+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 182

Thread: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

  1. #16
    Super Moderator PawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond repute PawDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    52,554

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnylightnin View Post
    He gets bonus points for exposing Cruz, Graham, Rubio, et al for their hypocrisy.
    What about exposing McCain, Romney, and Kasich? You okay with those RINOs being exposed?

    Cruz and Rubio were both about as conservative as the GOP got pre-Trump. Graham and many others have moved right because they see how off they were pre-Trump. My favorite, Rand Paul, is the only one who has remained true to his colors throughout.
    "eye fo an eye and toof fo a toof" - Idiot in Missouri

  2. #17
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    34,239

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    Quote Originally Posted by PawDawg View Post
    What about exposing McCain, Romney, and Kasich? You okay with those RINOs being exposed?

    Cruz and Rubio were both about as conservative as the GOP got pre-Trump. Graham and many others have moved right because they see how off they were pre-Trump. My favorite, Rand Paul, is the only one who has remained true to his colors throughout.
    Yep! Trump has led the way for those who WANTED to be conservative but who were afraid to be standing alone, getting beat up by the leftist media and the RINOs, like McCain. So they just went along to get along. Then here comes Trump who doesn't give a rat's ass about the media or trying to please fellow Swampers just so you can get invited to a cocktail party in DC, and Bam! now we see some other conservatives, like Graham and Cruz and others, bold enough to stand up. Hypocrites? That's a stretch insomuch as they have always been conservative just now they see they have support.

    Just look at this forum as an example. We have lefties who tout commie doctrine, and that is understandable given who they are...it's like an LSU grad rooting for the tiggers on Saturdays, understandable...and we have some who claim to be conservative who do nothing but bash everything conservative, including Trump, and sing the praises all of things commie...like BLM/Antifa and their career criminal thugs they cast as martyrs to their cause. Little wonder, prior to Trump showing them the way, many conservatives were shy about revealing their true selves. They got beat up from every direction.

  3. #18
    2011 Pick 'Em Champion johnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond repute johnnylightnin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Shreevesburg
    Posts
    27,971

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    I guess Fox isnít covering what Cruz and Co said in 2016. Itís textbook hypocrisy. They were trying to church up their no vote on Garland. They shouldíve just been honest...

  4. #19
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    34,239

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnylightnin View Post
    I guess Fox isn’t covering what Cruz and Co said in 2016. It’s textbook hypocrisy. They were trying to church up their no vote on Garland. They should’ve just been honest...
    I was against Garland too, and the only reason I needed was obummer nominated him. Of course I took some time to learn a little about Garland and found it confirmed what I had thought. So, why were Cruz & Co. suppose to support Garland's nomination??? They should have been opposed to Garland and still should be, given how libtard he is.

  5. #20
    2011 Pick 'Em Champion johnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond reputejohnnylightnin has a reputation beyond repute johnnylightnin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Shreevesburg
    Posts
    27,971

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    Quote Originally Posted by dawg80 View Post
    I was against Garland too, and the only reason I needed was obummer nominated him. Of course I took some time to learn a little about Garland and found it confirmed what I had thought. So, why were Cruz & Co. suppose to support Garland's nomination??? They should have been opposed to Garland and still should be, given how libtard he is.
    They werenít! They shouldíve just said they wouldnít vote because they didnít have to. Instead, they bumped their gums about SCOTUS nominees in election years...especially Lindsay ďplease hold it against meĒ Graham.

  6. #21
    Varsity Bulldog Bulldawg81 is a splendid one to beholdBulldawg81 is a splendid one to beholdBulldawg81 is a splendid one to beholdBulldawg81 is a splendid one to beholdBulldawg81 is a splendid one to beholdBulldawg81 is a splendid one to beholdBulldawg81 is a splendid one to beholdBulldawg81 is a splendid one to beholdBulldawg81 is a splendid one to beholdBulldawg81 is a splendid one to beholdBulldawg81 is a splendid one to behold Bulldawg81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Monroe, LA
    Posts
    213

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    All hypocrisy aside (both sides), does anyone think that the Dems would wait until after the election to nominate someone for the SC if they controlled the Senate and presidency?

  7. #22
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    26,019

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldawg81 View Post
    All hypocrisy aside (both sides), does anyone think that the Dems would wait until after the election to nominate someone for the SC if they controlled the Senate and presidency?
    They tried when they didnít have the Senate, so why would they not try if they did have the Senate?

  8. #23
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    34,239

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnylightnin View Post
    They weren’t! They should’ve just said they wouldn’t vote because they didn’t have to. Instead, they bumped their gums about SCOTUS nominees in election years...especially Lindsay “please hold it against me” Graham.
    You continue to toil under the delusion that the GOP could organize a bar-be-cue...they can't. And yet, you advocate for Trump to stop impeding this wonderful Grand Ole Party. No thanks...I'll take Trump stomping The Swamp's ass.

  9. #24
    Champ TYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    50,939

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    Quote Originally Posted by brtransplant View Post
    Suck it up Guisslapp. Like you hero said, "elections have consequences". The Republican controlled senate will confirm Barrett and the SCOTUS will finally have a conservative majority that can overcome even the turncoat that Roberts turned out to be.

    Thank God Almighty!!!!!
    Amen!

  10. #25
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    34,239

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    Now...let's all take a deep breath. Just a couple of years ago Judge Barrett was confirmed by the Senate, 55-43, for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Diane Finestein expressed deep "concerns" that Barrett held religious beliefs, "dogma," she called it. Okay. The atheist baby-killers grilled Barrett at that hearing. They asked all their questions, they brought up all their reasons for opposition. They had Barrett investigated, her past vetted. So, seems to me all anyone has to do is look at her record since being on the 7th Circuit and...that should be it. Point is, there is no excuse for this to drag out.

    Of course, now I see some idiots questioning if her adoption of those two kids from Haiti was legal. I believe both adoptions occurred in 2010, so I have to think it has already been investigated prior to her Senate hearing for the 7th. As someone who has completed an international adoption...our daughter from Russia in 1997...I can tell you we were put under a frickin' microscope, including by the FBI, and we were grilled by an army of "social workers" concerned we were right for such an adoption, etc...We used World Child, which is a subsidiary of the Frank Foundation, a worldwide adoption agency operating in Europe, China, and South America. Given the mountain of paperwork, we couldn't have done it on our own. I am guessing the Barretts also used a reputable agency to help them in the process.

    BTW, as an aside, some of you remember I posted about my Russian-born daughter's ordeal seeking employment in the DHS. Well, she has been approached by some higher-ups asking if she is interested in pursuing a career path that requires being fluent in Russian. They need translators/interpreters in Russian. She has agreed to consider it and has begun brushing up on her Russian. When she said she was interested...guess what! the FBI contacted her and said she will have to complete a more intensive vetting than before. Egad!

  11. #26
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    26,019

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    Democrats are going to go after her nomination over her comments on the constitutionality of the ACA. Pretty sure that will be the focus as it plays into politics where Democrats have the most widespread support outside their party.

  12. #27
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    34,239

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    Democrats are going to go after her nomination over her comments on the constitutionality of the ACA. Pretty sure that will be the focus as it plays into politics where Democrats have the most widespread support outside their party.
    I'll play along, since I am not as well-schooled on the "constitutionality" of anything related to health care insurance/coverage...

    I may be in error, and if so, I know I can count on you to point that out, but I don't recall healthcare being mentioned in the Constitution. I know the "right to bear arms" is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, yet libs like to challenge my right to own a gun. Perhaps you can post what article/amendment states we have the "right to have healthcare."

    Thanks.

  13. #28
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    26,019

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    Democrats are going to go after her nomination over her comments on the constitutionality of the ACA. Pretty sure that will be the focus as it plays into politics where Democrats have the most widespread support outside their party.
    And Republicans have kind of painted themselves in a corner on this - if you want both (1) pre-existing conditions to be uncovered, and (2) Obamacare to be unconstitutional, you have locked yourself out of any good options other than passing some form on Universal health care.

  14. #29
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    34,239

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    And Republicans have kind of painted themselves in a corner on this - if you want both (1) pre-existing conditions to be uncovered, and (2) Obamacare to be unconstitutional, you have locked yourself out of any good options other than passing some form on Universal health care.
    How about this...NO FEDERAL LAWS whatsoever re: healthcare. Leave it up to the states to pass whatever laws they wish. Also, we should be able to buy healthcare across state lines like we can for all other forms of insurance.

    In other forms of insurance states agree to recognize each others' laws, with some tweaks as to how lawsuits are litigated, state to state. I suppose my auto insurance is "Texas-based" since my carrier is USAA, HQed in San Antonio, Texas. They apply Louisiana law to all my coverages, auto, homeowners', etc...but when driving in Montana, and there is an accident, the state of Montana recognizes that my insurance, for a Louisiana resident, from a Texas company, is valid.

    The ONLY reason healthcare is not treated the same way is POWER!!! plain and simple. The Swampers, the Deep Staters, know one way they can control the masses is to dangle healthcare out there as a carrot.

  15. #30
    Super Moderator PawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond repute PawDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    52,554

    Re: SCOTUS: Itís ABC

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    And Republicans have kind of painted themselves in a corner on this - if you want both (1) pre-existing conditions to be uncovered, and (2) Obamacare to be unconstitutional, you have locked yourself out of any good options other than passing some form on Universal health care.
    We had the "no pre-existing conditions" clause LONG before Obamacare. It remains our best option even though PPACA screwed it up. Do you know what option I'm talking about? Knowing your sources of information, I doubt you do.

    BTW, there is NOTHING affordable about ACA.
    "eye fo an eye and toof fo a toof" - Idiot in Missouri

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts