Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/11/2016 6:50:33 PM   
ImperialPath


Posts: 215
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

why are you reversing yourself? And no, they didnt, and they still don't learn that.



You have no way of knowing. How does that thumb taste?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/11/2016 6:57:22 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Of course I know.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to ImperialPath)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/11/2016 7:17:24 PM   
TheCabal


Posts: 291
Joined: 9/3/2005
From: Lots of different places
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Republicans Are Even Blocking Their Own Nominees Now.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) requested on the floor that senators take up and confirm Waverly Crenshaw, a Tennessee district court nominee backed by GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker. She also asked for a vote on one her judicial nominees, Paula Xinis. Both are next in line for votes, based on the order in which nominees reach the floor.

.....with strong support from his GOP senators and who unanimously cleared the Judiciary Committee was denied a vote.


Isn't this getting a bit ridiculous ? Read it, am I missing something ? Is McConnell asleep ?

HERE

"If every senator could come down here and cherry-pick different nominations from the calendar and ask consent that we move to executive session and consider those ... it would result in some chaos," Cornyn said.


First of all, why ? But are these judges 'next in line' or what ? I think Cronyn is wrong either way.


There's nothing really "new" about this. It goes back at least to the GWB administration.

Wiki

quote:

Soon after the inauguration of Bush as president in January 2001, many liberal academics became worried that he would begin packing the federal judiciary with conservative jurists. Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman wrote an article in the February 2001 edition of the magazine The American Prospect that encouraged the use of the filibuster to stop Bush from placing any nominee on the Supreme Court during his first term.[3] In addition, law professors Cass Sunstein (University of Chicago) and Laurence Tribe (Harvard), along with Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center, counseled Senate Democrats in April 2001 "to scrutinize judicial nominees more closely than ever." Specifically, they said, "there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly or erudite." [4]


The various procedural stuff where the odd appointment doesn't get a quick pat on the back is also not unusual.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/11/2016 7:49:06 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ImperialPath


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

So, since Lincoln freed the slaves (he didnt but the united states did by amendment to our constitution), has the GOP done anything else about freedom? That old chestnut is getting a little long in the tooth. And that wasnt a straight walk down the aisle. One can easily point out the many times since then they have worked towards putting them back on the block.

I can without let or hindrance inform you that I know the constitution, the history of America, the history of the US government, the history of the parties, and many other ancillary issues far better than most here and without question far better than you.


It is "United States", with caps. Now, a history lesson for you on how the slaves were freed: Emancipation Proclamation.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation and executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863. In a single stroke, it changed the federal legal status of more than 3 million enslaved persons in the designated areas of the South from "slave" to "free".



God, the idiots on this thread...they need to shut the fuck up and go play XBOX or something with their stupid thumbs up their asses from where they normally keep their ideas.

Just who again are the idiots here ?

The EP was nothing but talk, read from a piece of paper...didn't free a single slave. In fact, it did NOTHING at all let alone create a new 'federal legal status' even up to and including Antietam. (if that were so, then Obama EO's would have the same effect and every repub is running to and getting courts to strike them down) Read on.....

Lincoln knew he had to have at least one battlefield victory before issuing it, to back it up with some federal action and even Antietam was a draw that only sent the confederates back south out of Md. (it was also BTW when McClellan still exhibiting extraordinary and almost cowardly caution, failed to go after the rebels and end the war right there)

The EP also did not free any slave by proclamation or otherwise any in any northern state including W. Va and Md. but only in states that were in rebellion and not even then at least until 1864 when Grant and Sherman went south and proved it.

Since it was executed by a president exercising greatly expanded wartime powers, the president and his supporters were concerned that courts might rule the Emancipation Proclamation a temporary emergency measure invalid once the war concluded. Gee, where have we heard that before and from the great 'party of Lincoln ?'

The legal, codified, federal freeing of the slaves otherwise known as 13th constitutional amend disallowing 'involuntary servitude' wasn't passed until January 31, 1865 and there was a whole lotta horse trading to get that done.

So the amendment would still not become the law of the land until the approval by three-fourths of the states, which occurred when Georgia approved the measure on December 6, 1865

The 'party of Lincoln' was...was the party of progressives up until TR voting against monopoly and for anti-trust and labor laws...now they aren't and don't. The democrats are now the progressives and seek more business competition and regulation against the greedy capitalist scum of America we have now, similar to what the repubs went after in the early 20th cent.

The democrats were the 'dixiecrats' or 'boll weevil' democrats were against it all...now they aren't. The repubs are.

The democrats got civil rights laws passed and weren't the country's political racists. During that fight, the repubs fought civil rights leg. even some forming a new party and were and remain the country's political racists.

That's what's become the 'party of Lincoln'

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to ImperialPath)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/15/2016 1:29:35 PM   
ImperialPath


Posts: 215
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: ImperialPath


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

So, since Lincoln freed the slaves (he didnt but the united states did by amendment to our constitution), has the GOP done anything else about freedom? That old chestnut is getting a little long in the tooth. And that wasnt a straight walk down the aisle. One can easily point out the many times since then they have worked towards putting them back on the block.

I can without let or hindrance inform you that I know the constitution, the history of America, the history of the US government, the history of the parties, and many other ancillary issues far better than most here and without question far better than you.


It is "United States", with caps. Now, a history lesson for you on how the slaves were freed: Emancipation Proclamation.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation and executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863. In a single stroke, it changed the federal legal status of more than 3 million enslaved persons in the designated areas of the South from "slave" to "free".



God, the idiots on this thread...they need to shut the fuck up and go play XBOX or something with their stupid thumbs up their asses from where they normally keep their ideas.

Just who again are the idiots here ?

The EP was nothing but talk, read from a piece of paper...didn't free a single slave. In fact, it did NOTHING at all let alone create a new 'federal legal status' even up to and including Antietam. (if that were so, then Obama EO's would have the same effect and every repub is running to and getting courts to strike them down) Read on.....

Lincoln knew he had to have at least one battlefield victory before issuing it, to back it up with some federal action and even Antietam was a draw that only sent the confederates back south out of Md. (it was also BTW when McClellan still exhibiting extraordinary and almost cowardly caution, failed to go after the rebels and end the war right there)

The EP also did not free any slave by proclamation or otherwise any in any northern state including W. Va and Md. but only in states that were in rebellion and not even then at least until 1864 when Grant and Sherman went south and proved it.

Since it was executed by a president exercising greatly expanded wartime powers, the president and his supporters were concerned that courts might rule the Emancipation Proclamation a temporary emergency measure invalid once the war concluded. Gee, where have we heard that before and from the great 'party of Lincoln ?'

The legal, codified, federal freeing of the slaves otherwise known as 13th constitutional amend disallowing 'involuntary servitude' wasn't passed until January 31, 1865 and there was a whole lotta horse trading to get that done.

So the amendment would still not become the law of the land until the approval by three-fourths of the states, which occurred when Georgia approved the measure on December 6, 1865

The 'party of Lincoln' was...was the party of progressives up until TR voting against monopoly and for anti-trust and labor laws...now they aren't and don't. The democrats are now the progressives and seek more business competition and regulation against the greedy capitalist scum of America we have now, similar to what the repubs went after in the early 20th cent.

The democrats were the 'dixiecrats' or 'boll weevil' democrats were against it all...now they aren't. The repubs are.

The democrats got civil rights laws passed and weren't the country's political racists. During that fight, the repubs fought civil rights leg. even some forming a new party and were and remain the country's political racists.

That's what's become the 'party of Lincoln'



I see you have been reading up on American History. That is good. What is not good is how you interpret what happened and when:

1) The Southern states secede over a loss of sovereign states rights.
2) The Confederate Army fires on Fort Sumter SC to drive elements of the U.S. Military from sovereign territory.
3) The North halts Lee's Army in Maryland near Sharpsburg and Antietam Creek. Lee withdrawals back to Virginia and the North halts and licks it's wounds.
4) Lincoln decides it was a victory and uses this opportunity to proclaim all slaves will be free in the rebelling states by January 1 of the following year unless the South stops it's rebellion. The South does not seem to notice.
5) Eventually the South must surrender and the North enforces the Emancipation Proclamation by military force but only in the rebelling states.
6) Soon thereafter Congress makes the EO law as the 13th amendment because the Constitution allowed slavery which kinda made freeing the slaves illegal.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Civil Rights legislature is both good and necessary over and above the Constitution? Or, why after over a 100 years of freedom do blacks need special targeted legislature to protect their already given and equal rights under the Constitution? And, given these Civil Rights laws are indeed targeted toward non-whites, then how has this not been divisive? Are whites and black even more separated by separate treatments, i.e. targeted laws, targeted holidays and even targeted cable channels as if somehow we do need black lives matter but not white lives matter or white targeted cable channels?

