Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: More damaging partisanship...federal 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: More damaging partisanship...federal judges Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/14/2016 12:11:39 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
quote:

I admit Reagan was a constitutionalist.

Sarcasm, right?

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/14/2016 12:35:32 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/14/2016 2:40:25 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
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.







< Message edited by Edwird -- 6/14/2016 2:57:21 PM >

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/14/2016 2:47:49 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/14/2016 3:05:04 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline 		I heard him on AM radio, before the ...

In any case, that's how I learned that trees cause pollution.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/14/2016 5:59:51 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/14/2016 6:04:24 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm sure only the Democrats do things for "good reason," right?

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.




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/14/2016 6:18:18 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
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.







< Message edited by Edwird -- 6/14/2016 6:19:01 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/14/2016 6:46:06 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
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




< Message edited by Edwird -- 6/14/2016 6:54:38 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/14/2016 6:59:56 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Who didn't vote for the invasion in the ME?


Not nearly enough, as it turns out.




< Message edited by Edwird -- 6/14/2016 7:00:39 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/15/2016 5:44:52 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/15/2016 6:08:08 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/15/2016 6:16:40 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
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!




< Message edited by Edwird -- 6/15/2016 6:20:23 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/15/2016 6:24:31 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline 		People who ask stupid questions and can't understand simple answers just annoy the fuck out of me lately.

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/15/2016 6:30:58 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm sure only the Democrats do things for "good reason," right?


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!"

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/15/2016 6:34:54 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/15/2016 6:49:32 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/15/2016 6:50:39 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/15/2016 7:25:15 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
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.



(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges - 6/15/2016 7:32:14 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
And don't blame your own mental laziness on the kids.

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal 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

0.155