Jump to content

Tigers2010

Members
  • Posts

    2,893
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tigers2010

  1. 24 minutes ago, baddog said:

    Not only was it PI, it could have also been targeting. That's where my “I don't care” comes in. Payton played bounty ball, targeting and taking out key players for money, with the possibly ending some careers, so my response is.....touché.

    No dog in the fight here, I'm a Dolphins fan. I'm not a huge fan of Peyton either, but that hurts for a guy like Brees. You can say one call don't decide a game, but that one does. That's tough to be denied a Super Bowl on a call like that.

  2. 11 minutes ago, UT alum said:

    I don't think that the Senate hearings were allowed enough evidence or testimony to decide if the man's character was suitable for the Supreme Court.  It was ugly, no doubt, but you think the accuser should have just been ignored?

    I think an accuser who don't know where she was, who she was with, when it happened, or how she got home should be ignored. When she waits 30 years, to wait for this guy to get nominated to the highest court in the land, who mysteriously goes away as soon as he is confirmed should be ignored. She didn't even know what year lol yeah she should be ignored.

     

  3. 4 minutes ago, UT alum said:

    Explain how Democrats are doing exact same thing?

    They all agree there is a crisis at the border and illegal immigration is major problem. They have all been documented saying such. Trumps 5.7 proposal is a drop in the pond.. They agree there is a crisis, the money is not an issue at all, but they are obstructing his agenda. They are obstructing so bad, they are okay with a million workers working for free as long as Trump don't get what he wants, and what they agree with. 

  4. 11 minutes ago, UT alum said:

    But never denied anybody a hearing.  You don't hear what I'm saying.  I don't recall a Democrat Senate Majority Leader ever announcing on inauguration day that his/her only objective was to make the President a one termer.  That is obstructionism prima facie.

    Yeah I gotta agree with Reagan. Where is the outrage for blatantly trying to ruin a man's life to save a seat? Without evidence Democrate after Democrat continued to slander that man in front of the nation. Where is your outrage? 

  5. 6 minutes ago, UT alum said:

    But never denied anybody a hearing.  You don't hear what I'm saying.  I don't recall a Democrat Senate Majority Leader ever announcing on inauguration day that his/her only objective was to make the President a one termer.  That is obstructionism prima facie.

    I'm not mad at the Democrats. Let em play the game how they want. They ain't costing me a pay check.

  6. 4 minutes ago, UT alum said:

    But never denied anybody a hearing.  You don't hear what I'm saying.  I don't recall a Democrat Senate Majority Leader ever announcing on inauguration day that his/her only objective was to make the President a one termer.  That is obstructionism prima facie.

    And the Democrats aren't doing the same exact thing? Where is the outrage? But the Republicans did it first? We can go back and forth with it all day..

  7. 4 minutes ago, UT alum said:

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Democrats have ever refused to even hear a Republican president's nominee.  That was a great disrespect to the presidency, not just President Obama, when they refused to even listen to Garrick Marland whether the vote happened or not. 

    We can't engage in a conversation about disrespect to a presidency. How did you not just "choke". Even Biden agreed, a lame duck president, in an election year, should wait until after the election for a nomination. 

×
×
  • Create New...