From Russia With Love

tenacious said:
Playing the hypocrisy card huh? First of all, I wasn't in high school when Clinton was in office. I didn't vote for him...
And also before you call me a hypocrite... let me ask, you certainly have never ignored the "Clinton Women." You fine with Trump getting the same treatment; or are you yelling about hypocrites, while being a hypocrite? lol (I hope that makes sense)

As for how "they" treat the SCOTUS nominee. Let's just take a moment to remember Merck Garland, and how the Republicans wouldn't even bring him up for a vote. This accusing the other guy while doing the same shit is getting old. That all Ima say about that.
Click to expand...
I don't give a flying rats ass if you even attended high school...
The left is full of hypocritical ass wipes...
The Republicans didn't smear Garlands name, never, ever.
The Republicans on the judiciary committee, while disagreeing with Sotomayer & Kagen never tried to destroy their reputations or drag them through the gutter.
Those Republicans then voted to confirm both of them.
This shit is definitely getting old....
 
Lion Eyes said:
I don't give a flying rats ass if you even attended high school...
The left is full of hypocritical ass wipes...
The Republicans didn't smear Garlands name, never, ever.
The Republicans on the judiciary committee, while disagreeing with Sotomayer & Kagen never tried to destroy their reputations or drag them through the gutter.
Those Republicans then voted to confirm both of them.
This shit is definitely getting old....
Click to expand...

As I recall, the Republicans did not let anyone say anything about Garland.

Did Sotomayor and Kagan have anything in their pasts that would have put them in the gutter?
 
Lion Eyes said:
I don't give a flying rats ass if you even attended high school...
The left is full of hypocritical ass wipes...
The Republicans didn't smear Garlands name, never, ever.
The Republicans on the judiciary committee, while disagreeing with Sotomayer & Kagen never tried to destroy their reputations or drag them through the gutter.
Those Republicans then voted to confirm both of them.
This shit is definitely getting old....
Click to expand...

Republicans voted 5 yes, 36 no on the confirmation of Elena Kagan.

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/111/senate/2/229

Republicans voted 9 yes, 31 no on the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor.

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/111/senate/1/262
 
espola said:
As I recall, the Republicans did not let anyone say anything about Garland.

Did Sotomayor and Kagan have anything in their pasts that would have put them in the gutter?
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh had nothing in his past (6 FBI back ground checks) to warrant the attacks he was exposed to.
A non corroborated unsubstantiated charge should not put even you in the gutter Magoo.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Kavanaugh had nothing in his past (6 FBI back ground checks) to warrant the attacks he was exposed to.
A non corroborated unsubstantiated charge should not put even you in the gutter Magoo.
Click to expand...

Nothing in his past? Where have you been the last few weeks?

And why all the petty provable lies and resistance by K and his supporters?
 
espola said:
As I recall, the Republicans did not let anyone say anything about Garland.

Did Sotomayor and Kagan have anything in their pasts that would have put them in the gutter?
Click to expand...

If Sotomayor & Kagen had (R) at the end of their names, I'm sure they would find something "in the gutter".
 
Lion Eyes said:
A non corroborated unsubstantiated charge...
Click to expand...
I was talking about the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee...fuckin Magooooooooo

The Republicans on the judiciary committee, while disagreeing with Sotomayer & Kagen never tried to destroy their reputations or drag them through the gutter.
Those Republicans then voted to confirm both of them.
 
*GOBEARGO* said:
Follow the bouncing magoo. Who corroborated the alleged assault? The alleged victim?

Let me ask a honest question...If you were on a jury would you convict this man based on the evidence before you?...never mind.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you an honest question - would you vote to confirm the nomination of a man who lied in his testimony at his confirmation hearing?
 
Lion Eyes said:
I was talking about the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee...fuckin Magooooooooo

The Republicans on the judiciary committee, while disagreeing with Sotomayer & Kagen never tried to destroy their reputations or drag them through the gutter.
Those Republicans then voted to confirm both of them.
Click to expand...

For the Sotomayor confirmation, the Committee vote was 13-6. There were 7 Republicans were on the committee then.

For the Kagan nomination, the only Republican Committee member to vote in favor of her nomination was Lindsey Graham.
 
espola said:
Let me ask you an honest question - would you vote to confirm the nomination of a man who lied in his testimony at his confirmation hearing?
Click to expand...

JC lied? What about drinking? Yearbook quotes? Drank in college? This is where were at defending allegations when your 16 years old? 18 years old? 20 years old?...with nothing but hearsay and innuendos? Guilty until proven innocent? 30+ years ago, let that sink in. 6 FBI background checks, stellar record as a judge not good enough?...please. ANY nominee would have been crucified by these zealots. Obstruct, delay is the game here.

This is disgusting as it gets for politics and you slop it up as fact. You would be much more believable if you'd at least admit this a sham, but of course that would never happen. All because your crystal ball says this man will 'personally' overturn RvW and this lone man will set back our nation 100 years. Don't you see just how absurd that is?...that was rhetorical.
 
*GOBEARGO* said:
JC lied? What about drinking? Yearbook quotes? Drank in college? This is where were at defending allegations when your 16 years old? 18 years old? 20 years old?...with nothing but hearsay and innuendos? Guilty until proven innocent? 30+ years ago, let that sink in. 6 FBI background checks, stellar record as a judge not good enough?...please. ANY nominee would have been crucified by these zealots. Obstruct, delay is the game here.

This is disgusting as it gets for politics and you slop it up as fact. You would be much more believable if you'd at least admit this a sham, but of course that would never happen. All because your crystal ball says this man will 'personally' overturn RvW and this lone man will set back our nation 100 years. Don't you see just how absurd that is?...that was rhetorical.
Click to expand...

Any nominee? What about Gorsuch?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top