Justice Antonin Scalia, RIP. Next up: nuclear :football: time!
-
TIL older → better.
-
TIL, i somehow implied that.
While it is also better, that doesn't follow from the age
-
Our monarchy is much older.
Than what?
What the heck doe the age of "your" monarchy have to do with what I posted?
-
How is it helpful to have the right to hide behind the Super PACs (for long enough time)?
I'm just checking. People who scream about Citizens United are frequently silent on the matter of the fact that unions have always enjoyed the ability to spend as much as they want on politics. It's only when icky companies can do it a lot of them get upset.
-
Ah, so you're also a believer of the, the system is shit, but I'm not gonna do anything but complain online to show my anger, political philosophy.
A vote for Hillary is an enthusiastic endorsement of the status quo.
-
It seems unanimous: Republican senators and presidential candidates agree the nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice should be held up for 11 months for the "next president".
Quick check--was it OK when the Democrats did it in the past?
-
Than what?
Oh, sorry, I forgot you have the memory of a goldfish.
Allow me to give you context.
Get a real government, you British assholes.
-
The monarchy is older than the government?
Duh.
I still don't get what that has to do with what I typed, but, hey, whatever.
-
But it's certainly not a major part of the party's platform
The winner of the Iowa Republican caucus literally said,
"God bless the great state of Iowa. Let me first of all say, to God be the glory,"
There have been major initiatives in every Republican-controlled state legislature I can think of to "protect religious freedom" from the evil gays and women.
The Michigan state legislature even recently passed a law which banned anal sex using language reminiscent of fucking Leviticus.
How can you honestly say that it's "certainly not a major part of the party's platform" when the Bible is basically the Republican Party Platform at this point?
-
You're never going to be able to stop that.
THEN LET'S JUST FUCKING GO FOR ANARCHY SINCE GOVERNMENT IS NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO WORK.
Brb, getting a cool car from the parking garage outside because campus police won't even bother to try to stop me since they're never going to be able to stop car theft.
-
How can you honestly say that it's "certainly not a major part of the party's platform" when the Bible is basically the Republican Party Platform at this point?
Nah, their platform is only the parts of the Bible that they like (e.g. the two places that talk about the evil gays). They'll gladly ignore all the stuff that they don't like (e.g. all the places that support socialism).
I do find it amusing that they're usually the first ones to talk about stopping Muslims from implementing Sharia law, though.
-
I do find it amusing that they're usually the first ones to talk about stopping Muslims from implementing Sharia law, though.
Pot, kettle, etc. Applies to a lot of political topics: Those who scream the loudest secretly/unknowingly agree most.
-
For fuck sake. I knew you had the memory of a goldfish, not that you had the context awareness of regexp.
Who gives a fucking shit what the [b]queen[/b] thinks.
Keyword being queen. Thus implying the monarchy.you British assholes.
Here you seem to think I'm British.Wrong. Guess again.
Wrong as in not a British asshole.Our monarchy is much older.
This was more for the British, who are so proud of their old traditions.
Our queen can trace her lineage almost as far back as @fox
-
-
Then who is "our" as in "our monarchy"?
Thank you for asking.
That would be the Danish, currently the dominion of Queen Margrethe II.Who is apparently 3rd cousin to queen Elizabeth II
-
Ok; now that that's cleared up, how is any of this relevant to my original statement?
-
The winner of the Iowa Republican caucus literally said,
"God bless the great state of Iowa. Let me first of all say, to God be the glory,"
Are you saying that you want to destroy the part of the First Amendment regarding religion? I can't figure out another way to understand this.
There have been major initiatives in every Republican-controlled state legislature I can think of to "protect religious freedom" from the evil gays and women.
You really don't understand this topic, eh?
How can you honestly say that it's "certainly not a major part of the party's platform" when the Bible is basically the Republican Party Platform at this point?
TDEMSYR
@boomzilla said:
You're never going to be able to stop that.
THEN LET'S JUST FUCKING GO FOR ANARCHY SINCE GOVERNMENT IS NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO WORK.
Brb, getting a cool car from the parking garage outside because campus police won't even bother to try to stop me since they're never going to be able to stop car theft.
Dang. You make @ryhwden look smart. That's impressive.
-
@CoyneTheDup said:
It seems unanimous: Republican senators and presidential candidates agree the nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice should be held up for 11 months for the "next president".
Quick check--was it OK when the Democrats did it in the past?
Obviously didn't read The Nation article:
Reagan, who could not seek a new term, met the definition of a lame duck. And 1988 was definitely an election year: Kennedy was confirmed five days before the Iowa caucuses and sworn in six days before New Hampshire’s primary.
Oh, yeah, that's right Democrats were too stupid to hold up the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice by a lame duck President. We could have done it first and better, but, oh no, too ■■■■■■■ soft-headed. Five days...Democrats held out for five ■■■■■■■ days.
So it looks like it's left to the Republicans to be "The Party That Won't®"--for the next 11 months.
-
Oh, yeah, that's right Democrats were too stupid to hold up the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice by a lame duck President.
Yeah, but they'd already pioneered misleading character assassination to prevent a confirmation. Fortunately, it didn't work the second time.
But really, I don't see how anyone could object to this. After all, they're just paraphrasing Obama: "We won."
-
THEN LET'S JUST FUCKING GO FOR ANARCHY SINCE GOVERNMENT IS NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO WORK.
Brb, getting a cool car from the parking garage outside because campus police won't even bother to try to stop me since they're never going to be able to stop car theft.
Strawman with a false equivalency combo. Nice. 6/10, try for a triple or better next time and see your score improve.
-
-
Our queen can trace her lineage almost as far back as @fox
That would be the Danish, currently the dominion of Queen Margrethe II.
Who is apparently 3rd cousin to queen Elizabeth II
Queen Elizabeth II and I share several common ancestors, actually, so if Queen Margrethe II is related to her, she can trace her lineage as far back as I can.
-
Queen Elizabeth II and I share several common ancestors, actually, so if Queen Margrethe II is related to her, she can trace her lineage as far back as I can.
And yet you still can't prove you're actually Cherokee, thus making your avatar another example of a white boy appropriating a culture that isn't his because "it looks cool bro"
-
So it looks like it's left to the Republicans to be "The Party That Won't®"--for the next 11 months.
Why would the Republicans want to allow President Obama to nominate another, say, Wise Latina™?
Hey, but let's go to history and see what happened the last time we had a lame duck President, shall we?
#First President in US History to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process
In January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.The nice thing about being a Democrat, apparently, is the total lack of penalty for hypocrisy.
-
Our monarchy
As the 51st state of the US you cannot have monarchy, dismantle it already, the rest are in place.
-
In January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.
- Bush was not a "lame duck president" in 2006, not according to the usual definition, as he was still on the first half of his second term.
- The Democrats were the minority party, with no hope of blocking the nomination.
- Most of the Democrats did not support the filibuster; it wasn't supported by the leadership and 20 of them voted with the Republicans for cloture. (Yes, I know that's a 25/20 split, but voting against cloture is only the same as supporting a filibuster if there is hope of a filibuster.)
- There was no filibuster.
- Why would you present such a lame-ass example and try to sell it as anything like consistent with what the Republicans are proposing now? Oh, never mind, I forgot, ObamaaaAAA!!! did it.
-
Awesome. You're one of those assholes who votes for who they (think) can win, not for who they actually agree with.
Given the shitty voting system(s) you clowns insist on using, it's not surprising that people come to these crazy conclusions.
-
Queen Margrethe II.
Who is apparently 3rd cousin to queen Elizabeth II
That's because all European royalty is thoroughly inbred. You should check out Charles II of Spain, that's some pretty fucked up shit.
-
never mind, I forgot, ObamaaaAAA!!! did it
I'm talking about EVIDENCE. Evidence so TERRIFYING, you may not believe it unless you heard it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSGuiLdqUL0
Anita, I just want to say I love your channel. And as a follower of Christ I stand behind what you are doing. I haven't found a single thing in which I disagree with anything you have said. So a big thank you! Keep on being a soldier for Christ in the end times.
-
TL; didn't watch all of it. Her presentation is TERRIFYING all right.
But I can understand; I had some of the same concerns with the last Bush.
-
Why would you present such a lame-ass example and try to sell it as anything like consistent with what the Republicans are proposing now? Oh, never mind, I forgot, ObamaaaAAA!!! did it.
That's right--Obama voted to filibuster a Supreme Court Justice's nomination then, but thinks his presumed nominee now deserves a rubber stamp.
But you go ahead and continue to shout that every bit of opposition must only because he's black, or whatever.
-
-
But there was an attempt to, by your guy.
Good point. Wrong tack on my part. I agree: what he did was inexcusable.
Do you think that excuses what the Republicans propose to do?
-
Do you think that excuses what the Republicans propose to do?
Do you think they are required to approve a nomination?
In short: Yes, I support my guys when they do it and oppose the other guys when they do it. It's not illegal or unconstitutional for Senators to do this.
Shoot...can't think of the guy's name...a journalist...who somewhat famously said that all arguments about process are dishonest. Or along those lines.
-
Do you think that excuses what the Republicans propose to do?
I think if it's good for one party to do it, it's good for the other one, too. Contrariwise, if it's bad for one party to do it, it's bad for the other one.
-
Shoot...can't think of the guy's name...a journalist...who somewhat famously said that all arguments about process are dishonest. Or along those lines.
You are probably thinking of Matt Yglesias, who said it's OK to lie to people[1].
[1] under certain circumstances, the enumeration of which are a to -baiting.
-
You are probably thinking of Matt Yglesias,
No, this guy is a great political journalist. I can picture him, but I'm drawing a blank on his name and I can't apparently come up with a close enough quote for google to find it for me.
It typically gets brought up whenever one side starts talking about getting rid of filibusters.
-
I can picture him, but I'm drawing a blank on his name
-
Yeah...this is really bugging me.
-
Yeah...this is really bugging me.
You mean the more frequent "senior moments" you're having?
-
You mean the more frequent "senior moments" you're having?
I don't remember that happening.
-
It typically gets brought up whenever one side starts talking about getting rid of filibusters.
P J O'Rourke?
-
No. Found him! Michael Barone:
Earliest I could find, from 2005: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2005/08/02/rules-to-live-by
More recent (2014): http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/all-process-arguments-are-insincere/article/2551024“All process arguments are insincere, including this one.”
-
When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's Barone!
There, now you can remember it easier.
-
-
No, this guy is a great political journalist. I can picture him, but I'm drawing a blank on his name and I can't apparently come up with a close enough quote for google to find it for me.
It typically gets brought up whenever one side starts talking about getting rid of filibusters.
I don't think you're actually forgetting. I think you're just making long, meandering post after post-- just to fill in space and waste time until this whole argument about fillibustering fizzles out, or passes a critical time deadline so that the argument doesn't even matter anymore.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
a critical time deadline
What are you thinking, about the time the Sun burns out?
If we go by what the Republicans say, that is if they do what they say, this should be an argument worth pursuing until at least Jan. 20, 2017.
Unless you consider the "process insincerity" argument a killer, which it kind of is.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
just to fill in space and waste time until this whole argument about fillibustering fizzles out, or passes a critical time deadline so that the argument doesn't even matter anymore.
I wish I had been that clever.
-
-
Oh no, someone died.
Stop everything.
Except Obama... he can do what he wants... there's no reason to oppose anything he does.
Especially at such an emotional time as this.
I hope Sanders gets the nomination, myself. He's an old deluded crank, but he's basically honest and not a crook, AFAICT.
This times infinity.
I don't give a shit who did what unethical thing. It happened on someone's watch and everyone seems only interested in ensuring they don't get blamed for it.
Well, I'm pretty sure there are also some Republicans who don't particularly like the Establishment Clause.
If someone wants to place the ten commandments on the front of a congressional building, it's not establishing a legal religion. It doesn't mandate everyone go to church. One could do that, and also place religious quotes from other religions. In fact, you could have a quote from every religion in history on a congressional building and you still haven't violated establishment clause.
You know what is establishing a religion, China having people perform a dance to Mao twice a day during the cultural revolution. But, of course, that's not a religion, because it's atheist.
He deserved what he got.
Really....
He deserved to die?
I don't think I've ever wished death on anyone who I didn't agree with politically.
You are the problem.
Agreed.
Almost every thing that one side blames the other for, is practiced by their own side, the same people they end up voting for. But the media, and their dim wits, have them convinced that they are somehow preventing bad things from happening because the other side is pure evil.
"God bless the great state of Iowa. Let me first of all say, to God be the glory,"
How do you define establishment?
the action of establishing something or being established.
Just how does a statement establish a national religion?
Did that person fine you if you weren't [religion member]?
No... that's what a certain other religion's law does.
when the Bible is basically the Republican Party Platform at this point
Not sure how that is possible, when they aren't even reading it.