Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
It would really be useful if you would actually read occasionally. Maybe posting too close to IB is affecting you.
For the multipleth time: The DEMs were wrong then, the REPs are wrong now. Is that simple and straight forward enough for you? If I was posting back then about this topic, I would complain about Biden's behavior the same way. Yes, I am saying the bar should be raised back where it was because it is the right thing to do: hold the hearing and see if the nominee is worthy or not. If not, do not confirm.
The REPs are just following the sleazy things the DEMs did--see, I am criticizing BOTH, or is that too hard to read?
Nothing hypocritical about that.
Why do I feel like I'm pulling teeth to get you to criticize the Dems?
You're asking a helluva lot here. You want the Reps to reverse the Dems' bad behavior because “it is the right thing to do”. Just put the Dem nominee on the SCOTUS this time and there will be no Dem bad behavior next time around. Uh-huh. Silly me! Why do I think the responsibility to raise the bar back up should fall on the folks who lowered it in the first place? Why do I doubt the sincerity of those who did sleazy things in the past but promise not to be just as sleazy in the future?
And why do I feel like Charlie Brown when I ask these questions?
Why do I feel like I'm pulling teeth to get you to criticize the Dems?
You're asking a helluva lot here. You want the Reps to reverse the Dems' bad behavior because “it is the right thing to do”. Just put the Dem nominee on the SCOTUS this time and there will be no Dem bad behavior next time around. Uh-huh. Silly me! Why do I think the responsibility to raise the bar back up should fall on the folks who lowered it in the first place? Why do I doubt the sincerity of those who did sleazy things in the past but promise not to be just as sleazy in the future?
And why do I feel like Charlie Brown when I ask these questions?
I am not arguing for or against confirming the nominee. I don't know enough about him either way. All I am arguing for is to have the hearing and then confirm or not based upon his merits.
If you think I don't ever criticize Dems, you have not been paying attention to my comments on their two candidates. Calling Clinton a dangerous psychopathic liar among other things was not intended as much of a complement.
If "high moral ground" meant shit in politics, Hildabeast would be in prison and not the leading dim-retard candidate for president.
FYI, Justice Roberts was nominated for three separate positions before he ever received a hearing, and was granted that hearing, because the dim-retards weren't in control of the Senate anymore.
Those are also good points - thanks for pointing that out.
The biggest thing I do not like about Garland is that he has wanted to be on the Supreme Court his whole life. Why is it all about him?
America needs people truly willing to sacrifice for the common good, not bring themselves glory.
However, Garland may be the last straight white man a Democrat ever nominates.
Since the liberals perceive themselves to be more "intelligent" and "informed," it is easily assumed they made the legally and philosophically correct decision regarding "late term" appointments during the Bush administration(s), and as a consequence the conservatives are making the legally and philosophically correct decision regarding "lateR term" appointments during the Obama administration(s),
BUT, of course, Liberals have an obsession of requiring of others:
"Don't do as I do, do as I say, even when I say not to do what I've already done!"
For instance: Was "Old-T" screaming bloody murder when the Liberals were withholding affirmations?
Since the liberals perceive themselves to be more "intelligent" and "informed," it is easily assumed they made the legally and philosophically correct decision regarding "late term" appointments during the Bush administration(s), and as a consequence the conservatives are making the legally and philosophically correct decision regarding "lateR term" appointments during the Obama administration(s),
BUT, of course, Liberals have an obsession of requiring of others:
"Don't do as I do, do as I say, even when I say not to do what I've already done!"
For instance: Was "Old-T" screaming bloody murder when the Liberals were withholding affirmations?
For the most part I leave screaming to others, but yes, I objected to not holding hearings back then also.
Consistency is a wonderful thing. Count on IB to ignore a question he doesn't want to hear. "it's just not fair to ask that!", you can hear is one functioning brain cell screaming out. "That only works for liberals! We Wacked Out Nut Case RWers deserve different rules. You can't attack one of my heroes that way!" As IBCondomMan runs of yo mommy. "Stop those bad HS kids, they don't play fair! They THINK. Make them stop, mommy! It isn't my fault I was born without a real brain."
You'd be the jackass with your head up your ass ignoring how the dim-retards set the game rules, Old-THUMPER. You're a delusional SOB if you expect the Republicans to forfeit the game by not playing the game the dim-retards named, Old-THUMPER. Keep sniveling and whining, Old-THUMPER. Be the most ignorant SOB you can be, Old-THUMPER!
Quote:
Originally Posted by i'va biggen
Watch out for traffic chicken dick.
Again with your poultry fetish, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.
Those are also good points - thanks for pointing that out.
The biggest thing I do not like about Garland is that he has wanted to be on the Supreme Court his whole life. Why is it all about him?
America needs people truly willing to sacrifice for the common good, not bring themselves glory.
However, Garland may be the last straight white man a Democrat ever nominates.
If he is the " last straight white man " it'll be because the dumbascraps will feel the need to nominate one of assup, EKIM and Lil Cotex's ilk,i.e. , swishy walking LGBT-approved bull dykes or lip wristed, lisping, make-up wearing "male ", or a Caitlyn-type tranny to cover ALL the bases !
If he is the " last straight white man " it'll be because the dumbascraps will feel the need to nominate one of assup, EKIM and Lil Cotex's ilk,i.e. , swishy walking LGBT-approved bull dykes or lip wristed, lisping, make-up wearing "male ", or a Caitlyn-type tranny to cover ALL the bases !
Exactly correct and part of our rather dim future in this once great, sinking country.
You'd be the jackass with your head up your ass ignoring how the dim-retards set the game rules, Old-THUMPER. You're a delusional SOB if you expect the Republicans to forfeit the game by not playing the game the dim-retards named, Old-THUMPER. Keep sniveling and whining, Old-THUMPER. Be the most ignorant SOB you can be, Old-THUMPER!
Again with your poultry fetish, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.
Did you get wood when you saw the pic chicken dick?
