Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1048381 Posts in 69857 Topics- by 18065 Members - Latest Member: Chris Hirst
Jump to:  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 553
61  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Feb 20, 2016, 05:43AM
My plan would be to nominate someone who is a middle of the roader. Then, if that person is not confirmed, to nominate someone more liberal. If that person was not confirmed, then nominate someone even more liberal. THe GOP does not want this to be a voter tuernout driver for the left. All the demographics favor them for turnout in Presidential elections, and in thsi one especially when two of the top GOP candidates are such neanderthals.
i don't see anywhere in your post about nominating the best person for the job. And I als see name calling with I get my hand slapped for. So really it's extreme partisanship that is really what you want. No? Win at any cost? Two sets of rules. One for dens and one for repubs.
62  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Cruz eligibilty to be determined by the court on: Feb 19, 2016, 10:49PM
Those are the responses I expected from you two (Greg and Rob).  I suspect some of our other Texans may really like him.

I must confess on a Cruz vs. Sanders race I'm voting Bloomberg.
Me too.
63  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Feb 19, 2016, 03:08PM
I totally understand if he nominates somebody they think is too far ideologically (like Eric Holder) that they would try to block him.  But give the guy a chance to name somebody before you jump  down his throat.
i agree.
64  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Feb 19, 2016, 11:13AM
You've never heard recaps of SCOTUS hearings.  They are anything but asleep and often quite hostile to the attorneys.  Usually the Liberals will grill one side and the Conservatives will grill the other.  Alito was also a good joker.  Maybe Judge Judy would be a good replacement ;-)

Dusty's comment a few posts back about Democrats being the same as Communists strikes me as mean-spirited or ignorant (I don't know which).  Maybe he feels Ted Cruz is too Liberal?
He must have been joking. Not all dems are communist. Just the ones I don't like.  Evil
BTW
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/19/senate-republicans-easing-on-blockade-obama-court-pick.html?intcmp=hpbt1
65  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Feb 19, 2016, 09:53AM

I agree, but in all seriousness she's also far too comfortable with presumption to be a very good actual judge (hopefully she applied more restraint when she was actually on the bench, but she didn't get her current gig for being a good judge--she got it for being who she is/the fact that she's an entertaining judge, although I expect it was a good deal of both in the eyes of those who recruited her).
Unfortunately you're probably right. I'd just love to hear her grill an attorney though. I've been in court for some law classes and most judges are half asleep and boring.
66  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Feb 19, 2016, 09:51AM
Coming from you, I find that very ironic
I was asked to be less confrontational.
You might want to try it too. Instead of being snarky. And you're a mod so I would expect more.
67  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Feb 19, 2016, 09:38AM
Nobody knows for sure who he is looking at. I saw a list but it was pure speculation.
Yeah ... that's basically what by all accounts and may be mean, so all of that is already in there.
 Heh ... she may not have the resume for it (just a minor technicality--if freakin' Trump can be a front runner in a presidential nomination campaign then Judge Judy can be a Supreme Court Justice, damnit!), but she'd have to be the most interesting and entertaining justice ever! And I think if she were nominated I'd want to see her get the appointment on that basis alone.
 
Good call man. You should start a petition ... heh.
She doesn't put up with any BS. Straight talker.
68  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Feb 19, 2016, 09:37AM
As inaccurate as most of the tripe you put out. The Dems removed the ability to filibuster nominees to courts below the SCOTUS. That is still in place. The GOP did not put anything back in place.

Nice Russ. Pleasant and professional.
Like I said . The dems removed the filibuster. They'll do anything to win.
But you are correct Russ. They did not restore the filibuster like some said they should. The dems opend that box and now that it's out..
Try to be a little less hostile Russ. I know some polls have Trump beating Bernie but it's not over yet. Relax.
69  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Feb 19, 2016, 08:57AM
I'm certain there were individuals who were determined to block anyone, no matter what. But find me one example where it was the mainstream or official position of the party to arbitrarily block the President's appointment.

Alternatively, find evidence that Obama said he would filibuster anybody that Bush put up, and not just as a particular response to Alito, and I will call him out as a hypocrite just as fervently as you do.
Where is it the official position of the party? Or even the mainstream? It's not.
Can't find evidence that Obama said he would filibuster anybody that Bush put up. Don't think that's been stated by anyone.
So far only Cruz has said he'd filibuster anyone.
The dems even eliminated the filibuster while in control but the republicans put back after regaining control.
70  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Feb 19, 2016, 08:35AM
And this is my problem with what the Republicans are doing at the moment. Nobody knows who he will appoint, so at the moment the GOP is just saying 'it doesn't matter, we'll block whoever it is.'

Yes, Democrats, including Obama himself, have blocked Supreme Court appointees, but always AFTER they knew who it was they were blocking. At the moment Republicans will block anyone just because it was Obama who appointed them, which is just more of this obstructionist crap we've seen for the past 8 years.
Dems have done it before too. You don't think any of them wanted to block whom ever Bush nominated?? really?
71  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Feb 19, 2016, 07:16AM
By all accounts Obama's looking at moderates, so it may be more about the right trying to find ways to pretend he's nominated a radical leftist.
 
That would keep the GOP pattern intact anyway.
Nobody knows for sure who he is looking at. I saw a list but it was pure speculation. And Judge Judy was not on there so it's not a good list. Evil
72  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Feb 19, 2016, 07:09AM
Took a week off for Carpal-Tunnel surgery. But, I'm back!

Super Delegates

The USA is in serious need of Bernie Sanders’ “political revolution” to restore balance to our economy and level the playing field for the American middle class. I have said that should his campaign fall short, I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton, because, as flawed as she is, she is still orders of magnitude preferable to anyone the other side is offering.

Now, we see the results from New Hampshire. Bernie won the primary by more than 20% of the vote, but the delegate count from NH was a tie due to the “super-delegates” controlled by the DNC. DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, says that, “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.”

If Hillary Clinton beats Bernie Sanders fairly in the primary process, I will vote for her. If the DNC thwarts the will of the people, as voiced through the ballot box, and awards Hillary the nomination after a Bernie Sanders’ “grass-roots” win, I, and I suspect an awful lot of “Bern-ers”, will stay home and not support her. Perhaps this country needs to let the GOP completely destroy our economy like they did in the 1930’s before we get our revolution.

         *         *         *

The sudden passing of SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia has thrown a huge monkey-wrench into the upcoming Presidential electoral process. Not 2 hours after the announcement of his passing, GOP leadership was denouncing President Obama’s Constitutional obligation to appoint his successor.

Republicans are in a seriously lose/ lose situation here. THey can, absolutely, filibuster and/ or refuse to provide "advice and consent" for anyone Obama nominates. But, Obama was elected by a large majority of American voters. The GOP risks spurring a massive voter turnout for the Dems if they are seen as unreasonably thwarting the wishes of a popularly elected President, especially if it is seen by women as an effort to put in a Justice who will overturn Rowe vs. Wade. And, you know that is how it will be spun. There is a good chance there will be 2 or more additional openings during the next Presidential term. THe GOP might be better advised to give Obama whoever he wants and let that inflame their base rather than fight him and have this nomination hanging over the election.

Hell no!
Biden, Obama and many others filibustered Bush's nominee in his last year of office. The same will happen if Obama nominates a left wing radical.
73  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Thoughts on Bernie Sanders on: Feb 18, 2016, 03:11PM

 ...
 
Er, never mind. I thought you said Hedgehog.
 
Heh.
 
