Posted by Guest (Post 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.

Posted by Guest (Post 1199461)

Because that one went over the libtard's head. You have to spell out what the Biden rule is to him because he refuses to learn anything other than liberal talking points.

It's OK for Democrats to be obstructionists and refuse to pass bills or vote on a nomination, but heaven help those big meanie Republicans if they pull the same stunts.

Posted by Guest (Post 1199548)

Yes, but they are also including EARNED benefits in their calculation. If the gov is going to force you to invest in your retirement, then they need to live up to their promise to deliver. Or, are they just another Ponzi scheme?

Posted by Guest (Post 1199568)

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

Posted by Guest (Post 1200602)

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.

Posted by Guest (Post 1200621)

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?

Posted by Guest (Post 1200645)

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.

Posted by Guest (Post 1200661)

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.

Posted by Guest (Post 1200621)

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?

Posted by Guest (Post 1202038)

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.

Posted by Guest (Post 1202063)

BS!

Posted by Guest (Post 1199462)

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)