Obama to proceed with court nominee despite Republican defiance

[vy65]

I've been waiting for you to answer mine, but you're stonewalling.

If you can't justify why you're asking the question you're asking, it's not going to be answered.

[ChumpDumper]

If you can't justify why you're asking the question you're asking, it's not going to be answered.

They are on the topic you want to talk about -- holding politicians accountable for the things they say. You put on your forum cop uniform because you seem uncomfortable with the questions. That's OK. Just say you don't want to answer. No need to pretend you're enforcing some sacred rules of discussion.

You never have to answer any questions and no one ever needs to justify simple questions. You want to make up rules as you go along. Your topic isn't the OP topic but for some reason people here let you get away with that apparently egregious crime without demanding that you justify your tangent. Are you just lucky or do other people just not develop sticks in their asses when asked to express an opinion or personal experience about whatever topic they bring up in the course of a discussion?

[vy65]

They are on the topic you want to talk about -- holding politicians accountable for the things they say. You put on your forum cop uniform because you seem uncomfortable with the questions. That's OK. Just say you don't want to answer. No need to pretend you're enforcing some sacred rules of discussion.

You never have to answer any questions and no one ever needs to justify simple questions. You want to make up rules as you go along. Your topic isn't the OP topic but for some reason people here let you get away with that apparently egregious crime without demanding that you justify your tangent. Are you just lucky or do other people just not develop sticks in their asses when asked to express an opinion or personal experience about whatever topic they bring up in the course of a discussion?

I don't identify or vote democrat or republican, so I've never switched my vote. Why's this relevant?

Is voting the only way to hold one or more of the parties accountable? Awfully narrow-minded if you think so.

I've answered your question to the extent it was relevant. To the extent you want something more, sorry but you're going to have to justify yourself. People absolutely need to justify the relevance of their questions to me if they want them answered. These aren't "made up rules," they're pretty basic (although I'm sure concepts like relevance are lost on you). I'm sure concepts like "relevance" are lost on you, but they're not lost on me.

Quoting Biden's 1992 speech goes to the core of the issue here -- the politics behind pushing/obstructing the SCOTUS nomination. You're attempting to inject irrelevance about how I individually hold democrats, republicans, or any other political party responsible. That's irrelevant.

We both agree that the republicans should bring this to a vote, so we probably both agree that the republicans are wrong to obstruct the nomination. I'm guessing we probably also agree that what Biden advocated in 1992 was also wrong. So why are you making this thread about my politics? Am I that interesting to you? Are you just trying to come up with disagreement for the sake of disagreement? Why?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've answered your question to the extent it was relevant. To the extent you want something more, sorry but you're going to have to justify yourself. People absolutely need to justify the relevance of their questions to me if they want them answered. These aren't "made up rules," they're pretty basic (although I'm sure concepts like relevance are lost on you). I'm sure concepts like "relevance" are lost on you, but they're not lost on me.

Quoting Biden's 1992 speech goes to the core of the issue here -- the politics behind pushing/obstructing the SCOTUS nomination. You're attempting to inject irrelevance about how I individually hold democrats, republicans, or any other political party responsible. That's irrelevant.

We both agree that the republicans should bring this to a vote, so we probably both agree that the republicans are wrong to obstruct the nomination. I'm guessing we probably also agree that what Biden advocated in 1992 was also wrong. So why are you making this thread about my politics? Am I that interesting to you? Are you just trying to come up with disagreement for the sake of disagreement? Why?

Well we see you have completely abandoned your initial position of handwaving that one side has a credibility problem. You have abandoned the 'should' and 'should not' argument. Your comment about how he is the one injecting individuality is cute though relative to your previous position fo what epople should do. Sophist is as sophist does.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Sophist is as sophist does.

[ChumpDumper]

I've answered your question to the extent it was relevant. To the extent you want something more, sorry but you're going to have to justify yourself. People absolutely need to justify the relevance of their questions to me if they want them answered. These aren't "made up rules," they're pretty basic (although I'm sure concepts like relevance are lost on you). I'm sure concepts like "relevance" are lost on you, but they're not lost on me.

Quoting Biden's 1992 speech goes to the core of the issue here -- the politics behind pushing/obstructing the SCOTUS nomination. You're attempting to inject irrelevance about how I individually hold democrats, republicans, or any other political party responsible. That's irrelevant.

We both agree that the republicans should bring this to a vote, so we probably both agree that the republicans are wrong to obstruct the nomination. I'm guessing we probably also agree that what Biden advocated in 1992 was also wrong. So why are you making this thread about my politics? Am I that interesting to you? Are you just trying to come up with disagreement for the sake of disagreement? Why?

You said the topic is about holding officeholders accountable for what they say. My claim is people don't actually do that in cases like this, if ever. I went further into your topic, since you claim to be a firm believer in holding officeholders accountable, asking you for examples of how you do this. I admit I asked for perhaps overly specific examples, but nothing that warranted your complete shutdown of your topic. I resorted to trying to make you take baby steps toward giving an example of how you might hold an officeholder accountable in one scenario, but you were in complete stonewall mode, I assume because you saw where your topic was going to end up and it might not make you look like the ethical crusader you make yourself out to be. I could be wrong, but there is no way to prove me wrong since your replies are reduced to stonewalling, forum policing and personal insults.

That's all fine. It's just a message board. I believe we do agree about the current obstruction, but that was not the topic you were discussing and its disingenuous to say you were after explicitly stating your topic.

[vy65]

You said the topic is about holding officeholders accountable for what they say.

Incorrect. I said the topic was that Democrats are hypocrites for crying about Republican obstructionism.

You asked

But what does it matter?

And everything else followed.

You can go around and around in circles about forum police etc... My point doesn't get any clearer. I'm sorry you don't like it or want to pick a fight about other or whatever it is you're trying to do.

[vy65]

I honestly don't understand why Chump can't just say, "yah, it's ed up that Dems did a 180, they're hypocrites" and move on. That would have avoided 2 pages of unnecessary replies.

[TeyshaBlue]

*perk*

[ChumpDumper]

Incorrect. I said the topic was that Democrats are hypocrites for crying about Republican obstructionism.

You asked



And everything else followed.

You can go around and around in circles about forum police etc... My point doesn't get any clearer. I'm sorry you don't like it or want to pick a fight about other or whatever it is you're trying to do.

I asked you why does it matter. You answered because people in office should be held accountable for what they say. I then tried to get you to say what that actually means using your personal measures and you shut down.

I honestly don't understand why Chump can't just say, "yah, it's ed up that Dems did a 180, they're hypocrites" and move on. That would have avoided 2 pages of unnecessary replies.

I said they are all hypocrites and not held to account because that's politics. You could have simply told me how you personally hold officeholders accountable for their words instead of turning into forum cop and shutting down the conversation you were all too happy to be having before. If all you want to to have someone agree with you no matter what and that's it, talk to a dog.

[ElNono]

It will be bashing even if there is no hearing, since a nominee with no hearing will dominate the the media cycle.

The narrative will be that the GOP in the Senate are failing in their cons utional duty, because that is the truth.

Not something that looks good to the average low-information independent.

I don't think it will dominate the media cycle with a presidential campaign ongoing, tbh...

[vy65]

I asked you why does it matter. You answered because people in office should be held accountable for what they say. I then tried to get you to say what that actually means using your personal measures and you shut down.

I said they are all hypocrites and not held to account because that's politics. You could have simply told me how you personally hold officeholders accountable for their words instead of turning into forum cop and shutting down the conversation you were all too happy to be having before. If all you want to to have someone agree with you no matter what and that's it, talk to a dog.

Me and my personal politics aren't on trial and are not relevant to (a) what Biden said or (b) the notion that politicians should be held accountable. For someone complaining about forum cop, I don't understand why you're asking about me personally.

If you said they're all hypocrites, I must have missed that. But you also tried to make this about me. I'm still waiting to hear why that's relevant

[ChumpDumper]

Me and my personal politics aren't on trial

This isn't a legal proceeding of any kind. Save the rest of the speech.

I asked how you hold people you voted for accountable for what they say since you said they should be held accountable for what they say. If you think that is some kind of personal attack and reason to complain and stonewall, that is your choice.

[vy65]

This isn't a legal proceeding of any kind. Save the rest of the speech.

I asked how you hold people you voted for accountable for what they say since you said they should be held accountable for what they say. If you think that is some kind of personal attack and reason to complain and stonewall, that is your choice.

Never said it was a personal attack. I find it funny that you're accusing me of being forum cop while at the same time trying to get to know personal details, like you're conducting an investigation into my political activities. So the speech is called for.

I don't see, and you haven't explained, the relevance. I don't care about the details of your political activity, so why do you care about mine?

[ChumpDumper]

Never said it was a personal attack. I also find it funny that you're accusing me of being forum cop while at the same time trying to get to know personal details, so the speech is called for.

Really, how personal do you think this is? You stated your personal belief about accountability.I just asked you for examples of how you hold people you vote for accountable for the things they say, not your social security number. If you feel this is such a terrible violation of your privacy, I'm going to call you a little pussy if that's OK with you and your forum laws -- but your forum laws should now include your never stating any personal beliefs or opinions, because that is getting too personal. Anything else would be hypocritical -- and you have stated your personal disdain for hypocrisy already -- although you shouldn't. It's personal.

I don't see, and you haven't explained, the relevance. I don't care about the details of your political activity, so why do you care about mine?

You stated your personal belief about accountability. If you can't provide even one example of how you hold people you vote for accountable for the things they say, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting you to.

[vy65]

Really, how personal do you think this is? You stated your personal belief about accountability.I just asked you for examples of how you hold people you vote for accountable for the things they say, not your social security number. If you feel this is such a terrible violation of your privacy, I'm going to call you a little pussy if that's OK with you and your forum laws -- but your forum laws should now include your never stating any personal beliefs or opinions, because that is getting too personal. Anything else would be hypocritical -- and you have stated your personal disdain for hypocrisy already -- although you shouldn't. It's personal.

You stated your personal belief about accountability. If you can't provide even one example of how you hold people you vote for accountable for the things they say, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting you to.

I never said my privacy was being violated so save the high school bully bit.

Please explain why my belief that politicians should be held accountable opens the door to my personal political activities? Do you disagree with me, and that they shouldn't be accountable? If not, and we're in agreement, then why are you asking me these questions?

[ChumpDumper]

I never said my privacy was being violated so save the high school bully bit.

Please explain why my belief that politicians should be held accountable opens the door to my personal political activities? Do you disagree with me, and that they shouldn't be accountable? If not, and we're in agreement, then why are you asking me these questions?

You stated your personal belief about accountability. If it's too frightening to tell how you effect such accountability, don't worry about it. Consider this your safe space.

[vy65]

Really, how personal do you think this is? You stated your personal belief about accountability.I just asked you for examples of how you hold people you vote for accountable for the things they say, not your social security number. If you feel this is such a terrible violation of your privacy, I'm going to call you a little pussy if that's OK with you and your forum laws -- but your forum laws should now include your never stating any personal beliefs or opinions, because that is getting too personal. Anything else would be hypocritical -- and you have stated your personal disdain for hypocrisy already -- although you shouldn't. It's personal.

This honestly might be the most petulant tantrum I've seen on this here forum.

[ChumpDumper]

This honestly might be the most petulant tantrum I've seen on this here forum.

So you can get personal?

You need to post your full set of rules here because you look like a complete hypocrite right now.

[vy65]

You stated your personal belief about accountability. If it's too frightening to tell how you effect such accountability, don't worry about it. Consider this your safe space.

We're here to discuss politics. It's not an activists meeting. What I do in the real world is irrelevant. We're not here to discuss how we're making the world a better place. I'm sorry that you're not going to hear about my personal political activities so you can post all over the board.

If you think what I've just said in any way discredits the belief I've articulated, say so. Otherwise, why are you asking me the same question over and over?

[vy65]

So you can get personal?

You need to post your full set of rules here because you look like a complete hypocrite right now.

Not personal. Referred to the annoyingly petulant post you made, not you.

[ChumpDumper]

We're here to discuss politics. It's not an activists meeting. What I do in the real world is irrelevant. We're not here to discuss how we're making the world a better place. I'm sorry that you're not going to hear about my personal political activities so you can post all over the board.

If you think what I've just said in any way discredits the belief I've articulated, say so. Otherwise, why are you asking me the same question over and over?

What you said discredits the belief you have articulated.

[ChumpDumper]

Not personal. Referred to the annoyingly petulant post you made, not you.

Post your rules.

[vy65]

What you said discredits the belief you have articulated.

I'm saddened you think so. Do you share my belief?

[vy65]

Post your rules.

My rules on what's a temper tantrum looks like? Take a look at your post that I quoted and you'll know.