Jump to content

Breckey

Supreme User
  • Posts

    1,330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Posts posted by Breckey

  1. True - but they (Senate Republicans) should have manned up and just had a vote, go straight line party vote and be honest about it.  We will reject any nominee of the sitting Democratic President because we think there will be a Republican President who will nominate a conservative justice.
    That sets up the precedent for extreme dysfunctionality as an opposing Senate could block appointments for everything and I'm not saying that they should do that but in reference to Garland they should have just had an up or down vote and get it over with.
    Agree.
  2. Yes Kennedy was especially awful human being, I never said the Republicans didn't have some questionable fellows on the team but let me know when they cover up something like this for a hypocritical pontificating bloated awful piece of shit
    kennedy_car_dyke_bridge_0.jpg?itok=a4v5q5P6
    Even after this he never cleaned up his act, reference this annectodote from a 16 year old page in the 80s
    It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy's limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No. How about the other? The girls said no thanks and the senator zoomed off. Kennedy, the formal page said, made no overt sexual overtures and was "very careful to make it seem like nothing out of the ordinary." It is possible that Kennedy did not know that the girls were underage or that they were pages and, as such, were under the protection of Congress, which serves in loco parentis. Nevertheless, the former page said she did find Kennedy's invitation surprising. "He didn't even know me," she says. "I knew this kind of stuff happened, but I didn't expect it to happen to me."
    https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-ted-senator-profile
    Gingrich has an interesting personal life and a few other problems/issues (draft deferrals when he espoused hawkish military policy in his adult professional life) but pretty much light years away from anything even like that....
    So I put my best foot forward when making an argument and conveniently don't bring up points that would undercut my argument?  On check rides do you tell the evaluator what your weak on and advise him/her to pick at that scab?  Tell me what school of argument and debate you went to so I won't send my kids there.
    As to the Constitution requiring Senate approval:
    Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee.[5]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
    Constitution doesn't specify the method of Senate approval just that POTUS must have it to fulfill an appointment.
    Advise and consent does not mean refusing to bring it to a vote for 10 months.
  3. Can we actually have Congress do their job and pass legislation instead of relying on rule making by executive agencies? This has been going for decades and IMO is one of the reasons the SCOTUS has been "legislating". Poorly thought out or arbitrary EOs are prime territory for lawsuits that eventually make it to SCOTUS.

     

    Hell can we just get a new AUMF for our many overseas adventures? I don't think Congress ever intended on us fighting a SMG 20 years after 9/11 using the same justification as that against AQ.

     

     

    • Upvote 1
  4. 1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

    If providing universal health coverage guarantees that the cure for cancer is delayed 50 years, is it worth it? 25 years? 10? It is indisputable that there will be a delay, yet most won't even grant that.

    If universal health care saves more people through access to medical services in those 10 - 25 years then would have died from cancer is it worth it then? If universal health care decreases health costs because people aren't waiting until they're really sick to seek health care and instead focus on preventative medical services would it be worth it?

    Medical costs in this country are out of control. If people stop using the ED as a easy button for having a cough or other non-urgent health care need because they have access to other services it would decrease the burden on the currently insured. I agree that there needs to be a period where the pharmaceutical companies but at some point, just like other patents, it needs to go into the public domain. This is especially true for companies that use Federal grant dollars to fund their research.

    • Like 1
  5. 2 hours ago, jice said:

    There’s also value in NAFs that own missions that are inseparable but distributed across multiple organizations. DCGS & U-2 under the 16th AF (formerly 25th). Having a CC to slap the table with force of law (who isn’t shouldering the the MAJCOM/CC role) is important 

    The nuclear enterprise has something similar. Shouldn't the integration piece be the job of COCOM/MAJCOM staff? Re-distribute the billets to non-NAF staff.

  6. 1 hour ago, kaputt said:
    Maybe it’s my O-3 bubble, but most people I work with where they make their political views not so subtle are actually liberals. 

    I have experienced the opposite, especially during the last administration.

    59 minutes ago, Pooter said:

    The difference of course being that kaepernick signed a contract with his employer thereby agreeing to follow rules listed in things like the game operations manual and the players handbook.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but the kneeling during the national anthem wasn't against any NFL rules until the following year. I agree on your other points. 

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 1
  7. 8 hours ago, FLEA said:

    Haha, I would but the assignment I'm at right now forbids it. 

    The 36-2903 says that the 2 piece is the aviators direct replacement for the ground-pounder OCP. If you're co-workers are wearing the OCP, you can wear the 2-piece.

×
×
  • Create New...