So, Obama gets to put a third dullard to the Supreme Court?

[sealybobo]

they hate women... especially smart women like us.

I love women, especially smart women, I find them refreshing and challenging. You and Jill just don't make the grade. Hell, jillian's comebacks are so weak they aren't worth responding to. Keep trying, if you come up with a good comeback, I'll will actually lower myself and respond to you. Doubt I'll need to.

Well this shows fair and balance in you papa. I love Jillian but I can't stand Valerie, if she is who I think she is. She's ******* nuts. So at least I'll give you that you aren't completely one sided. I never thought you were anyways. I know you just lean to the right. Certainly not a right winger.

Or am I confusing Valerie with Stephanie. I can't keep track. Hey Val, do you think I'm a pedophile? Are you the crazy ***** who thinks that?

steffie is a nutjob. val is centrist.

Sorry Val. I confused you with another. Is Papa arguing with Liberals today? Notice you rarely find him on our side of things even though he claims to be fair and balanced.

 

[Valerie]

Hey Val, do you think I'm a pedophile?

yes, i prefer the term pedo sympathizer lest i find myself reprimanded for a rule violation.

 

[sealybobo]

they hate women... especially smart women like us.

I love women, especially smart women, I find them refreshing and challenging. You and Jill just don't make the grade. Hell, jillian's comebacks are so weak they aren't worth responding to. Keep trying, if you come up with a good comeback, I'll will actually lower myself and respond to you. Doubt I'll need to.

Well this shows fair and balance in you papa. I love Jillian but I can't stand Valerie, if she is who I think she is. She's ******* nuts. So at least I'll give you that you aren't completely one sided. I never thought you were anyways. I know you just lean to the right. Certainly not a right winger.

Or am I confusing Valerie with Stephanie. I can't keep track. Hey Val, do you think I'm a pedophile? Are you the crazy ***** who thinks that?

if you think he's a centrist, i'll take another look at him, but I haven't seen him do anything but post rightwing talking points.

He will never side with the left but he isn't one of those right wing nutters that's for sure. He seems like a moderate conservative to me but imo they are all just as guilty. The greedy and the ignorant. Let god sort them out.

 

[Valerie]

Sorry Val.

your word means diddly to me, diddler...

 

[sealybobo]

they hate women... especially smart women like us.

I love women, especially smart women, I find them refreshing and challenging. You and Jill just don't make the grade. Hell, jillian's comebacks are so weak they aren't worth responding to. Keep trying, if you come up with a good comeback, I'll will actually lower myself and respond to you. Doubt I'll need to.

Well this shows fair and balance in you papa. I love Jillian but I can't stand Valerie, if she is who I think she is. She's ******* nuts. So at least I'll give you that you aren't completely one sided. I never thought you were anyways. I know you just lean to the right. Certainly not a right winger.

Or am I confusing Valerie with Stephanie. I can't keep track. Hey Val, do you think I'm a pedophile? Are you the crazy ***** who thinks that?

steffie is a nutjob. val is centrist.

Val is a nut job too. She confirmed she is the wack job I thought she was. I must have said something jokingly and she remembers it like I said I was a card carrying member of NAMBLA. I would distance myself from that loon.

 

[Valerie]

steffie is a nutjob. val is centrist.

he's only acting like he doesn't know the difference between stephanie and valerie.

 

[Valerie]

I would distance myself from that loon.

poor silly boob.. always a day late and a child porn flick short.

 

[sealybobo]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word, "subversiveness". You may not agree with the president's nomination, but the president has the constitutional authority to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Senate has the power to consent or not consent to the appointment of the president's nominee. If some senators disapprove of the nominee, then they should cast their votes to withhold consent. They will be answerable for their votes to their constituents. That's the way our system works.

If the Senate stalls a vote, then members of the Senate will be viewed as obstructionists ... power hungry wolves. There is no political advantage to be gained by stalling.

I know you don't understand context. Spare me the lecture, lady.

I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.

Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.

Trust me..after the midterm shellacking you dems received real Americans will cheer on any and all obstructions the republicans may choose to stop your messiah.
Americans are through with the leftist agenda and the RINOs.
If things get hinky there will be violence.....you can count on it.

Since when has the tea bagger or libertarian parties gone from a small fringe group of thinkers to what you say is "what most Americans want"?

The midterms did not give the GOP a mandate. People didn't show up to vote. That's a lot different than showing up to vote FOR you. So no one wants another Scalia on the bench. And if you think so, then run on that this coming election. Run on anti abortion, citizens united, etc. We hope you do!

Ted Cruz is only popular within the GOP. He's not very popular in the general public. So really to test your theory out that the public wants what you want, you should run a nut like Ted Cruz and see how he does against Hillary. You won't get the benefit of low voter turn out and you will get your asses kicked this November no matter who you run. This justice issue just sealed it!!!!

 

[sealybobo]

steffie is a nutjob. val is centrist.

he's only acting like he doesn't know the difference between stephanie and valerie.

No I was surprised a decent person like Jillian was friends with someone like you. I thought, "maybe it was stephanie and not Valerie" but you confirmed it, you are the psycho ***** I thought you were.

If I were Jillian I'd distance myself from you like the GOP does GW Bush.

 

[jillian]

steffie is a nutjob. val is centrist.

he's only acting like he doesn't know the difference between stephanie and valerie.

No I was surprised a decent person like Jillian was friends with someone like you. I thought, "maybe it was stephanie and not Valerie" but you confirmed it, you are the psycho ***** I thought you were.

If I were Jillian I'd distance myself from you like the GOP does GW Bush.

val is my friend. I have no issues with you.

you should make friends.

 

[sealybobo]

steffie is a nutjob. val is centrist.

he's only acting like he doesn't know the difference between stephanie and valerie.

No I was surprised a decent person like Jillian was friends with someone like you. I thought, "maybe it was stephanie and not Valerie" but you confirmed it, you are the psycho ***** I thought you were.

If I were Jillian I'd distance myself from you like the GOP does GW Bush.

val is my friend. I have no issues with you.

you should make friends.

I tried but she insists it was me who said I was a pedophile. Nothing I say can convince her. I can't imagine what I said that would make her think that so I'm completely convinced she is confusing me with someone else. Although I have made crude jokes in the past I can't imagine what it is she thinks I said.

Other than that, we would probably be on the same side except she's CONVINCED. LOL. I've had a few women mistake me for someone else and that was in person, so I know how crazy some bitches can be and how they can be completely wrong but that doesn't even dawn on them so they just continue to be crazy bitches.
Anyways, I wouldn't ever warm up to a pedophile either so I guess until she figures out it wasn't me, her delusions are just going to have to remain a wedge between us. And to think I was going to make sweet love to her.

 

[jillian]

steffie is a nutjob. val is centrist.

he's only acting like he doesn't know the difference between stephanie and valerie.

No I was surprised a decent person like Jillian was friends with someone like you. I thought, "maybe it was stephanie and not Valerie" but you confirmed it, you are the psycho ***** I thought you were.

If I were Jillian I'd distance myself from you like the GOP does GW Bush.

val is my friend. I have no issues with you.

you should make friends.

I tried but she insists it was me who said I was a pedophile. Nothing I say can convince her. I can't imagine what I said that would make her think that so I'm completely convinced she is confusing me with someone else. Although I have made crude jokes in the past I can't imagine what it is she thinks I said.

Other than that, we would probably be on the same side except she's CONVINCED. LOL. I've had a few women mistake me for someone else and that was in person, so I know how crazy some bitches can be and how they can be completely wrong but that doesn't even dawn on them so they just continue to be crazy bitches.
Anyways, I wouldn't ever warm up to a pedophile either so I guess until she figures out it wasn't me, her delusions are just going to have to remain a wedge between us. And to think I was going to make sweet love to her.

I think she read something that concerned her. it might have even been something tongue in cheek. I haven't seen that but she'll tell me.

 

[Valerie]

bobo is a desperate liar...

 

[sealybobo]

bobo is a desperate liar...

No matter what I say you won't believe me so **** off smelly kunt.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word, "subversiveness". You may not agree with the president's nomination, but the president has the constitutional authority to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Senate has the power to consent or not consent to the appointment of the president's nominee. If some senators disapprove of the nominee, then they should cast their votes to withhold consent. They will be answerable for their votes to their constituents. That's the way our system works.

If the Senate stalls a vote, then members of the Senate will be viewed as obstructionists ... power hungry wolves. There is no political advantage to be gained by stalling.

I know you don't understand context. Spare me the lecture, lady.

I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.

Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.

Trust me..after the midterm shellacking you dems received real Americans will cheer on any and all obstructions the republicans may choose to stop your messiah.
Americans are through with the leftist agenda and the RINOs.
If things get hinky there will be violence.....you can count on it.

low turnout.... GOP does well when people don't vote.

that won't happen now and you don't/can't win national elections.

So why do you think they stayed home?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word, "subversiveness". You may not agree with the president's nomination, but the president has the constitutional authority to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Senate has the power to consent or not consent to the appointment of the president's nominee. If some senators disapprove of the nominee, then they should cast their votes to withhold consent. They will be answerable for their votes to their constituents. That's the way our system works.

If the Senate stalls a vote, then members of the Senate will be viewed as obstructionists ... power hungry wolves. There is no political advantage to be gained by stalling.

I know you don't understand context. Spare me the lecture, lady.

I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.

Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.

Trust me..after the midterm shellacking you dems received real Americans will cheer on any and all obstructions the republicans may choose to stop your messiah.
Americans are through with the leftist agenda and the RINOs.
If things get hinky there will be violence.....you can count on it.

low turnout.... GOP does well when people don't vote.

that won't happen now and you don't/can't win national elections.

I actually hope they don't let Obama appoint a judge. That'll turn out the vote alright. We'll use that like Bush used 9-11 and the Iraq war to win 2004.

America doesnt want Barry to appoint a judge so there will be no fallout whatsoever.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Scalia's death is another wound for America given Obama's subversiveness.

The previous two 'justices' that Obama appointed weren't just liberal hacks, they were flat-out below average intelligence persons. It was his way of spitting on The Constitution. Will he get to appoint a third dullard, or can this be stalled?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word, "subversiveness". You may not agree with the president's nomination, but the president has the constitutional authority to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Senate has the power to consent or not consent to the appointment of the president's nominee. If some senators disapprove of the nominee, then they should cast their votes to withhold consent. They will be answerable for their votes to their constituents. That's the way our system works.

If the Senate stalls a vote, then members of the Senate will be viewed as obstructionists ... power hungry wolves. There is no political advantage to be gained by stalling.

I know you don't understand context. Spare me the lecture, lady.

I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.

Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.

Trust me..after the midterm shellacking you dems received real Americans will cheer on any and all obstructions the republicans may choose to stop your messiah.
Americans are through with the leftist agenda and the RINOs.
If things get hinky there will be violence.....you can count on it.

Since when has the tea bagger or libertarian parties gone from a small fringe group of thinkers to what you say is "what most Americans want"?

The midterms did not give the GOP a mandate. People didn't show up to vote. That's a lot different than showing up to vote FOR you. So no one wants another Scalia on the bench. And if you think so, then run on that this coming election. Run on anti abortion, citizens united, etc. We hope you do!

Ted Cruz is only popular within the GOP. He's not very popular in the general public. So really to test your theory out that the public wants what you want, you should run a nut like Ted Cruz and see how he does against Hillary. You won't get the benefit of low voter turn out and you will get your asses kicked this November no matter who you run. This justice issue just sealed it!!!!

Hilary....
She'll be lucky to stay out of prison.
And those that didnt show up for for your lame duck party voted with their ass by leaving it on the couch.

 

[sealybobo]

I know you don't understand context. Spare me the lecture, lady.

I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.

Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.

Trust me..after the midterm shellacking you dems received real Americans will cheer on any and all obstructions the republicans may choose to stop your messiah.
Americans are through with the leftist agenda and the RINOs.
If things get hinky there will be violence.....you can count on it.

low turnout.... GOP does well when people don't vote.

that won't happen now and you don't/can't win national elections.

I actually hope they don't let Obama appoint a judge. That'll turn out the vote alright. We'll use that like Bush used 9-11 and the Iraq war to win 2004.

America doesnt want Barry to appoint a judge so there will be no fallout whatsoever.

Who the **** is "America"? This is what Republicans do. They say "America" wants or "America doesn't want" when they should be saying "rich America" or "Conservative America".

If you don't realize you are doing this it might be an indication of what a brainwashed ass fart you are.

America didn't want McCain or Romney to be president. America wanted Barrack Obama to be President. Agreed?

 

[sealybobo]

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word, "subversiveness". You may not agree with the president's nomination, but the president has the constitutional authority to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Senate has the power to consent or not consent to the appointment of the president's nominee. If some senators disapprove of the nominee, then they should cast their votes to withhold consent. They will be answerable for their votes to their constituents. That's the way our system works.

If the Senate stalls a vote, then members of the Senate will be viewed as obstructionists ... power hungry wolves. There is no political advantage to be gained by stalling.

I know you don't understand context. Spare me the lecture, lady.

I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.

Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.

Trust me..after the midterm shellacking you dems received real Americans will cheer on any and all obstructions the republicans may choose to stop your messiah.
Americans are through with the leftist agenda and the RINOs.
If things get hinky there will be violence.....you can count on it.

Since when has the tea bagger or libertarian parties gone from a small fringe group of thinkers to what you say is "what most Americans want"?

The midterms did not give the GOP a mandate. People didn't show up to vote. That's a lot different than showing up to vote FOR you. So no one wants another Scalia on the bench. And if you think so, then run on that this coming election. Run on anti abortion, citizens united, etc. We hope you do!

Ted Cruz is only popular within the GOP. He's not very popular in the general public. So really to test your theory out that the public wants what you want, you should run a nut like Ted Cruz and see how he does against Hillary. You won't get the benefit of low voter turn out and you will get your asses kicked this November no matter who you run. This justice issue just sealed it!!!!

Hilary....
She'll be lucky to stay out of prison.
And those that didnt show up for for your lame duck party voted with their ass by leaving it on the couch.

You right wingers are so funny. Lucky to stay out of prison? LOL. You guys practice the art of, "say something enough times true or not and eventually it becomes reality".

 

[jillian]

I don't have to "spare" you anything. This is a discussion board and you initiated a discussion. You may encourage the senators to stall, if you think that's the way to achieve your agenda. But the senators, those with a small amount of intelligence, will likely conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Stalling isn't going to further your agenda; it will only place a spotlight on obstructionism and will result in a backlash.

Go ahead. Encourage the senate to stall, stall, stall ... and if that happens, expect the voters to respond and to unseat the obstructionists.

Trust me..after the midterm shellacking you dems received real Americans will cheer on any and all obstructions the republicans may choose to stop your messiah.
Americans are through with the leftist agenda and the RINOs.
If things get hinky there will be violence.....you can count on it.

low turnout.... GOP does well when people don't vote.

that won't happen now and you don't/can't win national elections.

I actually hope they don't let Obama appoint a judge. That'll turn out the vote alright. We'll use that like Bush used 9-11 and the Iraq war to win 2004.

America doesnt want Barry to appoint a judge so there will be no fallout whatsoever.

Who the **** is "America"? This is what Republicans do. They say "America" wants or "America doesn't want" when they should be saying "rich America" or "Conservative America".

If you don't realize you are doing this it might be an indication of what a brainwashed ass fart you are.

America didn't want McCain or Romney to be president. America wanted Barrack Obama to be President. Agreed?

they think THEY are "America"