US adds massive 287,000 jobs in June.....Quite A Change From Bush's Fiasco

[Conservative65]

Irrelevant. Biden didn't put a parameter on the delay he simply said it was OK to do so. You're arguing time frame and the issue is a delay that the current VP believes was OK. Had Biden's statement been at an earlier time, would you oppose it?

Actually, Biden said it in June not July.

You think that a few months before an election is the same as a year before the election?
Why not four years then?

You mean 6 vs. 9 month? As slow as government works, 3 months is hardly a large span.

Had Biden made his statement in February, would it have made a difference to you?

The typical Supreme Court affirmation process is 3-4 months.

Claiming you can't do it in a year is blatant politics. If not one year, why not four years?

Still refuse to answer the Biden question? I'll take that to mean your problem isn't with the time but with Republicans doing it despite Biden saying it was OK to do so.

It wasn't a year. For it to be a year, a 33% increase in the time YOU posted would have to be added.

I did answer the question

The political ramifications of a July nominee are not the same as for a February nominee

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask.

The answer to my question was a yes or no. You refused to do so.

 

[rightwinger]

You think that a few months before an election is the same as a year before the election?
Why not four years then?

You mean 6 vs. 9 month? As slow as government works, 3 months is hardly a large span.

Had Biden made his statement in February, would it have made a difference to you?

The typical Supreme Court affirmation process is 3-4 months.

Claiming you can't do it in a year is blatant politics. If not one year, why not four years?

Still refuse to answer the Biden question? I'll take that to mean your problem isn't with the time but with Republicans doing it despite Biden saying it was OK to do so.

It wasn't a year. For it to be a year, a 33% increase in the time YOU posted would have to be added.

I did answer the question

The political ramifications of a July nominee are not the same as for a February nominee

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask.

The answer to my question was a yes or no. You refused to do so.

OK then, I will answer NO because we are talking about different timeframes

 

[Conservative65]

You mean 6 vs. 9 month? As slow as government works, 3 months is hardly a large span.

Had Biden made his statement in February, would it have made a difference to you?

The typical Supreme Court affirmation process is 3-4 months.

Claiming you can't do it in a year is blatant politics. If not one year, why not four years?

Still refuse to answer the Biden question? I'll take that to mean your problem isn't with the time but with Republicans doing it despite Biden saying it was OK to do so.

It wasn't a year. For it to be a year, a 33% increase in the time YOU posted would have to be added.

I did answer the question

The political ramifications of a July nominee are not the same as for a February nominee

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask.

The answer to my question was a yes or no. You refused to do so.

OK then, I will answer NO because we are talking about different timeframes

Had Biden's statement been in February, the time frame would have been the same as the one you say Republican's using is wrong.

I knew you would answer no. A no answer means you don't have a problem with the number of months before the election but with who is proposing a delay.

 

[Faun]

Was it a matter of time when Joe Biden, as a Senator, said it was "essential" to delay a Supreme Court nominee with George Bush was President in 1992? The Democrats controlled both houses then. Guess the standard the Democrats say they support only applies when the other side hold the presidency.

Who was "delayed?"

And a delay is not a cancellation, which is what the GOP is unconstitutional doing now.

Biden say it was OK to delay. When a delay is used, now it's wrong.

Where has the GOP cancelled anything? Because you don't like the time frame doesn't make it a cancellation.

Sounds like you agree that no one was delayed.

And what time frame? There is no time frame. The GOP has stated they are shutting the confirmation process down until thr nect session. That's never been done before. I guess you're OK then if Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, if Democrats say the "time frame" for holding hearings is 4 years, until Trump is out of office?

 

[Faun]

Was it a matter of time when Joe Biden, as a Senator, said it was "essential" to delay a Supreme Court nominee with George Bush was President in 1992? The Democrats controlled both houses then. Guess the standard the Democrats say they support only applies when the other side hold the presidency.

Who was "delayed?"

And a delay is not a cancellation, which is what the GOP is unconstitutional doing now.

Biden say it was OK to delay. When a delay is used, now it's wrong.

Where has the GOP cancelled anything? Because you don't like the time frame doesn't make it a cancellation.

Biden was speaking in July with a November election
Republicans have been holding up the seat since February

Irrelevant. Biden didn't put a parameter on the delay he simply said it was OK to do so. You're arguing time frame and the issue is a delay that the current VP believes was OK. Had Biden's statement been at an earlier time, would you oppose it?

Actually, Biden said it in June not July.

Sadly, you're disconnected from reality. Of course Biden put a "parameter" on the delay. He said any such delay should be only until the election was over, then the Senate would hold hearings.

Compared to the current GOP Senate which has shut the consent process down entirely for the duration of Obama's presidency.

Also, I didn't see your answer... what if the next Senate decides not to hold confirmation hearings for the next 4 years? You're ok with that?

 

[Faun]

The typical Supreme Court affirmation process is 3-4 months.

Claiming you can't do it in a year is blatant politics. If not one year, why not four years?

Still refuse to answer the Biden question? I'll take that to mean your problem isn't with the time but with Republicans doing it despite Biden saying it was OK to do so.

It wasn't a year. For it to be a year, a 33% increase in the time YOU posted would have to be added.

I did answer the question

The political ramifications of a July nominee are not the same as for a February nominee

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask.

The answer to my question was a yes or no. You refused to do so.

OK then, I will answer NO because we are talking about different timeframes

Had Biden's statement been in February, the time frame would have been the same as the one you say Republican's using is wrong.

I knew you would answer no. A no answer means you don't have a problem with the number of months before the election but with who is proposing a delay.

You putz. The GOP isn't delaying a hearing until the elections. They're not holding hearings until a new president is sworn in. What the GOP Senate is doing now is not what Biden suggested.

 

[Conservative65]

Was it a matter of time when Joe Biden, as a Senator, said it was "essential" to delay a Supreme Court nominee with George Bush was President in 1992? The Democrats controlled both houses then. Guess the standard the Democrats say they support only applies when the other side hold the presidency.

Who was "delayed?"

And a delay is not a cancellation, which is what the GOP is unconstitutional doing now.

Biden say it was OK to delay. When a delay is used, now it's wrong.

Where has the GOP cancelled anything? Because you don't like the time frame doesn't make it a cancellation.

Sounds like you agree that no one was delayed.

And what time frame? There is no time frame. The GOP has stated they are shutting the confirmation process down until thr nect session. That's never been done before. I guess you're OK then if Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, if Democrats say the "time frame" for holding hearings is 4 years, until Trump is out of office?

No one has to be delayed for Democrats that support Biden's statement to be hypocrites when it comes to a delay being used. He said that a delay was justified. Now, Democrats whine when one is delayed.

You said they cancelled it. Now you say they are shutting it down until . . . If there is a time stated when it will occur, it hasn't been cancelled but delayed and that was a perfectly fine road to take when Biden said it.

You lefties operate under a lot of "ifs". How about focusing on what is.

 

[Conservative65]

Still refuse to answer the Biden question? I'll take that to mean your problem isn't with the time but with Republicans doing it despite Biden saying it was OK to do so.

It wasn't a year. For it to be a year, a 33% increase in the time YOU posted would have to be added.

I did answer the question

The political ramifications of a July nominee are not the same as for a February nominee

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask.

The answer to my question was a yes or no. You refused to do so.

OK then, I will answer NO because we are talking about different timeframes

Had Biden's statement been in February, the time frame would have been the same as the one you say Republican's using is wrong.

I knew you would answer no. A no answer means you don't have a problem with the number of months before the election but with who is proposing a delay.

You putz. The GOP isn't delaying a hearing until the elections. They're not holding hearings until a new president is sworn in. What the GOP Senate is doing now is not what Biden suggested.

So delay means something different now than it did when Biden said it was OK to wait until after the election?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Except it was Bush destroying the economy that drove it up in the first place, as you well know.

It happened during Obama's time in office. It's his. If Obama is so good, why hasn't it come way down? He's had almost 8 years.

But you don't blame Bush for his destroying the economy in 2007 while HE was "in office"!!!!!
You prove the adage that you can't be a hypocrite if you aren't a CON$ervative.

But you place no blame on the Democrat Congress that passed laws during that time. You blame one person because he was in office yet you refuse to blame Obama when food stamp user increased 70% while he is in office. You prove what I've said about Liberals for years. It's not (fill in the blank) when you do it only when the other guy does.

Thank you for confirming your hypocrisy. YOU blame Obama simply because he was in office when the bulk of the Bush damage hit, but blame the Dem Congress while Bush was in office even though you cannot name even one single bill that the Dems passed over a GOP filibuster and a Bush veto!

I'm using the same outlook the left used when 9/11 occurred. They blamed Bush BECAUSE he was in office. Now, when something happens under Obama's watch, you want to blame the person that wasn't in office. At least be consistent or shove your head back up Obama's ass.

No....when Scrub was repeatedly warned of the danger, and did NOTHING, he left himself open to severe criticism for his failure.....he then doubled up on it by taking his eye off the ball, letting Usama slide out of Tora Bora, and invading Iraqnam........

 

[Faun]

Was it a matter of time when Joe Biden, as a Senator, said it was "essential" to delay a Supreme Court nominee with George Bush was President in 1992? The Democrats controlled both houses then. Guess the standard the Democrats say they support only applies when the other side hold the presidency.

Who was "delayed?"

And a delay is not a cancellation, which is what the GOP is unconstitutional doing now.

Biden say it was OK to delay. When a delay is used, now it's wrong.

Where has the GOP cancelled anything? Because you don't like the time frame doesn't make it a cancellation.

Sounds like you agree that no one was delayed.

And what time frame? There is no time frame. The GOP has stated they are shutting the confirmation process down until thr nect session. That's never been done before. I guess you're OK then if Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, if Democrats say the "time frame" for holding hearings is 4 years, until Trump is out of office?

No one has to be delayed for Democrats that support Biden's statement to be hypocrites when it comes to a delay being used. He said that a delay was justified. Now, Democrats whine when one is delayed.

You said they cancelled it. Now you say they are shutting it down until . . . If there is a time stated when it will occur, it hasn't been cancelled but delayed and that was a perfectly fine road to take when Biden said it.

You lefties operate under a lot of "ifs". How about focusing on what is.

Cancelling it until the next president is the same as shutting it down until the next president. If you had a brain in your head, you would have known that with out me explaining it to ya.

And again, Biden never said Bush's nominees would be denied a hearing. Get some toilet paper and wipe, shit fer brains.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hell, no worry about the Supreme appointment. After Hillary and the Dem Senate is sworn in, the appointments will follow, one after the other. Lots of old people on the Supreme Court, and expect at least two more appointments in the next four years. And that many again during Hillary's second term.

 

[Faun]

I did answer the question

The political ramifications of a July nominee are not the same as for a February nominee

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask.

The answer to my question was a yes or no. You refused to do so.

OK then, I will answer NO because we are talking about different timeframes

Had Biden's statement been in February, the time frame would have been the same as the one you say Republican's using is wrong.

I knew you would answer no. A no answer means you don't have a problem with the number of months before the election but with who is proposing a delay.

You putz. The GOP isn't delaying a hearing until the elections. They're not holding hearings until a new president is sworn in. What the GOP Senate is doing now is not what Biden suggested.

So delay means something different now than it did when Biden said it was OK to wait until after the election?

Of course the delay means something different. Telling a sitting president they will have to wait a few months until the the Senate holds hearing on their nominees is obviously different than telling a sitting president they will not get to appoint a replacement.

 

[Conservative65]

Was it a matter of time when Joe Biden, as a Senator, said it was "essential" to delay a Supreme Court nominee with George Bush was President in 1992? The Democrats controlled both houses then. Guess the standard the Democrats say they support only applies when the other side hold the presidency.

Who was "delayed?"

And a delay is not a cancellation, which is what the GOP is unconstitutional doing now.

Biden say it was OK to delay. When a delay is used, now it's wrong.

Where has the GOP cancelled anything? Because you don't like the time frame doesn't make it a cancellation.

Biden was speaking in July with a November election
Republicans have been holding up the seat since February

Irrelevant. Biden didn't put a parameter on the delay he simply said it was OK to do so. You're arguing time frame and the issue is a delay that the current VP believes was OK. Had Biden's statement been at an earlier time, would you oppose it?

Actually, Biden said it in June not July.

Sadly, you're disconnected from reality. Of course Biden put a "parameter" on the delay. He said any such delay should be only until the election was over, then the Senate would hold hearings.

Compared to the current GOP Senate which has shut the consent process down entirely for the duration of Obama's presidency.

Also, I didn't see your answer... what if the next Senate decides not to hold confirmation hearings for the next 4 years? You're ok with that?

Seems the Republicans put a parameter on it. It happens to be at a point you don't like.

If the Republicans waited to just after the election, they may as well do it now since the same person would doing the appointment. The purpose is to let the next President do it. What would the purpose of Biden's delay proposal be if the same person would have picked the Justice?

You're the one that says you live in reality. When you post "if" this and that, it's living it something that isn't currently real. Do you want to live in reality or the hypothetical? You're question is hypothetical.

 

[Faun]

Who was "delayed?"

And a delay is not a cancellation, which is what the GOP is unconstitutional doing now.

Biden say it was OK to delay. When a delay is used, now it's wrong.

Where has the GOP cancelled anything? Because you don't like the time frame doesn't make it a cancellation.

Biden was speaking in July with a November election
Republicans have been holding up the seat since February

Irrelevant. Biden didn't put a parameter on the delay he simply said it was OK to do so. You're arguing time frame and the issue is a delay that the current VP believes was OK. Had Biden's statement been at an earlier time, would you oppose it?

Actually, Biden said it in June not July.

Sadly, you're disconnected from reality. Of course Biden put a "parameter" on the delay. He said any such delay should be only until the election was over, then the Senate would hold hearings.

Compared to the current GOP Senate which has shut the consent process down entirely for the duration of Obama's presidency.

Also, I didn't see your answer... what if the next Senate decides not to hold confirmation hearings for the next 4 years? You're ok with that?

Seems the Republicans put a parameter on it. It happens to be at a point you don't like.

If the Republicans waited to just after the election, they may as well do it now since the same person would doing the appointment. The purpose is to let the next President do it. What would the purpose of Biden's delay proposal be if the same person would have picked the Justice?

You're the one that says you live in reality. When you post "if" this and that, it's living it something that isn't currently real. Do you want to live in reality or the hypothetical? You're question is hypothetical.

Translation: you're a pussy who's afraid to answer the question.

Thanks for playin', sport!

 

[Londoner]

So delay means something different now than it did when Biden said it was OK to wait until after the election?

When Biden said it , there was no nominee under consideration. He was speaking in principal about not doing it in the heat of an election because senators up for election would be too tempted to deny a nominee to keep their job, not because the nominee didn't meet the various thresholds.

He EMPHATICALLY didn't say "delay until the next president", he said delay until after the election, which means the lame duck window.

The current Republican Party is destroying the Constitution to save it. This is what dictators do. They bend laws while claiming to care about something higher. They are the worse kind of partisan.

If the situation was reversed, the Right would get their nominee passed, as they did with Kennedy. If the Dems obstructed, then FOX would scream about the Constitutional crisis from leaving the Supreme Court unfilled for over a year. History will judge the current Republican Party as a soviet style menace who destroyed the rule of law.

 

[Conservative65]

It happened during Obama's time in office. It's his. If Obama is so good, why hasn't it come way down? He's had almost 8 years.

But you don't blame Bush for his destroying the economy in 2007 while HE was "in office"!!!!!
You prove the adage that you can't be a hypocrite if you aren't a CON$ervative.

But you place no blame on the Democrat Congress that passed laws during that time. You blame one person because he was in office yet you refuse to blame Obama when food stamp user increased 70% while he is in office. You prove what I've said about Liberals for years. It's not (fill in the blank) when you do it only when the other guy does.

Thank you for confirming your hypocrisy. YOU blame Obama simply because he was in office when the bulk of the Bush damage hit, but blame the Dem Congress while Bush was in office even though you cannot name even one single bill that the Dems passed over a GOP filibuster and a Bush veto!

I'm using the same outlook the left used when 9/11 occurred. They blamed Bush BECAUSE he was in office. Now, when something happens under Obama's watch, you want to blame the person that wasn't in office. At least be consistent or shove your head back up Obama's ass.

No....when Scrub was repeatedly warned of the danger, and did NOTHING, he left himself open to severe criticism for his failure.....he then doubled up on it by taking his eye off the ball, letting Usama slide out of Tora Bora, and invading Iraqnam........

When Clinton could have been dealing with the danger, he was getting a blow job instead. He took his eyes off the ball but Monica didn't.

 

[Conservative65]

Biden say it was OK to delay. When a delay is used, now it's wrong.

Where has the GOP cancelled anything? Because you don't like the time frame doesn't make it a cancellation.

Biden was speaking in July with a November election
Republicans have been holding up the seat since February

Irrelevant. Biden didn't put a parameter on the delay he simply said it was OK to do so. You're arguing time frame and the issue is a delay that the current VP believes was OK. Had Biden's statement been at an earlier time, would you oppose it?

Actually, Biden said it in June not July.

Sadly, you're disconnected from reality. Of course Biden put a "parameter" on the delay. He said any such delay should be only until the election was over, then the Senate would hold hearings.

Compared to the current GOP Senate which has shut the consent process down entirely for the duration of Obama's presidency.

Also, I didn't see your answer... what if the next Senate decides not to hold confirmation hearings for the next 4 years? You're ok with that?

Seems the Republicans put a parameter on it. It happens to be at a point you don't like.

If the Republicans waited to just after the election, they may as well do it now since the same person would doing the appointment. The purpose is to let the next President do it. What would the purpose of Biden's delay proposal be if the same person would have picked the Justice?

You're the one that says you live in reality. When you post "if" this and that, it's living it something that isn't currently real. Do you want to live in reality or the hypothetical? You're question is hypothetical.

Translation: you're a pussy who's afraid to answer the question.

Thanks for playin', sport!

Seems you're the pussy afraid to deal in reality and want to hide in hypotheticals. Thank for proving your'e the coward you were raised to be.

 

[Conservative65]

Was it a matter of time when Joe Biden, as a Senator, said it was "essential" to delay a Supreme Court nominee with George Bush was President in 1992? The Democrats controlled both houses then. Guess the standard the Democrats say they support only applies when the other side hold the presidency.

Who was "delayed?"

And a delay is not a cancellation, which is what the GOP is unconstitutional doing now.

Biden say it was OK to delay. When a delay is used, now it's wrong.

Where has the GOP cancelled anything? Because you don't like the time frame doesn't make it a cancellation.

Sounds like you agree that no one was delayed.

And what time frame? There is no time frame. The GOP has stated they are shutting the confirmation process down until thr nect session. That's never been done before. I guess you're OK then if Trump wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, if Democrats say the "time frame" for holding hearings is 4 years, until Trump is out of office?

No one has to be delayed for Democrats that support Biden's statement to be hypocrites when it comes to a delay being used. He said that a delay was justified. Now, Democrats whine when one is delayed.

You said they cancelled it. Now you say they are shutting it down until . . . If there is a time stated when it will occur, it hasn't been cancelled but delayed and that was a perfectly fine road to take when Biden said it.

You lefties operate under a lot of "ifs". How about focusing on what is.

Cancelling it until the next president is the same as shutting it down until the next president. If you had a brain in your head, you would have known that with out me explaining it to ya.

And again, Biden never said Bush's nominees would be denied a hearing. Get some toilet paper and wipe, shit fer brains.

If it's going to happen in the future, whether you like the time or not, it isn't cancelled. The definition of cancel is to decide something will not take place. Delay, by definition, is means postponed or to be done at a later date. Look up the terms. You're misusing cancel.

Get some paper towels and wipe the shit off your nose from the black boy's ass.

 

[Conservative65]

So delay means something different now than it did when Biden said it was OK to wait until after the election?

When Biden said it , there was no nominee under consideration. He was speaking in principal about not doing it in the heat of an election because senators up for election would be too tempted to deny a nominee to keep their job, not because the nominee didn't meet the various thresholds.

He EMPHATICALLY didn't say "delay until the next president", he said delay until after the election, which means the lame duck window.

The current Republican Party is destroying the Constitution to save it. This is what dictators do. They bend laws while claiming to care about something higher. They are the worse kind of partisan.

If the situation was reversed, the Right would get their nominee passed, as they did with Kennedy. If the Dems obstructed, then FOX would scream about the Constitutional crisis from leaving the Supreme Court unfilled for over a year. History will judge the current Republican Party as a soviet style menace who destroyed the rule of law.

What Biden said is that a delay would be OK. Trying to justify how it's different when put into action doesn't cut it.

 

[IcebergSlim]

But you don't blame Bush for his destroying the economy in 2007 while HE was "in office"!!!!!
You prove the adage that you can't be a hypocrite if you aren't a CON$ervative.

But you place no blame on the Democrat Congress that passed laws during that time. You blame one person because he was in office yet you refuse to blame Obama when food stamp user increased 70% while he is in office. You prove what I've said about Liberals for years. It's not (fill in the blank) when you do it only when the other guy does.

Thank you for confirming your hypocrisy. YOU blame Obama simply because he was in office when the bulk of the Bush damage hit, but blame the Dem Congress while Bush was in office even though you cannot name even one single bill that the Dems passed over a GOP filibuster and a Bush veto!

I'm using the same outlook the left used when 9/11 occurred. They blamed Bush BECAUSE he was in office. Now, when something happens under Obama's watch, you want to blame the person that wasn't in office. At least be consistent or shove your head back up Obama's ass.

No....when Scrub was repeatedly warned of the danger, and did NOTHING, he left himself open to severe criticism for his failure.....he then doubled up on it by taking his eye off the ball, letting Usama slide out of Tora Bora, and invading Iraqnam........

When Clinton could have been dealing with the danger, he was getting a blow job instead. He took his eyes off the ball but Monica didn't.

Well, there's the stupid shit you people believe, and then there is Reality...

In 2000, prior to the September 11 attacks, Paul Bremer characterized the Clinton administration as "correctly focused on bin Laden", while Oakley criticized their "obsession with Osama".

Robert B. Oakley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia