Joe Miner Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 2 hours ago, Cinga said: At work so half paying attention through youtube The comments going through whenever a Dem speaks is hilarious! I watched about 2 minutes if that crap. The idiot from Hawaii was making some impassioned plea about people’s lives. No questions that I heard about cases, legal rulings, interpretation of laws on the books, etc... Anything that might be relevant to determining if a nominee is qualified, prepared, or capable of doing this job. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 SEEN ON FACEBOOK: “Special needs mom of 7 kids having pics of sick children shoved in her face by senators who support late-term abortion up until the moment of birth is the grossest, most ***** up hypocrisy I’ve ever seen.” 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 12, 2020 Author Share Posted October 12, 2020 Booker doing a good job showing this nasty pro-life lady who wants to cheer with the House Republicans taking away people’s health insurance. She is gleeful at this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoshin Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) 43 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Gee, ya think? This is the cover they are taking for their hypocrisy on the Garland nomination statements. You don't really think that if the Kavanaugh mess hadn't happened, they would be fine delaying BArrett do you? Edited October 12, 2020 by shoshin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 16 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: No one should have a problem with the confirmation of Barrett. She is well qualified for the position. I doubt there would be any pushback from the left of it wasn't for Garland. 3 minutes ago, shoshin said: This is the cover they are taking for their hypocrisy on the Garland nomination statements. You don't really think that if the Kavanaugh mess hadn't happened, they would be fine delaying BArrett do you? I guess I will repeat this since the "garland nomination seems to be today's hypocritical fallback. 11 minutes ago, B-Man said: Nice try. History did NOT start 4 years ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: I guess I will repeat this since the "garland nomination seems to be today's hypocritical fallback. The Senate's decision to not consider Garland before the election is tied directly to the mysterious surrounding of how that open seat was created in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, spartacus said: The Senate's decision to not consider Garland before the election is tied directly to the mysterious surrounding of how that open seat was created in the first place I thought Garland was replacing Scalia when he died? Am I thinking of the wrong seat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, Buffalo Timmy said: I thought Garland was replacing Scalia when he died? Am I thinking of the wrong seat? absolutely it is how he died that raises the strong possibliltiy of hank-panky in replacing a strong conservative with a liberal under Obama https://z3news.com/w/ten-disturbing-facts-justice-scalias-death/ Edited October 12, 2020 by spartacus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 Just now, Buffalo Timmy said: I thought Garland was replacing Scalia when he died? Am I thinking of the wrong seat? I believe he is referring to how Scalia died, but that is not really the point of this thread, or the hearing today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Booker doing a good job showing this nasty pro-life lady who wants to cheer with the House Republicans taking away people’s health insurance. She is gleeful at this How? How will SCOTUS take away your health "care?" Words matter. Logic matters. Facts matter. And, why does that even matter? Why don't they press judges about whether or not they'd take away my guns. Edited October 12, 2020 by Big Blitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 Once the nuclear option was passed to go from 60 votes to confirm a SC Justice to a simple majority all heck will continue to break loose . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 12, 2020 Author Share Posted October 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Big Blitz said: How? How will SCOTUS take away your health "care?" Words matter. Logic matters. Facts matter. And, why does that even matter? Why don't they press judges about whether or not they'd take away my guns. Just rule the health care law unconstitutional. She is a wicked one that will do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 Harris is up and I'm already tied of her campaign speech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 12, 2020 Author Share Posted October 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: How? How will SCOTUS take away your health "care?" Words matter. Logic matters. Facts matter. And, why does that even matter? Why don't they press judges about whether or not they'd take away my guns. Just rule the health care law unconstitutional. She is a wicked one that will do it Why does it matter? LOL. it doesn't to you, I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Just rule the health care law unconstitutional. She is a wicked one that will do it nevermind THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 12, 2020 Author Share Posted October 12, 2020 Just now, Cinga said: Harris is up and I'm already tied of her campaign speech You should be prepared to be hearing from her for years and years now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Just rule the health care law unconstitutional. She is a wicked one that will do it I want the data that shows lives saved post Obamacare vs before. Where is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 12, 2020 Author Share Posted October 12, 2020 Just now, Cinga said: nevermind THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL huh? Is it? Or is helping the people just an unconstitutaional idea that Conservatives hate? Hurt the people! That's their motto. No wonder America is rejecting this sadism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Just rule the health care law unconstitutional. She is a wicked one that will do it Gee, one would think it would be an easier option for Congress to just write a law that is actually Constitutional... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 Just now, Tiberius said: You should be prepared to be hearing from her for years and years now As a Senator I know, cause I doubt CA will vote her out anytime soon 🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 12, 2020 Author Share Posted October 12, 2020 Just now, Big Blitz said: I want the data that shows lives saved post Obamacare vs before. Where is it? Go fish. You got nothing. Just now, Koko78 said: Gee, one would think it would be an easier option for Congress to just write a law that is actually Constitutional... under these justices? Impossible, that's why the evil and secretive Federalist Society vomited each one of them up. Who funds this court? Who paid for these evil sadistic "judges"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: under these justices? Impossible, that's why the evil and secretive Federalist Society vomited each one of them up. Who funds this court? Who paid for these evil sadistic "judges"? You're right, how DARE they refuse to legislate from the bench based on their feelings! Those evil bastards! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 6 minutes ago, Cinga said: Harris is up and I'm already tied of her campaign speech Harris, "you are no RBG". Well duh. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 12, 2020 Author Share Posted October 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Koko78 said: You're right, how DARE they refuse to legislate from the bench based on their feelings! Those evil bastards! They are totally going with their feelings. Did you see House Republicans go sexually wild when voting to hurt people? They wanted to kill the healthcare and it made them go wild. She is no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoshin Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 31 minutes ago, spartacus said: absolutely it is how he died that raises the strong possibliltiy of hank-panky in replacing a strong conservative with a liberal under Obama https://z3news.com/w/ten-disturbing-facts-justice-scalias-death/ Oh Jesus Christ. Come on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 17 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Gee, one would think it would be an easier option for Congress to just write a law that is actually Constitutional... What if the Democrats win the WH , Senate , keep the House and pack the SC . Whatever law they pass the SC could say it is Constitutional. That is why I hate partisan politics it could get to that point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 48 minutes ago, shoshin said: This is the cover they are taking for their hypocrisy on the Garland nomination statements. You don't really think that if the Kavanaugh mess hadn't happened, they would be fine delaying BArrett do you? I think it has everything to do with the vile, disgusting and baseless attacks in an attempt to ruin a man and his family. Nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, shoshin said: Oh Jesus Christ. Come on. 4 years ago - everyone shared your response after 4 years of the resistance, fabricated Russia investigation, bogus impeachment trial, and stated intent to never concede in retrospect, removing Scalia looks more like another orchestrated op Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, ALF said: What if the Democrats win the WH , Senate , keep the House and pack the SC . Whatever law they pass the SC could say it is Constitutional. That is why I hate partisan politics it could get to that point. And when that happens, along with the idea of adding DC and PR as states and banning the EC, we sadly become a totalitarian state because they would cement this nation as a one party state under only Democrat Party control. Edited October 12, 2020 by Cinga 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 12 minutes ago, Cinga said: And when that happens, along with the idea of adding DC and PR as states and banning the EC, we sadly become a totalitarian state because they would cement this nation as a one party state under only Democrat Party control. Or they could be voted out again if they overreach. Maybe this time by a Republican Party that builds a new coalition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 3 hours ago, section122 said: If packing the court would make you mad if the dems did it, it should make you mad if the republicans do it.... Put differently, if you disagree with an issue it shouldn't matter which side is pushing that issue forward. I didn't say I would agree with it. It's wrong no matter who did it. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Or they could be voted out again if they overreach. Maybe this time by a Republican Party that builds a new coalition. elections would become meaningless - just like other banana republics there would be elections - but the vote count would surprisingly be always D any protests to the courts would also surprisingly always be favor of the D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 56 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: I want the data that shows lives saved post Obamacare vs before. Where is it? Do we count 2020? More people with health insurance means more people with health coverage, which hopefully means more lives saved. 1 hour ago, B-Man said: I guess I will repeat this since the "garland nomination seems to be today's hypocritical fallback. It did though when McConnell made up some dumb rule 4 years ago that never existed before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 9 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Or they could be voted out again if they overreach. Maybe this time by a Republican Party that builds a new coalition. Obviously you either don't understand what your party is trying to do, or you're compliant with it. As @spartacus says above, what good is an election under single party control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Goat Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 13 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: It did though when McConnell made up some dumb rule 4 years ago that never existed before. Harry Reid taught him to do that. 🤷♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 5 minutes ago, Cinga said: Obviously you either don't understand what your party is trying to do, or you're compliant with it. As @spartacus says above, what good is an election under single party control? Can you expand into this? What is single party control in this scenario? Just now, Golden Goat said: Harry Reid taught him to do that. 🤷♂️ Harry Reid taught him to waive the filabuster on lower court and judicial appointments. 4 years ago, McConnell made up a rule on not appointing a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. Like 3 years ago, McConnel followed Reid and got rid of the filibuster on the Supreme Court. Reid never made up a rule of when the Senate should offer consent on Supreme Court appointments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Goat Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 6 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: Can you expand into this? What is single party control in this scenario? Harry Reid taught him to waive the filabuster on lower court and judicial appointments. 4 years ago, McConnell made up a rule on not appointing a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. Like 3 years ago, McConnel followed Reid and got rid of the filibuster on the Supreme Court. Reid never made up a rule of when the Senate should offer consent on Supreme Court appointments. You missed the point entirely. Reid and the Democrats were warned that if they played those types of games, so would the GOP. They were warned it would backfire. It did. Spectacularly. You reap what you sow. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 Just now, Golden Goat said: You missed the point entirely. Reid and the Democrats were warned that if they played those types of games, so would the GOP. They were warned it would backfire. It did. Spectacularly. You reap what you sow. Cannot the same be said that the Dems warned McConnell if you fill RGB with Barrett during an election year (which is his opposite position with Garland) that they'll pack the courts using the technique of McConnell's getting rid of the Supreme Court filabuster. You know, you reap what you sow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 7 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: Can you expand into this? What is single party control in this scenario? Read my response to Alf a few posts above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 12 minutes ago, Cinga said: Obviously you either don't understand what your party is trying to do, or you're compliant with it. As @spartacus says above, what good is an election under single party control? It's not my party. I think this is all way overblown: Dems harp on voter suppression every election (I can't wait till the stories of "long lines waiting to vote" and "misdirected to the wrong polling place" on the afternoon of November 3), and now we have Repubs joining in with "voter fraud" (watch for the "more ballots cast than people living in [Dem] precinct" stories). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts