How good are you at predicting what will happen? For example, did you know a year in advance that your kids would soon not be able to inherit your magazine, or was that a surprise to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

 

This is amusing. I peg Hillary as right of Obama.

I think on the subject of guns they are about equal, both saying they support the Australian gun

confiscation plan, and with the likelihood of a liberal Supreme Court, the boiling frog concept is very likely.

In incremental steps, confiscation of:

 

1. All center fire repeating firearms, including handguns

 

2. Any firearm capable of holding more than one shot

 

3, Any center fire firearm, including shotguns

 

Put the frog in a pan of cool water, slowly turn up the heat, then later, serve the frog with a nice sauce, & a glass, or two,

of fine California Chardonnay.

I'd love to see a position document even in the same universe as that.

Yes, I did stretch it a bit, but the concept is alive, in Australia, & more so in England. It is unlikely "They" will attempt

a total confiscation. Bad black military appearing weapons will be first, just ask the frog.

England and Oz have no 2nd amendment. Thanks for playing

 

 

Yes, I know that. Not sure they have a Supreme Court? Our Supreme Court has the big desk. That is

why BO will put a liberal on it, "5 to 4, the liberals win, every time"

 

I am not sure what the new liberal Court will do, but whatever it is, it will not be in favor of gun ownership.

NRA Membership will likely grow from 5 million to 10 million. But it won't matter, did I mention the

Supreme Court has the big desk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know that. Not sure they have a Supreme Court? Our Supreme Court has the big desk. That is

why BO will put a liberal on it, "5 to 4, the liberals win, every time"

 

I am not sure what the new liberal Court will do, but whatever it is, it will not be in favor of gun ownership.

NRA Membership will likely grow from 5 million to 10 million. But it won't matter, did I mention the

Supreme Court has the big desk?

 

You are fortunate that the only SCOTUS judge who is often willing to abandon the principle of stare decisis without regard to the vast practical affects of going against established case law is Justice Thomas.

 

There is a long trail of legal precedent in defending 2A rights. Yes it is possible and even probable that a liberal SCOTUS will add some restrictions to 2A rights much in the same manner that restrictions have been placed on reproductive rights. Magazine capacity limits could be ruled constitutional for example. But gun ownership is not going to be pushed back to the black powder days or anywhere close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

Yes, I know that. Not sure they have a Supreme Court? Our Supreme Court has the big desk. That is

why BO will put a liberal on it, "5 to 4, the liberals win, every time"

 

I am not sure what the new liberal Court will do, but whatever it is, it will not be in favor of gun ownership.

NRA Membership will likely grow from 5 million to 10 million. But it won't matter, did I mention the

Supreme Court has the big desk?

 

You are fortunate that the only SCOTUS judge who is often willing to abandon the principle of stare decisis without regard to the vast practical affects of going against established case law is Justice Thomas.

 

There is a long trail of legal precedent in defending 2A rights. Yes it is possible and even probable that a liberal SCOTUS will add some restrictions to 2A rights much in the same manner that restrictions have been placed on reproductive rights. Magazine capacity limits could be ruled constitutional for example. But gun ownership is not going to be pushed back to the black powder days or anywhere close.

 

 

Yes, I basically agree. However, once "They" start & meet with success, kind of like picking a scab, they will

never quit. First it will be magazine capacity, next will be confiscation of semi auto long guns, shotguns

included, next semi auto handguns, then limit caliber size, then all repeating firearms, kind of like what

Australia did. IIRC, in England, having a loaded gun in your house could complicate your day:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117794/security_leaflet.pdf

 

It appears that ownership of a handgun, other than muzzle loaders, is prohibited in England:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom#Pistols

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This presidential election will be decided, to some degree, on who "the people" want appointing SCOTUS justices.

 

Can the GOP find a way to change their leadership style and goals, and can NRA & gun rights folks accept as legitimate our style of government if a Democrat is elected?

 

In my opinion, four (or eight) more years of obstruction and turmoil, rather than compromise politics which gets stuff done, will eventually cause either a constitutional crisis or a national security problem.

 

At what point do obstructionists become unpatriotic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This presidential election will be decided, to some degree, on who "the people" want appointing SCOTUS justices.

Can the GOP find a way to change their leadership style and goals, and can NRA & gun rights folks accept as legitimate our style of government if a Democrat is elected?

In my opinion, four (or eight) more years of obstruction and turmoil, rather than compromise politics which gets stuff done, will eventually cause either a constitutional crisis or a national security problem.

At what point do obstructionists become unpatriotic?

When democrats do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This presidential election will be decided, to some degree, on who "the people" want appointing SCOTUS justices.

 

Can the GOP find a way to change their leadership style and goals, and can NRA & gun rights folks accept as legitimate our style of government if a Democrat is elected?

 

 

 

 

 

So far, I'm three for three on saying Obama SCOTUS appointees should be confirmed.

 

How many R SCOTUS appointees have you said should be confirmed?

 

Can Bloomberg and anti-gun folks accept as legitimate our style of government if a Republican is elected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is, I've never thought that a nominee should be blocked without advise & consent. As for voting no on an individual candidate... that's a vote, and politics is a bare-knuckled process and I don't have inside knowledge to the decision makers process. Usually you can tell from the questioning and positioning what they are thinking, but that's just a piece of the whole story.

 

That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote my conscience, just recognizes that any vote is in context of the history of the Senate and the business of government.

 

But I've also always recognized that SCOTUS picks is just part of our system of government, that you hope the pendulum swings back someday if you don't like any one choice. Recent GOP moves shake my confidence in the system, and I resent their failure to adhere to the Constitution. Their respect of the document and our traditions appears situational, and therefore untrustworthy.

 

When the current president nominates solid, qualified judges with a history of bipartisan support, he is labeled a "liberal" and accused of unpatriotic and sinister motives.

 

Sorry, but it's the folks who fail to adhere to Constitutional mandates and strive for disunion who have made the judiciary just another party organ, and therefore less worthy of respect. The GOP apparently thinks that is ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specifics?

 

Rehnquist, Souter, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy: I would think I'd have voted with the majority (but I forget context, so not sure)

 

Bork: at the time I was opposed

 

Harriett Myers: I was disappointed by her record, glad she was withdrawn

 

Edit (forgot him): Thomas' hearings were an embarrassment, and he sounded like a jerk. Not someone I'd have wanted judging women's issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't speak for Bloomberg, and I'm not anti-gun so I can't answer your question.

 

I am pro-gun legislation, though, and am perfectly comfortable allowing demographic and cultural shifts to move such legislation through. Ya know, democracy in action.

 

But for "democracy in action" to be possible, we need the nation onboard with the Constitution and our style of government. Supplanting it with scorched earth obstruction, gerrymandering, subverting voting laws and disobeying constitutional mandates will prevent the will of the people from being heard, but only for so long. Eventually either the people win, or a demagogue taps into the fervor of a violent (but possibly well armed) minority.

 

My biggest fear is that guns will not be used to prevent an illigitimate government, but to install one. To some degree, a partisan judicial opinion has already accomplished such a feat in America, so the other is not as far-fetched as I would like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

BO is a liberal. He will only nominate liberal candidates. The Reps should hold the hearings & then shoot

the liberal candidates down, one after the other. They will need to bring lots of ammo. When Hillary is elected,

& assuming the Reps keep or increase their control of the Senate, they should bring at least a four year's

supply of ammo, & have the backbone to keep squeezing the trigger, again, & again.

 

What the Reps are doing now is risky business, not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bork: at the time I was opposed

 

Bork deserved and got a hearing. He deserved, asked for and got a vote. He deserved to be rejected.

In retrospect, taking what he said in his autobiography, Bork hella deserved to be rejected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BO is a liberal. He will only nominate liberal candidates. The Reps should hold the hearings & then shoot

the liberal candidates down, one after the other. They will need to bring lots of ammo. When Hillary is elected,

& assuming the Reps keep or increase their control of the Senate, they should bring at least a four year's

supply of ammo, & have the backbone to keep squeezing the trigger, again, & again.

 

What the Reps are doing now is risky business, not good.

 

 

Yep, a Supreme Court with 4-5 judges is sound, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

Bork: at the time I was opposed

 

Bork deserved and got a hearing. He deserved, asked for and got a vote. He deserved to be rejected.

In retrospect, taking what he said in his autobiography, Bork hella deserved to be rejected.

 

 

"Rejected"? As should any liberal candidate that BO nominates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Bork: at the time I was opposed

Bork deserved and got a hearing. He deserved, asked for and got a vote. He deserved to be rejected.

In retrospect, taking what he said in his autobiography, Bork hella deserved to be rejected.

"Rejected"? As should any liberal candidate that BO nominates.

Fine by me. But have the debate, do the advise&consent thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Bork: at the time I was opposed

 

Bork deserved and got a hearing. He deserved, asked for and got a vote. He deserved to be rejected.

In retrospect, taking what he said in his autobiography, Bork hella deserved to be rejected.

"Rejected"? As should any liberal candidate that BO nominates.

Any democratic nominee who is involved in anything close to the "Saturday Night Massacre" I will vehemently oppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got nothing more than Aw shucks Mr President, you did your best. Us feeling sorry for him. It also lampshades the problem by him bringing it up first.

 

I think Bill got a lot done, particularly budget-wise and to a degree FP-wise. He learned quickly not to expend political capital on social justice issues. (DADT+Lani Guinier) I prefer Obama, something really I didn't expect in 2009. He's had a much much tougher go than Bill did. Degree of difficulty.

 

But fundamentally, Bill is always selling Bill. And I see this as an attempt to sell Bill, one more time. So I'm just not taking him on face value. I could be wrong on this.

 

Admitting one could have stopped nearly a million people getting hacked to death with machetes in just a few weeks isn't an awshucks moment in my eyes and I doubt it is in yours either. It's an admission of cowardice of the worst kind.

 

Cling to your argument if you must, but know you are preventing yourself from considering the possibility the event left deep scars on the Clintons and the Clintonians who were in State at the time, even though they all frankly state it did, and IMO is consistent with their selection of shrill R2Pers like Rice and Powers when running Obama's State Dept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

Bork: at the time I was opposed

Bork deserved and got a hearing. He deserved, asked for and got a vote. He deserved to be rejected.

In retrospect, taking what he said in his autobiography, Bork hella deserved to be rejected.

"Rejected"? As should any liberal candidate that BO nominates.

Fine by me. But have the debate, do the advise&consent thing.

 

 

As I said earlier, I agree, just use the system & make it work for whoever controls the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

BO is a liberal. He will only nominate liberal candidates. The Reps should hold the hearings & then shoot

the liberal candidates down, one after the other. They will need to bring lots of ammo. When Hillary is elected,

& assuming the Reps keep or increase their control of the Senate, they should bring at least a four year's

supply of ammo, & have the backbone to keep squeezing the trigger, again, & again.

 

What the Reps are doing now is risky business, not good.

 

 

Yep, a Supreme Court with 4-5 judges is sound, right?

 

 

As long as the 5 are conservative. "Kill or be killed". IIRC, when BO took office, he had the House & Senate with him?

 

Since then, those damned pesky voters elected a Republican controlled House & Senate, I wonder why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he couldn't have. Stopping it wasn't within our abilities. Civil wars are really hard to deal with from the outside. As bloody and awful as this was there was nothing we could do that would have stopped it.

 

Did we learn anything from Somalia? I respect your knowledge+opinion and I'll work/think through this again. But I'm skeptical.

 

Does Clinton ever say what he should have done or does he just want a different outcome? I don't think sending a carrier group nearby would have stopped anything. Given the magnitude I can't understand the logistics or strategy. It's beyond my grasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he could have, and he knows he had strong reasons to believe so at the time and in retrospect is utterly convinced he made the wrong call. Moreover, he knows he judged it doable, and a heck of a lot of the experts also thought it doable at the time.

 

It's not beyond your grasp to learn about the details of situation which existed in Rwanda, you simply do not wish to know them. Carrier? Rwanda quite a ways from a body of water which can float a carrier. There is not need to establish air superiority over a place that doesn't have an air force, and bombing targets were practically non existent, and what there was, the radio station, needed to be used to check the madness. It going silent from being blown up would have accomplished nothing.

 

 

He admits he didn't do it because of domestic political considerations. They decided it might distract and de-rail delicate negotiations over domestic policy issues in Congress. You can find McCain and others demagoguing the "Clinton" "failure" in Somalia. He didn't want to give them a similar stick to beat him with in our stenographic yellow-dog press corps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll read up on it. But if a million people want to machete their neighbors to death I don't understand how we can stop that from 7,000 miles away on a months notice. Based on our performance in Somalia I'm skeptical. But I admit we did basically nothing.

 

BTW this is hard corps RTP stuff. I'm a hard corps national interest guy. That may be why I'm so skeptical but I will read up on what the Bill is saying.

 

BTW again, I really don't pay much attention to McCain except when he's funny. He's not Dole but he is funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who had been ginned up to that killing rage had been bullshitted into it. They deeply regretted it, and their neighbors forgave them. You can find survivors all over the place who have neighbors and friends who they watched walk into their house with a machete and hack their entire family to death.

 

This is an example of why ideology is, as John Adams put it, "Science for idiots."

 

R2P", "National Interest" guys like yourself....sides of the same coin. The World routinely pisses on the pillar of academic theory. It's an attempt to avoid thinking a lot of the time. We like to set up comfortable sub routines and apps into which we can feed raw data, and expect it to spit out the Great Answer...to Life, The Universe, and Everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I got nothing more than Aw shucks Mr President, you did your best. Us feeling sorry for him. It also lampshades the problem by him bringing it up first.

 

I think Bill got a lot done, particularly budget-wise and to a degree FP-wise. He learned quickly not to expend political capital on social justice issues. (DADT+Lani Guinier) I prefer Obama, something really I didn't expect in 2009. He's had a much much tougher go than Bill did. Degree of difficulty.

 

But fundamentally, Bill is always selling Bill. And I see this as an attempt to sell Bill, one more time. So I'm just not taking him on face value. I could be wrong on this.

 

Admitting one could have stopped nearly a million people getting hacked to death with machetes in just a few weeks isn't an awshucks moment in my eyes and I doubt it is in yours either. It's an admission of cowardice of the worst kind.

 

Cling to your argument if you must, but know you are preventing yourself from considering the possibility the event left deep scars on the Clintons and the Clintonians who were in State at the time, even though they all frankly state it did, and IMO is consistent with their selection of shrill R2Pers like Rice and Powers when running Obama's State Dept.

 

 

Protecting the rest of the world from their dictators and their countrymen is not our job. It wasn't our job in Rwanda and wasn't our job in Libya or anywhere else.

 

We need to give up the world policeman role and the military $pending that goes with it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I got nothing more than Aw shucks Mr President, you did your best. Us feeling sorry for him. It also lampshades the problem by him bringing it up first.

 

I think Bill got a lot done, particularly budget-wise and to a degree FP-wise. He learned quickly not to expend political capital on social justice issues. (DADT+Lani Guinier) I prefer Obama, something really I didn't expect in 2009. He's had a much much tougher go than Bill did. Degree of difficulty.

 

But fundamentally, Bill is always selling Bill. And I see this as an attempt to sell Bill, one more time. So I'm just not taking him on face value. I could be wrong on this.

 

Admitting one could have stopped nearly a million people getting hacked to death with machetes in just a few weeks isn't an awshucks moment in my eyes and I doubt it is in yours either. It's an admission of cowardice of the worst kind.

 

Cling to your argument if you must, but know you are preventing yourself from considering the possibility the event left deep scars on the Clintons and the Clintonians who were in State at the time, even though they all frankly state it did, and IMO is consistent with their selection of shrill R2Pers like Rice and Powers when running Obama's State Dept.

 

 

Protecting the rest of the world from their dictators and their countrymen is not our job. It wasn't our job in Rwanda and wasn't our job in Libya or anywhere else.

 

We need to give up the world policeman role and the military $pending that goes with it.

 

 

 

Right! Spend the money at home and make america great again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I got nothing more than Aw shucks Mr President, you did your best. Us feeling sorry for him. It also lampshades the problem by him bringing it up first.

 

I think Bill got a lot done, particularly budget-wise and to a degree FP-wise. He learned quickly not to expend political capital on social justice issues. (DADT+Lani Guinier) I prefer Obama, something really I didn't expect in 2009. He's had a much much tougher go than Bill did. Degree of difficulty.

 

But fundamentally, Bill is always selling Bill. And I see this as an attempt to sell Bill, one more time. So I'm just not taking him on face value. I could be wrong on this.

Admitting one could have stopped nearly a million people getting hacked to death with machetes in just a few weeks isn't an awshucks moment in my eyes and I doubt it is in yours either. It's an admission of cowardice of the worst kind.

 

Cling to your argument if you must, but know you are preventing yourself from considering the possibility the event left deep scars on the Clintons and the Clintonians who were in State at the time, even though they all frankly state it did, and IMO is consistent with their selection of shrill R2Pers like Rice and Powers when running Obama's State Dept.

 

Protecting the rest of the world from their dictators and their countrymen is not our job. It wasn't our job in Rwanda and wasn't our job in Libya or anywhere else.

 

We need to give up the world policeman role and the military $pending that goes with it.

 

YES THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I got nothing more than Aw shucks Mr President, you did your best. Us feeling sorry for him. It also lampshades the problem by him bringing it up first.

 

I think Bill got a lot done, particularly budget-wise and to a degree FP-wise. He learned quickly not to expend political capital on social justice issues. (DADT+Lani Guinier) I prefer Obama, something really I didn't expect in 2009. He's had a much much tougher go than Bill did. Degree of difficulty.

 

But fundamentally, Bill is always selling Bill. And I see this as an attempt to sell Bill, one more time. So I'm just not taking him on face value. I could be wrong on this.

 

Admitting one could have stopped nearly a million people getting hacked to death with machetes in just a few weeks isn't an awshucks moment in my eyes and I doubt it is in yours either. It's an admission of cowardice of the worst kind.

 

Cling to your argument if you must, but know you are preventing yourself from considering the possibility the event left deep scars on the Clintons and the Clintonians who were in State at the time, even though they all frankly state it did, and IMO is consistent with their selection of shrill R2Pers like Rice and Powers when running Obama's State Dept.

 

 

Protecting the rest of the world from their dictators and their countrymen is not our job. It wasn't our job in Rwanda and wasn't our job in Libya or anywhere else.

 

We need to give up the world policeman role and the military $pending that goes with it.

 

 

 

My post was a description the Clintonesta's collective case of PT"R"S. Perhaps you are replying to another and clicked on this one by mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Repubtards pass and refuse to consider this moderate judge, Hillary will soon be jamming an ultra liberal judge up their ass sideways with much glee!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

If the Repubtards pass and refuse to consider this moderate judge, Hillary will soon be jamming an ultra liberal judge up their ass sideways with much glee!!

 

Depending on how the next Senate primary election comes out. I think many Trump supporters will vote out many of

the existing RINO Senators. If a Republican controlled Senate will learn from the Democrats how to "Kill or

be killed", & how to "Circle the wagons", they can shoot down Hillary's candidates for four years, if necessary.

 

All they need to do is grow a backbone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the Repubtards pass and refuse to consider this moderate judge, Hillary will soon be jamming an ultra liberal judge up their ass sideways with much glee!!

 

Depending on how the next Senate primary election comes out. I think many Trump supporters will vote out many of

the existing RINO Senators. If a Republican controlled Senate will learn from the Democrats how to "Kill or

be killed", & how to "Circle the wagons", they can shoot down Hillary's candidates for four years, if necessary.

 

All they need to do is grow a backbone.

That is a ridiculous reinterpretation of the Constitution.

 

Compromise is essential for the government and the country to continue functioning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the Repubtards pass and refuse to consider this moderate judge, Hillary will soon be jamming an ultra liberal judge up their ass sideways with much glee!!

 

Depending on how the next Senate primary election comes out. I think many Trump supporters will vote out many of

the existing RINO Senators. If a Republican controlled Senate will learn from the Democrats how to "Kill or

be killed", & how to "Circle the wagons", they can shoot down Hillary's candidates for four years, if necessary.

 

All they need to do is grow a backbone.

 

Yay! More obstruction! Even less action by congress. Normalcy restored and fundamental problems with the 2-party system ignored! Stagnation and politicization of the SC ensured for generations.

 

Unpatriotic, unthinking & unable to break free of the shackles and blinders placed upon them by FOX News and Rupert, Kochs and other plutocrats. The GOP brings the New Dark Ages to full blossom, denying climate change, evolution and the failure of trickle down economics. Way to not learn from history, baby. Circle the wagons and fight the immigrants!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can fool some of the people some of the time and you can fool Dabs all of the time.

Likely Dabs quote.

 

edit: The funny part is Dabs actually thinks Trump is a Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the Repubtards pass and refuse to consider this moderate judge, Hillary will soon be jamming an ultra liberal judge up their ass sideways with much glee!!

 

Depending on how the next Senate primary election comes out. I think many Trump supporters will vote out many of

the existing RINO Senators. If a Republican controlled Senate will learn from the Democrats how to "Kill or

be killed", & how to "Circle the wagons", they can shoot down Hillary's candidates for four years, if necessary.

 

All they need to do is grow a backbone.

 

 

Which incumbent Senators up for re-election in 2016 are RINO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to think that Dabs is the only "real" Republican in existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

If there was a Republican President, & a Democrat controlled Senate, The Senate would likely shoot down

the President's candidates. I think that is what happened to that Bork fellow?

 

Post # 150 says it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

You can fool some of the people some of the time and you can fool Dabs all of the time.

Likely Dabs quote.

 

edit: The funny part is Dabs actually thinks Trump is a Republican.

 

He may be the only alternative to Hillary.

 

First target is to defeat Hillary, regardless of who does it. A liberal President & a liberal SCOTUS is not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

If the Repubtards pass and refuse to consider this moderate judge, Hillary will soon be jamming an ultra liberal judge up their ass sideways with much glee!!

Depending on how the next Senate primary election comes out. I think many Trump supporters will vote out many of

the existing RINO Senators. If a Republican controlled Senate will learn from the Democrats how to "Kill or

be killed", & how to "Circle the wagons", they can shoot down Hillary's candidates for four years, if necessary.

 

All they need to do is grow a backbone.

That is a ridiculous reinterpretation of the Constitution.

 

Compromise is essential for the government and the country to continue functioning.

 

 

Democrat's definition of "Compromise":

 

"Do it my way, & we will all get along"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a Republican President, & a Democrat controlled Senate, The Senate would likely shoot down

the President's candidates. I think that is what happened to that Bork fellow?

 

Post # 150 says it all.

 

He wasn't black, and Clarence was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bork got considered and rejected for cause. He'd obstructed justice at the Saturday Night Massacre by firing the special prosecutor which was later found to be an illegal act. In his autobiography he admitted he'd had a quid pro quo deal with Nixon for a Supreme Court nomination.

 

Bork was a shit.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/bork-nixon-offered-next-high-court-vacancy-73-215747517.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Repubtards pass and refuse to consider this moderate judge, Hillary will soon be jamming an ultra liberal judge up their ass sideways with much glee!!

 

And that would be her prerogative, if she is not indicted and she wins the election.

 

The position of Republican senators is exactly the same position as Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer have taken in previous confirmation battles. Call it the "Biden Rule."

 

"Confirming President Obama’s nominee would mean installing a liberal majority on the Supreme Court that would eviscerate virtually all limits on federal power and the regulatory state and would reverse many of the freedoms conservatives hold dear. A once-in-a-century vacancy like this one, where the ideological balance of the Supreme Court is on the line in an election year, cries out for keeping this seat on the Court open until the American people have the opportunity to express their views on the Court’s direction this November.” -- Freedom Works

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the Repubtards pass and refuse to consider this moderate judge, Hillary will soon be jamming an ultra liberal judge up their ass sideways with much glee!!

 

And that would be her prerogative, if she is not indicted and she wins the election.

 

 

 

The position of Republican senators is exactly the same position as Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer have taken in previous confirmation battles. Call it the "Biden Rule."

 

"Confirming President Obama’s nominee would mean installing a liberal majority on the Supreme Court that would eviscerate virtually all limits on federal power and the regulatory state and would reverse many of the freedoms conservatives hold dear. A once-in-a-century vacancy like this one, where the ideological balance of the Supreme Court is on the line in an election year, cries out for keeping this seat on the Court open until the American people have the opportunity to express their views on the Court’s direction this November.” -- Freedom Works

I think you're overstating the consequences of a Garland confirmation. Granted, nearly any qualified candidate would move the court left to a degree in comparison to Scalia, but to me, Garland would be much more like Kennedy than, say, Sotomayor. By most accounts, he defers to the law as written way more than any ideological beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

It is basic, Liberal Presidents nominate Liberal candidates, who must be shot down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just gets stranger and stranger:

 

"Mitch McConnell To Fox News: NRA Must Approve Of New Supreme Court Justice"

 

 

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/03/20/mitch-mcconnell-to-fox-news-nra-must-approve-of-new-supreme-court-justice/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just gets stranger and stranger:

 

"Mitch McConnell To Fox News: NRA Must Approve Of New Supreme Court Justice"

 

 

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/03/20/mitch-mcconnell-to-fox-news-nra-must-approve-of-new-supreme-court-justice/

 

You should not have put that in quotes. What McConnell said,

 

‘I can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association and the National Federation of Independent Businesses [NFIB].’

 

I can't imagine that either. Regardless of the issue of procedure, no conservative will want to see any appointee who would weaken the 2A or any other fundamental civil right when more than all else, the responsibility of the Supreme Court is to protect those rights above all else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't really matter what you can and cannot imagine, NGS, as your opinion means sweet fuck all on the matter. McConnell on the other hand is a man who is supposed to be evaluating a SCOTUS justice based on their capability and experience as an impartial justice of the courts. Instead he is looking to an outside organisation, explicitly pointing out that he does not think anyone should be confirmed unless they are impartial enough to win the approval of a lobbying organisation.

 

That's fucked up, regardless of which organisation you stick into that sentence. Activist judges are bad... sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't really matter what you can and cannot imagine, NGS, as your opinion means sweet fuck all on the matter. McConnell on the other hand is a man who is supposed to be evaluating a SCOTUS justice based on their capability and experience as an impartial justice of the courts. Instead he is looking to an outside organisation, explicitly pointing out that he does not think anyone should be confirmed unless they are impartial enough to win the approval of a lobbying organisation.

 

That's fucked up, regardless of which organisation you stick into that sentence. Activist judges are bad... sometimes.

The fact that Garland voted to re-hear a gun rights case does not make him an activist judge. The case was never reheard, so I believe it would be unfair to assume he would take a "liberal" position. He has a reputation for a hewing closely to the written law; could the NRA be worried that a prior biased decision in their favor was in jeopardy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Garland voted to re-hear a gun rights case does not make him an activist judge.

 

I don't think it does either. That's kind of my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McConnell is mistakenly applying the Hastert Rule to the Senate.

 

I think it's the Christie Rule. He knows what happened to him when he was careless enough to allow a photo of him shaking Obama's hand happen. Even as far back as the first budget deal Mitch insisted that Biden be sent as a go-between to prevent that from happening to him. He has, AFAIK, never allowed himself to be caught within hand-shaking distance of that negro unless he was sure there were no cameras, and his wise enough to know that shifty negro will immediately extend his hand if he did. His primary mission in life, from January of 09, has been to make the negro's administration a failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

McConnell is mistakenly applying the Hastert Rule to the Senate.

 

I think it's the Christie Rule. He knows what happened to him when he was careless enough to allow a photo of him shaking Obama's hand happen. Even as far back as the first budget deal Mitch insisted that Biden be sent as a go-between to prevent that from happening to him. He has, AFAIK, never allowed himself to be caught within hand-shaking distance of that negro unless he was sure there were no cameras, and his wise enough to know that shifty negro will immediately extend his hand if he did. His primary mission in life, from January of 09, has been to make the negro's administration a failure.

 

 

Which would be a good thing. However, up until now it seems to me that the Negro has gotten pretty much what he wants:

 

1. A "Deal" with Iran

 

2. Obamacare, thanks to Justice Roberts

 

3. Trading 5 for 1 terrorist hostages

 

4. Basically open borders

 

5. Fast & furious

 

6. Elimination, in progress, of the coal industry

 

7. All the money he wanted, from Speaker Ryan

 

And the list goes on, women in combat, "Red Line in the sand", & on & on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He got things he didn't want too, such as people like you who have been driven to being reactionary, mindlessly fighting him on everything. It was too early for a black President. Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. This is how Trump gets so much traction from questioning birth certificates and college records. There is something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

McConnell is mistakenly applying the Hastert Rule to the Senate.

 

I think it's the Christie Rule. He knows what happened to him when he was careless enough to allow a photo of him shaking Obama's hand happen. Even as far back as the first budget deal Mitch insisted that Biden be sent as a go-between to prevent that from happening to him. He has, AFAIK, never allowed himself to be caught within hand-shaking distance of that negro unless he was sure there were no cameras, and his wise enough to know that shifty negro will immediately extend his hand if he did. His primary mission in life, from January of 09, has been to make the negro's administration a failure.

 

 

Which would be a good thing. However, up until now it seems to me that the Negro has gotten pretty much what he wants:

 

1. A "Deal" with Iran

 

2. Obamacare, thanks to Justice Roberts

 

3. Trading 5 for 1 terrorist hostages

 

4. Basically open borders

 

5. Fast & furious

 

6. Elimination, in progress, of the coal industry

 

7. All the money he wanted, from Speaker Ryan

 

And the list goes on, women in combat, "Red Line in the sand", & on & on.

