are you saying its cool to be petty as hell in congress?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
are you saying its cool to be petty as hell in congress?
No, he's saying that Obama and his buddies are painting this as an "evil republican" thing.. others have painted it as a "racist thing"... when the fact is that it's a "SENATE THING"... and Obama and his supporters need to stop whining about being treated "unfairly" when he is being treated much the same as his predecessors.... and it was his own VP that was doing it.
I will repeat what I said previously, republicans are coming around to the notion that the party and politics in general are broken.. democrats still find some "moral high ground" in being a democrat.. when there is no difference.
There's no chance in hell a GOP candidate wins the white house for a very long time. I don't get what they're trying to do here. Are they going to keep blocking the nomination whenever Hillary becomes president?
Well hopefully it's Bernie and no they will not block for 4 years... They had a meeting today to discuss this and decided that Obama is still Black. <- that is what all the blocking has been about IMHO.
No, it is about what the Democrats said when GHW Bush entered the end of his term, and the current VP wanted to block any potential court nominees he might put forth ..... as well as what Harry Reid, and other Democrats said as GW Bush entered the end of his 2nd term. Scalia was a very conservative Justice, and Republicans do not want the court flipped to a liberal stance.
You can call it political if you like, because that is what it is ... but calling it racist is repugnant and disgusting.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
No, it is about what the Democrats said when GHW Bush entered the end of his term, and the current VP wanted to block any potential court nominees he might put forth ..... as well as what Harry Reid, and other Democrats said as GW Bush entered the end of his 2nd term. Scalia was a very conservative Justice, and Republicans do not want the court flipped to a liberal stance.
You can call it political if you like, because that is what it is ... but calling it racist is repugnant and disgusting.
Ytown, I'm repugnant and disgusting then because in all my life I've never seen the office of POTUS be so blatantly disrespected as I have with Obama... never. The only reason I can justify this behavior with is his race being an issue.
I'll give some blame to partisan politics, some more to whatever you want... but at the end of the day the deep seeded hate for him stems more from racism then anything else and I won't be convinced to believe otherwise.
I did not say that YOU are repugnant and disgusting, but your comments certainly were.
I wouldn't care less about the race of the President,. Heck, the guy is half White too ..... so why really cares.
I dislike his politics, just as I dislike the politics of Hillary Clinton. It's not race, it's the actions this President has taken, and the way he has done things.
If you have never seen the Presidency so disrespected, then you missed almost the entire final 2 or 3 years of the George W Bush Presidency. Hitler comparisons, anyone? He was also incredibly disrespected right off the bat as well. Only 9/11, and the way he calmed and encouraged the nation following 9/11, stopped those voices ..... for a very short period of time.
Obama has had it easy by comparison.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
i have friends that died. i got injured. and for what? a country that had ZERO to do with 9/11 in the first place?
i don't personally name call any president, but bush had absolutely EVERYTHING coming to him. he is the worst president ever, certainly in my lifetime. he sent us to war so his good ole boy friends can get paid with their government contracts.
Bush is the worst thing to ever happen to this country. and it ain't even close.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
There's a big difference in not liking someone's politics than there is thousands of ruined lives of our youth on the battle field in an unneeded war. A BIG difference.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Yeah right! A racially charged congress determined to make him a 1 term president and when that didn't work they decided not to work at all or carry out their duties as they swore to the people of the U.S.A.they would.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
but calling it racist is repugnant and disgusting.
Why? A racist is repugnant and disgusting. Calling it as one see's it is not repugnant and disgusting.
it is if one is taking something that has happened multiple times in the past to white people and is now happening to a black person and pretending it's all about race... this time.. just this time.. those other times it was some other reason...
That's pretty much the definition of "playing the race card"...
so you're gonna sit there and say that the party and it's supporters, which has the history of calling the current president a "commie muslim kenyan socialist who isn't a naturalized american", are in no way motivated by racism?
you're really trying hard to spin out of this one.
please, enlighten the board on when was the last time a president was called a kenyan muslim, asking for his birth certificate.
i'll wait.
Last edited by Swish; 02/24/1602:08 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
so you're gonna sit there and say that the party and it's supporters, which has the history of calling the current president a "commie muslim kenyan socialist who isn't a naturalized american", are in no way motivated by racism?
you're really trying hard to spin out of this one.
please, enlighten the board on when was the last time a president was called a kenyan muslim, asking for his birth certificate.
i'll wait.
I never said there is no racism, I never said that there aren't those who dislike Obama because he's black... but precedent is on the side of the republicans on this.. I think it's stupid and wish they wouldn't do it but when you are following the exact damn playbook they used against you not that long ago, how is it racism this time just because the President is black?
hey look, i dunno if it's racism with this particular issue.
but in the past, everybody else that was getting blocked didn't have a party that said "we are gonna block everything he tries to do"
or "where's his birth certificate" or any of the other stuff attached to it.
when you look at the history of the way he has been treated by the GOP, it's really hard to separate the race factor with why they want to block obama.
i also said the dems are just as wrong for blocking the gop a while back, but this idea of "well, they screwed up in the past, so it gives me a freebie to do it to them" is pathetic logic on the GOP's part.
Last edited by Swish; 02/24/1602:18 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
hey look, i dunno if it's racism with this particular issue.
but in the past, everybody else that was getting blocked didn't have a party that said "we are gonna block everything he tries to do"
or "where's his birth certificate" or any of the other stuff attached to it.
when you look at the history of the way he has been treated by the GOP, it's really hard to separate the race factor with why they want to block obama.
There has been a general obstructionist tone by Republicans, I get it.. a lot of hatred and I'm sure racism plays into that... I'm not disagreeing with that bro..
But of all of the issues where they have fought to block Obama, this might be the LEAST race related one I've seen..
well lets hope that's true. trust me, i WANT to believe this is nothing more than just typical right vs left.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
well lets hope that's true. trust me, i WANT to believe this is nothing more than just typical right vs left.
If Hillary was coming to the end of her reign of terror and in her last few months had a chance to fill a SC spot, do you think the republicans would do the exact same thing? I'm pretty sure they would... would it be sexist? No, it would be politics.
Both sides understand that because everything has reached new heights of contentiousness and because there is little to no cooperation any more... to get something of importance passed, it is going to have to be rammed down the throats of the other side... that means more and more things will likely be going to supreme court... they are going to be more and more involved in shaping policy.
but calling it racist is repugnant and disgusting.
Why? A racist is repugnant and disgusting. Calling it as one see's it is not repugnant and disgusting.
Calling someone racist because they happen to disagree with a Black person politically is repugnant and disgusting. You are verbally running around the ends,and pretending the middle doesn't exist.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
but calling it racist is repugnant and disgusting.
Why? A racist is repugnant and disgusting. Calling it as one see's it is not repugnant and disgusting.
Calling someone racist because they happen to disagree with a Black person politically is repugnant and disgusting. You are verbally running around the ends,and pretending the middle doesn't exist.
What ends am I running around? What middle are you talking about? And If you really believe their hasn't been a lot of racism involved in the obstruction of this issue/this administration in general, you are the one pretending.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
I think part of the disrespect he suffered had very much to do with how he came into office in the first place. Perhaps THE most contested and divisive election in modern history. I think some folks never forgot that... and never forgave him (or SCOTUS) for it.
If we're looking for reasons, let's look at them all.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is considering Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada as a possible nominee to the Supreme Court, two people familiar with the process said Wednesday.
Related Stories
White House weighs possible Supreme Court nomination of Gov. Sandoval: source Reuters GOP senator 1st to say Obama should offer Scalia replacement Associated Press Cracks emerge in GOP refusal to consider Supreme Court pick Associated Press Obama weighs Republican Nevada governor for Supreme Court Reuters [$$] New York’s Schumer Starts to Feel Heat of Leading The Wall Street Journal 16 Scary Cancer Warning Signs (With Photos) Lifed Sponsored  The nomination of a Republican would be seen as an attempt by President Barack Obama to break the Senate GOP blockade of any of his choices. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said his 54-member GOP caucus is opposed to holding confirmation hearings or vote on Obama's pick, insisting that the choice rests with the next president.
The officials declined to be named because they weren't authorized to speak publicly.
Mari St. Martin, Sandoval's communications director, said Wednesday that the governor hasn't been contacted by the White House.
"Neither Gov. Sandoval nor his staff has been contacted by or talked to the Obama administration regarding any potential vetting for the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court," she said.
Sandoval met with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid on Monday in Washington while he was in town for a meeting of the National Governors Association.
At the governors' meeting over the weekend, Sandoval said he was honored his name was mentioned as a potential successor for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, but had heard nothing to think the Democratic president is considering him.
Before Sandoval, 52, became the state's first Hispanic governor, he was the state's first Hispanic federal judge. He supports abortion rights, a position that might assuage some Democrats nervous about the nomination of a Republican. But liberal groups swiftly came out against the idea.
"Nominating Sandoval to the Supreme Court would not only prevent grassroots organizations like Democracy for America from supporting the president in this nomination fight, it could lead us to actively encouraging Senate Democrats to oppose his appointment," said Democracy for America.
Limited to two terms, Sandoval's final term as governor expires in early 2019. He announced last year that he would not seek the seat of retiring Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Senate minority leader, in this November's election, a race in which Sandoval would have been a strong favorite.
"My heart is here. My heart is in my job," Sandoval said at the time.
Sandoval's consideration immediately reverberated in the Nevada Senate race, where candidates are vying to replace Reid, who is retiring. Democratic Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto urged her Republican competitors to call for hearings if Sandoval is the pick.
"Voting on nominees is part of the job of being a senator, and if politicians in Washington have a problem with that they should find a new line of work," she said.
In Washington, few GOP senators have shown any willingness to buck party leaders and consider an Obama nominee.
Before McConnell announced his party's position, Nevada Sen. Dean Heller, a Republican, said Nevadans should have a voice in approving a selection — which his aides said meant the next president, not Obama, should fill the vacancy. Heller's written statement concluded, "But should he decide to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, who knows, maybe it'll be a Nevadan."
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said Wednesday that the leader's office is working with the White House to schedule a meeting with the president, but noted that his position wasn't likely to change much.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the president is also hoping to meet with Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa.
Sandoval's consideration was first reported by The Washington Post.
___
Associated Press writers Alan Fram in Washington and Scott Sonner in Reno, Nevada contributed to this report.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
"Nominating Sandoval to the Supreme Court would not only prevent grassroots organizations like Democracy for America from supporting the president in this nomination fight, it could lead us to actively encouraging Senate Democrats to oppose his appointment," said Democracy for America.
Why? Just because of the R?
Quote:
Sandoval's consideration immediately reverberated in the Nevada Senate race, where candidates are vying to replace Reid, who is retiring. Democratic Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto urged her Republican competitors to call for hearings if Sandoval is the pick.
"Voting on nominees is part of the job of being a senator, and if politicians in Washington have a problem with that they should find a new line of work," she said.
They do ma'am, they become Vice President.
As for the article in general.. wow, nominating an R, even a more liberal R, sure would throw a wrench into the works wouldn't it? He might end up with almost everybody supporting it... he might end up with almost everybody fighting it... pretty risky thing to do.
i saw this as nothing more than "your move, Mitch"
this is just hilarious to me. no matter how many people try to point to "well, they did it in the past" or "we can't have a democratic SC judge"
no matter what, with this current debacle going on, combined with the hilarity which is the GOP presidential race, obama wins.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
i saw this as nothing more than "your move, Mitch"
this is just hilarious to me. no matter how many people try to point to "well, they did it in the past" or "we can't have a democratic SC judge"
no matter what, with this current debacle going on, combined with the hilarity which is the GOP presidential race, obama wins.
Swish, so you admit that the President is playing politics with the SCOTUS nomination and in turn politicizing the SCOTUS. Interesting how the President is given a pass in your eyes for playing politics while his political opposition is not. Perhaps you see the SCOTUS as a political entity as well and not as the People's Court.
no, because the reports that more than likely he was gonna consider somebody like the governor anyway.
that's what you don't get. mofo's was already saying no before they even knew who it was, but the reality was that obama was most likely gonna pick somebody that the gop would've got on board with anyway.
and as people have already said in this thread, the SCOTUS has been politicized quite a while ago.
business as usual, remember?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Swish, so you admit that the President is playing politics with the SCOTUS nomination and in turn politicizing the SCOTUS. Interesting how the President is given a pass in your eyes for playing politics while his political opposition is not. Perhaps you see the SCOTUS as a political entity as well and not as the People's Court.
I'm not in the habit of defending Obama, but in this instance, he has every right to say, "You started it."
If they had just sat back and allowed him to make his nomination and then fought that person on the merits (assuming they didn't like the person), it would have looked a lot better...
But they played their hand too soon announcing they wouldn't even discuss or vote... so now he potentially comes up with an R candidate. I think Swish summed it up pretty well, "Mitch, it's your move."
Whatcha gonna do? You going to cave on your promise because it's a R? (Makes you look weak.. you promised) You going to refuse to discuss or vote on an R? (Makes you look bad.. sabotaging one of your own)
If Obama can actually get the democrats behind this as a nomination (which might be his biggest problem)... this will be a big win for him no matter how it ends up.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)