Give Sen. McConnell his walking papers!

[Guest]

Call me crazy, but the last time anyone refused to do their job, they were FIRED! McConnell is NOT doing what the taxpayers of Kentucky voted him to do. First Rate even by low Republican standards, Merrick Garland, should, at the very least, be considered for appointment to the Supreme Court. Another example why the citizens of this great country are frustrated with a "do-nothing" congress. Get rid of all of them!. Even Rubio got caught with his knickers down. Is there anyone in congress that we can trust???

[Guest]

Call me crazy, but the last time anyone refused to do their job, they were FIRED! McConnell is NOT doing what the taxpayers of Kentucky voted him to do. First Rate even by low Republican standards, Merrick Garland, should, at the very least, be considered for appointment to the Supreme Court. Another example why the citizens of this great country are frustrated with a "do-nothing" congress. Get rid of all of them!. Even Rubio got caught with his knickers down. Is there anyone in congress that we can trust???

I think you mean Bill Clinton. :D

[Guest]

Why is it obstrucrion and do nothing when the congress does not agree with Obama?

And why is not obstruction and do nothing when the democrats do not agree with anything they have not proposed?

The congress, like it or not is acting within the rights of the rules and law on the supreme court nominees.

History has set a precedent on not supporting lame duck presidents nominations to the SC.

And we all know that if it were not for certain rules and laws that Obama cannot get around....he cannot do the usual end run around the system....thank GOD!

So all he and his supporters will do from now until the election is boo hoo and pi$$ and moan about not getting his way.

[Guest]

He is just observing " The Biden Rule " .

[Guest]

Call me crazy, but the last time anyone refused to do their job, they were FIRED! McConnell is NOT doing what the taxpayers of Kentucky voted him to do. First Rate even by low Republican standards, Merrick Garland, should, at the very least, be considered for appointment to the Supreme Court. Another example why the citizens of this great country are frustrated with a "do-nothing" congress. Get rid of all of them!. Even Rubio got caught with his knickers down. Is there anyone in congress that we can trust???

Oh, so now that the shoe is on the other side, you don't like it? Democrats insisted that the Republican president wait until after the general election before the nomination of new judge, but it's OK for them to be obstructionists, right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/
==========================
During last year of G.W.Bush, Chuck Schumer said:
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not. I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (Justices John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito.”
==============================
“It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed. The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. …Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.”

— Then-Sen. Joe Biden, statement on the floor of the Senate, June 25, 1992 (an election year)
==========================

[Guest]

Call me crazy, but the last time anyone refused to do their job, they were FIRED! McConnell is NOT doing what the taxpayers of Kentucky voted him to do. First Rate even by low Republican standards, Merrick Garland, should, at the very least, be considered for appointment to the Supreme Court. Another example why the citizens of this great country are frustrated with a "do-nothing" congress. Get rid of all of them!. Even Rubio got caught with his knickers down. Is there anyone in congress that we can trust???

Ok, you're crazy..............:MOJE_whot:........:a040:...... ..:loco:

[Guest]

Oh, so now that the shoe is on the other side, you don't like it? Democrats insisted that the Republican president wait until after the general election before the nomination of new judge, but it's OK for them to be obstructionists, right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/
==========================
During last year of G.W.Bush, Chuck Schumer said:
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not. I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (Justices John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito.”
==============================
“It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed. The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. …Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.”

— Then-Sen. Joe Biden, statement on the floor of the Senate, June 25, 1992 (an election year)
==========================

For the die hard supporters of Obama who can only speak to talking points issued this post bears repeating for their benefit.

[Guest]

Well, the Senate can consider Judge Garland (a centrist) now OR wait for Hillary Clinton to name a more liberal one after she is elected. This statement actually came from Fox News today. They are basically conceding the fact that Mrs. Clinton will beat Trump in the general election.

[Guest]

I think you mean Bill Clinton. :D

:thumbup:

[Guest]

Well, the Senate can consider Judge Garland (a centrist) now OR wait for Hillary Clinton to name a more liberal one after she is elected. This statement actually came from Fox News today. They are basically conceding the fact that Mrs. Clinton will beat Trump in the general election.

How many times per day do you have to take the X-X-X kool aid and wackie weed treatments?

Talk about hearing what ya wanna hear. But I guess that is the democratic dictate. Not only hearing what ya wanna hear but repeating it as if it had some degree of authenticity.

I recommend cutting back on the treatments to see at what point does reality come into play.

[Guest]

How many times per day do you have to take the X-X-X kool aid and wackie weed treatments?

Talk about hearing what ya wanna hear. But I guess that is the democratic dictate. Not only hearing what ya wanna hear but repeating it as if it had some degree of authenticity.

I recommend cutting back on the treatments to see at what point does reality come into play.

:thumbup:

[Guest]

Not on subject, but whenever Killary is brought up, it warrants a related comment. Has anyone enjoyed the NEW campaign add with Putin and Hillary in it. Hillary is barking like a Taco Bell dog (which she really did) and Putin is laughing at our new Democrat president. This should have been a Super Bowl ad.

http://s.nola.com/AwIj5KK

[Guest]

The right wing ad against Trump use clips with Trump doing the talking.
v=sTtD-2_VgTQ

Hillery's bark was taken out of context but it is a much funnier ad.

[Guest]

The right wing ad against Trump use clips with Trump doing the talking.
v=sTtD-2_VgTQ

Hillery's bark was taken out of context but it is a much funnier ad.

No, the bark was real. Taking a bark out of context? Only a dog would know, I guess. I heard her speech where she started barking. The crowd smiled and giggle in embarrassment. I thought she had lost it and wondered how many votes she lost when she did her bark.

[Guest]

No, the bark was real. Taking a bark out of context? Only a dog would know, I guess. I heard her speech where she started barking. The crowd smiled and giggle in embarrassment. I thought she had lost it and wondered how many votes she lost when she did her bark.
ok-you win
When did she bark and what was the context?
[i'll help you if you don't know]

[Guest]

No, the bark was real. Taking a bark out of context? Only a dog would know, I guess. I heard her speech where she started barking. The crowd smiled and giggle in embarrassment. I thought she had lost it and wondered how many votes she lost when she did her bark.
Any chance you want to dispute the Trump tape? Did they lie? Was it out of context?

[Guest]

ok-you win
When did she bark and what was the context?
[i'll help you if you don't know]

Here is her entire barking speech.

Hillary Clinton barks like a dog to slam Republicans - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/15/politics/hillary-clinton-barks-like-a-dog-gop/index.html)

[Guest]

The context? How stupid! She was barking in a speech, period. She has finally shown her true nature. Context does not matter, especially in a campaign ad. The Trump campaign add with her barking was probably the best I've seen. The left takes comments out of context consistently, and then cries a river when someone uses their words against them.

This campaign ad was Super bowl quality. It was great.

[Guest]

Wow, she illustrated a point in her speech with a little light humor. Big deal!
The childish name calling ("Killery") is more troubling to me.

[Guest]

He is just observing " The Biden Rule " .

I suggest you get some "history" on the so called Biden Rule.

[Guest]

Mitch McConnell and other Senate Republicans will be violating their oaths of office and neglecting their duties under the Constitution if they refuse to allow a vote on Obama’s nominee. Republicans would rather cater to the shrinking base of their party than do their jobs.

The walls are closing in, and Senate Republicans are running out of excuses for taking the taxpayers’ money while refusing to fulfill their constitutional duties. What a bunch of jerks. The President has fulfilled his constitutional duty by putting forth a candidate , a moderate one that Republicans had easily confirmed before. Now they set a new precedent by not allowing a hearing. They are not opposed to the candidate, they are opposed to Obama, and are using their power just because they can. Hopefully it will backfire on them and the taxpayers will vote for someone that will actually represent them and do their job. Even so, the Democratic president will put forth the same name after the election, so this little schoolyard stunt just makes the Republicans look like what they are - a bunch of whiney little kids. Grow up.

[Guest]

Mitch McConnell and other Senate Republicans will be violating their oaths of office and neglecting their duties under the Constitution if they refuse to allow a vote on Obama’s nominee. Republicans would rather cater to the shrinking base of their party than do their jobs.

The walls are closing in, and Senate Republicans are running out of excuses for taking the taxpayers’ money while refusing to fulfill their constitutional duties. What a bunch of jerks. The President has fulfilled his constitutional duty by putting forth a candidate , a moderate one that Republicans had easily confirmed before. Now they set a new precedent by not allowing a hearing. They are not opposed to the candidate, they are opposed to Obama, and are using their power just because they can. Hopefully it will backfire on them and the taxpayers will vote for someone that will actually represent them and do their job. Even so, the Democratic president will put forth the same name after the election, so this little schoolyard stunt just makes the Republicans look like what they are - a bunch of whiney little kids. Grow up.

Get over it. They are doing exactly what I voted them in for, stopping liberal corruption of our democracy. You are the "whiny little kid" that you accuse others of being. It is you that's whining because they are using the "Biden rule." You had no problem with Harry Reid holding a hundred bills, passed by the House on his desk, refusing to allow a vote on them. It is your party that forced Obamacare through when the majority of Americans did not want it. So, quit crying and get over it. There is no rush to confirm a new judge. If you really thought that Hillary was going to win the election, you wouldn't be panicking like a little girl.

[Guest]

Wow, she illustrated a point in her speech with a little light humor. Big deal!
The childish name calling ("Killery") is more troubling to me.

Well, she was responsible for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, so what's your problem? No telling how many deaths have resulted from her felony violation of transmitting classified information over an unsecured Internet.

[Guest]

I suggest you get some "history" on the so called Biden Rule.

I suggest that you go back and listen to or read what Biden said about election year nominations. The left is adamant about getting their way, like little spoiled children. When the shoe is on the other foot, they cry like little children and scream that it's unfair.

[Guest]

He is just observing " The Biden Rule " .

BS! Democrats have never blocked a hearing. They have always allowed the vote to take place. You can defend this "do nothing" republican party but we all know the truth.

[Guest]

The context? How stupid! She was barking in a speech, period. She has finally shown her true nature. Context does not matter, especially in a campaign ad. The Trump campaign add with her barking was probably the best I've seen. The left takes comments out of context consistently, and then cries a river when someone uses their words against them.

This campaign ad was Super bowl quality. It was great.

Typical Republican defense: "They do it to so it's ok for us." Please give us an example.

[Guest]

Well, she was responsible for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, so what's your problem? No telling how many deaths have resulted from her felony violation of transmitting classified information over an unsecured Internet.

Democratic Question: How come republicans are a owned by big business?
Republican response: Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi!!!

Democratic Question: How come republicans won't do their job?
Republican response: Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi!!!

[Guest]

Typical Republican defense: "They do it to so it's ok for us." Please give us an example.

I have given examples, many times on here. NOW, you go back and read the comments. Quit being so lazy.

[Guest]

Democratic Question: How come republicans are a owned by big business?
Republican response: Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi!!!

Democratic Question: How come republicans won't do their job?
Republican response: Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi,Benghazi!!!

Kind of taking this whole thing out of context, aren't you? Are you really that retarded, or are you just so ignorant that you insist on running amok with no available points or facts to substantiate your comments?

[Guest]

BS! Democrats have never blocked a hearing. They have always allowed the vote to take place. You can defend this "do nothing" republican party but we all know the truth.

You are definitely not the brightest light bulb on the Christmas tree. Where have you been hiding, under a rock? Before saying such idiotic things like that, you should do some research. Where do you think the "Biden Rule" came from? And have you not read or listened to Chuck Schumer's comment regarding Bush's nominations? Wow, you should abstain from commenting until you have something valid to say. If you liberals are so sure that Hillary is going to get elected, why not wait for her to nominate a liberal judge? What are you scared of? Where's your confidence? Me thinks, thou bluster is a sham.

[Guest]

The Republican Senate candidates that are in danger of being unseated are seeking to have their own meeting with Judge Garland. What does that tell you?

[Guest]

Get over it. They are doing exactly what I voted them in for, stopping liberal corruption of our democracy. You are the "whiny little kid" that you accuse others of being. It is you that's whining because they are using the "Biden rule." You had no problem with Harry Reid holding a hundred bills, passed by the House on his desk, refusing to allow a vote on them. It is your party that forced Obamacare through when the majority of Americans did not want it. So, quit crying and get over it. There is no rush to confirm a new judge. If you really thought that Hillary was going to win the election, you wouldn't be panicking like a little girl.

So being a little kid expecting elected officials to do their job is now a bad thing.

Here is the Biden Rule.

1. Nominee (Kennedy) was submitted.
2. Biden stated his reasons for not wanting to go through with the procedure.
3. Votes were taken, Kennedy was confirmed.

How that becomes "we ain't gonna consider a nominee" the same thing is only something a Republican can understand. Oh wait, that's right, President Obama is black and he is ruining America, lets make American great again, let's take our country back, blah blah blah.

[Guest]

So being a little kid expecting elected officials to do their job is now a bad thing.

Here is the Biden Rule.

1. Nominee (Kennedy) was submitted.
2. Biden stated his reasons for not wanting to go through with the procedure.
3. Votes were taken, Kennedy was confirmed.

How that becomes "we ain't gonna consider a nominee" the same thing is only something a Republican can understand. Oh wait, that's right, President Obama is black and he is ruining America, lets make American great again, let's take our country back, blah blah blah.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. The Biden statement was in 1992. Kennedy was NOT nominated in an election year 1988. He was nominated the year before an election year 1987 and confirmed in Feb of the election year 1988.

In July 2007, Chuck Schumer demanded that the Democrats block supreme court nominations for 18 months.

Yes, being a little kid having a tantrum is a bad thing. What's your hurry? After all, you said Hillary is a shoo in for the next presidential position.

[Guest]

So being a little kid expecting elected officials to do their job is now a bad thing.

Here is the Biden Rule.

1. Nominee (Kennedy) was submitted.
2. Biden stated his reasons for not wanting to go through with the procedure.
3. Votes were taken, Kennedy was confirmed.

How that becomes "we ain't gonna consider a nominee" the same thing is only something a Republican can understand. Oh wait, that's right, President Obama is black and he is ruining America, lets make American great again, let's take our country back, blah blah blah.

"Joe Biden: Claims That He Opposed Filling A SCOTUS Vacancy In An Election Year Are "Not An Accurate Description Of My Views."

In a February 22 statement Vice President Joe Biden said his 1992 comments were about "a hypothetical vacancy" and that in fact he "encouraged the Senate and the White House to 'work together to overcome partisan differences,'" which "remains [his] position today."

Biden also highlighted his record as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointing out that "he presided over the process to appoint Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed to the Supreme Court in a presidential election year."

As reported by The New York Times on February 23, Biden's aides also pointed out that "he had been warning against filling a vacancy created by a voluntary resignation of a justice rather than a vacancy created by an unexpected death. In any event, no such vacancy occurred":"

The bell just rang. I have to go to gym now. I'll be back later.

[Guest]

So being a little kid expecting elected officials to do their job is now a bad thing.

Here is the Biden Rule.

1. Nominee (Kennedy) was submitted.
2. Biden stated his reasons for not wanting to go through with the procedure.
3. Votes were taken, Kennedy was confirmed.

How that becomes "we ain't gonna consider a nominee" the same thing is only something a Republican can understand. Oh wait, that's right, President Obama is black and he is ruining America, lets make American great again, let's take our country back, blah blah blah.


Justice Kennedy was entered for consideration Nov. 1997, and took office Feb, 1988. Joe Biden made his comment in 1992. I get your point. Kennedy wasn't held up in an election year.

When Biden made his comment, there wasn't an open seat in the Supreme Court. This "Biden Rule" is more political nonsense by the Republicans. Biden, also, stated the nominee should be consider until the election is over. If Hillary wins, the Republicans will rush to approve Garland, and they will still apply the Biden Rule. The election is over. Now, it is time to do our job. They will take a complete 180, and convince themselves that they have done nothing wrong. It is the nature of the beast.

[Guest]

The Senate Republicans are going to be called out for obstructing progress.

The Republican Party and the Tea Party faction is gasping at it's last breath now.

When Fox News conceded - as they did two days ago - that Hillary Clinton will win the Presidency, you know the Republicans are just twitching.

[Guest]

Justice Kennedy was entered for consideration Nov. 1997, and took office Feb, 1988. Joe Biden made his comment in 1992. I get your point. Kennedy wasn't held up in an election year.

When Biden made his comment, there wasn't an open seat in the Supreme Court. This "Biden Rule" is more political nonsense by the Republicans. Biden, also, stated the nominee should be consider until the election is over. If Hillary wins, the Republicans will rush to approve Garland, and they will still apply the Biden Rule. The election is over. Now, it is time to do our job. They will take a complete 180, and convince themselves that they have done nothing wrong. It is the nature of the beast.

Ok, I get it. We are not supposed to take the man's word for what he said, rather the evolution of what might have been, could have been, might happen in the future or what is presently occurring. Apparently, someone got into that video clip of him speaking and edited it to reflect not what he really meant, or what he really said, but what we wanted to hear. Is that what you are saying? Depending on which party is in power, we need to be flexible to make sure that the left always gets their way, right?

Like I asked before, why the rush? Are you now afraid that Hillary won't be the next president? You have assured us that Hillary as president is a done deal. So, why hurry the process?

[Guest]

Justice Kennedy was entered for consideration Nov. 1997, and took office Feb, 1988. Joe Biden made his comment in 1992. I get your point. Kennedy wasn't held up in an election year.

When Biden made his comment, there wasn't an open seat in the Supreme Court. This "Biden Rule" is more political nonsense by the Republicans. Biden, also, stated the nominee should be consider until the election is over. If Hillary wins, the Republicans will rush to approve Garland, and they will still apply the Biden Rule. The election is over. Now, it is time to do our job. They will take a complete 180, and convince themselves that they have done nothing wrong. It is the nature of the beast.

:1rotfl:..:clap2:...:1rotfl: That's so funny, and.....sooo desperate.

[Guest]

The Senate Republicans are going to be called out for obstructing progress.

The Republican Party and the Tea Party faction is gasping at it's last breath now.

When Fox News conceded - as they did two days ago - that Hillary Clinton will win the Presidency, you know the Republicans are just twitching.

Let me know when Harry Reid is up for obstructing progress, after he held up everything while he was the leader. How many bills sat on his desk, unprocessed for a vote?

Give it a break and quit crying. It's very unbecoming. Can't threaten the Republicans with shutting down the government this time. The left has no power to threaten now. Remember what Obama said, elections have consequences. Turn around is fair play and the Dem's are crying a river. :icon_wink:

[Guest]

"Joe Biden: Claims That He Opposed Filling A SCOTUS Vacancy In An Election Year Are "Not An Accurate Description Of My Views."

In a February 22 statement Vice President Joe Biden said his 1992 comments were about "a hypothetical vacancy" and that in fact he "encouraged the Senate and the White House to 'work together to overcome partisan differences,'" which "remains [his] position today."

Biden also highlighted his record as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointing out that "he presided over the process to appoint Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed to the Supreme Court in a presidential election year."

As reported by The New York Times on February 23, Biden's aides also pointed out that "he had been warning against filling a vacancy created by a voluntary resignation of a justice rather than a vacancy created by an unexpected death. In any event, no such vacancy occurred":"

The bell just rang. I have to go to gym now. I'll be back later.

thank you for the facts. Unfortunately, the facts don't matter to Republicans.

[Guest]

thank you for the facts. Unfortunately, the facts don't matter to Republicans.

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

thank you for the facts. Unfortunately, the facts don't matter to Republicans.
Thank-you,
Can I show your post to my social studies teacher? I'm hoping for extra credit.

[Guest]

thank you for the facts. Unfortunately, the facts don't matter to Republicans.

The facts??? Does he get credit for repeating my facts after I corrected his flawed and incorrect statement? Who cares.

The only thing he added was that we are misconstruing what Biden REALLY meant. What it amounts to, is that whenever the leftie kids say something and then decide the other side can't do it, they yell "that doesn't count. We didn't mean it like that. No fair."

All I will add to the lefties on here that are using lame excuses like the lame Biden, is GROW A PAIR, and take some responsibility. And then grow up and take your beating like real Americans. You don't have to agree, but you also can't have your way 100% of the time.

We all know what Biden meant, and now it has come back to haunt him. It's not one of those open mic things where he whispers in Obie's ear that "this is a big F...ing deal!" But, in this case it IS a big deal and he has to own it.

And by the way, how do you explain off Schumer's comment about holding up nominations for 18 months????? I'm sure you have a good excuse for that one. Oh, that doesn't count either. :icon_wink:

[Guest]

The facts??? Does he get credit for repeating my facts after I corrected his flawed and incorrect statement? Who cares.

I think you do.

[Guest]

I think you do.

Not FAIR! I didn't mean it like that. You didn't understand what I meant...

..........:)

[Guest]

Not FAIR! I didn't mean it like that. You didn't understand what I meant...

..........:)
:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1 rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that if the roles were reversed, the Dem would be doing the exact same thing? No? Thank you!

[Guest]

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that if the roles were reversed, the Dem would be doing the exact same thing? No? Thank you!
you get it. it's all bull****. how long did it take you?

[Guest]

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that if the roles were reversed, the Dem would be doing the exact same thing? No? Thank you!

They did.

[Guest]

They did.
Very Good.
Next week the topic will be "False Advertising: Don't believe Everything You Hear"

[Guest]

Very Good.
Next week the topic will be "False Advertising: Don't believe Everything You Hear"

Unfortunately, even though I don't believe anything that Hillary says, her voice is like dragging a cat across a chalk board. Oh, you didn't mean that?

[Guest]

Unfortunately, even though I don't believe anything that Hillary says, her voice is like dragging a cat across a chalk board. Oh, you didn't mean that?I had a hard time with Eleanor Roosevelt's voice too but I got over it.

[Guest]

And about as coherent as a bag of forks rolling down the steps!!!!!

[Guest]

And about as coherent as a bag of forks rolling down the steps!!!!!
That's a great metaphor, rolling forks. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

Thank-you,
Can I show your post to my social studies teacher? I'm hoping for extra credit.

I bet you are, duh.

[Guest]

I feel sorry for Judge Garland. He is an excellent choice, previously okayed by Republicans and Democrats alike, and now he is a pawn in this Republican obstructionism.

[Guest]

I feel sorry for Judge Garland. He is an excellent choice, previously okayed by Republicans and Democrats alike, and now he is a pawn in this Republican obstructionism.
It is a shame people are more concerned with taking sides then they are about what is in the best interest of all of us.

[Guest]

Garland is Anti-2nd Amendment. That is enough to disqualify him. I would be very disappointed if the Republicans do not block his appointment.

[Guest]

You are aware that last pole gives CONGRESS an approval rating of 10%, like it or not, it's time to clean up shop and McConnell should be at the top of the list after this.

[Guest]

I feel sorry for Judge Garland. He is an excellent choice, previously okayed by Republicans and Democrats alike, and now he is a pawn in this Republican obstructionism.

You stand corrected.

He is a pawn entered upon the table by Obama.
Nice try, again, at misinformation by the supporters of Obama.

[Guest]

It is a shame people are more concerned with taking sides then they are about what is in the best interest of all of us.

The best interest scenario is to follow your duties you swore to. The GOP should accept the nomination and then do what they want. Simply refusing to even consider is a slam at how this oountry works. They have made just the simple act of nominating a person into political theatre.

[Guest]

The best interest scenario is to follow your duties you swore to. The GOP should accept the nomination and then do what they want. Simply refusing to even consider is a slam at how this oountry works. They have made just the simple act of nominating a person into political theatre.

After Obama's opening ACT!

[Guest]

The best interest scenario is to follow your duties you swore to. The GOP should accept the nomination and then do what they want. Simply refusing to even consider is a slam at how this oountry works. They have made just the simple act of nominating a person into political theatre.

Is that what you said as Harry Reid held a hundred bills passed by the House on his desk, not allowing them to be voted upon? I thought not. The Senate is doing the right thing by not allowing the nomination to go through right now. It's their prerogative. They are not breaking any laws, or rules. There is no hurry, no wars are on the line. So, get over it.

[Guest]

You might want to do your homework before opening up your mouth. You are clearly uninformed about history.

Call me crazy, but the last time anyone refused to do their job, they were FIRED! McConnell is NOT doing what the taxpayers of Kentucky voted him to do. First Rate even by low Republican standards, Merrick Garland, should, at the very least, be considered for appointment to the Supreme Court. Another example why the citizens of this great country are frustrated with a "do-nothing" congress. Get rid of all of them!. Even Rubio got caught with his knickers down. Is there anyone in congress that we can trust???

[Guest]

Don't come on a public forum and tell other people what they should do. I can assure you that nobody cares about your uninformed opinion.

The best interest scenario is to follow your duties you swore to. The GOP should accept the nomination and then do what they want. Simply refusing to even consider is a slam at how this oountry works. They have made just the simple act of nominating a person into political theatre.

[Guest]

Sure wish this forum came with a reality check, followed by a pie in the face for false statements. Who would win this contest???

[Guest]

The thread has devolved to the waste of time level of tit for tat.

[Guest]

Harry DID get fired from leader, by the VOTERS. Sen. McConnell is doing exactly what the voter put him in there to do. At least, right now. Of course, knowing how congress is, so wish-washy he could change his mind again next week.

[Guest]

As liberals said, elections have consequences. The Republicans won, so live with it until your side has the power again. You refused to work with the Republicans when you had the power, so don't bother to cry now. No one is listening.

[Guest]

Call me crazy, but the last time anyone refused to do their job, they were FIRED! McConnell is NOT doing what the taxpayers of Kentucky voted him to do. First Rate even by low Republican standards, Merrick Garland, should, at the very least, be considered for appointment to the Supreme Court. Another example why the citizens of this great country are frustrated with a "do-nothing" congress. Get rid of all of them!. Even Rubio got caught with his knickers down. Is there anyone in congress that we can trust???

If we give walking papers for not doing they're job Dirty Harry would of been gone alooooooooooong time ago. the Shyt for brains should read the owner's manual and replaced the bungi cords on his excerise equipment. But just like Obama care he didn't read that either other than the part how much kickbacks he would be getting from the Lobbists.

[Guest]

Don't come on a public forum and tell other people what they should do. I can assure you that nobody cares about your uninformed opinion.

Are you kidding? Uninformed opinions and telling people what to do is the basis for many on this forum. Your post is case in point.

[Guest]

Harry DID get fired from leader, by the VOTERS. Sen. McConnell is doing exactly what the voter put him in there to do. At least, right now. Of course, knowing how congress is, so wish-washy he could change his mind again next week.

so, the people of Kentucky now determine when a president can nominate a justice to the Supreme Court? To my knowledge those are the only people I know of who elected this walking talking turtle welfare recipient.

[Guest]

so, the people of Kentucky now determine when a president can nominate a justice to the Supreme Court? To my knowledge those are the only people I know of who elected this walking talking turtle welfare recipient.

Duhhh, there is more than one senator in the Senate, retard. Did you really think that he is doing all this on his own?

[Guest]

Duhhh, there is more than one senator in the Senate, retard. Did you really think that he is doing all this on his own?

I will just let that comment sink in. After all he is indeed the subject of the original post, he is who determines who gets to nominate and when a supreme court justice can be sent to the Senate ... I will just let your idiotic comment sink in ... duh there are more than one senator in the senate, duh.

[Guest]

Does it matter to those who are calling the republicans obstructionists, et al that the republicans are doing exactly what they told Obama they would do if he tried to fill the slot as a lame duck.

Does it matter to those same Obama supporters that the reublicans are merely doing exactly what the democrats did is similar situatons in the past?

Do the supporters know there is a Biden rule calling for not appointing a justice during a lame ducks term?

Do the supporters know that their Obama as a senator spoke strongly against allowing appointing a justice during a lame duck term.

And we all know the answers will be but that was when it was a republican president was trying to do it. And we know that it was the democrats that were the "obstructionists".

So that obviously was different and OK by their book.

BS!

[Guest]

Does it matter to those who are calling the republicans obstructionists, et al that the republicans are doing exactly what they told Obama they would do if he tried to fill the slot as a lame duck.

Does it matter to those same Obama supporters that the reublicans are merely doing exactly what the democrats did is similar situatons in the past?

Do the supporters know there is a Biden rule calling for not appointing a justice during a lame ducks term?

Do the supporters know that their Obama as a senator spoke strongly against allowing appointing a justice during a lame duck term.

And we all know the answers will be but that was when it was a republican president was trying to do it. And we know that it was the democrats that were the "obstructionists".

So that obviously was different and OK by their book.

BS!

name me one time when a justice was NOT accepted and acted upon by the senate.

[Guest]

name me one time when a justice was NOT accepted and acted upon by the senate.

Changing the subject again?
That is not what is being discussed!

[Guest]

Changing the subject again?
That is not what is being discussed!

Hey message forum policeman ... that is what I posted before.

[Guest]

I will just let that comment sink in. After all he is indeed the subject of the original post, he is who determines who gets to nominate and when a supreme court justice can be sent to the Senate ... I will just let your idiotic comment sink in ... duh there are more than one senator in the senate, duh.

You are naive. Unlike Reid, McConnell does not have complete and sole control over the Senate. But, if it makes you feel good, then blame him. But, also remember what Reid, Schummer and Biden said in the past about election year nominations. Then, just sit back and think about the next words that you post.

[Guest]

You are naive. Unlike Reid, McConnell does not have complete and sole control over the Senate. But, if it makes you feel good, then blame him. But, also remember what Reid, Schummer and Biden said in the past about election year nominations. Then, just sit back and think about the next words that you post.

What one says and does matters. How many SCJ were not voted on by Reid?

[Guest]

What one says and does matters. How many SCJ were not voted on by Reid?

What did he say about election year nominations? Get over it and go back to sucking your thumb. Elections have consequences, as liberals love to say. Or, they used to love to say it. Now, live with it.