Author Topic: Scalia  (Read 55183 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #750 on: March 18, 2016, 04:32:30 PM »
Stupid Illinois senator you said we need to be men and roll back our foreskin and give garland a vote.  Obama said he elected president, and that shows.the.American people wants what he wants.  It is interesting what crap from illinois smells like.  To these knotheads in say tough.testicles, Republicans rule the Senate just like Harry Ass Ried did.


Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #752 on: March 26, 2016, 01:35:53 PM »
I about exploded when I read Senator Moran of Kansas said that we should give Garland a hearing and vote. I thought this senator was a conservative. I do not want Obama to get his way.

Online wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30246
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #753 on: March 26, 2016, 01:38:01 PM »
They can vote no Reno
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Online steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85184
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #754 on: March 26, 2016, 01:55:52 PM »
I about exploded when I read Senator Moran of Kansas said that we should give Garland a hearing and vote. I thought this senator was a conservative. I do not want Obama to get his way.

How is voting on it bad?

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63776
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #755 on: August 23, 2016, 04:50:10 PM »
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #756 on: August 23, 2016, 06:24:16 PM »
Fascinating on sentencing, since it was Clinton era legislation, heralded and extolled by Hillary "We will bring them to heel" Clinton that swelled prison populations via mandatory minimums etc. etc.


Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63776
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #757 on: August 23, 2016, 07:00:41 PM »
 :lol:
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #758 on: August 23, 2016, 07:18:29 PM »
Hur hur

Offline stunted

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5568
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #759 on: October 13, 2016, 03:25:01 PM »

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20446
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #760 on: October 13, 2016, 03:29:02 PM »
vineyard = cibolo creek quail hunting?

Offline stunted

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5568
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #761 on: October 13, 2016, 03:39:20 PM »
 :dunno:

that's one thing against for sure. it does translate to "didn't think assassination meant prostitues at the vineyard"

we'll see anyways.

Offline stunted

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5568
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #762 on: October 21, 2016, 04:52:33 PM »
holy crap. they did it. they killed him.


Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53676
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #763 on: October 21, 2016, 04:58:55 PM »
:lol:

Offline stunted

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5568
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #764 on: October 21, 2016, 04:59:19 PM »
 :runaway:

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63776
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #765 on: October 21, 2016, 05:28:14 PM »
Damn
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15107
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #766 on: October 21, 2016, 05:33:58 PM »
That's top notch conspiracy stuff right there. Little confusing though.

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 39044
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #767 on: October 24, 2016, 12:49:30 PM »

Offline LickNeckey

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6005
  • #fakeposts
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #768 on: January 26, 2017, 09:08:47 AM »
Obama can nominate people for supreme court until he pisses himself to dust.  Republican Senate should not even have a hearing for anyone appointed by this law breaking bastard. He lost all right.IMO.to.have this right.when he used executive orders to.circumvent the laws he is supposed to enforce.

quick question would Trumps current executive order spree preclude him from appointing?

thanks i'll listen off the air

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #769 on: January 26, 2017, 09:50:15 AM »
Looks like the Republicans were pretty shrewd in hindsight.

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15107
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #770 on: January 26, 2017, 09:53:45 AM »
I'd say Republicans were about as shrewd as a guy who goes all in on 1/3 of the board in roulette. It's great if it works out but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #771 on: January 26, 2017, 10:06:47 AM »
No I think shrewd applies here.