Justice Kennedy

[jimnyc]

Once again, rumblings about his retirement perhaps coming soon. Not only would it be great for the court in the long term, but beyond comical to watch the Dems go ape shit. :laugh:

[NightTrain]

Yeah, Trump will get to replace both Kennedy and Ruthie.

I'm really looking forward to that. :thumb:

[O E]

Once again, rumblings about his retirement perhaps coming soon. Not only would it be great for the court in the long term, but beyond comical to watch the Dems go ape shit. :laugh:

In the absence of even a hint of an argument as to how Kennedy's retirement would be "great for the court", that all boils down to "beyond comical to watch the Dems go ape shit." That's what a lot on this site amounts to, and the same is true for much of the public support for Trumpism. As a motivation for public policy making, it's about as crappy as it gets, but thanks for your honesty anyway.

[Kathianne]

In the absence of even a hint of an argument as to how Kennedy's retirement would be "great for the court", that all boils down to "beyond comical to watch the Dems go ape shit." That's what a lot on this site amounts to, and the same is true for much of the public support for Trumpism. As a motivation for public policy making, it's about as crappy as it gets, but thanks for your honesty anyway.

and yet, there's those that don't. It's so much easier though to just stick with your mantras.

[jimnyc]

In the absence of even a hint of an argument as to how Kennedy's retirement would be "great for the court", that all boils down to "beyond comical to watch the Dems go ape shit." That's what a lot on this site amounts to, and the same is true for much of the public support for Trumpism. As a motivation for public policy making, it's about as crappy as it gets, but thanks for your honesty anyway.

I'm a conservative, so upping the right side of the court is great for the right. Don't like it or Trumpism or this site? Deal with it.

And it WILL be beyond comical, just like the whining and crying when Hillary lost.

But watching the whining and crying, and getting 2 SC justices out of it? Priceless.

Thank's for your useless babbling anyway.

[O E]

I'm a conservative, so upping the right side of the court is great for the right.


Once again, rumblings about his retirement perhaps coming soon. Not only would it be great for the court in the long term, but beyond comical to watch the Dems go ape shit.

Perhaps figuring out what it is you're trying to say before hitting the "Submit Reply" button would be, well...


Thank's for your useless babbling anyway.

[NightTrain]

So, OE, what do you think of our newest SCOTUS Justice?

Pretty solid choice, don't you think?

[gabosaurus]

Kennedy is vowing to continue until the end of 2018, when the Dems will win back control of the Senate. Kennedy will then retire and Dems will refuse to consider voting on a new Justice until a new president is voted on in 2020. :cool:

[jimnyc]

Perhaps figuring out what it is you're trying to say before hitting the "Submit Reply" button would be, well...

Perhaps I don''t give a shit what you think? Perhaps I meant EXACTLY what I wrote, and have no tolerance for whiny liberals. The comedy began earlier than I thought.

But seeing another conservative judge hitting the SC would be awesome. And just imagine if even a 3rd gets to be picked by Trump? :laugh:

[gabosaurus]

The board needs more whiny liberals. If only to keep things from getting too boring. :dev3:

[aboutime]

<img src="http://thedonaldtrumpreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/1104189.jpg">

<img src="https://pics.me.me/dont-piss-me-off-or-you-ll-discover-where-the-7218947.png">
MEMORIES....of the way she's always Been!
<img src="https://pics.me.me/batshit-crazy-com-17645899.png">

[Kathianne]

AT, it's not just the 'left' and 'the liberals.' Indeedy the resemble each other more and more.

[aboutime]

AT, it's not just the 'left' and 'the liberals.' Indeedy the resemble each other more and more.


I agree with you there Kathianne. But nobody can deny the recent influx of Liberal Trolls to this board during JULY, prove how they follow the demands of the DNC talking points by repeating the SAME OLD, familiar, B.S. most of us recognize as the Liberal signature.

[Kathianne]

I agree with you there Kathianne. But nobody can deny the recent influx of Liberal Trolls to this board during JULY, prove how they follow the demands of the DNC talking points by repeating the SAME OLD, familiar, B.S. most of us recognize as the Liberal signature.

