Obama to proceed with court nominee despite Republican defiance

[spurraider21]

Can't believe I forgot "platform of bluster"

"putting you on ignore"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No. This is an argument about why democrats lack credibility when they attack republicans for holding up a nomination in this specific instance. They lack that credibility because their VP advocated exactly what the republicans are doing now. You don't think the dems's credibility is harmed because Biden was speaking hypothetically -- meaning you think it's ok for dems to advocate one thing but do the exact opposite when it suits them. Saying "actions speak louder than words" is irrelevant and meaningless and you're throwing that out there in lieu of saying something specific and relevant.

The very first thing I said was that the republicans are wrong and that I'd like to see someone put on the court. I honestly have no idea why you chose this issue to spew your nonsense

So democrats should advocate something but do the exact opposite when it's politically convenient and suits them?

Of course should comes into the equation. Ironic that you're taking "words mean nothing" position for all your word vomit about intellectual sincerity. Then again, you are a coward.

Your narcissism is on full display. You are saying they are not credible on the basis of what you think they 'should' do. The two notions are not mutually exclusive and you have no idea how to make a deduction, crayola. lawyer

You realize that you are a GOP sycophant, you've behaved accordingly, yet you don't grasp the nuance that you don't represent anyone but yourself.

I agree that the democratic leadership outside of Warren has no credibility but at the same time I feel the same about the people whose takes you are regurgitating, McConnell and the GOP leadership. At the end of the day the whole congress' favorability is still objectively in the ter. What will happen will still happen despite all of that. What you are whining about makes no difference.

[ChumpDumper]

Why does that matter? Republicans are doing exactly what Biden said should be done.

Biden didn't actually do it. Good for him.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

if you want to get me to give a about my word choice try arguing whether or not I'm using them correctly. Just whining that I use them at all makes you seem like a dullard.

[Aztecfan03]

Biden didn't actually do it. Good for him.

He didn't get the chance to. That's no excuse to switch positions now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So outside of Biden and other dems being a hypocrites are there any other arguments against the nomination. For example, somewhere they actually blocked a GOP election season nominee?

It's sad that this is the best that the GOP and their board sycophants can come up with.

[ChumpDumper]

No. This is an argument about why democrats lack credibility when they attack republicans for holding up a nomination in this specific instance.

I guess that's the only argument Republicans have and the only one you want to discuss.

But what does it matter? Do you really just want to start an endless parade of examples of hypocrisy for each side? Because that can easily be done.

But so what? You're arguing like a politician or a talk show host right now. Voters want the process to go on from everything I have seen, and Republicans always themselves when shutting down government in whatever way they try. Democrat credibility doesn't factor into that.

[vy65]

Your narcissism is on full display. You are saying they are not credible on the basis of what you think they 'should' do. The two notions are not mutually exclusive and you have no idea how to make a deduction, crayola. lawyer

Nope, not at all what I'm saying. I was clear, but I'll reiterate: "They lack that credibility because their VP advocated exactly what the republicans are doing now."

If you think what Biden said in '92 isn't mutually exclusive with the dems position today, you need to consult your PHL101A notes on what "mutually exclusive" means

You realize that you are a GOP sycophant, you've behaved accordingly, yet you don't grasp the nuance that you don't represent anyone but yourself.

You do realize I said the GOP is wrong on this one, right? lol sycophant.

I agree that the democratic leadership outside of Warren has no credibility but at the same time I feel the same about the people whose takes you are regurgitating, McConnell and the GOP leadership. At the end of the day the whole congress' favorability is still objectively in the ter. What will happen will still happen despite all of that. What you are whining about makes no difference.

Who's take am I regurgitating? I said I'd like someone nominated and put on the court. You're doing your word vomit thing to make this thread fit your preconceived narrative. Which is why you're far off base Pierre

[vy65]

"putting you on ignore"

"mutually exclusive"
"dullard"

[TheSanityAnnex]

There's gotta be a fuzzy drinking game. Something like take a shot whenever you read the following words/terms

-critical thinking
-critical thinking skills
-sophistry
-sophist piece of
-disingenuous
-fallacy

What's everybody else got?

-mutually exclusive

[ChumpDumper]

He didn't get the chance to. That's no excuse to switch positions now.

Sure there is. You're just fuming because the reason is political.

Do you personally approve of the current political obstruction by the Republicans?

Yes or no.

"But Biden said" isn't an answer.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nope, not at all what I'm saying. I was clear, but I'll reiterate: "They lack that credibility because their VP advocated exactly what the republicans are doing now."

If you think what Biden said in '92 isn't mutually exclusive with the dems position today, you need to consult your PHL101A notes on what "mutually exclusive" means



You do realize I said the GOP is wrong on this one, right? lol sycophant.



Who's take am I regurgitating? I said I'd like someone nominated and put on the court. You're doing your word vomit thing to make this thread fit your preconceived narrative. Which is why you're far off base Pierre

Still haven't demonstrated how they are mutually exclusive, crayola. I was saying my argument of what you think should happen and the issue of credibility. It's stuff like this that first made me ask whether or not you wrote out your briefs in crayon. You cannot even keep up when I bold the to help you read it.

Your parroting the press release of McConnell, arguing in favor of it and personalizing it. Actions speak louder than words.

You repeat yourself again. I'll just ignore it. You really suck at argumentation and this gets boring quick having to repeat direct refutations you ignore or fail to grasp.

[vy65]

But what does it matter?

Because politicians should be held accountable for what they say. Because both sides are hypocrites doesn't make this point irrelevant.

[ChumpDumper]

Because politicians should be held accountable for what they say. Because both sides are hypocrites doesn't make this point irrelevant.

Sure, you want to hold Democrats accountable now because you're a Republican.

So what?

They aren't held accountable.

They're politicians.

I defy any partisan here to tell the story of a person they voted for then voted for the other party's candidate because he was holding the person he originally voted for accountable for what he said.

[spurraider21]

It's convenient to look the other way when your party was an asshole only to hold the rivaling party to a higher standard just because the tables flipped

But yeah, the obstruction is re ed

[vy65]

Still haven't demonstrated how they are mutually exclusive, crayola. I was saying my argument of what you think should happen and the issue of credibility. It's stuff like this that first made me ask whether or not you wrote out your briefs in crayon. You cannot even keep up when I bold the to help you read it.

"As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

"The Cons ution vests in the President the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. It’s a duty that I take seriously, and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead."

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/a-...ake-seriously/

Lol for all your bloviating about mutual exclusivity, you have no idea what it means.

Your parroting the press release of McConnell, arguing in favor of it and personalizing it. Actions speak louder than words.

Nope, I'm not, haven't read any press release from McConnell.

You repeat yourself again. I'll just ignore it. You really suck at argumentation and this gets boring quick having to repeat direct refutations you ignore.

If we were playing the fuzzy drinking game, this'd be a double whammy: "suck at argumentation" and "direct refutations"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure, you want to hold Democrats accountable now because you're a Republican.

So what?

They aren't held accountable.

They're politicians.

I defy any partisan here to tell the story of a person they voted for then voted for the other party's candidate because he was holding the person he originally voted for accountable for what he said.

But the SHOULD be!

[vy65]

Sure, you want to hold Democrats accountable now because you're a Republican.

So what?

They aren't held accountable.

They're politicians.

I defy any partisan here to tell the story of a person they voted for then voted for the other party's candidate because he was holding the person he originally voted for accountable for what he said.

I want both parties accountable. I know that's pie in the sky, but I don't see how making excuses for the dems because the GOP is evil is productive. Can you explain?

[vy65]

Sure, you want to hold Democrats accountable now because you're a Republican.

So what?

They aren't held accountable.

They're politicians.

I defy any partisan here to tell the story of a person they voted for then voted for the other party's candidate because he was holding the person he originally voted for accountable for what he said.

Oh and I'm not a republican, nor a partisan. Like I said, the GOP is wrong to prevent someone from being appointed to the Court. I also disagree with the GOP on a number of other issues too.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/a-...ake-seriously/

Lol for all your bloviating about mutual exclusivity, you have no idea what it means.



Nope, I'm not, haven't read any press release from McConnell.



If we were playing the fuzzy drinking game, this'd be a double whammy: "suck at argumentation" and "direct refutations"

Chance for a bonus drink when he doesn't ignore it and responds as usual

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/a-...ake-seriously/

Lol for all your bloviating about mutual exclusivity, you have no idea what it means.



Nope, I'm not, haven't read any press release from McConnell.



If we were playing the fuzzy drinking game, this'd be a double whammy: "suck at argumentation" and "direct refutations"

Mutually exclusive means that two things cannot happen concurrently. That they are exclusive to each other. In an attempt to deduce my argument about your narcissism, you are saying that you are not making the argument I am saying but instead your credibility argument. I am saying that they are not mutually exclusive; that you are making both arguments and that they go hand in hand.

Your deduction is invalid because of this thus me saying you suck at deductions. You do.

I don't care what you say, the argument that Biden and the dems are hypocrites is the argument that McConnell came out with before you started regurgitating it. I'm not surprised you ahve no idea where you got the idea from. Recall: i think you have poor reading and critical thinking skills.

In remarks on the Senate floor, McConnell acknowledged Obama's cons utional right to offer a replacement for late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died earlier this month. But he said even Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, had argued back in 1992 for postponing action on Supreme Court nominees during an election year.

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/2...nell/21317349/

[ChumpDumper]

I want both parties accountable. I know that's pie in the sky, but I don't see how making excuses for the dems because the GOP is evil is productive. Can you explain?

The GOP is "evil" right now because they stopped the process right now.

Were the Democrats doing the same right now I would call them "evil."

How does fighting a nomination war that didn't occur 20 years ago help the process go forward now? Can you explain?

If you want the process to go forward now, what do you do about it? I don't think posting quotes from a guy who hasn't been in the Senate for years makes one iota of difference in that respect.

[vy65]

Chance for a bonus drink when he doesn't ignore it and responds as usual

No, the ignored-but-not-really move is more significant. I think you gotta pound a seabreeze or an appletini, or similar drink that conjures Fuzzy's persona

[Blake]

I want both parties accountable. I know that's pie in the sky, but I don't see how making excuses for the dems because the GOP is evil is productive. Can you explain?

Yeah, that's called a logical fallacy.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh and I'm not a republican, nor a partisan. Like I said, the GOP is wrong to prevent someone from being appointed to the Court. I also disagree with the GOP on a number of other issues too.

OK which time did you switch your vote to that other party because you were holding the person you originally voted for to his/her word?