 

 

This has nothing to do with being black, Dabnis. It has to do with being 'Red'. Do you really think the Hildabeast or Bernie-Back-In-The-USSR would have behaved any differently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He got things he didn't want too, such as people like you who have been driven to being reactionary, mindlessly fighting him on everything. It was too early for a black President. Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. This is how Trump gets so much traction from questioning birth certificates and college records. There is something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones....

 

Yeah, I think Obama needed another decade or two of grumpy old white men dying off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how suddenly the "Biden Rule" is so much more important than Congressional duties and the Constitution! Who knew his rules were so influential. I'll have to revise my opinion of the man, now that we have to delay replacing the Constitutionalist Jurist becuase the VPs statements trump that old rag of a document. "They're more guidelines, than a code!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how suddenly the "Biden Rule" is so much more important than Congressional duties and the Constitution! Who knew his rules were so influential. I'll have to revise my opinion of the man, now that we have to delay replacing the Constitutionalist Jurist becuase the VPs statements trump that old rag of a document. "They're more guidelines, than a code!"

I think I asked before, but never got an answer...so I'll try again.

 

To what nominee has the "Biden Rule" ever applied? Against what President has the rule been used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He got things he didn't want too, such as people like you who have been driven to being reactionary, mindlessly fighting him on everything. It was too early for a black President. Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. This is how Trump gets so much traction from questioning birth certificates and college records. There is something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones....

 

That's pure unmitigated bullshit, Mark, and you know it. This attitude is quite disingenuous, and IMHO largely responsible for fomenting the increased racial tensions we've experienced during Obama's presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He got things he didn't want too, such as people like you who have been driven to being reactionary, mindlessly fighting him on everything. It was too early for a black President. Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. This is how Trump gets so much traction from questioning birth certificates and college records. There is something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones....

 

That's pure unmitigated bullshit, Mark, and you know it. This attitude is quite disingenuous, and IMHO largely responsible for fomenting the increased racial tensions we've experienced during Obama's presidency.

 

 

While I don't know you, my sense is you are not the type of person Mark is describing.

 

But, I can assure you, they do exist. Their objections are cloaked in vague terminology that falls apart under scrutiny. There remains a scary level of racial prejudice, in this country. And, unfortunately, it goes both ways.

 

Witness the Trump spokesperson who referred to the POTUS as the "head Negro in charge" and a "half-breed". Despicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I love how suddenly the "Biden Rule" is so much more important than Congressional duties and the Constitution! Who knew his rules were so influential. I'll have to revise my opinion of the man, now that we have to delay replacing the Constitutionalist Jurist becuase the VPs statements trump that old rag of a document. "They're more guidelines, than a code!"

I think I asked before, but never got an answer...so I'll try again.

 

To what nominee has the "Biden Rule" ever applied? Against what President has the rule been used?

 

And just as importantly the Biden Rule as explicitly stated by Biden allows for the lame duck president to fill the seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

He got things he didn't want too, such as people like you who have been driven to being reactionary, mindlessly fighting him on everything. It was too early for a black President. Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. This is how Trump gets so much traction from questioning birth certificates and college records. There is something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones....

 

That's pure unmitigated bullshit, Mark, and you know it. This attitude is quite disingenuous, and IMHO largely responsible for fomenting the increased racial tensions we've experienced during Obama's presidency.

 

 

While I don't know you, my sense is you are not the type of person Mark is describing.

 

But, I can assure you, they do exist. Their objections are cloaked in vague terminology that falls apart under scrutiny. There remains a scary level of racial prejudice, in this country. And, unfortunately, it goes both ways.

 

 

BD - i appreciate your perspective. "scary level of racial prejudice"? Even amongst my ignorant backwoods redneck neighbors, I don't see anything approximating that. The very few people I *do* see exhibiting that kind of behavior too stupid to even find a polling station, much less vote. I can't claim that my personal circumstances are representative of anything else, but, I honestly don't see the level of prejudice that many here are claiming.

 

I *do* see a lot of claims of racial bias coming from people who attempt to use race as means to mitigate the repercussions and perceptions of individual cases of bad behavior. From my perch on high, I think that behavior is absolutely a valid discriminator, and in most things, the ONLY one that is valid. Using race as a means to avoid just discrimination is wrong - whether it's white people trying to justify treating blacks suspiciously, or black people characterizing all white people as racist assholes.

 

Treating people with politeness, common courtesy and initial respect go a long way towards ensuring that you are treated similarly. The inverse applies as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

He got things he didn't want too, such as people like you who have been driven to being reactionary, mindlessly fighting him on everything. It was too early for a black President. Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. This is how Trump gets so much traction from questioning birth certificates and college records. There is something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones....

 

That's pure unmitigated bullshit, Mark, and you know it. This attitude is quite disingenuous, and IMHO largely responsible for fomenting the increased racial tensions we've experienced during Obama's presidency.

 

 

While I don't know you, my sense is you are not the type of person Mark is describing.

 

But, I can assure you, they do exist. Their objections are cloaked in vague terminology that falls apart under scrutiny. There remains a scary level of racial prejudice, in this country. And, unfortunately, it goes both ways.

