3rdnlng Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 It's pretty self-explanatory No, explain your point as it pertains to the discussion here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 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? I'm impressed...you have actually outdone your normal level of intellectual ineptitude. segregationist = conservative? even morons would be offended at that. the cold war = cuba? idiots are deep thinkers by comparison. every time I try to have any kind of a discussion with you, you are either incapable of reciprocating, or just don't care to do so. any explanation of thought or belief contrary to yours is either not worth considering, or automatically partisan (even coming from a non-partisan like myself. I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word 'partisan' but you would likely accuse the dictionary of bias and ignore what it has to say as well). that means you are either willfully ignorant, or intellectually deficient, unwilling to look at anything from a differrent point of view, or open your mind in an effort to learn. you are less than a cat toy, and lower than a troll. you will never be anything else until you open your eyes, open your mind, and stop filling your head with vacuous dogma from socialist retreads masquerading as progressives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Bush v Gore? Please explain your understanding of the Bush v. Gore decision, noting your opinion on the correctness of the decision and why. Then explain how a Court decision it is relevant to the act of current judiciary stacking, and ignoring constitutional intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I'm impressed...you have actually outdone your normal level of intellectual ineptitude. segregationist = conservative? even morons would be offended at that. the cold war = cuba? idiots are deep thinkers by comparison. every time I try to have any kind of a discussion with you, you are either incapable of reciprocating, or just don't care to do so. any explanation of thought or belief contrary to yours is either not worth considering, or automatically partisan (even coming from a non-partisan like myself. I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word 'partisan' but you would likely accuse the dictionary of bias and ignore what it has to say as well). that means you are either willfully ignorant, or intellectually deficient, unwilling to look at anything from a differrent point of view, or open your mind in an effort to learn. you are less than a cat toy, and lower than a troll. you will never be anything else until you open your eyes, open your mind, and stop filling your head with vacuous dogma from socialist retreads masquerading as progressives. So i busted you wide open and you reply with insults. I should have figured Please explain your understanding of the Bush v. Gore decision, noting your opinion on the correctness of the decision and why. Then explain how a Court decision it is relevant to the act of current judiciary stacking, and ignoring constitutional intent. How is it relevant? Are you serious? The five Conservatives picked a Republican President and the four Dems wanted a recount. And you need to ask why its relevant for us to preserve our numbers on the court? Do you really think Republicans would be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 How is it relevant? Are you serious? The five Conservatives picked a Republican President and the four Dems wanted a recount. Ah, but here's the rub: the argument wasn't over a recount, it was over a complete change in federal electoral policy, and establishing precedent. That's what the Court does. The recount being asked for wasn't a blanket, hand by hand, recount of the entire country; or even an entire state. It was asked for in very specific hand picked districts. The recount asked for a lack of uniformity of federal election standards, which is a dangerous and slippery slope. It also directly infringed on a State's rights to form and validate it's own election results. The fact that there was dissent built on party lines is far more telling than the fact that 5 individuals sought to uphold 200+ years of electoral precedence. And you need to ask why its relevant for us to preserve our numbers on the court? So the ends justify the means? Keep power at all costs, even if it means throwing the seperation of powers, and the purpose of the Constitution on it's ear? This is, by and large, my biggest gripe with liberals both Republican and Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Ah, but here's the rub: the argument wasn't over a recount, it was over a complete change in federal electoral policy, and establishing precedent. That's what the Court does. The recount being asked for wasn't a blanket, hand by hand, recount of the entire country; or even an entire state. It was asked for in very specific hand picked districts. The recount asked for a lack of uniformity of federal election standards, which is a dangerous and slippery slope. It also directly infringed on a State's rights to form and validate it's own election results. The fact that there was dissent built on party lines is far more telling than the fact that 5 individuals sought to uphold 200+ years of electoral precedence. So the ends justify the means? Keep power at all costs, even if it means throwing the seperation of powers, and the purpose of the Constitution on it's ear? This is, by and large, my biggest gripe with liberals both Republican and Democrat. You are missing the point, had there been one more Dem and one less Rep on the court this country might have been spared the disaster known as the Bush Presidency. And keeping power at all costs?? By asking an 80 year old women to step down so a successor can replace her? Ever hear of taking one for the team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 So i busted you wide open and you reply with insults. I should have figured I call them as I see them. when I look at you, I see someone who is stubbornly and willfully ignorant, and you prove me to be correct every time you reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 You are missing the point, had there been one more Dem and one less Rep on the court this country might have been spared the disaster known as the Bush Presidency. No, I've caught the point entirely; it's you who've either missed it, or clumsily disregarded it. The court didn't pick a president. The court essentially stated that the federal government's place in elections must continue to be uniform; and denied Democrats favorable election treatment. And keeping power at all costs?? By asking an 80 year old women to step down so a successor can replace her? Ever hear of taking one for the team? Her team is Americans, not Democrats. Federal officials who put party before country invalidate their authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 You are missing the point, had there been one more Dem and one less Rep on the court this country might have been spared the disaster known as the Bush Presidency. And keeping power at all costs?? By asking an 80 year old women to step down so a successor can replace her? Ever hear of taking one for the team? Taking one for the team?? Are you !@#$ing kidding me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Her team is Americans, not Democrats. Federal officials who put party before country invalidate their authority. Ya right. You are naive Taking one for the team?? Are you !@#$ing kidding me. Oh stop, you are shocked, just shocked gambling is going on in there Yes, I want another liberal on the court. Are you saying you don't care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Oh stop, you are shocked, just shocked gambling is going on in there Yes, I want another liberal on the court. Are you saying you don't care? Saying taking one for the team is not you saying you want another liberal on the bench. It's suggesting she needs to resign so Obama can nominate another younger and possibly more liberal judge before the mid-terms. But does this mean you're afaid of the outcome of the mid-terms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Ya right. You are naive Oh stop, you are shocked, just shocked gambling is going on in there Yes, I want another liberal on the court. Are you saying you don't care? pBills, is this you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 You are missing the point, had there been one more Dem and one less Rep on the court this country might have been spared the disaster known as the Bush Presidency. Off topic, I know, but Bush won all subsequent recounts by lib newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Ya right. You are naive Again, an elected official who places party before country has no business serving, as they have defined themselves as only representing those who are of a like mind; disgregarding the concerns of others. Such a person is not fit to lead. Further, why should those with differing views be beholden to adhere to the whims of those who would deny that they represent them, or their interests? You make an argument for a dictatorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Again, an elected official who places party before country has no business serving, as they have defined themselves as only representing those who are of a like mind; disgregarding the concerns of others. Such a person is not fit to lead. Further, why should those with differing views be beholden to adhere to the whims of those who would deny that they represent them, or their interests? You make an argument for a dictatorship. But you agree with the decision in bush v gore, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 But you agree with the decision in bush v gore, right? The case was decided correctly, given more than 200 years of unaltered Constitutional legal precedent. With that said, I thought George W. Bush was a horrendous President. The worst of my lifetime until Barack Obama, infact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 The case was decided correctly, given more than 200 years of unaltered Constitutional legal precedent. With that said, I thought George W. Bush was a horrendous President. The worst of my lifetime until Barack Obama, infact. Yes, you agreed with the five republicans and agreed Bush should win and against the four Democrats and Al Gore. You saying it was "correctly" decided only means you favored the Republican interpretation What are we arguing about again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 It's pretty self-explanatory Your idiocy? Yes, it is. pBills, is this you? I've always thought so. We gotta get him talking about unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Oh ya, you also think the Democrat Obama is worse than the Republican Bush....what are we arguing about again? Your idiocy? Yes, it is. I've always thought so. We gotta get him talking about unions. I think you are Tom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Oh ya, you also think the Democrat Obama is worse than the Republican Bush....what are we arguing about again? I think you are Tom! You are really outdoing yourself today. You've surpassed your normal level of idiocy, and are just going balls-to-the-wall full retard today. It is highly entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts