User Tag List

Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 8151617181920 LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 289

Thread: Is Russia Our Enemy?

  1. #256
    TOL Subscriber Foxfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,019
    Thanks
    738
    Thanked 938 Times in 598 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1775587
    Quote Originally Posted by ClimateSanity View Post
    Which does nothing to change the argument I'm making .
    There is no litmus test for nominations.
    http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post5074777
    http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4983551
    Elect a clown and you get a circus!
    if Trump had half a wit he would be a half wit if Trump had half a wit he would be a half wit if Trump had half a wit he would be a half wit if Trump had half a wit he would be a half wit

  2. #257
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    18,303
    Thanks
    1,338
    Thanked 4,343 Times in 3,266 Posts

    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxfire View Post
    There is no litmus test for nominations.
    well, there should be

    if the litmus paper turns red, for example, it means the person's blood is acidic

    and they're dead


    surely we don't want to nominate dead judges for the supreme court

  3. #258
    Over 3000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3,766
    Thanks
    616
    Thanked 845 Times in 482 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    862444
    Quote Originally Posted by ClimateSanity View Post
    Obama is the first president to nominate someone during an election.
    Quote Originally Posted by ClimateSanity View Post
    It's not the fact that Obama made a supreme Court nomination during an election year that's at issue.



    I'd like to thank @ok doser
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

  4. #259
    Over 5000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,313
    Thanks
    3,738
    Thanked 1,703 Times in 1,291 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    523647
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxfire View Post
    There is no litmus test for nominations.
    Trying to see how that is relevant to the point I'm making. There is good justification for not allowing a vote on Garland. There is no good justification for filibustering Gorsuch.


    Garland would have radically changed the balance of the court. Republicans have justification for blocking the nomination on that basis during an election year. If Scalia had died this year, and if Hillary had won and the Republicans lost control of the senate, they would have no justification for filibustering Garland since Hillary would have the right to change the court to her desire as long as Garland was judicially fit.

    When I say a president has the right or not the right to a particular nomination, I don't mean legal , constitutional right. I mean by way of protocol or precedent. The forcing of the senate to vote for a man ideologically equal to Ginsburg during an election year is unprecedented and they had every right to deny his chance for a vote based on the break in precendence.

  5. #260
    Over 5000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,313
    Thanks
    3,738
    Thanked 1,703 Times in 1,291 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    523647
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post



    I'd like to thank @ok doser


    I was wrong in my first statement. So? More useless mockery? Do you think that furthers your argument?

  6. #261
    Over 3000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3,766
    Thanks
    616
    Thanked 845 Times in 482 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    862444
    Quote Originally Posted by ClimateSanity View Post
    Trying to see how that is relevant to the point I'm making. There is good justification for not allowing a vote on Garland. There is no good justification for filibustering Gorsuch.


    Garland would have radically changed the balance of the court. Republicans have justification for blocking the nomination on that basis during an election year. If Scalia had died this year, and if Hillary had won and the Republicans lost control of the senate, they would have no justification for filibustering Garland since Hillary would have the right to change the court to her desire as long as Garland was judicially fit.

    When I say a president has the right or not the right to a particular nomination, I don't mean legal , constitutional right. I mean by way of protocol or precedent. The forcing of the senate to vote for a man ideologically equal to Ginsburg during an election year is unprecedented and they had every right to deny his chance for a vote based on the break in precendence.
    You were just saying that no president has seated or nominated during election years. Now you're suddenly so sure that none of those that were had been polarizing to the left or right? Do some reading on the issue you obviously had no clue about 10 minutes ago before you any further.
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WizardofOz For Your Post:

    Foxfire (April 11th, 2017),rexlunae (July 29th, 2017)

  8. #262
    Over 5000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,313
    Thanks
    3,738
    Thanked 1,703 Times in 1,291 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    523647
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    You were just saying that no president has seated or nominated during election years. Now you're suddenly so sure that none of those that were had been polarizing to the left or right? Do some reading on the issue you obviously had no clue about 10 minutes ago before you any further.
    I was wrong. Can you get off that? I was making a quick post and made a claim because it contradicted the message I thought I had either heard or read before. Evidently, I didn't understand exactly the point they were making at the time as I am usualy doing something else when I hear these things.

    I did do some reading after you pointed out my error. I realized the point I was making was mistaken, but I also knew that the reason I made the point in the first place was based on what I had read or heard before, and so I did some more research in non MSM sources and I found out the real reason for the refusal to allow a Garland vote.

    You respond by saying I may be wrong in whether a past candidate was just as polarizing in the past. The issue is not polarization; the issue is a clear voting record and record of past writings and or statements. Judicial nominees prior to the nomination of Bork were not terribly opposed in the past. The democrat need to control the ideological standing was not as great in the past as it has been since Reagan took office. Its been a metaphorical fight to the death since that point. Prior to the point, in my understanding of history, the fight for the ideological stand of the court was not as heated and the thought that the president had the right to choose whomever he saw as fit was the prevailing attitude.

  9. #263
    Over 5000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,313
    Thanks
    3,738
    Thanked 1,703 Times in 1,291 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    523647
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    You were just saying that no president has seated or nominated during election years. Now you're suddenly so sure that none of those that were had been polarizing to the left or right? Do some reading on the issue you obviously had no clue about 10 minutes ago before you any further.
    I make posts initially on instinct because there is limited time and my instincts are usually correct and I know if I am responding to a liberal, the narrative they are pushing is wrong even if they may be right in some technicality. They will make some statement that is correct but really doesn't make the point they are pushing. That's when I will fire off a shot really quickly just to get the conversation moving. You guys will jump on some technicality and show the error which then makes it easier for research to start instead of just starting from scratch. This is exactly what I did this time and it resulted in me successfully refuting your narrative which was the goal from my very first post.

  10. #264
    TOL Subscriber Foxfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,019
    Thanks
    738
    Thanked 938 Times in 598 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1775587
    Quote Originally Posted by ClimateSanity View Post
    I was wrong.
    Fair enough.
    http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post5074777
    http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4983551
    Elect a clown and you get a circus!
    if Trump had half a wit he would be a half wit if Trump had half a wit he would be a half wit if Trump had half a wit he would be a half wit if Trump had half a wit he would be a half wit

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Foxfire For Your Post:

    Town Heretic (July 28th, 2017)

  12. #265
    Over 5000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,313
    Thanks
    3,738
    Thanked 1,703 Times in 1,291 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    523647
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxfire View Post
    Fair enough.

    And you cut off the point of my post, which is typical. This is exactly what the MSM does. They mislead their audience by limiting pertinent information that contradicts their narrative.

  13. #266
    TOL Subscriber Foxfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,019
    Thanks
    738
    Thanked 938 Times in 598 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1775587
    Quote Originally Posted by ClimateSanity View Post
    And you cut off the point of my post
    Yeah, the way that point was waving around there, I was afraid you might poke ur eye out with it.
    http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post5074777
    http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4983551
    Elect a clown and you get a circus!
    if Trump had half a wit he would be a half wit if Trump had half a wit he would be a half wit if Trump had half a wit he would be a half wit if Trump had half a wit he would be a half wit

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Foxfire For Your Post:

    Town Heretic (April 14th, 2017)

  15. #267
    Gold level Subscriber kmoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    A farm
    Posts
    9,941
    Thanks
    1,065
    Thanked 2,027 Times in 1,051 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1064389
    Quote Originally Posted by ClimateSanity View Post
    It's not the fact that Obama made a supreme Court nomination during an election year that's at issue. It's the fact that he nominated someone almost further ideologically left than anyone on the court. If placed on the court, Garland would have radically shift the Court to the left.

    Here is a quote from the NYT:
    "The chart published by the*Times*on March 16, 2016, demonstrated that Garland was to the*left*of two of the court’s current liberals –*Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan*–*and a virtual match for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, leaving only Sonia Sotomayor slightly to the left of him."

    That's what is unprecedented about the Garland pick. He was the first nomination that would radically change the courts balance to be nominated in an election year.

    Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
    You might have a point if Scalia died a couple months before the election, but it was way before that. The President doesn't lose the ability to lead on Jan 1st of an election year. And the Republicans didn't even give a hearing on Garland. They stonewalled him completely. They could have at least done a hearing to see what he had to say and then voted against him if they didn't like him. If you think McConnell actually cares about giving the voters a voice then I think you are extremely naive. It was political :PureX: and nothing more.

  16. #268
    Over 5000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,313
    Thanks
    3,738
    Thanked 1,703 Times in 1,291 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    523647
    Quote Originally Posted by kmoney View Post
    You might have a point if Scalia died a couple months before the election, but it was way before that. The President doesn't lose the ability to lead on Jan 1st of an election year. And the Republicans didn't even give a hearing on Garland. They stonewalled him completely. They could have at least done a hearing to see what he had to say and then voted against him if they didn't like him. If you think McConnell actually cares about giving the voters a voice then I think you are extremely naive. It was political :PureX: and nothing more.
    You obviously didn't read my post or failed to understand it or else you would not have commented as you did.

    Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

  17. #269
    Gold level Subscriber kmoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    A farm
    Posts
    9,941
    Thanks
    1,065
    Thanked 2,027 Times in 1,051 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1064389
    Quote Originally Posted by ClimateSanity View Post
    You obviously didn't read my post or failed to understand it or else you would not have commented as you did.

    Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
    What did I fail to understand? You think Obama was trying to radically change the court in an election year and you think that goes against protocol. I was giving a response to that.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kmoney For Your Post:

    Foxfire (April 13th, 2017),Town Heretic (April 14th, 2017)

  19. #270
    Over 5000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,313
    Thanks
    3,738
    Thanked 1,703 Times in 1,291 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    523647
    And the Republicans didn't even give a hearing on Garland.

    They could have at least done a hearing to see what he had to say and then voted against him if they didn't like him.

    If you think McConnell actually cares about giving the voters a voice then I think you are extremely naïve..


    Those three comments show you didn't understand what I said.

    There is a reason I gave concerning why republicans didn't give Garland a chance. Did you miss it?

    As for McConnell, I said that he knew he could possibly lose the senate if all republicans voted against Garland. That is because the MSM had already established the narrative that Garland was a mainstream candidate not that different from Scalia.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us