![]() |
The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices (/Thread-The-Party-of-no-steps-up-its-game-on-SC-Justices) Pages:
1
2
|
The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - GMDino - 10-27-2016 Quote:Cruz: GOP may block Supreme Court nominees indefinitely Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/cruz-supreme-court-blockade-230363#ixzz4OHJdghyJ Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - Benton - 10-27-2016 Used to I was opposed to their opposition. Not doing your job because you don't like your coworkers is absurd. They get compensated pretty well to waste taxpayer money having hollow votes and not doing anything. But I'm in favor of this. This kind of tactic combined with the latest presidential circus gets more people taking notice of how screwed up the federal government is, and how screwed up the two parties are. There's more likely to be some kind of legitimate change if all the stupidity is one display. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - TheLeonardLeap - 10-27-2016 As more or less a Libertarian, I am fine when the two parties are locking horns and aren't capable of getting anything done. It means they can't F up the country more. When they're cooperating, they're not giving people more freedom, reducing money you need to pay, and shrinking the federal government. They're telling you what you can't do, increasing your financial burden, and including the government in more and more of your life. So if the choices are between pumping out laws that don't help us/negatively effect us, or not being capable of doing anything, I choose the latter. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - fredtoast - 10-27-2016 (10-27-2016, 03:39 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: As more or less a Libertarian, I am fine when the two parties are locking horns and aren't capable of getting anything done. It means they can't F up the country more. This country has problems that need to be addressed. Calling every single law or government action "bad" is just ridiculous. The world around us is constantly changing and new challenges arise on a regular basis. If we can not change and adapt then we will fail. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - Nately120 - 10-27-2016 Hmm, 8 years of saying "NO" essentially led to a clinically insane reality TV star taking over the GOP and providing a layup election for the Democrats. I can't see what harm another 4 years of this crap could do! After another 4-8 years of Democratic rule I can only imagine what kind of apocalyptic, communist, shit-hole right-wingers will be convinced we're living in. I can remember McCain being accused of blowing the election because he was "too nice" and didn't call out Obama on his ultra-liberal, crazy Christian Rev. Wright lovin', Muslim, Arab, Kenyan bs and we got Trump 8 years later. Maybe Trump is too nice, too. Ok, this rant is getting generic, but I just wonder what might come down the pipeline next if the GOP doesn't change its tactics a bit. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - TheLeonardLeap - 10-27-2016 (10-27-2016, 04:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This country has problems that need to be addressed. Not every single law or government action, but it's a net negative. It's like a tanning bed. It gives you that golden glow that make you look healthy and look nice, which is a positive, but all the while you're giving yourself skin cancer. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - fredtoast - 10-27-2016 (10-27-2016, 05:06 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not every single law or government action, but it's a net negative. Making an argument with a shallow meaningless analogy. How cute. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - SunsetBengal - 10-27-2016 (10-27-2016, 04:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This country has problems that need to be addressed. The Country's problems are being addressed just fine. No need to appoint a radical to the Supreme Court to further a "fundamental change effort", being conducted by our current POTUS. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - fredtoast - 10-27-2016 (10-27-2016, 06:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The Country's problems are being addressed just fine. This is comical. You squeal louder than anyone here about how things have gotten worse over the last 8 years. And the whole "Make America Great Again" crowd also seem to think we need to do something about the problems facing this country. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - Benton - 10-27-2016 (10-27-2016, 06:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The Country's problems are being addressed just fine. No need to appoint a radical to the Supreme Court to further a "fundamental change effort", being conducted by our current POTUS.from everything I've read, garland is very moderate. And he's got prosecuting experience, not just a lawyer. He's a far cry from radical. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - wildcats forever - 10-27-2016 Enough with the insults. Go back to being respectful and on-topic. Thank you. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - Nately120 - 10-27-2016 (10-27-2016, 07:31 PM)Benton Wrote: from everything I've read, garland is very moderate. And he's got prosecuting experience, not just a lawyer. He's a far cry from radical. I, GARLAND, shall knock you all down! ![]() RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 10-28-2016 (10-27-2016, 05:06 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not every single law or government action, but it's a net negative. If it is a net negative, move to Mogadishu where you can have less laws and more freedom. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - fredtoast - 10-28-2016 (10-28-2016, 12:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If it is a net negative, move to Mogadishu where you can have less laws and more freedom. Or breath the air in China where they don't have all those silly environmental regulations. Or work in a coal mine there where they don't have all those "anti-business" safety regulations. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - Griever - 10-28-2016 (10-27-2016, 09:10 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I, GARLAND, shall knock you all down! dont touch his princess either RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - TheLeonardLeap - 10-28-2016 (10-28-2016, 12:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If it is a net negative, move to Mogadishu where you can have less laws and more freedom. Why should I have to move? They're the ones who suck. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - fredtoast - 10-28-2016 (10-28-2016, 02:25 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Why should I have to move? They're the ones who suck. You should move there because Here in th United States we like government authority to promote the well being of the citizens. So If you are going to be miserable here you might as well move to be around people who think like you do.. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - bfine32 - 10-28-2016 I have said since the seat was left vacant that Congress should consider and approve (if qualified)any nomination POTUS nominates. There is no reason not to. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 10-30-2016 Henceforth, they shall be called Republican'ts. So let it be written. So let it be done. RE: The Party of "no" steps up its game on SC Justices - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 10-30-2016 (10-28-2016, 02:25 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Why should I have to move? They're the ones who suck. You have the liberty to pursue what makes you happy; a life free of laws which equal a net negative here in the US. Mogadishu is relatively free of those pesky laws. |