quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

Democrats chose Schumer as their Senate leader

All you need to know about that.

He speaks for them, represents them, leads them. You expect us to ignore the reality and pretend that his words meant nothing, we refuse to play stupid.

Words mean things, we know that. And we react accordingly.

If you don't like that, you really need to change the radical nature of the Democrat party rather than expect the Republicans to allow the Democrats to play them for fools

ETA, Democrats could not care less about the Constitution or the rule of law, they push the envelope everywhere, get away with breaking the rules and the laws and defying the Constitution whenever they can.

Stop expecting us to ignore that. We acknowledge that we are now at war and we are taking every precaution needed to ensure that we win, and we shall not back down nor apologize for that

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

Schumer was chosen to replace Harry Reid after making that promise, so it is even worse. That is how radical the Democrats have become.

Your attempts at minimizing it won't fly.

Reid is the one who changed Senate rules whenever it suited the Democrats, and there is no one I would believe if they said that the Democrats are becoming less radical

You really have no argument regarding the constitutionality of what the Republicans did. You have your word, but nothing in the law or the Constitution itself decrees that consent or nonconsent shall be in the form of a vote

This is simply the Republicans playing by the same set of rules that the Democrats themselves established. Whining and crying is allowed but will not be considered in making any final decision

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

Schumer was chosen to replace Harry Reid after making that promise, so it is even worse. That is how radical the Democrats have become.

Your attempts at minimizing it won't fly.

Reid is the one who changed Senate rules whenever it suited the Democrats, and there is no one I would believe if they said that the Democrats are becoming less radical

You really have no argument regarding the constitutionality of what the Republicans did. You have your word, but nothing in the law or the Constitution itself decrees that consent or nonconsent shall be in the form of a vote

This is simply the Republicans playing by the same set of rules that the Democrats themselves established. Whining and crying is allowed but will not be considered in making any final decision

Your comments about the Democrats are ripe for another thread. My point is that, there is no way anyone cold say that Chuck schumer waas speaking for the Dmocrats.

There are No rules set up by the Democrats as to this. That is pure right wing talking point bullshit.

I would disagree that I really hav no argumen as to the Constitutionality of te Reepublican action I laid out my argument quite clearly, and showed quite clearly how the Heritage Foundation aligned with it perfectly. You can disagree with my, and the Heritage Foundation's assessment. But to simply say that I ave no argument, is simply inaccurate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

How many justices are there? 9? lol.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

Schumer was chosen to replace Harry Reid after making that promise, so it is even worse. That is how radical the Democrats have become.

Your attempts at minimizing it won't fly.

Reid is the one who changed Senate rules whenever it suited the Democrats, and there is no one I would believe if they said that the Democrats are becoming less radical

You really have no argument regarding the constitutionality of what the Republicans did. You have your word, but nothing in the law or the Constitution itself decrees that consent or nonconsent shall be in the form of a vote

This is simply the Republicans playing by the same set of rules that the Democrats themselves established. Whining and crying is allowed but will not be considered in making any final decision

Your comments about the Democrats are ripe for another thread. My point is that, there is no way anyone cold say that Chuck schumer waas speaking for the Dmocrats.

There are No rules set up by the Democrats as to this. That is pure right wing talking point bullshit.

I would disagree that I really hav no argumen as to the Constitutionality of te Reepublican action I laid out my argument quite clearly, and showed quite clearly how the Heritage Foundation aligned with it perfectly. You can disagree with my, and the Heritage Foundation's assessment. But to simply say that I ave no argument, is simply inaccurate.

He is their Senate leader, and the Senate is where that decision is made. The decision is his, just like it is McConnell's on the other side

If he doesn't speak for the Democrats no one does. Your argument is senseless to me, reeks of insincerity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

Schumer was chosen to replace Harry Reid after making that promise, so it is even worse. That is how radical the Democrats have become.

Your attempts at minimizing it won't fly.

Reid is the one who changed Senate rules whenever it suited the Democrats, and there is no one I would believe if they said that the Democrats are becoming less radical

You really have no argument regarding the constitutionality of what the Republicans did. You have your word, but nothing in the law or the Constitution itself decrees that consent or nonconsent shall be in the form of a vote

This is simply the Republicans playing by the same set of rules that the Democrats themselves established. Whining and crying is allowed but will not be considered in making any final decision

Your comments about the Democrats are ripe for another thread. My point is that, there is no way anyone cold say that Chuck schumer waas speaking for the Dmocrats.

There are No rules set up by the Democrats as to this. That is pure right wing talking point bullshit.

I would disagree that I really hav no argumen as to the Constitutionality of te Reepublican action I laid out my argument quite clearly, and showed quite clearly how the Heritage Foundation aligned with it perfectly. You can disagree with my, and the Heritage Foundation's assessment. But to simply say that I ave no argument, is simply inaccurate.

He is their Senate leader, and the Senate is where that decision is made. The decision is his, just like it is McConnell's on the other side

If he doesn't speak for the Democrats no one does. Your argument is senseless to me, reeks of insincerity

So your logic is...

A Democratic senator who is not the leader makes a statement urging his fellow Democrats to oppose Bush nominees, therefore 10 YEARS later, when he becomes leader, that retroactively:

1) He was speeaking 10 years ago as their leader
2) The Democrats in the senate took some legislative action as a result of his words (whicch in reality they had not)

And MY argument is senseless?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

Schumer was chosen to replace Harry Reid after making that promise, so it is even worse. That is how radical the Democrats have become.

Your attempts at minimizing it won't fly.

Reid is the one who changed Senate rules whenever it suited the Democrats, and there is no one I would believe if they said that the Democrats are becoming less radical

You really have no argument regarding the constitutionality of what the Republicans did. You have your word, but nothing in the law or the Constitution itself decrees that consent or nonconsent shall be in the form of a vote

This is simply the Republicans playing by the same set of rules that the Democrats themselves established. Whining and crying is allowed but will not be considered in making any final decision

Your comments about the Democrats are ripe for another thread. My point is that, there is no way anyone cold say that Chuck schumer waas speaking for the Dmocrats.

There are No rules set up by the Democrats as to this. That is pure right wing talking point bullshit.

I would disagree that I really hav no argumen as to the Constitutionality of te Reepublican action I laid out my argument quite clearly, and showed quite clearly how the Heritage Foundation aligned with it perfectly. You can disagree with my, and the Heritage Foundation's assessment. But to simply say that I ave no argument, is simply inaccurate.

He is their Senate leader, and the Senate is where that decision is made. The decision is his, just like it is McConnell's on the other side

If he doesn't speak for the Democrats no one does. Your argument is senseless to me, reeks of insincerity

So your logic is...

A Democratic senator who is not the leader makes a statement urging his fellow Democrats to oppose Bush nominees, therefore 10 YEARS later, when he becomes leader, that retroactively:

1) He was speeaking 10 years ago as their leader
2) The Democrats in the senate took some legislative action as a result of his words (whicch in reality they had not)

And MY argument is senseless?

That they put him in charge with his mindset, and that his rhetoric has only gotten more radical along with the rhetoric and behavior of all Dems, speaks directly to the decisions made.

Again, words mean things. You expect us to pretend he didn't make the vows that he did, that the Senate leaders words mean nothing

Is that what you want us to believe, we cannot take the Senate Minority Leader at his word? Because that is no better.

Not only did he say what he said, but his compass has no true North, the needle shifts with every breeze

Chuck Schumer Flip-Flops on His Flip-Flop on Obstructing Supreme Court Nominees

You expect us to pretend he isn't a radical extremist with no integrity, that any Democrat in any leadership position anywhere is, when they are clearly all radicals with no integrity

Not going to happen. We do have powers of observation and we have brains processing the information gathered by our senses, and we realize that we are in the initial stages of civil war based on what we are observing among the left today

It's not rocket science, either

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

You have yet to show how anything McConnell did was in any way unconstitutional

You have shared opinion, nothing more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

And another thing - why do you expect the Republicans to respect the constitution, when the Democrats don't. Obama ignored court rulings, he sent the IRS after political opposition groups, used the power of government to spy on political opponents, refused to enforce laws as he swore to do

I could go on and on

No one on the left stood up to him

Which is what I mean by two sets of rules.

We aren't playing that game. This isn't a game at all

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

You have yet to show how anything McConnell did was in any way unconstitutional

You have shared opinion, nothing more.

IThe Constitution is pretty clear to me in what it says. The heritage Foundation lays out the arguument quite clearly.

Instead of providing Advice and Consent on the president's nominee, Mitch McConnell arbitrarily set a 3-year limit on the President's powers, contrary to what is prescrbied in the Constitution.

I don't know how I can show it more clearly than that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

And another thing - why do you expect the Republicans to respect the constitution, when the Democrats don't. Obama ignored court rulings, he sent the IRS after political opposition groups, used the power of government to spy on political opponents, refused to enforce laws as he swore to do

I could go on and on

No one on the left stood up to him

Which is what I mean by two sets of rules.

We aren't playing that game. This isn't a game at all

A great topic for another thread. Especially, since in reality, he did none of those things. (OK maybe the court rulings part)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

He sees nothing by Rs. You're never going to convince him differently, no matter how much evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I wonder who was doing all that deporting then.

Learn amazing new things every day here!