Do you think Judge Alito should be confirmed to the SCOTUS?

[teacher]

Your comments please

Word on the street is you're ugly, I'm sure your feet stink, hardly anyone here likes you, you're petrified of gays, you more than likely only have one eyebrow. Thanks for asking.

 

[TurtleDude]

You're diverting from the entire point you were attempting to make! You said that Democrats are opposing the nomination due to partisanship and that Republicans did NOT do that when Ginsburg was confirmed.

I then pointed out correctly that Clinton enlisted the help of the opposition before nominating Ginsburg, i.e. Advice & Consent vs. Bush The Jackal's refusal to even speak to members of his own party before nominating someone (see Harriet Meirs). What about this are you not understanding? Surely you must not be misunderstanding such an obvious difference in the way both Presidents handled the same task?

Right, you attacked Gays and Women (even calling women "feminazis") and you think that comments like that are not inappropriate at all times? Obviously you approve of terms like 'feminazis" since you used it in all seriousness.

To prevent amnesia let's revisit exactly what you wrote:

"Hissy fit homosexuals" is a bigoted slur in my opinion as was the "feminazis" inclusion. You made this brash statement without any sort of backup, you wrote those words to attack Gays and Women by attacking them through the terms
You wrote it not me. I just found it offensive.

feminazis hardly represent women-its like daming pedophile priests and having you claim I hate all Catholics

hissy fit homosexuals are the radical act up crowd. they have been whining about Alito on several political boards I travel through

I don't care if you found it offensive. I find welfare socialism offensive-a disease that ought to be eradicated:mrgreen:

 

[26 X World Champs]

feminazis hardly represent women-its like daming pedophile priests and having you claim I hate all Catholics.

What are you talking about? I do not understand?

hissy fit homosexuals are the radical act up crowd. they have been whining about Alito on several political boards I travel through

Again, what are you talking about?????

I don't care if you found it offensive. I find welfare socialism offensive-a disease that ought to be eradicated

What are you talking about? I was writing about the process involved in choosing Alito vs. Ginsburg. You brought your offensive comments about Gays and Women into the thread and now you've gone off into a further tangent, something about welfare?

Are you unable to defend the pathetic way Bush handles the Advice & Consent process so you respond with tangents that include putting down groups of people through offensive comments? That is not debating.

 

[TurtleDude]

What are you talking about? I do not understand?

Again, what are you talking about?????

What are you talking about? I was writing about the process involved in choosing Alito vs. Ginsburg. You brought your offensive comments about Gays and Women into the thread and now you've gone off into a further tangent, something about welfare?

Are you unable to defend the pathetic way Bush handles the Advice & Consent process so you respond with tangents that include putting down groups of people through offensive comments? That is not debating.

the dems are the ones who are pathetic in handling both A/C and the traditional concepts of fairness in this issue. Obstructing Miguel Estrada was the low point in this whole process. Dems broke years of tradition by filibustering a nominee-the first time in history that there was a unilateral filibuster of a judicial candidate and the first filibuster of an appellate judge ever

 

[26 X World Champs]

the dems are the ones who are pathetic in handling both A/C and the traditional concepts of fairness in this issue. Obstructing Miguel Estrada was the low point in this whole process. Dems broke years of tradition by filibustering a nominee-the first time in history that there was a unilateral filibuster of a judicial candidate and the first filibuster of an appellate judge ever

Dude, why are you refusing to address the point that I am making? How many times do I have to write this:

You're diverting from the entire point you were attempting to make! You said that Democrats are opposing the nomination due to partisanship and that Republicans did NOT do that when Ginsburg was confirmed.

I then pointed out correctly that Clinton enlisted the help of the opposition before nominating Ginsburg, i.e. Advice & Consent vs. Bush The Jackal's refusal to even speak to members of his own party before nominating someone (see Harriet Meirs). What about this are you not understanding? Surely you must not be misunderstanding such an obvious difference in the way both Presidents handled the same task?

You think you can try to stay relevant and speak about the very subject that you raised?

BTW - Do you want to defend the Advice & Consent process that Bushhead used when he nominated Harriet Meirs?

Do me a favor? Try to address the things that we're debating without being offensive to Gays & Women? Debate the point, please?

 

[TurtleDude]

Dude, why are you refusing to address the point that I am making? How many times do I have to write this:

You think you can try to stay relevant and speak about the very subject that you raised?

BTW - Do you want to defend the Advice & Consent process that Bushhead used when he nominated Harriet Meirs?

Do me a favor? Try to address the things that we're debating without being offensive to Gays & Women? Debate the point, please?

the issue is Alito. He is worthy of confirmation. The dems proved they are partisan hacks-at least the 22 who opposed Roberts. I am not being offensive to gays and women-just radical moonbat ones. You lefties try to win debates by playing the "offended card". I don't care if you are offended and I won't be diverted by such nonsense

 

[26 X World Champs]

the issue is Alito. He is worthy of confirmation. The dems proved they are partisan hacks-at least the 22 who opposed Roberts. I am not being offensive to gays and women-just radical moonbat ones. You lefties try to win debates by playing the "offended card". I don't care if you are offended and I won't be diverted by such nonsense

Well that certainly clarifies your side of the debate, thank you.

Is there a reason you're refusing to debate the point that you raised earlier? I'm guessing that you can't defend Bush so instead you divert, divert, divert. This is your tactic.

I like that you now called me a "you lefties" on top of your attack against Gays and women. It's very revealing. Have you noticed that I "attack" specific people like Don Bush and you attack, Gays, Women & Lefties while at the same time you refuse to rebut the fact that President Clinton worked with Republicans throughout the nominating process and Don Bush didn't even work with Republicans?

You also avoided answering this question:

Do you want to defend the Advice & Consent process that Bushhead used when he nominated Harriet Meirs?

Who's next on your generalized "to attack" list? It's so interesting, sincerely, to read your posts and see how you group people into stereotypes. It's a quite interesting sociological exhibition.

I look forward to reading more from you, thank you.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well that certainly clarifies your side of the debate, thank you.

Is there a reason you're refusing to debate the point that you raised earlier? I'm guessing that you can't defend Bush so instead you divert, divert, divert. This is your tactic.

I like that you now called me a "you lefties" on top of your attack against Gays and women. It's very revealing. Have you noticed that I "attack" specific people like Don Bush and you attack, Gays, Women & Lefties while at the same time you refuse to rebut the fact that President Clinton worked with Republicans throughout the nominating process and Don Bush didn't even work with Republicans?

You also avoided answering this question:

Do you want to defend the Advice & Consent process that Bushhead used when he nominated Harriet Meirs?

Who's next on your generalized "to attack" list? It's so interesting, sincerely, to read your posts and see how you group people into stereotypes. It's a quite interesting sociological exhibition.

I look forward to reading more from you, thank you.

I love the smarmy arrogance of the left-especially ones who pretend they are better educated merely because they are liberal.

I think BUsh was stupid to appoint miers-she had no standing in constitutional legal fields and didn't go to a major league law school. Call me an Ivy snob but the USSC should be reserved for people who were tops in everything they did-starting with law school. I don't need to defend Bush-ALito is a superb pick both from the point of my political views to his qualifications. You seem to criticize Bush for not playing the game properly (ie kissing up to obstructionist dems) when it is your side that broke the rules

 

[26 X World Champs]

You seem to criticize Bush for not playing the game properly (ie kissing up to obstructionist dems) when it is your side that broke the rules

Interesting what you wrote in one sentence! First you say:

You seem to criticize Bush for not playing the game properly (ie kissing up to obstructionist dems)

You say this after YOU wrote that Republicans didn't object to Ginsburg's appointment. I wrote that was because Clinton was much smarter (as always) than Bush and included the opposition in the decision making process hence the lack of opposition by Republicans.

Bush is too damn stupid to be tactful. Actually it's another fine example of Bush's complete inability to be DIPLOMATIC. After all his lack of diplomacy will be the legacy of this presidency.

What's interesting is that you call what Clinton did a "game" and you're writing that he was a ***** for including Hatch and Republicans in the process.

Then, in the very same sentence you write:

when it is your side that broke the rules

This is a direct contradiction of what you were writing earlier in the same sentence! What were you meaning, exactly?

1. You agree that Bush didn't want to "play the game" like Clinton and almost every other President did.

2. You want Democrats to "play the game" and rubber stamp the approval of Alito.

You're cracking me up! :rofl It's a bad game when Clinton does it and a good game if Bush demands it?

BTW - What "rules" have been broken? A vote against a Supreme Court nominee is not against any rules in the USA? Don't throw some BS about flibusters into this debate because it's irrelevant and is not being seriously discussed at this point by Democrats. We're talking specifically about Alito vs. Ginsburg, that is the issue you raised. You're constant attempts to divert away from this is what is so revealing to me.

 

[TurtleDude]

Interesting what you wrote in one sentence! First you say:

You seem to criticize Bush for not playing the game properly (ie kissing up to obstructionist dems)

You say this as after YOU wrote that Republicans didn't object to Ginsburg's appointment. I wrote that was because Clinton was much smarter (as always) than Bush and included the opposition in the decision making process hence the lack of opposition by Republicans.

Bush is too damn stupid to be tactful. Actually it's another fine example of Bush's complete inability to be DIPLOMATIC. After all his lack of diplomacy will be the legacy of this presidency.

What's interesting is that you call what Clinton did a "game" and you're writing that he was a ***** for including Hatch and Republicans in the process.

Then, in the very same sentence you write:

This is a direct contradiction of what you were writing earlier in the same sentence! What were you meaning, exactly?

1. You agree that Bush didn't want to "play the game" like Clinton and almost every other President did.

2. You want Democrats to "play the game" and rubber stamp the approval of Alito.

You're cracking me up! :rofl It's a bad game when Clinton does it and a good game if Bush demands it?

BTW - What "rules" have been broken? A vote against a Supreme Court nominee is not against any rules in the USA? Don't throw some BS about flibusters into this debate because it's irrelevant and is not being seriously discussed at this point by Democrats. We're talking specifically about Alito vs. Ginsburg, that is the issue you raised. You're constant attempts to divert away from this is what is so revealing to me.

this is pathetic-the GOP didn't filibuster any of clinton's nominees. I guess you are too ignorant of the fact of what schumer said this morning about filibusters. You are playing the typical lefty game-trying to sound as if you are well versed in this subject with lots of words but basically missing the entire point.

when I see a dem call Bush stupid I immediately put that lib on the list of "not worth taking seriously"

 

[26 X World Champs]

this is pathetic-the GOP didn't filibuster any of clinton's nominees. I guess you are too ignorant of the fact of what schumer said this morning about filibusters. You are playing the typical lefty game-trying to sound as if you are well versed in this subject with lots of words but basically missing the entire point.

when I see a dem call Bush stupid I immediately put that lib on the list of "not worth taking seriously"

You're still diverting from the Alito v. Ginsburg process differences, this time you're attacking me personally, but you did so as you did before, by talking out of both sides of your mouth.

What do I mean? You wrote:

I guess you are too ignorant

Then you wrote:

You are playing the typical lefty game & when I see a dem call Bush stupid

Attack me, attack "lefty" vs. my "attacking" Bush, not you, not "righties."

Oh, BTW - You're entire premise about Republicans not filibustering any of Clinton's nominees is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Wanna know why?

The Republicans controlled Congress after 1994 and they did not need to filubuster. The tactic they used was to never allow a candidate they found unacceptable to leave committee, they were never brought to a vote. Since they controlled the majority there was no way for Democrats to get them voted on so please spare us the "the GOP didn't filibuster any of clinton's nominees" whine.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Interesting what you wrote in one sentence! First you say:

You seem to criticize Bush for not playing the game properly (ie kissing up to obstructionist dems)

You say this after YOU wrote that Republicans didn't object to Ginsburg's appointment. I wrote that was because Clinton was much smarter (as always) than Bush and included the opposition in the decision making process hence the lack of opposition by Republicans.

Just in case you haven't noticed, the Republicans in the Senate don't have any balls. When the Rapist was president, there's wasn't anyone to tell him "no". Bush is under no obligation whatsoever to ask the Senate to pre-approve the nominee. The very idea is a blatant violation of the concept of seperation of powers.

 

[vergiss]

Just in case you haven't noticed, the Republicans in the Senate don't have any balls. When the Rapist was president, there's wasn't anyone to tell him "no". Bush is under no obligation whatsoever to ask the Senate to pre-approve the nominee. The very idea is a blatant violation of the concept of seperation of powers.

The Rapist?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The Rapist?

Jeez, we've only had one rapist as president, one would think you'd know who it was.

 

[alphieb]

The Alito Confirmation hearing is on Fox news now........

 

[Stinger]

How can anyone have an opinion without having hearings? Isn't it outrageously simple minded to believe you know what the answer is without hearing the man speak for himself and answer questions?

How come you didn't include a reasonable 3rd choice, i.e. UNDECIDED? Is it because you want to have a stilted poll again?

We haven't always had such hearings you know. Do you really expect to see anything come out of the hearings other than some poltical grand-standing. Robert's hearing was interesting solely because of the way the put certain Democrat blowhards in their place, but we didn't learn anything we didn't know already, at least of consequence.

 

[26 X World Champs]

We haven't always had such hearings you know. Do you really expect to see anything come out of the hearings other than some poltical grand-standing. Robert's hearing was interesting solely because of the way the put certain Democrat blowhards in their place, but we didn't learn anything we didn't know already, at least of consequence.

I find it so interesting that you go out of your way to justify anything Republican no matter how wrong or illogical it might be. Your loyalty is admirable, but loyalty is not the same thing as being right.

How anyone could suggest the outcome of the hearings without having them is ridiculous and of course, partisan politics. Qu'elle Surpris!

 

[Deegan]

I find it so interesting that you go out of your way to justify anything Republican no matter how wrong or illogical it might be. Your loyalty is admirable, but loyalty is not the same thing as being right.

How anyone could suggest the outcome of the hearings without having them is ridiculous and of course, partisan politics. Qu'elle Surpris!

..........said the kettle to the pot.:rofl

I trust those that know what they are talking about, the same group that Democrats once called "the gold standard" the ABA! Now.......if anyone can give some intelligent, rational reason Alito should not be confirmed, please speak now, or forever hold your filthy tongues.

 

[TurtleDude]

You're still diverting from the Alito v. Ginsburg process differences, this time you're attacking me personally, but you did so as you did before, by talking out of both sides of your mouth.

What do I mean? You wrote:

Then you wrote:

Attack me, attack "lefty" vs. my "attacking" Bush, not you, not "righties."

Oh, BTW - You're entire premise about Republicans not filibustering any of Clinton's nominees is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Wanna know why?

The Republicans controlled Congress after 1994 and they did not need to filubuster. The tactic they used was to never allow a candidate they found unacceptable to leave committee, they were never brought to a vote. Since they controlled the majority there was no way for Democrats to get them voted on so please spare us the "the GOP didn't filibuster any of clinton's nominees" whine.

best check when RBG was confirmed. there is a big difference between the minority filibustering and the MAJORITY preventing a nominee from being seated

 

[vergiss]

Jeez, we've only had one rapist as president, one would think you'd know who it was.

Care to back up your idiotic comment?

 

[TurtleDude]

Care to back up your idiotic comment?

does he get a moist cigar if he does?:mrgreen:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Care to back up your idiotic comment?

When I make one I'll be glad to.

Are you implying you don't know which US president is a rapist? (Hint: Depending on the meaning of the word "is", it probably implies the guy is still alive.)

 

[Navy Pride]

Care to back up your idiotic comment?

The more you post the more it shows you know nothing about the USA and its history

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Just in case you haven't noticed, the Republicans in the Senate don't have any balls. When the Rapist was president, there's wasn't anyone to tell him "no". Bush is under no obligation whatsoever to ask the Senate to pre-approve the nominee. The very idea is a blatant violation of the concept of seperation of powers.

Scarecrow, :damn
I'm having a hard time understanding this, perhaps you could explain. How exactly did you think spattering the board with that piece of excrement would help prove your case that Alito should be confirmed?

Care to back up your idiotic comment?

The more you post the more it shows you know nothing about the USA and its history

Well said, NP.:roll:
Vergiss, how dumb can you be if you've never heard of that huge case where Clinton was convicted of rape? It happened right around the time Scarecrow and Navy were both commended for their lucidity. We all know it would be completely unlike them to resort to slander to make a point.

 

[26 X World Champs]

The more you post the more it shows you know nothing about the USA and its history

How about you? Must I again repost the numerous posts that you wrote calling President Clinton a CONVICTED RAPIST, A RAPIST, etc.? Do you really want to muck that up again?

You've proven time and time again that you will make up untruths about President Clinton because you HATE him. You hate him so much that you have the audacity to write many times that he is a RAPIST.

He is no more a rapist than you are or anyone else is in this community.