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.
originally posted by: carewemust
Ford's attorney's have chosen a smaller room too. No space for a circus of screaming nutjobs.
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Grambler
ABOUT FVCKING TIME. Now let's see if the Republicans have the balls to stick to it. I would have preferred they voted yesterday
originally posted by: Themaskedbeast
a reply to: Greven
It isn't a presidential election year. Huge difference in the shower ope of politics.
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Greven
OK and that is exactly what the republicans did. Hillary lost and after the election they are having hearings on the WINNERS nominee. To quote your messiah obama "elections have consequences" and to quote him again " if you don't like it quit whining and win elections"
Stop with the lies.
Obama is no messiah. The 'winner' didn't take office until late January.
The intention of Biden's proposal was to hold hearings on any potential SCOTUS candidate after the election, not after the winner assumes office.
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Greven
So by Biden's and your own words you are ok with pushing it past an election? That is what happened. Do you really expect and opposing party to nominate his predecessors nominee?
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Greven
OK and that is exactly what the republicans did. Hillary lost and after the election they are having hearings on the WINNERS nominee. To quote your messiah obama "elections have consequences" and to quote him again " if you don't like it quit whining and win elections"
Stop with the lies.
Obama is no messiah. The 'winner' didn't take office until late January.
The intention of Biden's proposal was to hold hearings on any potential SCOTUS candidate after the election, not after the winner assumes office.
Spin it how you want! But Mark Levin has already shown the history and intentions of the Progressive left.
Watch it if you dare, which you won't, but he shows the documents of how the Democrats were and are hell bent to obstruct our judicial process.
Biden is dirty as hell and you know it!
]]]]]]]]]]]]
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Greven
OK and that is exactly what the republicans did. Hillary lost and after the election they are having hearings on the WINNERS nominee. To quote your messiah obama "elections have consequences" and to quote him again " if you don't like it quit whining and win elections"
Stop with the lies.
Obama is no messiah. The 'winner' didn't take office until late January.
The intention of Biden's proposal was to hold hearings on any potential SCOTUS candidate after the election, not after the winner assumes office.
Spin it how you want! But Mark Levin has already shown the history and intentions of the Progressive left.
Watch it if you dare, which you won't, but he shows the documents of how the Democrats were and are hell bent to obstruct our judicial process.
Biden is dirty as hell and you know it!
]]]]]]]]]]]]
This ain't about Biden.
It's about McConnell's invocation of Biden's proposal to delay forever a SCOTUS nominee, which is neither following with the proposal nor the Constitution of the United States of America.
They could have held a hearing and then declined the nomination.
They didn't.
Instead, they lied to you, they lied to America, and they continue to lie to day purely for power and money.
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Greven
You are either very naïve or being very disingenuous if you think biden's intentions were altruistic. His intentions were to hijack a nominee, it was purely a political move on his part. The playbook has not changed in almost 30 years with liberals, they accused Clarence Thomas of sexual assault and harassment, and it didn't work then and it won't work now on Kavanaugh. I am through talking to you 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?
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: seeker1963
Notice he doesn't want to answer you, he wants to keep arguing with me even though I told him I am done engaging him, he would rather argue with a wall
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?