When the Going Gets Weird....
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Might I suggest the moderator of the next Republican debate? How about Jerry Springer? He'd be perfect. Think about it!
Were any of you able to catch the Republican laugh fest on Saturday night? Wasn't that a scream? It just keeps getting weirder and weirder by the hour. I cannot believe that the American people would be nutty enough to put that party back in the executive mansion come Inauguration Day. Fifty years from now, someone is going to do a documentary on the times in which we live. I've come up with the most apropos title:
"When Unintentional Comedy Was King"
That works for me.
My sleeping patterns have been somewhat off-kilter lately. Whenever the desire to snooze comes to me I take advantage of the moment. My plan was to tape the debate and watch it in the morning. I pressed "record" on the VCR with every intention of going to bed. Try as I might, I could not pry myself away from the spectacle of these nitwits snarling at one another. It was that riveting. Like a wrecked trainload of clowns at a railroad crossing, I couldn't take my eyes off them. We live in interesting times. We really do!
My sleeping patterns have been somewhat off-kilter lately. Whenever the desire to snooze comes to me I take advantage of the moment. My plan was to tape the debate and watch it in the morning. I pressed "record" on the VCR with every intention of going to bed. Try as I might, I could not pry myself away from the spectacle of these nitwits snarling at one another. It was that riveting. Like a wrecked trainload of clowns at a railroad crossing, I couldn't take my eyes off them. We live in interesting times. We really do!
The evening started out predictably enough with some perfectly gut-wrenching tributes to Antonin Scalia, who passed away unexpectedly the night before. My own thoughts:
God rest his soul. This is not a time for schadenfreude. He was loved by his family, well-liked by his colleagues, even more-than-a-few of his ideological enemies. He had a long and happy life - something we should all hope to attain.
That being said, it must not be ignored that if Antonin Scalia is not remembered down through the ages as "the worst justice of modern times", you can bet the farm that he and Uncle Clarence Thomas will share that dubious prize. He might have been possessed of "a brilliant legal mind", as so many are saying, but it was a mind nonetheless warped by his own fears and prejudices. He should not have spent a single hour of his time on earth passing judgment on anyone - let alone an entire nation.
If the right wing extremists are to be believed, President Obama does not have the right to fill the Scalia vacancy - the U.S. Constitution be danged. They're jabbering away about "precedent". By their way of thinking, not in eighty years has a president nominated a justice to that court during their final year in office. Really? Eighty years ago the president was Franklin D. Roosevelt. At that point he had nine years left before him as president (longer than any other chief-executive in history - a fact that still drives these knuckleheads crazy).
Anthony Kennedy was nominated and appointed during the final year of Reagan's presidency, a fact that doesn't seem to register with these freaks. The Gipper is always deserving of special dispensation, you know?
 |
| Burger |
I thought it poignantly amusing during Saturday night's debate when Marco Rubio praised Scalia's "originalist" interpretation of the constitution and how it was dictated by the worldview of the Founding Fathers, not clouded by "the fads of the moment". That's right, I thought, we really should be interpreting that document based upon the fads of 1789. Genius.
Consider this: Madison and company could not foresee the Compact Disc. Hell, they couldn't even foresee the Edison Wax cylinder! That's why they made the Constitution amendable. Smart sons-of-bitches, those Founding Fathers.
I knew seven years ago that the inauguration of the first African American president would make some on the right side of the aisle blow their collective gaskets, but even I had no idea that there would be such a massive freak out. This is absurdest theater. That's the most apropos description of what is occurring in our national political dialogue. Isn't it amusing?
It is certain that the Obama years will be remembered as a rolling constitutional crisis not of his own making. Considering the obstruction he's had to endure thanks to the disloyal opposition, it's a holy miracle that the guy has been as successful as he has. It looks like for the remainder of his term, the highest court in the land will be deadlocked by a 4/4 vote. The Republicans seem confident that they will take back the White House next year. That confidence is misplaced. The last time one Democratic administration succeeded another one on Inauguration day was in 1857. It hasn't happened since. It will happen next year. On a national level at least, "the party of Abraham Lincoln" has become unelectable.Ain't politics a hoot?
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
BREAKING NEWS!!! (3:03 PM)
The fringier fringes of the right wing SCREAM machine are now putting out the notion that Justice Scalia was murdered by some kind of sinister liberal conspiracy.
Life is beautiful.
SUGGESTED READING:Kate Remembered
by A. Scott Berg
This is not so-much a biography as it is a personal memoir. In 1983, Scott Berg was assigned to write a profile of Katharine Hepburn for Esquire Magazine. This initial contact blossomed into a close friendship that lasted until her death twenty years later. I always admired Kate Hepburn. After reading this book I love her. Berg is a first-rate historian. This is not the first book I've read by him, and it won't be the last. It's still in print thankfully and can be purchased off of Amazon.com. One of the sweetest, funniest books I've read in a long time. I know it's absolutely futile to fall in love with a dead person, but I just can't help myself when it comes to Kate.
posted by Tom Degan @ 1:04 PM
157 comments
157 Comments:
"In August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment."
American Thinker
I knew seven years ago that the inauguration of the first African American president would make some on the right side of the aisle blow their collective gaskets
Holy shit Tom, just look at the RWNJ infesting your blog for evidence of that. He uses multiple names and is the first to comment every time. Obama Derangement Syndrome.
I personally don't believe he's a grandparent, but he'd have you think he's in the maternity hospital commenting on your blog. That's how obsessed he is.
Anyone who has spent time in the waiting room of the Maternity and Delivery section of a hospital for hours would under stand how I could use an IPad while waiting for a birth.
It speaks volumes that one would find fault with doing so, must be because they have never experienced the wondurous event of a human beings birth.
Some diversity some compassion some human feelings, leave it to a Hate filled pro abortion liberal to not understand
Fuck off Chuck, I was in the delivery room during the births of my three children. The real question is: Why do you post here with multiple aliases, why do you lie about your (non-existent) personal life, and why do you hold a grudge against prison guards?
---------------
From CNN:
Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States under President George W. Bush, said on Monday that President Barack Obama had an "obligation" to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Republican presidential candidates and other party leaders argued that President Obama should not attempt to fill the vacancy in his last 11 months, and that the next president should make the appointment instead.
"I know there's a big debate going on right now about whether or not Obama should nominate someone," Gonzales told CNN's Chris Cuomo on Monday. "From my perspective having worked at the White House and the Dept. of Justice, there's just no question in my mind that as president of the United States, you have an obligation to fill a vacancy."
Tom,
The Republicans never said Obama didn't have a RIGHT to appoint a nominee, as you stated falsely. And the Senate is not constrained by the Constitution to approve, or deny within a time limit. Nice to see you keep lying about government processes. YOU are part of the problem. All liars are.
Anonymous 4:19, republicans said Obama should wait and let the next president nominate a justice.
SoreLoser/GrandpaChuck/Just the Facts is actually a problematic liar.
"wondurous "
And this from the idiot who criticizes Mozart's spelling.
Chuckie, first off it was 1960 when Most Dems were conservatives. Second, and this is important so pay attention...
IT WAS A NONBINDING RESOLUTION. That's for those of you who can't read, IS NOT LAW.
As for being the the maternity waiting room, if you are old enough to remember when men waited outside you are too old for an Ipad. fFor the last 40 years REAL MEN were in there WITH their wives.
Clearly there are TWO major things about the GOP. ONE: They actually believe the American people support them enough to elect them in Nov. (remember their shock in 2012?) and TWO: Scalia died before they were ready for him to do so.
So NOW they have to get the uneducated massses (including Chuckie and the Boy Troll) to believe that it would be somehow unethical or even unconstitutinal, for Obama to name a LIBERAL replacement.
If they want to stonewall and whine during a election year, that's up to them.
"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
That is what republicans say.
This is what the Constitution says:
Article 2.
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years
FOUR years! NOT three years and one month.
He shall have Power, … and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court ,
“HE SHALL NOMINATE”
NOT “he MAY nominate if Republicans allow him.”
GOP “pro-constitution” hypocrites are traitors out to subvert our democracy and Constitution.
Looks like the GOP is ASSUMING they will win the WH in Nov. Unless they cheat like in 2000 and 2004 they have no chance.
I seriously doubt they will even have a congressinal majority after Nov.
Anon 4:23,
Quoting Tom's words from this post:
"If the right wing extremists are to be believed, President Obama does not have the right to fill the Scalia vacancy"
Read much?
Mozart said,
"it was 1960 when Most Dems were conservatives"
This shows just how stupid Mozart is. The Dem's back in the 1960's were much more liberal than the Dem's of today.
Back in the LATE 60's you might have been right there Boy Troll, but in 1960 the Dems were still mostly "Dixicrats" that supported segregation.
Now I'm SURE you would bring that up if we said the KKK were CONSERVATIVES (which they always have been). You'd make sure we knew about Robert Byrd or George Wallace, wouldn't you? You'd claim the "Southern Strategy" was a hoax made up by the "liberal media".
So why are you NOW claiming they were "liberals"?
Oh yeah, it's convenient for your agenda. Fortunately, WE are educated, unlike most conservatives.
"this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President"
Where does the Constitution say a president with a year left should not do his duty? Where does the Constitution say the Senate should abrogate its constitutional duty for an entire year?
Hypocrites and liars.
