• 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!

AP source: Obama chooses Kagan for Supreme Court

What's not to understand? Obama needs friends in high places to forward, and sustain his wickedly dishonest progressive agenda.

Have you noticed...out of the box...the left is "complaining" that she's too "centrists". A new strategy I'm detetecting here...but, just the same old blatant lies, and intellectual dishonesty to insure "social justice" for all on the backs of the few.

Never, ever trust a leftist...they're morally bankrupt, and will look you in the eye as they lie about and obfuscate their "progressive" (communist) plans for America.

Surely you jest.... how much hyperpole can one pack into three paragraphs? Intellectual honesty begins with some sense of reality. The next flight to earth leaves in 15 minutes.
 
An interesting argument from a Moderate attorney I know who is currently employed in the Obama DOJ

he noted that he worries about Justices such as (ex justice) Souter, Sotomayor and perhaps now Kagan who are unmarried and have no children because they don't have near as much stake in the future as those with children.

Thought I don't know if I entirely agree with this it is a point worth considering.
 
An interesting argument from a Moderate attorney I know who is currently employed in the Obama DOJ

he noted that he worries about Justices such as (ex justice) Souter, Sotomayor and perhaps now Kagan who are unmarried and have no children because they don't have near as much stake in the future as those with children.

Thought I don't know if I entirely agree with this it is a point worth considering.

So what part of that do you agree with and why?
 
pat buKKKanan did it again:
"If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the US population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats," Buchanan wrote in a column for WorldNetDaily on Friday. "Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?"
"So why hasn’t Buchanan been complaining about the severe overrepresentation of Episcopalians and Presbyterians on the bench?" Frisch asks. "They account for 50 percent of all Justices and only 4.5 percent of the U.S. population. Certainly that would enrage someone like Buchanan, right?"
Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench | Raw Story

the reich wingers are looking for anything to use against Obama's appointee, no matter how bigoted it might make them appear
 
My sense of humor suffers everytime I write a quarterly check to the feds to feed and house your ilk.

Not to mention to pay for Interstate Highways, the Air traffic control system, to build airports, to forecast the weather, to research and develop very large and fast jet fighters and bombers, to research and develop very powerful weapons and defense systems, pay for our adventures in the middle east, pay for an SEC to somewhat temper fraud in the markets, pay for our national parks and national forests, pay for the clean-up of the gulf as we know BP/Trans-Ocean and Halliburton will shrug that "personal responsibility", pay for the FBI, the CIA and the NSA, pay for our local police and firefighters, pay for the space shuttle, pay for the NIH including the Center for Disease Control and pay so we don't have mass homelessness amongst those over 65 (aka social security and medicare).
 
Last edited:
Not to mention to pay for Interstate Highways, the Air traffic control system, to build airports, to forecast the weather, to research and develop very large and fast jet fighters and bombers, to research and develop very powerful weapons and defense systems, pay for our adventures in the middle east, pay for an SEC to somewhat temper fraud in the markets, pay for our national parks and national forests, pay for the clean-up of the gulf as we know BP/Trans-Ocean and Halliburton will shrug that "personal responsibility", pay for the FBI, the CIA and the NSA, pay for our local police and firefighters, pay for the space shuttle, pay for the NIH including the Center for Disease Control and pay so we don't have mass homelessness amongst those over 65 (aka social security and medicare).


So, because some spending is warranted, heck, even mandated by the Constitution in the case of roads, that means that we should just shut up and not question any of it?


Yeah ok...... :roll:


j-mac
 
So, because some spending is warranted, heck, even mandated by the Constitution in the case of roads, that means that we should just shut up and not question any of it?


Yeah ok...... :roll:


j-mac

I am not suggesting you can not have a quarrel with spending in whole or in part. I have my issues with government spending as well. I was merely responding to the suggestion of a previous poster and the general thinking of far too many people that taxes go only for waste and welfare. That is not true.

Much to most of government spending is desirable and/or necessary. I acknowledge that there is plenty that is not.
 
Back
Top Bottom