(04-11-2016 11:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yeah...you go with that. But when you bring up Tyler, Fillmore and Andrew Johnson, that's not precedent, that's ancient history.
There isn't one chance in hell that you would be all okay with ancient 'precedent' for this if the R's and D's were reversed and you know it.

And there's no way in hell that you wouldn't be taking the opposite side if the R's and D's were reversed on this.

(04-11-2016 11:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yeah...you go with that. But when you bring up Tyler, Fillmore and Andrew Johnson, that's not precedent, that's ancient history.
There isn't one chance in hell that you would be all okay with ancient 'precedent' for this if the R's and D's were reversed and you know it.

And all of you would be defending it if Rs and Ds were reversed. The very people crying the crocodile tears-Obama and Biden-were saying the same things the Republicans are.

Except that they weren't. But details don't matter to Republicans I guess.

Except they were.

Maybe they did not specifically call for no vote, but they did specifically call for voting no, which has the same result.

If you want to split hairs over insignificant technicalities, go right ahead. But from any substantive point of view, there was and is no material difference in the positions.

And regardless of such hair-splitting, it is quite clear that democrats have reversed themselves 180 degrees on this issue since the shoe was on the other foot--just as republicans have.

Both sides are putting team ahead of country. I have no problem criticizing republicans for changing their tune, and have already posted to that effect on this thread. What I do have a problem with is acting like democrats are not equally lying, dishonest, and deceitful b*st*rds.

Why I vote libertarian.

Well they actually did neither. The speech that everyone brings up with Biden was on a separate issue, when there was no nominee even being discussed (and no vacancy). Biden commented that during the heat of election cycle (specifying it as the last few months before the election) the senate should wait to bring a nominee to the floor so that the vote is in a less politicized environment. The idea being it would be harder for a candidate to get a fair vote in a highly politicized environment. He made no comments about specifically denying a nominee a vote and in fact he said they would bring a vote after the election, but during the president's term.

(04-11-2016 11:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yeah...you go with that. But when you bring up Tyler, Fillmore and Andrew Johnson, that's not precedent, that's ancient history.
There isn't one chance in hell that you would be all okay with ancient 'precedent' for this if the R's and D's were reversed and you know it.

And all of you would be defending it if Rs and Ds were reversed. The very people crying the crocodile tears-Obama and Biden-were saying the same things the Republicans are.

Except that they weren't. But details don't matter to Republicans I guess.

Except they were.

Maybe they did not specifically call for no vote, but they did specifically call for voting no, which has the same result.

If you want to split hairs over insignificant technicalities, go right ahead. But from any substantive point of view, there was and is no material difference in the positions.

And regardless of such hair-splitting, it is quite clear that democrats have reversed themselves 180 degrees on this issue since the shoe was on the other foot--just as republicans have.

Both sides are putting team ahead of country. I have no problem criticizing republicans for changing their tune, and have already posted to that effect on this thread. What I do have a problem with is acting like democrats are not equally lying, dishonest, and deceitful b*st*rds.

Why I vote libertarian.

splitting hairs

That's patently ridiculous. By refusing to even hold hearings and/or a vote, they are refusing to put their specific objections to the candidate on the public record. They are not advising at all. They are not doing their constitutional duty.

(04-11-2016 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yeah...you go with that. But when you bring up Tyler, Fillmore and Andrew Johnson, that's not precedent, that's ancient history.
There isn't one chance in hell that you would be all okay with ancient 'precedent' for this if the R's and D's were reversed and you know it.

And there's no way in hell that you wouldn't be taking the opposite side if the R's and D's were reversed on this.

Wrong. I would want them to hold the hearings so we could see whether the candidate was qualified or not. And if I felt he/she wasn't, I would want no votes.

(04-11-2016 11:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yeah...you go with that. But when you bring up Tyler, Fillmore and Andrew Johnson, that's not precedent, that's ancient history.

There isn't one chance in hell that you would be all okay with ancient 'precedent' for this if the R's and D's were reversed and you know it.

And all of you would be defending it if Rs and Ds were reversed. The very people crying the crocodile tears-Obama and Biden-were saying the same things the Republicans are.

Except that they weren't. But details don't matter to Republicans I guess.

They were saying the same things. But truth and facts are irrelevant to Democrats.

NO. They did not say the same thing. AT ALL. And the situations were not identical either.

Well Biden said any of W.'s nominees in his last year and a half shouldn't be approved since he was a lame duck. Even Obama is more honest than you are and claiming he was wrong back then. Its pretty hard to be less honest than Obama about making a mistake.

(04-11-2016 12:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  And all of you would be defending it if Rs and Ds were reversed. The very people crying the crocodile tears-Obama and Biden-were saying the same things the Republicans are.

Except that they weren't. But details don't matter to Republicans I guess.

They were saying the same things. But truth and facts are irrelevant to Democrats.

NO. They did not say the same thing. AT ALL. And the situations were not identical either.

Well Biden said any of W.'s nominees in his last year and a half shouldn't be approved since he was a lame duck. Even Obama is more honest than you are and claiming he was wrong back then. Its pretty hard to be less honest than Obama about making a mistake.

That's not what he said, but that may be what some conservative commentator said he said.

Here is actually what he said:

Biden commented that during the heat of election cycle (specifying it as the last few months before the election) the senate should wait to bring a nominee to the floor so that the vote is in a less politicized environment. The idea being it would be harder for a candidate to get a fair vote in a highly politicized environment. He made no comments about specifically denying a nominee a vote and in fact he said they would bring a vote after the election, but during the president's term.

(03-17-2016 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  More like being **** on. McConnell is theoretically trying to write in a clause whereby citizens vote on judicial nominees that are already constitutionally mandated to be selected by the president and considered and voted on by congress.

I'm laughing at you because you spend all this time claiming that what Republicans are saying isn't IDENTICAL to what Democrats are saying, and then you say this....

Hint... Nobody will vote on the nominee unless the 'winner' specifically nominates one during the election.... and even then, it takes Congress to agree. They MAY be voting on a 'political leaning' of the court, but that is actually done all the time anyway. Democrats have long been running on the idea that voting for Republicans will mean a court that will take away rights from women or have people with uzi's walking the streets etc etc etc.... Republicans do the same thing.

(03-17-2016 09:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So asking them to merely holding a hearing is demanding a rubber stamp?

It's pretty obvious (you almost admit it yourself) that you want them on the record opposing this guy for some reason so that you can make a political issue out of it.

As I said from the beginning, has they not said up front that they want to put off any consideration, Obama would have put forth a minority with these same views on guns and then the left would have screamed 'racism/sexism' when it obviously wasn't... since they DID do that, he nominates a 'white guy' with those same views in an effort to get them to 'swing at HIS pitch'.

(03-29-2016 02:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Looks like turtle's cabal is starting to show some cracks. Oops.

Quote:Two weeks into the nomination fight, 16 Republican senators now say they will meet with Garland — over 25 percent of the GOP caucus —

How is 'meeting with him' anything more than addressing their own constituents who wouldn't approve this guy either, but don't like being told they were stonewalling?

Silly.

FTR, Garland's apparent position on guns is 'out of the mainstream', even within the democratic party. He apparently wouldn't let someone who was vetted and registered and licensed keep a gun in a safe in his home without it being rendered useless for self-defense.

According to the left, NONE of you are trying to stop people from being able to defend their homes... and you just want their guns registered and licensed. Obviously ONE of you is out of step or lying. I'll let you decide which.

(04-11-2016 11:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That's patently ridiculous. By refusing to even hold hearings and/or a vote, they are refusing to put their specific objections to the candidate on the public record. They are not advising at all. They are not doing their constitutional duty.

Certainly the advised him NOT to nominate anyone. That sure seems like advice. There is no obligation to put their specific objections on the record either... just a simple yes/no vote. They haven't said they wouldn't give him a hearing AT ALL... just not until after the election. Just as Biden suggested.

Sorry buddy, but you're your own worst enemy here

(04-11-2016 02:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-17-2016 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  More like being **** on. McConnell is theoretically trying to write in a clause whereby citizens vote on judicial nominees that are already constitutionally mandated to be selected by the president and considered and voted on by congress.

I'm laughing at you because you spend all this time claiming that what Republicans are saying isn't IDENTICAL to what Democrats are saying, and then you say this....

Hint... Nobody will vote on the nominee unless the 'winner' specifically nominates one during the election.... and even then, it takes Congress to agree. They MAY be voting on a 'political leaning' of the court, but that is actually done all the time anyway. Democrats have long been running on the idea that voting for Republicans will mean a court that will take away rights from women or have people with uzi's walking the streets etc etc etc.... Republicans do the same thing.

(03-17-2016 09:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So asking them to merely holding a hearing is demanding a rubber stamp?

It's pretty obvious (you almost admit it yourself) that you want them on the record opposing this guy for some reason so that you can make a political issue out of it.

As I said from the beginning, has they not said up front that they want to put off any consideration, Obama would have put forth a minority with these same views on guns and then the left would have screamed 'racism/sexism' when it obviously wasn't... since they DID do that, he nominates a 'white guy' with those same views in an effort to get them to 'swing at HIS pitch'.

(03-29-2016 02:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Looks like turtle's cabal is starting to show some cracks. Oops.

Quote:Two weeks into the nomination fight, 16 Republican senators now say they will meet with Garland — over 25 percent of the GOP caucus —

How is 'meeting with him' anything more than addressing their own constituents who wouldn't approve this guy either, but don't like being told they were stonewalling?

Silly.

FTR, Garland's apparent position on guns is 'out of the mainstream', even within the democratic party. He apparently wouldn't let someone who was vetted and registered and licensed keep a gun in a safe in his home without it being rendered useless for self-defense.

According to the left, NONE of you are trying to stop people from being able to defend their homes... and you just want their guns registered and licensed. Obviously ONE of you is out of step or lying. I'll let you decide which.

(04-11-2016 11:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That's patently ridiculous. By refusing to even hold hearings and/or a vote, they are refusing to put their specific objections to the candidate on the public record. They are not advising at all. They are not doing their constitutional duty.

Certainly the advised him NOT to nominate anyone. That sure seems like advice. There is no obligation to put their specific objections on the record either... just a simple yes/no vote. They haven't said they wouldn't give him a hearing AT ALL... just not until after the election. Just as Biden suggested.

Sorry buddy, but you're your own worst enemy here

Dude...get a new hobby. I posted much of that stuff weeks ago. Don't you get it? I don't care what you think about everything I post...and I normally read about one sentence of it because I bore of your nonsense fairly quickly. Don't you have all these hospitals to run?

(04-11-2016 11:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Wrong. I would want them to hold the hearings so we could see whether the candidate was qualified or not. And if I felt he/she wasn't, I would want no votes.

We haven't had a hearing for the purpose of determining whether the nominee is qualified or not in at least three decades. The purpose of hearings is political grandstanding, nothing more. I don't see that a battle of sound bytes, which is all we have any more, actually accomplishes anything worthwhile.

Again, all you are trying to do is find some hair to split so you can claim the two positions are vastly different. They're not. Conducting hearings that are a sham because the vote is preordained is not better than being honest and saying we won't waste time with hearings.

(04-11-2016 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dude...get a new hobby. I posted much of that stuff weeks ago. Don't you get it? I don't care what you think about everything I post...and I normally read about one sentence of it because I bore of your nonsense fairly quickly. Don't you have all these hospitals to run?

Sorry Tom. Didn't know there was a statute of limitations on stupid comments.

Hint... I read the headlines... if it's interesting I read more. If it's not I don't. I also get notified of threads I've posted in that have new responses... and don't bother to read the dates.

If you find yourself getting frequently corrected, maybe you should write more intelligent things. As to my job, I do just fine. It doesn't tale long to respond to comments like yours.

(04-11-2016 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 02:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-17-2016 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  More like being **** on. McConnell is theoretically trying to write in a clause whereby citizens vote on judicial nominees that are already constitutionally mandated to be selected by the president and considered and voted on by congress.

I'm laughing at you because you spend all this time claiming that what Republicans are saying isn't IDENTICAL to what Democrats are saying, and then you say this....

Hint... Nobody will vote on the nominee unless the 'winner' specifically nominates one during the election.... and even then, it takes Congress to agree. They MAY be voting on a 'political leaning' of the court, but that is actually done all the time anyway. Democrats have long been running on the idea that voting for Republicans will mean a court that will take away rights from women or have people with uzi's walking the streets etc etc etc.... Republicans do the same thing.

(03-17-2016 09:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So asking them to merely holding a hearing is demanding a rubber stamp?

It's pretty obvious (you almost admit it yourself) that you want them on the record opposing this guy for some reason so that you can make a political issue out of it.

As I said from the beginning, has they not said up front that they want to put off any consideration, Obama would have put forth a minority with these same views on guns and then the left would have screamed 'racism/sexism' when it obviously wasn't... since they DID do that, he nominates a 'white guy' with those same views in an effort to get them to 'swing at HIS pitch'.

(03-29-2016 02:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Looks like turtle's cabal is starting to show some cracks. Oops.

Quote:Two weeks into the nomination fight, 16 Republican senators now say they will meet with Garland — over 25 percent of the GOP caucus —

How is 'meeting with him' anything more than addressing their own constituents who wouldn't approve this guy either, but don't like being told they were stonewalling?

Silly.

FTR, Garland's apparent position on guns is 'out of the mainstream', even within the democratic party. He apparently wouldn't let someone who was vetted and registered and licensed keep a gun in a safe in his home without it being rendered useless for self-defense.

According to the left, NONE of you are trying to stop people from being able to defend their homes... and you just want their guns registered and licensed. Obviously ONE of you is out of step or lying. I'll let you decide which.

(04-11-2016 11:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That's patently ridiculous. By refusing to even hold hearings and/or a vote, they are refusing to put their specific objections to the candidate on the public record. They are not advising at all. They are not doing their constitutional duty.

Certainly the advised him NOT to nominate anyone. That sure seems like advice. There is no obligation to put their specific objections on the record either... just a simple yes/no vote. They haven't said they wouldn't give him a hearing AT ALL... just not until after the election. Just as Biden suggested.

Sorry buddy, but you're your own worst enemy here

Dude...get a new hobby. I posted much of that stuff weeks ago. Don't you get it? I don't care what you think about everything I post...and I normally read about one sentence of it because I bore of your nonsense fairly quickly. Don't you have all these hospitals to run?

You obviously do care, otherwise you would've let his post go unanswered.

(04-11-2016 07:39 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 02:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-17-2016 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  More like being **** on. McConnell is theoretically trying to write in a clause whereby citizens vote on judicial nominees that are already constitutionally mandated to be selected by the president and considered and voted on by congress.

I'm laughing at you because you spend all this time claiming that what Republicans are saying isn't IDENTICAL to what Democrats are saying, and then you say this....

Hint... Nobody will vote on the nominee unless the 'winner' specifically nominates one during the election.... and even then, it takes Congress to agree. They MAY be voting on a 'political leaning' of the court, but that is actually done all the time anyway. Democrats have long been running on the idea that voting for Republicans will mean a court that will take away rights from women or have people with uzi's walking the streets etc etc etc.... Republicans do the same thing.

(03-17-2016 09:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So asking them to merely holding a hearing is demanding a rubber stamp?

It's pretty obvious (you almost admit it yourself) that you want them on the record opposing this guy for some reason so that you can make a political issue out of it.

As I said from the beginning, has they not said up front that they want to put off any consideration, Obama would have put forth a minority with these same views on guns and then the left would have screamed 'racism/sexism' when it obviously wasn't... since they DID do that, he nominates a 'white guy' with those same views in an effort to get them to 'swing at HIS pitch'.

(03-29-2016 02:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Looks like turtle's cabal is starting to show some cracks. Oops.

Quote:Two weeks into the nomination fight, 16 Republican senators now say they will meet with Garland — over 25 percent of the GOP caucus —

How is 'meeting with him' anything more than addressing their own constituents who wouldn't approve this guy either, but don't like being told they were stonewalling?

Silly.

FTR, Garland's apparent position on guns is 'out of the mainstream', even within the democratic party. He apparently wouldn't let someone who was vetted and registered and licensed keep a gun in a safe in his home without it being rendered useless for self-defense.

According to the left, NONE of you are trying to stop people from being able to defend their homes... and you just want their guns registered and licensed. Obviously ONE of you is out of step or lying. I'll let you decide which.

(04-11-2016 11:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That's patently ridiculous. By refusing to even hold hearings and/or a vote, they are refusing to put their specific objections to the candidate on the public record. They are not advising at all. They are not doing their constitutional duty.

Certainly the advised him NOT to nominate anyone. That sure seems like advice. There is no obligation to put their specific objections on the record either... just a simple yes/no vote. They haven't said they wouldn't give him a hearing AT ALL... just not until after the election. Just as Biden suggested.

Sorry buddy, but you're your own worst enemy here

Dude...get a new hobby. I posted much of that stuff weeks ago. Don't you get it? I don't care what you think about everything I post...and I normally read about one sentence of it because I bore of your nonsense fairly quickly. Don't you have all these hospitals to run?

You obviously do care, otherwise you would've let his post go unanswered.

Nah...it's much more fun to laugh at the stupidity. And you'll notice that I did not respond to his latest reply and in fact I scrolled past it without even reading it. It's quite comical really...when I see that he's been the last to respond to a thread that I have posted in, I know with near 100% certainty that he was responding to something I said and no one else. In this case, I replied because the stuff he responded to I posted in this thread well over a week ago. So he had to scroll through a bunch of old posts and cut and paste just to reply just to me. Just another on my stalker list.

Merrick Garland?

(03-16-2016 11:09 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:06 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I do think they'll give him a hearing, but I don't think they'll ever actually vote on the nomination to be honest.

Fine. Deal with Hippie McLiberal next January.

bwahahahahahahahahahahaha