RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges

RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (Full Version)

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

Message

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 12:11:39 PM)
quote: I admit Reagan was a constitutionalist. Sarcasm, right?

Nnanji -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 12:35:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: I admit Reagan was a constitutionalist. Sarcasm, right? I lived in California all the years he was govenor and in the U.S. all the years he was president. You, it seems, have only knowledge passed to you by others. So, you tell me, what he really was. Just pretend I wasn't there.

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 2:40:25 PM)
Abbie Hoffman was at the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968, and you weren't. So there. Ulysses S. Grant was at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865, and you weren't. So there. You have no valid comment on those or any other events in history lacking your personal attendance, then. I lived in the state whence Jimmy Carter. Means squat to me or anyone else. Unless you are saying that ~35 million people (pop. of California), and just, those are the only people qualified to speak on Reagan. So, no one in the country, or anywhere else in the world, can talk about any US prez with any authority at all unless same was from their state, and only in their lifetime, right? quote: You, it seems, have only knowledge passed to you by others. Those are called "history books," required reading for those who actually attended any school. This is, what, your third or fourth post expressing your consideration of readings of history as anathema to fanciful ideology? Indeed they are, 'bro,' indeed they are.

mnottertail -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 2:47:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: I admit Reagan was a constitutionalist. Sarcasm, right? I lived in California all the years he was govenor and in the U.S. all the years he was president. You, it seems, have only knowledge passed to you by others. So, you tell me, what he really was. Just pretend I wasn't there. And I did so too. He was a talking dildo in a necktie.

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 3:05:04 PM)
I heard him on AM radio, before the ... In any case, that's how I learned that trees cause pollution.

DesideriScuri -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 5:59:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Not been any fan of Democrats in some few years. But, if I expected anything like good 'political discourse' to begin with, it certainly wouldn't come from something like this; "I highly doubt the GOP isn't voting on judge appointments because of the GOP's opposition to Obamacare." Ignorance is actually not Nirvana. Are you claiming they aren't voting on judge appointments because of their opposition to Obamacare? Care to back that assertion up?

DesideriScuri -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 6:04:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I'm sure only the Democrats do things for "good reason," right? [8\|] Did I not mention that? So sorry. But of course! There was all that deregulation they helped pass. Oh wait ... OK, but then there was the ME invasion they rubber stamped. Hmmm ... well, not that one either, but (got to be something here ... ) Oh yes! Something that actually happened in my lifetime, so I didn't have to get all wiki about it. The national healthcare "plan." Smooth as a handmade waffle, that thing is! So yes, an instance where the Democrats made something like a just-discernably-more-than-feeble effort to fight the Republicans in the latter's (successful) effort to destroy it. There we go! That sort of bi-partisan effort in doing something good for the people just melts the heart, doesn't it? What deregulation are you talking about? Who didn't vote for the invasion in the ME? How could the GOP destroy Obamacare?!? They had to bribe the Democratic representative from Nebraska to help pass the shit legislation. The Democrats didn't need Republicans to pass Obamacare. As a matter of fact, they got zero votes from Republicans in passing Obamacare.

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 6:18:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Are you claiming they aren't voting on judge appointments because of their opposition to Obamacare? Care to back that assertion up? It's not from a direct connection of one to the other in a logical sense. Anything involving logical sense being against core 'values' there to begin with. It's because of common connection to fundamental obstructionism as standard policy. However indirect (but actually not), that's the connection. But if your claim is that congressional Republicans have been anything other than blunt instrument obstructionists with any Democratic president in recent history, you are welcome to back up that assertion.

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 6:46:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What deregulation are you talking about? The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 ("Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act"), The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The term "modernization" being a stereotypical 'cruel twist of irony' there, being as that both measures rolled back bank regulation to the 1920s. With the same result. What a surprise! quote: Who didn't vote for the invasion in the ME? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution United States House of Representatives Party Yeas Nays Not Voting Republican 215 6 2 Democratic 82 126 1 Independent 0 1 0 TOTALS 297 133 3 United States Senate Party Yeas Nays Republican 48 1 Democratic 29 21 Independent 0 1 TOTALS 77 23

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 6:59:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Who didn't vote for the invasion in the ME? Not nearly enough, as it turns out.

DesideriScuri -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/15/2016 5:44:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Are you claiming they aren't voting on judge appointments because of their opposition to Obamacare? Care to back that assertion up? It's not from a direct connection of one to the other in a logical sense. Anything involving logical sense being against core 'values' there to begin with. It's because of common connection to fundamental obstructionism as standard policy. However indirect (but actually not), that's the connection. But if your claim is that congressional Republicans have been anything other than blunt instrument obstructionists with any Democratic president in recent history, you are welcome to back up that assertion. Depends on what you mean by "recent history." The Republican Congress did negotiate with President Clinton on many things. That the GOP disagrees with almost everything President Obama believes and resists passing what they consider bad legislation doesn't automatically mean they are blunt instrument obstructionists. They are being blunt instrument obstructionists on Garland's appointment. Of that there really isn't any other analysis. Yes, the GOP has been very staunch in opposing President Obama. Apparently, though, their constituents don't mind all that much, or prefer it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/15/2016 6:08:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What deregulation are you talking about? The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 ("Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act"), The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The term "modernization" being a stereotypical 'cruel twist of irony' there, being as that both measures rolled back bank regulation to the 1920s. With the same result. What a surprise! Wait. You mean the one that was signed by President Clinton? November 2nd vote in the Senate (S 900): Passed 54-44 (1 D voted in favor; all 44 opposing votes were D's) Nov 2nd vote in the House (HR 10): Passed 343-86 (138 D's voted in favor (2/3 of the D representatives) The differing passed bills were hammered out as S 900... Nov 4th Senate vote on S 900: Passed 90-8 (1 R and 7 D's voted against; 38 D's voted in favor) Nov 4th House vote on S 900: Passed 363-57 (155 D's voting in favor) Sooooo, it looks like the Democrats DID help pass that deregulation!! Imagine that! quote: quote: Who didn't vote for the invasion in the ME? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution United States House of Representatives Party Yeas Nays Not Voting Republican 215 6 2 Democratic 82 126 1 Independent 0 1 0 TOTALS 297 133 3 United States Senate Party Yeas Nays Republican 48 1 Democratic 29 21 Independent 0 1 TOTALS 77 23 So, Democrats voted for getting involved in the ME? Huh. Imagine that. What was it you were saying?

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/15/2016 6:16:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What was it you were saying? Exactly what I was saying. Dullwit! Took you, what, through the next day to sort it out (such as could be said)? And still don't get the meaning or context? JEEBUS!

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/15/2016 6:24:31 PM)
People who ask stupid questions and can't understand simple answers just annoy the fuck out of me lately.

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/15/2016 6:30:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I'm sure only the Democrats do things for "good reason," right? [8\|] Did I not mention that? So sorry. But of course! There was all that deregulation they helped pass. Oh wait ... OK, but then there was the ME invasion they rubber stamped. Hmmm ... well, not that one either, but (got to be something here ... ) Oh yes! Something that actually happened in my lifetime, so I didn't have to get all wiki about it. The national healthcare "plan." Smooth as a handmade waffle, that thing is! So yes, an instance where the Democrats made something like a just-discernably-more-than-feeble effort to fight the Republicans in the latter's (successful) effort to destroy it. There we go! That sort of bi-partisan effort in doing something good for the people just melts the heart, doesn't it? It's called .... Sarcasm. "Dude!"

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/15/2016 6:34:54 PM)
So, what's the "good reason" for all that obstructionism, again? "Wait a minute, I'm too stupid to understand this law here." Fine, we'll give you as many decades as it takes.

DesideriScuri -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/15/2016 6:49:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What was it you were saying? Exactly what I was saying. Dullwit! Took you, what, through the next day to sort it out (such as could be said)? And still don't get the meaning or context? JEEBUS! I think your mind is too wrapped up in, who-the-fuck-knows-what. I'm not going to say I'm sorry for spending time with my kids and working for a living. If my timeliness isn't to your liking, feel free to hide me, ignore me, get over it, or simply piss off.

DesideriScuri -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/15/2016 6:50:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird So, what's the "good reason" for all that obstructionism, again? "Wait a minute, I'm too stupid to understand this law here." Fine, we'll give you as many decades as it takes. Opposition to the legislation, maybe? Nah. Couldn't be that. [8\|]

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/15/2016 7:25:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I think your mind is too wrapped up in, who-the-fuck-knows-what. Responding to your stupid question is who-the-fuck-knows-what. Absolutely my fault there. quote: I'm not going to say I'm sorry for spending time with my kids and working for a living. Nor should you. All that does is make me jealous. My niece/nephew brats showed the discourtesy of growing up. Just to antagonize me, probably. I wasn't 'demanding' that you take time away from that, I was only wondering, or asking, if you're going to respond to something in the forum, that you at least understand whatever it is you're responding to before actually responding.

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/15/2016 7:32:14 PM)
And don't blame your own mental laziness on the kids.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875