Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
unless they rule in your favor,then they are ok....right bobo?.....It's OK to veto a nominee. No one said the GOP had to accept anyone Obama nominates.Naturally, the media has censored this factoid from the past.
First President in US History to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process
may 30 2009 On January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.
On January 29, 2006, Mr. Obama told George Stephanopulos on "This Week" that he would "be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly."
Alito and Roberts have proved to be as bad as we thought they would be.
Can YOU honestly tell that there is NO difference between the Democrats stating they would NOT confirm ANY of Bush's choices during his last 19 months in office, and the Republicans taking the same stance with Obungles when HE just has 10 months left????
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
Can YOU honestly tell that there is NO difference between the Democrats stating they would NOT confirm ANY of Bush's choices during his last 19 months in office, and the Republicans taking the same stance with Obungles when HE just has 10 months left????
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
View attachment 63721
Can YOU honestly tell that there is NO difference between the Democrats stating they would NOT confirm ANY of Bush's choices during his last 19 months in office, and the Republicans taking the same stance with Obungles when HE just has 10 months left????
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
View attachment 63721
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
I know. Most people immediately suffer an immediate inferiority complex whenever I'm around. Bear with it.
Can YOU honestly tell that there is NO difference between the Democrats stating they would NOT confirm ANY of Bush's choices during his last 19 months in office, and the Republicans taking the same stance with Obungles when HE just has 10 months left????
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
View attachment 63721Can YOU honestly tell that there is NO difference between the Democrats stating they would NOT confirm ANY of Bush's choices during his last 19 months in office, and the Republicans taking the same stance with Obungles when HE just has 10 months left????
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
View attachment 63721
Can you quote 'the democrats' saying that they won't confirm any of Bush's choices for the last 19 months in office?
I can quote the repulicans doing this, with Mitch McConnel at their head...with currently only one republican senator balking. Show me the quote of the democrats doing the same. Not a random democrat. All the democrats in the senate, save one or two.
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
I know. Most people immediately suffer an immediate inferiority complex whenever I'm around. Bear with it.
Laughing.......so that's a 'no', you can't tell the difference?
Can YOU honestly tell that there is NO difference between the Democrats stating they would NOT confirm ANY of Bush's choices during his last 19 months in office, and the Republicans taking the same stance with Obungles when HE just has 10 months left????
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
View attachment 63721Can YOU honestly tell that there is NO difference between the Democrats stating they would NOT confirm ANY of Bush's choices during his last 19 months in office, and the Republicans taking the same stance with Obungles when HE just has 10 months left????
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
View attachment 63721
Can you quote 'the democrats' saying that they won't confirm any of Bush's choices for the last 19 months in office?
I can quote the repulicans doing this, with Mitch McConnel at their head...with currently only one republican senator balking. Show me the quote of the democrats doing the same. Not a random democrat. All the democrats in the senate, save one or two.
Totally immaterial. Motion denied.
Can YOU honestly tell that there is NO difference between the Democrats stating they would NOT confirm ANY of Bush's choices during his last 19 months in office, and the Republicans taking the same stance with Obungles when HE just has 10 months left????
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
View attachment 63721Can YOU honestly tell that there is NO difference between the Democrats stating they would NOT confirm ANY of Bush's choices during his last 19 months in office, and the Republicans taking the same stance with Obungles when HE just has 10 months left????
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
View attachment 63721
Can you quote 'the democrats' saying that they won't confirm any of Bush's choices for the last 19 months in office?
I can quote the repulicans doing this, with Mitch McConnel at their head...with currently only one republican senator balking. Show me the quote of the democrats doing the same. Not a random democrat. All the democrats in the senate, save one or two.
Totally immaterial. Motion denied.
Laughing......so the democrats did the exact same thing. Unless we actually ask you to quote them doing it. Then its nothing but excuses.
How did I know that was coming.
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
I know. Most people immediately suffer an immediate inferiority complex whenever I'm around. Bear with it.
Laughing.......so that's a 'no', you can't tell the difference?
Not my problem. The problem belongs to the Democrats.
Can YOU honestly tell that there is NO difference between the Democrats stating they would NOT confirm ANY of Bush's choices during his last 19 months in office, and the Republicans taking the same stance with Obungles when HE just has 10 months left????You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
View attachment 63721Can YOU honestly tell that there is NO difference between the Democrats stating they would NOT confirm ANY of Bush's choices during his last 19 months in office, and the Republicans taking the same stance with Obungles when HE just has 10 months left????You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
View attachment 63721
Can you quote 'the democrats' saying that they won't confirm any of Bush's choices for the last 19 months in office?
I can quote the repulicans doing this, with Mitch McConnel at their head...with currently only one republican senator balking. Show me the quote of the democrats doing the same. Not a random democrat. All the democrats in the senate, save one or two.
Totally immaterial. Motion denied.
Laughing......so the democrats did the exact same thing. Unless we actually ask you to quote them doing it. Then its nothing but excuses.
How did I know that was coming.
Get used to it. There is a whole lot of payback coming to the Democrats.
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
I know. Most people immediately suffer an immediate inferiority complex whenever I'm around. Bear with it.
Laughing.......so that's a 'no', you can't tell the difference?
Not my problem. The problem belongs to the Democrats.
Oh, this is a major GOP fuck up. They reacted too strongly, limiting their options and forcing themselves onto only one path. They could have simply rejected any individual candidate that Obama nominated and gotten the same result. Plus had plenty of wiggle room.
But in the current clusterfuck that is the Grand Old Party, even the possibility of compromise is anathema. So they just defined their legacy: party above principle. Party above the nation. Party above anything.
And that's how the GOP will be remembered.
Very true
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
I know. Most people immediately suffer an immediate inferiority complex whenever I'm around. Bear with it.
Laughing.......so that's a 'no', you can't tell the difference?
Not my problem. The problem belongs to the Democrats.
Oh, this is a major GOP fuck up. They reacted too strongly, limiting their options and forcing themselves onto only one path. They could have simply rejected any individual candidate that Obama nominated and gotten the same result. Plus had plenty of wiggle room.
But in the current clusterfuck that is the Grand Old Party, even the possibility of compromise is anathema. So they just defined their legacy: party above principle. Party above the nation. Party above anything.
And that's how the GOP will be remembered.
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
I know. Most people immediately suffer an immediate inferiority complex whenever I'm around. Bear with it.
Laughing.......so that's a 'no', you can't tell the difference?
Not my problem. The problem belongs to the Democrats.
Oh, this is a major GOP fuck up. They reacted too strongly, limiting their options and forcing themselves onto only one path. They could have simply rejected any individual candidate that Obama nominated and gotten the same result. Plus had plenty of wiggle room.
But in the current clusterfuck that is the Grand Old Party, even the possibility of compromise is anathema. So they just defined their legacy: party above principle. Party above the nation. Party above anything.
And that's how the GOP will be remembered.
From the looks of the polling, they'll be around for at least eight more years.
At least they won't be remembered for blindly supporting a candidate that should be in Leavenworth, and that the MAJORITY of Americans say they CAN'T TRUST....
You genuinely can't tell the difference between opposition to a particular candidate that a senator doesn't feel should be a supreme court justice......and opposition to ANY candidate that a president will nominate, regardless of who they are?
If not, wow. Just....wow.
I know. Most people immediately suffer an immediate inferiority complex whenever I'm around. Bear with it.
Laughing.......so that's a 'no', you can't tell the difference?
Not my problem. The problem belongs to the Democrats.
Oh, this is a major GOP fuck up. They reacted too strongly, limiting their options and forcing themselves onto only one path. They could have simply rejected any individual candidate that Obama nominated and gotten the same result. Plus had plenty of wiggle room.
But in the current clusterfuck that is the Grand Old Party, even the possibility of compromise is anathema. So they just defined their legacy: party above principle. Party above the nation. Party above anything.
And that's how the GOP will be remembered.
