Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BassAle
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    Collins announcing her vote at 3 I guess. My guess is she is voting yes. I think Murkowski might stick no though. Just gut feeling though.
    agreed.

    way to let me down again Susan.

    Leave a comment:


  • GrinCDXX
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    Collins announcing her vote at 3 I guess. My guess is she is voting yes. I think Murkowski might stick no though. Just gut feeling though.
    From her comments from yesterday it's pretty apparent that she wouldn't vote no based on the assault accusations since she thinks it was a super duper thorough investigation that found no corroboration. I guess there's still the tiny hope that she'd vote no based on the naked, angry partisanship he displayed in the hearing. But, I think the fact that she claimed the investigation was thorough even though it clearly was not probably indicates she'll be a yes.

    Leave a comment:


  • bronconick
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    The vote to move forward is smart for all of them. End this crap one way or another. I dont envy their staffs though...
    The staffs have been looking to see if they have any vacation time for the past two weeks

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    Collins announcing her vote at 3 I guess. My guess is she is voting yes. I think Murkowski might stick no though. Just gut feeling though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    Originally posted by Wisko McBadgerton View Post
    Great. Has she rescinded her incorrect tweet then, or can you just point me to where she corrected it?

    This isn't tweeted by some random blogger, it's a CNN reporter who is supposed to be accurate, at least one would think.

    And what is the point she is conveying? "Look at these righty's that want to dump Kavanaugh!" She says none are liberals. Wrong. None are pro choice. Wrong. 2/3 are both those things.

    Not to mention had she even been accurate in citing America, it's is a small publication with 45k circulation (there are 70 million Catholics in the US) that has since equivocated on the original editorial, which basically said after the hearing that they'd prefer it if K was just replaced with someone less controversial that is still Pro life.
    If you are going to go all semantical on us you might want to get all of your facts straight. As stated by others she is not a reporter, she is a GOP commentator. Not the same thing.

    Now normally I would probably let that go but since you seem to be on the Semantics High Horse of late I figure it is relevant

    Leave a comment:


  • Wisko McBadgerton
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    Originally posted by jerphisch View Post
    Enemy of the people and all...you've been programmed well.
    I said it was wrong. If you think that was accurate then say so, don't just make some bs talking point accusation. Talk about programming.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    The vote to move forward is smart for all of them. End this crap one way or another. I dont envy their staffs though...

    Leave a comment:


  • GrinCDXX
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    Originally posted by Wisko McBadgerton View Post
    Great. Has she rescinded her incorrect tweet then, or can you just point me to where she corrected it?

    This isn't tweeted by some random blogger, it's a CNN reporter who is supposed to be accurate, at least one would think.
    She's a (Republican) political commentator, not a reporter--there is a difference. Perhaps if you want to crusade for accuracy in tweets and responsible rescinding of inaccuracies, there is someone higher up the food chain you could focus your attention on?

    edit: ignoring the rest of your post as it's not particularly relevant to anything I posted.
    Last edited by GrinCDXX; 10-05-2018, 10:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    Originally posted by aparch View Post
    But Senator Grassley told me he ABA didnt feel that way and the letter from the President two weeks ago was just one man's opinion. Are you telling me the GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ was wrong?

    Leave a comment:


  • jerphisch
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    Originally posted by Wisko McBadgerton View Post
    Great. Has she rescinded her incorrect tweet then, or can you just point me to where she corrected it?

    This isn't tweeted by some random blogger, it's a CNN reporter who is supposed to be accurate, at least one would think.

    And what is the point she is conveying? "Look at these righty's that want to dump Kavanaugh!" She says none are liberals. Wrong. None are pro choice. Wrong. 2/3 are both those things.

    Not to mention had she even been accurate in citing America, it's is a small publication with 45k circulation (there are 70 million Catholics in the US) that has since equivocated on the original editorial, which basically said after the hearing that they'd prefer it if K was just replaced with someone less controversial that is still Pro life.
    Enemy of the people and all...you've been programmed well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wisko McBadgerton
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    Originally posted by GrinCDXX View Post
    Regarding the first one, she cited the wrong magazine. That hardly invalidates her point.
    Originally posted by GrinCDXX View Post
    Not sure what your point is. The one she was most likely referencing is America. They previously endorsed Kavanaugh. They have since rescinded.

    Great. Has she rescinded her incorrect tweet then, or can you just point me to where she corrected it?

    This isn't tweeted by some random blogger, it's a CNN reporter who is supposed to be accurate, at least one would think.

    And what is the point she is conveying? "Look at these righty's that want to dump Kavanaugh!" She says none are liberals. Wrong. None are pro choice. Wrong. 2/3 are both those things.

    Not to mention had she even been accurate in citing America, it's is a small publication with 45k circulation (there are 70 million Catholics in the US) that has since equivocated on the original editorial, which basically said after the hearing that they'd prefer it if K was just replaced with someone less controversial that is still Pro life.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Sicatoka
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    Originally posted by GrinCDXX View Post
    Who said it was?
    Nobody; just clarifying.

    Leave a comment:


  • GrinCDXX
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
    Without imprimatur it's not the official stance of the Home Office in Rome.
    Who said it was?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Sicatoka
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    Originally posted by GrinCDXX View Post
    Not sure what your point is.
    Without imprimatur it's not the official stance of the Home Office in Rome.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Sicatoka
    replied
    Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

    Senate just went 51-49.

    Real vote in 30 hours ...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X