Obama Now Has the Power to Appoint 93 Federal Judges

[paperview]

My ability to envision it is irrelevant, I just want all the drooling idiots that think making things worse is a good thing to remember their arguments.

I guess typing "at the earliest, 2017" was a little too painful, eh?

it could happen next year, why wait until 2017?

You too, huh?

Even IF the GOP took the senate in 2016 (which I don't think it will) -- it still wouldn't be able to overcome that little thing called a



Guess you didn't think that one through, did you?

 

[Trajan]

Here's an 'oh yeah I remember that now' moment for some of you:

Remember back when the GOP had the majority in the Senate, and talk of the 'nuclear option' came up?

Remember what the conservatives - fancying themselves quite clever - came up with as the alternative name for the 'nuclear option'?

The 'constitutional option'.

...lol, oh yeah, now you remember...

What I remember is the Gang of 14 getting together and ending the debate. Then again, you always did live in an alternate universe.

hey for carb and the rest here I guess being a person who has not shot someone and someone who has, equals exactly the same thing, talk about a corruption of logic....



and for those adding gop snippets of the gop sptting the nuclear option, well, vis a vis the dems who said same when they were under the gun, guess what?

its not the gop who are the hypocrites here, its the folks who pulled the trigger.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess typing "at the earliest, 2017" was a little too painful, eh?

it could happen next year, why wait until 2017?

You too, huh?

Even IF the GOP took the senate in 2016 (which I don't think it will) -- it still wouldn't be able to overcome that little thing called a



Guess you didn't think that one through, did you?

I suggest you go back and reread what I said about Republicans repealing Obamacare with 51 votes. If they stick to their guns, and refuse to pass anything that allows the government to spend a dime on Obamacare, it really doesn't matter what Obama vetoes, does it? He still won't have any money to spend on his pet project, and all the whinging in the world won't change a ******* thing. Then you can look back on your support for the end of the filibuster, and realize that making decisions based on fear of loss is incredibly stupid.

It is also what keeps casinos in business.

In other words, only losers do it. Do you like being a self defined loser?

 

[Trajan]

Then you've got Lindsey "Ah do declarh" Graham saying he would put a hold on every single judicial nomination until he gets MORE BENGHAZZII!!11!!

Nothing to do with the nominees. Just hold, cause ghaaaa!

I do remember Lindsey saying that.

Graham Vows to Block Obama Nominees Over Libya Attack Probe - SFGate

Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Lindsey Graham vowed to block President Barack Obama’s nominees unless U.S. lawmakers hear from survivors of the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

holds are BS, no matter who employs them.

and please don't go all selective on us, if you don't know the dems employed holds as well, theres no hope for you.

 

[Political Junky]

Yeah!!! Reid acted too quickly!!! He only waited for 4 1/2 years of Republican inaction!!! He should have just sat down and let the senate go back into its Repub-induced slumber

Reid never acted too quickly on anything.

 

[paperview]

the dems could have initiated a51 vote rule with a lot more honor and argument and heft on their side when they had a 60 seat senate...why didn't they?

You mean those few months in 2009 Senate dems had a 60 vote majority?



You're actually serious, aren't you?

between july 8th09 and Jan. 2010 when Brown was sworn in? you mean then?

yes..... or maybe they could have voted right after they got the 60 on Christmas eve, taking obamcare over the top.

yes, I am serious.

Lot shorter than that. More like a couple months.

The Big Lies of Mitt Romney V: Obama Had A Super-Majority In Congress For Two Years « The Dish

And you're seriously suggesting the dems should have triggered the "nuclear option" in 2009, well before the pubs started their thick laydown of presidential appointee filibusters - and while Obamacare was being debated?

If that isn't delusional, I don't know what is.

 

[rightwinger]

it could happen next year, why wait until 2017?

You too, huh?

Even IF the GOP took the senate in 2016 (which I don't think it will) -- it still wouldn't be able to overcome that little thing called a



Guess you didn't think that one through, did you?

I suggest you go back and reread what I said about Republicans repealing Obamacare with 51 votes. If they stick to their guns, and refuse to pass anything that allows the government to spend a dime on Obamacare, it really doesn't matter what Obama vetoes, does it? He still won't have any money to spend on his pet project, and all the whinging in the world won't change a ******* thing. Then you can look back on your support for the end of the filibuster, and realize that making decisions based on fear of loss is incredibly stupid.

It is also what keeps casinos in business.

In other words, only losers do it. Do you like being a self defined loser?

Let them

Once Republicans win the House, Senate and WhiteHouse

I think they should go ahead and repeal Obamacare

good luck

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's an 'oh yeah I remember that now' moment for some of you:

Remember back when the GOP had the majority in the Senate, and talk of the 'nuclear option' came up?

Remember what the conservatives - fancying themselves quite clever - came up with as the alternative name for the 'nuclear option'?

The 'constitutional option'.

...lol, oh yeah, now you remember...

What I remember is the Gang of 14 getting together and ending the debate. Then again, you always did live in an alternate universe.

hey for carb and the rest here I guess being a person who has not shot someone and someone who has, equals exactly the same thing, talk about a corruption of logic....



and for those adding gop snippets of the gop sptting the nuclear option, well, vis a vis the dems who said same when they were under the gun, guess what?

its not the gop who are the hypocrites here, its the folks who pulled the trigger.

The whole point of the Senate is to give a bit of power to the party that lost so that the majority cannot run rough shod over the rights of the minority. For some reason, these kids think that is the jobs of the courts. They forget that the same courts they think will protect them routinely side with the government, and with the party in power. If they didn't, we would never end up with crap like the Dred Scott decision or Jim Crow laws.

 

[paperview]

Then you've got Lindsey "Ah do declarh" Graham saying he would put a hold on every single judicial nomination until he gets MORE BENGHAZZII!!11!!

Nothing to do with the nominees. Just hold, cause ghaaaa!

I do remember Lindsey saying that.

Graham Vows to Block Obama Nominees Over Libya Attack Probe - SFGate

Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Lindsey Graham vowed to block President Barack Obama’s nominees unless U.S. lawmakers hear from survivors of the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

holds are BS, no matter who employs them.

and please don't go all selective on us, if you don't know the dems employed holds as well, theres no hope for you.

They did.

But with Obama, they laid it on thicker than anything that had ever happened before in our entire history.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do remember Lindsey saying that.

Graham Vows to Block Obama Nominees Over Libya Attack Probe - SFGate

Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Lindsey Graham vowed to block President Barack Obama’s nominees unless U.S. lawmakers hear from survivors of the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

holds are BS, no matter who employs them.

and please don't go all selective on us, if you don't know the dems employed holds as well, theres no hope for you.

They did.

But with Obama, they laid it on thicker than anything that had ever happened before in our entire history.

Posting lies really doesn't make your case.

 

[paperview]

it could happen next year, why wait until 2017?

You too, huh?

Even IF the GOP took the senate in 2016 (which I don't think it will) -- it still wouldn't be able to overcome that little thing called a



Guess you didn't think that one through, did you?

I suggest you go back and reread what I said about Republicans repealing Obamacare with 51 votes. If they stick to their guns, and refuse to pass anything that allows the government to spend a dime on Obamacare, it really doesn't matter what Obama vetoes, does it? He still won't have any money to spend on his pet project, and all the whinging in the world won't change a ******* thing. Then you can look back on your support for the end of the filibuster, and realize that making decisions based on fear of loss is incredibly stupid.

It is also what keeps casinos in business.

In other words, only losers do it. Do you like being a self defined loser?

Then that's not repealing, is it?

You said "Remember that argument when the Republicans repeal Obamacare with 51 votes."

So, you're obviously changing tack now, and to defunding....have at it. Let the House bog up the bills, the senate refuse to pass -- and see how the chips fall with the reelection campaigns.

Do it.

 

[paperview]

holds are BS, no matter who employs them.

and please don't go all selective on us, if you don't know the dems employed holds as well, theres no hope for you.

They did.

But with Obama, they laid it on thicker than anything that had ever happened before in our entire history.

Posting lies really doesn't make your case.

Not a lie.

Fact.

 

[Trajan]

You mean those few months in 2009 Senate dems had a 60 vote majority?



You're actually serious, aren't you?

between july 8th09 and Jan. 2010 when Brown was sworn in? you mean then?

yes..... or maybe they could have voted right after they got the 60 on Christmas eve, taking obamcare over the top.

yes, I am serious.

Lot shorter than that. More like a couple months.

The Big Lies of Mitt Romney V: Obama Had A Super-Majority In Congress For Two Years « The Dish

And you're seriously suggesting the dems should have triggered the "nuclear option" in 2009, well before the pubs started their thick laydown of presidential appointee filibusters - and while Obamacare was being debated?

If that isn't delusional, I don't know what is.

the "dish"




here, from the ny times and a site I bet is close to your heart just for good measure..

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01minnesota.html?_r=0

How the Far Right Handed Dems a 60-Vote Majority | Mother Jones



I am not suggesting anything except the wars were already on and had been on, reid had spent the previous 2 years since jan 07 filibustering bush nominees etc. he knew this what coming..the game was already afoot.....as he had played EXACTLY the same game earlier.

 

[Trajan]

You too, huh?

Even IF the GOP took the senate in 2016 (which I don't think it will) -- it still wouldn't be able to overcome that little thing called a



Guess you didn't think that one through, did you?

I suggest you go back and reread what I said about Republicans repealing Obamacare with 51 votes. If they stick to their guns, and refuse to pass anything that allows the government to spend a dime on Obamacare, it really doesn't matter what Obama vetoes, does it? He still won't have any money to spend on his pet project, and all the whinging in the world won't change a ******* thing. Then you can look back on your support for the end of the filibuster, and realize that making decisions based on fear of loss is incredibly stupid.

It is also what keeps casinos in business.

In other words, only losers do it. Do you like being a self defined loser?

Then that's not repealing, is it?

You said "Remember that argument when the Republicans repeal Obamacare with 51 votes."

So, you're obviously changing tack now, and to defunding....have at it. Let the House bog up the bills, the senate refuse to pass -- and see how the chips fall with the reelection campaigns.

Do it.

I said defunding 2,3 pages ago.......and? what difference does iot make, they can drown it via not allocating funds..thats the point...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You too, huh?

Even IF the GOP took the senate in 2016 (which I don't think it will) -- it still wouldn't be able to overcome that little thing called a



Guess you didn't think that one through, did you?

I suggest you go back and reread what I said about Republicans repealing Obamacare with 51 votes. If they stick to their guns, and refuse to pass anything that allows the government to spend a dime on Obamacare, it really doesn't matter what Obama vetoes, does it? He still won't have any money to spend on his pet project, and all the whinging in the world won't change a ******* thing. Then you can look back on your support for the end of the filibuster, and realize that making decisions based on fear of loss is incredibly stupid.

It is also what keeps casinos in business.

In other words, only losers do it. Do you like being a self defined loser?

Then that's not repealing, is it?

You said "Remember that argument when the Republicans repeal Obamacare with 51 votes."

So, you're obviously changing tack now, and to defunding....have at it. Let the House bog up the bills, the senate refuse to pass -- and see how the chips fall with the reelection campaigns.

Do it.

It is repealing it, you just think the veto means the vote was invalid. That isn't my fault, you should take it up with your teacher.

Besides, by that time the Democrats who are planning on running in 2016 will see the writing on the wall, and it will only take a few of them to jump ship to override the veto. Throw in a return of the filibuster rules, a few bribes here and there, and it really shouldn't be a problem.

Unless, that is, you are still operating under the delusion that Obamacare is only glint to get more popular as time goes by. You have been saying that for over 3 years, and been consistently wrong, but I see no reason for you to start admitting it at this point in time.

 

[paperview]

I suggest you go back and reread what I said about Republicans repealing Obamacare with 51 votes. If they stick to their guns, and refuse to pass anything that allows the government to spend a dime on Obamacare, it really doesn't matter what Obama vetoes, does it? He still won't have any money to spend on his pet project, and all the whinging in the world won't change a ******* thing. Then you can look back on your support for the end of the filibuster, and realize that making decisions based on fear of loss is incredibly stupid.

It is also what keeps casinos in business.

In other words, only losers do it. Do you like being a self defined loser?

Then that's not repealing, is it?

You said "Remember that argument when the Republicans repeal Obamacare with 51 votes."

So, you're obviously changing tack now, and to defunding....have at it. Let the House bog up the bills, the senate refuse to pass -- and see how the chips fall with the reelection campaigns.

Do it.

I said defunding 2,3 pages ago.......and? what difference does iot make, they can drown it via not allocating funds..thats the point...

Did you think I was talking to you?

 

[Trajan]

holds are BS, no matter who employs them.

and please don't go all selective on us, if you don't know the dems employed holds as well, theres no hope for you.

They did.

But with Obama, they laid it on thicker than anything that had ever happened before in our entire history.

Posting lies really doesn't make your case.

you 're not get anywhere.......the filibustering of judicial nominees took off in 2002, I have posted a link detailing that, so that make it lets see, 11 years and 3 presidents but that graphic includes all other Presidents to blow it up as making it appear more egregious than it is.......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They did.

But with Obama, they laid it on thicker than anything that had ever happened before in our entire history.

Posting lies really doesn't make your case.

Not a lie.

Fact.

Which explains why Read retracted the "fact."

 

[Trajan]

Then that's not repealing, is it?

You said "Remember that argument when the Republicans repeal Obamacare with 51 votes."

So, you're obviously changing tack now, and to defunding....have at it. Let the House bog up the bills, the senate refuse to pass -- and see how the chips fall with the reelection campaigns.

Do it.

I said defunding 2,3 pages ago.......and? what difference does iot make, they can drown it via not allocating funds..thats the point...

Did you think I was talking to you?

no, the point was defunding,I remarked back on that point, this is an open board, do you have a problem with that?

 

[paperview]

I suggest you go back and reread what I said about Republicans repealing Obamacare with 51 votes. If they stick to their guns, and refuse to pass anything that allows the government to spend a dime on Obamacare, it really doesn't matter what Obama vetoes, does it? He still won't have any money to spend on his pet project, and all the whinging in the world won't change a ******* thing. Then you can look back on your support for the end of the filibuster, and realize that making decisions based on fear of loss is incredibly stupid.

It is also what keeps casinos in business.

In other words, only losers do it. Do you like being a self defined loser?

Then that's not repealing, is it?

You said "Remember that argument when the Republicans repeal Obamacare with 51 votes."

So, you're obviously changing tack now, and to defunding....have at it. Let the House bog up the bills, the senate refuse to pass -- and see how the chips fall with the reelection campaigns.

Do it.

It is repealing it, you just think the veto means the vote was invalid. That isn't my fault, you should take it up with your teacher.

Besides, by that time the Democrats who are planning on running in 2016 will see the writing on the wall, and it will only take a few of them to jump ship to override the veto. Throw in a return of the filibuster rules, a few bribes here and there, and it really shouldn't be a problem.

Unless, that is, you are still operating under the delusion that Obamacare is only glint to get more popular as time goes by. You have been saying that for over 3 years, and been consistently wrong, but I see no reason for you to start admitting it at this point in time.

This post is just head-shake worthy.

Filled with gibberish, things I never said, and just a ground up mush of cow cud.

Carry on in whatever world you're living in.


Cya.