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

[IcebergSlim]

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.

The list of their crimes against the Nation is a long one, Citizen....

 

[Conservative65]

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

So you deny Clinton got a blow job from Monica?

 

[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.

The list of their crimes against the Nation is a long one, Citizen....

If they committed crimes, have them prosecuted. Didn't think you really believed what you said.

 

[Faun]

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.

No planes were hijacked inside the US and flown into buildings by kamikaze terrorists while he was president.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

No planes were hijacked inside the US and flown into buildings by kamikaze terrorists while he was president.

Truck bombs were used in 1993 to try and do the same thing while he was.

 

[Faun]

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.

Great. So you're just a mindless parrot who squawks back what he's told.

The coward here is one who's too scared to answer questions. Your idiocy about it being hypothetical is laughable given your entire diatribe about Biden is based on a hypothetical since he hypothetically said we should postpone hearings until after the election. It never happened as it was a hypothetical based on IF Bush should nominate someone. Yet here you are, basing your entire argument on a hypothetical, while running away from answering a hypothetical. That makes you a demented pussy.

 

[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.

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.

Great. So you're just a mindless parrot who squawks back what he's told.

The coward here is one who's too scared to answer questions. Your idiocy about it being hypothetical is laughable given your entire diatribe about Biden is based on a hypothetical since he hypothetically said we should postpone hearings until after the election. It never happened as it was a hypothetical based on IF Bush should nominate someone. Yet here you are, basing your entire argument on a hypothetical, while running away from answering a hypothetical. That makes you a demented pussy.

You're the one that used "if" and suggested a situation that isn't in place. Biden was in a position to actually do what he said. Big difference that a piece of shit like you can't grasp.

 

[Faun]

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.

No planes were hijacked inside the US and flown into buildings by kamikaze terrorists while he was president.

Truck bombs were used in 1993 to try and do the same thing while he was.

So Bush41 was to blame for that, right?

And now, you're all over the place. You were whining about Bill getting blowjobs" causing him to take his eye off the ball. Meanwhile, Clinton left office with the Twin Towers still standing proudly. Regrettably, Bush cannot say the same.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

No planes were hijacked inside the US and flown into buildings by kamikaze terrorists while he was president.

Truck bombs were used in 1993 to try and do the same thing while he was.

So Bush41 was to blame for that, right?

And now, you're all over the place. You were whining about Bill getting blowjobs" causing him to take his eye off the ball. Meanwhile, Clinton left office with the Twin Towers still standing proudly. Regrettably, Bush cannot say the same.

Clinton was in office. That's the mindset you used.

I know right where you are. You took Monica's place.

 

[Faun]

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.

Great. So you're just a mindless parrot who squawks back what he's told.

The coward here is one who's too scared to answer questions. Your idiocy about it being hypothetical is laughable given your entire diatribe about Biden is based on a hypothetical since he hypothetically said we should postpone hearings until after the election. It never happened as it was a hypothetical based on IF Bush should nominate someone. Yet here you are, basing your entire argument on a hypothetical, while running away from answering a hypothetical. That makes you a demented pussy.

You're the one that used "if" and suggested a situation that isn't in place. Biden was in a position to actually do what he said. Big difference that a piece of shit like you can't grasp.

You poor demented schmuck. Your entire argument is based on Biden hypothetically pondering about something which wasn't even up for consideration as there were no vacancies on the Supreme Court. Now that we've established hypotheticals are not the reason for you're cowardly running from my question, it's safe to conclude the reason is because you're a pussy.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Especially with almost a year left in his Presidency

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Especially with almost a year left in his Presidency

I don't recall the definition of the word delay having a time parameter attached to it making it different when one is longer than another.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Especially with almost a year left in his Presidency

I don't recall the definition of the word delay having a time parameter attached to it making it different when one is longer than another.

So if Trump were to win, you are OK with a four year "delay"?

 

[Faun]

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.

No planes were hijacked inside the US and flown into buildings by kamikaze terrorists while he was president.

Truck bombs were used in 1993 to try and do the same thing while he was.

So Bush41 was to blame for that, right?

And now, you're all over the place. You were whining about Bill getting blowjobs" causing him to take his eye off the ball. Meanwhile, Clinton left office with the Twin Towers still standing proudly. Regrettably, Bush cannot say the same.

Clinton was in office. That's the mindset you used.

LOL

That's actually the conservative mindset as they were the ones who blamed Clinton for 9.11, nearly 8 months into Bush's presidency. Well using that logic, Bush41 would have been responsible for an attack just 5 weeks into Clinton's

What's hysterical though is that I'm mocking you and you're fucking stupid to get it.

I know right where you are. You took Monica's place.

Oh look, yet another brain-dead conservative sharing his homo-erotic fantasies in public of men engaging in gay sex. You don't see that around here every day.

You're quite the exhibitionist, ain'tcha, con?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Especially with almost a year left in his Presidency

I don't recall the definition of the word delay having a time parameter attached to it making it different when one is longer than another.

So if Trump were to win, you are OK with a four year "delay"?

You left out several other "ifs". If you're going to live in a hypothetical world, go all the way.

As long as you're OK if Republicans delay for 4 years if Clinton is elected. Deal?

You put delay in quotes as if a time frame changes the definition. Show me in the definition of delay where it changes meaning if a time period longer than you like is used in the delay.

 

[Faun]

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.

Especially with almost a year left in his Presidency

I don't recall the definition of the word delay having a time parameter attached to it making it different when one is longer than another.

So if Trump were to win, you are OK with a four year "delay"?

You left out several other "ifs". If you're going to live in a hypothetical world, go all the way.

As long as you're OK if Republicans delay for 4 years if Clinton is elected. Deal?

You put delay in quotes as if a time frame changes the definition. Show me in the definition of delay where it changes meaning if a time period longer than you like is used in the delay.

You're the one promoting the Senate not holding confirmation hearings for presidents they don't want choosing replacement justices. Why should others have to agree to it for you to agree with your own stated principles?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

No planes were hijacked inside the US and flown into buildings by kamikaze terrorists while he was president.

Truck bombs were used in 1993 to try and do the same thing while he was.

So Bush41 was to blame for that, right?

And now, you're all over the place. You were whining about Bill getting blowjobs" causing him to take his eye off the ball. Meanwhile, Clinton left office with the Twin Towers still standing proudly. Regrettably, Bush cannot say the same.

Clinton was in office. That's the mindset you used.

LOL

That's actually the conservative mindset as they were the ones who blamed Clinton for 9.11, nearly 8 months into Bush's presidency. Well using that logic, Bush41 would have been responsible for an attack just 5 weeks into Clinton's

What's hysterical though is that I'm mocking you and you're fucking stupid to get it.

I know right where you are. You took Monica's place.

Oh look, yet another brain-dead conservative sharing his homo-erotic fantasies in public of men engaging in gay sex. You don't see that around here every day.

You're quite the exhibitionist, ain'tcha, con?

Since you don't blame Clinton for his slack effort, blaming Bush 41 for it is hypocritical.

You don't have the ability to mock anyone, even yourself. What's hysterical is you think you're anything more than a Democrat puppet letting a black boy yank your strings.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Especially with almost a year left in his Presidency

I don't recall the definition of the word delay having a time parameter attached to it making it different when one is longer than another.

So if Trump were to win, you are OK with a four year "delay"?

You left out several other "ifs". If you're going to live in a hypothetical world, go all the way.

As long as you're OK if Republicans delay for 4 years if Clinton is elected. Deal?

You put delay in quotes as if a time frame changes the definition. Show me in the definition of delay where it changes meaning if a time period longer than you like is used in the delay.

You're the one promoting the Senate not holding confirmation hearings for presidents they don't want choosing replacement justices. Why should others have to agree to it for you to agree with your own stated principles?

Nowhere have I said you have to agree with anything. Your agreement isn't and never will be required for the truth to be the truth. You have the right to disagree and be wrong.

 

[Faun]

No planes were hijacked inside the US and flown into buildings by kamikaze terrorists while he was president.

Truck bombs were used in 1993 to try and do the same thing while he was.

So Bush41 was to blame for that, right?

And now, you're all over the place. You were whining about Bill getting blowjobs" causing him to take his eye off the ball. Meanwhile, Clinton left office with the Twin Towers still standing proudly. Regrettably, Bush cannot say the same.

Clinton was in office. That's the mindset you used.

LOL

That's actually the conservative mindset as they were the ones who blamed Clinton for 9.11, nearly 8 months into Bush's presidency. Well using that logic, Bush41 would have been responsible for an attack just 5 weeks into Clinton's

What's hysterical though is that I'm mocking you and you're fucking stupid to get it.

I know right where you are. You took Monica's place.

Oh look, yet another brain-dead conservative sharing his homo-erotic fantasies in public of men engaging in gay sex. You don't see that around here every day.

You're quite the exhibitionist, ain'tcha, con?

Since you don't blame Clinton for his slack effort, blaming Bush 41 for it is hypocritical.

You don't have the ability to mock anyone, even yourself. What's hysterical is you think you're anything more than a Democrat puppet letting a black boy yank your strings.

Holyfuckingshit!

Again....

I was mocking you.

Even after I explain it to you, you still don't get it.

 

[Conservative65]

Truck bombs were used in 1993 to try and do the same thing while he was.

So Bush41 was to blame for that, right?

And now, you're all over the place. You were whining about Bill getting blowjobs" causing him to take his eye off the ball. Meanwhile, Clinton left office with the Twin Towers still standing proudly. Regrettably, Bush cannot say the same.

Clinton was in office. That's the mindset you used.

LOL

That's actually the conservative mindset as they were the ones who blamed Clinton for 9.11, nearly 8 months into Bush's presidency. Well using that logic, Bush41 would have been responsible for an attack just 5 weeks into Clinton's

What's hysterical though is that I'm mocking you and you're fucking stupid to get it.

I know right where you are. You took Monica's place.

Oh look, yet another brain-dead conservative sharing his homo-erotic fantasies in public of men engaging in gay sex. You don't see that around here every day.

You're quite the exhibitionist, ain'tcha, con?

Since you don't blame Clinton for his slack effort, blaming Bush 41 for it is hypocritical.

You don't have the ability to mock anyone, even yourself. What's hysterical is you think you're anything more than a Democrat puppet letting a black boy yank your strings.

Holyfuckingshit!

Again....

I was mocking you.

Even after I explain it to you, you still don't get it.

Again, a piece of shit like you isn't smart enough to do so. How many times do I have to tell you. Apparently, more than two in order for you to get it.