I frankly feel strongly that the Dems enacted these laws to capture votes and keep whites and blacks separated and decisive so they can take advantage of this atmosphere to be relevant to the black population, 100 years after they were freed, or enslaved in some minds, by an emancipation proclamation used to threaten the South and perhaps stop their rebellion for states rights and sovereignty

I think we are turning the corner on this in this election and that turn frightens the party of slavery, the Dems.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/15/2016 1:35:21 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
1) The Southern states secede over a loss of sovereign states rights.
No states rights were at issue. Never. Lincoln was not going to take your slaves away any more than Obama was going to take your guns away.

2) The Confederate Army fires on Fort Sumter SC to drive elements of the U.S. Military from sovereign territory.
Yes, much like the nutsuckers siezed the federal reservation a bird sanctuary in Idaho or Oregon or one of those states, the Confederacy (not a sovereign anything) seized a federal reservation and fired upon Federal troops trying to bring food into Ft. Sumter.

3) The North halts Lee's Army in Maryland near Sharpsburg and Antietam Creek. Lee withdrawals back to Virginia and the North halts and licks it's wounds.
And subsequently loses, its in the southern blood.

4) Lincoln decides it was a victory and uses this opportunity to proclaim all slaves will be free in the rebelling states by January 1 of the following year unless the South stops it's rebellion. The South does not seem to notice.
Oh, but they noticed.

5) Eventually the South must surrender and the North enforces the Emancipation Proclamation by military force but only in the rebelling states.
Got one so far.

6) Soon thereafter Congress makes the EO law as the 13th amendment because the Constitution allowed slavery which kinda made freeing the slaves illegal.
thats 1/2 right. 1.5/6 = 0.25 your grade is an F minus. Go back to American History class with the beginner immigrants.


< Message edited by mnottertail -- 3/15/2016 1:37:49 PM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to ImperialPath)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/15/2016 1:47:12 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: ImperialPath

I see you have been reading up on American History. That is good. What is not good is how you interpret what happened and when:

1) The Southern states secede over a loss of sovereign states rights.

If one looks at the documents of succession it becomes quite clear that the south seceded to preserve slavery and no other reason.


2) The Confederate Army fires on Fort Sumter SC to drive elements of the U.S. Military from sovereign territory.

The constitution makes it quite clear that soverignity lies with the federal govrnment and not the states.

3) The North halts Lee's Army in Maryland near Sharpsburg and Antietam Creek. Lee withdrawals back to Virginia and the North halts and licks it's wounds.
4) Lincoln decides it was a victory and uses this opportunity to proclaim all slaves will be free in the rebelling states by January 1 of the following year unless the South stops it's rebellion. The South does not seem to notice.
5) Eventually the South must surrender and the North enforces the Emancipation Proclamation by military force but only in the rebelling states.

Anyone who has read the emancipation proclamation would know that the rebelling states were the only place affected by the order, so why would it be enforced anyplace else?

6) Soon thereafter Congress makes the EO law as the 13th amendment because the Constitution allowed slavery which kinda made freeing the slaves illegal.

Since it only applied to those states outside the protection of the constitution it is hardly illegal.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Civil Rights legislature is both good and necessary over and above the Constitution? Or, why after over a 100 years of freedom do blacks need special targeted legislature to protect their already given and equal rights under the Constitution?

Perhaps it may have been the more than 3000 blacks murdered under color of authority (public lynching)?


And, given these Civil Rights laws are indeed targeted toward non-whites, then how has this not been divisive?

How many white people have been lynched under color of authority by blacks


Are whites and black even more separated by separate treatments, i.e. targeted laws, targeted holidays


Which targeted holidays are you speaking of?

and even targeted cable channels

Is there something about free enterprise you do not aprove of in amerika?

as if somehow we do need black lives matter but not white lives matter

Perhaps because we do not see black cops murdering whites.


or white targeted cable channels?

The overwhelming majority of cable channels are white targeted so what is your point?


(in reply to ImperialPath)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/15/2016 1:54:34 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Go back to American History class with the beginner immigrants.

Harsh but fair and civil.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/15/2016 6:19:09 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:



The democrats got civil rights laws passed and weren't the country's political racists. During that fight, the repubs fought civil rights leg. even some forming a new party and were and remain the country's political racists.

That's what's become the 'party of Lincoln'



Yeah, nice hypothesis. Counter factual, but it fits your preconceptions, doesn't it. I suggest you google which party had a higher % voting for civil rights legislation.

Hint: It wasn't democrat.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/15/2016 8:27:23 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ImperialPath

I frankly feel strongly that the Dems enacted these laws to capture votes and keep whites and blacks separated and decisive so they can take advantage of this atmosphere to be relevant to the black population, 100 years after they were freed, or enslaved in some minds, by an emancipation proclamation used to threaten the South and perhaps stop their rebellion for states rights and sovereignty

I think we are turning the corner on this in this election and that turn frightens the party of slavery, the Dems.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Yeah, nice hypothesis. Counter factual, but it fits your preconceptions, doesn't it. I suggest you google which party had a higher % voting for civil rights legislation.

Hint: It wasn't democrat.



I invite both of you to either be reminded of or to look up what Pres. Johnson said, right after he signed the CRA.

It sums both your posts (at least the parts I pulled, in one case) up, nicely.



Michael


_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to ImperialPath)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/15/2016 9:54:14 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:



The democrats got civil rights laws passed and weren't the country's political racists. During that fight, the repubs fought civil rights leg. even some forming a new party and were and remain the country's political racists.

That's what's become the 'party of Lincoln'



Yeah, nice hypothesis. Counter factual, but it fits your preconceptions, doesn't it. I suggest you google which party had a higher % voting for civil rights legislation.

Hint: It wasn't democrat.

CRA voting:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

ZERO southern repubs for and 9% fewer northern repubs for.

The original senate version

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

ZERO southern repubs for and 12% fewer repubs for. That's factually what happened including Strom Thurmond leaving the dems.

Thus the dems had a higher % voting for in every instance above. HERE

He switched parties because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, disaffection with the liberalism of the national party, and his support for the conservatism of the Republican presidential candidate Senator Barry Goldwater and joining the repubs against CR leg. and for ever after...against CR leg.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 3/15/2016 9:58:02 PM >


_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/16/2016 8:44:43 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
yeah nice bite and switch there.

The original versions of the bill were crap, they didn't get passed into law and so they aren't any civil right legislation - they are bills. G-d I hate when people try deceptive shit like this.

FACT: Civil rights act of 1964:

House Republicans in favor. 136 of 171. 80%.
House Democrats in favor 153 of 244 (63%)

Senate republicans in favor 27/33 82%
Senate Democrats in favor 46 of 67 69%.

It is exactly like I said it was. Republicans supported these legislation at much higher percentage than democrats. Period.

Civil Rights Act of 1960: 132 republicans in favor, 15 opposed
179 democrats in favor, 93 opposed
In the senate, not one republican voted against the bill. 18 democrats did.

Civil Rights Act of 1957: 43 republicans in favor. 0 opposed.
29 democrats in favor 18 democrats opposed.

14th Ammendment - not one democrat vote.
15th Amendment - not one democrat vot.
Civil rights act of 1875 - not one democrat vote.

Republicans from their beginning until today have been and are the party for minority rights. Democrats, the party of Jim Crow, the KKK, and slavery have year after year pushed the idea that republicans are racists.

History says otherwise.

Democrats will tell you that the Republicans are the party of Strom Thurmond. They neglect to mention that every other member of the democrat party that voted against civil rights remained a democrat.

They forget to tell you that the Democrat Senate Leader Byrd was a KKK member. This outstanding racist was a democrat, often majority leader, and as president pro tempore third in line to the presidency - and remained in office till 2010. Where's the democrat criticism of Byrd, hmmm?

The reason that republicans started winning in the south had nothing todo with racism - it had to do with the rise of a real middle class. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson





< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 3/16/2016 8:47:32 PM >

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/17/2016 5:28:01 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

yeah nice bite and switch there.

The original versions of the bill were crap, they didn't get passed into law and so they aren't any civil right legislation - they are bills. G-d I hate when people try deceptive shit like this.

FACT: Civil rights act of 1964:

House Republicans in favor. 136 of 171. 80%.
House Democrats in favor 153 of 244 (63%)

Senate republicans in favor 27/33 82%
Senate Democrats in favor 46 of 67 69%.

It is exactly like I said it was. Republicans supported these legislation at much higher percentage than democrats. Period.

Civil Rights Act of 1960: 132 republicans in favor, 15 opposed
179 democrats in favor, 93 opposed
In the senate, not one republican voted against the bill. 18 democrats did.

Civil Rights Act of 1957: 43 republicans in favor. 0 opposed.
29 democrats in favor 18 democrats opposed.

14th Ammendment - not one democrat vote.
15th Amendment - not one democrat vot.
Civil rights act of 1875 - not one democrat vote.

Republicans from their beginning until today have been and are the party for minority rights. Democrats, the party of Jim Crow, the KKK, and slavery have year after year pushed the idea that republicans are racists.

History says otherwise.

Democrats will tell you that the Republicans are the party of Strom Thurmond. They neglect to mention that every other member of the democrat party that voted against civil rights remained a democrat.

They forget to tell you that the Democrat Senate Leader Byrd was a KKK member. This outstanding racist was a democrat, often majority leader, and as president pro tempore third in line to the presidency - and remained in office till 2010. Where's the democrat criticism of Byrd, hmmm?

The reason that republicans started winning in the south had nothing todo with racism - it had to do with the rise of a real middle class. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson



The only reason any dems didn't vote for the final bill, was because it had been watered down to get past a filibuster with Byrd and a minority of dem amd a majority of repubs supporting [it] and that's in my link. The original civil rights bill of 1964 had greater civil rights enforcement. Having watered that down, many dems didn't vote for final passage.

The history of Byrd's conversion is well known whereas Thurmond made no such conversion or apologies. The southern repubs were what Nixon appealed to was the silent (moral/white) majority which was clear dog whistle rhetoric for racist whites. Southern whites (mostly repub) voted overwhelmingly for Nixon, Ford and Reagan.

Ever since, it is the repubs that have consistently used racial gerrymandering and state govt. to constrict minority voting. It was a majority of repubs and a minority of dems that moved to remove racial job discrimination enforcement from the 64 CRA.

Plus, I have consistently said that the repubs until FDR were the progressives. It has been since then and even during the Truman years, that they turned from Lincoln/TR repubs to racist white man repubs.

That's the real history. Your National Review link and that Harvard study wouldn't carry much water with MLK and the reasons for their marches. There was no real minority middle class and the only blacks that got jobs was that FDR's new deal didn't discriminate. The southern states never ever went after job and housing and voting discrimination and in fact was the very basis for continuing Title VII review by the DOJ just only recently stuck down by the SCOTUS right wing racists and also the basis for amendments such as the fair housing act.

There was and has been repub racist fingerprints all over the south and somewhat in the north ever since FDR.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 3/17/2016 6:15:14 AM >


_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/17/2016 6:07:08 AM   
Cinnamongirl67


Posts: 854
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: ImperialPath


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
has the GOP done anything else about freedom?


yeah---they oppose the rights/freedom-trampling collectivist agenda that started in the early 1900s and that continues today. good enough for you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I know...the history of America, the history of the US government...far better than most here...


given the question I quoted you as saying above, sorry, that assertion is laughable on its face.


Yes, the individual income tax, the FCC, taking away Native American lands, squandering our blood and treasure on corporations and the military-industrial complex, many many freedoms.

It is laughable only to those who are untutored on just those things I enumerated. Q.E.D.


Enumerating shit is laughable. I know that. Put a thumb in your mouth and one back up your ass and enumerate that, then switch. That's how we feel about it in the United States.




Cinnamon girl?



Hahaha! Why is my name mentioned In this? Sorry imperial is just smart. He isn't my troll. I don't have trolls. Omg some people have a similar view as me, they must be a retarded. Watch out Imperial you will be as popular as me and Trump here.

Wtf you people talking about no rights since Lincoln??
I think you have been smoking to much pot that is legal now!
Not only can women vote, he'll they can marry each other. Same goes with men.
There has been a black president who even managed to not be shot by us evil whities! Not so sure about if Trump becomes president, ya all be getting out your automatic rifles for Sunday's.

Sorry brats, don't have a temper tantrum, time for someone with a set of golden balls to take over the driver seat, quit crying and share.
As the Rolling Stones sang
" you can't always get what you want, sometimes you get what you need"



_____________________________

Balanced Chakra
http://youtu.be/Gl9AGlbe3YU

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/17/2016 7:51:00 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: ImperialPath


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
has the GOP done anything else about freedom?


yeah---they oppose the rights/freedom-trampling collectivist agenda that started in the early 1900s and that continues today. good enough for you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I know...the history of America, the history of the US government...far better than most here...


given the question I quoted you as saying above, sorry, that assertion is laughable on its face.


Yes, the individual income tax, the FCC, taking away Native American lands, squandering our blood and treasure on corporations and the military-industrial complex, many many freedoms.

It is laughable only to those who are untutored on just those things I enumerated. Q.E.D.


Enumerating shit is laughable. I know that. Put a thumb in your mouth and one back up your ass and enumerate that, then switch. That's how we feel about it in the United States.




Cinnamon girl?



Hahaha! Why is my name mentioned In this? Sorry imperial is just smart. He isn't my troll. I don't have trolls. Omg some people have a similar view as me, they must be a retarded. Watch out Imperial you will be as popular as me and Trump here.

Wtf you people talking about no rights since Lincoln??
I think you have been smoking to much pot that is legal now!
Not only can women vote, he'll they can marry each other. Same goes with men.
There has been a black president who even managed to not be shot by us evil whities! Not so sure about if Trump becomes president, ya all be getting out your automatic rifles for Sunday's.

Sorry brats, don't have a temper tantrum, time for someone with a set of golden balls to take over the driver seat, quit crying and share.
As the Rolling Stones sang
" you can't always get what you want, sometimes you get what you need"



You are the one with the tantrums LOL as can be attested by your last fifteen or so posts.
Of course your opinion of imperial would be glowing:)




_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Cinnamongirl67)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/17/2016 8:45:31 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Your National Review link and that Harvard study wouldn't carry much water with MLK


Bullshit.
MLK was a republican.



So, for the record,
George washington carver was a republican
Frederick Douglas - republican

The first black senator - republican.
The first black representative - republican.


The democrats never stopped being racists - they just started being more subtle about it. Instead of chains and whips they use section 8 housing, welfare benefits and drugs. They trap A.A in low performing schools that destine them for poverty. They gerrymander "safe" negro districts to keep token democrats in power year after year.

Charlie Rangel. John Conyers. Mosely Braun. Harold Washington, Marion Barry, Kwise Mfume

They coopt black leadership - Al Sharpton, Rev Jesse Jackson.

Did you ever stop and think, why after 50 years and trillions and trillions spent on the war on poverty that we are further away from winning it than ever? That the numbers of black in poverty have increased?

If you ever needed proof of a government policy that has from any angle objectively failed - the war on poverty would be one - and yet the same policies continue, year after year. Or do you think they are accomplishing exactly what they intended?

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/17/2016 8:58:22 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Martin Luther King was not a republican nor democrat, he was apolitical party wise.

But the nutsuckers have thru 150 years lifted them from poverty, by doing? What have nutsuckers done since the 13th Amendment?

Oh, they cut all the war on poverty stuff, shit their pants over anecdotes, and lard pork into a useless military toy store.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/17/2016 9:22:29 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Bullshit.
MLK was a republican.

Cite please



So, for the record,
George washington carver was a republican
Frederick Douglas - republican

The first black senator - republican.
The first black representative - republican.

You really do not know much about amerikan history do you. Perhaps you might tell us how many demcrats from the confederacy served in the senate or the house of representatives durring reconstruction?


They coopt black leadership - Al Sharpton, Rev Jesse Jackson.


Would this be the same al sharpton who wore a wire in order to prosecute the mafia?
Would this be the same jesse jackson who retrieved the amerikan pow?



(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/17/2016 9:31:14 AM   
Cinnamongirl67


Posts: 854
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: ImperialPath


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
has the GOP done anything else about freedom?


yeah---they oppose the rights/freedom-trampling collectivist agenda that started in the early 1900s and that continues today. good enough for you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I know...the history of America, the history of the US government...far better than most here...


given the question I quoted you as saying above, sorry, that assertion is laughable on its face.


Yes, the individual income tax, the FCC, taking away Native American lands, squandering our blood and treasure on corporations and the military-industrial complex, many many freedoms.

