- Nov 14, 2011
- Reaction score
Learn English, Spunky. Proper English is, "once Republicans get control ... we will be in power," not, "once Republicans get control ... we are in power." You prove to be too big of an idiot to play with tenses like that. Once you figure that out, see if you can find a legitimate reason for impeaching 9 Liberal justices. When you get past that hurdle, spend some time to understand you actually did talk about "mortality rate," despite your nutty denial to the contrary.Let me help you out, lil fella.....LOLOLYep, present tense in the context of the conversation we were having before you butted in to make a fool of yourself.Yeah, "we are in power" is present tense. Guess what, Spunky, you are not in power of the House.Yep, that was the scenario we were talking about.Putz, your words, "Impeach them. We are in power, Putz."What part of “ once Republicans get control” is confusing to you, Simpleton?LOLOLI
Impeach them. We are in power, Putz.LOLOLRun it up to 15 seats and enjoy your 9-6 Libtard majority.Democrats will fill open seats that were created by a Constitutionally elected CongressRepublicans didn't add justices, they filled open seats. If dems regain control I support them filling any open seats that come available. But ADDING seats? Oh hell no.Well...you know, when you change the norms and rules, there will be consequences.Yes. One of those consequences is the president nominates Supreme Court justices.Elections have consequences.STFU you stolen valor POS.
How is this Crypt Keeper looking asswipe even in the Senate?
Sen. Richard Blumenthal issued a nonspecific warning of "consequences" if Republicans move ahead with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday amid Democrats' talk of packing the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster if President Trump's nominee is seated.www.foxnews.com
Another consequence is that the senate confirms the nominee.
If the Dems get the Senate and Executive, why shouldn't they take a page from your playbook and add justices? Any good reason not to now that you've set precedents?
And if you want to start that game, when republicans regain control they'll stack the court again.
Who could object to Congress doing its job?
Once Republicans get control there is nothing preventing them from running it down to 6 and throwing all 9 libs off the court.
You're such a fucking imbecile, putz ... the Constitution is preventing them, ya moron, which only allows for impeachment to remove a SC justice.
You think you control the House???
Good Lord, you have the reading comprehension skills of a box of retarded hair.
Are you ever not a flaming imbecile?
Learn to read for comprehension you blithering idiot. Try to follow a conversation for once in your life, Ignoramus.
Your colossal inability to follow the simplest of conversations is astounding.......until one realized what a complete moron you are.
Suuure, Spunky. Uh-huh...
Nope. Never used the word "mortality", idiot.Quote my post using "mortality", or admit you can't read on a second grade level.My G-d, you're even more rightarded than I ever gave you credit for....[emphasis added to highlight Nostra's dementia]
G'head, talk to me about following a conversation.:a
I was talking about what the Republican response to Dimwingers packing the S.C. could be........so tell all of us how that could possibly be referencing the “present”, you raving lunatic.