Well to me, it's just bringing another point of view, an opposite one in fact, that literally is just the inverse of what's mostly been one-sided up until now. Somewhere along the great divide are few others.

[gabosaurus]

Well to me, it's just bringing another point of view, an opposite one in fact, that literally is just the inverse of what's mostly been one-sided up until now. Somewhere along the great divide are few others.

There will always be those who are intolerant of opposing viewpoints. Especially when you get older and more set in your ways. Your opinion is right and no one will ever convince you otherwise. That is when the "troll" accusations start coming out and the more vehement replies are tossed in the dungeon.

[darin]

In the absence of even a hint of an argument as to how Kennedy's retirement would be "great for the court", that all boils down to "beyond comical to watch the Dems go ape shit." That's what a lot on this site amounts to, and the same is true for much of the public support for Trumpism. As a motivation for public policy making, it's about as crappy as it gets, but thanks for your honesty anyway.

There are things in life you may not understand. I think this is one of them. Nobody needs to give even a 'hint of an argument' to their opinion like this. It'd be like if I wrote "The Seahawks are the best" and some tight-ass demanded empirical PROOF. Not everything needs to be fully-vetted to your approval to be a valid point.

[O E]

There are things in life you may not understand. I think this is one of them. Nobody needs to give even a 'hint of an argument' to their opinion like this. It'd be like if I wrote "The Seahawks are the best" and some tight-ass demanded empirical PROOF. Not everything needs to be fully-vetted to your approval to be a valid point.

I see.

Have you ever read the text at the top left of the page - each and every page on here? It reads:


Debate Policy
Political Forum for Debate & Discussion


Debate & Discussion obviously do require arguments. Jim, however, doesn't have one. He doesn't scrutinize his opinions, hence he has no argument for them, hence he's shown himself unable to provide an argument for why replacing Kennedy would be "great for the court". Having been made aware of that, he quietly dropped the claim and underhandedly replaced it with "great for the right", which is obviously not the same. His angry reaction to having his stance tested and his shifting of the goal posts pointed out seems to indicate he's vaguely aware of all that.

That's the cost of merely taking a dump in public, lazily and shamefully, unthinkingly dumping mere unsupported opinions on here, regardless of the proud claims at the top left of the page. Now, Jim let me know in no uncertain terms he doesn't "give a shit" about my thinking - he's an honest guy like that - but he also doesn't give a shit about what he himself is thinking, as that would be a hindrance to merely dumping.

He probably hasn't thought about, and thus doesn't know, that replacing the swing vote with another reactionary in the Gorsuch mold would reduce the mainstream power, would have the extremists take over, add to the suspicion that the court is politicized. Obviously, this would lead to a decline of the court's stature, which in turn bodes ill for the respect for the law and the judiciary. But there is an upside in that the Dems would "go ape shit".

That's not "conservative", as Jim fashions himself, that's the tell-tale sign of being a reactionary, merely focused on "victory" for the right, defeat for the "other" side, no matter the cost, and unaware of and unconcerned with what current developments and possible future changes portend. At a time when public approval of both the White House and Congress languish at or near historic lows, it would be absolutely essential that the center holds at least in the highest court of the land. Jim disagrees, and hopes for that to be remedied. He finds that prospect "priceless", no argument necessary.

Apparently, he has you in support of merely taking a dump.

[darin]

I see.

Have you ever read the text at the top left of the page - each and every page on here? It reads:


Debate Policy
Political Forum for Debate & Discussion


Debate & Discussion obviously do require arguments. Jim, however, doesn't have one. He doesn't scrutinize his opinions, hence he has no argument for them, hence he's shown himself unable to provide an argument for why replacing Kennedy would be "great for the court". Having been made aware of that, he quietly dropped the claim and underhandedly replaced it with "great for the right", which is obviously not the same. His angry reaction to having his stance tested and his shifting of the goal posts pointed out seems to indicate he's vaguely aware of all that.

That's the cost of merely taking a dump in public, lazily and shamefully, unthinkingly dumping mere unsupported opinions on here, regardless of the proud claims at the top left of the page. Now, Jim let me know in no uncertain terms he doesn't "give a shit" about my thinking - he's an honest guy like that - but he also doesn't give a shit about what he himself is thinking, as that would be a hindrance to merely dumping.

He probably hasn't thought about, and thus doesn't know, that replacing the swing vote with another reactionary in the Gorsuch mold would reduce the mainstream power, would have the extremists take over, add to the suspicion that the court is politicized. Obviously, this would lead to a decline of the court's stature, which in turn bodes ill for the respect for the law and the judiciary. But there is an upside in that the Dems would "go ape shit".

That's not "conservative", as Jim fashions himself, that's the tell-tale sign of being a reactionary, merely focused on "victory" for the right, defeat for the "other" side, no matter the cost, and unaware of and unconcerned with what current developments and possible future changes portend. At a time when public approval of both the White House and Congress languish at or near historic lows, it would be absolutely essential that the center holds at least in the highest court of the land. Jim disagrees, and hopes for that to be remedied. He finds that prospect "priceless", no argument necessary.

Apparently, he has you in support of merely taking a dump.


He OWNS THE FUCKING FORUM. He can dump where he wants.

Further - your claim implying all content here is for the purpose of or with the goal towards engaging a debate is not only childish, it's stupid. Stop being stupid.

Lastly, the first part of ANY debate is to issue a statement to debate. It's NOT to lay out one's case for supporting a point of view until it's questioned.


For instance:

"I think Left lane hogs should have their driver's license revoked on the spot"

What happens next is "Oh? Why do you think so?"

THEN the person lays forth the reason behind their belief.

Stop being dumb. Drop your attitude WAY down. Get laid. And be nicer to people.

[jimnyc]

I see.

Have you ever read the text at the top left of the page - each and every page on here? It reads:


Debate Policy
Political Forum for Debate & Discussion


Debate & Discussion obviously do require arguments. Jim, however, doesn't have one. He doesn't scrutinize his opinions, hence he has no argument for them, hence he's shown himself unable to provide an argument for why replacing Kennedy would be "great for the court".

The debate and discussion shows what the board is intended for, but not a mandate for each and every individual. Some like to place others on ignore, some prefer to come and be childish, some prefer non-stop fighting. Either way, when someone refuses to respond to folks that run around the board like foaming at the mouth nitwits, it has nothing to do with having an argument or not. Instead, I choose not to waste my time.

You act like an asshole and do an awful lot of nae calling, mostly about everyone and no one in general. You run around the internet with a "gang". Not sure how old you are, but running with and/or forming little cliques on message boards isn't something for me. Nor is responding to to folks that are simply looking for fights and disruption and have zero desire whatsoever to "discuss" on a normal level, or have any respect for the folks here. You get what you give. But I'm not even going to bother giving back what you're searching for, I'd rather just be amused by your foaming and anger with the country, and how you are unable to deal with being a loser.

[jimnyc]

He OWNS THE FUCKING FORUM. He can dump where he wants.

Further - your claim implying all content here is for the purpose of or with the goal towards engaging a debate is not only childish, it's stupid. Stop being stupid.

Lastly, the first part of ANY debate is to issue a statement to debate. It's NOT to lay out one's case for supporting a point of view until it's questioned.


For instance:

"I think Left lane hogs should have their driver's license revoked on the spot"

What happens next is "Oh? Why do you think so?"

THEN the person lays forth the reason behind their belief.

Stop being dumb. Drop your attitude WAY down. Get laid. And be nicer to people.

I don't want, nor deserve anything different whatsoever, even in appearances in my direction, just because I'm the owner. But it would be nice if a general amount of respect were giving to folks on both sides, at least until people posted with one another for awhile, maybe get a little idea of what the other is about.

But in typical fashion, which I've watched online for a couple of decades now, the guns are blazing, the anger is there with the foaming mouths, the tolerance was never there, let's be honest about that. It's all about MY way or the highway with some folks. