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.

 

Senate committee to hold conformation vote for Kavanaugh Friday at 9:30 am

page: 8
41
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: chiefsmom




My only concern, is how much lower can the Dems go after this.


They manage to out do themselves every time.

So pretty effing low.


What's the opposite of a Blue "Wave"?


Truth,JUSTICE, and the American Way.





posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Greven


Just like a liberal, accuse Kavanaugh of something and ask for the other side to provide evidence to you. You mad e the claim, burden of proof is on you. You seem to really have a hard time grasping the innocent until proven guilty and burden of proof

Just like a person who doesn't understand debate, you claimed first - that he was a strict constitutionalist.

On the other hand, I have evidence to the contrary:
Brett Kavanaugh’s Fourth Amendment Blind Spot

This week Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning Republican senator from Kentucky, said he was "worried" and "disappointed" by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's views on the Fourth Amendment.
...
In 2015, for instance, Kavanaugh called the National Security Agency's mass collection of Americans' telephone records "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
...
Kavanaugh also perceived a "special need" in a 2012 case involving the U.S. Forest Service's random drug testing of people employed at its Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers.
...
Kavanaugh likewise pushed a new excuse for warrantless searches in a 2008 case brought by a man named Paul Askew, who was convicted of illegally possessing a gun that police discovered after stopping him because his clothing was similar to an armed robber's.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Greven


And who gives a fvck what mcconnell said, we are talking about liberals being perfectly ok with ruining a persons life over what amounts to temper tantrum on their part. Kavanaugh had nothing to o with Garland and mcconnell. Get over that.

I find the GOP to be hypocrites, and I don't consider most of them to actually be Republicans these days.

McConnell is especially vile in his twisting of facts and power plays at the expense of We the People.

You don't want to examine the hypocrisy here.
edit on 20Tue, 25 Sep 2018 20:24:10 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago9 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Greven


You sure sound like a conservative lol, get real man, you can't even be honest about being a liberal, how do you expect anyone to believe you on anything else you say?

What are your conservative values?



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Greven


You didn't even watch the video! Yet you want to argue with me! Levin showed the documents from the Democrats and how they wanted to obstruct anyone who believed in the Constitution from being appointed to the SCOTUS.

Is that cool with you that Constitutionalists should be blocked from being appointed? Be honest. We already know how Progs hate our country and Constitution, so let's see if you have the stones to say it?

I've seen it before.

If you want to go into believing in the Constitution, I point you to the current President who clearly is not acting per his Constitutional duties, see this from last year or you know read the news and the Constitution.



liar! If you watched the video, if you saw the documents, you wouldn't be moving the goalposts! You would be arguing with me about what was in Levins video.


I knew you had no stones!

There aren't any moved goalposts, and I'm not lying.

His video is mostly irrelevant to the conversation about the (not really a rule) 'Biden rule.' As I recall, about halfway through the segment, he plays a little tune with Biden talking at the end of June about not nominating for a SCOTUS seat until after the election. That's less than 6 months.

Yet, he talked about how it's hypocritical of Obama to not follow such a proposal at the beginning of March, which would be almost 9 months.

You don't find that in any way dishonest?

You don't find that in any way hypocritical that, with just a couple of months left to an election, the GOP is trying to ram through a nominee?



What I find hypocritical is you and your Progressive movement promoting that a person who is charged with a crime is guilty until proven innocent.

However, what makes it worse for your religion, is that you guys telegraphed your intentions before Trump even announce Kav as his pick!

Ever hear the saying about wearing ones emotions on their sleeves? Progressives are idiots! How can you claim the moral high ground when you came out immorally to state your intentions without knowing who or wtf you are talking about?

First off, I'm not a Progressive, so it ain't my movement.

Second, my religion is Christianity.

Third, I'm a Republican - I just pay more attention to the Constitution than the GOP seems to these days.

You know what they say about assumptions, right?


Well, according to those who believe as you do, you can be a Unicorn if you so desire! You sure as hell are delusional though if you claim to be a Constitutionalist or a Republican. RINO? YEA! But if you believe in the Constitution? It is innocent until proven guilty!

What is it I believe, since you've decided to ascribe a number of fallacious ideas to me?

I'm dying to hear.


I believe in innocent until proven guilty! You?

Oh, have you decided not to tell me what I believe now?

I certainly believe in innocent until proven guilty.


So has Kavanaugh been proven to be guilty of the crime he has been accused of? Does the accuser have anything other than her "vagina" to back up her allegations? Because all I am seeing is "She should be believed" I would believe her if she had evidence, but she doesn't, so why should Kavanaughs life and family be destroyed?

I don't think that he has, no.

I still don't see what that has to do with McConnell and the (not actually a rule) 'Biden Rule.'

You seem to want to pivot away from that for some reason.


You didn't watch the video! Tell the truth. The documents Levin showed, shown how the Progressive Democrats have a plan to prevent ANY SCOTUS who was a Constitutionalist from being appointed. Show me ONCE where I mentioned McConnell!


Yet you yourself claimed you believed in the Constitution!! What world do you live in?

Again, I had previously seen the video. Do you not recall a few posts back when I mentioned that he talks about Biden about halfway through? Have you not actually watched the video?

Levin is a wealthy partisan hack who makes money by being a partisan hack. He's got a whiney voice that is painful for me to listen to, and he makes a living by crying about all the evil Other Team even when the GOP controls the entirety of government.

Yeah uh, you responded to my argument discussing McConnell with some other thing entirely. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the flow of discussion?

I certainly do believe in the Constitution. I live in reality. Perhaps you do not?


I never mentioned McConnel Comrade! Also FYI Ted Kennedy was a big portion of Levins video! I can't stomach McConnel FYI!


Yet you jumped into the discussion where I was talking about McConnell and the alleged 'Biden Rule'.

I don't care about the other irrelevant crap in that video by the wealthy conman Levin.
edit on 20Tue, 25 Sep 2018 20:22:35 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago9 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: chiefsmom




My only concern, is how much lower can the Dems go after this.


They manage to out do themselves every time.

So pretty effing low.


What's the opposite of a Blue "Wave"?


A Red Landslide!



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 08:45 PM
link   
How did Christine Ford get to and from Hawaii without flying?


blogs.harvard.edu...

Has anyone seen this photo of her, its out there now.



Photo Credit thepoliticalinsider.com...
edit on 25-9-2018 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Are your views so frivolous that you would abstain from defending them?
How many does it take to oppose me?



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: seeker1963

Are your views so frivolous that you would abstain from defending them?
How many does it take to oppose me?



What's frivolous about my views my fellow Republican?

FWI I only registered as a Republican from Independent so I could vote for Trump. Pennsylvania is an ass like that....

edit on 25-9-2018 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: seeker1963

Are your views so frivolous that you would abstain from defending them?
How many does it take to oppose me?



What's frivolous about my views my fellow Republican?

You jumped into a conversation about the 'Biden rule' and McConnell by arguing something else entirely.

Now you've jumped out still talking about something else entirely.

Seems rather fleeting to me.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: seeker1963

Are your views so frivolous that you would abstain from defending them?
How many does it take to oppose me?



What's frivolous about my views my fellow Republican?

You jumped into a conversation about the 'Biden rule' and McConnell by arguing something else entirely.

Now you've jumped out still talking about something else entirely.

Seems rather fleeting to me.


No idea wtf you are talking about. When I hear the name Biden I think of Pizzagate and getting rid of Sheriffs.
edit on 25-9-2018 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Enough!!!


This is NOT the Mud Pit or a Boxing Match!!!


All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: carewemust

If the GOP has the votes, Schumer will probably clear those red state Dems to vote as necessary to protect their seats. So yeah, I think there's a decent chance of two or three crossovers from the Dems, especially if Ford doesn't show for the Thursday hearing.


I seem to recall an Alinsky speech of great vitriol and other
slathering animations where you "have to throw yourself upon
the Gears! ..."
and I was rather enjoying the blue visceral spray of Demacroid
huskies flinging themselves into the monstrous 5speed Liberty.
Yes, I come from drag racing; and the world of bloodless frontal
lobes from just accelerative G forces. [/drool] affirmative baby.

I also believe if the Democratic Leadership had at this point
wanted to make preservation of their House and Senate numbers
a consideration: there wouldn't be this self-destructive and pain-
fully obvious orchestra playing "Legislation from the Bench BAMN!"

These people aren't THAT stupid, but may be this desparate.
Just wondering how much pain can be applied this week alone
before somebody who's really guilty snaps and flips on-mic.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: tinner07


I would say again, the winners of elections pick nominees, quit whining and win elections

It's great that you applaud people from Your Party stomping all over the Constitution, but you seem to be confused.

They're also my party - I just don't applaud their actions.


the goal of ATS is "deny ignorance"

right now Greven are you not only ignoring this goal, but putting forth by your comment ?"stomping all over the constitution" PROMOTING IGNORANCE....YOURS.

there is what the CONSTITUTION says

Appointments Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which empowers the President of the United States to nominate, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate, appoint public officials.

Let me point out

President NOMINATE a person to be a supreme court justice

SENATE ...CHOOSES if they want to OR REJECT have a hearing on the president nominee . they can choose TO OR NOT TO vote after the hearing to send it to the senate. they could VOTE TO STOP , CONTINUE , OR NOT EVEN HAVE A HEARING AT ALL... then the senate VOTES to confirm or not to.

No where does it say in the constitution THAT THEY HAVE TO START THE PROCESS WITH ANY PARTICULAR PERSON the president nominates.
Nor does it say ANY TIMETABLE THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW.

I ask you to PROVIDE EXACTLY WHERE THE SENATE has to do what your claiming...be a specific time frame, any person nominated by the president has to be given any consideration, that a hearing must be a set time, must allow anyone to testify or for that matter THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE A HEARING AT ALL.

your continue cries of they must delay it in an election year or that they must go thought with it are NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY VIABLE.

so where is your PROOF in the SPECIFIC WORDS of the constitution?

In short its called SEPARATION OF POWERS

the presidents job is to nominate people .

the senate job is to DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO CONSIDER THEM OR NOT.

the president or any party IS NOT THE BOSS OF THE SENATE nor is the president under the senate.

if the president CHOOSES not to nominate anyone, the senate CANNOT order him to do so or demand he does it.

if the senate CHOOSES not to vote on or approve a president nominee HE CANT TELL THEM THEY HAVE TO.

get it now?


scrounger

edit on 26-9-2018 by scrounger because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: manuelram16

I guess it depends on what Michael Avaniti has up his sleeve.
He promised his revelations by today.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

You seriously have faith in Avenatti? Im just a little surprised you or anyone else on either side of the aisle believe anything that obvious slimeball ambulance chaser says.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join