Thank you Mr President

[Nawtee]

And hellooooooo Mr Brown.

"US President Donald Trump's pick for New Zealand Ambassador is a controversial former nude model who supports waterboarding.

Mr Trump has announced his intent to nominate 57-year-old Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown for the role, though his selection still needs to be confirmed by the Senate."

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-z...cr_content/par/image.img.full.high.jpg/v0.jpg

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-z...model-scott-brown-as-us-ambassador-to-nz.html

 

[Debbie]

Nawtee nice to see you to see you nice

 

[Nawtee]

Nawtee nice to see you to see you nice

Hi Kiwi

Nice to see a familiar face - fabulous as always

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Good.



A lot of the NZ people who post here could use a bit of nude waterboarding...

 

[Nawtee]

Good.



A lot of the NZ people who post here could use a bit of nude waterboarding...

This type?

https://i0.wp.com/static.thesuperfi...oom-naked-penis-uncensored.jpg?resize=600,800

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Only if you're trying to escape to Polynesia...

​

 

[lovecraft68]

Why even bother with a confirmation? At this point they should save time and just 'hire' him because even if the GOP went against the pick Trump would put him in

Maybe Brown could practice waterboarding on Trump...he has a lot of answers to some pretty big questions.

 

[Rightguide]

Why even bother with a confirmation? At this point they should save time and just 'hire' him because even if the GOP went against the pick Trump would put him in

Maybe Brown could practice waterboarding on Trump...he has a lot of answers to some pretty big questions.

Because it's the law. It was Obama who tried to illegally install unconfirmed officials and had to suffer the humiliation of being be slapped down by the SCOTUS.

 

[adrina]

Because it's the law. It was Obama who tried to illegally install unconfirmed officials and had to suffer the humiliation of being be slapped down by the SCOTUS.

Interestingly one sided description of the course of events.

 

[Rightguide]

Interestingly one sided description of the course of events.

So far it is one sided, Trump has yet to try the same.

 

[adrina]

So far it is one sided, Trump has yet to try the same.

I'm not talking about Trump.

I'm talking about the historical context and events that took place with Obama, the appointments, SCOTUS and the absolute unwillingness of the republicans to engage in the acts of governance.

Like I said, interestingly one sided description and perspective of events.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm not talking about Trump.

I'm talking about the historical context and events that took place with Obama, the appointments, SCOTUS and the absolute unwillingness of the republicans to engage in the acts of governance.

Like I said, interestingly one sided description and perspective of events.

Yours is the obviously one-sided argument, Adrina. The United States Senate is under no constitutional or moral obligation to grant a hearing to or confirm an appointment the majority feels is unqualified. The President, however, is required to see that existing law is "faithfully executed, and we saw at least 12 straight SCOTUS reversals of his illegal unconstitutional actions where he clearly failed to do so.

 

[adrina]

Yours is the obviously one-sided argument, Adrina. The United States Senate is under no constitutional or moral obligation to grant a hearing to or confirm an appointment the majority feels is unqualified. The President, however, is required to see that existing law is "faithfully executed, and we saw at least 12 straight SCOTUS reversals of his illegal unconstitutional actions where he clearly failed to do so.

Oh give it a rest.

If you want to try to justify their behavior by saying they feel an appointment is unqualified, I have one word for you:

Garland.


It wasn't a matter of qualifications. It was a matter of obstruction. Don't be a dipshit.

 

[Rightguide]

Oh give it a rest.

If you want to try to justify their behavior by saying they feel an appointment is unqualified, I have one word for you:

Garland.


It wasn't a matter of qualifications. It was a matter of obstruction. Don't be a dipshit.

And I give you Charles Schumer who in 2007, when Bush still had 18 months left in his second term, declaring that no Bush appointment to the SCOTUS should be considered by the Senate. Justice Kennedy was confirmed in an election year but he was nominated the year before, unlike Garland.

 

[adrina]

And I give you Charles Schumer who in 2007, when Bush still had 18 months left in his second term, declaring that no Bush appointment to the SCOTUS should be considered by the Senate. Justice Kennedy was confirmed in an election year but he was nominated the year before, unlike Garland.

But the nomination was considered. And the appointment made.

Give it up.

If you seriously want to absolve republicans of the complete abdication of their responsibilities to the American citizens and our government, that's on you. But don't try to sell that pile of crap to me.

 

[Rightguide]

But the nomination was considered. And the appointment made.

Give it up.

If you seriously want to absolve republicans of the complete abdication of their responsibilities to the American citizens and our government, that's on you. But don't try to sell that pile of crap to me.

It's been almost 80 years since a SCOTUS nominee has been nominated and confirmed in an election year. I know the truth is hard to take, and with Democrat hypocrites like Schumer vowing in 2007 not to confirm any Bush SCOTUS nominee with 18 months left in his term, the stage will be set for another 80 years of the same. Your crap filled talking point notwithstanding.

 

[adrina]

It's been almost 80 years since a SCOTUS nominee has been nominated and confirmed in an election year. I know the truth is hard to take, and with Democrat hypocrites like Schumer vowing in 2007 not to confirm any Bush SCOTUS nominee with 18 months left in his term, the stage will be set for another 80 years of the same. Your crap filled talking point notwithstanding.

well let's see, so far you've rationalized the republican's behavior by blaming Obama. Then you blamed the nominees. Then you blamed Schumer.

So at what point in your world are the republicans responsible for their obstruction? I mean really, it's not like we don't have it in writing and on video their exact plans and how they intended to achieve it. Or is it just going to be everybody else's fault that the republicans refused to actually do their jobs and were more interested in party than country?

At what point do you quit finding excuses for them?

 

[Rightguide]

well let's see, so far you've rationalized the republican's behavior by blaming Obama. Then you blamed the nominees. Then you blamed Schumer.

So at what point in your world are the republicans responsible for their obstruction? I mean really, it's not like we don't have it in writing and on video their exact plans and how they intended to achieve it. Or is it just going to be everybody else's fault that the republicans refused to actually do their jobs and were more interested in party than country?

At what point do you quit finding excuses for them?

Yawn, what we have is 80 years of history (Senate tradition) established largely by Democrats but now that the shoe is on the other foot you want to lament the practice you enjoyed, and cheered in 2007, for political gain in the past. I have not one iota of sympathy for whiny Democrat hypocrites. If we had a Democrat majority in the Senate right now, not a single Trump nominee would even get a hearing.

 

[adrina]

Yawn, what we have is 80 years of history (Senate tradition) established largely by Democrats but now that the shoe is on the other foot you want to lament the practice you enjoyed, and cheered in 2007, for political gain in the past. I have not one iota of sympathy for whiny Democrat hypocrites. If we had a Democrat majority in the Senate right now, not a single Trump nominee would even get a hearing.

I have sympathy for our country, our citizens and our government.

However since you are more interested in party politics, it completely explains how you so quickly and easily rationalize the abdication of responsibility in favor of party power.

Also, you're full of shit. Historically, democrats have been more likely to work with republican administrations than vice versa. But whatever dude. Keep spinning until you've convinced yourself that you're right. Because it's all about being right now isn't it?

 

[phrodeau]

It's been almost 80 years since a SCOTUS nominee has been nominated and confirmed in an election year. I know the truth is hard to take, and with Democrat hypocrites like Schumer vowing in 2007 not to confirm any Bush SCOTUS nominee with 18 months left in his term, the stage will be set for another 80 years of the same. Your crap filled talking point notwithstanding.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif

http://www.cashill.com/images/joe_wilson_you_lie.jpg
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...exaggerates-sayig-its-been-80-years-lame-duc/

This came up minutes later in the debate, when U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said, "We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year." Debate moderator John Dickerson of CBS News corrected Cruz by noting that Kennedy was confirmed in 1988.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

As a Massachusetts resident, I apologize.

Because of the deranged way our American system operates, Massachusetts found it necessary to tolerate Mitt Romney and Scott Brown. Like Trump, the Massachusetts Republicans felt threatened by the soft power of intelligence. They needed lunatics to give them an edge during elections. The idea of Martha Coakley and Elizabeth Warren gaining higher positions in government drove them to desperate measures.


Thank goodness, other parts of New England refused to recycle him.

We could not deport Scott Brown.
Sending him to NZ was the next best thing.

Currently, Massachusetts in suffering from an infestation of Right Wing lunatics. A tiny minority were overcome by joyous delirium and hysterical happiness, at the polling sites, the day Trump was elected.

http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/201...een-new-hampshire-senate-race-eileen-mcnamara

 

[phrodeau]

This is what "waterboarding" means in New Zealand. I support it as well.

http://www.miamibeachpaddleboard.com/images/paddle.png

 

[pointless]

well, it's something like that, but with more sheep fucking.

 

[onehotwife4u]

well let's see, so far you've rationalized the republican's behavior by blaming Obama. Then you blamed the nominees. Then you blamed Schumer.

So at what point in your world are the republicans responsible for their obstruction? I mean really, it's not like we don't have it in writing and on video their exact plans and how they intended to achieve it. Or is it just going to be everybody else's fault that the republicans refused to actually do their jobs and were more interested in party than country?

At what point do you quit finding excuses for them?

Your bullshit arguments have been repudiated by the people in the last election. And I'm referring to the Congressional elections, not POTUS.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'm not talking about Trump.

I'm talking about the historical context and events that took place with Obama, the appointments, SCOTUS and the absolute unwillingness of the republicans to engage in the acts of governance.

Like I said, interestingly one sided description and perspective of events.

Oh, it was "one-sided" alright. The SCOTUS opinion was fucking unanimous.

https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/supreme-court-decision-limiting-the-presidents-recess-appointment-power/1126/