Just messing with you.
I love the Hedgehog!
74  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Thoughts on Bernie Sanders on: Feb 18, 2016, 02:34PM
I love the Warthog! Iraqi's used to surrender to the Warthog during Desert Storm.
It's relatively cheap and kicks ass.
75  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Thoughts on Bernie Sanders on: Feb 18, 2016, 01:06PM
To those of you out there that think I cause issues on the forum. Should I just ignore him or help him understand? 
76  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Thoughts on Bernie Sanders on: Feb 18, 2016, 01:03PM
Really? You don't seem to.
Case in point: 50 years ago.
Same goes for mach 4 fighters and icbms. Kinda like how satellites and drones replaced the need for high elevation spy planes. 
What, that you think we should fight a war of 50 years ago the way they fought it 50 years ago? Technology has radically changed in that time. We should adapt with it.

The USSR bankrupted itself doing what Putin is doing now. Should they push it, Russia will follow the same fate. It's not that big of a threat.
???
50 years ago what???
We don't have Mach 4 fighters. Do you know what a fighter is used for?
IVBM's are a deterrent. Do you understand that?
Yes. Russia could end up done the same path. However they have invaded Georgia and Ukraine without much resistance. If backed into a corner they might use their nukes. Capice?
Respectfully Bob. You don't know what you're talking about.
77  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Thoughts on Bernie Sanders on: Feb 18, 2016, 12:11PM
Not really. Russia doesn't have the population and ground force to sustain major advances against local guerrilla attacks. And should they move most of their force against a relatively united Europe, well, militaries get around a lot easier and quicker than in wars past. Russia is quite spread out with too much territory to adequately respond and protect. Take out their support and supplies and they are done.

You seem to be stuck in the thought of warfare from 50 years ago. It's a very different world now.
I disagree.
78  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Thoughts on Bernie Sanders on: Feb 18, 2016, 12:11PM
We spend way too much on the wrong stuff.  We're still fighting Russia in the Cold War.

What threats are we really facing nowadays?

-  Terrorist cells operating under the radar in many countries.
-  Cyber hacking from many countries.
-  Small force threats.  Nobody is landing on our shores; they just threaten our allies, attack our embassies, or send streams of refugees who are scared and hungry.

How good are ICBMs against such threats?  Or supersonic Mach 4 fighters?  Or battle ships?  We need "white hat? hackers, computer security experts, more SEAL teams, Ground-support aircraft and helicopters, and other small force units.  Note that these things are relatively less expensive.

But those things don't make bug money for the Military Contractor companies.  Fancy hardware does.
Putin is trying to build the Russia of the cold war period. He's killing off those who oppose him, building up nationalism and spending a lot to improve their military. Their prime minister has even said that the cold war is back. I blame this mostly on Obama's feckless leadership.
icbm's are a deterrent against other nuclear capable nations. Mach 4 fighters? Russia is working on those. Not us that I know of. Battleships? We don't have nor need battleships anymore. They are yesterdays technology.
Yes.  Hackers, computer security experts, more SEAL teams, Ground-support aircraft and helicopters, and other small force units are needed too. 
Please stop with the money and military contractor things. You're missing the point.
79  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Thoughts on Bernie Sanders on: Feb 18, 2016, 10:52AM
Individually maybe. Combined? Nope. And they won't be fighting one nation vs one nation.
You mean the thing that collapsed their empire before? Yeah... could pose quite a problem. ;-)
Without the US it would be difficult to say.
80  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Thoughts on Bernie Sanders on: Feb 18, 2016, 09:58AM
Russia really doesn't have that much military power, they just have a much greater propensity to threaten with it. To attack Europe would be to attack some of their largest trading partners and would cripple their economy. At the same time, Russia is much more overextended militarily than Europe, which means Europe can quickly ramp up while Russia basically would go with what they have and the force would lessen over time.

Basically, they just want to be a school yard bully to cover up their own weakness and insecurities currently.
No. Sorry.
They have the strongest military in Europe. 2nd in the world and they don't need other countries to help develop and build their military. They can do it themselves.  Their only weakness is money. But that makes them more dangerous because if backed into a corner they are more likely to use nukes.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 553