If Barrett was a Dem nominee, left would lose their minds if Pubs treated her the way Dems did during the hearing

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
The only one talking about shooting people is you, Joe. Fail
Sure. pretend you don't see all the gun wank posts, if that helps.

Not sure why you guys are so hot to have something you'll claim you'll never use.
That's because you don't know anything about guns. It's hilarious how you claim to have been in the military and you think guns are useless for defense and people just want to shoot em up like the OK Corral. You're a terrible liar, Joe. You really suck at it. Obviously you've never touched a gun in your life. If you did you'd cry
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
25,848
Reaction score
4,443
Points
280
Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland
Which Republicans expressed fear about Garland's hypothetical rulings and claimed that membership in some organization or other was grounds for rejection? Which ones smeared his faith stance? Names, please.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland
Which Republicans expressed fear about Garland's hypothetical rulings and claimed that membership in some organization or other was grounds for rejection? Which ones smeared his faith stance? Names, please.
RW still thinks that Presidents appoint SCOTUS justices. He doesn't grasp they nominate them.

RW's not very bright. He just wants free shit
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,165
Reaction score
39,964
Points
2,190
Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland
Which Republicans expressed fear about Garland's hypothetical rulings and claimed that membership in some organization or other was grounds for rejection? Which ones smeared his faith stance? Names, please.
Never even had a chance
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,165
Reaction score
39,964
Points
2,190
Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland
Which Republicans expressed fear about Garland's hypothetical rulings and claimed that membership in some organization or other was grounds for rejection? Which ones smeared his faith stance? Names, please.
RW still thinks that Presidents appoint SCOTUS justices. He doesn't grasp they nominate them.

RW's not very bright. He just wants free shit
Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that the Presidents "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..." U.S. Const. art. 2 § 2, cl. 2.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland
Which Republicans expressed fear about Garland's hypothetical rulings and claimed that membership in some organization or other was grounds for rejection? Which ones smeared his faith stance? Names, please.
RW still thinks that Presidents appoint SCOTUS justices. He doesn't grasp they nominate them.

RW's not very bright. He just wants free shit
Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that the Presidents "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..." U.S. Const. art. 2 § 2, cl. 2.
You're playing a word game.

Clearly if you read my point, I was saying that the President doesn't get to unilaterally pick someone to be on the court. They have to get Senate agreement. Note the red from YOUR post. You keep missing that part. Though only when Democrats are not in power.

Here's how you read it:

RW Thinks the Constitution says> Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that the Presidents "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate Democrat Party , shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..." U.S. Const. art. 2 § 2, cl. 2.

You're just word parsing. You can taste the free government cheese Biden's going to shower on you now
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
25,848
Reaction score
4,443
Points
280
Dems treated Barrett better than Republicans treated Garland
Which Republicans expressed fear about Garland's hypothetical rulings and claimed that membership in some organization or other was grounds for rejection? Which ones smeared his faith stance? Names, please.
Never even had a chance
You said Barrett was treated better. Again, which of the Republicans said one negative thing about Garland? Which of them expressed fear that the world would practically end if he was appointed to the bench? Come on, he was treated respectfully. In fact, it could be argued that it was better treatment for him to not have gone through the questioning process only to be rejected. So, names please.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,108
Reaction score
13,591
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
That's because you don't know anything about guns. It's hilarious how you claim to have been in the military and you think guns are useless for defense and people just want to shoot em up like the OK Corral. You're a terrible liar, Joe. You really suck at it. Obviously you've never touched a gun in your life. If you did you'd cry
What, are you like fucking 10?

Okay... reality check... if guns were used in defense, we'd have a lot more dead criminals. We don't. Only about 200 a year killed by civilians and most of those are battered housewives.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
That's because you don't know anything about guns. It's hilarious how you claim to have been in the military and you think guns are useless for defense and people just want to shoot em up like the OK Corral. You're a terrible liar, Joe. You really suck at it. Obviously you've never touched a gun in your life. If you did you'd cry
What, are you like fucking 10?

Okay... reality check... if guns were used in defense, we'd have a lot more dead criminals. We don't. Only about 200 a year killed by civilians and most of those are battered housewives.
Yes, exactly. What I keep saying. You think the purpose of guns in self defense is to KILL people. You're completely wrong, that's the LAST RESORT.

How stupid are you? How many times can I tell you that and you don't process it?
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,108
Reaction score
13,591
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Yes, exactly. What I keep saying. You think the purpose of guns in self defense is to KILL people. You're completely wrong, that's the LAST RESORT.

How stupid are you? How many times can I tell you that and you don't process it?
The problem is, it's NOT CREDIBLE.

We have a KNOWN number the number of homicides with guns that Law Enforcement rules are justified by civilians. It's about 200.

We also have the number of supposed DGU's. Except we really don't, the numbers go as high as 5 million, and as low as 50,000....

But let's take the low number.... So out of 50,000 cases where someone felt threatened enough to pull out a gun, they ONLY killed the bad guy at a last resort 200 times. That means that 49,800 times, they were able to restrain themselves from shooting out of panic or fear... and that 49,800 times, the bad guy who was just desperate enough to go out and commit a crime was easily intimidated by a gun.

Now, try that same formula using the high-end NRA propaganda numbers... and you see how absurd it sounds.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
Yes, exactly. What I keep saying. You think the purpose of guns in self defense is to KILL people. You're completely wrong, that's the LAST RESORT.

How stupid are you? How many times can I tell you that and you don't process it?
The problem is, it's NOT CREDIBLE.

We have a KNOWN number the number of homicides with guns that Law Enforcement rules are justified by civilians. It's about 200.

We also have the number of supposed DGU's. Except we really don't, the numbers go as high as 5 million, and as low as 50,000....

But let's take the low number.... So out of 50,000 cases where someone felt threatened enough to pull out a gun, they ONLY killed the bad guy at a last resort 200 times. That means that 49,800 times, they were able to restrain themselves from shooting out of panic or fear... and that 49,800 times, the bad guy who was just desperate enough to go out and commit a crime was easily intimidated by a gun.

Now, try that same formula using the high-end NRA propaganda numbers... and you see how absurd it sounds.
OK, Machine Gun Kelly. You want to shoot em up. If you don't kill the bad guy it doesn't count.

But realize you're speaking for yourself, not us. We want very badly to defend ourselves and NOT kill anyone
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,108
Reaction score
13,591
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
OK, Machine Gun Kelly. You want to shoot em up. If you don't kill the bad guy it doesn't count.

But realize you're speaking for yourself, not us. We want very badly to defend ourselves and NOT kill anyone
It really doesn't matter what you "want", guy. It's a matter of what actually happens in real life.

Real life, a man desperate enough to commit a crime is not going to be deterred because you merely pointed a gun at him.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
OK, Machine Gun Kelly. You want to shoot em up. If you don't kill the bad guy it doesn't count.

But realize you're speaking for yourself, not us. We want very badly to defend ourselves and NOT kill anyone
It really doesn't matter what you "want", guy. It's a matter of what actually happens in real life.

Real life, a man desperate enough to commit a crime is not going to be deterred because you merely pointed a gun at him.
So now your story is that bad guys are all psychos who don't care about dying. This after we're all psychos who want to shoot up the streets. But you're going to protect us from these psychos by taking our guns away while you have no plan to take away their guns.

This sounds good to you? Really? You want time to come up with a better story or are you going to stick with this one
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
So now your story is that bad guys are all psychos who don't care about dying.
Um, no, but since you have poor reading comprehension skills, probably time to move on.

Let me know when you want to argue the points I make, not your bizarre interpretations of them.
You never said what you said.

Actually, that's exactly what you said, liar. Bad guys are all psychos who don't care about dying. Here you go:

Real life, a man desperate enough to commit a crime is not going to be deterred because you merely pointed a gun at him.
In reality they are mostly lazy cowards trying to make an easy buck. But you live in a fantasy world where cops are murdering us but they should have guns, not us, and we are safer if criminals have guns and we don't.

You're one fucked up hombre
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top