Is Russia Our Enemy?

[ClimateSanity]

You said you would prove that his post was filled with thousands of lies. You have done no such thing. Heck, you barely even attempted a rebuttal.

I rebutted his first point. I can rebut the rest...but why should I? You're the only one reading and you won't respond on point but only insult.



Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[ClimateSanity]

Says the :loser: who is making physical threats on an internet discussion board. That's not childish at all.

What does he deserve for calling me a coward?

What do you deserve for calling me a liar?



Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[ClimateSanity]

You're a waste of oxygen.... It's a good thing Trump won. The worthless people occupying this land would continue to grow until there would not be a sign of the nation we once had except in some library where the history revisionist had not gotten their hands on it.

Your kind is a scourge on our society.

Thank God their is a nationalist revival in Europe because they be the first to completely turn their countries back from the brink. The USA is doing everything it can to stop any sign of progress and remove the leader of it.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[WizardofOz]

I rebutted his first point.

No, you didn't. I am unsure what you said that thinks it rebutted anything rex said.

I can rebut the rest.

No, you can't. Otherwise, you would have done so by now.

..but why should I? You're the only one reading and you won't respond on point but only insult.

You've given me nothing of substance to respond to. I think it's now clear why this is...

What does he deserve for calling me a coward?

What do you deserve for calling me a liar?

You lied. I called you out on it. Don't :allsmile: about being exposed for what you are.

Perhaps you should take a long look in the mirror. Threatening someone on an internet discussion board with physical violence is about as absurd a thing as one could do.

You're a caricature.

You claimed you were going to expose rex's thousands of lies. It appears the only one who lied was you.

 

[ClimateSanity]

No, you didn't. I am unsure what you said that thinks it rebutted anything rex said.



No, you can't. Otherwise, you would have done so by now.



You've given me nothing of substance to respond to. I think it's now clear why this is...



You lied. I called you out on it. Don't :allsmile: about being exposed for what you are.

Perhaps you should take a long look in the mirror. Threatening someone on an internet discussion board with physical violence is about as absurd a thing as one could do.

You're a caricature.

You claimed you were going to expose rex's thousands of lies. I guess you were the only one who lied.

Reid gave the reasons for the rules change. Are they the same reasons for the filibuster of Gorsuch? No?

That's called rebuttal in anyone's book.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[northwye]

"Fascism is essentially authoritarian nationalism, and Trump's attempts to rule by fiat seem pretty authoritarian to me, while they're explicitly and deliberately and acknowledgedly nationalist. There are other examples around the world. And his immigration policy isn't sensible in any way that I can see, apart from satisfying the desire of the new KKK for vengeance against immigrants."

This sounds like something the Frankfurt School Transformational Marxists would say, because their enemy is always the fascists. Transformational Marxism works toward a totalitarian world government and a collectivist society. Nationalism is its enemy.

 

[Danoh]

"Fascism is essentially authoritarian nationalism, and Trump's attempts to rule by fiat seem pretty authoritarian to me, while they're explicitly and deliberately and acknowledgedly nationalist. There are other examples around the world. And his immigration policy isn't sensible in any way that I can see, apart from satisfying the desire of the new KKK for vengeance against immigrants."

This sounds like something the Frankfurt School Transformational Marxists would say, because their enemy is always the fascists. Transformational Marxism works toward a totalitarian world government and a collectivist society. Nationalism is its enemy.

Yep :thumb:

Then again, all you have to do is look into Trump's life long history of rampant megalomania, his political and financial corruption for personal gain no matter who suffers along the way, couple that with the equally well established fact that he has huge business dealings with the Suadi's - and his various so called U.S. and or Middle East policies, etc...clear right up.

 

[northwye]

The Greeks were blue-eyed mostly at the time before the Islamics came in many centuries ago. The blue eyed Greeks retreated to the mountains and eventually the Islamics were killed and driven out, but they left their genes in the population. Parts of Spain were also taken over by the Islamics and their genes are still carried by some in Spain and elsewhere, including some American Hispanics. In what is now Turkey at the time the New Testament was written in areas there were Celts, also blue eyed, which was before the Islamics took over Turkey and still have it.

If you want to maintain some amount of civilized culture and morality in Western culture and society, which
is based on Biblical Christianity and the family, you have to have an immigration policy which keeps out people who are criminals, no matter what their religion. If the criminals are claiming to be followers of radical Islam, then keep them out.

 

[ok doser]

how about we just jail all those who don't have blue eyes?

 

[rexlunae]

It's more than likely propaganda based on my past experiences with left wing shows.

Come up with a specific example, or I'm not interested. You don't need to prove to me that conservatives and their neo-Nazi allies distrust mainstream sources of information. What you have to show is the actual justification for that approach, or else I'll just assume that you're relying on you own biases.

It can't be too skeptical because you copy it word for word.

Enough of you slander. Give me details or don't bother.

 

[kmoney]

The blockade of three consecutive nominees to a powerful appellate court was too much for Democrats to handle — and Reid felt compelled to pull the trigger, explaining that “this is the way it has to be.”

From politico.

That's only three nominees. My guess is they were all radical. Which appellate court was it? My guess it was a very important appellate court.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

It's nice that you get to just guess and assume that the Republicans were justified. lain: The article you quoted form does mention one of the judges in question.

enate Democrats were quick to use their newfound powers, voting in the early afternoon to end the filibuster on Patricia Millett’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Oh, and now her Wiki page mentions the other two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Millett Millett's 2013 nomination to the D.C. Circuit, along with the nominations of Robert L. Wilkins and Nina Pillard, ultimately became central to the debate over the use of the filibuster in the United States Senate, leading to the use of the nuclear option to bring it to the floor for a vote.

Here is an old article regarding the issue.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...mocrats-appeals-judges-supreme-court/2505643/

WASHINGTON -- Key Senate Republicans made it clear Wednesday that they will try to block President Obama's three new nominees to the nation's second highest court.

With the first nominee, Patricia Millett, seated before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sens. Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz decried the president's effort to fill all vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit despite what they called a reduced caseload.

They accused Obama of trying to "pack" the court in order to win favorable rulings for his executive actions, noting the D.C. Circuit court has unique jurisdiction over federal agencies and regulations. And they recalled that Democrats blocked several of President George W. Bush's nominees to that court, including at one time John Roberts -- now chief justice of the Supreme Court.


"You find yourself in the midst of a broader battle," Cruz, a Texas Republican, told Millett. "The president and senior Democrats on this committee have made clear that they want to pick a fight on the D.C. Circuit."

The battle over Millett, 49, a well-known Washington litigator who has argued the second-most cases among women before the Supreme Court in its history, and fellow nominees Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins is the latest in a continuing war over judicial nominations that dates back several administrations.


It's a war of statistics -- involving ever-longer delays in confirmations -- and one with well-qualified casualties on each side. Republicans noted that Democrats blocked Miguel Estrada and Peter Keisler from the appeals court under Bush, while Democrats noted Republicans blocked New York prosecutor Caitlin Halligan before allowing the unanimous confirmation of chief deputy solicitor general Sri Srinivasan. Estrada had been hailed as potentially the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.

The committee hearing on Millett's nomination will be followed this summer by similar sessions with Pillard and Wilkins. All three are likely to clear the Democrat-controlled panel, but Republicans can stall or block confirmation in the Senate.

While Republicans cited Obama's desire for a left-leaning appeals court and Democratic filibusters of GOP nominees in the past, they are pursuing a less partisan argument as well: that the court simply doesn't have enough work to justify more than the eight current active judges.

But that, too, is a battle of statistics, with both sides citing various numbers of appeals filed, pending and terminated to prove their point. Democrats said Republicans willingly filled the seats under Bush; Republicans contended the workload has decreased since then, making the 9th, 10th and 11th seats unnecessary.

"By nearly every measure, the facts show that the D.C. caseload is low and getting lower," said Grassley, who is sponsoring legislation that would redistribute those three seats to other federal courts. The bill has virtually no chance of passing in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

None of the senators had anything bad to say about Millett, a mother of two and a "lawyer's lawyer" in the words of Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. She pronounced herself free of any particular judicial philosophy and held up as role models the Supreme Court's first two female justices, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

They accused Obama of trying to pack the court but apparently had nothing bad to say about her?

 

[ClimateSanity]

It's nice that you get to just guess and assume that the Republicans were justified. lain: The article you quoted form does mention one of the judges in question.

enate Democrats were quick to use their newfound powers, voting in the early afternoon to end the filibuster on Patricia Millett’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Oh, and now her Wiki page mentions the other two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Millett Millett's 2013 nomination to the D.C. Circuit, along with the nominations of Robert L. Wilkins and Nina Pillard, ultimately became central to the debate over the use of the filibuster in the United States Senate, leading to the use of the nuclear option to bring it to the floor for a vote.

Here is an old article regarding the issue.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...mocrats-appeals-judges-supreme-court/2505643/



They accused Obama of trying to pack the court but apparently had nothing bad to say about her?

Let's see....Democrats filibustered all important supreme Court appointments beginning with Bork.

Democrats filibustered most of Bush's appellate court appointments.

Democrats suspended filibustered rules for circuit and appellate court appointments under Obama.

Democrats vowed to filibuster every single nominee Trump put up there.


Now,. What was this nonsense about no justification for the nuclear option?

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[rexlunae]

Let's see....Democrats filibustered all important supreme Court appointments beginning with Bork.

Bork was a terrible candidate. Bush nominated a few stinkers too, most of whom actually made it onto the court. But Bork wasn't filibustered. He was voted down. The democrats sat in the majority, so there was no need to filibuster him. They could have done what McConnell did to Merrick Garland, and simply decline to do what the Constitution says they will do, which had never, ever happened until now.

Democrats filibustered most of Bush's appellate court appointments.

They did filibuster some of them. The filibuster is a valid tool, or at least it was, to ensure mainstream candidates that can get at least some support from both parties. Bush was fond of nominating fairly ideological candidates. Most of Bush's appountees still made it through.

Democrats suspended filibustered rules for circuit and appellate court appointments under Obama.

Democrats vowed to filibuster every single nominee Trump put up there.


Now,. What was this nonsense about no justification for the nuclear option?

Not all Democrats said such a thing. A few had. This was literally the very first chance, and they used it to install an extreme candidate that Democrats hated. Republicans don't want to govern with Democrats, so they just write out any moderating consessions to the minority. Its a formula for extremism and extreme swings in governance.

 

[ok doser]

Bork was a terrible candidate.

what was wrong with Bork? :freak:

 

[ok doser]

btw - thank you for finally jogging my memory - I've been trying to come up with Bjork for days

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

liberals are finding fewer fools to fall for their retarded ideas

no wonder they're so butthurt

Left-wing liberal Dems are a HUGE problem in our Nation today.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Bork was a terrible candidate. Bush nominated a few stinkers too, most of whom actually made it onto the court. But Bork wasn't filibustered. He was voted down. The democrats sat in the majority, so there was no need to filibuster him. They could have done what McConnell did to Merrick Garland, and simply decline to do what the Constitution says they will do, which had never, ever happened until now.



They did filibuster some of them. The filibuster is a valid tool, or at least it was, to ensure mainstream candidates that can get at least some support from both parties. Bush was fond of nominating fairly ideological candidates. Most of Bush's appountees still made it through.



Not all Democrats said such a thing. A few had. This was literally the very first chance, and they used it to install an extreme candidate that Democrats hated. Republicans don't want to govern with Democrats, so they just write out any moderating consessions to the minority. Its a formula for extremism and extreme swings in governance.

Bork was a terrible candidate? Says who? You and Kennedy and everyone who applauded his vicious speech he gave and had prepared the moment justice Powell resigned? As always , you follow your tribe to the very last jot and tittle. Here is an article describing what happened to Bork and the full context surrounding the whole issue and how it changed the way judicial nominees were looked at by the Senate from that moment forward:

Paragraphs 24,25 and 26 concern Kennedy's vicious speech.

www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-war-against-robert-h-bork/


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNF7MgSSc5bUgUXpLet4xuxumuW7EQ


Here is some scholarly commentary in PDF form discussing the unique situation of the Bork hearings. This was a one of a kind hearing never before seen up to this point in history and all subsequent hearings of Republican nominees have followed this pattern except for second , third or fourth choice nominees that the left considers safe. You see...the courts are the lefts possession by birthright. They will rape and pillage and burn to maintain their control over them. That was metaphoric language for those who took me literally.
The courts and the bureaucracy and the liberal cities are the last bastions of leftist political power left standing after Obama destroyed the party through his actions that people rebelled against.

Of course, the left still has all the other major cultural institutions in their grasp with the Praetorian guard being the most important. That is a symbol for the MSM who also rape, pillage, and burn if necessary to keep all the institutions of our nation firmly in the grasp of liberal power.


Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

"Fascism is essentially authoritarian nationalism, and Trump's attempts to rule by fiat seem pretty authoritarian to me, while they're explicitly and deliberately and acknowledgedly nationalist. There are other examples around the world. And his immigration policy isn't sensible in any way that I can see, apart from satisfying the desire of the new KKK for vengeance against immigrants."

This sounds like something the Frankfurt School Transformational Marxists would say, because their enemy is always the fascists. Transformational Marxism works toward a totalitarian world government and a collectivist society. Nationalism is its enemy.

Have you been attending the protests? If so, how many signs have you created?

 

[patrick jane]

Have you been attending the protests? If so, how many signs have you created?

GM, do you have me on ignore?

 

[rexlunae]

Bork was a terrible candidate? Says who?

I'd object to him just for his participation in the Nixon administration. Democrats didn't like him because of the likelihood that he would ravage women's rights.

You and Kennedy and everyone who applauded his vicious speech he gave and had prepared the moment justice Powell resigned?

I'm afraid that's a bit before the beginning of my political memory. I had no position on it at the time. But I don't know how you can really blame Kennedy for being prepared for the nomination. Conservatives had been planning to put him on the court since the Nixon administration. Which should also refute the notion you have that the politicization practiced by the Democrats was out of line compared to what the other side was doing. It may have been new to the process of appointing justices, but conservatives also clearly liked him for ideological, political reasons, and were willing to fight for him on those terms.

As always , you follow your tribe to the very last jot and tittle. Here is an article describing what happened to Bork and the full context surrounding the whole issue and how it changed the way judicial nominees were looked at by the Senate from that moment forward:

Paragraphs 24,25 and 26 concern Kennedy's vicious speech.

In a mirror of the Merrick Garland situation, Bork was nominated by a Republican president. The nomination was considered by a Democratic senate. There are two key differences that matter here: Garland was considered a "consensus candidate" by both sides, while Bork was an extremist, albeit certainly a smart and qualified one. Bork was rejected by the committee, and rather than withdraw his name, he insisted on a vote of the full senate. And, unlike with Merrick Garland, the Democrats gave it to him. He was rejected. The rejection isn't unprecedented. What was unprecedented was not even acting on the nomination of Merrick Garland. Not even allowing it to come to the floor. Or have a committee vote. Or meet with him.

Here is some scholarly commentary in PDF form discussing the unique situation of the Bork hearings. This was a one of a kind hearing never before seen up to this point in history and all subsequent hearings of Republican nominees have followed this pattern except for second , third or fourth choice nominees that the left considers safe.

Right. Prior to that, the Senate would just proceed to a vote. But now, we can follow the McConnell process, which is apparently just don't do anything for more than a year.

You see...the courts are the lefts possession by birthright. They will rape and pillage and burn to maintain their control over them. That was metaphoric language for those who took me literally.

What are you even talking about? There hasn't been a liberal majority on the court any time in the recent past.

The courts and the bureaucracy and the liberal cities are the last bastions of leftist political power left standing after Obama destroyed the party through his actions that people rebelled against.

Regarding the courts:
Not especially. The courts mostly land down the middle. The Supreme Court had a conservative majority for quite some time up until Scalia died, and it continues with Gorsich.

Regarding the bureaucracy:
That just isn't true. The bureaucracy is non-partisan, there are laws to protect it from partisanship, and a lot of federal employees are personally conservatives.

Regarding the cities:
If by "last bastions" you mean "strongholds". The cities have always been where you find the liberals. The fact of the matter is that the structure of the country is such that it almost always favors conservatives in matters of government vote for vote, just because of geographic distribution and the faulty design of our elections and political structures.

Of course, the left still has all the other major cultural institutions in their grasp with the Praetorian guard being the most important.

The...what now? This isn't Rome.

That is a symbol for the MSM who also rape, pillage, and burn if necessary to keep all the institutions of our nation firmly in the grasp of liberal power.

I can't even tell which direction you're trying to aim your hyperbole.