turtlespeed

He decided to go forward with the mantra KNOWING it was false.

And they call me out for conjecture? Bah!

I think you need to go back and read my comments. Hillary wanted to rush through Scalia's replacement. As far as what Mcconnell cares about ramming down our throats - look to your own party and tell me they are innocent, or label yourself as just as much the hypocrite as you do me.

Chicken

Unless you get something like 2 - 2 term presidents of the same party.

I was referring to the image that I posted earlier of HRC. Post 28. In a nutshell, sh claimed it would be dishonoring the constitution if you don't vote in a new SCJ before the election. Of course - Obama was president then. I'm pretty sure the opinion has now flipped over a flop. You are probably right about the rest - I went off memory and didn't fact check myself.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/tech/donald-trump-tiktok-deal-approval/index.html Trump has approved a plan . . . What gives him the right to allow or hinder the 1st amendment? I'm sure there are a lot of things I don't have a clue on - This is just sounding strange. I don't see how he can force a partial sale.

Took Over

Find a sense of humor bro. . .

It's not really going to affect me. I'm finding a lot of humor, not anger, in this. My prediction is that the flip-flopping will become MUCH stronger, and the excuses for said Flip-Flopping will be ironic. It will happen on both sides. The Left will find statements and backups on why the seat should stay empty and throw it in the faces of the R's and the right will do the same. Notice that I didn't say she was wrong, or right. I really don't think she is right. I think the seat needs to be filled by someone that is fully vetted. BUT - the Democrats opened that door wide open, when they let Harry Reid change the threshold from a 60 vote to a simple majority in response to the Republicans' stonewalling Merrick Garland's appointment. THEN the democrats were pretty upset that backfired on the democrats with the Kavanaugh deal. Should be interesting. Like a train wreck that goes on and on - you just can't stop watching.

. . . and when you have to see the picture from a mirror . . . . And please - don't bring race into this - there are enough threads for that already.

Generally - a quote from the article is a time saver. This is why I don't answer you anymore, and rarely read your posts. I won't block you, I'm not a coward. I just don't usually have the interest in, or the time to respond to someone like you.

Very true, though, isn't it?

That is a patently false statement. I'm sure you like to view it that way, but there is some real, true, and damaging racism against blacks, from whites in this country. There is also some real, true, and damaging racism in the exact opposite order. I also think its more than the left wants to think about.

So? You think I am anti-scholarship now?

Predicting that arson has a percentage of blame does not cancel out that Climate Change has responsibility too.

Since when are imaginary scenarios provable by fact and NOT conjecture?

So many times, though, it can be. So many times though, it is. Have you never heard of people being vindictive? ETA: I'd say its even more common than bad cops. That's just what I feel is reasonable as a comparison.

So now its down to a time frame. At what date or day does it cease being a dishonor to the Constitution? Let me guess November 4th? Is that when the Senate is free to fulfil it's responsibility again?

Nooo. Can we just get them aimed at something else?

Yeah - It's probably not the best practice to just dump all the subsidies all at once. I really wish they would consider a defunding them on, say, a 10 year schedule. It's a give and take. I can see his point, and his view. I also see the resistance you provide him, which fuels his love of arguing the subject. Yeah - I could have worded that better. Basically - Green energy wouldn't be where it is without the oil and gas industry making advances in tech and making the ability to advance the tech as it has. That, then making use of those advances in the way of forwarding the ability to create the solar, wind, and other green energy even as efficiently as they are made today.

It was partially corroborated by Rohrabacher, as well. Hardly damning, but suspicious, I'll give you that.

Thank you. I'll take the time to read it now.

If I wanted to, I would have. Have you ever considered giving a straight answer without a demeaning undertone, full of insult?