a meant a news source bringing it up genius.

it's like you try to be a prick.

(12-05-2016 12:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  a meant a news source bringing it up genius.

it's like you try to be a prick.

McCrory just conceded.

Not sure if true, but I read last week he was the first governor to lose re-election in nc.

(12-05-2016 12:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  a meant a news source bringing it up genius.

it's like you try to be a prick.

What, the court record not good enough for ya?

(12-05-2016 12:29 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Not sure if true, but I read last week he was the first governor to lose re-election in nc.

Bev Perdue, who McCroy beat, lost reelection. That was just 4 years ago.

(12-05-2016 12:42 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 12:29 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Not sure if true, but I read last week he was the first governor to lose re-election in nc.

Bev Perdue, who McCroy beat, lost reelection. That was just 4 years ago.

I don't think she ran for reelection. She would have lost though

(12-05-2016 01:16 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 12:42 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 12:29 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Not sure if true, but I read last week he was the first governor to lose re-election in nc.

Bev Perdue, who McCroy beat, lost reelection. That was just 4 years ago.

I don't think she ran for reelection. She would have lost though

Big time.

(12-05-2016 12:42 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 12:29 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Not sure if true, but I read last week he was the first governor to lose re-election in nc.

Bev Perdue, who McCroy beat, lost reelection. That was just 4 years ago.

She didn't run for re-election. She would have lost if she had though.

(12-05-2016 12:38 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 12:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  a meant a news source bringing it up genius.

it's like you try to be a prick.

What, the court record not good enough for ya?

read the bold.

i'm questioning how it relates to this case. you have merely provided evidence that the case exists. you have provided no evidence as to why it is relevant to 2016. in fact you are so clueless on the lack of a connection that not only do you omit providing a link yourself. you haven't even stated for yourself why it is relevant.

(12-05-2016 03:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 12:38 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 12:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  a meant a news source bringing it up genius.

it's like you try to be a prick.

What, the court record not good enough for ya?

read the bold.

i'm questioning how it relates to this case. you have merely provided evidence that the case exists. you have provided no evidence as to why it is relevant to 2016. in fact you are so clueless on the lack of a connection that not only do you omit providing a link yourself. you haven't even stated for yourself why it is relevant.

You bemoaned a potential court packing by McCrory.
I said you could thank Cooper for that.
You requested a link.
I provided the like to the court case in which Cooper as a senator approved adding three justices to the court of appeals to maintain a democratic majority.

If you can't see the relevance, not to mention the irony, they you sir are a moron.

The precedent was set in 2000 by the democrats, and not a single one of them can ***** if McCrory expands the state SC since its the new Gov-elect that voted for the bill that would allow such action at the request of a democratic Gov 16 years ago.

can you provide a link as to anyone of note who agrees that 2000 is a precedent for 2016? the only person who thinks that is you. no offense but you are just a random internet commentator whose opinion I don't value as the basis for something like this.

the only google result I found was a law school link saying it wasn't relevant.

(12-05-2016 04:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  can you provide a link as to anyone of note who agrees that 2000 is a precedent for 2016? the only person who thinks that is you. no offense but you are just a random internet commentator whose opinion I don't value as the basis for something like this.

the only google result I found was a law school link saying it wasn't relevant.

how are they different, outside of being at different levels of the judicial system?

(12-05-2016 04:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  can you provide a link as to anyone of note who agrees that 2000 is a precedent for 2016? the only person who thinks that is you. no offense but you are just a random internet commentator whose opinion I don't value as the basis for something like this.

the only google result I found was a law school link saying it wasn't relevant.

Why would the 2000 packing of the appeals court not be precedent if McCrory wanted to do the same with the SC now? I see no reason why the appeals court and SC would operate by separate rules.

If you are looking news stories to back up the possibility of this happening, Google is your friend. There seems to be enough worry over it from liberal rags to warrant a story per day or more - all without mention of the fact that NC democrats have already pulled this stunt before.

So you can't defend your stance. "Here's a case. I'm not sure why it's relevant but I know it is so take my word for it."

That's basically what you are saying. I googled it and couldn't find anything supporting your assertion. So now it's your turn

(12-05-2016 05:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  So you can't defend your stance. "Here's a case. I'm not sure why it's relevant but I know it is so take my word for it."

That's basically what you are saying. I googled it and couldn't find anything supporting your assertion. So now it's your turn

so you're not arguing that NC Democrats packed the NC appeals court?

(12-05-2016 05:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  So you can't defend your stance. "Here's a case. I'm not sure why it's relevant but I know it is so take my word for it."

That's basically what you are saying. I googled it and couldn't find anything supporting your assertion. So now it's your turn

Just because you don't like my defense, doesn't make it invalid.

Your favorite wine, I'd guess.

It's invalid because you can't defend it

Pat gave it up. Glad it is over.

(12-05-2016 07:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Pat gave it up. Glad it is over.

Forget his name but the Republican AG candidate conceded today too.