Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

Burgold

By Burgold
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

killerbee99

killerbee99

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

  

Or the powers that be didn't want Booker to get the glory...or have the hassle of explaining why they would be punishing him.

Lean more towards this..... If not Cornyn wouldn't be getting all puffy chested about Booker not following Senate rules......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DogofWar1

DogofWar1

Posted
Posted
Just now, tshile said:

So dog and pony show for mr booker

 

got it.

Did someone tell Cornyn?

 

He seemed pretty certain rules were being broken as it was happening.

 

Either Grassley cleared docs and told NO ONE, or they are claiming retroactively the release was cleared.

 

Either way, I think its a stretch to say this was a Booker dog and pony show since Cornyn got so wrapped up in it too.

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

if someone on the right did this you'd all be laughing your asses off at him. but because it's booker it's a grand play to save our democracy.

Dang, this must keep the crows away really well.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

Either way, I think its a stretch to say this was a Booker dog and pony show since Cornyn got so wrapped up in it too.

me thinks you don't understand how dog and pony show works

;)

maybe i'm wrong for not having a higher level of respect for cornyn? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sacks 'n' Stuff

Sacks 'n' Stuff

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, tshile said:

you guys keep hiding behind this when no one here (that i'm aware of?) has tried to deny what their rational was. just that they were shortsighted and silly for not understanding how the rule change could/might/would be used against them. it was pointed out to them, they didn't care, now they cry about it and when you laugh at them for being so stupid they fall back on this "but you know why we did it!"

Who is "you guys?" Not everyone that doesn't agree with you is a Trump supporter... er, whatever I'm supposed to be. Haven't we already had this conversation about how much you hate it when people label you as part of a group because of your views but then you turn around and do the exact same thing?

 

I'm actually just a guy who thinks right is right and wrong is wrong. And I think it's bull**** that the GOP came to the table with a coordinated plan of unprecedented obstruction with the goal of "No accomplishments" meaning that intentionally we are not going to do one goddamn thing, irregardless of if it would help people or not, and "YOU GUYS" want to dog them for not rolling over and and taking it in the ass from the most corrupt, disgusting, collection of whatever the opposite of a lodestar is to ever disgrace a modern American political party.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Who is "you guys?" Not everyone that doesn't agree with you is a Trump supporter... er, whatever I'm supposed to be. Haven't we already had this conversation about how much you hate it when people label you as part of a group because of your views but then you turn around and do the exact same thing?

 

I'm actually just a guy who thinks right is right and wrong is wrong. And I think it's bull**** that the GOP came to the table with a coordinated plan of unprecedented obstruction with the goal of "No accomplishments" meaning that intentionally we are not going to do one goddamn thing, irregardless of if it would help people or not, and "YOU GUYS" want to dog them for not rolling over and and taking it in the ass from the most corrupt, disgusting, collection of whatever the opposite of a lodestar is to ever disgrace a modern American political party.

 

what the **** are you talking about?

 

"you guys" are the ones that every time it's mentioned that the dems changed the rules, come back with "but they did it because ..." as if that changes anything or addresses what the actual issue is, or as if it hasn't been said 100 times already, or as if someone is actually arguing different.

 

you know... the thing you said in the post i was quoting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sacks 'n' Stuff

Sacks 'n' Stuff

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, tshile said:

what the **** are you talking about?

 

"you guys" are the ones that every time it's mentioned that the dems changed the rules, come back with "but they did it because ..." as if that changes anything or addresses what the actual issue is, or as if it hasn't been said 100 times already, or as if someone is actually arguing different.

 

you know... the thing you said in the post i was quoting...

Fair enough.

 

And "you guys" are the ones who criticize the Dems for getting rid of filibuster even though it's been said 100 times already but don't want to discuss the GOP corruption and abuse of power that caused them to go that route, as if it doesn't matter and as if that isn't "the actual issue".

 

So it's like, GOP abuses it's power...

"We tried to tell you that this would happen"

"Well the reason it happened is because the GOP was abusing it's power"

"LALALA!!! Irrelevant. DEMS FAULT!!! LALALALALA...."

 

 

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sacks 'n' Stuff

Sacks 'n' Stuff

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

They. Didn't. Change. The. Rule. You. And. Kilmer. Keep. Talking. About.

This is true too and I know the response is going to be "well, Dems did it first". As if any of us thinks for one goddamn second that the GOP, after refusing to even consider an Obama SC nominee for nearly a year, was gonna go "Well we can't change the rule. Since Dems were so nice and rolled over for us while we intentionally obstructed everything they attempted, it just wouldn't be right because we obviously care so much about that."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

He's talking about the filibuster. Dems didn't change the rule for filibuster regarding SC nominees. The GOP did.

Ah.  Yes.  Makes more sense.

 

On that very narrow point that is correct.  The Dems only changed the rule for everything else.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

And "you guys" are the ones who criticize the Dems for getting rid of filibuster even though it's been said 100 times already but don't want to discuss the GOP corruption and abuse of power that caused them to go that route, as if it doesn't matter and as if that isn't "the actual issue".

 

Right except that I’ve criticized the gop heavily for that and cited it as the number one reason I’ve turned against them (#2 being their economic policies being proven to be totally incorrect and stupid)

 

so, no, not right at all but thanks for playing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bearrock

bearrock

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

so he got up and talked about maybe being expelled (when he wouldn't be) for releasing documents that were confidential (that weren't any longer) that talked about racial profiling (yet didn't, really, in fact it showed he desired a race-neutral security system)

 

if someone on the right did this you'd all be laughing your asses off at him. but because it's booker it's a grand play to save our democracy.

 

Are you saying that just because Booker's black he can't save democracy!?!?!?!  What are you racist!?!?!?!? Are you the root cause of all of our problems!?!?!?!?! AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Edit: I don't think Comic Sans stands out enough   

Edited by bearrock
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...