Merged Scalia is dead

[logger]

Yes, the world is such disarray because of Obama’s fecklessness and the overall weak military (according to Republicans) under his leadership than I now have to pay $1.41 for gas. The horror!

According to just about anyone.

I suppose you think Obama is proud of 1.41 fuel?

 

[logger]

Yes, what horrible squalor those leftists in Scandinavia live in under leftists leadership! How can they tolerate it?

Scandinavia, is that a pimple on our ass?

You should try Venezuela, I think you'd like it there. Take some red shirts.

 

[Belz...]

Lol

What happens when the world is burning around us? More socialists isn't going to help.

That is one stupid statement.

First of all, we're not on the brink of oblivion. Second of all, defense IS socialism, since it's taxpayer-paid services. Third of all, it takes a right-wing extremist to vote against education.

It would be fun watching leftists be ruled by leftists.

Yeah like the third world European countries.

 

[Tony Stark]

If I could understand what you wrote here, I would probably respond. As it is it makes no sense to me.

It is pretty simple. According to you, GOP leaders deciding on January 20th, 2009, that they were going to attempt to destroy Obama through obstruction says nothing about the behavior Republicans under Obama. But something Joe Biden said 24 years ago says everything you need to know about Democrats. Because, reasons.

 

[logger]

That is one stupid statement.

Only to someone who isn't living in reality.

First of all, we're not on the brink of oblivion.

No kidding, I'd rather not wait for that.

Second of all, defense IS socialism, since it's taxpayer-paid services.

The socialist point of view.

Third of all, it takes a right-wing extremist like you to vote against education.

Vote against education, that's a bit dramatic.
It shouldn't take away from defense, both are important and we have both. You're the one who wants to do away with defense.

Yeah like the third world European countries.

Who are going bankrupt.

 

[Tony Stark]

According to just about anyone.

I suppose you think Obama is proud of 1.41 fuel?

According to whacked out Republicans.

Obama is no doubt happy that Americans have more money because of lower fuel prices. Though he is also probably concenered about the effect low prices will have on climate change (a socialist conspiracy, right? lol). Republicans, who don't give a flying **** about the American people, are probably concerned that low gas prices will have a positive impact on the publics' view of Obama’s Presidency. And more importantly, a negative impact on the oil industry's profits.

 

[Tony Stark]

Scandinavia, is that a pimple on our ass?

You should try Venezuela, I think you'd like it there. Take some red shirts.

Nobody in America says we should emulate Venezuela. Some people, notably Bernie Sanders say we can learn things from Scandinavia. I know it is bad for your false, idiotic, evil ideology that the Scandinavian systems work, but too bad for your false, idiotic, evil ideology.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No, the one word response "Biden" did not imply any such thing.

Yeah, that wasn't the post I was referring to. Slow down, you've got too many threads open.

 

[logger]

According to whacked out Republicans.

Obama is no doubt happy that Americans have more money because of lower fuel prices. Though he is also probably concenered about the affect low prices will have on climate change (a socialist conspiracy, right? lol). Republicans, who don't give a flying **** about the American people, are probably concerned that low gas prices will have a positive impact on the publics' view of Obama’s Presidency. And more importantly, a negative impact on the oil industry's profits.

Lol

More like pissed.

 

[logger]

Nobody in America says we should emulate Venezuela. Some people, notably Bernie Sanders say we can learn things from Scandinavia. I know it is bad for your false, idiotic, evil ideology that the Scandinavian systems work, but too bad for your false, idiotic, evil ideology.

Lol

Scandinavia is not us.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If I could understand what you wrote here, I would probably respond. As it is it makes no sense to me.

It wasn't written to you and I did not expect a response.

 

[maxpower1227]

Lol

Scandinavia is not us.

Right... that's sort of the problem.

 

[Tony Stark]

Lol

Scandinavia is not us.

Oh yes, reverse American exceptionalism. Often cited by proponents of ordinary American exceptionalism. Apparently, America is exceptionally good and great. But at the same time, we can't make "socialism" work even though other countries have because we are exceptionally bad. Makes perfect sense. (In the "minds" of whacked out Republicans; in the minds of normal people, not so much).

 

[Belz...]

Only to someone who isn't living in reality.

So you in fact think we are at the brink of anarchy, and that education is worthless? That's "reality"?

The socialist point of view.

Do you even know what socialism means? Take off your ridiculous blinders and educate yourself about the whole political spectrum before you say stupid things.

Vote against education, that's a bit dramatic.

It's your ideology, not mine.

It shouldn't take away from defense, both are important and we have both.

Especially when your defense forces are used to invade other countries. I'm sure you could slash the budget in half and the US would remain the most powerful country on Earth by a large margin.

You're the one who wants to do away with defense.

I never said that.

Who are going bankrupt.

Every state has economic problems at some point. Of course, to you "socialism" is the same as "communism" because you have no knowledge of these things.

 

[Belz...]

Lol

More like pissed.

What's with your obsession with labeling others?

 

[theprestige]

As a medical friend of mine once put it, the GOP is on the horns of an enema. Do they go ahead and confirm a moderate justice and tick off the base, or do they block the nominee and a) get labeled as obstructionist and b) get a much more liberal nominee jammed down their throats by President Clinton and the incoming Dem-controlled Senate?

I'm trying to figure out what series of events over the past eight years have led you to the conclusion that the GOP is concerned about getting "labeled as obstructionist".

Aren't Senate Republicans in their current position of being able to obstruct the nomination by vehemently doubling down on exactly that label? I think that unless Obama sends them a clear conservative win for the Court, they'll do just fine to reject any "moderate" that comes their way, and take their chances after the election.

 

[Tony Stark]

I'm trying to figure out what series of events over the past eight years have led you to the conclusion that the GOP is concerned about getting "labeled as obstructionist".

Aren't Senate Republicans in their current position of being able to obstruct the nomination by vehemently doubling down on exactly that label? I think that unless Obama sends them a clear conservative win for the Court, they'll do just fine to reject any "moderate" that comes their way, and take their chances after the election.

How about Mitch McConnell promising (and delivering on that promise) that there would be no government shutdowns after the 2014 elections? Something teabaggers were very upset about, of course.

Given that the American people are in favor of the Senate doing their jobs, and that Mitch McConnell is presumably not a stupid person, I have little doubt that he is concerned that obstructing will hurt Republicans. Though I think he is more afraid of his retard base in this case and thus willing to make a very bad bet that Republicans will win the election.

 

[Foolmewunz]

How about Mitch McConnell promising (and delivering on that promise) that there would be no government shutdowns after the 2014 elections? Something teabaggers were very upset about, of course.

Given that the American people are in favor of the Senate doing their jobs, and that Mitch McConnell is presumably not a stupid person, I have little doubt that he is concerned that obstructing will hurt Republicans. Though I think he is more afraid of his retard base in this case and thus willing to make a very bad bet that Republicans will win the election.

I doubt that McConnell is worried so much about "his base", as in 'the good people of Kentucky'. He handled the last challenge readily and is good to go until 2020.

I think he's more concerned with taking the heat for those Republicans who are running for office and dancing to the tune of the RNC, who've said "make it sound like it's a sensible approach". McConnell is a mainstream party guy. That's how he fills that war chest so readily and trounced the challengers. At 78, in 2020, he may have a challenge, but that's a full GE cycle away. The young turks will be going after him, but he'll have four years to fill his coffers again.

 

[Travis]

Scandinavia, is that a pimple on our ass?

You should try Venezuela, I think you'd like it there. Take some red shirts.

Is there a candidate running that wants to emulate Venezuela? Because I sure don't know about them. We have one that wants to emulate Denmark, which sounds pretty good to me.

 

[sunmaster14]

More ammunition in support of my ability to read Biden's mind:

On Jan. 27, 1992, President Bush nominated [John] Roberts to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

...

But his nomination to the federal bench was dead on arrival at Biden’s Senate Judiciary Committee. Biden refused to even hold a hearing on Roberts’s nomination, much less a vote in committee or on the Senate floor. Roberts’s nomination died in committee and was withdrawn on Oct. 8, 1992.

...

Roberts was not alone in being denied a hearing or a vote by Biden. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in 1992 Biden killed the nominations of 32 Bush appointees to the federal bench without giving them so much as a hearing. And that does not count an additional 20 nominations for the federal bench where Biden did not hold hearings that year, which CRS excluded from its count because they reached the Senate “within approximately [four] months before it adjourned.”

...

That’s not all. In 1988, then-Chairman Biden also killed the nominations of nine candidates for the federal bench appointed by President Ronald Reagan without so much as a hearing. The New York Times reported at the time that “Democrats were determined to bury” some of the nominations because, as one liberal lobbyist told the paper, “the appellate seats were too precious to for us to give up” in a presidential election year.

There is a lot more in the article. But, to be fair, here is the summary:

The bottom line is that what Republicans are doing today is far from unprecedented. To the contrary, it is the norm. There is a graveyard filled with judicial appointments killed without a hearing by both Republicans and Democrats in an election year.