It is laughable only to those who are untutored on just those things I enumerated. Q.E.D.


Enumerating shit is laughable. I know that. Put a thumb in your mouth and one back up your ass and enumerate that, then switch. That's how we feel about it in the United States.




Cinnamon girl?



Hahaha! Why is my name mentioned In this? Sorry imperial is just smart. He isn't my troll. I don't have trolls. Omg some people have a similar view as me, they must be a retarded. Watch out Imperial you will be as popular as me and Trump here.

Wtf you people talking about no rights since Lincoln??
I think you have been smoking to much pot that is legal now!
Not only can women vote, he'll they can marry each other. Same goes with men.
There has been a black president who even managed to not be shot by us evil whities! Not so sure about if Trump becomes president, ya all be getting out your automatic rifles for Sunday's.

Sorry brats, don't have a temper tantrum, time for someone with a set of golden balls to take over the driver seat, quit crying and share.
As the Rolling Stones sang
" you can't always get what you want, sometimes you get what you need"



You are the one with the tantrums LOL as can be attested by your last fifteen or so posts.
Of course your opinion of imperial would be glowing:)

Thank you sister.
I have two idols. Judge Judie, and Adele.


http://youtu.be/DDWKuo3gXMQ


< Message edited by Cinnamongirl67 -- 3/17/2016 9:37:20 AM >


_____________________________

Balanced Chakra
http://youtu.be/Gl9AGlbe3YU

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges - 3/17/2016 10:33:28 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Your National Review link and that Harvard study wouldn't carry much water with MLK


Bullshit.
MLK was a republican.



So, for the record,
George washington carver was a republican
Frederick Douglas - republican

The first black senator - republican.
The first black representative - republican.


The democrats never stopped being racists - they just started being more subtle about it. Instead of chains and whips they use section 8 housing, welfare benefits and drugs. They trap A.A in low performing schools that destine them for poverty. They gerrymander "safe" negro districts to keep token democrats in power year after year.

Charlie Rangel. John Conyers. Mosely Braun. Harold Washington, Marion Barry, Kwise Mfume

They coopt black leadership - Al Sharpton, Rev Jesse Jackson.

Did you ever stop and think, why after 50 years and trillions and trillions spent on the war on poverty that we are further away from winning it than ever? That the numbers of black in poverty have increased?

If you ever needed proof of a government policy that has from any angle objectively failed - the war on poverty would be one - and yet the same policies continue, year after year. Or do you think they are accomplishing exactly what they intended?

You simply cannot be serious with this BS. First of all party affiliation has nothing to do with policy dominated by the white man. And as I wrote, that Harvard study is bullshit. Sure did MLK a whole lotta good...being a repub.

The war on poverty always did and still is...firing blanks. As late as 1996, family benefits still left a family in poverty. As far as I know...they still do.

About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. (2006) So, the government spent (over) 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.

HERE Source: CATO institute, you know...that liberal bastion of leftist/socialist/communists.

Trust me and my sources. it is worse now.

Unfortunately not a funny snipet : Before we look at the details, a heartfelt plea from the Save the CEO’s Charitable Trust:

There’s so much suffering in the world. It can all get pretty overwhelming sometimes. Consider, for a moment the sorrow in the eyes of a CEO who’s just found out that his end-of-year bonus is only going to be a paltry $2.3 million.

“It felt like a slap in the face. Imagine what it would feel like just before Christmas to find out that you’re going to be forced to scrape by on your standard $8.4 million compensation package alone. Imagine what is was like to have to look into my daughter’s face and tell her that I couldn’t afford to both buy her a dollar sign shaped island and hire someone to chew her food from now on, too. To put her in that situation of having to choose… She’s only a child for God’s sake.”


The significance ?

It doesn’t have to be this way. Thanks to federal subsidies from taxpayers like you, CEO’s like G. Allen Andreas of Archer Daniels Midland was able to take home almost $14 million in executive compensation last year. But he’s one of the lucky ones. There are still corporations out there that actually have to provide goods and services to their consumers in order to survive. They need your help.

For just $93 billion a year the federal government is able to provide a better life for these CEO’s and their families. That’s less than the cost of 240 million cups of coffee a day. Won’t you help a needy corporation today?


Gee, looks like the sense of entitlement and the culture of dependency is still alive and well in corp. America.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Senate hit a new level of absurdity...blocking judges Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141