Wrong. Apparently, you (a liberal) do not understand the ramifications of taking that Obamacare medicaid from the Feds. It is all temp and then the State is on the hook for coming up with the funding later. You liberals are real good at saying if you don't GIVE/GIVE this to the poor, you hate them. Pure rubbish. It's better to build a job force so that everyone can afford their own health care, than to use money you don't have to provide it for those that don't want to work. Go ahead and tell me that everyone that doesn't have health care, are poor and can't work because they are handicapped.

As for the Republican party being right wing, that is also hogwash. The Republican party is a bunch of moderates to RINO's. There are hardly any "right wing" politicians anymore. Anyone that is conservative is automatically targeted by the left wing radicals with charges of "hate, racist, sexist, etc." And now the left has even resorted to violence. The left does not believe in Freedom of Speech for the right and they are determined to block it.

Social Security is not enough for old seniors.....then they look for other options.

I have a friend just like that who is running out of money from her IRA.

Now who looks like an idiot?

U.S. Liberals at Record 24%, but Still Trail Conservatives

"Over the past 22 years, Americans' ideological bent, or at least their willingness to associate with certain labels, has changed in subtle ways.

Although the "liberal" moniker remains the least favorite, it has enjoyed the most growth,

while "conservative" is up slightly and "moderate" has waned.

But to a large extent, these changes reflect opposing ideological shifts within the parties, not national trends. That helps explain how there could be a record proportion of liberals at a time when Democratic identification was at a long-term low. Likewise, even though 2014 was a strong election year for the Republican Party, Gallup found no increase in conservatism in 2014 compared with 2013. All of this happened at the same time that political independence was peaking, which is to say that ideological polarization and the strength of the two major parties don't necessarily go hand in hand. In fact, one may undermine the other."

Like I said, what doe Social Security have to do with welfare? Do you not know what SS's purpose is/was? Do you believe that SS is welfare? It is NOT supposed to be a retirement program. It is a retirement supplement.

I don't know your friend, but it appears that she did not plan for her retirement appropriately. If she is running out of her IRA, perhaps she has a budgeting problem. It is not the duty of the government to supply you with a livelihood. It is not the duty of the government to supply you with health care either. You have a choice in life, either plan for those hard cold winters, or perish with the lazy grasshopper. Sorry, but I am not my brother's keeper. If you can't survive without gov assistance, then perhaps you are too weak.

Who looks like an idiot? Well, it is not my family that's destitute. It is not my family that is dependent on someone else to provide for them. And I didn't get anything from relatives as an adult. I earned it the hard way, just like anyone else CAN.

And before you give the same repetitious mantra of me not being a Christian, let me give you some food for thought. Christians give charity freely, not being forced. Liberals believe they are being Christian-like by giving someone else's wealth away to the unmotivated or sometimes needy, regardless of qualifiers.

[QUOTE=Guest;1200372]Wrong. Apparently, you (a liberal) do not understand the ramifications of taking that Obamacare medicaid from the Feds. It is all temp and then the State is on the hook for coming up with the funding later. You liberals are real good at saying if you don't GIVE/GIVE this to the poor, you hate them. Pure rubbish. It's better to build a job force so that everyone can afford their own health care, than to use money you don't have to provide it for those that don't want to work. Go ahead and tell me that everyone that doesn't have health care, are poor and can't work because they are handicapped.

As for the Republican party being right wing, that is also hogwash. The Republican party is a bunch of moderates to RINO's. There are hardly any "right wing" politicians anymore. Anyone that is conservative is automatically targeted by the left wing radicals with charges of "hate, racist, sexist, etc." And now the left has even resorted to violence. The left does not believe in Freedom of Speech for the right and they are determined to block it.[/QUOTE]

You (far right Republican) state that states have to come up with funding later. How much funding? You give the impression that would be a major burden on the states. That is total far right nonsense.

In the Republicans party MODERATERS are RINOs. What the hell do you call Ted Cruz? A MODERATE! When Romney ran for president, he had to move to the right to get the nomination. When he got the nomination, he went back to the middle. In the first Romney/ Obama debate, Obama didn't know who is was debating. Boehner quit, because he couldn't deal with the far right. Bipartisan bills never make it to the floor of the House, due to the Hastert Rule. The far right is the problem. I could go on and on, but I would be just talking to the wall.

Why don't you try to back up the sentences in bold with FACTS?

You really are in la la land. Your entire last paragraph is total nonsense. It is only surpassed in total by the absolute total nonsense of your first paragraph. You really do live in an alternative universe.

[QUOTE=Guest;1200447]You're entitled to your opinion. Liberals still have their right to Freedom of Speech.

well there is no such rule for starters. secondly the appointee in that case indeed had a hearing and was voted on, and was successfully given a chair on the Supreme Court. If you are going to talk BS GOP crap at least think about it.

And some of those who refuse to work and still get paid are the GOP Senators ... who simply will not do their job,

Man I will be glad to take your gun and your ammo old angry white man and lock you in the closet when the Civil War II begins.

I think he is pulling our leg. He is pretty funny. His age and gender is anyone's guess. He could be Will Ferrell.

I will be interested in the honest (?) opinion of those on the right. The rallying cry has been that the people must vote and the next POTUS nominate the replacement for Scalia. I could link to dozens of GOP leaders who said exactly that. They maintain that the next President gets to make the nomination. Will you cry hypocrisy and liar liar if Clinton wins and the GOP then hurries in a lame duck session to consider and accept Garland? Would that prove their opposition was political and neither based on some vague constitutional argument or a strict adherence to the last 76 years of it not happening?

Call it what ever you want. If and or when Clinton would be elected, Obama will withdraw Garland.....as he is only a pawn in this contrived political pi$$ing contest.......the game plan is for Clinton to go get the leftist most judge on the planet.

It is a game. Stop trying to label the establishment whether R or D....it does not matter. Obama has set the stage. Now the play is under way.

How can this be a Clinton plan? The GOP has the power in their hands to put this nominee on the court. The GOP made the stupid argument that they won't consider a nominee instead of shutting their stupid do nothing pie holes and playing this out.

Nobody said it was the Clinton plan.

It was planned, and birthed by Obama.....it is his plan!!!! And by the content of this thread, working better than planned.

Obama nominated and the Senate has said "no." There is no law that says they must vote on it immediately. If they feel that it is in their best interest to wait, then they can wait. They have the power. Just like the Dems had ALL THE POWER in the first two years of Obama's first term. Like the Dem's have said repeatedly, "elections have consequences." The shoe is on the other foot, so cry your little eyes out, because that's life. Deal with it. At least the Republicans have not chosen to totally cut the Dems out of everything, like the other side did to them in the first two years. They should be grateful.

I would expect the President to pull his nomination at that time until Ms Clinton or Mr Sanders take the oath. Not only do elections have consequences but idiotic ass fissure moves like the GOP Senate is doing should not go without consequences. Let's let the new President give a length list of far left judges, These idiots should have taken the moderate.

BS!

Einstein returns. Damn Trump supporters.

Funny how the Dems demanded that Republican presidents NOT make election year nominations, but now they are adamant about hurrying through an election year nomination. I do find their hysteria amusing for a change. They have enjoyed pulling the tail of the GOP for seven years, and now they scream like little girls. So pathetic, but very entertaining.

You do know the difference between resigning and dying don't you? You also know why the TIMING of a justice resigning might be a factor. If a justice wanted to make sure his/her seat would be filled with a like minded justice could you not see how a party could work the system.

You see sometimes if you look past the surface it's not always what it appears. Unfortunately, Fox news wants to keep it's viewers as ignorant as possible. Also unfortunately, Fox has been VERY successful.

Tell me; Did that justice get a hearing? Did that justice get an up or down vote? Is that justice now sitting on the court? Yep, it's just the samechilout

Yes, he was nominated in November rather than March. WAY different. :1rotfl:

This thread is like having a debate about how far a horse will travel on a merry go round!

Yes, you would see it that way. If so, then enjoy your kiddie ride and quit worrying about what the adults are doing in the Senate.

Apparently it was enough of a difference for the liberals. The point made, was that he was NOT nominated in an election year. If that is too difficult for a liberal to understand, perhaps they shouldn't get involved.

Dear Guest

:1rotfl: At least with Abbott & Costello's " Who Is On First there was the recognition of pure genius combined with the human experience.

Your Merry Go Round metaphor denotes the lack thereof

Well played

Personal Best Regards:

Shouldn't get involved? You don't like it when I point out what lying hypocrits you republicans are. I just enjoy watching republicans, who know the truth, work hard to parch words and make it sound plausible if not reasonable.

If it wouldn't have been November and maybe it was March the republicans would yes, but it's not the same; When Reagan did it, it was on a Tuesday and we have never nominated a judge on a Tuesday. Ok, maybe a Tuesday but never after 3PM on a Tuesday. See totally different.

Just love watching you people justify the unjustifiable. Great fun laughing at you poor sheep.

That's the funniest thing I have heard since I started reading these threads. I hope you hang in here for a while.