Author Topic: Scalia  (Read 56837 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #650 on: February 26, 2016, 11:49:09 AM »
Dude you can't use flailing in this thread, I've claimed it.  We haven't backroom dealt an exchange for it.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53791
    • View Profile
Scalia
« Reply #651 on: February 26, 2016, 11:54:02 AM »
Dude you can't use flailing in this thread, I've claimed it.  We haven't backroom dealt an exchange for it.

Only a total Whackadoodle dumbass like you would try to say that a non election year nominee is the exact same thing as an election year nominee and the try respin the respinning of Biden's cryptic obstructionism, and then try to play a straw man like racial implications and then call me a white supremacist supporter. 

Never stop Whackadoodle dumbass aka Capt Meltdown

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 64356
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #652 on: February 26, 2016, 11:57:25 AM »
Lol.  Powell announced his retirement in June of 1987, the next presidential election wasn't until November 1998. 

Bork was nominated in July of 1987.   Calendar says!   Over a year before Nov. 8th 1988. 

Only a total dumbass would try to say it's the same as what's happening now. 

tons of people tried to say what happened to Bork was the same as what's happening now.

Maybe dax and fsd have melted together in my mind, but I'm pretty sure dax was one of those people
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53791
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #653 on: February 26, 2016, 12:00:47 PM »

Lol.  Powell announced his retirement in June of 1987, the next presidential election wasn't until November 1998. 

Bork was nominated in July of 1987.   Calendar says!   Over a year before Nov. 8th 1988. 

Only a total dumbass would try to say it's the same as what's happening now. 

tons of people tried to say what happened to Bork was the same as what's happening now.

Maybe dax and fsd have melted together in my mind, but I'm pretty sure dax was one of those people

Uh, I've never used the analogy of Bork.  I don't even recall discussing Bork, maybe I did. 

I guess I just understand the difference between 17.5 months before a presidential election and 9 months before a presidential election.  #crazy

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #654 on: February 26, 2016, 12:06:49 PM »
Dude you can't use flailing in this thread, I've claimed it.  We haven't backroom dealt an exchange for it.

Only a total Whackadoodle dumbass like you would try to say that a non election year nominee is the exact same thing as an election year nominee and the try respin the respinning of Biden's cryptic obstructionism, and then try to play a straw man like racial implications and then call me a white supremacist supporter. 

Never stop Whackadoodle dumbass aka Capt Meltdown
Struggling hard to keep your head above water? No one has said that a non election year is the same as now.  We're all noting that we've had situations like this before, and NEVER has congress said no to even meeting nominees. 
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53791
    • View Profile
Scalia
« Reply #655 on: February 26, 2016, 12:12:04 PM »
Dude you can't use flailing in this thread, I've claimed it.  We haven't backroom dealt an exchange for it.

Only a total Whackadoodle dumbass like you would try to say that a non election year nominee is the exact same thing as an election year nominee and the try respin the respinning of Biden's cryptic obstructionism, and then try to play a straw man like racial implications and then call me a white supremacist supporter. 

Never stop Whackadoodle dumbass aka Capt Meltdown
Struggling hard to keep your head above water? No one has said that a non election year is the same as now.  We're all noting that we've had situations like this before, and NEVER has congress said no to even meeting nominees.

Oh okay, so NOW it's not meeting with nominees in an election year. 

Strange your "fact" about this being precedence setting was based entirely on the CONFIRMATION of a nominee in a process that was started in a non election year.

#movinggoalposts

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53791
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #656 on: February 26, 2016, 12:17:15 PM »
Yet Biden said there would be no consideration without pre-approval.  So in essence holding the entire process hostage unless Dems were spoon fed exactly who they wanted behind closed doors . . . Then rolled out for a dog and pony confirmation process. 

Yah Representative Republic!

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #657 on: February 26, 2016, 12:17:51 PM »
Dude you can't use flailing in this thread, I've claimed it.  We haven't backroom dealt an exchange for it.

Only a total Whackadoodle dumbass like you would try to say that a non election year nominee is the exact same thing as an election year nominee and the try respin the respinning of Biden's cryptic obstructionism, and then try to play a straw man like racial implications and then call me a white supremacist supporter. 

Never stop Whackadoodle dumbass aka Capt Meltdown
Struggling hard to keep your head above water? No one has said that a non election year is the same as now.  We're all noting that we've had situations like this before, and NEVER has congress said no to even meeting nominees.

Oh okay, so NOW it's not meeting with nominees in an election year. 

Strange your "fact" about this being precedence setting was based entirely on the CONFIRMATION of a nominee in a process that was started in a non election year.

#movinggoalposts

Sorry, once again, you're battling a strawman entirely of your own creation.  We've seen vacancies within this time period before and seen nominations put forth.  This, like many things of Pubs pouting with Obama, is an entirely new animal. 
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53791
    • View Profile
Scalia
« Reply #658 on: February 26, 2016, 12:22:33 PM »
Dude you can't use flailing in this thread, I've claimed it.  We haven't backroom dealt an exchange for it.

Only a total Whackadoodle dumbass like you would try to say that a non election year nominee is the exact same thing as an election year nominee and the try respin the respinning of Biden's cryptic obstructionism, and then try to play a straw man like racial implications and then call me a white supremacist supporter. 

Never stop Whackadoodle dumbass aka Capt Meltdown
Struggling hard to keep your head above water? No one has said that a non election year is the same as now.  We're all noting that we've had situations like this before, and NEVER has congress said no to even meeting nominees.

Oh okay, so NOW it's not meeting with nominees in an election year. 

Strange your "fact" about this being precedence setting was based entirely on the CONFIRMATION of a nominee in a process that was started in a non election year.

#movinggoalposts

Sorry, once again, you're battling a strawman entirely of your own creation.  We've seen vacancies within this time period before and seen nominations put forth.  This, like many things of Pubs pouting with Obama, is an entirely new animal.

"These time periods", yeah using that phrase in the loosest and frankly most absurd context available.  Not at all surprising. 

In these time periods, ya know, give or take six to nine months.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Scalia
« Reply #659 on: February 26, 2016, 12:26:34 PM »
The libtards (itt, mocat, edna, cns) have put the cart before the hoese. B.O. has to find someone willing to accept his lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land (how hard could that be - harder than making a functional website? probably not), before the evil bogeyman repubs can undergo it's UNPRECEDENTED and UNFOUNDES confirmation process. So far, B.O. is too incompetent and toxic of a loser face to get that done. To blame congress for that is lol hilarious.  But, #thinkprogress
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #660 on: February 26, 2016, 12:35:33 PM »
Just FYI - it really isn't worth arguing with Edna. This is a person so misinformed about his own ideology that he thought constitutional amendments were the essence of a "living constitution."

He's been to the Libtard HOF at least a half dozen times? Just let him splash around and do his own thing.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline chuckjames

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #661 on: February 26, 2016, 12:37:40 PM »
With the Trump as the nominee do GOP senators back down? I mean who is Trump going to nominate? Chris  Christie???? Just Kidding Christie was smart enough to get the VP slot by endorsing so soon.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 12:41:55 PM by chuckjames »

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #662 on: February 26, 2016, 12:39:40 PM »
Just FYI - it really isn't worth arguing with Edna. This is a person so misinformed about his own ideology that he thought constitutional amendments were the essence of a "living constitution."

He's been to the Libtard HOF at least a half dozen times? Just let him splash around and do his own thing.
Get Aids
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Online mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 39266
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #663 on: February 26, 2016, 12:59:29 PM »
The libtards (itt, mocat, edna, cns) have put the cart before the hoese. B.O. has to find someone willing to accept his lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land (how hard could that be - harder than making a functional website? probably not), before the evil bogeyman repubs can undergo it's UNPRECEDENTED and UNFOUNDES confirmation process. So far, B.O. is too incompetent and toxic of a loser face to get that done. To blame congress for that is lol hilarious.  But, #thinkprogress

like i always say, bros (and carts) before hoese

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Scalia
« Reply #664 on: February 26, 2016, 01:25:58 PM »
Well, we've got aids and Cap'n spellcheck. I'm chalking this up as a vitory for the good guys.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36812
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #665 on: February 26, 2016, 01:30:20 PM »
Those not willing are not willing because they don't want to be the center of a clusterfuck inquest made as public as we can stand(and then some).  Those who actually fancy themselves worth a nomination would rather wait until there wasn't a hellfire gauntlet to run.  Someone who is looking for such a nomination doesn't care if Obama, Cruz, or God himself made the nomination.  No one wants to have zero shot because of games that don't even involve their actual viability as a candidate. This is obvious to anyone who isn't a cheerleader dumbass. 

I feel sorry for the first person or two nominated.  At best they will be completely ignored by congress and completely mumped over by the pub media crew.  At worst, congress will join in on the rough ridin' over. 

Online mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 39266
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #666 on: February 26, 2016, 01:35:06 PM »
Those not willing are not willing because they don't want to be the center of a clusterfuck inquest made as public as we can stand(and then some).  Those who actually fancy themselves worth a nomination would rather wait until there wasn't a hellfire gauntlet to run.  Someone who is looking for such a nomination doesn't care if Obama, Cruz, or God himself made the nomination.  No one wants to have zero shot because of games that don't even involve their actual viability as a candidate. This is obvious to anyone who isn't a cheerleader dumbass. 

I feel sorry for the first person or two nominated.  At best they will be completely ignored by congress and completely mumped over by the pub media crew.  At worst, congress will join in on the rough ridin' over.

YOU ARE DELUSIONAL AND OBAMA IS TOXIC!

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15268
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #667 on: February 26, 2016, 01:49:08 PM »
This whole back and forth is almost like the Republicans are supposed to mow the yard, but the mower is out of gas, and Obama needs to fill it up first. But he's not filling the tank because Republicans already said they don't want to mow today. It's like, yea they're probably not going to do it, but they literally can't until you do your part of the job anyway, man.

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #668 on: February 26, 2016, 01:50:53 PM »
This whole back and forth is almost like the Republicans are supposed to mow the yard, but the mower is out of gas, and Obama needs to fill it up first. But he's not filling the tank because Republicans already said they don't want to mow today. It's like, yea they're probably not going to do it, but they literally can't until you do your part of the job anyway, man.
It's been less than 2 weeks and the Pubs have said eff mowing the yard, it's something that should be decided by the next child who is assigned that chore.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Scalia
« Reply #669 on: February 26, 2016, 10:36:25 PM »
Those not willing are not willing because they don't want to be the center of a clusterfuck inquest made as public as we can stand(and then some).  Those who actually fancy themselves worth a nomination would rather wait until there wasn't a hellfire gauntlet to run.  Someone who is looking for such a nomination doesn't care if Obama, Cruz, or God himself made the nomination.  No one wants to have zero shot because of games that don't even involve their actual viability as a candidate. This is obvious to anyone who isn't a cheerleader dumbass. 

I feel sorry for the first person or two nominated.  At best they will be completely ignored by congress and completely mumped over by the pub media crew.  At worst, congress will join in on the rough ridin' over.

UNPRECEDENTED confirmation process, first of its kind!

 :lol: so libtarded
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85526
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #670 on: February 26, 2016, 10:38:51 PM »
holy crap, 27 pages  :sdeek:

I came to post the thing about his secret hunting society meeting or whatever he was at. I don't hunt but want to join that austrian group of studs.

The Big Train

  • Guest
Re: Scalia
« Reply #671 on: February 26, 2016, 10:45:11 PM »
There is a fantastic side story to this thread SD :thumbs:

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53791
    • View Profile
Scalia
« Reply #672 on: February 27, 2016, 10:40:46 AM »
I want the robe.

Oh and fantastic melting down and over the top hyperbolic drama from the usual lib suspects in this thread over the last 24 hours.  #doublethumbs

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51769
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #673 on: February 28, 2016, 11:21:08 AM »
holy crap, 27 pages  :sdeek:

I came to post the thing about his secret hunting society meeting or whatever he was at. I don't hunt but want to join that austrian group of studs.

I'll see what I can do. You'd be a great edition

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37188
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #674 on: February 29, 2016, 03:08:53 PM »
Who would Trump nominate if the Republicans successfully delay and get the White House? It has to be his sister, right?