Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Guest042616-1 · 03-18-2016, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSK

I don't understand why you think it is so important that they didn't get the chance to do something monumental that they said they would do? So if Trump threatens to do something but doesn't get the chance, do you give him a free pass?

No, I've already openly stated that they are hypocrites in speech. I'm just not naive and know that that is par for the course when it comes to politicians.

What really changes things is actions, not a lot of bluster about what people can do and what they should consider doing. The fact remains, no matter how much y'all try to blame the democrats, if the republicans follow through on this, they will be the first ones to do so. They will be setting the precedent. Not only that, but they will be doing so when Obama put forth a compromise candidate.

Read that again, they are spitting in the face of compromise.

It still makes me laugh a bit when I realize that some people believe that, by compromising, Obama is acting childish because the people he offered up a compromise to originally said they would act like children and not consider anyone.

I B Hankering · 03-18-2016, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eatfibo

No. But your double-standard seems backwards consider we are talking about the words of the democrats vs the actions of the republicans.

You are getting worked up by what some democrats have said hypocritically, while you have completely ignored what republicans actually have done hypocritically.

But, I guess, from this statement you believe that the republicans should and will give him a vote? Because unless McConnell thinks Kennedy should be removed from the court and revoted on, that is the only way to fix this blatant hypocrisy of his.

The democrats have never done this. That's what you don't seem to understand. They huffed and puffed, but have done nothing. You can claim that it is because they never had the opportunity, but the reality is that you don't know what they would have done. If they follow through, the republicans will be the ones moving the goal post. If they follow through with this, it will be McConnell not only talking, but acting hypocritically as well.

And I would like to note, again, that Obama has reached across the aisle and instead of offering up a left candidate for the position, he offered up a centrist. Obama, once again, has compromised and, once again, due to childish partisanship, the republicans are knee-capping our government instead of doing what is best for us all and giving the candidate their up or down vote and, as McConnell said, voting on whether or not they qualified for the position, not on the fact that they don't like the president.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eatfibo

No, I've already openly stated that they are hypocrites in speech. I'm just not naive and know that that is par for the course when it comes to politicians.

What really changes things is actions, not a lot of bluster about what people can do and what they should consider doing. The fact remains, no matter how much y'all try to blame the democrats, if the republicans follow through on this, they will be the first ones to do so. They will be setting the precedent. Not only that, but they will be doing so when Obama put forth a compromise candidate.

Read that again, they are spitting in the face of compromise.

It still makes me laugh a bit when I realize that some people believe that, by compromising, Obama is acting childish because the people he offered up a compromise to originally said they would act like children and not consider anyone.

You and the other whiny, dim-retard bitches would be the hypocrites, eatbibeau. Senator Joseph Biden's threat to stop the confirmation process was more than words, eatbibeau. As the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden blocked a vote on Justice Roberts in 1992:

Quote:

In 1992, President George H. W. Bush nominated [John] Roberts to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but no Senate vote was held, and Roberts's nomination expired at the end of the 102nd Congress (Wiki)

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Neither of you brain dead clowns apparently could understand the question, so fuck off with your dim comments.

You'd be the dim-retard that doesn't comprehend the answer, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans are currently in charge, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, and will be until at least next January, you ridiculously moronic jackass. The Republicans still have multiple options regardless of what happens in the election, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans still have a lame-duck session before any new president takes office, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. In the event the Republicans manage to capture additional Senate seats, they can damn well tell any potential dim-retard president to take his nominees and go to hell, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

CuteOldGuy · 03-18-2016, 10:57 AM

[QUOTE=i'va biggen;1057927780]

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Republicans are currently in charge, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, and will be until at least next January, you ridiculously moronic jackass. The Republicans still have multiple options regardless of what happens in the election, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans still have a lame-duck session before any new president takes office, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. In the event the Republicans manage to capture additional Senate seats, they can damn well tell any potential dim-retard president to take his nominees and go to hell, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

Neither of you brain dead clowns apparently could understand the question, so fuck off with your dim comments.

When you don't even understand the question you asked, how can you expect to understand the answer? I guess you didn't "no" that.

Guest042616-1 · 03-18-2016, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You and the other whiny, dim-retard bitches would be the hypocrites, eatbibeau. Senator Joseph Biden's threat to stop the confirmation process was more than words, eatbibeau. As the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden blocked a vote on Justice Roberts in 1992:

What was linked earlier was about no hearings on a SCOTUS nomination. Which is what we are talking about. If we are now talking about any judges, that changes things.

On that note, Roberts was confirmed to the appeals court the next year, and eventually, as we know, confirmed to a spot on the SCOTUS. And we are talking about a specific candidate, not any candidate.

I B Hankering · 03-18-2016, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eatfibo

What was linked earlier was about no hearings on a SCOTUS nomination. Which is what we are talking about. If we are now talking about any judges, that changes things.

On that note, Roberts was confirmed to the appeals court the next year, and eventually, as we know, confirmed to a spot on the SCOTUS. And we are talking about a specific candidate, not any candidate.

Only in your fantasy dim-retard world does 2003 follow on the heels of 1992, eatbibeau.

Quote:

On May 10, 2001, President George W. Bush nominated Roberts for a different seat on the D.C. Circuit, which had been vacated by James L. Buckley. The Senate at the time, however, was controlled by the Democrats, who were in conflict with Bush over his judicial nominees. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-VT, refused to give Roberts a hearing in the 107th Congress. The GOP regained control of the Senate on January 7, 2003, and Bush resubmitted Roberts's nomination that day. Roberts was confirmed on May 8, 2003,[20] and received his commission on June 2, 2003. (Wiki)

Guest042616-1 · 03-18-2016, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Only in your fantasy dim-retard world does 2003 follow on the heels of 1992, eatbibeau.

You misread.

I B Hankering · 03-18-2016, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eatfibo

You misread.

Wrong. We're talking about the "Biden Rule" and how it applies to the judicial confirmation process, eatbibeau. You made the fallacious claim that Biden, et al, never acted on their words, however it's a documented fact that Biden, as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee actually did block a vote on Roberts in 1992 during an election year.

i'va biggen · 03-18-2016, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You and the other whiny, dim-retard bitches would be the hypocrites, eatbibeau. Senator Joseph Biden's threat to stop the confirmation process was more than words, eatbibeau. As the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden blocked a vote on Justice Roberts in 1992:

.

You'd be the dim-retard that doesn't comprehend the answer, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans are currently in charge, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, and will be until at least next January, you ridiculously moronic jackass. The Republicans still have multiple options regardless of what happens in the election, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans still have a lame-duck session before any new president takes office, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. In the event the Republicans manage to capture additional Senate seats, they can damn well tell any potential dim-retard president to take his nominees and go to hell, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

You coulden't even come up with that good of excuse untill I showed you this,

http://news.yahoo.com/key-republican...1&noRedirect=1
[QUOTE=CuteOldGuy;1057928263]

Quote:

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

When you don't even understand the question you asked, how can you expect to understand the answer? I guess you didn't "no" that.

Typical lost FUCKARWE trying to be relevant.

I B Hankering · 03-18-2016, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Typical lost FUCKARWE trying to be relevant.

You'd still be the dim-retard that doesn't comprehend the answer, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans are currently in charge, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, and will be until at least next January, you ridiculously moronic jackass. The Republicans still have multiple options regardless of what happens in the election, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans still have a lame-duck session before any new president takes office, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. In the event the Republicans manage to capture additional Senate seats, they can damn well tell any potential dim-retard president to take his nominees and go to hell, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

bambino · 03-18-2016, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wrong. We're talking about the "Biden Rule" and how it applies to the judicial confirmation process, eatbibeau. You made the fallacious claim that Biden, et al, never acted on their words, however it's a documented fact that Biden, as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee actually did block a vote on Roberts in 1992 during an election year.

No sense in trying to debate with FidoTard. He can't acknowledge that Hillary is under a criminal investigation. That Obama has tried to compromise time and time again with republicans. And the ACA was passed in the finest example of our democracy. What a fucking Chalooch.

Guest042616-1 · 03-18-2016, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wrong.

No, you did misread me. I pointed out that he was confirmed in 1993, and "evetually" confirmed to the SCOTUS.

Quote:

We're talking about the "Biden Rule" and how it applies to the judicial confirmation process, eatbibeau. You made the fallacious claim that Biden, et al, never acted on their words, however it's a documented fact that Biden, as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee actually did block a vote on Roberts in 1992 during an election year.

Stop trying to change what we are talking about. Biden didn't act on his word as he clearly talks about a SCOTUS seat in that video. And he said until after the election season was over, which would be both during the current Congress and under current president, not until the next president took office. It wasn't a presidential election, so he certainly wasn't talking about holding off until the next president.

I B Hankering · 03-18-2016, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eatfibo

No, you did misread me. I pointed out that he was confirmed in 1993, and "evetually" confirmed to the SCOTUS.

Stop trying to change what we are talking about. Biden didn't act on his word as he clearly talks about a SCOTUS seat in that video. And he said until after the election season was over, which would be both during the current Congress and under current president, not until the next president took office. It wasn't a presidential election, so he certainly wasn't talking about holding off until the next president.

Wrong on both accounts, eatbibeau. Roberts wasn't confirmed in 1993, and Biden did act on his threat to withhold a vote on a judicial nominee.

Guest042616-1 · 03-18-2016, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wrong on both accounts, eatbibeau. Roberts wasn't confirmed in 1993, and Biden did act on his threat to withhold a vote on a judicial nominee.

You're right, I apologize. I screwed up my dates. Thanks for correcting me.

However, you are still wrong about Biden. Biden talked about a SCOTUS nomination. Roberts wasn't nominated to the court until 2005. Biden never had a chance to act on his word of considering not even giving a hearing to a SCOTUS nominee until after the election. He certainly never said they should wait for the next president, or even the next congress.

i'va biggen · 03-18-2016, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You'd still be the dim-retard that doesn't comprehend the answer, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans are currently in charge, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, and will be until at least next January, you ridiculously moronic jackass. The Republicans still have multiple options regardless of what happens in the election, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans still have a lame-duck session before any new president takes office, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. In the event the Republicans manage to capture additional Senate seats, they can damn well tell any potential dim-retard president to take his nominees and go to hell, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

You are as dumb as a stump, chicken dick. They even said this way back when.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...r-trump-216561
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...senate-chances

I B Hankering · 03-18-2016, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eatfibo

You're right, I apologize. I screwed up my dates. Thanks for correcting me.

However, you are still wrong about Biden. Biden talked about a SCOTUS nomination. Roberts wasn't nominated to the court until 2005. Biden never had a chance to act on his word of considering not even giving a hearing to a SCOTUS nominee until after the election. He certainly never said they should wait for the next president, or even the next congress.

It is disingenuous of you to pretend that Biden wouldn't have done the same thing to a SCOTUS nominee that he did to an inferior court nominee, eatbibeau, and no one else here is foolish enough to believe you or any of the other dim-retard whiners.

Quote:

"62% of respondents said Democrats would do the same thing and decline to consider a nominee if the situation were reversed." (WSJ)

Quote:

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You are as dumb as a stump, chicken dick. They even said this way back when.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...r-trump-216561
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...senate-chances

Your deflection from the fact that you're still the dim-retard that doesn't comprehend the answer doesn't change anything, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans are currently in charge, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, and will be until at least next January, you ridiculously moronic jackass. The Republicans still have multiple options regardless of what happens in the election, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans still have a lame-duck session before any new president takes office, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. In the event the Republicans manage to capture additional Senate seats, they can damn well tell any potential dim-retard president to take his nominees and go to hell, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.