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???

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

He is just observing " The Biden Rule " .

Originally Posted by 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/...-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)
==========================

Originally Posted by 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............................ ..

Originally Posted by 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/...-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.

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

I think you mean Bill Clinton.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

The right wing ad against Trump use clips with Trump doing the talking.


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

Originally Posted by Guest

The right wing ad against Trump use clips with Trump doing the talking.


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.

Originally Posted by 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]