RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016

RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:32:13 PM)
quote: The end justifies the means unless a conservative does it. I am not talking about his qualifications I am talking about how the Dems decided in advance that whoever was nominated the would destroy him personally. Its always been that process. Confirmation hearings have always abeen a point of contention... and rarely agreed upon by both parties. Why this shocks you, I have no clue. However, the warning was for Reagan, not for the person they nominated. You do realize that Bork was pretty much a shoe in for nomination even before being nominated considering his role in the Nixon affairs. Bork was considered before when Scalia was chosen. So to say they didnt even know who would be given the nod? They had a damn good clue.

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:34:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Not providing protection for an American diplomat is nothing? There was no protection? No Marines no automatic weapons just two ex-military who volunteered, you call that protection.

dcnovice -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:34:03 PM)
quote: I am not talking about his qualifications I am talking about how the Dems decided in advance that whoever was nominated the would destroy him personally. What's your source for saying that the opposition was planned in advance of the candidate's being announced? It's a bit hard to square that claim with the fact that the Senate had already confirmed three Reagan appointees: O'Connor, Rehnquist (elevation to chief justice), and Scalia. O'Connor and Scalia were confirmed unanimously. Rehnquist was a bit more contentious.

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:35:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I am not talking about his qualifications I am talking about how the Dems decided in advance that whoever was nominated the would destroy him personally. What's your source for saying that the opposition was planned in advance of the candidate's being announced? It's a bit hard to square that claim with the fact that the Senate had already confirmed three Reagan appointees: O'Connor, Rehnquist (elevation to chief justice), and Scalia. O'Connor and Scalia were confirmed unanimously. Rehnquist was a bit more contentious. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:39:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Not providing protection for an American diplomat is nothing? There was no protection? No Marines no automatic weapons just two ex-military who volunteered, you call that protection. Could have sworn there were 9 security officers.

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:41:29 PM)
Try here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination Btw, the source for the reference doesnt seem to exist.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:55:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That may be what you mean but it isn't what you say Don't presume to know what I'm thinking. Even if you knew it, you couldn't comprehend it. Reread my post I was not presuming to know what you think. And thank you for displaying the renown civility of liberals When was the last time you saw a liberal call Obama "The most ineffective president in generations" as I have done repeatedly?[8\|] so much for that fucking theory.[:D]

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:59:01 PM)
Many liberals have voiced their complaints on these boards about Obama....

dcnovice -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 6:02:24 PM)
quote: Btw, the source for the reference doesnt seem to exist. The WSJ opinion (I think) piece that Wikipedia cited? I couldn't access that either. I looked at a bunch of Bork obits, none of which mentioned the pre-nomination opposition. Neither did an NPR piece on the nomination battle. Interesting.

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 6:10:18 PM)
IF it is true.....Bork as a potential was not unknown on the Hill... they knew what they were getting with him.. and they were ready.

dcnovice -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 7:22:51 PM)
quote: Bork as a potential was not unknown on the Hill... True. I've read that part of the opposition to the nomination stemmed from Reagan's replacing a moderate (Lewis Powell) with an uberconservative. Bork's role in the Saturday Night Massacre didn't help either.

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 8:00:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Not providing protection for an American diplomat is nothing? There was no protection? No Marines no automatic weapons just two ex-military who volunteered, you call that protection. Could have sworn there were 9 security officers. Even 9 is only reasonable in someplace like London. Paris had 40 marines in addition to civilian security.

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 8:02:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Btw, the source for the reference doesnt seem to exist. The WSJ opinion (I think) piece that Wikipedia cited? I couldn't access that either. I looked at a bunch of Bork obits, none of which mentioned the pre-nomination opposition. Neither did an NPR piece on the nomination battle. Interesting. And NPR is a well known right wing organization.

dcnovice -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 8:03:29 PM)
quote: And NPR is a well known right wing organization. Far from it. But at least the NPR piece was accessible.

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 8:05:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl IF it is true.....Bork as a potential was not unknown on the Hill... they knew what they were getting with him.. and they were ready. If you want true incivility check out Thad Stevens 1859. That was perpetrated by a Democrat and a slave holder to boot. If you thing that today is uncivil read about the John Quincy Adams administration.

slvemike4u -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 8:13:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Thank you. And its something I do not agree with, the premise. I feel a moderate Republican can put a Democrat in an extremely tight race. But what are the chances of a moderate running? And, against Clinton if she decides to run.... its not looking good... maybe Christie, to be honest... possibly Ryan... I cant see the rest of them holding up to that race. Thank god for the Republican primary process...a process designed to deliver unto the Democratic Party the Oval Office for ,at the least,the next cycle ,maybe two.

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 8:32:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Try here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination Btw, the source for the reference doesnt seem to exist. Strange cause I read it just before posting it.

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 8:35:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: And NPR is a well known right wing organization. Far from it. But at least the NPR piece was accessible. Just found it for the 3rd time this evening wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

dcnovice -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 11:12:25 PM)
quote: Just found it for the 3rd time this evening wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork The Wiki link works fine. But I haven't been able to access the WSJ article cited as a source therein.

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/26/2013 1:01:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl IF it is true.....Bork as a potential was not unknown on the Hill... they knew what they were getting with him.. and they were ready. If you want true incivility check out Thad Stevens 1859. That was perpetrated by a Democrat and a slave holder to boot. If you thing that today is uncivil read about the John Quincy Adams administration. What does my post have to do with Stevens?

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875