boyst Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 29 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: hmm..how does this tweet apply to me 1) love me some Popeyes..but more of a thigh guy than drumsticks 2) Despise Trump 3) Like Kavanaugh and think he is a good nominee I'd be curious your take on the resident trolls question, but he also does fail to realize that Congress chose him and appointed him, Essentially. But, the cute argument pushed by Tibs is the best narrative constructed by the left in their organized attack that he is simply a drone for...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 The hearing made a mockery of the election, the process for choosing a SC justice, the respect for the family and children of the nominee, his commitment to public service and his courage for accepting the nomination. It was an absolute freakshow, with people screaming, unknown individuals with unfettered access to the nominee, and the words "Don't taze me bro" seem fitting here. It served as a reminder to me that for all the rhetoric that comes out of Trump's universe (verbal, tweeting, hot mic), much of which I find distasteful and divisive, its a tactic raised to the level of an art form by the left. 1
Tiberius Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The hearing made a mockery of the election, the process for choosing a SC justice, the respect for the family and children of the nominee, his commitment to public service and his courage for accepting the nomination. It was an absolute freakshow, with people screaming, unknown individuals with unfettered access to the nominee, and the words "Don't taze me bro" seem fitting here. It served as a reminder to me that for all the rhetoric that comes out of Trump's universe (verbal, tweeting, hot mic), much of which I find distasteful and divisive, its a tactic raised to the level of an art form by the left. So did the no action on Merrick Garland. Though with him at least, all the information was provided in a timely manner and not just dumped on Congress hours before. Dems have a right to be angry at this sh it show.
plenzmd1 Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 18 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: I'd be curious your take on the resident trolls question, but he also does fail to realize that Congress chose him and appointed him, Essentially. But, the cute argument pushed by Tibs is the best narrative constructed by the left in their organized attack that he is simply a drone for... I have no idea why he would have to recuse himself.I trust the guy. This is not some starstruck Trump loving knucklehead that came out of Trumps woodwork, this is a serious guy who seems like a smart, objective legal scholar. I have no worries about him at all about him being objective in all legal matters. I probably won't agree with all his decisions, but I am 55 and have never agreed 100% with any politician or court justice 5 minutes ago, Tiberius said: So did the no action on Merrick Garland. Though with him at least, all the information was provided in a timely manner and not just dumped on Congress hours before. Dems have a right to be angry at this sh it show. and i agree with this for the most part 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 50 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The hearing made a mockery of the election, the process for choosing a SC justice, the respect for the family and children of the nominee, his commitment to public service and his courage for accepting the nomination. It was an absolute freakshow, with people screaming, unknown individuals with unfettered access to the nominee, and the words "Don't taze me bro" seem fitting here. It served as a reminder to me that for all the rhetoric that comes out of Trump's universe (verbal, tweeting, hot mic), much of which I find distasteful and divisive, its a tactic raised to the level of an art form by the left. 2 What some people think of as "distasteful and divisive" I think of as punching back (ie not allowing himself to be bullied), as well as Trump's freedom of information flow (exactly how much would be reported about the soft coup if Trump wasn't out there on Twitter?) and not allowing the MSM to set the narrative (see cats (MSM) and laser pointer (Trump's Twitter account)).
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 34 minutes ago, Tiberius said: So did the no action on Merrick Garland. Though with him at least, all the information was provided in a timely manner and not just dumped on Congress hours before. Dems have a right to be angry at this sh it show. You're confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the business of politics with the business of activism. When Merrick Garland was nominated, there were no screaming spectators, no unknown individuals aggressively approaching him in a circus-like atmosphere, nothing of the sort in fact. What happened is indisputable...the political party in control of the Senate followed the rules of the Senate and carried out the will of the American people during that snapshot in time. It happens, and it may be painful when your guy is the right guy at the wrong time, but sometimes we get what we want, sometimes we don't. Conservatives have struggled through it, liberals have been on the short end of the stick, but it is what it is. The good news for all Americans is that if all goes well with BK, it's mostly just political theater designed to rip apart the fabric of our society. Sinister, yes, but in this case, things should work out fine for us all. We do agree the dems put on a sh5tshow. We'll always have that, and that should be enough for today. 7 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: What some people think of as "distasteful and divisive" I think of as punching back (ie not allowing himself to be bullied), as well as Trump's freedom of information flow (exactly how much would be reported about the soft coup if Trump wasn't out there on Twitter?) and not allowing the MSM to set the narrative (see cats (MSM) and laser pointer (Trump's Twitter account)). There are things I like about Trump's approach, but I would prefer a more subtle leadership style. I have come to the conclusion that you are correct, and we needed this guy at this time, but there are times I still feel like I'm wearing my velcro underwear inside out.
3rdnlng Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 31 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You're confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the business of politics with the business of activism. When Merrick Garland was nominated, there were no screaming spectators, no unknown individuals aggressively approaching him in a circus-like atmosphere, nothing of the sort in fact. What happened is indisputable...the political party in control of the Senate followed the rules of the Senate and carried out the will of the American people during that snapshot in time. It happens, and it may be painful when your guy is the right guy at the wrong time, but sometimes we get what we want, sometimes we don't. Conservatives have struggled through it, liberals have been on the short end of the stick, but it is what it is. The good news for all Americans is that if all goes well with BK, it's mostly just political theater designed to rip apart the fabric of our society. Sinister, yes, but in this case, things should work out fine for us all. We do agree the dems put on a sh5tshow. We'll always have that, and that should be enough for today. There are things I like about Trump's approach, but I would prefer a more subtle leadership style. I have come to the conclusion that you are correct, and we needed this guy at this time, but there are times I still feel like I'm wearing my velcro underwear inside out. Sure, that ripping sound was Velcro underwear. This hearing is a farce and the dems are at the point of throwing the pistol as a last resort. The dems are asking for more information while BK was at the WH, specifically his emails. We all should know that he was the person in the WH that dispatched emails from others to the people that had the need to know. The dems knew this and also knew that it would have been improper for them to see those emails, and that they would never get them. Dems, as is typical lie through their teeth to confuse the issues so that they can fool the public into going along with them. They have been really good at this for a long time. What they can't legislate they try to force via the courts.
Tiberius Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said: I have no idea why he would have to recuse himself.I trust the guy. This is not some starstruck Trump loving knucklehead that came out of Trumps woodwork, this is a serious guy who seems like a smart, objective legal scholar. I have no worries about him at all about him being objective in all legal matters. I probably won't agree with all his decisions, but I am 55 and have never agreed 100% with any politician or court justice and i agree with this for the most part He's a hard core partisan animal. He came up with those embarrassing questions about Monica Lewinski to ask Clinton (Should those be read aloud in the senate?? Where his daughters are??) and then questions Nixon vs USA?? Go after Democrat, go easy on Republican. And there is more. Recusal isn't going to kill him, but if he starts siding with the guy who picked on legal matters related to foreign conspiracy to throw the election that allowed him to get picked, that will create a cloud over him to say the least. 1 hour ago, ALF said: Elections have consequences Yes they do, and if the election is tainted, the guy shouldn't be sitting in judgement of them because he benefitted from it. (Let the other judges decide) 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You're confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the business of politics with the business of activism. When Merrick Garland was nominated, there were no screaming spectators, no unknown individuals aggressively approaching him in a circus-like atmosphere, nothing of the sort in fact. Yes, there was no nothing! When could the protesters of protested? 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: What happened is indisputable...the political party in control of the Senate followed the rules of the Senate and carried out the will of the American people during that snapshot in time. I They carried out the will of the American people? How is that? I don't follow you there 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: What some people think of as "distasteful and divisive" I think of as punching back (ie not allowing himself to be bullied), as well as Trump's freedom of information flow (exactly how much would be reported about the soft coup if Trump wasn't out there on Twitter?) and not allowing the MSM to set the narrative (see cats (MSM) and laser pointer (Trump's Twitter account)). On twitter Trump said Sessions should not have indicted two republicans, because they were Republicans! And should have gone after Democrats instead, because they are Democrats Do any of you Trump supporters think BK should have to answer whether that is Obstruction of Justice, or not? Thankfully, Jeff Flake has already brought that up to BK.
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 9 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Do any of you Trump supporters think BK should have to answer whether that is Obstruction of Justice, or not? Considering that that's a case that Kavanaugh may end up hearing as a Justice, and that nominees for the Supreme Court do not comment on possible future cases in confirmation hearings, then...no, he absolutely shouldn't answer it. To even be asked that would demonstrate a desire by the Senate to stack the court for the interests of politics to the detriment of the law. Do any of you partisan morons understand that? 2
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 15 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Considering that that's a case that Kavanaugh may end up hearing as a Justice, and that nominees for the Supreme Court do not comment on possible future cases in confirmation hearings, then...no, he absolutely shouldn't answer it. To even be asked that would demonstrate a desire by the Senate to stack the court for the interests of politics to the detriment of the law. Do any of you partisan morons understand that? To be fair, you're talking to people who believe the purpose of the Court is to be stacked for the interests of politics in order to circumvent the law. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 26 minutes ago, Tiberius said: He's a hard core partisan animal. He came up with those embarrassing questions about Monica Lewinski to ask Clinton (Should those be read aloud in the senate?? Where his daughters are??) and then questions Nixon vs USA?? Go after Democrat, go easy on Republican. And there is more. Recusal isn't going to kill him, but if he starts siding with the guy who picked on legal matters related to foreign conspiracy to throw the election that allowed him to get picked, that will create a cloud over him to say the least. Yes they do, and if the election is tainted, the guy shouldn't be sitting in judgement of them because he benefitted from it. (Let the other judges decide) Yes, there was no nothing! When could the protesters of protested? They carried out the will of the American people? How is that? I don't follow you there On twitter Trump said Sessions should not have indicted two republicans, because they were Republicans! And should have gone after Democrats instead, because they are Democrats Do any of you Trump supporters think BK should have to answer whether that is Obstruction of Justice, or not? Thankfully, Jeff Flake has already brought that up to BK. You don't follow that the makeup of the Senate reflects the will of the American people? It's about the elections, silly. Lots of them, in fact.
Deranged Rhino Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You don't follow that the makeup of the Senate reflects the will of the American people? It's about the elections, silly. Lots of them, in fact. Not to fascists (which Tibs is even though he's too dim to realize it). To fascists it's about emotions. !@#$ elections... and logic... and reason... 1
KD in CA Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 18 hours ago, 4merper4mer said: WTF Dude. Dat's raysis. Oh wait, did you mean Roberts is the only non bald dude? I think he meant RBG is the only former ‘50s movie star.
snafu Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: What some people think of as "distasteful and divisive" I think of as punching back (ie not allowing himself to be bullied), as well as Trump's freedom of information flow (exactly how much would be reported about the soft coup if Trump wasn't out there on Twitter?) and not allowing the MSM to set the narrative (see cats (MSM) and laser pointer (Trump's Twitter account)). I agree with you, but there's "punching back" and then there's "kicking someone in the groin".
Cinga Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: 2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You're confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the business of politics with the business of activism. When Merrick Garland was nominated, there were no screaming spectators, no unknown individuals aggressively approaching him in a circus-like atmosphere, nothing of the sort in fact. Yes, there was no nothing! When could the protesters of protested? You're such a disingenuous type aren't you? No hearings on Garland and correctly so since they only followed the "Biden Rule". But how 'bout Sotomayor or Kagan? The Reps had every chance to throw a temper tantrum then but didn't.... I wonder why and don't even claim they were such outstanding characters. Hell, Kagan had never even served as a judge! As for your dishonest question of recusal, let's play a game... Since Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan have all spoken out publicly against Trump, shouldn't they have to recuse themselves from ANYTHING associated with him?
Tiberius Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 44 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You don't follow that the makeup of the Senate reflects the will of the American people? It's about the elections, silly. Lots of them, in fact. The Senate?? That's funny! Obama won the election, what about that will of the people? You make a silly argument. You just think Republicans will is the will of the people
outsidethebox Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: Sure, that ripping sound was Velcro underwear. This hearing is a farce and the dems are at the point of throwing the pistol as a last resort. The dems are asking for more information while BK was at the WH, specifically his emails. We all should know that he was the person in the WH that dispatched emails from others to the people that had the need to know. The dems knew this and also knew that it would have been improper for them to see those emails, and that they would never get them. Dems, as is typical lie through their teeth to confuse the issues so that they can fool the public into going along with them. They have been really good at this for a long time. What they can't legislate they try to force via the courts. They are so dishonest. Absolutely no morals. So sad.
Tiberius Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 6 minutes ago, Cinga said: You're such a disingenuous type aren't you? No hearings on Garland and correctly so since they only followed the "Biden Rule". But how 'bout Sotomayor or Kagan? The Reps had every chance to throw a temper tantrum then but didn't.... I wonder why and don't even claim they were such outstanding characters. Hell, Kagan had never even served as a judge! As for your dishonest question of recusal, let's play a game... Since Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan have all spoken out publicly against Trump, shouldn't they have to recuse themselves from ANYTHING associated with him? This is totally different, Obama wasn't under investigation, wasn't obstructing justice, like Trump is out in the open, didn't have a tainted election, and all I'm saying is he shouldn't judge over criminal issues that are directly related to the guy who picked him. That's all. If Obama was suspected of being a traitor, like some see Trump as, I wouldn't want him picking the judges who will diretly preside over his issue either. 56 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/404751-brett-kavanaughs-views-in-privacy-and-the-fourth-amendment-should-make fourth amendment!
Recommended Posts