crickets from the right

[Faun]

It strikes me as odd how much the right reveres cheating on a wife and trading her in for a trophy wife.

yea, the left would never get hummers in the oval office or have to hire a lawyer wife to bail him out of sexual harassment and rape cases.

oh wait....

Great, now show where the left displays reverence for that behavior...

Show me their bill Clinton outrage.

I’ll take as you can’t.

As far as Clinton, I said nothing about outrage. But the left didn’t vote for him again after that.

Ditto.

Ditto?

How can that be ditto?

You're bizarrely trying to compare not criticizing Clinton with -- not only not criticizing Trump, but actually revering him for dumping his wife for a trophy wife.

 

[eddiew37]

View attachment 176260

It strikes me as odd how much the right reveres cheating on a wife and trading her in for a trophy wife.

yea, the left would never get hummers in the oval office or have to hire a lawyer wife to bail him out of sexual harassment and rape cases.

oh wait....

Did Bill have 16 women say he molested them? Was he such an ass to brag about grabbing the pussy on TV? Yes he wasn't perfect but being a GREAT president covered up his faux pas This moron in the WH now is a sad joke

for the love of god you'll forgive ANYTHING on your side yet attack THE SAME FUCKING THING on the other as if it's REALLY a crime.

Bill Clinton: A Reckoning

to many people, trump is doing a great job. if not to you, why are you the ONLY say you'll allow here? clinton was a good president yes but he was and is a sex hound w/no respect at all for the other gender proven by many lawsuits and his "wife" having to be his legal team. but the fact you can overlook it and run to PUSSY GRABBER speaks it all eddie.

you're so blinded by your hate for trump you don't give a shit about the crime, only slamming trump. if anyone else also did the very same thing, you simply don't care.

you can't be more hypocritical than that, edward.

but you still don't get it blues ,,,while clinton might have been a womenizing guy trump is a pervert he'd fk a snake if it had a hole

 

[iceberg]

Lie. That's all you ever do is lie.

Oh? Where's the lie?

The red text is a clue, dipshit!

How is that a lie? That's exactly the precedent set by Republicans after they refused to hold a hearing to advise and consent any of Obama's nominees during his last year in office.

Yea except Biden pulled it on Bush. repubs just did what dems said to do.

You're nuts. Biden couldn't pull it on Bush because no seat was open during Bush's final year.

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

 

[iceberg]

yea, the left would never get hummers in the oval office or have to hire a lawyer wife to bail him out of sexual harassment and rape cases.

oh wait....

Great, now show where the left displays reverence for that behavior...

Show me their bill Clinton outrage.

I’ll take as you can’t.

As far as Clinton, I said nothing about outrage. But the left didn’t vote for him again after that.

Ditto.

Ditto?

How can that be ditto?

You're bizarrely trying to compare not criticizing Clinton with -- not only not criticizing Trump, but actually revering him for dumping his wife for a trophy wife.

It means my apathy is wearing thin.

 

[Faun]

Oh? Where's the lie?

The red text is a clue, dipshit!

How is that a lie? That's exactly the precedent set by Republicans after they refused to hold a hearing to advise and consent any of Obama's nominees during his last year in office.

Yea except Biden pulled it on Bush. repubs just did what dems said to do.

You're nuts. Biden couldn't pull it on Bush because no seat was open during Bush's final year.

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

There is no such rule. It’s a term made up by Republicans who used it to justify their actions. In reality, actual Senate rules are written down and observed; which this never was.

• Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.

• There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

• There was no nominee to consider.

• The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

• Biden didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.

• The purpose of what Biden proposed was to not have the Supereme Court vacancy influence the election; whereas the purpose of what Republicans did was to deny the sitting president his Constitutional power to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

 

[Faun]

Great, now show where the left displays reverence for that behavior...

Show me their bill Clinton outrage.

I’ll take as you can’t.

As far as Clinton, I said nothing about outrage. But the left didn’t vote for him again after that.

Ditto.

Ditto?

How can that be ditto?

You're bizarrely trying to compare not criticizing Clinton with -- not only not criticizing Trump, but actually revering him for dumping his wife for a trophy wife.

It means my apathy is wearing thin.

It means you tried to argue a false equivalency.

Better luck next time.

 

[iceberg]

Show me their bill Clinton outrage.

I’ll take as you can’t.

As far as Clinton, I said nothing about outrage. But the left didn’t vote for him again after that.

Ditto.

Ditto?

How can that be ditto?

You're bizarrely trying to compare not criticizing Clinton with -- not only not criticizing Trump, but actually revering him for dumping his wife for a trophy wife.

It means my apathy is wearing thin.

It means you tried to argue a false equivalency.

Better luck next time.

no. it means i don't split hairs like you do in order to justify my bullshit.

 

[Faun]

I’ll take as you can’t.

As far as Clinton, I said nothing about outrage. But the left didn’t vote for him again after that.

Ditto.

Ditto?

How can that be ditto?

You're bizarrely trying to compare not criticizing Clinton with -- not only not criticizing Trump, but actually revering him for dumping his wife for a trophy wife.

It means my apathy is wearing thin.

It means you tried to argue a false equivalency.

Better luck next time.

no. it means i don't split hairs like you do in order to justify my bullshit.

LOL

You’re funny.

What a pity your posts didn’t reflect that.

 

[iceberg]

Ditto.

Ditto?

How can that be ditto?

You're bizarrely trying to compare not criticizing Clinton with -- not only not criticizing Trump, but actually revering him for dumping his wife for a trophy wife.

It means my apathy is wearing thin.

It means you tried to argue a false equivalency.

Better luck next time.

no. it means i don't split hairs like you do in order to justify my bullshit.

LOL

You’re funny.

What a pity your posts didn’t reflect that.

oh they do.

you just have a shit sense of humor.

 

[Tom Horn]

Three words: Obama TEN TRILLION$.

 

[jc456]

According to The Wall Street Journal, in the three months before Melania moved to Washington, she cost us over $675,000 in military flights alone. Could you even imagine if Obama had been living in the White House and his wife and children decided to live elsewhere? Conservatives’ minds would have exploded. While those of us on the Left kept pointing out how much these separate living arrangements cost us, it was nothing to them – $1 Million per day, for 90 days, that the most recent Mrs. Trump didn’t live with her husband. With these costs added, Melania surpassed Michelle’s eight-year solo expenses in just three months.

Melania Cost Taxpayers More In Three Months Than Michelle Did In Eight Years

Did you see the increased spending they just passed? The right can't even pretend to be fiscally responsible anymore.

And you actually believe that any of our Representatives are or ever have been fiscally responsible?

You did it first...

No, you did it...

No. It was you...

No. You...

Not as long as people keep voting for them. We need to vote our all the republicans. If the dems ad to the debt, then we vote them out. Politicians need to know their time is short if they overspend.

well nine of the democrats just did. doesn't seem to bother you at all. how do you think we got the spending bill we got. they needed nine senators who were democrat spenders.

 

[jc456]

Three words: Obama TEN TRILLION$.

they have no honor among themselves can't admit shit and that is shit.

 

[hazlnut]

According to The Wall Street Journal, in the three months before Melania moved to Washington, she cost us over $675,000 in military flights alone. Could you even imagine if Obama had been living in the White House and his wife and children decided to live elsewhere? Conservatives’ minds would have exploded. While those of us on the Left kept pointing out how much these separate living arrangements cost us, it was nothing to them – $1 Million per day, for 90 days, that the most recent Mrs. Trump didn’t live with her husband. With these costs added, Melania surpassed Michelle’s eight-year solo expenses in just three months.

Melania Cost Taxpayers More In Three Months Than Michelle Did In Eight Years

Can we blame her for not wanting her child around the Orange Devil?

 

[Faun]

Ditto?

How can that be ditto?

You're bizarrely trying to compare not criticizing Clinton with -- not only not criticizing Trump, but actually revering him for dumping his wife for a trophy wife.

It means my apathy is wearing thin.

It means you tried to argue a false equivalency.

Better luck next time.

no. it means i don't split hairs like you do in order to justify my bullshit.

LOL

You’re funny.

What a pity your posts didn’t reflect that.

oh they do.

you just have a shit sense of humor.

LOL

My sense of humor is fine. So’s my bullshit detector which picked up on you trying to switch reverence with outrage; then bitching about splitting hairs when pointing out your failed attempted switch.

 

[iceberg]

It means my apathy is wearing thin.

It means you tried to argue a false equivalency.

Better luck next time.

no. it means i don't split hairs like you do in order to justify my bullshit.

LOL

You’re funny.

What a pity your posts didn’t reflect that.

oh they do.

you just have a shit sense of humor.

LOL

My sense of humor is fine. So’s my bullshit detector which picked up on you trying to switch reverence with outrage; then bitching about splitting hairs when pointing out your failed attempted switch.

You must be right. I mean you are you and all.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The red text is a clue, dipshit!

How is that a lie? That's exactly the precedent set by Republicans after they refused to hold a hearing to advise and consent any of Obama's nominees during his last year in office.

Yea except Biden pulled it on Bush. repubs just did what dems said to do.

You're nuts. Biden couldn't pull it on Bush because no seat was open during Bush's final year.

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

There is no such rule. It’s a term made up by Republicans who used it to justify their actions. In reality, actual Senate rules are written down and observed; which this never was.

• Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.

• There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

• There was no nominee to consider.

• The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

• Biden didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.

• The purpose of what Biden proposed was to not have the Supereme Court vacancy influence the election; whereas the purpose of what Republicans did was to deny the sitting president his Constitutional power to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

So what?

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass!

You don't nominate a justice for the Supreme Court during an election year, when the President is running for reelection, or in the case where Obama was a lame duck.

Suck it up buttercup!

Did you write that post before Gorsuch was even named? If you didn't, your entire post is in the wrong tense, i.e.
McConnell is doing".

 

[Faun]

How is that a lie? That's exactly the precedent set by Republicans after they refused to hold a hearing to advise and consent any of Obama's nominees during his last year in office.

Yea except Biden pulled it on Bush. repubs just did what dems said to do.

You're nuts. Biden couldn't pull it on Bush because no seat was open during Bush's final year.

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

There is no such rule. It’s a term made up by Republicans who used it to justify their actions. In reality, actual Senate rules are written down and observed; which this never was.

• Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.

• There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

• There was no nominee to consider.

• The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

• Biden didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.

• The purpose of what Biden proposed was to not have the Supereme Court vacancy influence the election; whereas the purpose of what Republicans did was to deny the sitting president his Constitutional power to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

So what?

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass!

You don't nominate a justice for the Supreme Court during an election year, when the President is running for reelection, or in the case where Obama was a lame duck.

Suck it up buttercup!

Did you write that post before Gorsuch was even named? If you didn't, your entire post is in the wrong tense, i.e.
McConnell is doing".

Well, thanks to this new precedent established by Republicans, Democrats can deny confirming any more of Trump’s nominees in the future should they take control of the Senate next year.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yea except Biden pulled it on Bush. repubs just did what dems said to do.

You're nuts. Biden couldn't pull it on Bush because no seat was open during Bush's final year.

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

There is no such rule. It’s a term made up by Republicans who used it to justify their actions. In reality, actual Senate rules are written down and observed; which this never was.

• Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.

• There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

• There was no nominee to consider.

• The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

• Biden didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.

• The purpose of what Biden proposed was to not have the Supereme Court vacancy influence the election; whereas the purpose of what Republicans did was to deny the sitting president his Constitutional power to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

So what?

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass!

You don't nominate a justice for the Supreme Court during an election year, when the President is running for reelection, or in the case where Obama was a lame duck.

Suck it up buttercup!

Did you write that post before Gorsuch was even named? If you didn't, your entire post is in the wrong tense, i.e.
McConnell is doing".

Well, thanks to this new precedent established by Republicans, Democrats can deny confirming any more of Trump’s nominees in the future should they take control of the Senate next year.

No, because it won't be before a presidential election, now will it?

 

[Faun]

You're nuts. Biden couldn't pull it on Bush because no seat was open during Bush's final year.

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

There is no such rule. It’s a term made up by Republicans who used it to justify their actions. In reality, actual Senate rules are written down and observed; which this never was.

• Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.

• There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

• There was no nominee to consider.

• The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

• Biden didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.

• The purpose of what Biden proposed was to not have the Supereme Court vacancy influence the election; whereas the purpose of what Republicans did was to deny the sitting president his Constitutional power to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

So what?

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass!

You don't nominate a justice for the Supreme Court during an election year, when the President is running for reelection, or in the case where Obama was a lame duck.

Suck it up buttercup!

Did you write that post before Gorsuch was even named? If you didn't, your entire post is in the wrong tense, i.e.
McConnell is doing".

Well, thanks to this new precedent established by Republicans, Democrats can deny confirming any more of Trump’s nominees in the future should they take control of the Senate next year.

No, because it won't be before presidential election, now will it?

Doesn’t have to be.