User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:38:33 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:39:42 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:40:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Which ones are up for re-election this year? Neither of my POS RINOS are.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:41:22 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
87 days Quote History87 Minutes 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:41:29 PM EDT
[#5]
Sure they will. At least until Obama calls them meanies and hurts their feelings.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:42:07 PM EDT
[#6]
Read this part very carefully:
Earlier in the day, McConnell said his party won't permit a vote on any Supreme Court nominee submitted by Obama and will instead "revisit the matter" after the presidential election in November.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:43:30 PM EDT
[#7]
Bidens rule....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:44:42 PM EDT
[#8]
Maine: Senator Susan Collins says YES. Classic RHINO.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:45:15 PM EDT
[#9]
it'll last till Obama nominates someone, and then hits the airwaves saying Republicans are obstructionist and stopping progress.
SJW's will freak out. McConnell will cave, and we'll have a 5/4 liberal court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:45:35 PM EDT
[#10]
I'll believe it when I see it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:47:05 PM EDT
[#11]
I might could see a compromise, especially if Obama opted to keep the courts balance by picking a like minded replacement.
BUT OBAMA NOT GOING TO THE FUNERAL. ...Well FUCK YOU MR PRESIDENT, I will not consider any of your picks. Not going to the funeral killed all chances of a new judge under his watch. Imo |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:48:11 PM EDT
[#12]
there is no winning with some of yall.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:50:37 PM EDT
[#13]
standing by for the cave-in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:50:51 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read this part very carefully: Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read this part very carefully: Earlier in the day, McConnell said his party won't permit a vote on any Supreme Court nominee submitted by Obama and will instead "revisit the matter" after the presidential election in November.
Ok. That would be nice if you could count on anyone at that level keeping their word. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:52:17 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read this part very carefully: Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read this part very carefully: Earlier in the day, McConnell said his party won't permit a vote on any Supreme Court nominee submitted by Obama and will instead "revisit the matter" after the presidential election in November.
No shit, any time they open up their mouths you have to listen (or read) what they said very carefully. The fact that they don't come out and just state; "we will not confirm anyone Obama nominates." is telling. They are leaving the door open as they always do so when they DO go and confirm Obama's nominee they'll be able to play their usual word game excuses.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:52:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok. That would be nice if you could count on anyone at that level keeping their word. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Read this part very carefully: Earlier in the day, McConnell said his party won't permit a vote on any Supreme Court nominee submitted by Obama and will instead "revisit the matter" after the presidential election in November.
Ok. That would be nice if you could count on anyone at that level keeping their word. HINT: Obama will still be President until the inauguration in January. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:53:34 PM EDT
[#17]
They can't do that, that's racist!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:54:40 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which ones are up for re-election this year? Neither of my POS RINOS are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:55:21 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:55:55 PM EDT
[#20]
Of all the dumb political things the Senate could do this has to be one of the worst. McConnel finally gets some balls and still will lose the political battle. All these idiots need to do is play the game and never end up approving any nominee.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:57:10 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No shit, any time they open up their mouths you have to listen (or read) what they said very carefully. The fact that they don't come out and just state; "we will not confirm anyone Obama nominates." is telling. They are leaving the door open as they always do so when they DO go and confirm Obama's nominee they'll be able to play their usual word game excuses.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Read this part very carefully: Earlier in the day, McConnell said his party won't permit a vote on any Supreme Court nominee submitted by Obama and will instead "revisit the matter" after the presidential election in November.
No shit, any time they open up their mouths you have to listen (or read) what they said very carefully. The fact that they don't come out and just state; "we will not confirm anyone Obama nominates." is telling. They are leaving the door open as they always do so when they DO go and confirm Obama's nominee they'll be able to play their usual word game excuses.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 3:59:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Yeah right, we'll have a new justice before summer hits. RINOs only know how to fail.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:00:37 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HINT: Obama will still be President until the inauguration in January. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read this part very carefully: Earlier in the day, McConnell said his party won't permit a vote on any Supreme Court nominee submitted by Obama and will instead "revisit the matter" after the presidential election in November.
Ok. That would be nice if you could count on anyone at that level keeping their word. HINT: Obama will still be President until the inauguration in January. DOH! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:01:09 PM EDT
[#24]
It'll pick up steam after Super Tuesday, which should come close to deciding the nominees. The fight will play out during the main election.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:03:15 PM EDT
[#25]
Sure, I believe it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:04:20 PM EDT
[#26]
The rinos lie. Don't believe what they say. They are afraid to actually hurt the black potus. When the black potus makes a choice they will pussyfy and hold the hearings and agree with the black potus. They don't want to be seen as mean people or racists. They are all traitors and need to be removed and replaced with real americans.
I despise them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:05:29 PM EDT
[#27]
There's plenty of precedent for not confirming a lame duck's nominees. Democrats, including obongo, did it to Bush for 18 months.
1911fan |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:05:29 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read this part very carefully: Earlier in the day, McConnell said his party won't permit a vote on any Supreme Court nominee submitted by Obama and will instead "revisit the matter" after the presidential election in November.
No shit, any time they open up their mouths you have to listen (or read) what they said very carefully. The fact that they don't come out and just state; "we will not confirm anyone Obama nominates." is telling. They are leaving the door open as they always do so when they DO go and confirm Obama's nominee they'll be able to play their usual word game excuses.
If the Democrats prevail, then after the election they will have to decide which would be worse - an Obama nominee or a Clinton/Sanders nominee. (November or January) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:06:45 PM EDT
[#29]
The word of the GOP has a negative intrest rate
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:07:45 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there is no winning with some of yall. Yup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:09:02 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HINT: Obama will still be President until the inauguration in January. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read this part very carefully: Earlier in the day, McConnell said his party won't permit a vote on any Supreme Court nominee submitted by Obama and will instead "revisit the matter" after the presidential election in November.
Ok. That would be nice if you could count on anyone at that level keeping their word. HINT: Obama will still be President until the inauguration in January. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:09:17 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll believe it when I see it. This . I fully expect the republicans to have a liberal replacement on the bench by the end of summer at the latest . What you are watching is political theater where everyone knows the outcome |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:10:13 PM EDT
[#33]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:11:37 PM EDT
[#34]
If the Republicans had any balls they would have hearings and Bork the fuck out of whatever libtard FBHO nominated, followed by a HELL NO! vote.
If. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:11:49 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maine: Senator Susan Collins says YES. Classic RHINO. QFT |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:18:19 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
it'll last till Obama nominates someone, and then hits the airwaves saying Republicans are obstructionist and stopping progress. SJW's will freak out. McConnell will cave, and we'll have a 5/4 liberal court. Why? The GOP has been getting called obstructionist since they took the Senate. It's up to Obama to nominate someone who has a snowball's chance of getting approved by a GOP Senate if he wants to put another justice on the court. Granted, the Demmos started this shit by shit-canning Bork. There is no reason, none, for the GOP to approve a liberal justice. None. Potential 4-4 votes on the court just means some lower court decisions will stand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:19:42 PM EDT
[#37]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:20:09 PM EDT
[#38]
They will hold out till Trump wins the nomination....Then pick some half-baked "moderate" minority the Halfrican puts forward.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:20:33 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maine: Senator Susan Collins says YES. Classic RHINO. Republican Hardly In Name Only? Republican Handily In Name Only? Republican Hand IN Obama? Racially Handsome In New Orleans? Readily Holding Isotopes In Nuclear Ordeals? Redheads Handling Idols of Netherland Origin? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:24:36 PM EDT
[#40]
I e-mail Grassley daily to stand fast until next year. He's up for re-election, fwiw.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:25:11 PM EDT
[#41]
That would be very comforting ... if politicians didn't have a reputation for saying one thing and then doing the exact opposite.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:27:02 PM EDT
[#42]
BORK . . . . . . BORK . . . . . . BORK . . . . . . BORK . . . . . . BORK . . . . . . BORK . . . . . . |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:29:50 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Republican Hardly In Name Only? Republican Handily In Name Only? Republican Hand IN Obama? Racially Handsome In New Orleans? Readily Holding Isotopes In Nuclear Ordeals? Redheads Handling Idols of Netherland Origin? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Maine: Senator Susan Collins says YES. Classic RHINO. Republican Hardly In Name Only? Republican Handily In Name Only? Republican Hand IN Obama? Racially Handsome In New Orleans? Readily Holding Isotopes In Nuclear Ordeals? Redheads Handling Idols of Netherland Origin? Republican herpa in name only. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 4:43:22 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of all the dumb political things the Senate could do this has to be one of the worst. McConnel finally gets some balls and still will lose the political battle. All these idiots need to do is play the game and never end up approving any nominee. Obama will pick someone from an oppressed group (black lesbian for example) and claim the republicans are denying confirmation because they're bigots. That kind of BS gets the SJW crowd to the polls. By categorically denying any Obama appointee before he even names one, there is no opportunity to pull the race card. They've already confirmed 2 Obama justices, so he can't claim it's personal against him. Unfortunately, this doesn't work on people who are immune to logic, so it doesn't matter what the Republicans do; the media will wail and the SJWs will stomp their feet. Fuck-em. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 5:06:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HINT: Supreme Court justices are not approved over night. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read this part very carefully: Earlier in the day, McConnell said his party won't permit a vote on any Supreme Court nominee submitted by Obama and will instead "revisit the matter" after the presidential election in November.
Ok. That would be nice if you could count on anyone at that level keeping their word. HINT: Obama will still be President until the inauguration in January. I don't care if it takes a year, if it's a nominee that Obama picked. I'd rather hear that they will not vote on any Obama appointees, period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 5:20:34 PM EDT
[#46]
Funny how the Dems and their controlled media whores (those who now pose as "journalists") forget how they acted in 1991:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0 http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/22/why-senate-republicans-plan-to-follow-joe-bidens-advice-on-the-supreme-court-vacancy/ The Dems set the stage too for how a SC nominee should be treated like during the Bork and Thomas witch hunt-like tribunals. http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/ Of course very little of this SC nominee history will be reported by the controlled media in the upcoming months, it will be all about how bad the Republicans are for not giving FBHO another SCJ...its up to us to get these facts out via social media and set the record and history straight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 5:22:30 PM EDT
[#47]
They are holding out for a deal. Maybe they each get get to lick Obama smegma butter |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 5:24:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Funny how the Dems and their controlled media whores (those who now pose as "journalists") forget how they acted in 1991: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0 http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/22/why-senate-republicans-plan-to-follow-joe-bidens-advice-on-the-supreme-court-vacancy/ The Dems set the stage too for how a SC nominee should be treated like during the Bork and Thomas witch hunt-like tribunals. http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/ Of course very little of this SC nominee history will be reported by the controlled media in the upcoming months, it will be all about how bad the Republicans are for not giving FBHO another SCJ...its up to us to get these facts out via social media and set the record and history straight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 5:24:03 PM EDT
[#49]
Now is not the time to be drawing lines in the sand, now is the time push like hell for a solid compromise nomination. After that, drag it out for the elections.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 5:25:08 PM EDT
[#50]
They will cave in 4 weeks.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
