IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 By some estimates, DeVos and her family have donated over $200 million to Republicans nationally, including sizable donations to many of the senators who will vote on her confirmation. In fact, DeVos is open about her support of pay-for-play, once stating that I have decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return.' Here's the thing. The reason the only people who take you seriously here are gator and baskin is because you can't, in all honesty, post what you wrote above with a straight face. Barack Obama was giving out lifetime appointments as Flea Catcher Czar for anyone who donated $100 and a Twinkie to his campaign. His entire first year was handing out titles and cash to everyone who helped him. And yet, who here remembers how concerned Pasta Joe was about this? Anyone? Bueller? If this REALLY mattered to you, you'd have been upset eight years ago. But no.
IndyMark Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 No................no thrashing. but I would point out that it was such a useless, petty remark that no one even bothered to respond to him in three hours. . I get that but I only have a few times during the week to read this site so the amount of time between a response (or lack of response) is not really relevant for me. Plus, if you follow other threads in this forum the terms "punching, brass knuckles, shoot" by that poster and others are directed to the "whiny libtards" (did I get that right?) and protesters or those who do not view Donald Trump with much reverence. I wonder if those so impassioned to support Trump or put down people who do not particular like Trump note their own hypocrisy? Most likely not, but lesson learned on my behalf and hopefully one for their behalf.
boyst Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 This is a really well thought out and reasoned thought. Stay classy my friend. I will await the predictable "verbal thrashing" on how I am a whiny liberal.......5....4...3...2...1...sensitive ass snowflake huh. Did ya get your lil panties in a bunch when Scalia's death was celebrated? Of course you did. You're superior to everyone. We bow to you.
DC Tom Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 I get that but I only have a few times during the week to read this site so the amount of time between a response (or lack of response) is not really relevant for me. Plus, if you follow other threads in this forum the terms "punching, brass knuckles, shoot" by that poster and others are directed to the "whiny libtards" (did I get that right?) and protesters or those who do not view Donald Trump with much reverence. I wonder if those so impassioned to support Trump or put down people who do not particular like Trump note their own hypocrisy? Most likely not, but lesson learned on my behalf and hopefully one for their behalf. Don't confuse "not supporting the histrionic overreactions of the Democrats" with "supporting Trump." Trump's an !@#$. Democrats set the stage for abuse of power, then got Trump elected by alienating a wide swath of middle America over the past eight years, and refuse to own their !@#$-ups, and refuse to do anything about this mess aside from throwing temper tantrums.
B-Man Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) Neil Gorsuch: A Worthy Heir to ScaliaRead more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444437/neil-gorsuch-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-textualist-originalist-heir Gorsuch is a Colorado native and the son of a Republican politician, the late Anne Gorsuch Burford, who was a state legislator and then director of the Environmental Protection Agency for President Reagan. He attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School, after which he clerked for D.C. Circuit Court judge David Sentelle. He then clerked for Supreme Court justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy in 1993–94. The next year he studied for a doctorate of philosophy at Oxford University under the legal philosopher John Finnis. Eminently qualified........................go ahead dems, start your smears. Conservatives tonight.................... Edited February 1, 2017 by B-Man
Andrew Son Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Neil Gorsuch: A Worthy Heir to Scalia Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444437/neil-gorsuch-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-textualist-originalist-heir Gorsuch is a Colorado native and the son of a Republican politician, the late Anne Gorsuch Burford, who was a state legislator and then director of the Environmental Protection Agency for President Reagan. He attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School, after which he clerked for D.C. Circuit Court judge David Sentelle. He then clerked for Supreme Court justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy in 199394. The next year he studied for a doctorate of philosophy at Oxford University under the legal philosopher John Finnis. Eminently qualified........................go ahead dems, start your smears. Conservatives tonight.................... As a dem I have no problem with this appointment. Qualified and respected
PastaJoe Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Eminently qualified........................go ahead dems, start your smears. Are you talking about Merrick Garland? I agree, eminently qualified.
IDBillzFan Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 directed to the "whiny libtards" (did I get that right?) We keep telling him 'whiny libtards' is redundant, but he calls them that anyway
IDBillzFan Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Shumer statement. You'll want to click on it to enlarge. It's like he slept through the last eight years.
B-Man Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Are you talking about Merrick Garland? I agree, eminently qualified. Nope, that decision was left up to the American people, and they chose Trump over Hillary . One of the main reasons that I decided to overlook The Donald's blowhard actions was the Supreme Court, and he came through. Gorsuch is as good as it gets. First-rate intellect. Has integrity. Writes brilliantly. And, most important, he treats his role properly. And, like Scalia, Gorsuch isn’t a conservative so much as a textualist and an originalist who takes the law as the law and not as putty.
DC Tom Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Are you talking about Merrick Garland? I agree, eminently qualified. Garland and Gorsuch are both well qualified. To pretend otherwise is to play the same partisan game that made your party the irrelevancy it currently is.
B-Man Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) TIMELY: 5 Things You Should Know About Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch. LOL.............ABC News rushes out DNC release on SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch before he’s done speaking and as one of your constituents Senator Schumer, I'm kind of confused by your slander towards Judge Gorsuch. why then did you vote for him previously Senator ? Remember, Gorsuch was confirmed unanimously by the Senate to the 10th Circuit. What has changed ? (rhetorical) Sasse Statement on Supreme Court Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement regarding President Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court. "Neil Gorsuch is a highly-regarded jurist with a record of distinguished service, rooted in respect for the law. He was confirmed unanimously by Democrats and Republicans. Senator Schumer is about to tell Americans that Judge Gorsuch kicks puppies and heckles piano recitals. That’s hogwash. Democrats are working overtime to cast Judge Gorsuch as a reflexive partisan but, as I said when Justice Scalia died, there are no Republican or Democratic seats on the Supreme Court. Edited February 1, 2017 by B-Man
PastaJoe Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Nope, that decision was left up to the American people, and they chose Trump over Hillary.[The people chose Obama to be the president until 1/20/17. Garland's nomination remained before the Senate for 293 days, more than twice as long as any other Supreme Court nomination. He wasn't even given the courtesy of Senate hearings let alone a vote, as you well know. So all the people who chose Obama were denied their representation. So according to you and the Republicans, a president can only make appointments for the first 3 years. Good to know if it comes up at the end of 2019.
PastaJoe Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 and as one of your constituents Senator Schumer, I'm kind of confused by your slander towards Judge Gorsuch. why then did you vote for him previously Senator ? Remember, Gorsuch was confirmed unanimously by the Senate to the 10th Circuit. What has changed ? (rhetorical)[/size] Why did a majorty of Republican Senators vote for Merrick Garland for the D.C. Circuit court, but then blocked him from even getting hearings for the Supreme Court? What changed? (rhetorical)
Joe Miner Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 The people chose Obama to be the president until 1/20/17. Garland's nomination remained before the Senate for 293 days, more than twice as long as any other Supreme Court nomination. He wasn't even given the courtesy of Senate hearings let alone a vote, as you well know. So all the people who chose Obama were denied their representation. So according to you and the Republicans, a president can only make appointments for the first 3 years. Good to know if it comes up at the end of 2019. Please let us all know when you pass 9th grade civics. 5th time's a charm?
IndyMark Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 sensitive ass snowflake huh. Did ya get your lil panties in a bunch when Scalia's death was celebrated? Of course you did. You're superior to everyone. We bow to you. Uh, so what I typed comes across to you as my "panties in a bunch"? And your use of "snowflake" is solid. To your point, no, actually I found Scalia quite thoughtful and a great view on the high court. His death was sad and nothing to cheer and I certainly did not wish it nor for the acceleration of it ....unlike that of the poster I highlighted. Yet, your reaction to my post is totally illustrative of my point that an idealogue, regardless of political slant, is unfortunate and hypocritical. You are exhibiting the exact behavior of those you are calling out (the protesting libtards?) by the attack on my reasoned and calm post - de facto, you are as much of the problem as them. Just saying. You would do well by being a bit more reflective. Good luck. Don't confuse "not supporting the histrionic overreactions of the Democrats" with "supporting Trump." Trump's an !@#$. Democrats set the stage for abuse of power, then got Trump elected by alienating a wide swath of middle America over the past eight years, and refuse to own their !@#$-ups, and refuse to do anything about this mess aside from throwing temper tantrums. Agree; yet as evidenced of the tantrums of some here continually bashing those not supporting Trump is a bit hypocritical, no? Note the one response I got earlier......I called it, it was 100% predictable, and not dissimilar to the "libtards". I did not even provoke anything, beyond calling out that hoping for a death simply for a seat on the supreme court is a bit amateurish and low brow. I would have hoped any one associated as being a Bills fan would be above that level of dimness......and yes, I know there exist "libtards" that say the same thing - I never rebuked that. Being a centrist is really interesting in these times. This stated, I will predict a response that says I am not a "centrist" blah, blah, cuz life is black and white and one is either "with us / or against us".....such an american thought. Anyway, my original point, that both sides (especially the idealogues) are the issue and the hypocrisy is amusing - that is all.
Joe Miner Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Uh, so what I typed comes across to you as my "panties in a bunch"? And your use of "snowflake" is solid. To your point, no, actually I found Scalia quite thoughtful and a great view on the high court. His death was sad and nothing to cheer and I certainly did not wish it nor for the acceleration of it ....unlike that of the poster I highlighted. Yet, your reaction to my post is totally illustrative of my point that an idealogue, regardless of political slant, is unfortunate and hypocritical. You are exhibiting the exact behavior of those you are calling out (the protesting libtards?) by the attack on my reasoned and calm post - de facto, you are as much of the problem as them. Just saying. You would do well by being a bit more reflective. Good luck. Agree; yet as evidenced of the tantrums of some here continually bashing those not supporting Trump is a bit hypocritical, no? Note the one response I got earlier......I called it, it was 100% predictable, and not dissimilar to the "libtards". I did not even provoke anything, beyond calling out that hoping for a death simply for a seat on the supreme court is a bit amateurish and low brow. I would have hoped any one associated as being a Bills fan would be above that level of dimness......and yes, I know there exist "libtards" that say the same thing - I never rebuked that. Being a centrist is really interesting in these times. This stated, I will predict a response that says I am not a "centrist" blah, blah, cuz life is black and white and one is either "with us / or against us".....such an american thought. Anyway, my original point, that both sides (especially the idealogues) are the issue and the hypocrisy is amusing - that is all. Please don't start a thread on race.
DC Tom Posted February 1, 2017 Posted February 1, 2017 Agree; yet as evidenced of the tantrums of some here continually bashing those not supporting Trump is a bit hypocritical, no? It's less hypocrisy than schadenfreude, and that's rather the point. Eight years of the left marginalizing and disempowering the right, and now that the shoe's on the other foot the left is throwing a temper tantrum. The perception that it's a richly deserved comeuppance does not necessarily mean people think it's right. (And note, I may be suffering from my own confirmation bias here, as that is how I feel about it.) Being a centrist is really interesting in these times. This stated, I will predict a response that says I am not a "centrist" blah, blah, cuz life is black and white and one is either "with us / or against us".....such an american thought. I get that all the time. The way I know I'm a centrist is that the right-wing extremists insist I'm a liberal, and the left-wing extremists insist I'm a Nazi. I figure if I'm pissing off everyone, I must be right. But we can't just disagree in this country any more...it has to be a life-or-death struggle. You want to see the real slide to fascism? That's it, not electing an orange doofus to President.
Recommended Posts