Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

RIP

10 bucks says republicans won't allow any confirmations of a new judge until they get a better feel for the nominations.

If they have the balls to challenge obama. Which I doubt, they are all spineless empty suits.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

RIP

dang. i like that guy

Same here. Great man.

Well, at least his last day sounded pleasant, at a place with friends and family.

I also wonder how this will affect the other justices- he was friends with Ginburg, even though they voted opposed a lot. And Thomas... Thomas always voted with him, so what will he do now? Try and step into his shoes more?

Originally posted by snowdragon
10 bucks says republicans won't allow any confirmations of a new judge until they get a better feel for the nominations.


Actually, they've already stated intent to fight any nomination from Obama. Period, end-of-statement, not even 'unless he selects someone very moderate'.


Which strikes me as a weird stance, since why would you want to appear unreasonable in an election year? 'Putting it off til the next president,' isn't the most compelling reason when that's an entire year away and replacements don't take *that* much time, and who's legal responsibility it is is clear. Trying to pass the buck for an entire year is a bit transparently partisan.

Actually for 80 years no one has been confirmed in the last year of a president..so I don't think its weird or unreasonable.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/431271/scalia-vacancy

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Actually for 80 years no one has been confirmed in the last year of a president..so I don't think its weird or unreasonable.


Note from that article-
" Yes, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in February 1988, but to a vacancy that arose in June 1987. He was nominated in November 1987"


It still only took 4 months from nomination of a candidate to confirmation, and Obama's going to be in office for 11 more months. If he doesn't drag his feat on selecting someone- and he should still have the shortlist from last time so it shouldn't be too lengthy a process- the senate can have over twice that length of time.

And before that:
"The last justice to be confirmed in an election year to a vacancy that arose that year was Benjamin Cardozo -- confirmed in March 1932 to a vacancy that arose in January 1932"


2 months from vacancy to confirmation!

80 years is largely a case of no-one has died at the *start* of an election year in quite some time.

Ok but we can at least agree that the next president should nominate someone, regardless if its Hilary or Trump.

Mitch M already said no one will be confirmed. And he has final say so on it. So thats pretty much it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/13/fight-over-antonin-scalia-replacement-heats-democr/

11 months with one empty seat is not the end of the world.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Ok but we can at least agree that the next president should nominate someone, regardless if its Hilary or Trump.

Eh, I don't see why. When it's been passed on, the gap has been *much* closer. A little foot dragging of a few months/passing of the torch can happen if it's near the line, but this is a case where there's the entire year open.

The constitution is clear on this being Obama's job, and if he makes a selection within the next two months- a reasonable time frame- then the Senate will have 8 months to confirm.


Also, ask yourself this: Would you really prefer an Obama nominated Justice... or the potential of a Hillary Clinton one, likely with a more liberal senate at her back (as *way* more purple and blue state republicans are at risk than this time, the map layout favors the Democrats just as it favored the Republicans 2 years ago) to put in a more liberal justice than President Obama could?




Look up what Eisenhower did with supreme court appointments.



And the point is more, not-confirming is a blatantly partisan move, and foot dragging for an entire year will make a highly unusually long absence from the court. McConnell can say he's not going to do it, but that just means he's pledged to be obstructionist on it, not that doing so is business-as-usual.


Think of it tactically as well- The Democrats will likely to be able to point to an obvious piece of Republican stalling, for over 6 months, during an election so it'll affect the polls, when they're likely putting forth a very middle-of-the-road candidate. That's a lot of fuel to call them on 'party of no' stuff.

Frankly, I'm surprised they called their obstruction so open, it struck me as more likely that they'd say 'if there's a good candidate, we'll confirm...' and then turning and calling any candidate not good enough, but they aren't even going through that step.

You do realize that if another liberal judge gets put in the office, the country will spin out of control and the constitution will fall apart.

2nd amendment will be history as well as many others.

As far as the republicans stalling, they have passed all of Obama's stuff, they need to at least put up some sort of effort.

From that article

"Senate Republicans would be grossly irresponsible to allow President Obama, in the last months of his presidency, to cement a liberal majority that will wreak havoc on the Constitution. Let the people decide in November who will select the next justice.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/431271/scalia-vacancy"

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You do realize that if another liberal judge gets put in the office, the country will spin out of control and the constitution will fall apart.

Or... not. Maybe you're engaging in hyperbole.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Ok but we can at least agree that the next president should nominate someone, regardless if its Hilary or Trump.

No.

Why?

Because Obama is still president and it's his job to appoint new Justices.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You do realize that if another liberal judge gets put in the office, the country will spin out of control and the constitution will fall apart.

You do realize that's just empty spin, right? People just say that o get votes. None of the things that Republicans say will cause the country to fall apart have yet caused the country to fall apart (like remember how Health Care was, and instead what happened was the rate of health costs increase has declined drastically and 18 million Americans got coverage), and no-one even outlines what, specifically these liberal views are supposed to do to make things fall apart, just that they totally will. Somehow. It's political hot air, not the kind of thing you're supposed to take seriously.

Note the most damaging decisions of late, like the one to let in massive SuperPAC money (which, ironically, kinda screwed them over last election), were conservative-driven.

Also, Obama having the power to do so is directly laid down in the constitution. "Let's ignore the constitution or the constitution will fall apart' is not too believable, and certainly fairly ironic.

You sometimes complain about things being undemocratic- sometimes with good reason at that- but you're still quick to ignore that the democratic vote was solidly to give Barack Obama this position and these powers. Saying 'the President can't do so because he's too liberal' is way less democratic than superdelegates.



Ah, the 'let's pretend the 'well regulated' wording doesn't exist' amendment.

Or there's the separation of church and state thing.

Conservatives are pretty guilty of ignoring or bending the constitution when it doesn't suit them.


They're also guilty of calling a lot of things unconstitutional even when it's pretty clear under what causes it's allowed (the President is allowed to do things that help 'general welfare' for example).




What? Obama has literally gotten more stuff blocked than any other president on record, we hit record filibusters. John Boehner pulled tons of procedural tricks to even stop things that would've passed a vote in his Republican-majority house.

They've done more to block a duly elected president than any president since at least the civil war.

I know I've shown you charts on the subject before.

http://www.tcf.org/assets/images/blog_images/2013-11-21-filibuster-reform-updated.png


It does impress me how you can talk about 'passing all of Obama's stuff' and needing to put in 'some effort,' when they're at literally record levels of obstructionism.

And, hey, I can understand *some* effort, you're not going to like it that the other side gets stuff done even if they clearly have the official mandate to do so. But if the nominee is reasonable, you can maybe delay a few months, but passing the buck an entire year- which has not even been an informal rule, election year nominations have happened, and we all know how Republicans in congress love breaking informal rules- is a bit much.






And note, that part is just an opinion, not a legal judgement. The national review is an openly hard-conservative paper.

This person, who has a vested interest in advocating hard conservative policy, wants the Republicans to do major obstructionism. Not a shock of course, but frankly, they don't have much procedural grounds to claim such, and like the quotes show, even claiming precedence is fairly shakey.

Supreme Court nominations sometimes- not always, but sometimes- stretch over 6 months, so not doing it right before a changeover makes sense, but they also take much less than a year.


Or to put it another way, this is asking generosity from the Dems and the voting populace as a whole on the extension of an informal rule, for the purposes of trying to be a jerk to Obama regardless of any information on the candidate, for no specific productive aim they can name, just partisanship.

Short video recommending a former clerk of Scalia, a sometimes-democrat usually-independent who's highly focused on getting money out of politics and is very qualified for the job, as his successor that both party's voters would be happy with

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/obama-wont-be-able-to-replace-scalia-with-a-justice-as-liberal-as-sotomayor/

The Republicans are of course insanely obstructionist. Perhaps that will play well with their core, but I can't imagine that this kind of active destruction of the political process wins them points generally.

They passed all his major bills, the chart Q9 posted is just wrong.

Originally posted by Q99
Short video recommending a former clerk of Scalia, a sometimes-democrat usually-independent who's highly focused on getting money out of politics and is very qualified for the job, as his successor that both party's voters would be happy with

Larry looks like Joe Dirt, I can't imagine him being a SC Justice. Hope is one thing, but the republicans control the senate, and can not even allow this on the floor of the senate. I know you will just say "the republicans are stalling" but what else can you say besides that. One thing you forget is the people voted those republicans in and gave the republicans the power in both the house and the senate. So how are you going to say blame the republicans when they were put in office by voters?

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/obama-wont-be-able-to-replace-scalia-with-a-justice-as-liberal-as-sotomayor/

The Republicans are of course insanely obstructionist. Perhaps that will play well with their core, but I can't imagine that this kind of active destruction of the political process wins them points generally.

And Obama has not obstructed the republicans progress with all his vetos? Did you forget Obama is lame duck and THE PEOPLE voted in the republicans and THE PEOPLE gave the power to them in both the senate and the house.

Originally posted by Q99
Actually, they've already stated intent to fight any nomination from Obama. Period, end-of-statement, not even 'unless he selects someone very moderate'.

If I was Obama I'd just be a dick and try to purposely nominate someone I thought they'd be very likely to nominate themselves.

If Obama was smart he would not nominate anyone, put his cards on Hilary winning and then her electing him as a SC justice, but we know he isn't a forward thinker.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
If Obama was smart he would not nominate anyone, put his cards on Hilary winning and then her electing him as a SC justice, but we know he isn't a forward thinker.
How would that be smart? Obama literally loses nothing by nominating a justice now.

He loses a chance to be a SC Justice. The Senate will not confirm anyone, and he cannot by pass them even with another illegal executive order

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ted-cruz-plans-filibuster-supreme-court-nominee-made/story?id=36922959

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He loses a chance to be a SC Justice. The Senate will not confirm anyone, and he cannot by pass them even with another illegal executive order

Yeah, but if he nominates someone and the Senate refuses to do its job it will reflect very badly on Republicans, which will help Democrats, and therefore be in the interest of Obama.

How will it reflect bad on the republicans who have the majority based on the popular vote, voting them in?

The people elected them and transferred the power of the senate and house from the dems to republicans.

So their voter base would actually be happy, and the republicans could finally stand on that they did something their electorate wants.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How will it reflect bad on the republicans who have the majority based on the popular vote, voting them in?

The people elected them and transferred the power of the senate and house from the dems to republicans.

So their voter base would actually be happy, and the republicans could finally stand on that they did something their electorate wants.

Obama was elected to his office by popular vote twice by much larger margins than any of the Republicans currently in the legislature. Supreme Court appointments are his purview. Blocking them out of partisan spite will energize Democrats and turn off Independents, costing the Republicans the election.

ie they'll look like diaper-babies throwing a tantrum. They're really in a bad position atm with this happening so close to an election

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Obama was elected to his office by popular vote twice by much larger margins than any of the Republicans currently in the legislature. Supreme Court appointments are his purview. Blocking them out of partisan spite will energize Democrats and turn off Independents, costing the Republicans the election.

Obama getting elected the second time, sure, but then when the house and senate change party majority and why did it happen?

Let me guess your excuse: low voter democratic turn over

Also explain the large conservative movement, its called Obama.

Originally posted by Robtard
ie they'll look like diaper-babies throwing a tantrum. They're really in a bad position atm with this happening so close to an election

Your opinion about anyone who disagrees with Obama is a tantrum. Actually, his illegal executive orders that were blocked by the SC and lower courts would be considered a diaper baby tantrum by Obama.

His death is now interesting..now they are doing No Autopsy for him..

Even though it is State Law in Texas..

NO AUTOSPY...WHAT THE **** IS GOING ON?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
NO AUTOSPY...WHAT THE **** IS GOING ON?

news is that he actually died from heroin overdose. it's a cover up. i think he was assassinated by hill dog

Its interesting him and breitbart have now died the exact same way.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Its interesting him and breitbart have now died the exact same way.

i'm blaming hillary. whether it's her fault or not.
i only hope that he didn't see her naked before he died. it would be a shame

its hillary dude. she vince foster'd him like a pro. i can hear her cackling as she steps out of the shadows of his home.
wearing nothing but an open robe and sipping a glass of wine. she steps out of the shadows and smothers him with her spider vein laced cankles. scalia tries to resist but is overwhelmed. hillary cackles with glee and smothers scalia further with her leathery nether parts. the bitter, sea-worldish aroma is actually quite toxic. scalia goes into his death throes, shuddering, and spitting bile around the room.......then his body suddenly stills as the darkness of death overtakes him.

How do you get around a manadtory autospy by state law though.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How do you get around a manadtory autospy by state law though.

i really don't know man. there must be more to the story.

Here is a bunch of info

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/texas-news/scalia-to-have-autopsy-in-texas-according-to-state-law/42898331

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/officials-debating-autopsy-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia/

Real class, you two.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your opinion about anyone who disagrees with Obama is a tantrum.

Actually, his illegal executive orders that were blocked by the SC and lower courts would be considered a diaper baby tantrum by Obama.

Stop being just an aggressive little shit because someone says something you don't agree with.

That doesn't really make too much sense, now does it.

Elizabeth Warren speaks out:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbLwhXgUEAAn3ot.jpg



Also, the average length of time for a decision to be made is 37 days; the longest a nominee has been stalled is 261 days. There are 342 days left in Barack Obama's term.


Meaning, in order to delay it past Obama's term, the Republicans will have to beat the all-time stalling record by almost three months.

It is not only not standard procedure to wait this long to let the next person has it, a blocking of this length has in fact never happened even once.

Be aware the Republicans are asking for extraordinary generosity from the Democrats in their desire to... be non-generous to the Democrats. Bit contradictory there.

Originally posted by Robtard
Stop being just an aggressive little shit because someone says something you don't agree with.

That doesn't really make too much sense, now does it.

Look who is being an aggressive little shit with these insults..

I wasn't being aggressive, you say the same thing any time the republicans threaten to block something they don't want Obama to do.

Why does the same thing not apply to Obama when he does not get his way?

The people spoke and gave the house and senate to the republicans two years after Obama's second term.

That means after 6 years, the people had enough and gave the power to the other party.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Look who is being an aggressive little shit with these insults..

I wasn't being aggressive, you say the same thing any time the republicans threaten to block something they don't want Obama to do.

Why does the same thing not apply to Obama when he does not get his way?

Because the two parties are not acting in any way equal, the obstructionism flows much more one way, and this, specifically, is something that is a Presidential authority clearly outlined in the constitution. Not a Senate authority, a Presidential one with Senate advisement.

Eisenhower appointed three Justices without Senate confirmation.




No, they gave *those slots* to the other party- slots on representing the specific states, but gave the Presidency- the job that has this power and the one in charge of national-scale decisions specifically like foreign relations and supreme court justices- to Barack Obama, twice, for four years each time. Not 'two years and pretend the next ones don't count because of midterms.'

Supreme Court justices for this four-year stretch is something the people voted President Barack Obama to have by a wide margin.

When the House and Senate were split, the Republicans were still highly obstructionist, they didn't recognize the Democrats when the Democrats had more support, they didn't recognize Obama or agree to work with them when he had the Senate on his side despite the people clearly voting in that direction.


In 2012, the Democrats had more people vote for them in House races, the reason for the Republican majority being districts and gerrymandering. Even so, the House took this as a mandate. We had the popular vote there but you got the power anyway, even though if it worked in a proportional system ala a couple other democracies, you'd have seen a Democratic majority in House, Senate, and Presidency at the same time. With the Presidency, it just happened that we got both the vote and the power.

That's something you kinda leave out when talking about the 'country decided'. The country decided on us but you got power anyway in 2012.

The Republicans seem to think slim majorities of seats but not the big chair equal 'get everything you want,' and that letting the other side do anything, even specifically outlined powers, even though half the country voted against them, is a bridge too far.


Sorry, asking us to not use our elected power so you can have power beyond that what your candidates were elected to is not democratic, not fair, not good for the country, and is not, also, how the government works or is supposed to work.

Short sarcastic version-

Republicans accuse Obama of using Position as President to Lead Country

Originally posted by Q99
Because the two parties are not acting in any way equal, the obstructionism flows much more one way, and this, specifically, is something that is a Presidential authority clearly outlined in the constitution. Not a Senate authority, a Presidential one with Senate advisement.

Eisenhower appointed three Justices without Senate confirmation.




No, they gave *those slots* to the other party- slots on representing the specific states, but gave the Presidency- the job that has this power and the one in charge of national-scale decisions specifically like foreign relations and supreme court justices- to Barack Obama, twice, for four years each time. Not 'two years and pretend the next ones don't count because of midterms.'

Supreme Court justices for this four-year stretch is something the people voted President Barack Obama to have by a wide margin.

When the House and Senate were split, the Republicans were still highly obstructionist, they didn't recognize the Democrats when the Democrats had more support, they didn't recognize Obama or agree to work with them when he had the Senate on his side despite the people clearly voting in that direction.


In 2012, the Democrats had more people vote for them in House races, the reason for the Republican majority being districts and gerrymandering. Even so, the House took this as a mandate. We had the popular vote there but you got the power anyway, even though if it worked in a proportional system ala a couple other democracies, you'd have seen a Democratic majority in House, Senate, and Presidency at the same time. With the Presidency, it just happened that we got both the vote and the power.

That's something you kinda leave out when talking about the 'country decided'. The country decided on us but you got power anyway in 2012.

The Republicans seem to think slim majorities of seats but not the big chair equal 'get everything you want,' and that letting the other side do anything, even specifically outlined powers, even though half the country voted against them, is a bridge too far.


Sorry, asking us to not use our elected power so you can have power beyond that what your candidates were elected to is not democratic, not fair, not good for the country, and is not, also, how the government works or is supposed to work.

How is the republicans taking over the house and senate not a sign that the people wanted something different then what they had?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How is the republicans taking over the house and senate not a sign that the people wanted something different then what they had?


It's a sign that people in a few states did. But note, the gap is still not large, it's a divided congress, not even close to a supermajority. Which traditionally is taken to mean that the country is split and the parties should compromise- something the Republicans reject in favor of wanting the other party to get nothing, despite that not being nearly what the Public voted?


And by a similar note, how is Obama winning by a much larger margin not a sign that people want him in office for 4 years at a stretch?


By your logic, every President should just stop doing stuff after 2 years, because almost every sitting president's party loses a few seats in the off years.

Also, does that apply to Senators too? They're elected to 6 year terms, should they stop pushing for the views they were elected for if the next congressional election doesn't favor them as much, and just sit around for the next 4?

Why is it that this losing-mandate only seems to happen to one side in your eyes, and similarly, does not apply to the reverse, there's been a notable lack of acknowledging Democrat mandates when they do win.


At the end of the day, President of the United States Barack Obama was elected for 4 years, not 2. The Republicans also have a very two-faced way of approaching mandates, i.e. if they win by a little or even lose ground, they have an absolute mandate, if the other side wins, they have a responsibility to do everything in their power to stop the other side from using it's constitutionally granted powers?



This is a very one-way thing, you don't get to block the President for 2 years after a re-election he very solidly won, then just ask him to meekly not do anything in the following years because you won by not-as-much.


This is constitutionally granted power, this is not even something with informal tradition against it, and in order to block it, the Republicans would once again have to set a new obstructionism-related record, in the form of 'longest delayed Supreme Court Justice by a very wide margin.' The Republican politicians are asking us to ignore the constitution and break tradition here in defiance of popular vote. There is no aspect in which this breaks in their favor.

Its been 80 years since a justice has been confirmed in the last 11 months of a president election..

If the senate allowed the presidents nominee to be confirmed they would be ignoring their voter base and the conservative movement that is obviously present in the country of which those people voted in the current leadership change in the senate and the house.

You are only really spinning this to your favor for the obvious reason. You want a 6th liberal judge on the SC..

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Its been 80 years since a justice has been confirmed in the last 11 months of a president election..

While that is technically true, there is a judge serving on the supreme court right now that was confirmed 11 months and 17 days before a new presidency, so that's really a bit disingenuous.

And there are only 4 liberal judges on the Supreme Court, even if the extremism of the Republican Party makes them want to separate themselves from Reagan's appointment Anthony Kennedy

Originally posted by Bardock42
While that is technically true, there is a judge serving on the supreme court right now that was confirmed 11 months and 17 days before a new presidency, so that's really a bit disingenuous.

And there are only 4 liberal judges on the Supreme Court, even if the extremism of the Republican Party makes them want to separate themselves from Reagan's appointment Anthony Kennedy

There is a swing judge..quit playing dumb.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
There is a swing judge..quit playing dumb.

There's conservative judges that sometimes don't agree with current Republican extremism, but that's really mostly due to the insane shift of the Republican party, a party in which Ronald Reagan would nowadays be considered a bleeding-heart liberal.

"While that is technically true, there is a judge serving on the supreme court right now that was confirmed 11 months and 17 days before a new presidency, so that's really a bit disingenuous."

wtf does this even mean, its true but also a lie? Get the hell out of here.

I didn't make this up.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
"While that is technically true, there is a judge serving on the supreme court right now that was confirmed 11 months and 17 days before a new presidency, so that's really a bit disingenuous."

wtf does this even mean, its true but also a lie? Get the hell out of here.

I didn't make this up.

It's true, but disingenuous. You are pretending like that is a rule, rather a coincidence of nominations over the last 80 years.

Bullshit, I never said anything was a fact, I implied there is a precedence.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Real class, you two.

you are such a hypocrite.

i'm joking 100%. better to laugh than cry

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bullshit, I never said anything was a fact, I implied there is a precedence.

What precedence is there? What president has refrained from electing a judge in his last year of office?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-supreme-court-nomination-tradition/

What does what Ted Cruz said have anything to do with the facts or what I said. You think Politco is your answer for everything...quit spinning for once in your life.

The actual truth on history.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/431271/scalia-vacancy

Even your site to answer all your questions says half true.

6I1-r1YgK9I

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What does what Ted Cruz said have anything to do with the facts or what I said. You think Politco is your answer for everything...quit spinning for once in your life.

The actual truth on history.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/431271/scalia-vacancy

Cruz said what you said, basically word for word, so much so that it's hard to believe that you weren't fed this line from one of the right wing rags you follow in lieu of critical thinking.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You do realize that if another liberal judge gets put in the office, the country will spin out of control and the constitution will fall apart.

2nd amendment will be history as well as many others.

As far as the republicans stalling, they have passed all of Obama's stuff, they need to at least put up some sort of effort.

From that article

"Senate Republicans would be grossly irresponsible to allow President Obama, in the last months of his presidency, to cement a liberal majority that will wreak havoc on the Constitution. Let the people decide in November who will select the next justice.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/431271/scalia-vacancy"

Sucks to be you bardock, as I posted this before Cruz said anything.

Liar.

Go back to being a fat social liberal and a capitalist from your daddys company, hypocrite liar.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Sucks to be you bardock, as I posted this before Cruz said anything.

Liar.

Go back to being a fat social liberal and a capitalist from your daddys company.

The National Review is exactly the kind of conservative propaganda magazine I was referring to.

Bullshit, We all see what you said, and I just proved you wrong and a liar.

Liar, hypocrite.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bullshit, We all see what you said, and I just proved you wrong and a liar.

Liar, hypocrite.

We all see it, but some of us don't comprehend it.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Sucks to be you bardock, as I posted this before Cruz said anything.

Liar.

Go back to being a fat social liberal and a capitalist from your daddys company, hypocrite liar.

is bardock really a fat, spoiled, white guy? if so that is hilarious because that fits the bill of the apologetic super liberal.

Indeed he is. He's a rich white fat social liberal working for his dads rich company telling us Americans we are rotten for being capitalist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
We all see it, but some of us don't comprehend it.

We all see you said I copied what Cruz said, when I posted about this hours before Cruz said anything, rotten liar.

I'm not sure where you get that from, I'm pro-capitalism and have been all my life.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Indeed he is. He's a rich white fat social liberal working for his dads rich company telling us Americans we are rotten for being capitalist.



he probably thinks it's only angry old white men that are conservatives. robtard thinks the same and that's why he incorrectly assumed i was one of those. my god this is funny.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We all see you said I copied what Cruz said, when I posted about this hours before Cruz said anything, rotten liar.

That's not what I said, what I said is that Cruz said the exact same thing, so I assume you were fed the line from some right wing source...turned out you did, the link you posted from the National Review.

Originally posted by Raisen


he probably thinks it's only angry old white men that are conservatives. robtard thinks the same and that's why he incorrectly assumed i was one of those. my god this is funny.

Nah, it's also angry young white men, that are conservative.

Joking, of course the Republican party is slightly more diverse than just that, but white men definitely make up the main part of its members

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not sure where you get that from, I'm pro-capitalism and have been all my life.

pro-capitalism for selfish reasons most likely. you don't want the government touching your trust fund. take your fat white ass back to your tub of miracle whip. if you ever had a hard life or had to earn money than you would be more conservative. i was raised by my mother and she was EMBARASSED when we had to go on welfare. it's people like you that keep others in a complacent mindset and think it's ok to stay on the dole. this mindset weakens people. it makes them full of doubt and self pity. it's like keeping a dog slightly hungry and earning their loyalty when you give them scraps.
You are a rich, pampered, white liberal. you have no idea what it takes to get out of poverty. i've lived it. i've been there. and i thank god my mother's shame motivated her to try harder and glean the liberties that America offers instead of wallowing in self pity and delusion.

Originally posted by Raisen
pro-capitalism for selfish reasons most likely. you don't want the government touching your trust fund. take your fat white ass back to your tub of miracle whip. if you ever had a hard life or had to earn money than you would be more conservative. i was raised by my mother and she was EMBARASSED when we had to go on welfare. it's people like you that keep others in a complacent mindset and think it's ok to stay on the dole. this mindset weakens people. it makes them full of doubt and self pity. it's like keeping a dog slightly hungry and earning their loyalty when you give them scraps.
You are a rich, pampered, white liberal. you have no idea what it takes to get out of poverty. i've lived it. i've been there. and i thank god my mother's shame motivated her to try harder and glean the liberties that America offers instead of wallowing in self pity and delusion.

Ok, but really we can just help everyone so that the cards are not stacked as much against them. Like you said, some people have it lucky, they start out having it made. The Republicans want to keep it that way. The Democrats want to make it so that people have similar chances in life. I know the second one seems more moral to me.

I honestly don't think a person who legitimately needs welfare should be ashamed of it. I do feel the people who are on welfare and keep popping out kids and we still keep paying them..should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Basically they are taking advantage of the system and not even trying to be responsible, just being a burden.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, it's also angry young white men, that are conservative.

Joking, of course the Republican party is slightly more diverse than just that, but white men definitely make up the main part of its members

The republican party is more diverse then the democrat party. Just because the liberals like to say they are more diverse does not mean anything.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not what I said, what I said is that Cruz said the exact same thing, so I assume you were fed the line from some right wing source...turned out you did, the link you posted from the National Review.

Face it, you lied, got caught.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The republican party is more diverse then the democrat party. Just because the liberals like to say they are more diverse does not mean anything.

What stats do you base this on? Because in elected officials the Republicans trail far behind Democrats when it comes to diversity.

That proves nothing, now shut up before I expose you more as a liar.

You can't even deny you are a closet capitalist and damn us Americans for being capitalist.

I asked you for your evidence for your claim.

And it proves that Republicans are much less likely to elect minorities and women than Democrats.

You can't even deny you are a closet capitalist and damn us Americans for being capitalist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ok, but really we can just help everyone so that the cards are not stacked as much against them. Like you said, some people have it lucky, they start out having it made. The Republicans want to keep it that way. The Democrats want to make it so that people have similar chances in life. I know the second one seems more moral to me.

SOME form of social welfare DOES need to be in placed; but it is HUGELY abused and the democrats won't say shiiiit because all they do is pander. I lived in a community where people bragged about their free money. where the mindset is "**** america and let those idiots keep giving me those checks".
dude. this system is being used by a MAJORITY of people.

there is an answer. and the republicans don't want to do away with welfare bro. they want more accountablity. name one democrat that wants more accountability. just one dude.

I'm not a closet capitalist, I never denied that I believe in capitalism. And I actually have avery long track record to argue viciously for capitalism on this very site. Since then I have come to favour more social programs, but that doesn't change anything about my appreciation of capitalism.

And I have never damned any American for being capitalist either, that's just a baseless accusation.

Only idiots on the left from other countries think conservatives dont want to help the unfortunate.

Could not be further from the truth, we have a calling to help them.

The difference is the liberals use it for a permanent voting base. The conservatives want to lift people out of poverty so that the people who get lifted out can help others.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not a closet capitalist, I never denied that I believe in capitalism. And I actually have avery long track record to argue viciously for capitalism on this very site. Since then I have come to favour more social programs, but that doesn't change anything about my appreciation of capitalism.

And I have never damned any American for being capitalist either, that's just a baseless accusation.

Bullshit, you rag on us all the time for it.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bullshit, you rag on us all the time for it.

If that's true it should be easy to link to one of those incidents.

If it wasn't and you talk about it all the time as a good thing, link me to a post about you saying you are pro capitalist and I'll concede that point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not a closet capitalist, I never denied that I believe in capitalism. And I actually have avery long track record to argue viciously for capitalism on this very site. Since then I have come to favour more social programs, but that doesn't change anything about my appreciation of capitalism.

And I have never damned any American for being capitalist either, that's just a baseless accusation.

have you ever seen the bad child who gets coddled? a guilty parent just puts all their effort into the bad seed and neglects the other children. and as we know, this reinforces the bad child's behavior. well, they grow up with stunted development. they become criminals. they engage in anti-social activities.
i've witnessed this with my brother. i got all the tough love. and guess what? my 37 year old has two strikes. has a brain condition caused by drugs. and still lives at home.
i was gone by the time i was 19. i became a productive part of society. my story is every where in every country. IF YOU KEEP REINFORCING BAD BEHAVIOR YOU WILL GET A WORSE PERSON AS AN OUTCOME.

Originally posted by Raisen
name one democrat that wants more accountability. just one dude.

He can't hence him running from the question. Now he will use google to try and answer it for you.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Only idiots on the left from other countries think conservatives dont want to help the unfortunate.

Could not be further from the truth, we have a calling to help them.

The difference is the liberals use it for a permeant voting base. The conservatives want to lift people out of poverty so that the people who get lifted out can help others.

EXACTLY. EXACTLY

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama getting elected the second time, sure, but then when the house and senate change party majority and why did it happen?

Let me guess your excuse: low voter democratic turn over

Also explain the large conservative movement, its called Obama.

Democratic turnout was low in the mid-term elections. That is a fact.

If the conservative movement is so large, and the mid-term election results are not due to low Democratic turn-out, then how did Obama win re-election?

Why did these conservatives not show-up in the general election and give us President Romney?

Why do they only seem to win elections when fewer people participate?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Democratic turnout was low in the mid-term elections. That is a fact.

If the conservative movement is so large, and the mid-term election results are not due to low Democratic turn-out, then how did Obama win re-election?

Why did these conservatives not show-up in the general election and give us President Romney?

Why do they only seem to win elections when fewer people participate?

I said 6 years into his presidency, dummy.

People were afraid of him Mormonism

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Democratic turnout was low in the mid-term elections. That is a fact.

If the conservative movement is so large, and the mid-term election results are not due to low Democratic turn-out, then how did Obama win re-election?

Why did these conservatives not show-up in the general election and give us President Romney?

Why do they only seem to win elections when fewer people participate?

what republican values do you like

Originally posted by Raisen
what republican values do you like

He likes none.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He can't hence him running from the question. Now he will use google to try and answer it for you.

i'm still waiting for his answer

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He likes none.

and that is the problem with both sides. we are too divided. black and white. night in day. in reality, NOTHING WORKS THIS WAY AND NO PERSON IS TRULY LIKE THIS.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He likes none.

and yet all conservatives i know can say they like at least one democrat politician or value.

Long live JFK and his values, we sure could use them now.

The liberals here like Q99 and Bardock trash him though, wait till you see. They will come on here and trash his record and everything about him. And if they don't they are just hiding it cause I just called them out on it. I have talked about JFK in length before and I got hassled by everyone about.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Long live JFK and his values, we sure could use them now.

The liberals here like Q99 and Bardock trash him though, wait till you see. They will come on here and trash his record and everything about him.

he actually cared and that is why they wouldn't let him live.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Long live JFK and his values, we sure could use them now.

The liberals here like Q99 and Bardock trash him though, wait till you see. They will come on here and trash his record and everything about him. And if they don't they are just hiding it cause I just called them out on it. I have talked about JFK in length before and I got hassled by everyone about.

so bardock is not american but he trashes america regularly? what country is he from?

He shot down operations northwoods and tried to put on back on a silver/gold based currency and eliminate the national debt.

He wound up dead.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He shot down operations northwoods and tried to put on back on a silver/gold based currency and eliminate the national debt.

He wound up dead.

bay of pigs was shady tho

Originally posted by Raisen
so bardock is not american but he trashes america regularly? what country is he from?


He's a socialist from Germany who works for capitalistic gains, sound familiar?

Originally posted by Raisen
bay of pigs was shady tho

executive order 11110, which was signed two weeks before his death that johnson never enforced.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He's a socialist from Germany who works for capitalistic gains, sound familiar?

aside from the german ancestry it sounds like almost every other hypocritical liberal

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I said 6 years into his presidency, dummy.

So this large conservative movement did not exist after the first four years of his presidency? They only coalesced two years after he was re-elected? You would think they would be inspired to prevent his re-election but instead, they apparently thought that voting for Republicans in the mid-terms would be a more effective repudiation strategy?




Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
People were afraid of him Mormonism

Well, that is bigoted.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So this large conservative movement did not exist after the first four years of his presidency? They only coalesced two years after he was re-elected? You would think they would be inspired to prevent his re-election but instead, they apparently thought that voting for Republicans in the mid-terms would be a more effective repudiation strategy?


Well, that is bigoted.

Obama was actually not half bad his first 4 years because his real agenda didn't come out until his second term, in which he fooled everyone. Two years into his second term people woke the **** up, quit acting ignorant and naive. We know the truth.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE



Well, that is bigoted.

Yea right cause we know you would vote for a true christian which makes you just as bigoted.

Originally posted by Raisen
what republican values do you like

Republicans used to value individual liberty without governmental interference. That is a Republican value that I think is laudable. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case among the modern Republican party.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama was actually not half bad his first 4 years because his real agenda didn't come out until his second term, in which he fooled everyone. Two years into his second term people woke the **** up, quit acting ignorant and naive. We know the truth.

we won't win anything unless republicans stop blaming president obama for everything. look at some of the conservative sites. he isn't a good president but he doesn't do everything wrong. we ALL need to stop being so damn basic. not everything is completely one way or the other.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Republicans used to value individual liberty without governmental interference. That is a Republican value that I think is laudable. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case among the modern Republican party.

dude. do you know who ron paul is?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yea right cause we know you would vote for a true christian which makes you just as bigoted.

Um, every candidate ever nominated has been a Christian.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Republicans used to value individual liberty without governmental interference. That is a Republican value that I think is laudable. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case among the modern Republican party.

adam. if republicans supported gay marraige etc would that have a huge impact on your view of them?

Originally posted by Raisen
dude. do you know who ron paul is?

Yeah, a Libertarian. I used to be registered as one until conservative Libertarians started worshipping sociopath Ayn Rand.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Um, every candidate ever nominated has been a Christian.

Obama is a Christian?

If you refuse to call him a muslim, thats fine, but everyone here even rob has said he probably agnostic..he said he was "christian" for votes..

He has deported syrian christian refugees, and syrian muslims get to the first of the line over syrian christians..

Just cut the crap with "obama is a christian" its enough already.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yeah, a Libertarian. I used to be registered as one until conservative Libertarians started worshipping sociopath Ayn Rand.

there are many REPUBLICANS who think like him. when these guys run they go under republican banners because this system is f'ed up.
you are sounding more and more like a one issue voter. i swear if it wasn't for their immigration stance republicans would get most of the hispanic votes.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama is a Christian?

If you refuse to call him a muslim, thats fine, but everyone here even rob has said he probably agnostic..he said he was "christian" for votes..

He has deported syrian christian refugees, and syrian muslims get to the first of the line over syrian christians..

Just cut the crap with "obama is a christian" its enough already.

he is. he was tutored under the godly reverand wright.

my god. how could this not bother people.

Adam has always been a one issue voter, he shoves it in our face that he's gay and tries to make us feel inferior or uncomfortable for not worshiping his gayness.

As for gay marriage, the constitution was clear, it was up to the states.

Originally posted by Raisen
he is. he was tutored under the godly reverand wright.

my god. how could this not bother people.


Oh the racist "reverend" who said "NO NO NO, not God Bless America, God Damn America."

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Adam has always been a one issue voter, he shoves it in our face that he's gay and tries to make us feel inferior or uncomfortable for not worshiping his gayness.

and that is another problem. you see, the democrats have all the one issue voters, and the rich, fat, white hippies.
all the hispanics i know are republicans except for the immigration issue....and that is why they vote democrat. most of them are anti-abortion, catholic conservative mindset.

Did you know that Texas has more hispanics then any other state and its still republican, not all hispanics are liberal..

However the conservative hispanics are overlooked as "dumb right wingers"

See you only become an enlightened voter if you are a minority when you bow down to liberalism control.

Originally posted by Raisen
adam. if republicans supported gay marraige etc would that have a huge impact on your view of them?

Not particularly. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that prohibitions on same-sex marriage violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Marriage equality is the law of the land. Their support now is neither desired nor required. The party will eventually have no choice but to change their position on the issue. That will not suddenly erase decades of opposing the rights and dignity of LGBT people, especially when the party continues to do so on other LGBT issues aside from marriage.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh the racist "reverend" who said "NO NO NO, not God Bless America, God Damn America."

and people ignored that. i believe obama is a christian, but going to a church like that makes you a racist. there is no way that he is not racist. if someone goes to a klan rally then they are racist. if you go to a church that is intended to mold your mind and guide your heart than you are whatever is espoused in that church.

Honestly, why do gay people want to get married anyways, marriage is a fcking nightmare. Domestic partnership is so much easier and you get the same damn benefits if not more.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Did you know that Texas has more hispanics then any other state and its still republican, not all hispanics are liberal..

However the conservative hispanics are overlooked as "dumb right wingers"

See you only become an enlightened voter if you are a minority when you bow down to liberalism control.

dude. a vast majority of hispanics are conservative catholics. the immigration issue sways a lot.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Not particularly. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that prohibitions on same-sex marriage violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Marriage equality is the law of the land. Their support now is neither desired nor required. The party will eventually have no choice but to change their position on the issue. That will not suddenly erase decades of opposing the rights and dignity of LGBT people, especially when the party continues to do so on other LGBT issues aside from marriage.

i know this is not the case but please answer my question.
should a catholic priest be forced to marry you? i want your honest answer please

Originally posted by Raisen
and people ignored that. i believe obama is a christian, but going to a church like that makes you a racist. there is no way that he is not racist. if someone goes to a klan rally then they are racist. if you go to a church that is intended to mold your mind and guide your heart than you are whatever is espoused in that church.

Watch this and you tell me how you still think he is christian.

tCAffMSWSzY

Originally posted by Raisen
dude. a vast majority of hispanics are conservative catholics. the immigration issue sways a lot.

You know that most mexican americans the actual citizens don't support illegal immigration.

Who would have thought right, I mean its just common sense though.

then why did he go to a "christian" church for so long. i'm not buying it. he seems naive but i don't believe he is muslim

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You know that most mexican americans the actual citizens don't support illegal immigration.

Who would have thought right, I mean its just common sense though.

most mexican americans i know would disagree with you. it's the immigration bro. i lived in a mexican and vietnamese community. i go to a catholic church with lots of legal and illegal mexican people. i'm half mexican and know what my mexican relatives think about it.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial


what's funny?

The truth is funny

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The truth is funny

which is?

Obama is "Christian"

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama is Christian

a racist and extremist christian. sure. it's funny, but he's exactly what his supporters call conservatives.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama is a Christian?

If you refuse to call him a muslim, thats fine, but everyone here even rob has said he probably agnostic..he said he was "christian" for votes..

He has deported syrian christian refugees, and syrian muslims get to the first of the line over syrian christians..

Just cut the crap with "obama is a christian" its enough already.

There are 33,000 Christian denominations, and there is no consensus among them who qualifies as a Christian.

If Christians cannot even agree among themselves, then there is no objective way to determine who is a Christian and who is not.

Therefore, we are left to take people at their word that they are a Christian if they say they are.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There are 33,000 Christian denominations, and there is no consensus among them who qualifies as a Christian.

If Christians cannot even agree among themselves, then there is no objective way to determine who is a Christian and who is not.

Therefore, we are left to take people at their word that they are a Christian if they say they are.

adam. if the democrats kept all the values you liked but also condoned pedophilia. would you still vote for them?

moved

Originally posted by Raisen
you are sounding more and more like a one issue voter.

Based on what? You asked me to list one Republican value I liked. Then you asked me a series of questions about it. I do not see how you extrapolate that to me being a one issue voter.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There are 33,000 Christian denominations, and there is no consensus among them who qualifies as a Christian.

If Christians cannot even agree among themselves, then there is no objective way to determine who is a Christian and who is not.

Therefore, we are left to take people at their word that they are a Christian if they say they are.

Right, so we take everyone at their word.

Whats that saying "Actions speak louder then words"

Guess that does not apply to liberals.

So if you said you were gay, but was married, had two kids and never been with a guy in your life, are you gay?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Adam has always been a one issue voter, he shoves it in our face that he's gay and tries to make us feel inferior or uncomfortable for not worshiping his gayness.

As for gay marriage, the constitution was clear, it was up to the states.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that no states could have prohibitions on same-sex marriage. That is the exact opposite of marriage laws being up to the states.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Honestly, why do gay people want to get married anyways, marriage is a fcking nightmare. Domestic partnership is so much easier and you get the same damn benefits if not more.

First, civil unions and domestic partnerships do not confer the same rights as marriage. That is why court after court found that denying same-sex couples access to marriage was unconstitutional. Because the legal unions were fundamentally unequal.

Second, LGBT people are no different than society at large in that not everyone wants to get married. They should, however, have the right to be if that is their choice.

Originally posted by Raisen
i know this is not the case but please answer my question.
should a catholic priest be forced to marry you? i want your honest answer please

Of course not. No one has ever advocated for this. Faith communities continue to be free to marry people in accordance with the guidelines of their faith tradition. A Catholic priest no more has to marry a same-sex couple then he has to marry someone who has been divorced. That was not the case before Obergefell and it is not the case after.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
First, civil unions and domestic partnerships do not confer the same rights as marriage. That is why court after court found that denying same-sex couples access to marriage was unconstitutional. Because the legal unions were fundamentally unequal.

Second, LGBT people are no different than society at large in that not everyone wants to get married. They should, however, have the right to be if that is their choice.

Which they have, and now you have to pay the marriage tax..I know there was some sort of civil union that people could do that didn't have to pay the taxes.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Right, so we take everyone at their word.

Whats that saying "Actions speak louder then words"

Guess that does not apply to liberals.

So if you said you were gay, but was married, had two kids and never been with a guy in your life, are you gay?

Yes, actually. Sexual orientation is characterized by an enduring emotional, physical, and psychological attraction to members of a particular sex. Just as one can be heterosexual and be a virgin, one can be homosexual and sire children with a member of the opposite sex. It is desire not behavior that defines sexuality.

So if I say I'm Christian go around killing people in the name of Satan, am I Christian?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Of course not. No one has ever advocated for this. Faith communities continue to be free to marry people in accordance with the guidelines of their faith tradition. A Catholic priest no more has to marry a same-sex couple then he has to marry someone who has been divorced. That was not the case before Obergefell and it is not the case after.
good, but not all gay people think like this and you know it. good

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, actually. Sexual orientation is characterized by an enduring emotional, physical, and psychological attraction to members of a particular sex. Just as one can be heterosexual and be a virgin, one can be homosexual and sire children with a member of the opposite sex. It is desire not behavior that defines sexuality.

So literally because a person says he's gay, he's gay.

What if that same person who's married with kids and said he is gay is lying? Is he still gay. And how would you know if he was lying?