• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ruth "Buzzi" Ginginsburg has fallen, can she get back up?

OldFatGuy said:
BS. I defended her character and still do so. But your insults of an elderly hurt individual for her pain are beyond the pale of common decency and you've earned the right to be ignored by sensible people on both sides of the aisle.
Click to expand...

If someone I truly, truly hate is injured, and I am gleeful about it, is this also "beyond the pale of common decency"?
 
Casca XV said:
And then she can continue falling asleep in public and barely knowing which day of the week it is
Click to expand...

Hopefully you'll get some money in your pocket someday so that way you can afford better than a cheap shot
 
Wan said:
If someone I truly, truly hate is injured, and I am gleeful about it, is this also "beyond the pale of common decency"?
Click to expand...
Really? I can't go that far, except for maybe Osama Bin Ladin, or ISIS assholes. If it's a political opponent my humanity takes over and I feel empathy for him.
 
Wan said:
If someone I truly, truly hate is injured, and I am gleeful about it, is this also "beyond the pale of common decency"?
Click to expand...

Depends on how you address the situation. But if you are full of it, karma gives back what is deserved. And no, Ruth did nothing of that sort to you or yours or anyone else. Try selling your prejudices elsewhere.

Obviously I'm not impressed with your emotionalism. First guys to get the kickback when they do something stupid.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Depends on how you address the situation. But if you are full of it, karma gives back what is deserved. And no, Ruth did nothing of that sort to you or yours or anyone else. Try selling your prejudices elsewhere.

Obviously I'm not impressed with your emotionalism. First guys to get the kickback when they do something stupid.
Click to expand...

I fail to see why you reacted so strongly and negatively to a seemingly innocuous question in my post. What "prejudices" have I shown in my post (# 126)? And what "emotionalism" have I engaged in?
 
Wan said:
I fail to see why you reacted so strongly and negatively to a seemingly innocuous question in my post. What "prejudices" have I shown in my post (# 126)? And what "emotionalism" have I engaged in?
Click to expand...

You're trying to pull my leg? :spin::rofl::monkey
 
OldFatGuy said:
You're trying to pull my leg? :spin::rofl::monkey
Click to expand...

No. My questions were genuine. Now how about you try to answer them instead of dodging?
 
Bullseye said:
Actually the election is two years off, not next year, so that argument is moot. But the bad news, at least for you guys, is that McConnell MAKES the rules for those years.
Click to expand...

Good to see you admit McConnell acts as he damn well pleases. Rules be damned.
 
TurtleDude said:
well if Trump is in office and the GOP has at least 50 senators, Trump will appoint whom he wants and when he wants
Click to expand...

I find it amusing (not really) that as a student of the law, you find it fitting that the decorum, tradition, and fairness of the Senate should be trashed to get another extremist judge.

Why would you not support an honest interpretation of the law? I think your guns are pretty safe.

The payback may be greater than you are counting on. Eventually all the chickens come home as they say.
 
JMR said:
Good to see you admit McConnell acts as he damn well pleases. Rules be damned.
Click to expand...
He follows precedent - Both Biden and Schumer had said a SCOTUS justice shouldn't be confirmed in an presidential election year.
 
Bullseye said:
He follows precedent - Both Biden and Schumer had said a SCOTUS justice shouldn't be confirmed in an presidential election year.
Click to expand...

In the FALL of an election year Biden claimed there would not be time for a proper hearing, and the nomination should occur later. This was ignored, it did not happen.

McConnell decided in February that there would not be time for a proper hearing on Merrick Garland. Strange how the Kavanaugh thing took 3 months, and yet the same could not occur for Garland. Nine months was too short of a time, according to McConnell.

A dirty trick is a dirty trick..You got your result and it will never be as pure as the new driven snow, no matter how long you stand on your head.
 
JMR said:
In the FALL of an election year Biden claimed there would not be time for a proper hearing, and the nomination should occur later. This was ignored, it did not happen.

McConnell decided in February that there would not be time for a proper hearing on Merrick Garland. Strange how the Kavanaugh thing took 3 months, and yet the same could not occur for Garland. Nine months was too short of a time, according to McConnell.
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh wasn't during a presidential election year, Garland was, and it only took that long because of Democrat obstruction.

A dirty trick is a dirty trick..You got your result and it will never be as pure as the new driven snow, no matter how long you stand on your head.[/QUOTE] Sure, and you can whine "it's not fair, it's not fair" and it doesn't make a bit of different Trump has put two justices on SCOTUS.
 
Bullseye said:
Kavanaugh wasn't during a presidential election year, Garland was, and it only took that long because of Democrat obstruction.

A dirty trick is a dirty trick..You got your result and it will never be as pure as the new driven snow, no matter how long you stand on your head.
Click to expand...
Sure, and you can whine "it's not fair, it's not fair" and it doesn't make a bit of different Trump has put two justices on SCOTUS.[/QUOTE]




But Kavanaugh was during an election year which would effect his confirmation. Once the rule was put in effect, changing it again became easy. This is like pulling the loose thread on a sweater.

Be sure that a correction will eventually be made. That's the game you've chosen to support, in that moderates are not to be considered, only extremists.
 
Sure, and you can whine "it's not fair, it's not fair" and it doesn't make a bit of different Trump has put two justices on SCOTUS.



JMR said:
But Kavanaugh was during an election year which would effect his confirmation. Once the rule was put in effect, changing it again became easy. This is like pulling the loose thread on a sweater.
Click to expand...
BUT NOT a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR. That's the whole issue Merrick was also during a presidential election year. Kavanaugh was not.

JMR said:
Be sure that a correction will eventually be made. That's the game you've chosen to support, in that moderates are not to be considered, only extremists.
Click to expand...
And by "moderate" you really mean progressive.
 
Last edited:
And by "moderate" you really mean progressive.
Click to expand...

I am confused by the inaccurate quoting of my posts, please try to correct this.

No, by moderate I mean moderate...like a justice that could carry 90 votes, like in the "olden days". The right wing has moved so far off the charts you can't see the middle anymore.
 
JMR said:
I find it amusing (not really) that as a student of the law, you find it fitting that the decorum, tradition, and fairness of the Senate should be trashed to get another extremist judge.

Why would you not support an honest interpretation of the law? I think your guns are pretty safe.

The payback may be greater than you are counting on. Eventually all the chickens come home as they say.
Click to expand...
what Extremist judge

do you know which judge-before elevated-had the most extremist background

yeah Ruth Bader Ginsburg
 
JMR said:
In the FALL of an election year Biden claimed there would not be time for a proper hearing, and the nomination should occur later. This was ignored, it did not happen.

McConnell decided in February that there would not be time for a proper hearing on Merrick Garland. Strange how the Kavanaugh thing took 3 months, and yet the same could not occur for Garland. Nine months was too short of a time, according to McConnell.

A dirty trick is a dirty trick..You got your result and it will never be as pure as the new driven snow, no matter how long you stand on your head.
Click to expand...

after Bork and Thomas, the gloves started to come off =then the dems-when they were a minority, prevented two men with impeccable reputations-both of whom had enough votes to be seated-from getting a hearing. One of the men blocked-was blocked for RACIST reasons.

I really don't care anymore - I want Trump to seat as many good justices and judges as possible. and I don't care what he does to do it
 
TurtleDude said:
after Bork and Thomas, the gloves started to come off =then the dems-when they were a minority, prevented two men with impeccable reputations-both of whom had enough votes to be seated-from getting a hearing. One of the men blocked-was blocked for RACIST reasons.

I really don't care anymore - I want Trump to seat as many good justices and judges as possible. and I don't care what he does to do it
Click to expand...

Was that Bork you claim had an impeccable reputation...or someone else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom