Schumer At It Again...

[Rightguide]

lol irony from the vetteman

The schism separating you from reality gets wider and wider daily. Seek professional help.

 

[Ramone45]

The poster boy for term limits.

 

[adrina]

no, the dim vetteman is also too invested in internet wars than truth and personal responsibility.

That's a given.

I need a sarcasm font.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The schism separating you from reality gets wider and wider daily. Seek professional help.

The lack of self-awareness above is equal parts amusing and horrifying ^^^

 

[SpeareChucker]

You cannot stop it, but you sure can hate on it. Endlessly...

 

[schism666]

You cannot stop it, but you sure can hate on it. Endlessly...

you're not even the victim in this thread. quit trying to steal vetteman's shine.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Keep polishing that turd Tom.
If you get it polished long and hard enough, maybe you'll shit a diamond.

But...,



I doubt it.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

But the release of Judge Kern's Special Masters report has not one damn thing to do with your silly snipe at the wholly appropriate form of interrogation Kavanaugh would/did pursue in a sworn deposition. The Masters report is about the improper leaking of confidential information. Two different things.

You're just throwing dirt at whatever wall you'd like to hit and then looking around for the next unrelated pile of shit. As usual.

Unless it shows that Kern determined that the leaker was Kavanaugh. Then you will have your answer answer to "How Judge Kavanaugh's particular line of questioning makes him responsible for the expansion of the Lewinsky affair into the Whitewater investigation"

Have a nice day.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Get it over with and just dump all those papers on the Democrats and let them eat crow...

Their imaginations are running away with them.

 

[Rightguide]

The only victims in this thread are those on the left demonstrating the psychedelic experiences that bring on those constant perceptual distortions of reality contained in their posts.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Yeah that "Townhall.com" brought to you by the leading thinkers on HotAir.com, Twitchy.com and BearingArms.com is a real bastion of truth and reality.

 

[SpeareChucker]

If the world were suddenly reduced to rainbows, Skittles™ and unicorns as per their dreams, there would arise from the ranks a great clamor for the dehorning of unicorns...

 

[Rightguide]

Yeah that "Townhall.com" brought to you by the leading thinkers on HotAir.com, Twitchy.com and BearingArms.com is a real bastion of truth and reality.

Was it untrue? Did Schumer pledge to do something else?

 

[SpeareChucker]

Yeah that "Townhall.com" brought to you by the leading thinkers on HotAir.com, Twitchy.com and BearingArms.com is a real bastion of truth and reality.

Finger-pointing at everyone else Comrade?
The only time we get rid of a lot of you is when Maddow is on, and even then, a lot of you insist upon drunk-blogging the serious charges of the day.

 

[KeithD]

Schumer forgets that while Bill Clinton was under investigation for far worse nobody called for the nomination of Justice Beyers to be held up.

You shoot yourself down with your premise. Clinton's sins aren't even in the same league as Trump's are--and Clinton was impeached. Who do you think you're fooling?

What we need here is a juxtaposition of what the Republicans still in Congress said about impeachment during Clinton's administration and what they're saying (or just being silent about) now. The Republicans take the concept of hypocrisy to whole new levels.

 

[SpeareChucker]

So wait, we're admitting sins now on the part of one, or the other, Clinton?

Just "lesser" sins?

 

[Comshaw]

So my question is this: If Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority were adamant about invoking the "Biden rule" to delay the confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland (or any other candidate named by President Obama) because of the up coming election ("The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision" McConnell's quote) why are they now ignoring their own position on this and rushing to get Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing through congress?

Shouldn't our senators and representatives be fair and balanced? Should people not have a say in this choice also? Should they not invoke the Biden rule as they so clearly did before and allow the people to have a voice? And before it's brought up, no it isn't a presidential election, but this one is just as contentious as the 2016 election ever was, so if the rule applied then, it applies now.

Is it any wonder that most Americans are disgusted with our politicians when they can blatantly defend opposite sides of a conflicting philosophy when it benefits their side?

What is good for the goose is good for the goosee.

I can almost understand why people voted for Trump. Almost. The problem is they hired the alligator to drain the swamp.

Comshaw

 

[schism666]

So wait, we're admitting sins now on the part of one, or the other, Clinton?

Just "lesser" sins?

you're an embarrassment who can't make a single point without bringing up a clinton.

 

[Rightguide]

You shoot yourself down with your premise. Clinton's sins aren't even in the same league as Trump's are--and Clinton was impeached. Who do you think you're fooling?

What we need here is a juxtaposition of what the Republicans still in Congress said about impeachment during Clinton's administration and what they're saying (or just being silent about) now. The Republicans take the concept of hypocrisy to whole new levels.

BS, Trump isn't under impeachment investigation by the House. Ken Starr was appointed by the three judge Federal Circuit Court with specific statutory parameters to investigate. Mueller does not have any specific statutory parameters to investigate or any limits on his actions, so far his is a failed investigation "looking" for a crime by the President to investigate.

 

[Rightguide]

So my question is this: If Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority were adamant about invoking the "Biden rule" to delay the confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland (or any other candidate named by President Obama) because of the up coming election ....

This election isn't a presidential election.

 

[SpeareChucker]

This election isn't a presidential election.

*chuckle*

Apples to Oranges and, not to mention, at the time, the Republicans actually had the power to back up the rule. Now the Democrats are just pissing in the wind, tugging on Superman's cape...,

Despite their lamentations, sackcloth and ashes, this is a done deal.
They need to get over it, move on, and craft a message other than "obstructionism," something of which they used to blame all of the ills of government on...

Democrats, tell me what you're going to do for me today and it had better not be free education and health care coupled with wage floors and price ceilings, because I am not some illiterate peasant residing south of the semi-permiable membrane that we call "the border."

 

[Comshaw]

So my question is this: If Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority were adamant about invoking the "Biden rule" to delay the confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland (or any other candidate named by President Obama) because of the up coming election ("The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision" McConnell's quote) why are they now ignoring their own position on this and rushing to get Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing through congress?

Shouldn't our senators and representatives be fair and balanced? Should people not have a say in this choice also? Should they not invoke the Biden rule as they so clearly did before and allow the people to have a voice? And before it's brought up, no it isn't a presidential election, but this one is just as contentious as the 2016 election ever was, so if the rule applied then, it applies now.

Is it any wonder that most Americans are disgusted with our politicians when they can blatantly defend opposite sides of a conflicting philosophy when it benefits their side?

What is good for the goose is good for the goosee.

I can almost understand why people voted for Trump. Almost. The problem is they hired the alligator to drain the swamp.

Comshaw

This election isn't a presidential election.

Is English your primary language? Can you not read and comprehend? It has nothing to do with a presidential election. It has to do with the people having a voice in such a decision, just as McConnell said.

Perhaps you should go back, read my post again (slowly and more then once if it's necessary for you to understand it).

*chuckle*

Apples to Oranges and, not to mention, at the time, the Republicans actually had the power to back up the rule. Now the Democrats are just pissing in the wind, tugging on Superman's cape...,

Despite their lamentations, sackcloth and ashes, this is a done deal.
They need to get over it, move on, and craft a message other than "obstructionism," something of which they used to blame all of the ills of government on...

Democrats, tell me what you're going to do for me today and it had better not be free education and health care coupled with wage floors and price ceilings, because I am not some illiterate peasant residing south of the semi-permiable membrane that we call "the border."

And they have the power now to back up the rule, so why don't they? I take it that in your estimation it's ok to do if it 's your side? And if the other side did this, would you also chuckle and blow it off? It's ok to be two faced about it as long as your side wins?

So in the future when the Democrats pull something similar it's going to be business as usual. This is exact what I was talking about. It's OK as long as it benefits which ever side you're on, but the moment the rules benefit the other side listen to the whining. I believe that was the case when the ACA was passed. There was a whole lot of whining, gnashing of teeth and screaming about the Democrats destroying the long held traditions of the legislature.

Like I said, and people wonder why politics in this country are so damned divided and contentious. A bunch of fucking snakes in a pit.

Comshaw

 

[KeithD]

BS, Trump isn't under impeachment investigation by the House. Ken Starr was appointed by the three judge Federal Circuit Court with specific statutory parameters to investigate. Mueller does not have any specific statutory parameters to investigate or any limits on his actions, so far his is a failed investigation "looking" for a crime by the President to investigate.

What does that have to do with anything? I suspect you haven't eaten your dinner yet, either, but that's just down the road.

And who do you think you're fooling with the "no evidence" crap?

 

[SpeareChucker]

Is English your primary language? Can you not read and comprehend? It has nothing to do with a presidential election. It has to do with the people having a voice in such a decision, just as McConnell said.

Perhaps you should go back, read my post again (slowly and more then once if it's necessary for you to understand it).




And they have the power now to back up the rule, so why don't they? I take it that in your estimation it's ok to do if it 's your side? And if the other side did this, would you also chuckle and blow it off? It's ok to be two faced about it as long as your side wins?

So in the future when the Democrats pull something similar it's going to be business as usual. This is exact what I was talking about. It's OK as long as it benefits which ever side you're on, but the moment the rules benefit the other side listen to the whining. I believe that was the case when the ACA was passed. There was a whole lot of whining, gnashing of teeth and screaming about the Democrats destroying the long held traditions of the legislature.

Like I said, and people wonder why politics in this country are so damned divided and contentious. A bunch of fucking snakes in a pit.

Comshaw

Because it is not the actual "rule" as was pointed out to you earlier by other people.
If you are going to quote the rule and demand its use, then do it in context or it is no rule at all...

 

[SpeareChucker]

As far as the warning of, "in the future," many of us here more centrist than you are tried to warn you about the demons that Harry Reid was unleashing upon the Senate warning you that when the show was on the other foot, but at the time Democrats were absolutely sure that the shoe would never be on the foot because the Republican Party had been relegated to a regional party of the South.

So, this pick will go through, because it violates no rule and the court may possibly be bent to the right, but most of us expect Roberts to step into the Kennedy seat as have so many "Republican" appointments.

The problem with most of you is that you get hysterical over now without playing the long game, i.e., you prefer the hate now vs the message of the future.