New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Harry Reid is a HYPOCRITE

reason10

reason10

Governor
1915339_1690704181212391_3591185553510763962_n.jpg
 
ALL Democrats are hypocrites and liars.
What they believe depends on who is in charge at the moment:
zn8x9-e1456176820188.jpg
 
I laugh at cons saying that Obama is lame duck and should not be given an up or down vote on Garland in accordance with the Constitution (which they love, along with their love of Scalia). This is the exact opposite of what they claim, with how they pronounce their love of the Constitution .

And then I think, why are cons bitching and pitching a fit about whether Trump should be awarded the nomination even though he falls short.

Then, they start talking about changing the rules trying to figure out how to keep Trump from being the nominee. (Booooooo)

o_O

I've got my popcorn.

This is going to be classic!
 
Last edited:
write on said:
I laugh at cons saying that Obama is lame duck and should not be given an up or down vote on Garland in accordance with the Constitution (which they love, along with their love of Scalia). This is the exact opposite of what they claim, with how they pronounce their love of the Constitution .

And then I think, why are cons bitching and pitching a fit about whether Trump should be awarded the nomination even though he falls short.

Then, they start talking about changing the rules trying to figure out how to keep Trump from being the nominee. (Booooooo)

o_O

I've got my popcorn.

This is going to be classic!
Click to expand...

lol hypocrite. It's no wonder any *edited* would refuse to address the facts in the top post.

I'm not surprised.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boca said:
lol hypocrite. It's no wonder any *edited* would refuse to address the facts in the top post.

I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...
What was the top post about? Hell, I was about to go "whining con" and report reason10 to the Mods for "No Content".

But then, I was able to keep myself from stooping that low--like your brethren.
 
write on said:
What was the top post about? Hell, I was about to go "whining con" and report reason10 to the Mods for "No Content".

But then, I was able to keep myself from stooping that low--like your brethren.
Click to expand...


FY..,.you can't keep yourself from anything. The top post is fairly straightforward...it's about hypocritical pigs.

So...squeal to a Mod if it makes you feel like somebody of any worth. It's your right to expose yourself for what you are. You're doing a great job of it so please don't stop now.
 
Last edited:
write on said:
I laugh at cons saying that Obama is lame duck and should not be given an up or down vote on Garland in accordance with the Constitution (which they love, along with their love of Scalia). This is the exact opposite of what they claim, with how they pronounce their love of the Constitution .

And then I think, why are cons bitching and pitching a fit about whether Trump should be awarded the nomination even though he falls short.

Then, they start talking about changing the rules trying to figure out how to keep Trump from being the nominee. (Booooooo)

o_O

I've got my popcorn.

This is going to be classic!
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with Harry Reid?
 
Geez...it's as if you guys have never even heard of politics.

Yes...the opposing party makes stances like that.

Here's Mitch McConnell arguing for an up or down vote:

  1. even, you know, as you have a lameduck president, there is a historical standard for fairness when it comes to confirming judicial nominees.” [7/14/2008] TWEET
  2. “The precedent in the Senate for 214 years prior to the last Congress was the judges who came to the floor got an up-or-down vote.” [12/12/2005] TWEET
  3. “The President of the United States has discharged his constitutional obligation under Article II, Section 2 to nominate justices of the Supreme Court. He has chosen a truly outstanding nominee. It is now our job to provide advice and consent. In doing so, we should follow basically three principles. No. 1, we should treat Judge Roberts with dignity and with respect. No. 2, we should have a fair process. And No. 3, we should complete that process with either an up-or-down vote in time for the Court to be at full strength for its new term beginning October 3 of this year.” [7/20/2005] TWEET
  4. “Slow walking the process beyond historical norms and engaging in a paper chase simply to delay a timely up-or-down vote are not hallmarks of a fair process…. What is not fair and what is, quite frankly, a little curious is for some of our colleagues who, before even having heard a single word of testimony, have already come up with excuses as to why we should depart from this historical standard. It is disturbing that they seek to justify so far in advance why the Court should begin its proceedings at less than full strength.” [7/20/2005] TWEET
  5. “Article II, section 2 of the Constitution clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. It then adds that the Senate is to provide its advice and consent to the nominations that the President has made. By tradition, the President may consult with Senators. But the tradition of “consultation’’ does not transform individual Senators into co-presidents. We have elections for that, and President Bush has won the last two.” [6/9/2005] TWEET
  6. “The Senator from Alabama is correct, and Berzon and Paez were the poster children for nominees out of the mainstream to the left, yet the Senator from Alabama and others, and myself, joined in making sure these two nominees — dramatically out of the mainstream, to the left — got an up-or-down vote in the Senate. When they did, they were confirmed.” [6/8/2005] TWEET
  7. “Our debate is about restoring the practice honored for 214 years in the Senate of having up-or-down votes on judicial nominees. Never before has a minority of Senators obstructed a judicial nominee who enjoyed clear majority support.” [5/23/2005] TWEET
  8. “Even with controversial nominees, the leaders of both parties historically have worked together to afford them the courtesy of an up-or-down vote.” [5/23/2005] TWEET
  9. “And three very, very distinguished nominees, whose nominations have been languishing for a number of years, are going to get an up-or-down vote. I think that is something we can all celebrate on a bipartisan basis.” [5/23/2005] TWEET
  10. “Let me repeat, all we are looking for is an up-or-down vote. We are not looking for a guaranteed outcome. But my friend from Illinois is probably suspicious that there will be success if up-or-down votes are granted because all of the judges who have been pending have bipartisan majority support.” [5/19/2005] TWEET
  11. “[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote.I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate’s “advise and consent’’ responsibilities to “advise and obstruct.” [5/19/2005] TWEET
  12. “Thousands of Americans told President Bush and their Republican candidates for the Senate that they do not believe the President’s nominees are out of the mainstream, and they do not like a minority of the Senate preventing the Senate from discharging its constitutional duty.” [5/19/2005] TWEET

See 12 more times @...

https://medium.com/@CAPAction/24-ti...-on-judicial-nominees-23ff2be5d14a#.xwvyvdtf2
 
Last edited:
Craig said:
Geez...it's as if you guys have never even heard of politics.

Yes...the opposing party makes stances like that.

Here's Mitch McConnell arguing for an up or down vote:

  1. even, you know, as you have a lameduck president, there is a historical standard for fairness when it comes to confirming judicial nominees.” [7/14/2008] TWEET
  2. “The precedent in the Senate for 214 years prior to the last Congress was the judges who came to the floor got an up-or-down vote.” [12/12/2005] TWEET
  3. “The President of the United States has discharged his constitutional obligation under Article II, Section 2 to nominate justices of the Supreme Court. He has chosen a truly outstanding nominee. It is now our job to provide advice and consent. In doing so, we should follow basically three principles. No. 1, we should treat Judge Roberts with dignity and with respect. No. 2, we should have a fair process. And No. 3, we should complete that process with either an up-or-down vote in time for the Court to be at full strength for its new term beginning October 3 of this year.” [7/20/2005] TWEET
  4. “Slow walking the process beyond historical norms and engaging in a paper chase simply to delay a timely up-or-down vote are not hallmarks of a fair process…. What is not fair and what is, quite frankly, a little curious is for some of our colleagues who, before even having heard a single word of testimony, have already come up with excuses as to why we should depart from this historical standard. It is disturbing that they seek to justify so far in advance why the Court should begin its proceedings at less than full strength.” [7/20/2005] TWEET
  5. “Article II, section 2 of the Constitution clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. It then adds that the Senate is to provide its advice and consent to the nominations that the President has made. By tradition, the President may consult with Senators. But the tradition of “consultation’’ does not transform individual Senators into co-presidents. We have elections for that, and President Bush has won the last two.” [6/9/2005] TWEET
  6. “The Senator from Alabama is correct, and Berzon and Paez were the poster children for nominees out of the mainstream to the left, yet the Senator from Alabama and others, and myself, joined in making sure these two nominees — dramatically out of the mainstream, to the left — got an up-or-down vote in the Senate. When they did, they were confirmed.” [6/8/2005] TWEET
  7. “Our debate is about restoring the practice honored for 214 years in the Senate of having up-or-down votes on judicial nominees. Never before has a minority of Senators obstructed a judicial nominee who enjoyed clear majority support.” [5/23/2005] TWEET
  8. “Even with controversial nominees, the leaders of both parties historically have worked together to afford them the courtesy of an up-or-down vote.” [5/23/2005] TWEET
  9. “And three very, very distinguished nominees, whose nominations have been languishing for a number of years, are going to get an up-or-down vote. I think that is something we can all celebrate on a bipartisan basis.” [5/23/2005] TWEET
  10. “Let me repeat, all we are looking for is an up-or-down vote. We are not looking for a guaranteed outcome. But my friend from Illinois is probably suspicious that there will be success if up-or-down votes are granted because all of the judges who have been pending have bipartisan majority support.” [5/19/2005] TWEET
  11. “[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote.I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate’s “advise and consent’’ responsibilities to “advise and obstruct.” [5/19/2005] TWEET
  12. “Thousands of Americans told President Bush and their Republican candidates for the Senate that they do not believe the President’s nominees are out of the mainstream, and they do not like a minority of the Senate preventing the Senate from discharging its constitutional duty.” [5/19/2005] TWEET

See 12 more times @...

https://medium.com/@CAPAction/24-ti...-on-judicial-nominees-23ff2be5d14a#.xwvyvdtf2
Click to expand...

That's why I sometimes call them Republicrats. I must commend you on using Mitch McConnell as an example. To me, he is the epitome of what is wrong with Washington DC. He's as out-of-touch and hypocritical as any other hack in that hell hole bent on setting the lowest bar possible.
 
  1. The Thinker said:
    That's why I sometimes call them Republicrats. I must commend you on using Mitch McConnell as an example. To me, he is the epitome of what is wrong with Washington DC. He's as out-of-touch and hypocritical as any other hack in that hell hole bent on setting the lowest bar possible.
    Click to expand...
As McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, Reid's successor and counterpart, loudly and proudly proclaims that he will do nothing...it seemed an appropriate choice.
 
Craig said:
As McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, Reid's successor and counterpart, loudly and proudly proclaims that he will do nothing...it seemed an appropriate choice.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling McConnell will fold on Garland soon. And that does NOT in any way diminish what you have posted about him. If anything, it reinforces it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top