It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No man should ever vote for Democrats again!

page: 15
91
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: toolgal462

You mad bro or sis?



Yes, I do not appreciate you posting nonsense and attributing it to me. My posts are here for all to see for themselves. I do not appreciate your "reinterpretations" of the things I have posted. It makes you an obvious liar and POS.

p.s. I have repeatedly stated that I am FEMALE so I don't particularly get why you felt it necessary to imply I may be a "bro" but I suspect that was an attempt at implying my gender is in question.

So I say you are also a bully and a bigot.


Oh my goodness, did I post an opinion just as you did?

Bad Gryph.


What exactly is your game? You play both sides, but not in an impartial manner. You play both sides and pretend you are so brilliant and talk down to everyone.

Give it a rest, it's getting annoying. Maybe try not posting so much and go outside with the 3 dimensional people. Then maybe you will learn how men and women actually interact in the world.




posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, Article II states clearly that the President appoints to SCOTUS and the Senate approves (or disapproves).

Is that an exact quote? No, and I didn't claim it was. Bored again with your attempted nitpicking.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: toolgal462

You mad bro or sis?



Yes, I do not appreciate you posting nonsense and attributing it to me. My posts are here for all to see for themselves. I do not appreciate your "reinterpretations" of the things I have posted. It makes you an obvious liar and POS.

p.s. I have repeatedly stated that I am FEMALE so I don't particularly get why you felt it necessary to imply I may be a "bro" but I suspect that was an attempt at implying my gender is in question.

So I say you are also a bully and a bigot.


Oh my goodness, did I post an opinion just as you did?

Bad Gryph.


What exactly is your game? You play both sides, but not in an impartial manner. You play both sides and pretend you are so brilliant and talk down to everyone.

Give it a rest, it's getting annoying. Maybe try not posting so much and go outside with the 3 dimensional people. Then maybe you will learn how men and women actually interact in the world.


May I suggest you skip over my posts?

You seem to be troubled by them.

Best.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, Article II states clearly that the President appoints to SCOTUS and the Senate approves (or disapproves).

Is that an exact quote? No, and I didn't claim it was. Bored again with your attempted nitpicking.


.....aaaaaaaaaaaand, that is NOT what you said. go ahead and double down on the lies now.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

boy was that hard
like pulling a tooth

there are no "rules" as you put it about the senate not doing anything about the selected nominee other than the potus can push a nominee through if the senate is in a recess

no time limit listed



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

Look at you, still chiming in ...

Why don't you quote what I said and we'll go from there.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: toolgal462

Look at you, still chiming in ...

Why don't you quote what I said and we'll go from there.


shooterbrody already posted the quote. scroll up a few posts back. What you said and what is in the Constitution are not even remotely the same thing. haha...double down now.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Are there any "time limits" noted in the Constitution other than terms?

No?

Wow, I guess your comment is spurious and silly then eh?

Followup: If there's no time limit, then why are Republicans pushing Kavannaugh so hard, hmmm?

You know as well as I do that the President appoints and the Senate gives an up or down vote. McConnell is ON THE RECORD that his intention was to deny Obama his Constitutional authority.

Did someone say sedition?



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The democrat victim identity has run amok.

Men are all rapists and women are all victims. School girls are being cautioned on how to dress so they don't accidentally trigger a school boy's urges he is incapable of understanding or controlling. So I guess the flip side of that coin is the old "she dressed like she wanted it" excuse is back in play? Clearly the democrats believe the way females dress has uncontrollable influence on male behavior. Any women that dresses too sexy can only blame herself if she gets raped. But wait, its always the mans fault...but she dressed that way...but because aggressive males...but...but...but...


And not a single word about all the female teachers getting caught raping underage male students.
edit on 25-9-2018 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: toolgal462

Look at you, still chiming in ...

Why don't you quote what I said and we'll go from there.


shooterbrody already posted the quote. scroll up a few posts back. What you said and what is in the Constitution are not even remotely the same thing. haha...double down now.


Nope, not even close Gal. The Constitution is clear and what I stated is right in line with the Constitution.

So,quibble away.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: toolgal462

Look at you, still chiming in ...

Why don't you quote what I said and we'll go from there.


shooterbrody already posted the quote. scroll up a few posts back. What you said and what is in the Constitution are not even remotely the same thing. haha...double down now.




Nope, not even close Gal. The Constitution is clear and what I stated is right in line with the Constitution.

So,quibble away.


quibbling away....

Here is what you actually said that was BLATANTLY UNTRUE:


"The only rule involved is the Constitution which does not allow for the Senate to refuse to consider a President's nominee."

but by all means, keep proving us all right. keep digging and looking foolish. I am rather enjoying it since you think you are so smart.
edit on 25-9-2018 by toolgal462 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

Are there any "time limits" noted in the Constitution other than terms?

No?

Wow, I guess your comment is spurious and silly then eh?

Followup: If there's no time limit, then why are Republicans pushing Kavannaugh so hard, hmmm?

You know as well as I do that the President appoints and the Senate gives an up or down vote. McConnell is ON THE RECORD that his intention was to deny Obama his Constitutional authority.

Did someone say sedition?

please point out the time limit or requirement for the senate to advise and consent

i will wait.....



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

Yep, even though you didn't really quote my comment, that's what I said.

Now, you can counter my claim if you demonstrate from the Constitution where it says the Senate can decide to provide "advice and consent" or not.

Can you do that?

I'm betting no.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Please point out where the Majority Leader of the Senate can decide to deny a President his rightful Constitutional duties.

Again, I'm betting no.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Speaking of the Senate Majority Leader, he now feels that there are enough yes votes to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

mobile.twitter.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: toolgal462

Yep, even though you didn't really quote my comment, that's what I said.

Now, you can counter my claim if you demonstrate from the Constitution where it says the Senate can decide to provide "advice and consent" or not.

Can you do that?

I'm betting no.





Wow, it's a good thing that you admit you said it because I actually cut and pasted the quote, so it would have been way too easy for you to SPIN that eh?

Why are you now moving the goal posts? You said something that was completely false and shooterbrody has repeatedly proven that it doesn't say anything like what you claim in the Constitution.

Care to either admit you were wrong or just stfu and stop doubling down and making a bigger fool of yourself?



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

Please point out where the Majority Leader of the Senate can decide to deny a President his rightful Constitutional duties.

Again, I'm betting no.

working the clock isnt exactly denying anything now is it?
you can pretend it is but we both know it is not.
dont be mad at me because barak did not take advantage of the senate recess



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

Gal, this seems personal for you.

Since you can't seem to ignore me, I'll just ignore you.

Calm down and be well. People disagree on the internet.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

Please point out where the Majority Leader of the Senate can decide to deny a President his rightful Constitutional duties.

Again, I'm betting no.

working the clock isnt exactly denying anything now is it?
you can pretend it is but we both know it is not.
dont be mad at me because barak did not take advantage of the senate recess


Can the Senate refuse it's Constitutional duty?

No?

Then McConnell abrogated the President's Constitutional powers which is, at least in spirit, sedition.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

did the senate refuse?
i would submit they were doing research on the nominee.
unless you have evidence otherwise?



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join