Mass of an ass going critical

rives said:

Lots of drivel

Click to expand...

Thanks, I’m glad you liked it - I made it myself

“rives” said:

I restricted my comments to California because I live here, was born and raised here, and have watched the destruction of the state as a result of "deferred maintenance" and re-directing of tax monies to wonderful social programs and fantasy trains that have resulted in epic levels of homelessness and the highest poverty rate in the nation.

Click to expand...

I hear you say it, but change the name of the state to my deep red locale, and all that same stuff you, saw, I saw here. The difference? We don’t have fantasies of social programs to speak of. Certainly not “wonderful” ones.

“rives” said:

Yes, I fully understand that corporations will reduce their costs however they can. I also understand, as you apparently do not, how the "allowed them" came about, and that it is the root cause for what took place.

Click to expand...

Well, lay it on me, Einstein, drop that knowledge if you’ve got it, don’t play cute.

“rives” said:

Apparently you have utterly missed the fact that Kavanaugh isn't on the court YET.

Click to expand...

h:

“rives” said:

I think that Schumer, Pelosi, DiFi, and a host of other clowns would be offended that you haven't noticed that they actually still "work" in DC or that they have a position of "significance".

Click to expand...

Like I give a rat’s ass about them as players in this mess. For whatever good they’ve tried to do, mostly now they’re in the way.

“rives” said:

No one should be "purged" as a result of their leanings as long as they don't allow their political bent to manifest itself in their job. If they are leaking, working on materials that are intended to support their cause, or in any way putting their private interests ahead of their job responsibilities, they should be summarily canned just as would happen in private industry.

Click to expand...

Trumped-up charges for the end purpose of purging would fit inside your list of grounds for dismissal. Doesn’t improve anything.

Check history: new-age “conservatives” are famous for cleaning house, not just political appointees but non-political, skill-having employees, much more than the only recent democratic administrations, both of whom kept key high-level persons of GOP allegiance in their jobs. GOP never returns that favor. Still, we agree very much on that principle, that one’s political opinions are not themselves grounds for termination (altho the Nazi-confederate bund makes me think real harsh about that one sometimes).

“rives” said:

Your question was "But please, tell me more about how Merrick Garland was treated better than Brett Kavanaugh". There is absolutely no comparison in how they have been treated

Click to expand...

You are of course quite right:
Brett Kavanaugh was treated as a valid nominee and subjected to the process known as ‘advise and consent’.

Merrick Garland was not. He was ignored, and the president was ignored, and the senate refused to act on the matter. The senate is INSTRUCTED to advise the president on nominations, and to consent to a worthy choice. If you think that’s an inaccurate understanding, please point me at one you like better.

“rives” said:

...you Dems are simply cranky that the Republicans did exactly what Biden (and later, Obama) suggested.

Click to expand...

I’m a Democrat? NOT. But I’ve been around too long and seen to much to believe that either party is any other than it seems to be...the problem with that is the way they’ve spawned all these mini-edgelords who are sure no one ever thought of *their* stuff before, or thought about anything by themselves, and are convinced they’re the smartest kids in the (virtual) room. It has destroyed the signal-to-noise ratio in the average conversation and in communication at large.

That thing about Biden and the Republicans thing? What is?

Seriously, which President is the first one you remember?

White Beard said:

Seriously, which President is the first one you remember?

Click to expand...

Trump.....

White Beard said:

The senate is INSTRUCTED to advise the president on nominations, and to consent to a worthy choice. If you think that’s an inaccurate understanding, please point me at one you like better.

That thing about Biden and the Republicans thing? What is?

Click to expand...

Strangely enough, I already supplied you with a link in the above post regarding your misplaced understanding. It is entitled "The Constitution does not require the Senate to give judicial nominees an up or down vote".

Biden suggested what has become known as "The Biden Rule", which first posited the actions (or inaction) taken by the Republicans with Garland.

White Beard said:

Seriously, which President is the first one you remember?

Click to expand...

Well, I remember my parent's discussing Eisenhower, but the first President that I can remember is Kennedy.

rives said:

Strangely enough, I already supplied you with a link in the above post regarding your misplaced understanding. It is entitled "The Constitution does not require the Senate to give judicial nominees an up or down vote".

Click to expand...

Ah, thank you, I’ve occasionally run into reference to it, but never learned what it was. If he put the idea in GOP heads, then that’s pretty fucked, but remember, Joe’s no pushover. He’s the senator from the credit industry, after all. Still, bad form, Joe (not like he cares what I think)

Despite the “Biden Rule”, I’m pretty sure one cannot construe that the constitution endorses a deliberate refusal to even acknowledge the nominee as part of ‘advise and consent’, and Biden trying to pull it would NOT make it better. McConnell pulling it doesn’t make it better. It can’t be made better by anything short of undoing it.

“rives” said:

Well, I remember my parent's discussing Eisenhower, but the first President that I can remember is Kennedy.

Click to expand...

Same pattern for me, but Truman and Eisenhower. Thanks, I’ve been curious about it generally lately. I think it really matters what people see, hear, and remember, as opposed to just being told about things you don’t remember.

White Beard said:

Despite the “Biden Rule”, I’m pretty sure one cannot construe that the constitution endorses a deliberate refusal to even acknowledge the nominee as part of ‘advise and consent’, and Biden trying to pull it would NOT make it better. McConnell pulling it doesn’t make it better. It can’t be made better by anything short of undoing it.

Click to expand...

This is the link that I was referring to from a previous post - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...es-an-up-or-down-vote/?utm_term=.abee9594cede

The Constitution does not "endorse" a deliberate refusal, but neither does it require one. As the article states, ignoring or filibustering a nominee has been done numerous times in the past.

"Historically, most such refusals to vote involved nominations to the lower courts rather than the Supreme Court. But the Constitution does not establish different rules for Supreme Court nominations as opposed to lower court ones. Any procedure that is constitutional for the latter is also permitted for the former. Blocking a Supreme Court nominee may be unwise, irresponsible, or politically risky. It may be worse behavior than blocking a lower court nomination. But it is not unconstitutional."

Putembk said:

Trump.....

Click to expand...

Poor b*stard

rives said:

This is the link that I was referring to from a previous post - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...es-an-up-or-down-vote/?utm_term=.abee9594cede

The Constitution does not "endorse" a deliberate refusal, but neither does it require one. As the article states, ignoring or filibustering a nominee has been done numerous times in the past.

"Historically, most such refusals to vote involved nominations to the lower courts rather than the Supreme Court. But the Constitution does not establish different rules for Supreme Court nominations as opposed to lower court ones. Any procedure that is constitutional for the latter is also permitted for the former. Blocking a Supreme Court nominee may be unwise, irresponsible, or politically risky. It may be worse behavior than blocking a lower court nomination. But it is not unconstitutional."

Click to expand...

Neat and interesting citation.

The Ford supporters were played and it's been fun to watch you all show how much you really don't know about anything...thanks for playing.

Thanks for not adding anything.

That video of him boarding the plane with tp stuck to his foot has been cracking me up all day.

I am easily amused.

mean mr.mustard said:

Thanks for not adding anything.

Click to expand...

Like I said in my first post on this that it wasn't a very smart PLAY or should I add that the unemployment fell to 3.9% today!

xavier7995 said:

That video of him boarding the plane with tp stuck to his foot has been cracking me up all day.

I am easily amused.

Click to expand...

I doubt that he's the first Pres. to have that happen.

Just the first to walk more than 10 yards before someone said something.

He may have had it on his foot when he stepped out of the limo.

Where did it come from ? Was it like a stow-away cat ?

What's next - Trump with his fly un-zipped ?

The combination of his early dementia and his staff burn-out will keep cartoonists busy for EVER.

...did he shit in the limo? Has it been there for days? Maybe that is what the UN was laughing at. The mind can only ponder. Off to the big park downtown to see if there are protest hijinx, i expect just the usual junkies.

Edit: the answer to that is no, just the normal downtown tomfoolery. Some dude tried to offer me heroin, that was funny. No thanks man, just going for a walk.

Blasey Ford's Ex-Boyfriend Breaks Silence! I Stefan Molyneux

[YOUTUBEIF]1GDVWARe3U[/YOUTUBEIF]

looks like this lady was not honest about quite a number of issues.

St. Phatty said:

I doubt that he's the first Pres. to have that happen.

Just the first to walk more than 10 yards before someone said something.

He may have had it on his foot when he stepped out of the limo.

Where did it come from ? Was it like a stow-away cat ?

What's next - Trump with his fly un-zipped ?

The combination of his early dementia and his staff burn-out will keep cartoonists busy for EVER.

Click to expand...

'I received a small loan from my father of $413 million'

A sign "No One Times It Better"

Ignignokt said:

'I received a small loan from my father of $413 million'

Click to expand...

I thought that it was kind of funny that the NYT was trying to make that sound as though it was a revelation. Prior to the election, it was said that Trump got $140 million from his father starting out. Now, the NYT has converted that $140 million into "today's dollars" and pretends like it is some kind of a scoop.

rives said:

I thought that it was kind of funny that the NYT was trying to make that sound as though it was a revelation. Prior to the election, it was said that Trump got $140 million from his father starting out. Now, the NYT has converted that $140 million into "today's dollars" and pretends like it is some kind of a scoop.

Click to expand...

Stop w the facts lad.... we have papers/ clicks to sell. Although they should start selling all the salt they received post election. Literally a ton in 50 lb bags
Imagine the outrage when NYT realizes Trump gets a second scoop from them