 

 

BD - i appreciate your perspective. "scary level of racial prejudice"? Even amongst my ignorant backwoods redneck neighbors, I don't see anything approximating that. The very few people I *do* see exhibiting that kind of behavior too stupid to even find a polling station, much less vote. I can't claim that my personal circumstances are representative of anything else, but, I honestly don't see the level of prejudice that many here are claiming.

 

I *do* see a lot of claims of racial bias coming from people who attempt to use race as means to mitigate the repercussions and perceptions of individual cases of bad behavior. From my perch on high, I think that behavior is absolutely a valid discriminator, and in most things, the ONLY one that is valid. Using race as a means to avoid just discrimination is wrong - whether it's white people trying to justify treating blacks suspiciously, or black people characterizing all white people as racist assholes.

 

Treating people with politeness, common courtesy and initial respect go a long way towards ensuring that you are treated similarly. The inverse applies as well.

 

 

Agree with what the majority of what you said.

 

I've seen and heard from some folks who have remained quiet during the Obama administration, but are feeling emboldened to speak out, with the Trump surge. Some of the stuff I hear is out-and-out hate. Really vile and disgusting stuff.

 

I sincerely hope that those folks are a vocal minority. But, I have a sense it is not as small as we'd like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

McConnell is mistakenly applying the Hastert Rule to the Senate.

 

I think it's the Christie Rule. He knows what happened to him when he was careless enough to allow a photo of him shaking Obama's hand happen. Even as far back as the first budget deal Mitch insisted that Biden be sent as a go-between to prevent that from happening to him. He has, AFAIK, never allowed himself to be caught within hand-shaking distance of that negro unless he was sure there were no cameras, and his wise enough to know that shifty negro will immediately extend his hand if he did. His primary mission in life, from January of 09, has been to make the negro's administration a failure.

 

 

Which would be a good thing. However, up until now it seems to me that the Negro has gotten pretty much what he wants:

 

1. A "Deal" with Iran

 

2. Obamacare, thanks to Justice Roberts

 

3. Trading 5 for 1 terrorist hostages

 

4. Basically open borders

 

5. Fast & furious

 

6. Elimination, in progress, of the coal industry

 

7. All the money he wanted, from Speaker Ryan

 

And the list goes on, women in combat, "Red Line in the sand", & on & on.

 

 

This has nothing to do with being black, Dabnis. It has to do with being 'Red'. Do you really think the Hildabeast or Bernie-Back-In-The-USSR would have behaved any differently?

 

 

I used another poster's comments about BO being a negro. It doesn't matter, with the exception of

giving him something to hide behind.

 

"Behave differently"? Our President has the big desk in this country. I would assume any President

will use his power to achieve his goals. The thing of concern is that BO & Hillary have the wrong goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He got things he didn't want too, such as people like you who have been driven to being reactionary, mindlessly fighting him on everything. It was too early for a black President. Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. This is how Trump gets so much traction from questioning birth certificates and college records. There is something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones....

That's pure unmitigated bullshit, Mark, and you know it. This attitude is quite disingenuous, and IMHO largely responsible for fomenting the increased racial tensions we've experienced during Obama's presidency.

 

The whole Birther episode comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

He got things he didn't want too, such as people like you who have been driven to being reactionary, mindlessly fighting him on everything. It was too early for a black President. Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. This is how Trump gets so much traction from questioning birth certificates and college records. There is something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones....

That's pure unmitigated bullshit, Mark, and you know it. This attitude is quite disingenuous, and IMHO largely responsible for fomenting the increased racial tensions we've experienced during Obama's presidency.

 

The whole Birther episode comes to mind.

 

 

Yes, I wonder why the long form took so long to print? Maybe they used slow drying ink?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<SNIP>

 

Agree with what the majority of what you said.

 

I've seen and heard from some folks who have remained quiet during the Obama administration, but are feeling emboldened to speak out, with the Trump surge. Some of the stuff I hear is out-and-out hate. Really vile and disgusting stuff.

 

I sincerely hope that those folks are a vocal minority. But, I have a sense it is not as small as we'd like.

 

 

I sincerely hope that you are mistaken in this. If not - I think we're all in for a lot of disappointment and angst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<SNIP>

 

Agree with what the majority of what you said.

 

I've seen and heard from some folks who have remained quiet during the Obama administration, but are feeling emboldened to speak out, with the Trump surge. Some of the stuff I hear is out-and-out hate. Really vile and disgusting stuff.

 

I sincerely hope that those folks are a vocal minority. But, I have a sense it is not as small as we'd like.

 

 

I sincerely hope that you are mistaken in this. If not - I think we're all in for a lot of disappointment and angst.

 

 

Me, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's pure unmitigated bullshit, Mark, and you know it. This attitude is quite disingenuous, and IMHO largely responsible for fomenting the increased racial tensions we've experienced during Obama's presidency.

The whole Birther episode comes to mind.

 

Yes, I wonder why the long form took so long to print? Maybe they used slow drying ink?

 

Case in point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

In Mark's post # 173, he referred to BO as a "Negro". Is "Negro" a bad word?

Share this post


Link to post