This is why we must prevent another catastrophic Republican dictatorship. More wars, tax cuts for the rich, corporate written regulations, de-regulation of Wall Street, and far Right Justices will accelerate the nations collapse.
Anonymous, have you ever heard of the Dixiecrats? Your lacking of historical knowledge is spellbinding. That's why you are a conservative.
I normally don't get involved in these spats, but I couldn't pass that one by. Unbelievable.
Tom,
Your lacking of historical knowledge is spellbinding. That's why you are a conservative.
Exactly! With cons, belief trumps fact and ideology trumps reality.
American con-servatism is a political cult characterized by indoctrination of beliefs through a vast network of corporate media and internet social media. Basically Con-servatism is what the economic elites, propagandists, and religious fanatics say it is.
A famous example is: ”It’s not patriotic to criticize a war president”, but only if he is a republican.
All too often we don't want to learn what we don't want to know. All too often we wish to regard only our views as superior morality and virtue. This means opposing views are by default evil.
This is why the radical Right wants to believe liberals are destroying the country, Obama is a tyrant coming to disarm them, tax cuts for the rich "trickle down" benefits to all, or there is an international conspiracy of evil climate scientists.
This is also why too many liberals want to believe Hillary is one of them, or that the Democratic Party is primarily about serving the public good.
The power of belief is strong, even when provably wrong, or at the least counter to the preponderance of evidence.
No facts, or accurate accounts of reality, can change far Right beliefs. It proves no matter how many times the facts are given, they will be ignored in order to cling to far Right propaganda.
The fact that good people can believe all this vile propaganda is very sad. Yet they CHOOSE to believe what they want to believe. Only those suffering deep fear of change, anger, or hate willingly choose to follow this propaganda.
"True conservatives" have opposed every advance in racial equality, union rights, and voting rights throughout history. "True conservatives" have opposed every effort to implement constitutional taxation, regulation of commerce and health care provisions for the general welfare.
They are not their brother's keeper, after all. "You're on your own" is their rule. "We are in this together" is rejected as some evil hippie Marxism.
Yet they are the ones who know what's best for all the non-believers of their propaganda.
"I don't care what the facts say, I feel this is true, so that's all the evidence I need." This is “truthiness” as presented by satirist Stephen Colbert.
This may as well be the creed of American Con-servatism.
Proof? Besides massive voter impersonation fraud, how about liberals are commies/nazis, Obama the Marxist Kenyan, death panels, "nukular" aluminum tubes, Benghazi! (TM), Saddam in cahoots with al-Qaeda, liberal corporate media, Liberals are to blame for everything bad, and the most diabolical global conspiracy of evil climate scientists?
Their propagandists have the poor over-active amygdalas of Rightists constantly in "fight or flight" mode. No place for discussion, debate, reason, facts, or even compromise.
The reality-impaired true believers, and most of all their propagandists, are the greatest threat to democracy, civil liberties, the middle class, the poor, and equal rights this nation has ever had within its borders.
He shall nominate does not mean the Senate must approve.
Some that have been recently rejected Democrats are Bork, Haynsworth, and Carswell. Reason was none were liberal enough to suit the majority Democrats in the Senate.
It reasons therefore that the majority party now can and will do the same thing but for the reason that the nominee is too liberal. It will be interesting to see how the minority party responds to their actions being used against them.
Keep in mind the resolution passed by the Democrate controlled Senate in 1960 could be used again but this time by the GOP
Turn about is fair play.
Keep in mind no democrat EVER said, ""this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President".
IOKIYAR, amirite?
The father was in the birthing room as I was for all four of my now conservative children.
Maybe grandfathers are in the birthing room in Iowa but not in Missouri where all my kids were born or Texas where my new conservative granddaughter was born.
When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
Tom,
You have a piece of shit fight blog. I'm emphasizing that which you love, stupid fights by stupid people. I'm having fun!
1948 Hubert Humphrey and the call for Civil Rights. In the 1960's LBJ spearheaded liberal legislation. The great Society was not a conservative movement. You must be talking about de4cades before that. You are laughable!
More false equivalence and double standards from the Republican Troll.
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.
But if a Republican says, "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
This isn’t even close to what Schumer was saying. Democrats didn’t obstruct a Justice for an entire year. The Constitution is clear. Obama is following it. Republicans are defying it.
Even Schumer didn’t go that far. BUT IOKIYAR, amirite?
I suppose you will say JFK and LBJ were conservatives. What a dip shit.
I would ask "Anonymous" what the hell he's talking about, but it's pretty clear he has no idea himself.
If you don't like what the Republicans are doing, then you must eliminate the Constitution, because that's the basis for the legality of what they are doing. It's OK for uncle Joe to bring up coke cans with pubic hairs, but not for Republicans to delay a vote. The Constitution sets no time limit on when Obama should submit his nominee, nor does it set a time limit on when the Senate must approve, or deny. Cry me a river you crybabies.
Ever notice how it's ALWAYS conservatives who call Obama "Messiah"? I never hear Liberals cal him that. WE call him "MR. PRESIDENT" And that part galls conservatives.
The Best part will be them hearing Hillary refered to as "MADAM President" for the next 8 years.
I love Bernie, and I hope he wins, but I think it's going to be H. Clinton. The GOP can't win without cheating and I don't think Daddy Bush will step in for anyone but Jeb.
Double standard? I just gave you a quote of leading Democrate Senator, Chuck Schumer?
I just gave you examples of Nominees Democrats rejected because they were Conservative.
If the GOP does the same is that no less acceptable then when the Democrats did same?
Of course not.
Mozart,
Your grasping at Straws, titling at windmills, when did you ever call a Republican Mr. President?
Chuckie,
Did the Dems ACT on what Schumer allegedly said? NO.
Will the GOP do everyting it can to block ANY nominee Obama suggests? OF COURSE THEY WILL, even if it's someone they unanimously approved for a lower court just a couple years ago.
They ACTUALLY tried to convince us that Obama has NO RIGHT to nominate ANYONE regardless of affiliation.
That alone could lose them congressinal seats in Nov. We get Dem President (unless the GOP finds a way to cheat again) and probably take at least the Senate back if not both houses. Even conservatives are sick of the vindictive children in the GOP congress.
Now answer my question if you are not too scared. WHAT HAS THE GOP DONE FOR THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASSES THE LAST 40 YEARS?
Stop deflecting and avoiding the question. We KNOW the answer, we just want to hear it from YOU.
Mozart,
We all know damn well the extremists have no answer to the question, WHAT HAS THE GOP DONE FOR THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASSES THE LAST 40 YEARS?
What they have done TO the poor and middle class is a sad disgrace and betrayal of Lincoln's idea of government of, by, and for the people.
They want their one-party dictatorship to ram down the throats of Americans their proven failed policies of tax cuts for the rich, de-regulation of Wall Street, and corporations writing the laws of our lands.
The Constitution sets no time limit on when Obama should submit his nominee, nor does it set a time limit on when the Senate must approve, or deny. .
Only an idiot parroting GOP talking points would claim this justifies ignoring the Constitution.
I posted what the Constitution says. It clearly states their duties, what they SHALL do. Republicans want to ignore their duties and usurp legal power granted to the president.
Defying the Constitution is un-American. Ah, but IOKIYAR, amirite?
Here's what is NOT in the Constitution: "...this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."
This is dereliction of constitutional duty and malevolent abuse of power. This is the perfect example of "Government is the problem", when Republicans run the show. The Republicans could have said, "Bring on the nominations, we'll send them back". Perfectly legal. But, NOOOO! They want to strip the president of his constitutional powers. IOKIYAR.
Hypocrite assholes and brain dead parrots. There's you Republican Party shills and stooges.
Mozart
What liberal policy designed to help the poor and middle class has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
Chuck, was Martin Luther King a conservative? I seem to recall you making that claim, either as "Chuck Morre" or one of your other pseudonyms.
Right-wing southern racists celebrated when JFK was shot. Not too many liberals were happy on that day.
You seem to think you can bend history to fit your ridiculous ideas, whether you post as "Chuck" or "Sore Loser" or simply "anonymous"
What conservative policy designed to help the poor and middle class has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
What conservative war on drugs policy designed to help the US has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
What military program has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
What law enforcement agency has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
What fire department has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
LOL!! Right. What a stupid way to phrase a question.
JFK is a conservative by today's Democratic Party standards....speaking of stupid.
Then the Republican Party is fascist by 1960 standards.
“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
- JFK
Chuckie, while I hated Bush with the heat of 1,000 suns I ALWAYS respected the office, even though he never achieved it legally. I NEVER EVER insulted his wife, and even avoided insulting his daughters even if they were out of control party freaks like Daddy.
JFK would be a COMMUNIST by todays standards! Hell, he was considered such by conservatives back THEN! Reagan wouold be LIBERAL by todays standards! Supporting Social Security, Amnesty for Illegals, raising taxes 11 times (at least on the middle class, the rich got tax cuts as usual)Oh! And the WORST!!! SELLING ARMS TO MUSLIMS!!!!
Now, please answer my question or admit you can't.
WHAT HAVE CONSERVATIVES DONE FOR THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS THE LAST 40 YEARS?
Why are you AFRAID to answer?
Mozart
You really are clueless, why on earth do you think yelling at me is going to cause me to answer your sophomoric question?
To paraphrase Duyba, why should I answer you when what ever I say you will reject? You are simply a dishonest liberal debater and a misinformed one at that.
Honestly to believe JFK would not be a conservative democrat when compared to the socialist democrats of today is so crazy, but it is what I have come to expect.
The subject of this post is the open seat on the SCUSA. I have posted examples of past democrat behavior to highlight the right the GOP has today to do the same things. That's all, yet the simply posting of historical truth has turned you and others into raving maniacs.
I'm sure even this simply post will bring out more hate filled posts cause that's what haters do, they hate.
Hurry up Nov. 2016!
Mozart
You really are clueless, why on earth do you think yelling at me is going to cause me to answer your sophomoric question?
To paraphrase Duyba, why should I answer you when what ever I say you will reject? You are simply a dishonest liberal debater and a misinformed one at that.
Honestly to believe JFK would not be a conservative democrat when compared to the socialist democrats of today is so crazy, but it is what I have come to expect.
The subject of this post is the open seat on the SCUSA. I have posted examples of past democrat behavior to highlight the right the GOP has today to do the same things. That's all, yet the simply posting of historical truth has turned you and others into raving maniacs.
I'm sure even this simply post will bring out more hate filled posts cause that's what haters do, they hate.
Hurry up Nov. 2016!
I have posted examples of past democrat behavior to highlight the right the GOP has today to do the same things. That's all,
Liar. NOT the same things at all.
No Democratic Senate Majority Leader ever said, "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President".
Never.
Democrats did their constitutional duty. They accepted nominees for consideration and voted on them.
Obama will fulfill his constitutional duty to nominate.
Until the Republicans uphold their oaths to the Constitution and accept nominees for hearings, they are in dereliction of their clear duty, and in open defiance of our Constitution.
Do those idiots even consider what moderates will think of their disregard of the Constitution? They will sound like spoiled brats throwing tantrums as they hold the Supreme Court hostage.
It's stupid enough for them to lose the Senate and put a Democrat back in the White House. Chances are they'll realize their glaring blunder and go back to work, full of resentment and anger.
So carry on, GOP. Democracy will defeat you.
Chuckie, why do you think posting twice is going to get you off the hook for answering ONE SIMPLE QUESTION?
BTW, not yelling, just emphasizing.
Now answer the question or be exposed for the hypocritical COWARD that you are. If the GOP is so great it should be easy.
WHAT HAS THE GOP DONE FOR THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS THE LAST 40 YEARS?
Just ONE thing would help.
But no, you have no answer, you cannot answer to Dave, all you have are insults.
Looks like the rat is backed into a corner.
Stop yelling MOZART!
Insults?
Projection much?
Look up Senator Obama joining a filibuster to stop a GOP nominee for SCUSA
What goes around comes around
Remember Bork?
Look at the first post of this thread and the ones posted in its response.
Now tell me who insulted who?
Hurry up November!
Look at DD post at 106 pm in response to mine.
Now tell me Mozart who is filled with hate?
Look at the posts by anonymous, and tell who is filled with hate?
Who is insulting who Mozart?
"ChuckMorre" logs on to say "You are an idiot."
And then returns to complain about the lack of civility among progressives.
"ChuckMorre" logs on to say "You are an idiot."
And then returns to complain about the lack of civility among progressives.
LOFL!!!
IOKIYAR, amirite?
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with an individual senator filibustering a SCOTUS nominee if he has an objection to their appointment.
I do think however, there is something very wrong with an ENTIRE party announcing they intend to filibuster ANY nominee, no matter their qualifications before the person they're supposed to replace is even cold.
How is it that all these Constitutional 'originalists' think it's reasonable or even rational to tell the president to forget about doing what is clearly his obligation to do under the Constitution, just because they're too busy having a hissy fit?
Read the first post on this thread, it is mine, it is on topic.
DD is an idiot if he believes he didn't throw the first of many insults. It is he who crys when in response to his hate he is called a name. That is a cry baby. TP has correctly called him out for this child like behavior that frankly points to a possibly of being raised in a female domineering household, lacking in a strong male image.
My point in posting here has not been to say the GOP has the power to prevent Obama from nomination someone to fill the vacant seat on the SCUSA. They do not have that power regardless what its leadership says. That's nothing more than window dressing, drawing the battle line before the battle.
What they can do however is what the Democrats have done to nominees they don't like. I full expect and encourage them to follow the path the Democrats have layer out. I have given the require examples of them doing so. An less we forget Senator Obama was a part of the Democrat filibuster used to stop the appointment of someone not favored by the democrats.
That's what I am trying to say, regardless of the hate and profanity laced responses that the kind, warm caring compassionate liberal socialist progressive democrats who vomit here.
Look for a "canned" response from DD blaming everyone to the right of him, (which is the large majority of Americans) Look for Mozart to continue to demand an answer by yelling (who here wants to explain that in the Internet World typing in all caps is yelling?), and to rationalize against all evidence to the contrary, that the GOP can't win unless they cheat.
Look for anonymous to continue to lower its self to the thug level by its swearing and calling one Justice trash and another An Uncle Tom
Expect all of them to deny having done any of what was listed or ignore same
If this is the best the liberal progressive socialists democrats here have to offer in response then their cause is lost
Hurry up November 2016
DE_Bill,
You realize that is what the Democrats did to republican nominees? You realize less that 45 minutes after Bork was nominated by Reagan that Teddy Kenndy called on his fellow democrat senators to unite in their rejection of Bork?
Now you want the GOP to play nice?
Chuckie, like I said, I'm not "yelling" it's just emphasis.
Would you answer the simple, logical, question if I ask it like this?
"What has the GOP done for the poor and middle class the last 40 years"?
I know the answer embarrases you, but your childish deflection is really beginning to show you in a bad light. (or worse than normal)
Why don't you just answer it? WHat are you afraid of?
Oh, and Chuckie, name one time when the Entire Democtratic party got together right after inaugeration and said "we are hoing to block everything thei president tries to do".
NEVER. EVER.
Mozart,
Poor Chuckie has to invoke TP because he was foolish enough to believe his lies about Social Security that he copy and pasted from an extremist false email forward.
(It matters not how much they are shot down and debunked. They have no shame, nor respect for honest debate and documented facts.)
Chuckie cannot offer one case of Republicans helping the poor or middle class.
The argument is over. Chuckie loses. And we all know he's a sore loser.
LOL!
When Antonin Scalia was found dead in his bed on a ranch in West Texas, conspiracy theorists immediately questioned the circumstances behind Scalia's death: Were there signs of a struggle? Why wasn't an autopsy performed? Was he in poor health? But new evidence suggests it might be more useful to examine not the cause of Scalia's death but the circumstances of his vacation. According to a report by the Washington Post, the associate justice was on a hunting trip at the 30,000-acre luxury resort of John B. Poindexter, owner of J.B. Poindexter & Co., a Houston manufacturing firm. The Supreme Court last year declined to hear a case involving an age-discrimination lawsuit against Poindexter's company.
Scalia wasn't charged for his stay, but Poindexter denies paying for the justice's trip to Texas. "I did not pay for the Justice’s trip to Cibolo Creek Ranch," he wrote in an email to the Post. "He was an invited guest, along with a friend, just like 35 others." He went on, "The Justice was treated no differently by me, as no one was charged for activities, room and board, beverages, etc. That is a 22-year policy." Scalia presumably would've noted the event on his expense report, but such reports don't detail who is involved with events alongside justices. If Scalia had survived the trip, Poindexter's involvement would likely have gone unnoticed.
This isn't the first time Scalia has forgone the Caesar's-wife appearance of extreme propriety for a good hunting trip. In 2004 Scalia joined Dick Cheney at a private camp in southern Louisiana while Cheney was the subject of a lawsuit over his energy task force. Legal experts questioned whether Scalia ought to be shooting game with a man he might be forced to convict. In response, Scalia said only, "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned." He also filed a 21-page argument detailing why he refused to sit out the case. The quail have declined to comment.
And here's my favorite, from everybody's favorite decision: Bush vs. Gore:
Scalia’s son Eugene is a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where one of the senior partners is Theodore B. Olson, who argued Bush’s case before the Supreme Court.
Scalia refused to recuse himself from Bush v. Gore, although the lead lawyer for the plaintiff was, in effect, his son’s boss.
From Mother Jones
Rexpublicans: We will lower your taxes.
Democrats: We, um, support policies that encourage a fairer distribution of growth and....and....working man....party of FDR....um....
There are two problems with the Democratic approach. First, it's too abstract to appeal to anyone. Second, it's not true anyway. Democrats simply don't consistently support concrete policies that help the broad working and middle classes. Half of them voted for the bankruptcy bill of 2005. They've done virtually nothing to stem the growth of monopolies and next to nothing to improve consumer protection in visible ways. They don't do anything for labor. They're soft on protecting Social Security. They bailed out the banks but refused to bail out underwater homeowners. Hell, they can't even agree to kill the carried interest loophole, a populist favorite if ever there was one.
Sure, Democrats do plenty for the poor. They support increases in the EITC and the minimum wage. They support Medicaid expansion. They passed Obamacare. They support pre-K for vulnerable populations. They expanded CHIP. But virtually none of this really benefits the working or middle classes except at the margins.
Now McElwee wants to use environmentalism to appeal to the working class. I'm all for that. But you don't have to play 11-dimensional chess to figure out how Republicans will respond. They'll say that Democrats want to raise your taxes. They'll say Democrats want to take away your plastic bags. They'll say Democrats want to make us all drive tiny cars or take the train everywhere. In coal country they'll say Democrats want to take away your jobs.
Apologies for being peevish. But honestly, Democrats have done virtually nothing for the middle class for three decades now.
Now Mozart since you seen incapable of staying on Toms topic, what liberal policy's have been so successful in helping the poor that they are no longer needed?
See, and I didn't have to yell at you.
Chuckie,Your question is ridiculous. As Scalia proved liberal laws that help people will ALWAYS be needed. SCalia gutted the voting rights act and within 48 hours several red states had passed laws making it nearly impossible for poor people (many minorities) to RE REGISTER to vote.
Now answer my fucking question you coward. Stop delflecting and playing the victim.
Besides, we ALL KNOW why you are afraid to answer.
As for staying "on topic" you never expect anyone else to do that. But since you brought it up, I have always loved Kate Hepburn.
Maybe Chuckie can help out with his phrasing of questions:
What conservative policy designed to help the poor and middle class has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
What conservative war on drugs policy designed to help the US has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
What military program has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
What law enforcement agency has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
What fire department has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
LOL!! Right. What a stupid way to phrase a question.
.....Or, could it be possible programs need to available BECAUSE they are successful.
Social Security is successful. It lifts millions of seniors out of poverty. Medicare is successful. Medicaid is successful. Healthcare helps people.
There. His question is answered.
What kind of idiot thinks there will no longer be a need for healthcare?
So what Republican program is so successful we no longer need it? Why does Chuckie refuse to answer? Double standards again? IOKIYAR, amirite?
Fair question?
Republican : we will lower taxes on the richest 2% and make up the revenue by raising taxes opn the middle class.
Dems :why not just tax people the way they were in the 50's when the economy boomed?"
Reps: because that would mean rich people have to pay their share, and they are too good for that. Like Leona Helmsley said "taxes are for little people"
Dems: So how do we PAY for all the stuff we need?
Reps, ALL we really need are wars so the defense contractors can get rich, and we can borrow for those and blame the debt on YOU! No one cares about the poor or those who work for substandard wages, We are "Christians".
Sure, Democrats do plenty for the poor.
Thanks Chuckie. And from Chuckie's lack of response we can add Republicans do nothing for the poor. They are the party of mammon.
The article is correct about the Democratic Party becoming bought and paid for like Republicans.
Why did Chuckie decide to omit the next sentence in the article?
They're nearly as reliant on the business community for campaign funding as Republicans.
Could it be because many liberals have been saying this all along about the Jr. corporatist party?
We should all thank Chuckie for showing us an article that confirms Democrats are nearly as reliant on the business community for campaign funding as Republicans.
Proving once again, that both parties have the same masters in many cases.
This would also prove beyond doubt that the Democratic Party is not socialist, but corporatist.
Thanks again, Chuckie! Keep shilling for the mammon-serving masters of both parties, like a good little pseudo-Christian.
Just as I expected, just as I predicted
Hurry up Nov. 2016!
"You realize that is what the Democrats did to republican nominees?"
Both parties have at different times successfully blocked a SCOTUS nominee. AFTER they had been nominated and had a hearing before the Judiciary Committee at least, if not also followed by a full vote in the senate, whether they were eventually appointed or not.
Look at Harriet Miers. She was such a bad nominee, even Republicans in the Senate were begging Bush to withdraw her nomination, and even she got a hearing before the Judiciary Committee.
At least Bork was nominated before someone objected.
Only the Goofy Oppositional Party has ever, in the entire history of this country, stood up and with one voice told the President, "Don't even try doing your job, because we don't intend to do ours."
So your example is kind of stupid. False equivalency strikes again.
"At least"
"False equivalency"
LOL
Hurry up November!
Poor Chuckie has nothing rational to add.
Hurry up November!
Didn't he say the same thing four years ago?
LOL!
from Politico:
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says President Barack Obama should get to nominate a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, rebuking Republicans who have in recent days shown reticence toward voting — or even holding hearings — to approve a successor in an election year.
"Well, you just have to pick the best person you can under the circumstances as the appointing authority must do, and one that we care about as a nation and as a people," the 85-year-old O'Connor said in an interview with Fox's local Phoenix affiliate. "And I wish the president well as he makes choices and goes down that line. It's hard."
The fact that the vacancy created by Scalia's death occurred in an election year "creates too much talk around the thing that isn't necessary," she said. O'Connor stepped down from the bench in 2006 to care for her ailing husband, who died in 2009.
O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the court and a nominee of President Ronald Reagan, rejected the notion that the next president should be able to pick the next justice after the election.
"I don't agree. I think we need somebody there now to do the job, and let's get on with it," she said.
"You realize less that 45 minutes after Bork was nominated by Reagan that Teddy Kenndy called on his fellow democrat senators to unite in their rejection of Bork? "
Those are your words, genius. Notice the part where you said "AFTER Bork was nominated"?
Are you actually so stupid you can't see the difference between objecting to an appointment AFTER it is announced, and preemptively claiming you plan to object to ANY appointment BEFORE one has even been made?
Sorry, I should explain this to you. That is called a rhetorical question. You've already provided ample evidence on numerous occasions the depth of your stupidity.
“Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.” -John Stuart Mill
"Are you actually so stupid..."
By all evidence and comments from him, yes, he is that stupid. The only other possibility is he is utterly lacking in morals, ethics and honesty and is dedicated to deception, distraction and propaganda of the extreme Right.
In other words, a Republican.
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html
What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
Philip E. Agre
August 2004
Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:
Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
Chuckie,
I asked you quietly and carefully so as not to startle or scare you and still you avoid answer ing a simle, logical question.
"What have conservatives done for the poor and middle class the last 40 years"?
If they are SOOOO good for America, WHY are you terrified to answer? It should be easy.
I can make a list of many many things Liberals have done, and will as soon as you answer my question.
Oh and yes, November can't come soon enough so we can elect another Dem president and take back congress. America needs to get moving FORWARD again.
You mean the mysterious disappearing for several months Philip E. Agre a FORMER associate professor of information studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. His new media writing includes the essay, Surveillance and Capture. He was successively the publisher of The Network Observer (TNO) and The Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). TNO ran from January 1994 until July 1996. RRE, an influential mailing list he started in the mid-1990s, ran for around a decade. A mix of news, Internet policy and politics, RRE served as a model for many of today's political blogs and online newsletters.
Prior to his teaching position at UCLA, Agre held faculty positions at the University of Chicago, the School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences (now the School of Informatics) at the University of Sussex and the Department of Communication at the University of California, San Diego. He received his doctorate in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT in 1989.
Agre went missing on October 16, 2009, but was found in good health on January 16, 2010.
Really, this is who you quote to support your polical view points, a PhD in Electrical Engineering and Computor Science.
Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Exhitit A:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/17/new-book-exposes-koch-brothers-guide-to-infiltr/208612
New Book Exposes Koch Brothers' Guide To Infiltrating The Media
A new book by New Yorker writer Jane Mayer lays out how the oil billionaire Koch brothers rose to the powerful position they are in today, where they wield unquestionable political influence and have shaped public opinion in drastic ways. Titled Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, the book brings to light many tactics that the Koch brothers and others in their network of like-minded millionaires and billionaires have used over the years to push their agenda while hiding the true motivations behind it.
The book examines the influence of several of the country's wealthiest conservative donors, but it pays particular attention to the activities of Charles and David Koch, who have organized their network and spearheaded the group's political efforts. "Few had waged a more relentless or more effective assault on Americans' belief in government," Mayer wrote of the Kochs.
A key element of the Koch brothers' strategy is influencing the media. Through media, they have advanced their political and ideological goals and attacked those who stand in their way. The Koch brothers and their network have paid conservative media figures to promote their message, bankrolled front groups that run aggressive anti-environmental media campaigns, and even created their own right-wing "news" outlets. Meanwhile, they've garnered some favorable mainstream media coverage by tightly controlling reporter access to their summits and other events, while attacking and otherwise intimidating journalists who dare to shine a light on their activities.
Here is how the Koch brothers and their network have infiltrated the media:
Buying A Conservative Media Echo Chamber
Creating Their Own Media Outlets
Funding Front Groups That Run Deceptive Media Campaigns
Tightly Controlling Reporter Access To Their Events And Activities
Intimidating Journalists Who Seek To Uncover Their True Agenda
"What have conservatives done for the poor and middle class the last 40 years"?
Chuckie's too CHICKEN to answer, of course. BWAACK, Buck, Buck, Buckaww!
Everybody knows this fact, as well as the answer.
Conservatism stands for rule by the economic elites and by one-party dictatorship, if they can't buy both major parties. And they are almost there.
Conservatism stands for voter rights suppression.
Conservatism stands for permanent war.
Conservatism stands for permanent war on drugs.
Conservatism stands for theocracy over democracy.
Conservatism stands for cutting food stamps so the rich get more tax cuts.
Conservatism stands for suppressing women's reproductive rights.
Conservatism stands for demonizing all who dissent.
Conservatism stands for the destruction of unions and labor rights, and ultimately the middle class.
Conservatism stands for the destruction of constitutional taxation, regulation of commerce, and the general welfare.
Conservatism stands for the Golden Rule. Those with the most gold, make the rules.
This pretty much sums it up.
And lest we forget, Conservatism stands for surrendering the government to those who say "government is the problem", and then proceed to launch wars of aggression while building a police/surveillance state.
Proving that government is the problem, when held hostage by conservatives bent on the destruction of government of, by, and for the people.
Duyba,
Only a fool would continue to post the things you do in an attempt to change what I know to be the truth
You see Duyba, I am a conservative and I do not believe nor live any of the lies you posted at 3:24!
If you are posting in order to prevent fellow liberal, socialists progressive Democrats from investigating on their own what conservative stands for, then you are treating them as if they don't have the ability to think on their own. How very elite of you. How very totalitarian of you, how authorative of you.
As for your question
Two things
That you have copied my question shows how you lack originality
I am going to do what you do, not answer you because as you one said, the question is loaded, your favorite kind.
By the way, how do you feel about educational vouchers for poor and middle class parents?
Anonymous 3:02 PM:
Do you have any opinions or ideas to share? Because all you seem to do is come here and call everyone idiots. Any thoughts on the topic of this thread?
Instead of coming here to call everyone an idiot? Please wipe the spittle from your chin. We can all see it.
And NEWSFLASH! This just in: "Grandpa Chuck Just The Facts Morre" will NOT be answering questions!
Probably too busy pouring coffee 6:00-12:00 for the USO with Sore Loser.
"Just google it!"
Doncha LOVE how Chucky can copy Wikipedia word for word, remove the citations and post it as his own words?
Like I said, no original thoughts from conservatives.
And STILL Chuckie is too much of a COWARD (another typical conservative trait) to answere a simple logical question.
WHAT HAVE CONSERVATIVES DONE FOR THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS THE LAST 40 YEARS?
If you guys are so great, it should not be tough to answer. Like I said, I'll make a LIST of Liberal accomplishments in that area as soon as you answer.
Conservatism also stands for doing everything possible to bring the country down, and then BLAMING others for it.
Sad, the last 3 posts are from mind numbed liberal socialist progressive democrats.
Thinking produced by group speech.
Gee, if Chuckie disagrees with my list of what Con-servatism stands for, he certainly blew the opportunity to set us straight.
Poor little infuriated propagandist...he can only spew hate and lies, hoping to distract, deflect, and deny his way from the truth.
So just what does Chuckie "know to be the truth"?
He's afraid to answer.
"What have conservatives done for the poor and middle class the last 40 years"?
What does this trigger in his narrow little mind? His primitive reptilian brain is signalling "Fight or flight", from this one little question.
He has chosen flight. Just like a cartoon chicken.
BWAACK! Buck, Buck, Buckaaww!
“We’ve got 11 more months of watching damage to this country. From a lawless and faithless president who is eager to travel to Cuba, but is unwilling even to show up at the funeral of Justice Antonin Scalia.” Ted Cruz
Yes, Obama ruined the perfectly wonderful world Bush left us, amirite?
"Faithless"?
Wait a minute. Now Obama is an atheist? I thought he's a Muslim... "Good Republicans" have told us so.
Maybe Chuckie can clear this up for us, for he is the only one who knows the truth.
All these assholes do is lie. Anything any fanatic pulls from his ass will serve as the "truth of the minute" for these jerks.
What a cult of pure hate and ignorance.
"Group speech" like your heroes at Fox entertainment?
WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID TO ANSWER MY SIMPLE, LOGICAL QUESTION?
Buck, buck, buckawww!!!
Maybe we should call you "Cluckie"!
Hey Cluckie!
What are you going to do now that your hero Clive Bundy is going to get married to a guy named "Bubba" in federal prison?
If education is so important to the poor, why do liberals oppose education vouchers for the poor, allowing them to access the same education as that of the 1% ?
If jobs are so important for the poor why has the black unemployment rate under Obama not gone down. Ever after 7 years budgets not balanced?
If jobs are so important to the poor, why did liberals applaud Obama's repeal off the Clinton sighed Wellffare Reform Act?
If Obama care was going to make health care affordable, ho come over 20 million still have not signed up ?
Buck buck bawwwk
We all know that the 3 Stooges of liberalism can't answer a single question presented to them?
Is Bill Clinton correct when he said the Sander's ( not the KFC Col.) socialist plan can't be afforded?
The Same Clinton that 2 of the Stooges bragged about his great economy?
Bawwk Buck buck bawl, projection much, lol HELL yes, it's all they can do other than put words in my mouth like Davy keeps trying to do,
How are we going to afford the Sander's ( not the Col) every thing is gonna be free?
Well Chuckie because we like PUBLIC education where they can't teach BULLSHIT like religion. Private schools CAN.
Private schools are also more expensive, so the TAX MONEY does not go as far.
Ask the GOP congress why certain things haven't been done. THEY control the money AND have to write the Budget. The POTUS only makes suggestions. Maybe if the rich would actually pay what they OWE on ALL of their income, we would not have a budget shortfall. As it is, Obama has managed to pay off Bush's debt.
Obama didn't "Repeal" the law, he just tweaked it to give individual states more flexibility. That one took me 30 seconds to research. Go figure you never did. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/17/is-obama-gutting-welfare-reform/
20 million more than likely live in red states that don't allow the exchanges.
Bill Clinton is campaigning for Hillary. Yeah, he's going to promote her opponent. As soon as one or the other gets nominated they will be allies, like both sides always do.
And NOTHING will be "free" under Sanders, we just put our taxes to better use.
Now, CLUCKLES. I have answered ALL your questions.
Answer mine you spinless coward. Or show everyone how afraid you are of the answer.
Your desparation is already showing, you KNOW you are trapped. LOL.
Dave and Mozart arguing with an idiot. No better proof how stupid and lonely you two idiots are sitting in your parent's basements typing out your idiocy. Laughable!
Mozart, vouchers are used to go to any school, so filled with hate you are that you would deny the poor the very thing they need the most, the best education available.
Speaks volumes of what fills your liberal heart, hate.
5 things liberal, progressive socialist democrats will never understand.
When Bernie says "free" he doesn't actually mean free.
You are not entitled to someone else's hard earned money, never.
You can not tax a nation into prosperity.
The "rich" are NOT responsible for your financial situation, you are.
Socialism will destroy the innovation that made. America great.
Do you really believe under Obama we are now in less national debt that we were in 2008?
For someone who calls me a coward, it sure seems strange that you are afraid to face the world without Big Govt funding you.
Dave and Mozart arguing with an idiot. No better proof how stupid and lonely you two idiots are sitting in your parent's basements typing out your idiocy. Laughable!
Thanks. So glad you are entertained, sport. ;-)
Anonymous 8:35 AM:
Please wipe the spittle from your chin.
So everyone here is an idiot except you? Please provide a link to your blog so we can all read it and enjoy your words of wisdom.
.
And also, "Anonymous 8:35 AM" Dave and Mozart make excellent arguments backed up with FACTS. Same as (the real) James Hansen. So far, your only contribution has been to act like a 7th grader.
So far, your only contribution has been to act like a 7th grader.
Agreed. Anon is very much like Chuckie isn’t he?
Chuckie has no answers and must lie. He is STILL unable to answer a simple question, and yet thinks he knows what he’s talking about. Let’s examine his arrogant stupidity on what we will “never understand”.
When Bernie says "free" he doesn't actually mean free.
Yes he does. Free public education has been an important right and part of America’s progress. As with health care, many other countries have more rights than we do.
You are not entitled to someone else's hard earned money, never.
“Hard earned”, like spoiled rich aristocratic kids like Trumps and Kochs? Now they whine that 5 million isn’t enough tax free money to inherit from Daddy Warbucks. ‘Hard earned” like Wall Street banks ripping off clients? “Hard earned” like hedge fund managers who never break a sweat? ‘Hard earned” like no-bid government contracts for cronies like Halliburton who then offshore their offices to dodge taxes?
You can not tax a nation into prosperity.
You cannot have a prosperous nation without Constitutional taxation, regulation of commerce and providing for the general welfare. Republicans have dragged us down with their war on our constitution.
The "rich" are NOT responsible for your financial situation, you are.
So unions and minimum wage earners caused the Wall Street crisis and Great Bush Recession that decimated our pensions and retirement accounts? Nope. It was entirely caused by actions perpetrated by the rich and their puppet politicians.
Socialism will destroy the innovation that made. America great.
Democracy, freedom, and abundant natural resources made America great. Capitalism failed spectacularly in 1929 and 2008, thanks to de-regulating and tax-cutting Republicans.
Thanks for playing, Chuckie!
As I said, liberal progressives socialists democrats will never understand.
For someone who calls me a coward, it sure seems strange that you are afraid to face the world without Big Govt funding you.
... says "Chuck" while collecting social security payments. How else would he be able to afford all those cheetos and diet soda?
Stop those SS payments to Chuck immediately. If he wants money, I understand his local DunkinDonuts is hiring.
Wow, the dialogue here has gone beyond childish. That said, regarding the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice...it amazes me that O'Connell is too big a jackass to realize that the Amerikan People did have a say in the selection of the replacement for that son of Satan Antonin Scalia. As Elizabeth Warren points out, the People elected Obama for FOUR more years, not 3 years and 2 months. Now in his last year in office a vacancy arises in the Supreme Court which needs to be filled ASAP. The Court needs nine justices to properly function. To fail to fill the vacancy timely is a complete derogation of duty on the part of Congress. Once again these so called " leaders " show nothing but immaturity, ignorance and stupidity. It should be embarrassing to them but they are so deluded they think they are clever. They make a mockery of our country on a world stage and show no shame whatsoever. What assholes they really are...
I'm sorry I meant McConnell of course. Getting a bit senile at my advancing age !!
G.O.P. Warns Obama Against Doing Anything for Next Three Hundred and Forty Days
BY ANDY BOROWITZ
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a television appearance on Sunday, the leading Senate Republican warned President Obama “in no uncertain terms” against doing anything in his remaining three hundred and forty days in office.
“The President should be aware that, for all intents and purposes, his term in office is already over,” Mitch McConnell said on Fox News. “It’s not the time to start doing things when you have a mere eight thousand one hundred and sixty hours left.”
While acknowledging that the President has eleven months remaining in the White House, McConnell said that he and the President “have an honest disagreement about how long eleven months is.”
“The President believes it is almost one year,” he said. “I believe it is almost zero years. I’m not a mathematician, but I believe I am right.”
As for how Obama should spend his remaining time in office, McConnell said, “If the President has trouble doing nothing, we will be more than happy to show him how it is done.”
More McConnell gibberish. Boy what a total jerk. He IS good at doing nothing though that's for sure !! Does this guy have beyond an 8th grade education ? Seriously !! I'm sorry I didn't mean to insult 8th graders !! He is an embarrassment to Amerika though, I'm sad to say...
What is really sad is when satire and reality appear so much alike. That's when we know we are really in trouble...
Ellis, comedians and satirists have a tough time nowadays. Reality is comedy. Just watch the GOP debates. It's like listening to 7th graders, or like reading Chuck's comments here.
Lee Atwater apologized on his deathbed, but the damage is done.
If I were on SS you could stop sending my checks, just send me one check for all the money I and my employers paid into my account plus 3% compound interest, tax free. It's is my money, I earned it, I've already paid taxes once on it. Send me the check!
Cheetos? Project much?
Ellis,
Have you read my posts on the topic of this thread? Have you noticed how the Three Stooges of Liberalism could not deal with that? How they have done nothing but swear and defame me and even my family?
Now I'll say what I've said before, Congress can not stop any President from nominating a canadate for a seat on the SCUSA. They can how ever do as past Democrate controlled Senates have done, I.E. Filibuster, or "Bork" the nominee.
Like it or not that is what they will do. The business about Obama can not nominate is pure window dressing.
The real battle begins with the hearings.
"Project much?"
Aww, Chuckie learned a new word from all my posts. Too bad he still can't understand the meaning.
Chuck I've read more than enough of your ignorant dribble. This Congress has been the WORST in our history. Spoiled brats doing the bidding of the oligarchy in the guise of " governing ". Give me a break !! Anyone who passed 11th grade social studies knows that our so called government has become a sick joke. Neither party has the needs and interests of the People in mind, only the needs and interests of the 1%. As Bob Weir now sings in Throwing Stones " You can buy the whole damn government " which is so true. Funny how blatant bribery is allowed by the 1% who have stolen so much from the rest of us that they have plenty of money to " lobby " with ( wink wink !! )
Chuck had thousands of dollars deducted from his paycheck. For thirty years he was the spokesperson for the Institute for American Confrontation Integrity. Now he's retired and ashamed of collecting SS.
Goddamn socialists took his money!
Soros!!!
Cluckie,
VOuchers arent NEEDED for PUBLIC schools, only for PRIVATE sholls requiring tuition. PRIVATE shools can teach anything they want. PUBLIC schools must stick to FACTS. You know SCIENCE and HISTORY over RELIGION.
Now answer my question you COWARD.
You hate "big government" let's disband the military.
I was always taught that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Cluckie has must have aquired a Backhoe
He's too much of a COWARD to answer a simple logical questin, but he expects us to answer his nonsensical, Glenn Beck inspired, rants.
Mozart you simply don't get it.
Your question that you feel so important, is totally without any merit.
Totally!
That you do not understand that is an example of the blinders worn today by liberal progressive socialist democrats.
I know now without a doubt that you as a member of the Liberal Three Stooges can not nor will you even try to grasp the five things I posted for you to consider.
It really is sad. I truly wish for you the happiness and security you so look to Big Goverment for. I wish you would understand that what you seek does not come by taking from someone else.
Well at least Chuckie refrained from the amazingly coincidental words, just seconds apart, of Just the Facts AND Chuck Morre a couple months ago, "You are a useless scum bag!"
nor will you even try to grasp the five things I posted for you to consider.
This is entirely false. I addressed, and shredded, his far Right cult talking points. He refused to offer any rebuttal, so he lost the argument.
"What have the Republicans done for the poor and middle class?"
Your question that you feel so important, is totally without any merit.
Totally!
"Without merit", only to him, because Chuckie is too chicken to face reality, not to mention too stupid and arrogant to answer a simple question that goes to the heart, or the cold space where the heart should be, in con-servative ideology.
Lol Tommy Degan,
Senator Liz Waren lives in a $5.4M mansion, claimed "Native American" status to score a Harvard gig paying $350,000 to teach one class, and now lectures us that "the system is rigged to benefit the rich"!
What a hypocrite and liar Liz "I'm native american because I have high cheekbones" Warren is.
Keep drinking the socialist/marxist kool aid Tommy!
Lets all listen to what Bernie Sanders has to say. The big blowhard was a fucking bum until the age of 40 when he became mayor in VT.
Cluckie,
Explain how asking what your heroes have done the poor and middle class is "without merit".
But the fact that they have only pandered to rich white people the last 40 years makes it understandable that you would be too FRIGHTENED and EMBARRASSED to answer.
But thanks for playing, I knew you'd WEASLE out with some piss poor excuse.
I answered you questions promptly and HONESTLY. You CHICKENED out. Go figure.
Bok Bok Bakawww!!!
Jokie badumski (Boy troll)
Take your bullshit about Warren Back to your hero Limbaugh and tell him Liberals are just too educated to buy that crapola.
Mozart
Your question,
I have and am not doing it again
Grow up
Think about the 5 things I shared with you
Tell us which of those things are wrong
What do you believe is best for the economy of a country?
People keeping more of the money they earn to spend as the please
Or
Govt taking more income from those who work in taxes thereby limiting what they can spend their earnings on?
Do you realize that our govt spends more on SS, Medicare and Medicaid than they do for the military budget?
Do you think there are country's and people who want to do us harm? What part of the military budget would you cut and still have protection from our enemy's?
When did you answer my question? Can you point me to it please?
Until then you can take YOUR questions and shove them up your Trump.
Excuse me while I take a Chuck and wipe my Morre LOL.
You curse the darkness because you will not see the light
Cluckie is wruting bumper stickers again. Probably because he's too much of a pussy to answer a simple question.
BOK BOK Bacaww!!!!
Cluckie claims to have answered my question. I went back through all the posts and it turns out he didn't even try, He CHICENED out by whining about ne "yelling" (Poor little frightened lamb)and saying it was "without merit".
But he DUCKED the question like the FOUL mouthed CHICKEN that he is.
BOK BOK BACAAAWWW!!!
Hey if Duyba can use that to answer my question, so can I.
Don't like it much when liberal progressive socialist democrat tactics are used against you.
BTW, how does it feel to be supporting ms Clinton these days.
Hey if Duyba can use that to answer my question, so can I.
More false equivalence.
"What have the Republicans done for the poor and middle class?"
Pretty simple and straight forward. Unlike Chuckie's inane, "What liberal policy designed to help the poor and middle class has been so successful that it is no longer needed?"
When the same question was turned towards him, he dismissed it, like the coward he is.
"What conservative policy designed to help the poor and middle class has been so successful that it is no longer needed?"
If his question was valid, so are these:
What conservative war on drugs policy designed to help the US has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
What military program has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
What law enforcement agency has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
What fire department has been so successful that it is no longer needed?
LOL!! Right. What a stupid way to phrase a question.
So by his words, HIS question was without merit. Or...are you ready?....IOKIYAR.
He has no answers. He is a con-servative and Republican.
We know his stand on issues:
Conservatism stands for rule by the economic elites and by one-party dictatorship, if they can't buy both major parties. And they are almost there.
Conservatism stands for voter rights suppression.
Conservatism stands for permanent war.
Conservatism stands for permanent war on drugs.
Conservatism stands for theocracy over democracy.
Conservatism stands for cutting food stamps so the rich get more tax cuts.
Conservatism stands for suppressing women's reproductive rights.
Conservatism stands for demonizing all who dissent.
Conservatism stands for the destruction of unions and labor rights, and ultimately the middle class.
Conservatism stands for the destruction of constitutional taxation, regulation of commerce, and the general welfare.
Conservatism stands for the Golden Rule. Those with the most gold, make the rules.
Current events and history have shown:
"True conservatives" have opposed every advance in racial equality, union rights, and voting rights throughout history. "True conservatives" have opposed every effort to implement constitutional taxation, regulation of commerce and health care provisions for the general welfare.
But, I have an open mind. Maybe I'm mistaken. If only Chuckie would answer a simple question I might respect his position. But he arrogantly refuses to engage in fair discussion. He's not even trying to stand by, or expound on, his extremist ideology, all he can do is spew hate.
Why?
IOKIYAR after all.
Thank you, Anonymous 1:39 PM for your valuable contribution to the dialogue. Do you have your own blog we can visit? We need more of your words of wisdom!
Mozart,
Even though you are not the sharpest pencil in the box but do read 6 newspapers every day, keep up the good fight against the ConservaTARDs!
We need to change the name of the "Democratic Party" to the "Free Stuff for Everybody Party"! Then we will win every election!
AMIRITE?
James Hansen (Boy troll) I noticed you provided no evidence proving me wrong.
Let us know when you have an original thought. We won't hold our breath.
Cluckie, let us know when you grow a pair. Jeez, even HITLER had ONE.
College is free? This means the builders who built the school didn't get paid, the utility company's don't charge the school for their product and all the college employees don't receive an income?
Of course not, none of that is free, someone pays for this, therefore free college is not free. What liberal progressive socialist democrats want is for some one else to pay for it, just not them.
Does Obama daughters attend a public school? Why should only the well off attend their school?
With vouchers that will happen.
Cluckles is once again off into the ridiculous. Poor, poor sad little man.
Too frightened to admit he's been backing the wrong horse, too stupid to even make an argumant in his own favor.
Pathetic, and so obviously desparate.
"Elementary and High School is free? This means the builders who built the school didn't get paid, the utility companies don't charge the school for their product and all the elementary and high school employees don't receive an income?
Also, there was a fire down the street. The firetrucks arrived quickly and thank God they put out the fire before anyone was hurt. But I'm confused. Why didn't I see the homeowner writing a check before the hoses came on?
This morning, a weird-looking guy in a blue uniform left some envelopes in my "mail box" - What the fuck is up with that? I tried chasing after him with my credit card, but he got in his truck and drove away.
There's a building near the free elementary school in my town. Big sign out front: Librury or Liberry... Library. Something like that. I see kids going in and out all day. Some of them are black kids! And they're walking out with books they haven't paid for... I called the police but they just laughed at me. I guess those "librarians" or whatever they're called don't receive an income."
(The above is an excerpt from a speech Chuck Morre gave for the DumbFucks Society.)
Anonymous 8:32,
Sounds like gol danged soshulizm to me!
Soros!!!
We will achieve our utopia when everybody has a job in the government like in Greece!
commenter 10:29:
What does it say about your political views that you steal other commenters' names? What does it say about your political party that Donald fucking Trump is your front runner?
I thought conservatives were supposed to be the grownups. Did you actually watch the last republican debate?
SoreLoserChuckMorreJustTheFacts, are you really the party of grownups? And liberals are supposed to be childish? Go back and read all your posts again, all the way back to 2009. Then take a long look in the mirror. You are a sad, pathetic troll.
Drone the Pope! Trump 2016
Just I predicted, when faced with the truth that "free" is not free, liberal, progressive socialist democrats revert to swearing, name calling asking nonsensically questions, and holding their breath till they turn blue.
Anything to avoid dealing with the reality that what they are trying to sell doesn't work as they claim it will.
So sad.
Look in the mirror "Chuck"
Take a nice long look. And then think about what you've been doing on this blog all these years.
'Free is not free." This is "Truth"? Elementary education is free to children, is it not?
Damn commanism! For Chuckie, War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.
..name calling asking nonsensically questions, and holding their breath till they turn blue.
Anything to avoid dealing with the reality that what they are trying to sell doesn't work as they claim it will.
"MORRE" Projection.
Asking what the GOP has done for the poor and middle class is the least nonsensical question asked here.
Unlike Chuckie's inane, "What liberal policy designed to help the poor and middle class has been so successful that it is no longer needed?"
When the same question was turned towards him, he dismissed it, like the coward he is.
"What conservative policy designed to help the poor and middle class has been so successful that it is no longer needed?"
Chuckie, the cartoon chicken. What a hoot. Or should I say, Bwaaack! Buck, buck, buckaaww!
Chuck/JustTheFacts/SoreLoser's aliases are belligerent and numerous.
hey anon @2:42
what is the name of your blog? I hear crickets ...
you don't have the balls to tell us the name. amirite?
Anon, you say "I don't allow lying, idiot, fighting assholes on my blog."
And yet you're the blog host??? But you're a lying, idiot, fighting asshole. Thanks for not posting a link!
Toobin at the New Yorker has some interesting things to say about Scalia:
Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy. Fortunately, he mostly failed. Belligerent with his colleagues, dismissive of his critics, nostalgic for a world where outsiders knew their place and stayed there, Scalia represents a perfect model for everything that President Obama should avoid in a successor. The great Justices of the Supreme Court have always looked forward; their words both anticipated and helped shape the nation that the United States was becoming. Chief Justice John Marshall read the new Constitution to allow for a vibrant and progressive federal government. Louis Brandeis understood the need for that government to regulate an industrializing economy. Earl Warren saw that segregation was poison in the modern world. Scalia, in contrast, looked backward.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/antonin-scalia-looking-backward
So my questions are inane and yours aren't DD, how very subjective of you. But we have all grown used to your way or the highway style of discussion. You know you are wrong but such is your rage towards anyone to the right of you (the majority of Americans) that you continue to lie about them in an effort to satisfy what ever is lacking in the world were you live
Free is not free, someone pays for free education. If that were not the case there would be no need for the taxes that fund schools. Truth and reality bare that to be a fact. Just as it a fact that most of the children can no longer effort to go to school were the presidents daughters attend because he did away with vouchers in Washingon DC.
Do as I say, not as I do?
Only in the dream world of the liberal progressive socialist democrat would the reality of " free" education be ignored.
Coming up next, a new wave of rage, hate and swearing towards me because I've posted what I have.
Only in the dream world of the liberal progressive socialist democrat would the reality of " free" education be ignored.
Ignored?? MORRE Projection. Amirite? ;-)
Free education is absolutely a reality, and available to every American child. Chuckie hates this as some form of evil socialism. Yes, even Chuckie probably received a free public education, unless he was sent to a church school. But the fact is he was entitled to a free public education.
Chuckie's ignorance and dishonesty calls free education reality a "dream world". Many civilized nations have free education from elementary through college.
"7 countries where Americans can study at universities, in English, for free (or almost free)"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/10/29/7-countries-where-americans-can-study-at-universities-in-english-for-free-or-almost-free/
Facts are facts, just not in Chuckie's cult of Con-servatism.
We know what Chuckie means. Education costs money. Tax money. That's the "socialism" he hates. Chuckie hates Constitutional taxes. Just as he hates Constitutional regulation of commerce and providing for the general welfare.
What it comes down to is Chuckie hates our Constitution, really. It gets in the way of Republicans and their owners.
Conservatives have resisted all Constitutional amendments that expanded voting rights to Blacks and women. Now they are actively restricting voter registration and access to polls. They are even eliminating offices where people need to register or get an ID that isn't a concealed carry permit.
Now watch Chuckie call this post "rage, hate, and swearing".
LOL!!
Because it's Sunday, I'd like to offer this concept for consideration:
Christian socialism: a form of religious socialism based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Many Christian socialists believe capitalism to be idolatrous and rooted in greed, which some Christian denominations consider a mortal sin.
Can I hear an Amen?
The best part is watching how DESPARATE Cluckie is. He refuses to answer the simplest of questions, and then WHINES when we refuse to take him seriously. Of course his questioins are s ridiculous it's no wonder.
Poor, poor pathetic little man.
"Do the PRESIDENTS daughters go to PUBLIC school" like the Secret service would allow it. I'm sure that if they did, they would. Michell planyed a vegetable garden outside the White house. CLEARLY they are real people. UNlke the Bush's "trust fund babies" who got drunk (like daddy) and got away with it.
So one pays taxes to pay for schools? In some states sales taxes are used to fund their schools
When someone else pays for something and you don't, it is not free!
I forgot to list how Duyba would put words into my mouth as he tries to deflect from the basic truth that education is not free if someone is paying for it. Nothing I said implied that I was for or against taxes, just stating the one of truths that as I first poster liberal progressives socialists democrats will never understand
by their actions they have only proved me correct.
Mozart, why should the poor black kids who live in Washingon DC be kept from attending school where the presidents daughters attend? They could have before he stopped school vouchers in DC
Why does he hate poor black kids do much?
One of the many things I've come to learn about my liberal progressive socialist Democrate neighbor from Iowa, when he is desperate and backed into a corner, he plays the GWB card.
As for Duyba, he plays the religion, Christian card.
TaDa!
Cluckie,
First off, it's DEMOCRAT (no final E)
Second, have you ever had an original thought?
Using "desparate" is sad (and desparate) enough, but then using the tired old "played the *** card" is just pathetic.
Maybe back to third grade for you. Twice was clearly not enough.
And I am PROUD to be the thnigs you described me as (DEMOCRATIC Socialist actually, like Bernie, and as the founders intended) so your attempt at insult fell pathetically short, as usual.
Sad sad man you are.
I have explained why vouchers are bad EVERYWHERE several times. I'm not answering any of your STUPID questions until you answer MY simple LOGICAL questin.
WHAT HAVE CONSERVATIVES DONE FOR THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS THE LAST 40 YEARS?
You CLAIMED to ahve answered but all I found was "lower taxes" and that was not for, nor did it help anyone but the uber rich.
Mozart, why should the poor black kids who live in Washingon DC be kept from attending school where the presidents daughters attend? They could have before he stopped school vouchers in DC
Why does he hate poor black kids so much?
I have to agree with Chuck on this. Where is the social justice when Obama's kids get to go to the better schools in DC, and the poor black kids go to the stinky public DC schools with unqualified affirmative action Teachers? AMIRITE? Martin Luther King must be rolling over in his grave at this injustice!
Mozart
I'm tired of you spouting the party line. If you were to break out of its grip on your thought process you would know that vouchers would need not be used for your hatred religious schools. There are plenty of secular schools that could used by the poor to provide their children a superior education and the stepping stone out of poverty.
And if the best education in an area is a religious one, why would you care about that over the superior education they would receive? Do you hate religion so much that you deny the poorest of us the best thing they could get to improve their lives? To satisfy your hate, your bias?
I thought liberalism was about helping the oppressed, and the poor, you are more concerned about them being taught in a school that has beliefs you do not hold. Why is that Mozart? Why do YOU hate the poor so much?
Is liberal policy the only ones you would sanction for helping the poor and middle class?
Do you know if it was a republican or a democrat who wanted the voucher idea to be used? Look into that for us and tell us what you discover
he tries to deflect from the basic truth that education is not free if someone is paying for it.
This lie is to deflect from the truth, that Chuckie refused to address, I clearly stated:
We know what Chuckie means. Education costs money. Tax money. That's the "socialism" he hates. Chuckie hates Constitutional taxes. Just as he hates Constitutional regulation of commerce and providing for the general welfare.
What it comes down to is Chuckie hates our Constitution, really. It gets in the way of Republicans and their owners.
These points are left undisputed, and in fact reinforced by his deflection from every issue.
And if the best education in an area is a religious one, why would you care about that over the superior education they would receive?
Right, because the best education teaches men lived 900 years, evolution is fiction, the world is 6,000 years old and there is a global conspiracy of evil climate scientists.
THAT kind of Republican con-servative "superior education", amirite?
LOL!
Education costs, therefore it can not be called free.
Thanks Duyba, glad you finally get it
The rest of your post is pure drivel and further attempts at putting words into my mouth.
Voucher for PRIVATE schools make them PUBLIC schools. Plus, like I said, PRIVATE schools are more expensive than PUBLIC schools which is WHY poor kids can't afford them That being said, for every PRIVATE school (for PROFIT BTW) that takes TAXPAYER MONEY (and getting their hands on that bountry is what this is REALLY about)TWO (probably more) PUBLIC schools will lose funds. Do you think it will be the schools in rich White neighborhhods that will suffer? NO. It will be the inner city schools that need the funds the most.
So your heroes get to win on two levels. They get the taxpayer money and they depriive "those people" of an education, which leads to poverty, crime, drug abuse, and best of all, the conservatives able to BLAME it all on Liberals.
Get it yet?
Now, ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTION YOU GUTLESS COWARD.
Education costs, therefore it can not be called free.
Of course it can. It is free to all children. If it costs them it is not free. If they have free access to education, it is free. Public school education is free. Private school education is not. Get it yet?
I'd hate to have to explain relativity to such narrow minds.
Mozart
You kiss your kids, and your wife with that mouth?
Or have your loved ones left you due to your anger problem and have nothing to do with you?
Good luck neighbor to the north, you really need it.
Duyba
You know as well as all who read this that someone pays for public education as someone would under Bernies plan for "free" college, and that is the same in other counties that have "free" college.
Since someone pays, it's not free, period.
Not debating the cost or the level of taxes paid for education, that is not the issue. The truth is that what is free to one is costing another, therefore can not be called free. If it were truly free, then no one would gave to pay.
Oh, BTW, free "access" is not the issue here, so you can stop trying to frame this as such. The issue is free i.e. Cost. Calling it free when it is not does not make it free. Sorry.
The truth is that what is free to one is costing another, therefore can not be called free. If it were truly free, then no one would gave to pay.
And there it is. So it IS free to one, isn't it? Nobody said education is without cost to taxpayers, did they? NO! It's called civilization.
Free in this case means without cost or payment from the user, the students in public education. "Without cost or payment from the user" is a definition of free.
I already said education costs tax money. We don't tax students for education; they get it free.
What is so frickin' impossible to comprehend here?
Lol Duyba lol, if the parents pay for their child's education is it still "free"? I think not because the income spent for the education reduces the income the parents could spend on the child for other things, thereby costing the child.
Taxing from one to pay for another does not make it, whatever "it is" ( my apologies to former First Lady) some pays. If it were free, no one would pay.
It's not free cause someone paid for it.
Like I said to start with there are 5 things liberal progressive socialist democrats will never understand and you have continued to prove my point .
We do tax students as you have been so fast to point out, even the poor pay taxes, so even they pay for. What the get " Free".
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody pays.
And Sander's is not saying free to the user is he? He is saying free.
Not just a bit misleading, but I believe you and I have stumbled on the basis of the social welfare safety net. The message to the poor is " vote for me and it will be free" when in reality It's only free to the user cause someone else pays for it. To which you in the past have countered with, not true the poor pay taxes as well.
Maybe a more honest promise would be " vote for me and I take income from others so you don't have to pay for it"?
You guys are persistent. I'll hand you that.
Repetitive to the point of maddening... but, persistent.
You're not going to convince each other and no one else is listening.
It would appear to me you are all trying to convince yourselves of your own talking points more than anything else...
It's not free cause someone paid for it.
The public, not "someone", paid for it. It is free to the student. Can't grasp a simple fact, we see.
Chuckie is being deliberately obtuse. Children of poor parents who pay no property taxes for public schools get a free public education. As they should.
So now Chuckie wants to disagree with a dictionary definition and replace it with his own.
How authoritarian. Now he wants to preach what is "more honest"?
What Chuckie can't get through his thick skull is liberals want jobs for every able person. If there are not enough jobs, then we need public safety nets to feed them until they get a job. That is the evil socialism he hates.
A major reason there are not enough jobs, is un-patriotic Capitalists have forced Americans to compete with third world workers for the jobs they used to have here.
The message has never been "vote for me and get stuff free", it used to be government of, by, and for the people, not just taxpayers, and the rich, and their corporations.
But that era is dead. Now it is fast becoming government of, by, and for the rich. Cui Bono?
Representation is no longer fair when corporate money is "free speech".
I wonder if Chuckie can fathom the fact corporations get "free stuff" too. They often pay zero taxes, yet they are given incentives and special considerations, and use our infrastructure and legal system...for free.
AND they off-shore jobs on top of that!
Want honesty? "Vote Republican, and reward the servants of mammon with tax cuts, suppress voting, de-regulate Wall Street, cut environmental regulations, destroy labor rights, and cut food stamps as they force citizens to drink lead in their water."
And 99% of Americans will pay dearly for this destruction of democracy and prosperity.
Republicans. Don't. Care.
Just ask Chuckie the Republican cartoon chicken.
Anonymous 1:30.
Thank you for the false equivalence. Nobody is trying to convince the troll of anything, just pointing out the lies, deceptions, dishonesty and rejection of fair discourse.
The troll is not here to convince anyone. He is here to antagonize and propagandize.
You can't see this?
Come on, Duyba, face it, the public is made up of individuals, not faceless groups but people like you and me. And you and me both pay for someone else's education
As far as chicken shit anonymous adding its uninvited two cents to our conservation, you said in this case etc, fine that's your definition,, but it does not mean or support that education does not costs. If it costs it can not be free. So someone is paying. The kids parents, their neighbors, their cousins, etc. if it costs it can not be free.
Tell you what, when your school tax bill comes due tell the state ( sorry I don't know how MI pays for its public education, income tax, property tax sales tax) you don't have to pay because public education is free, it costs nothing, so why should you have to pay?
In the finally analysis Sander's promise should be " free to you, as someone else will pay for your college"' instead of what he is promising, i.e. Free. He does that and I have no issue with his promise because that is factual and honest. Can you agree he should be making that his promise?
"Chuck Morre" since you're so brave, please tell us your real name. And I don't mean "Just The Facts" or "Sore Loser" either.
Pay your taxes, like a good citizen, asshole.
And remember... there's a reason you were tossed like a bag of dirty laundry on the doorstep of the orphanage. You weren't wanted. Just like you're not wanted here.
Look, Chuck, everybody gets your point that education costs money. It's weird if you really think we don't understand you. Moonie Town Gazette weird. (Conservative Washington Times)
Now try this concept: The public pays taxes for services from the government.
Specifically the government, not "someone", pays for education. The public, including you and me, pays indirectly. Nobody is disagreeing here, correct?
It is free to the student.
YOU have even agreed with this definition of the word, then overruled it by dictate.
The truth is that what is free to one is costing another, therefore can not be called free. If it were truly free, then no one would gave to pay.
And there it is. If education is free to students, then it is free to students. Feel free to call it public education. That is the more accurate term. But it is still free to students.
You would have an argument only if we argued for what you call a "truly free" education.
Where have we ever mentioned "truly free" education? YOU limited the definition drastically to the point of adding a modifier.
And you and me both pay for someone else's education
In this case the correct use of pronouns is "you and I". What is your education level again?
Duyba, if it cost and some has to pay then it is not free.
If no one pays for it then it is free
Post a Comment
<< Home