• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Souter to retire

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Not legal to name Michelle. Nepotism laws and all that. Besides, we don't want a bigot on the court, do we?
Click to expand...

Speaking of exploding heads look what popped up. :mrgreen:

I guess that just leaves Hillary then.

And no way is he going to name the Red Queen. There hasn't been a Weatherman on the bench yet...
Click to expand...

Not likely to be either is there?

The only guarantee is that Obama will name someone who's purpose is to destroy the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Like electing bush. :roll:
Click to expand...
 
Truth Detector said:
Yes indeed, and while we are at it, let's also pretend there are no "hate mongers" on the left nor acknowledge the blatant irony of wishing someone dead because of their views as somehow NOT being “hate mongering.”

You just cannot fabricate the level of denial and irony such statements require. :rofl
Click to expand...

I never said that there weren't hate mongers on the left. I said that we need to be better than the hate-mongers on the right, and I thought it was clear that I was telling ncfy to not be a hate-monger. I thought it was clear, but apparently you need everything in small words.

American said:
Hmmm, I missed that suggestion, who made it?
Click to expand...

Anne Coulter. Should I expect you to start ripping into her now?

Truth Detector said:
Maybe you should also strive to be better than the Rachel Maddows, Kieth Olbermanns, Ed Schultz's and Chris Mathews as well.
Click to expand...

I mentioned Coulter specifically because she's talked about poisoning Justices that disagree with her. If he was doing something reminescent of Olbermann or something that I found objectionable, I'd comment about that too.

American said:
Republicans in Congress need to kick Democrats in the balls daily, including their women. Show them how much their loved. Gridlock is good, and so is partisanship. Defeat their every plan no matter how small. They're socialists, and every law they pass and every suit they file is an effort to destroy the Constitution.

And yes, I QUESTION their patriotism, every minute of the day.
Click to expand...

First, try to get into their head. Why do you think they want to, as you put it, "destroy the constitution"?

Secondly, if you're too obstructionist, you opponents will use it to attack you during elections, and you risk ending up being a rump minority party, capable of doing very little. It's basic strategy. If the Dems come back in 2010 and say "yes things suck, they would have gotten better, but Republicans obstructed this, this, and this, which would have made things better," you risk being in deep trouble.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Not legal to name Michelle. Nepotism laws and all that. Besides, we don't want a bigot on the court, do we?

And no way is he going to name the Red Queen. There hasn't been a Weatherman on the bench yet...

If not him, Obama will name someone else. The only guarantee is that Obama will name someone who's purpose is to destroy the Constitution.

He is a Democrat after all.
Click to expand...

What do you think Obama's motivation is for "destroy[ing] the Constitution"?
 
the makeout hobo said:
I never said that there weren't hate mongers on the left. I said that we need to be better than the hate-mongers on the right, and I thought it was clear that I was telling ncfy to not be a hate-monger. I thought it was clear, but apparently you need everything in small words.



Anne Coulter. Should I expect you to start ripping into her now?



I mentioned Coulter specifically because she's talked about poisoning Justices that disagree with her. If he was doing something reminescent of Olbermann or something that I found objectionable, I'd comment about that too.



First, try to get into their head. Why do you think they want to, as you put it, "destroy the constitution"?

Secondly, if you're too obstructionist, you opponents will use it to attack you during elections, and you risk ending up being a rump minority party, capable of doing very little. It's basic strategy. If the Dems come back in 2010 and say "yes things suck, they would have gotten better, but Republicans obstructed this, this, and this, which would have made things better," you risk being in deep trouble.



What do you think Obama's motivation is for "destroy[ing] the Constitution"?
Click to expand...
If Coulter said it, it's okay because she's a hot blonde. j/k Obama's motivation for destroying the Constitution is because he knows it's at odds with European Socialism.
 
American said:
If Coulter said it, it's okay because she's a hot blonde. j/k Obama's motivation for destroying the Constitution is because he knows it's at odds with European Socialism.
Click to expand...

And why does he supposedly want European Socialism, do you suppose?
 
Power would be my guess based on liberalism's usual goals.
 
American said:
Power would be my guess based on liberalism's usual goals.
Click to expand...

I think that's a very erroneous and simplistic view, that they just want power. We're talking about real people, often with developed ideologies, not comic book villains.
 
American said:
Power would be my guess based on liberalism's usual goals.
Click to expand...

That's kinda funny....since it is the Republicans/Conservatives that have been for big Government power and finding justification for Governmental intrusion on our Freedoms.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom