It's a one-coin system with each Party simply being a different side of the same coin..

There is a vacuum of alternatives, both at the level of parties and (where there's bipartisan agreement) at the level of issues.

But it's not a one-party system.

There is a vacuum of alternatives to switching back and forth between the two halves of our one party system.

Yes.

If you keep voting for one of the Corporate Party's artificial divisions then you will keep getting the same bullshit.

No.

The division into two parties is not artificial. It is the natural result of a system of direct single-seat plurality elections.

Not every issue is subject to political contention at any particular time. But the differences are real, and any issue could be taken up if enough people wanted it to be. We just don't have an alternative to the corporate status quo, that makes sense to enough people.

It would be better to have part of the political system that could consider issues in a multi-polar way. It wouldn't require throwing out the current politicians en masse (which would obviously be opposed by said politicians). Rather, it would require re-organizing them into a larger number of groups -- which would happen as the natural result of any of various possible electoral systems.

The Democrats are as pure as the driven snow...

Hyperbolic-ly speaking.. :D

Ahhhhhh Flip Wilson!! My gods, what a funny guy!!! :D

THE FLIP WILSON SHOW

Hilarious :D

And yet, the Dims blamed the GOP when Reid changed the rules..

You see my point??

*EVERYTHING* is always the fault of the Republicans

The Democrats are as pure as the driven snow...

The Trump administration has just blamed the Obama administration for the horrific tragedy that occurred in Syria today, a country where tragedy has become synonymous with daily life and death.

That is factually accurate..

If Obama had enforced his red line as he had promised Syria wouldn't be in the mess it's in today..

This is fact..

Of course they did. While they're at it, they'll probably blame Clinton and Carter for Middle Eastern unrest, and FDR and Wilson for the whole 'Geneva Convention' thing.

So when McConnell inevitably blows up the last remnant of Congressional civility, we should all remember that Gingrich is off somewhere lifting a glass to the culmination of his vision of American politics: lying, vicious partisans with knives in their teeth and mayhem on their minds.

Yep, yep, yep.

The United States government cannot be trusted. Period.

Time to tune it all out, once and for all.

Maybe there is a good blog at the BBC. I'll let y'all know if I find one. But, I have to take a break from all of this for a while first.

Good luck and good health, everyone! I'll be back when I can.

Gingrich and his proto-tea partiers came into office in 1994 in one of those cyclical years of Republican backlash and took the old tradition of Congressional Amity, bound it like Bettie Page and shot it in the head. It's been downhill ever since, slowed only by GOP majorities in the early Bush years. Trump is himself the inevitable outcome of the path established by Gingrich, who probably would have been picked for VP if he hadn't had the personal baggage of a traveling carnival.

Gingrich established back then what has come to be common GOP tactics - insincerity in negotiations, moving the goalposts, dissemblance, and brinksmanship. It was he who established the now-common practice of blaming the Democrats for 'pushing' the GOP to make ever more radical tactical decisions, even as Democrats have bent over backwards to keep government functioning despite the GOP's mendacious intransigence.

Even Gingrich's bloated ego and personal hypocrisy was, in retrospect, a precursor to Trump's.

"Let me say on the record: Any ad which quotes what I said … is a falsehood." - Newt Gingrich

So when McConnell inevitably blows up the last remnant of Congressional civility, we should all remember that Gingrich is off somewhere lifting a glass to the culmination of his vision of American politics: lying, vicious partisans with knives in their teeth and mayhem on their minds.

"does that mean you didn't read the article, or didn't believe it? the information and its sources seemed quite credible to me."

I read the piece when it came out.
I called it propaganda due to the omission of context and facts in order to favor a morally unacceptable US policy that is against our interests.

"meaning we aren't allowed to be against torture because some of our own did in it in the past? you're not making any sense here."

A principled stand requires prosecuting torturers and those who order it, those who launch wars of aggression based on lies, the targeting of civilians and journalists, etc. in order to be credible and honorable when we are condemning others for their war crimes.

Specifically, the failure to prosecute the Bushies for torture means "we" aren't actually against torture.

A

President Trump's approval rating is below 40% according to the ONLY poll that has even an iota of relevance... :D

Have a happy.... :D

Of course, those are the same polls that said NOT-45 had an 80% chance of winning the Presidency so... :D

But bask in your glory..

It'll make the indictments of Obama officials all the more sweet.. :D

So when President Barack Obama was elected and Democrats had control of the Senate, Republicans used the precedent Democrats had set. Democrats responded by breaking precedent yet again — this time changing the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster for all nominees except for the Supreme Court, including lifetime appointments to the federal circuit courts. They did this so that Obama could pack the courts with liberal judges that could not meet the 60-vote “standard.” And pack the courts he did. Obama appointed more than a third of all federal judges and flipped most of the circuit courts of appeal from conservative to liberal majorities.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/do-democrats-really-want-to-provoke-an-unprecedented-showdown-over-gorsuch/2017/04/03/04361ebc-1876-11e7-855e-4824bbb5d748_story.html?utm_term=.9368373f2fa0

If context is what ya'all are looking for..

There it is....

Not even Justice Clarence Thomas was filibustered...

Dems are losing it...

I just can't see him saying ANYTHING that could even REMOTELY be construed as in defense of me :D

Probably me. Though I quoted Matt Stone of South Park to describe Michale: "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."

And, as I said (and even JM agreed with) if Trump's numbers begin to fall, a filibuster of his 2nd nominee MAY be successful..

It's the difference between a 100% successful nuke now or a 40% chance of a nuke in the future..

Seems to me that the Left would rather have their pound of flesh now rather than a possibility of reaping the reward of stopping Trump in the future..

Which, if that's the choice, I understand.

But let's not kid ourselves as to how BAD it could be for the Dems if they burn the filibuster now..

+

I truly worry about another war based on lies.

Sorry for the comparison.

A

For starters, Obama could have made a recess appointment, followed up by Dems hammering on it in the 2016 campaigns.

"It gets old watching them be "more civilized.""

Particularly when the net effect, intended or accidental, amounts to collaboration against their own voters.

"There's a lopsided number of seats in 2018... so not likely to happen... but possible. :)"

Hence the qualifier "miraculously".

A

Isn't that a hoot and a half!?

I asked you first.

A

I'm sorry I asked you for a source that supports the claim you made which no media outlets I am aware of are reporting has been verified, and that I found your response insufficient and extreme.

Given the track record of al Qaida "rebels" in Syria attempting to falsely blame Assad for chemical attacks which they themselves were responsible for (according to UN investigators) and that Western powers attempted to use the false claims as justification for their proxy regime change war, and the fact that the "rebels" releasing a chemical agent in the territory they control at the same time that a government bombing raid is occurring would not be logistically difficult, I believe the "adult" position to take is skepticism, not acceptance and dissemination of unverified assertions as if they are fact... even if you later call them opinion.

A

donald has proven time and again that he doesn't really care about policy issues, he just wants to be popular.

JL

Now, THERE'S some mighty magical thinking! Would that it were even remotely true ...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

maybe if his numbers go down enough he'll tack left and start being the pragmatist we were hoping for. if so, perhaps the next scotus nominee will be a real moderate or even a bit left of center, and mcconnell may wish he hadn't nuked the filibuster so soon.

JL

That assumes that the Dems won't be able to stop a clearly unqualified nominee to the SCOTUS and that they won't be able to take their case to the people and win their argument. Oh, wait ... good assumption. :)

that falls into the trap of thinking that it's dems who will be changing the rules. it is the choice of republicans to change the rules or not, and if they do so then they must think that it is worth it.

Don't you just hate it when your comments fall into a trap? :)

Seriously, it was more of a rhetorical question about changing the senate rules. But, the Dems can prevent a rule change by prudently deciding to allow the nomination of Judge Gorsuch to go forward.

They can explain the method to their madness and I think that explanation could carry a lot of weight in 2018, if handled astutely.

Don't you just hate it when your comments fall into a trap? :)

Seriously, it was more of a rhetorical question about changing the senate rules. But, the Dems can prevent a rule change by prudently deciding to allow the nomination of Judge Gorsuch to go forward.

They can explain the method to their madness and I think that explanation could carry a lot of weight in 2018, if handled astutely.

i don't think anyone believes that what dems do now will have any impact whatsoever on the next nominee. as CW said, if they don't change the rules now, they'll change the rules then. might as well stick to principle and let the chips fall where they may.

JL

@liz,

that falls into the trap of thinking that it's dems who will be changing the rules. it is the choice of republicans to change the rules or not, and if they do so then they must think that it is worth it.

JL

Ignoring for the moment how childish and immature that is, does ANYONE give thought to the future??

To the time when President Trump will nominate #2??

What the Dems do now will determine whether or not President Trump can put a Merrick Garland on the SCOTUS or a Kid Rock..

"Choose wisely."
-Knight Of The Round Table, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

does that mean you didn't read the article, or didn't believe it? the information and its sources seemed quite credible to me.

When US war crimes are ignored, the hypocrisy prevents a principled stance on the actions of others too.

meaning we aren't allowed to be against torture because some of our own did in it in the past? you're not making any sense here.

JL

JL

Hay, it's 20 against 1... I take it where I can get it.. :D

I think not.

Not even Cheney used that approach to sell the lies about Iraq.

Seriously, that's because Cheney didn't have good sense nor good judgement, silly.

The Dems tolerating the Repubs blocking Obama's constitutional right to fill the vacancy and 3 Dem senators supporting Trump's nominee shows how truly pathetic Dems are on principle, in messaging, and in party unity.

I agree they're infuriating at times, but what do you think they could have done about the Repubs blocking Garland? I'm asking here, not judging. Also, considering their infuriating past, I was pleasantly surprised that only 3 of them supported Gorsuch. :)

That said, giving Repubs what they want now to preserve a power (the judicial filibuster) that can be taken away whenever Dems actually try to use it is about as pointless as it can get.

Right. The makeup of the SC essentially remains intact and as per usual. No one knows what the future holds, and why would the Repubs NOT pull the exact same number when they truly had the power to change the makeup of the Court?

I want to see these Dems get pissed and get busy beating these Repubs at their own BS... It gets old watching them be "more civilized." Fight fire with fire. Full steam ahead.

If the Repubs go nuclear, and Dems miraculously win back control of the Senate in the midterms, I half expect them to reinstitute the filibuster as their first order of business... giving Repubs back their power to block them.

There's a lopsided number of seats in 2018... so not likely to happen... but possible. :)

thanks!

Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
(I didn't!)
And gallantly he chickened out
PWNED

*sigh*

JL

Can you guess where I missed putting in a comma in [74]?

Damn! Ahem ... cough ... Edit function ... cough...cough ...

I asked about proof regarding the latest incident.

For future reference though, neoliberal propaganda to help sell regime change efforts without regard to the consequences that are massively detrimental to US interests, and that violate our laws and values are unconvincing.

When US war crimes are ignored, the hypocrisy prevents a principled stance on the actions of others too.

Those who are selectively principled are not actually principled.

A

Now, you see, Al, you just went ahead and explained very succinctly why it is that good conversations cannot be had around here.

No one can voice an opinion without someone else requiring iron clad proof instead of furthering the discussion to see where it goes.

You know, we're all fairly well read around here. Some of us you might even call expert in their own field. Some of us don't really have a field but feel quite invested in some issues anyway.

None of us have all the answers but, that shouldn't stop us from thinking out loud and bringing our ideas to this blog.

We are all adult enough to know when to fold and call it a night, or early morning, as the case may be without turning everything into a cat scratching fest.

So, in future, tell me what you think about my ideas or assertions or magical thinking and I'll take if from there and we might even engage in a serious conversation about a serious subject, every now and again.

Stranger things have already happened! :)

there's the crux of the matter, isn't it. all the worst actors in the middle east, as bad as they are, may still be better than the next most likely alternative.

JL

Wow.

Not even Cheney used that approach to sell the lies about Iraq.

65

And your alternative is... who exactly?

A

Sure.
The Dems tolerating the Repubs blocking Obama's constitutional right to fill the vacancy and 3 Dem senators supporting Trump's nominee shows how truly pathetic Dems are on principle, in messaging, and in party unity.

But it does boil down to what Don said.
Six one, half dozen the other.
Right wing corporatists who only vary on social issues is all we've been getting for over 3 decades.

That said, giving Repubs what they want now to preserve a power (the judicial filibuster) that can be taken away whenever Dems actually try to use it is about as pointless as it can get.

If Dems weren't collaborators in maintaining the corrupt status quo, they would have gone nuclear when they had the majority and filled the hundreds (thousands?) of judicial vacancies with progressive liberals.

The "Dems are more civilized" defense is simply denialism about the use of power. For some reason, Dems are always unwilling to use their power to advance the interests of the people they claim to serve while insisting they will next time.

If the Repubs go nuclear, and Dems miraculously win back control of the Senate in the midterms, I half expect them to reinstitute the filibuster as their first order of business... giving Repubs back their power to block them.

A

I DO know.. :D

Until Assad realizes that staying in power isn't doing him, his regime, or his country any good and he decides to give up power, until then ... nothing will improve in Syria.

AND intelligence estimates from a half dozen countries...

Ahh.. So when you said you read "every word" you were lying..

You DON'T read "every word".. You just read every CW's word..

OK.. Glad you cleared that up.. Thank you...

I don't need mechanical means to skip a post.

And yet, you don't.. :D

You read my posts, even though you claim they are ALL "bullshit"... :D

No. That's not what I said;

It's exactly what you said.

I said:
So, I guess you ARE that into me.. :D

But, I AM flattered by your attentions.. :D

Then YOU said:
More bullshit from you... big surprise. So basically all you have is made up bullshit... followed by more made up bullshit... followed by additional made up bullshit.

So, you DID say that I was lying. That what I said was "bullshit"..

Then I ask you to PROVE that I am lying and then you claim "No. That's not what I said;

But NOW you claim you didn't say that what I said was bullshit, even though I am quoting your VERBATIM....

So, in other words, NOW it is YOU who is spewing bullshit.. :D

Now you may continue to prattle on and on with your utter nonsense, but JL and Elizabeth are correct. I'm not doing this.

Brave Sir Robin ran away
(No!)
Bravely ran away away
(I didn't!)
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
(No!)
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
(I didn't!)
And gallantly he chickened out

PWNED

heh :D

the new yorker ran a fairly extensive article on the matter last year.

"The commission’s work recently culminated in a four-hundred-page legal brief that links the systematic torture and murder of tens of thousands of Syrians to a written policy approved by President Bashar al-Assad, coördinated among his security-intelligence agencies, and implemented by regime operatives, who reported the successes of their campaign to their superiors in Damascus."

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/04/18/bashar-al-assads-war-crimes-exposed

Which, as has been proven, is nothing but a snapshot of the entire incident. As such, it's worthless

You're basing your argument on NOTHING.

No..

MY argument, Russ's argument and GT's argument is that the video by itself is not conclusive. It doesn't allow for any conclusion, save that of a hysterical anti-cop bigot..

Now, if you had an eyewitness who could come in here and tell us what happened BEFORE the video..

THEN you would have facts to come to a rational conclusion..

But you don't HAVE an eyewitness to come in here..

Right??

:D

And yet you think an argument based on faith beats an argument based on evidence?

No.. My argument is based on practical experience, training and expertise..

It's the same argument that Russ made, based on his experience, training and expertise..

It's the same argument that GT made, based on his personal knowledge of the area and the police involved..

YOU are the only one who is making a hysterical argument based on NOTHING but a snapshot and hysterical anti-cop bigotry..

You keep quoting my comments about what GT said, when they prove my point, not yours.

No.. GT's comments support my argument. They don't "prove" your point in any way, shape or form..

And why do you keep ignoring the relevance of the comment by GT that I was referencing?

Which comment was that?? You have referenced so many in this discussion, you will have to be more specific..

The long and short of it is this..

Anyone who says that they can definitively conclude that an incident is or is not justified based on a 30-second blurb of an incident that was way way longer is whacked in the head..

PERIOD..

You said "every word".. Which means MY "every word"...

It meant CW's. I don't read your every word.

Yes, that's my point.. If all my posts are such "BULLSHIT", then why don't you block me?

I don't need mechanical means to skip a post.

You don't because you hang on my "every word"... Your words, not mine..

You're doing that thing where you take words out of context and conflate it into utter bullshit. I never said I hang on your every word, although I have said many times to please stop projecting your fantasy onto my reality. ¯\_(?)_/¯

You accused me of lying about how I am flattered and how I am happily married..

You can't..

No. That's not what I said; that's how you interpreted what I said because it fit your purposes better than reading and understanding what I said. As I've stated before with perfect clarity when you made the same type comments; I'm not interested in your shack. It's not complicated... if only you had just let that permeate your selective memory the first time. :)

Now you may continue to prattle on and on with your utter nonsense, but JL and Elizabeth are correct. I'm not doing this.

Even the biased French are saying that Assad will be guilty of war crimes IF it is proven his regime is responsible.

Yet you are stating Assad is responsible as if it is a proven fact.
May I inquire what your source is?

A

any comments on the current column, on judicial nominees?

JL

the context also goes back much further than just obama. as i wrote earlier, this happened to bill clinton too. over a hundred clinton judicial nominees never got a confirmation vote, and most of their seats were filled by bush nominees.

JL

Yup.
I'm basing my argument on facts from the video of a cop beating a man who got on his knees in surrender.

You're basing your argument on NOTHING.
You didn't present one single fact about the beating incident that supports your argument.
And yet you think an argument based on faith beats an argument based on evidence?
I'm sure that makes sense in your head.

But hey.
You keep whining about police procedure.
Go ahead and cite the relevant procedure from the jurisdiction where the incident occurred.
Or are we supposed to go on faith again?
You keep claiming that I am ignorant, but you haven't demonstrated any knowledge on the subject.
This should be easy for even a washed up former LEO.
Why are we only getting empty assertion?

You keep quoting my comments about what GT said, when they prove my point, not yours.
Don't you think it's strange that you're the only one who thinks my words mean something different?
And why do you keep ignoring the relevance of the comment by GT that I was referencing?

A

Context is everything and is so often missing.

thanks for your vote of confidence, i feel the same. assad has been doing horrible things for a long time, even before syria descended into full-scale chaos. one reason the assad regime has been able to continue getting away with it is russian support. considering the trump white house's stance on russia, my guess is that assad will consolidate power and the chaotic bloodbath will become a much more organized and systematic bloodbath.

JL

We go with the blog we have rather than the blog we wish we had. :D

If people want to be serious, then we could be serious..

If people want to just be assholes, well...

"We can be faithful to that as well"
-President Jack Ryan

:D

And, while we are both here, do you think anything will change with respect to US policy in Syria in the wake of the horrific gas attacks by the Assad regime?

Yes, I think THIS time, since we don't have Red-Line Obama as our POTUS, I think things will be quite different..

President Trump has already expanded the number of operators in TOP considerably.. He has also taken the very good step of keeping the details of the expansion covert...

What good is the international community and its various bodies if nothing can be done to remove Assad from power, if not from the earth, itself?

Politics.. It will be the death of humanity....

You said "every word".. Which means MY "every word"...

I read the board for months and didn't say a peep to anyone. Did you factor that in? Did you forget that? I also said that I could block you any time with Charlie Brown's most excellent Tamper Monkey device.?

Yes, that's my point.. If all my posts are such "BULLSHIT", then why don't you block me?

You don't because you hang on my "every word"... Your words, not mine..

In other words, I don't have to prove it since you're doing it for me. :)

You accused me of lying about how I am flattered and how I am happily married..

I asked you to PROVE that I am lying.

You can't..

Ergo, it's you who spews bullshit.. :D

What good is the international community and its various bodies if nothing can be done to remove Assad from power, if not from the earth, itself?

i'm with you 100%

JL

If Neil had posted that he reads "every word" and he was on me as much as you are??

Oh, I see your problem. I said I read "every word" in one of my posts, and you actually took that to mean "your every word." You thought that was about you [sung to the tune of "You're So Vain"]. Sorry to disappoint you, but you're not CW so I wasn't referring to you.

I read the board for months and didn't say a peep to anyone. Did you factor that in? Did you forget that? I also said that I could block you any time with Charlie Brown's most excellent Tamper Monkey device. Why didn't you factor that in?

You seem to have a selective case of what you remember and what you forget. *LOL* :)

In other words, you CAN'T prove it... :D

In other words, I don't have to prove it since you're doing it for me. :)

Why yes... Yes I would.. :D

I'd be interested to see you try that utter nonsensical drivel with Neil. Come on. You haven't made a fool enough of yourself for one day; try that utter load of bullshit with Neil or Listen. :)

If Neil had posted that he reads "every word" and he was on me as much as you are??

Yea, I probably would inquire about his interest.. :D

The only thing "simple" is your bullshit. How pathetic and small... very much like Donald Trump. Try that "I'm married" bullshit with A01 or JL and see how far you get with that intellectual lazy drivel. *LOL* :)

In other words, you CAN'T prove it... :D

That's all you had to say, Vickie :D

Prove it... Prove it that I am not flattered by your attentions. :D

You say it's bullsit??

Yes, it's bullshit and it's intellectual laziness and willful ignorance to infer the load of shit you just laid. Would you accuse altohone or GT or LWYH of being interested in you and resort to the utter bullshit you just typed there about one of them "being into you" and the "I'm married" utter load of bullshit you just actually typed there?

I'd be interested to see you try that utter nonsensical drivel with Neil. Come on. You haven't made a fool enough of yourself for one day; try that utter load of bullshit with Neil or Listen. :)

You can't... It's that simple.. :D

The only thing "simple" is your bullshit. How pathetic and small... very much like Donald Trump. Try that "I'm married" bullshit with A01 or JL and see how far you get with that intellectual lazy drivel. *LOL* :)

But you didn't object then.. :D

now that's not like you at all ;)

Since I can't get a reliable search from GOOGLE for cw.com....

Maybe when CW finishes the site update, it will have better search capabilities...

We can revisit the issue then...

now that's not like you at all ;)

JL

Since I can't prove it, I'll let it go...

Probably :D

So, I can't prove you said it..

If it offends you to have me say you said it, I retract the claim.

Jeesus h christ on a crutch!!

um, that wasn't me.

Oh, come on!!! Jeesus H Christ!!!

um, that wasn't me.

JL

I understand your reasoning, I really do..

The GOP were big fat meenies and you want to stick it back to em... I understand that..

But you must concede that the opposition to Gorsuch will be useless in the short term as far as getting Gorsuch confirmed and it will be worse than useless in the long term, as it will prevent a possible successful filibuster in the future with a nominee that the Dems really REALLY hate...

Don't take my word for it...

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/31/ftp430/#comment-97721

Listen to John M....

Prove it... Prove it that I am not flattered by your attentions. :D

Prove it that I am not happily.. ECSTATICALLY married to a beautiful woman for the last 35+ years..

You say it's bullsit??

PROVE it..

You can't... It's that simple.. :D

So, WHO spews the bullshit?? Looks like it's you, Vicky :D

Democrats threatened to poison the well first..

Having said that, I completely agree with you that the GOP feigning surprise is total bullshit..

Or are you either actually that NAIVE or have that much CONTEMPT for your opponent???

I do have contempt for BOTH the GOP and the Democrat Party...

Just more for the Dims.. :D

As JL once said..

Michale hates Republicans but he really REALLY hates Democrats..

That sums it up perfectly.. :D

And, if that was all you did, there wouldn't be a problem..

But then you went on a personal attack bender, calling me names because I don't remember EVERYTHING you have said for the last year or so..

More bullshit from you; no one said anything about remembering EVERYTHING from the "last year or so." You see, this is the problem. You make shit up about people... just incessantly make shit up and lump everyone here into the same category.

Yea, you keep saying that.. Yet you are still riveted by it and read and remember every word.. :D

More made up bullshit from you... surprise! You really think anyone here is "riveted" by the same monotonous bullshit over and over? Your shit is not special... hell, it's not even political debate. :)

So, I guess you ARE that into me.. :D

But, I AM flattered by your attentions.. :D

More bullshit from you... big surprise. So basically all you have is made up bullshit... followed by more made up bullshit... followed by additional made up bullshit.

Thanks for proving how much FACTS matter to you. You can always be counted on to cut yourself off at your own knees. Why don't you do yourself and everyone else a favor and pop that bubble you're living in and try living in reality? It would serve you well to clue in to the FACT that FACTS don't seem to matter to you at all. :)

as CW points out, this tactic of denying a vote to democratic nominees and then fast-tracking republican ones has been going on for a long time. i would even say he doesn't go far enough back for the context. this goes all the way back to bill clinton's administration.

clinton had over a hundred federal judicial nominations stalled until the end of his term, many of them appellate positions, most of which were later filled by bush nominees. this has been a concerted effort of republicans to game the federal courts by using every procedural trick available to deny democratic nominees for the last twenty-five years. nothing democrats have done even comes close.

JL

"How is that any different than what the Democrats are doing to Gorsuch?"

You can't be the FIRST one to poison the well (REPUBLICANS) and then get to FEIGN surprise when the other side (DEMOCRATS) actually start nursing a grudge! I mean, what other reaction were you REALLY expecting??? Or are you either actually that NAIVE or have that much CONTEMPT for your opponent???

I know this will likely be VERY disappointing to you. I don't hang on your every word and memorize it or take notes on your "pearls of wisdom", etc etc..

I am just not that into you..

You don't hang on anyone's word; you're just not into meaningful conversation. Lumping people into categories and repeating the same monotonous bullshit about party bigotry like it's a new "pearl of wisdom" every day means never having to actually have political debate with anyone. Intellectual laziness and willful ignorance while pounding everyone into the same "pure and simple" boxes means never having to debate at all. :)

Plus the fact that EVERYTHING you say is borne of Party slavery and ideological hysteria..

I rest my case.

So, it's just not that important to me to remember what you say...

We know. It's just not that important to you to remember what anybody says. It's so much easier to lump everyone into the same box and pretend it's political debate. See above.

Does that mean I'll get it wrong now and again?

No, it means you constantly get it wrong. You have very few arguments, and you think they qualify as actual political debate. Oh, sure, the subject can change, but your arguments really never do. They don't have to when you lump an entire group into a box and pretend like they all agree on nearly every subject and pretend like they'd agree with your and Breitbart's and Alex Jones's conspiracy drivel too if only they weren't all a bunch of party bigots... even though you insist Benedict Donald has no party. :)

But it also means that yer just not that important to me..

I'll remind you of that next time you hijack my post to someone else for the 1000th time in order to call me a party bigot for the 1000th time.

Sorry if that makes you feel bad.. :D Not my intent..

OMG! *LOL* Are you really this obtuse? And you really don't see it?

You really are! :)

So, in other words, No.. You DON'T remember exactly what I said 10 days ago..

Yet, you expect me to..

Hypocrisy much??? :D Much too much.. :D

You asked me for a cite, and I had no problem giving it to you.

And, if that was all you did, there wouldn't be a problem..

But then you went on a personal attack bender, calling me names because I don't remember EVERYTHING you have said for the last year or so..

Besides, little man; your bullshit is kind of repetitive and monotonous.

Yea, you keep saying that.. Yet you are still riveted by it and read and remember every word.. :D

So, I guess you ARE that into me.. :D

Sorry, Victoria.. As flattered as I am, I have been ecstatically married to a beautiful woman fort 35+ years..

But, I AM flattered by your attentions.. :D

Ok, Victora, OK..

Do you remember??

EXACTLY 10 days ago... blah, blah, blah. We've already been through this exercise above. You already asked me for a cite; I already gave it to you because I remembered our conversation from around 10 days ago. Did you forget this from 10 minutes ago? You're making yourself look really "silly" again.

Of course you don't..

See above conversation from around 10 days ago that I remembered and YOU forgot.

So, you can tell me what I said exactly 10 days ago without referring back??

Hey, remember that INCORRECT statement you made above? I remembered our conversation and what we talked about and was therefore able to instantly realize you were wrong. You asked me for a cite, and I had no problem giving it to you. Now you seem to have completely forgotten that I've already proven that I can remember something that you've completely forgotten. :)

Of course you can't..

I already did.

Like I said. Quit acting like an ass..

Oh, now there's a good start; you remembered something you said from 10 seconds ago. Keep working on that and go for 10 minutes, 10 hours... work your way up until you can stop posting incorrect bullshit because of your inability to recall recent conversations.

Besides, little man; your bullshit is kind of repetitive and monotonous. Anyone who has read a few days of it knows your entire routine. Oh, sure, the subject may change, but the monotonous drivel you're incessantly spewing changes very little at all. SSDD :)

No, it was over 500 TRUMP IS TOAST claims that ya'all stated daily.. It was over 500 times that I told ya'all how full of shit ya'all were..

It was over 500 times that ya'all were wrong and I was right...

These are the facts.. Deal with it..

No, I call it like I see it

EXACTLY.. You call it like *YOU* see it.. But, since you have conceded that you are ideologically bigoted/biased, how YOU see it is not how it really is..

You spout your TRUTH and ignore the facts...

but you can't remember shit for 10 days so you make up shit and then whine like

I know this will likely be VERY disappointing to you. I don't hang on your every word and memorize it or take notes on your "pearls of wisdom", etc etc..

I am just not that into you..

Plus the fact that EVERYTHING you say is borne of Party slavery and ideological hysteria..

So, it's just not that important to me to remember what you say...

Does that mean I'll get it wrong now and again?

Yea, probably...

But it also means that yer just not that important to me..

Sorry if that makes you feel bad.. :D Not my intent..