Harry Reid's grab for power

[sexaholic87]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

So is negotiation and compromise. Bush did, Obama won't.

Really? Bush wasn't known for his negotiation skills... at all. He said (after barely beating Kerry) that he had political capital that he planned on spending.

But what do Republicans want? What does Obama need to do to get Ted Cruz's vote on well qualified nominees?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

False: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...court-appeals/

The only difference between this and FDR's 1937 Supreme Court packing stunt is whether we are adding seats or filling vacancies. Quote from your link:

"The (DC district) court isn’t overworked, the openings are there because of filibusters of Bush nominees, and Obama’s had five years to nominate people and hasn’t... There are lots of overworked courts out there to which these three slots could go."

Did you get the part where Bush nominees to the same court were blocked - yet Republicans didn't go for the "nuclear option"?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

But Mcconnell wanted to get rid of the filibuster in 2005. Did you forget to mention that?

So what? McConnell talked about it but didn't do it. Harry Reid pulled the trigger.

How about if I fuck your wife and say it was justified because you lusted after mine? Would that be ok?

[sexaholic87]

Originally Posted by lustylad

The only difference between this and FDR's 1937 Supreme Court packing stunt is whether we are adding seats or filling vacancies. Quote from your link:

"The (DC district) court isn’t overworked, the openings are there because of filibusters of Bush nominees, and Obama’s had five years to nominate people and hasn’t... There are lots of overworked courts out there to which these three slots could go."

Did you get the part where Bush nominees to the same court were blocked - yet Republicans didn't go for the "nuclear option"?

You do realize that, in the entire article, you are quoting the "republican argument", bolstered by the "republican expert" at Cato, don't you?

The gist of the argument is the ruling:

Our ruling

The claim that Obama is "packing" the D.C. Circuit Court largely runs counter to American legal and political history.

Genuine court packing has involved one branch of government proposing to change the structure of the courts, either expanding or decreasing the number of judges. That's not what Obama's doing. We rate the claim False.

[sexaholic87]

Originally Posted by lustylad

So what? McConnell talked about it but didn't do it. Harry Reid pulled the trigger.

How about if I fuck your wife and say it was justified because you lusted after mine? Would that be ok?

False equivalence.

You said that Obama voted against it in 2005, which made him a hypocrite. I'm simply pointing out that the other side wanted to go nuclear, which similarly makes them hypocrites now.

Can't have it both ways.

[Yssup Rider]

He only likes it one way, based on the tenor of his posts.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

False equivalence.

You said that Obama voted against it in 2005, which made him a hypocrite. I'm simply pointing out that the other side wanted to go nuclear, which similarly makes them hypocrites now.

Can't have it both ways.

You're retarded. You equate considering an option with choosing it. That's the false equivalence.

Democrats pulled the trigger in 2013 after Republicans in the same position in 2005 deemed it unwise. Now you libtards have no moral authority left. You're reduced to whining like a little kid - "But you thought about it too!" Utterly pathetic. Leading the race to the bottom, then blaming the other side.

[sexaholic87]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're retarded. You equate considering an option with choosing it. That's the false equivalence.

Democrats pulled the trigger in 2013 after Republicans in the same position in 2005 deemed it unwise. Now you libtards have no moral authority left. You're reduced to whining like a little kid - "But you thought about it too!" Utterly pathetic. Leading the race to the bottom, then blaming the other side.

I do.

Just because it didn't come to that doesn't mean that Republicans aren't reeking of hypocrisy as well. They considered it and it didn't come to it because Democrats actually started negotiating. Obama has had an unprecedented amount of obstruction, which is also well documented:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ees-have-been/

And who's whining? I don't particularly like the changes in rules, but I do see why it's necessary. It's not like Dems started a thread about "big bad Obama/Reid" and their "power grab."



Oh, and I guess anyone who doesn't fit your narrative must be similarly retarded (which, by the way, shouldn't be used):

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...enates-nuclea/

Love Politifact. Hard to argue when facts are blatantly in your face. Of course, I'm sure you will find a way anyway.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by lustylad

So what? McConnell talked about it but didn't do it. Harry Reid pulled the trigger.

How about if I fuck your wife and say it was justified because you lusted after mine? Would that be ok?

gee, all of you Burg-boi's sure are classy. Stupid as an anvil too.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

Hard to argue when facts are blatantly in your face. Of course, I'm sure you will find a way anyway.

I already put the facts blatantly in your face. In 2005, Republicans shied away from the nuclear option. In 2013, Democrats pulled the trigger on the nuclear option. Those are the facts. Hard to argue with an idiot who insists on equating factual opposites.

"I don't particularly like the changes in rules, but I do see why it's necessary."

What you're really saying is you feel guilty and uncomfortable. But like a true uncompromising libtard, you tell yourself it's ok because the end justifies the means, right? Of course. We must destroy the village to save it!

Oh, and how is it when there are negotiations, you always credit the Dems but when there aren't, you always blame the Republicans? Can your biased and partisan Politifact pals cite any examples where Odumbo has been successful as a negotiator? As opposed to being a stubborn, arrogant, disengaged and divisive Alinsky ideologue who couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag?

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." - Odumbo in 2008 on how to negotiate.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by CJ7

gee, all of you Burg-boi's sure are classy. Stupid as an anvil too.

Hey, CBJ7 congrats on reaching and surpassing 12k posts. Being incapable of deep thoughts must have made it easier for you to get there by specializing in hit-and-run insults. Keep 'em coming, you limpdick libtard!

[bambino]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hey, CBJ7 congrats on reaching and surpassing 12k posts. Being incapable of deep thoughts must have made it easier for you to get there by specializing in hit-and-run insults. Keep 'em coming, you limpdick libtard!

CJZero has a lot in common with Dirty Reid. Hard to look at.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hey, CBJ7 congrats on reaching and surpassing 12k posts. Being incapable of deep thoughts must have made it easier for you to get there by specializing in hit-and-run insults. Keep 'em coming, you limpdick libtard!

I've noticed you're the epitome of deep, intellectual debate. ...... for a 1st grader.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

Really? Bush wasn't known for his negotiation skills... at all. He said (after barely beating Kerry) that he had political capital that he planned on spending.

But what do Republicans want? What does Obama need to do to get Ted Cruz's vote on well qualified nominees?

You know what's also lacking? Your rebuttal skills. Really.

[sexaholic87]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

You know what's also lacking? Your rebuttal skills. Really.

Also your comprehension.

I wasn't trying to form a rebuttal, I was actually asking you a question.

What do the republicans want? What are they trying to negotiate?