DC Tom Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 And in fairness to me, I did ask him. In fairness to him, you shouldn't even be trying to have this discussion if you can't define "liberal." Really...did you just wake up this morning and say to yourself "I'm going to act even stupider than usual on the internet today!" 'Cause it's good to have goals...I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Sure man! lol, Sure I've honestly never laughed harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Hogboy was Crayonz, but with teeth. and Combo was one of Hogboy's sockpuppets. that had to be 14 or 15 years ago, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 In fairness to him, you shouldn't even be trying to have this discussion if you can't define "liberal." Really...did you just wake up this morning and say to yourself "I'm going to act even stupider than usual on the internet today!" 'Cause it's good to have goals...I guess... Wow, you are really shot And you write books for children?? That is a scary thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Wow, you are really shot And you write books for children?? That is a scary thing I'll ask you again: If the continuation of 200+ years of federal election policy, the continuation of 200+ years of a state's rights to validate it's own election resluts, and the denial of favorable, hand picked election recounts, which would have politicized future Courts., in favor of a uniform federal election policy is the Republican interpretation, then what was the Democratic interpretation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 gatorman asks the voices in his head questions, then complains that we don't know what he is talking about. GATORMAN-THE VOICES ARE NOT REAL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 gatorman asks the voices in his head questions, then complains that we don't know what he is talking about. GATORMAN-THE VOICES ARE NOT REAL!!! Even the voices think he's an idiot at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Democrats are on the left, you don't think they used logic when you supported them? No. As has been clearly defined by this president, REAL Democrats use emotional arguments, pandering, and race/class/gender baiting, not logic. What was logical about "we have to pass it, so we can see what's in it"? Why is it that Obamacare generates so many gaffes, laughs and embarrassment? Lack of basic logic. Show me a single liberal policy, in place or proposed, that has been based purely on logic. Hint: killing Osama is not policy. It is logical to deploy the Keystone piple line, even you agree with that. Why then is it not approved? Where is the logic there? You can find all sorts of emotional arguments, and pandering in the WH handling of this situation: they raise $ on it all the time. They go to the environtologists, and say "give me $ or I will approve it", so there's the logic based in self-interest/preservation, but, delaying the approval in terms of the decision itself? No logic at all. (I actually thought Jimmy Carter was a better president back then, I'm embarrassed to say), but eventually I had to admit that his economic policies were starting to work. One wonders what, if anything, ever, will be embarrassing for gatorman, years later, when he looks back on his posts here. And, what will he admit to? as for the rest - all the social issues - I believe that for the most part, people can and should make their own way through life, because it affords them true freedom, and is the best bet for individual success. This is why I can never be a "social conservative", and won't ever be very good at religion. But, it's also why detest anyone who fancies himself a post-modern Jesus. Moral relativity is just as disgusting as "holier than thou", which is just as disgusting as ice picking unborn babies in the back of the head, which is just as disgusting as denying birth control and condoms to people in Africa, which is just as disgusting as persecuting gay people, which is just as disgusting as calling those who oppose gay marriage bigots. 9/10 anybody saying anything about "morality", who isn't referring directly to the 10 commandments, or the Golden Rule, or Karma, or anything thing else the rises to "commandment" level....is full of schit. You are right, during the Kennedy years the Southern wing of the Democratic party was segregationist. So yes, they were Conservative as all hell. Thank god that trash left and the South is now Republican. Kennedy stood up to Russians in Cuba, our back yard, not theirs! You see the difference? Or do your partisan blinders obstruct simple geography? You say you love fiscal Conservativism but say you supported Kennedy, they guy that proposed medicare, medicade and a general expansion of welfare state? You post the above...and then, you wonder why this: you reply with insults. I should have figured happens? What you shoud have figured: if you attempt to get away with distorting history on this board, you are going to be insulted. There's no point in having a discussion with somebody who can't even get his facts straight. Since there's no point in discussion, all that's left to do? Insult. Might as well do something fun and useful. The Republicans would love it if more left leaning people hated to be on a team. Without organization you have nothing Yeah. We've all seen the "great" success of "organizations" like the post office, EPA, IRS, State Department, Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, etc. Then we've all seen the efforts and results of your team in state and local government as well, especially in cities. Yeah, a fine team you have there. Given the results of these organizations, I'm fairly certain that "nothing" is rapidly becoming the more attractive option to a majority of Americans. No, if you believe in the policies and goals of the party why wouldn't you want your successor to carry on your policies? This isn't the proper thinking for a retiring justice whatsoever. Each court, if it is functioning properly, has to deal with its time, or more specifically, with the issues of its time. Thus, we evaluate courts properly, only when we do so in terms of what they were dealing with, in their real time, not on the basis of whether they carried on some policy from another time. You want to call every supreme court from day 1 to the Civil War useless, because slavery wasn't struck down? No. You do not. Many of those courts did excellent work helping the nation become a nation. They dealt with the issues that were presented to them, in their time. It is the word policy being misused here, that defines your problem so well. Thurgood Marshal didn't have a policy. Policies are for presidents, not justices. Thus, taking the last 2 things together: it would have been highly improper, a major disservice to the country, and an impeachable offense, for a 1841's SCOTUS to up and decide that slavery was illegal, because it was their "policy". But, they did find that the law had been violated, and that free men had been taken against their will into slavery....which is what they, in their time, were supposed to consider. (Hint: do your own reading on 1841 and the SCOTUS) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts