RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016

RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 3:42:04 PM)
quote: Do you remember that the Biden campaign collapsed when it turned out that he stole his stump speech from an Irish politician. But at least he knows there are only 50 states. After Biden withdrew from the race, it was revealed that the Dukakis campaign had secretly made a video highlighting the Biden–Kinnock comparison and distributed it to news outlets.[79] Later in 1987, the Delaware Supreme Court's Board of Professional Responsibility cleared Biden of the law school plagiarism charges regarding his standing as a lawyer, saying Biden had "not violated any rules".[80] He quit the race due to the lack of party support. I often thought they had speech writers. Seems to be some disagreements about what happened then.

slvemike4u -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 4:11:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic michelle bachmann.... Dumb as a post. That's an insult to posts [&o]

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 4:16:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Do you remember that the Biden campaign collapsed when it turned out that he stole his stump speech from an Irish politician. But at least he knows there are only 50 states. After Biden withdrew from the race, it was revealed that the Dukakis campaign had secretly made a video highlighting the Biden–Kinnock comparison and distributed it to news outlets.[79] Later in 1987, the Delaware Supreme Court's Board of Professional Responsibility cleared Biden of the law school plagiarism charges regarding his standing as a lawyer, saying Biden had "not violated any rules".[80] He quit the race due to the lack of party support. I often thought they had speech writers. Seems to be some disagreements about what happened then. Never said he did anything illegal

DomKen -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 4:18:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And we can go back to the Bork conformation hearings. Bork did not have the temperament to be a SCOTUS justice. Also his views on a range of issues were well outside the mainstream. His willing actions in the Saturday Night Massacre proved that. Always keep in mind that 6 Republican senators voted against his nomination. He simply wasn't a good nominee and his anger over being questioned on his writings and public statements only confirmed that. It didn't matter about his fitness for the court, he was up for surgeon general. Before ripping someone find out what you are talking about. Bork was not up for Surgeon General. He's not a doctor. You should really not accuse someone of being wrong without checking the facts for yourself. Reagan only appointed single Surgeon General and that was C. Everett Koop.

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 4:19:29 PM)
And yet lawyers have been denied, or lost, their license due to plagiarism. I think there are far worse things to be found out about Biden then a plagiarism attack, especially in speeches.

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 4:19:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: TAFKAA Chris Christie and Rand Paul are the only creditable mentions on that list. Clinton isn't the WMD that Democrats think she is. A black President is one thing - a woman is quite another. And I doubt American men will be content with a woman as President. I'll agree with you on Christie but Paul is a bit out there. The problem with Christie is he touched a Democrat and liked it once so now he has cooties and, even though I think he'd do a hell of a job, he'll be destroyed by his own party for lack of 'idealogical purity'. Hillary (or anyone else the D side puts up) doesn't have to be good. They just have to be less odious than whatever Bible thumping batshit crazy nutbag the R side is sure to throw at them. Nice to see no one is using this thread to trash republicans I'm not trashing 100 MIllion+ Republicans. I'm trashing their leadership. That may be what you mean but it isn't what you say

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 4:42:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And we can go back to the Bork conformation hearings. Bork did not have the temperament to be a SCOTUS justice. Also his views on a range of issues were well outside the mainstream. His willing actions in the Saturday Night Massacre proved that. Always keep in mind that 6 Republican senators voted against his nomination. He simply wasn't a good nominee and his anger over being questioned on his writings and public statements only confirmed that. It didn't matter about his fitness for the court, he was up for surgeon general. Before ripping someone find out what you are talking about. Bork was not up for Surgeon General. He's not a doctor. You should really not accuse someone of being wrong without checking the facts for yourself. Reagan only appointed single Surgeon General and that was C. Everett Koop. How about that I made a mistake. My point however was not what he was nominated too or even if he should have been approved. The point was that the Dems decided, before they even knew who was going to be nominated, to do whatever they had to do stop the nomination. This is what caused it to be as acrimonious as it was making it the opening shot in the uncivil war still going on in Congress.

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 4:47:39 PM)
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, Bork said.

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 4:52:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, Bork said. My point however was not what he was nominated too or even if he should have been approved.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:01:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That may be what you mean but it isn't what you say Don't presume to know what I'm thinking. Even if you knew it, you couldn't comprehend it.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:02:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, Bork said. My point however was not what he was nominated too or even if he should have been approved. If he wipes his ass with the constitution, he has no place in government in either party.

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:12:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, Bork said. My point however was not what he was nominated too or even if he should have been approved. Your point is that the liberals in congress told Reagan they would fight whatever right leaning judge he decided to appoint, yes?

SimplyMichael -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:12:48 PM)
Fox news had backed the right into a corner. Its great for making news out if nothing, like behngahzi but it has made running an intelligent moderate impossible and the lunatic fringe is all the base supports, I mean who would have tgat Palin could be anything but a punchline to a bad joke?

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:15:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And yet lawyers have been denied, or lost, their license due to plagiarism. I think there are far worse things to be found out about Biden then a plagiarism attack, especially in speeches. Without question.

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:17:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That may be what you mean but it isn't what you say Don't presume to know what I'm thinking. Even if you knew it, you couldn't comprehend it. Reread my post I was not presuming to know what you think. And thank you for displaying the renown civility of liberals

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:17:43 PM)
Why? Then went through Bork, then someone else, before confirming Kennedy. Irregardless of what they said to Reagan, they had to find reasons not to confirm... and they had good ones.

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:20:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Fox news had backed the right into a corner. Its great for making news out if nothing, like behngahzi but it has made running an intelligent moderate impossible and the lunatic fringe is all the base supports, I mean who would have tgat Palin could be anything but a punchline to a bad joke? Not providing protection for an American diplomat is nothing?

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:24:20 PM)
quote: Not providing protection for an American diplomat is nothing? There was no protection?

BamaD -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:25:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Why? Then went through Bork, then someone else, before confirming Kennedy. Irregardless of what they said to Reagan, they had to find reasons not to confirm... and they had good ones. The end justifies the means unless a conservative does it. I am not talking about his qualifications I am talking about how the Dems decided in advance that whoever was nominated the would destroy him personally. Then when Clinton was president the stated that Republicans were obligated to confirm because the President wanted them double standard.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Republicans who can save the party in 2016 (6/25/2013 5:26:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Fox news had backed the right into a corner. Its great for making news out if nothing, like behngahzi but it has made running an intelligent moderate impossible and the lunatic fringe is all the base supports, I mean who would have tgat Palin could be anything but a punchline to a bad joke? Not providing protection for an American diplomat is nothing? 384 dead marines say, nah no big deal...or say 9/11...so no, one dead diplomat even if obama said "fuck em, who cares" is not a big deal and I think obama is a pretty complete tool.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625