Ok, then repost it. I’ve looked and looked, and I don’t see it. I Imagine your reply would have had some discussion as to why the hardened criminal should have been given the benefit of the doubt in being punished for using a machine gun during the commission of a crime because the Second Amendment requires it - was that your position as to why Garland was wrong in that case?
I can’t find any such post. Please re-post. Thanks in advance.
I never argued that case and I think I said as much. If not I will now. I referred to the other three cases. And if you look really hard you will see my comments.
Sure I did, at length. I went into his role in grand bargain talks and even cited an article where Republicans were giving him praise. Also, I think I cited this:
Now, let’s hear your response re: Garland.
You expressly said Garland was wrong on all four cases. So why was he wrong on the case re: criminal sentencing?
Or are you changing your position that he was wrong?
As for the other cases, I addressed those, too - for example, why was Garland wrong to defer to the DOJ’s intepretation of the law requiring destruction of records after gun sales?
You never said why he was wrong there, either.
Let’s go. Garland was wrong - ok, you’re really smart, tell us why.
Yeah, I just read most of the article and Bob Woodward a partisan himself clearly stated that Biden was a political partisan and he went on to talk about his many gaffes. He did give him credit for some political negotiations reaching across the isle. But I wonder how that actually manifests itself into the real world of hardcore business negotiations. I rather think that there is very little carry over into the real world. So if Biden had a few (and that’s all really) good political negotiations good for him. But if I recall the question back then was “who would you like on your side as the best negotiator”. In that context your defense of Biden falls flat.
Says the man who thinks Biden is the best negotiator to have on his side.
And quoting Woodward…really?
Enough red herrings - let’s hear your response re: Garland. We can go one step at a time. On the criminal sentencing case, do you still think Garland got it wrong? Let’s hear it, smart guy.
Says the guy who cannot find my original response.
Wow…you’re really smart TB.
Red herrings?
The long list of dumb crap that you’ve said over the past political season? I think that is the point really. You fancy yourself a real smart guy but say really dumb things.
I gave four examples and you’ve really only defended one and that was quite a feeble defense.
No, it doesn’t, because a list was given, and I said Biden was better than the list. And you don’t know a damn thing about the “real world of hardcore business negotiations,” so no one cares what your assessment of Biden in that space is.
Now, stop trying to change the subject, and focus on your response re: Garland.
You are the first person to attack me on a regular basis (and we know why…it starts with an “E”) Yet, you can’t defend your own lame political predictions and positions.
C’mon, @zeb1 - see the above. One case at a time.
You clearly have strong opinions on why Garland was wrong here. Let’s hear it.
And you say that purely out of EMOTION. Once again your assessment of my ability as a business negotiator is based solely on the fact that you don’t like me or the way I post. With that logic why should I or anyone care what you think?
By the way I have a very strong record of business negotiations and a solid 25 year track record of success. But don’t believe me keep tight hold of those erratic emotions of yours that is how you judge people and situations. And that makes your arguments very weak indeed.
Uninterested. We’re waiting.
already answered do your homework genius
But you have yet to defend your ridiculous political predictions and postions
Edit: Time for me to get to work TB.
Next time try to keep up.
$4 MM vs $275 MM tho… hoteling not as good as slumlording 
I have seen no such answer. No one else has either. If you think you did answer, re-post it.
I want to hear how the Second Amendment requires Garland to come to a different conclusion in the case of the poor violent criminal who used a machine gun in the commission of a felony. That’s what you believe, right? Since you said Garland was “anti gun” and got it “wrong” in this case, right?
So explain why. I find that conclusion perplexing, so I need help understanding it. Thanks in advance.
You fellows have beaten this to death - let’s move on
Basically all of the pundits are saying the usual - Liberal - lets vote, Conservative - he is a devil
Lol, I guess porno’s aren’t paying what they use to.
