T1B

So his perfect replacement is going to be a crippled, geriatric, female, homosexual, racist with communist leanings.

So I wonder if this nominee will be black, if he or she will face the disgusting treatment the Dems threw at Clarence Thomas ?

Probably not, anyone who dares criticize will be subjugated the McCarthyesque accusations of being "racist".

Nah, the Repbulicans would never think of doing anything like that.

Look for any nominee to sail through with no opposition at all.

They have so much outward respect for the President and all.

Mikey wrote:Nah, the Repbulicans would never think of doing anything like that.

You're right, seeing as in principle they are the party of Lincoln and the REAL color blind party of the two.

Jsc810 wrote:Why is this man smiling?

Souter: "I'm outta here!"

Tom In VA wrote:

Mikey wrote:Nah, the Repbulicans would never think of doing anything like that.

You're right, seeing as in principle they are the party of Lincoln and the REAL color blind party of the two.

Good one.

Mikey wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Mikey wrote:Nah, the Repbulicans would never think of doing anything like that.

You're right, seeing as in principle they are the party of Lincoln and the REAL color blind party of the two.

Good one.

Nero played the lyre as the truth hit home. You laugh. Same difference.

You'd better get that TIA checked out.

Of course you're right that Lincoln was well known to never NEVER play any form of "hardball" politics.

And the Repbulican party is the same party in every way that it was 150 years ago.

Of course. I forgot all of that. So, never mind.

Jsc810 wrote: Obama: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges," he told a Planned Parenthood conference in 2007.

how 'bout somebody the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a fully formed fetus about to be born that gets yanked out feet first part way before having a knife shoved into it's brain?

Tom In VA wrote:

Mikey wrote:Nah, the Repbulicans would never think of doing anything like that.

You're right, seeing as in principle they are the party of Lincoln and the REAL color blind party of the two.

As evidenced by the wide appeal of the party across all demographic groups, right?

And you wonder why you keep getting your asses kicked in elections.

Jsc810 wrote:Obama: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges," he told a Planned Parenthood conference in 2007.

Closest thing on the bench we got to these ridiculous standards is Thomas. He understands what it's like to be poor and black seeing as he has been both at one time or another.

I'm fairly sure barry won't be picking any clarence thomases.

mvscal wrote:Interesting twist on the situation.

A motion to discharge the nominee from committee made on the Senate floor needs only be held for a day before a 60 vote majority sends the nominee to the Senate floor. Problem solved.

Degenerate wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Mikey wrote:Nah, the Repbulicans would never think of doing anything like that.

You're right, seeing as in principle they are the party of Lincoln and the REAL color blind party of the two.

As evidenced by the wide appeal of the party across all demographic groups, right?

And you wonder why you keep getting your asses kicked in elections.

I'm talking about conservative principles, once heralded by a Republican Party that wasn't corrupt. Go read a history book, Civil War (Radical Republicans), Civil Rights - in many parts pushed by some conservative God fearing people (in both parties I must admit). Then, go hang out with some black folks, BET doesn't count. You'll find most church going black folks who do vote Democrat - live, hold, and maintain very conservative values. Check out the demographic breakdown on Prop 8 in Cali. Of course "white christian righties" got the blame, but in large part blacks and hispanics - very religious ones that probably voted for Obama - voted against Gay Marriage.

I suggest reading some Thomas Sowell and Walt Williams as well.

Good Luck dude.


Either way, suggesting someone needs to "look out for the African American" community is just as racist as saying someone needs to "look out for the European Community". How about looking out for the American Community, born and unborn, and the Constitution for a change.

Tom, once again I compliment you on your hearkening back to the ideals that the GOP was founded with. I think there are/were a lot of folks like you, but many of them have grown so disgusted by the past couple of decades with the folks who have made mockeries of those ideals that they have left the GOP.

Tom In VA wrote:

Mikey wrote:Nah, the Repbulicans would never think of doing anything like that.

You're right, seeing as in principle they are the party of Lincoln and the REAL color blind party of the two.

Tom, what did your state, er, "commonwealth" think of Lincoln and his color blind ideas? Back in the day?

mvscal wrote:Assuming you actually have 60 votes on the floor which highly unlikely if you're trying to push through some libtard whackjob.

Your bluedogs and Arlene Sphincter will be perfectly content to let a polarizing nominee languish in committee as you should know.

Your predicting something?



mv,

You predicting something is the statistical equivalent of a guarantee that it will NOT happen. Seriously, if you said the Sun was going to rise in the East, I would lay every penny I had on the West.

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Obama: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges," he told a Planned Parenthood conference in 2007.

Nothing about applying the law as written? No real surprise.

Why would you conservatards want something like that?

Sin,
"...in order to maintain a well-regulated militia."

mvscal wrote:Assuming you actually have 60 votes on the floor which highly unlikely if you're trying to push through some libtard whackjob.

Your bluedogs and Arlene Sphincter will be perfectly content to let a polarizing nominee languish in committee as you should know.

Then give him (or her) a straight up-or-down vote.

After all, that was good enough for your boy, wasn't it?

Degenerate wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Mikey wrote:Nah, the Repbulicans would never think of doing anything like that.

You're right, seeing as in principle they are the party of Lincoln and the REAL color blind party of the two.

As evidenced by the wide appeal of the party across all demographic groups, right?

And you wonder why you keep getting your asses kicked in elections.

It's only been the past two. For the overwhelming majority of my lifetime, Republicans have dominated elections.

And sadly, I fear that the last two were little more than the law of averages coming into play (sort of). I have real fears about the upcoming elections. Not because of the predictable criticism of Obama from the overwhelming majority of this board (at least 2/3 of this board, and that's a very conservative estimate, wouldn't vote for Obama if their very lives depended on it), but because of the Democratic Party's nonpareil ability to eat its own. It's already underway, what with the LGBT community threatening to withdraw its support of Obama because he was too busy in the first 100 days cleaning up the flaming sack of doo-doo Bush left behind to push their agenda, as well as the Hillary PUMA's, who did everything in their power to drive the party off the proverbial cliff behind their quixotic candidate, in what otherwise was a can't miss election year.

I'd like to say that times are a-changing, but we better enjoy what we have now. If we don't build on it, pronto, November 2010 might not be a very fun time.

I do have to give props to the righties, however, for one thing. If not for their unrelenting support of Smirky McFlightsuit & Co., there's no way in hell the Democratic Party would have come this far, this fast.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:Assuming you actually have 60 votes on the floor which highly unlikely if you're trying to push through some libtard whackjob.

Your bluedogs and Arlene Sphincter will be perfectly content to let a polarizing nominee languish in committee as you should know.

Your predicting something?



mv,

You predicting something is the statistical equivalent of a guarantee that it will NOT happen. Seriously, if you said the Sun was going to rise in the East, I would lay every penny I had on the West.

Why don't you go ahead and call your shot then. Oh, yeah that's right. You're too much of pussy to do it.

Fuck you, loser.

Have you forgotten your absolutely pathetic track record from last year? You know, when you said Hillary would crush Obama in the primaries or, failing that, that the superdelegates would turn on Obama and later that McCain would steamroll Obama in the general election.

But if you need it, my "shot" is that after the shakedown cruise that was the initial run of confirmation level appointments, the Obama Administration has worked the kinks out of their vetting process. Also, Senators Collins and Snowe don't have the stomach to go against Obama on an issue of this magnitude. Furthermore the chances of a successful filibuster in committee are zero and none.

Jsc810 wrote:Why is this man smiling?

Because now he can return to New Hampshire and legally marry his boyfriend

Obama is likely to get an "F" from me on this appointment.

What are the chances of him picking someone willing to overturn Wickard?

.000001%?

mvscal wrote:You still haven't called your shot, pussy.

He said he was picking the opposite of whatever you pick. Sounds like a safe bet to me.

mvscal wrote:You still haven't called your shot, pussy.

OK. We obviously have a failure to communicate. So state clearly exactly which "shot" you would like called. Also feel free to state your own opinion of said "shot" so as I may be able to choose contrary to you.

mvscal wrote: If they have half a brain, party discipline will be ruthlessly enforced. I think Lindsay Graham is the only dick licker left on the committee.

Oh, sure... go ahead and KILL the next Jack Kemp

mvscal wrote:Why didn't he just ask The One to heal him with a touch?

Pretty sure he wasn't a believer, in which case it prolly wouldn't work.

mvscal wrote:

War Wagon wrote:
Oh, it'll close... or at least end operations under the current status.

mvscal wrote:No, it won't. Media hyperbole and Euro bedwetting aside, it is a necessary facility. It's a fuck of a lot easier to say close Gitmo than it is to figure out what to do with the animals locked up there not to mention the fact that there isn't and never has been any torture going on there. That will also come into play.

A few things.

1. It has been shown that torture DID happen at Gitmo. That is incontrovertibly true.

2. Wags posited an either/or statement. In other words, it would either close, or substantially change it's mode of operation.

3. You citing that story and claiming "bode" is fucking laughable. The process is far from finished. And, operation have already changes substantially in that detainees are not being tortured and there will be substantial changes to the military commission law before any new trials take place.

BSmack wrote: And, operation have already changes substantially in that detainees are not being tortured and there will be substantial changes to the military commission law before any new trials take place.

Change

Torture?

by caterpillar?

Q, West Coast Style wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Mikey wrote:Nah, the Repbulicans would never think of doing anything like that.

You're right, seeing as in principle they are the party of Lincoln and the REAL color blind party of the two.

Tom, what did your state, er, "commonwealth" think of Lincoln and his color blind ideas? Back in the day?

No pun intended, it's not that black and white. But since you're holding Virginia still in bondage for slavery, do you turn the same chains to Mother Africa - perhaps even members of the Luo Tribe that sold their own race for fun and profit ?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:A few things.

1. It has been shown that torture DID happen at Gitmo. That is incontrovertibly true.

Link?

Read the fucking memos that were just released. We now know where, when and how many times. This is not a matter for debate. Even Cheney is not disputing that torture happened. The fig leaf he is clinging to is the alleged "effectiveness" of torture. He seems to feel, as I suspect you would as well, that if you torture a whole bunch of people and one little bit of actionable intel comes from it, that it was all worth it. The rest of us think you're full of shit.

mvscal wrote: Gitmo is warehouse for dangerous animals.

Until they are released from wenst they came. 400+ so far right? Not much of a warehouse there bud.

Have you ever been right about anything you racist fuckhole?

mvscal wrote:No real surprise that you [don't] understand the definition of warehouse...

If a cared what a racist fuckstain thought about it I would ask you, but since you are wrong about damn near everything you post I shant waste my time.

Old English Spelling Smack anyone?

"Wenst"?

That's a typo for the fat guy on Cheers, right?

Dude, "wenst" isn't even close to "whence." Not only that, but you even used it incorrectly. If the prisoners were released from whence they came, it would mean they were released from (not to) their homeland. They weren't. They were released from Gitmo.

What you wanted to say was, "Until they are released, and they return to the land from whence they came."

That still doesn't refute the idea of Gitmo as a terrorist warehouse. A warehouse doesn't mean that the items stored there are to be stored there forever, never to be released. A warehouse is merely a holding place, where things are stored for an indefinite period of time.

This is what we're talking about, TBO. You Al Shapton'd us again, by trying to speak above your ability. This time, someone called you out on it. Many times, people let it slide. Because people often let it slide you merrily sally forth, completely unaware of how badly you screw up shit.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Read the fucking memos that were just released. We now know where, when and how many times.

You haven't read jack fucking shit and don't even try to pretend that you have.

So now you're monitoring my reading habits?

received his swirly

Why is the CIA being involved in torture anyway? I thought their area of expertise was in spying?

mvscal wrote:...you would know that scum like Khalid Sheik Mohammed received his swirly in a CIA prison in Jordan.

Here's a few of the links you crave.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... eignpolicy

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/polit ... t1yEg4X28g

Never mind that being held indefinitely, without charge, trial or sentence is a self evident form of torture in and of itself.

mvscal wrote:Tough shit. That's the way it goes when you are captured in war. You don't get a trial. You don't get a lawyer and we don't ever have to press any charges. We hold them for the duration of hostilities or we release them at our discretion.

And the declaration of war was passed when?

mvscal wrote:September 18th, 2001.

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

So what country did we declare war against? Were these "enemy combatants" members of the armed forces of the country we declared war against? Take your time.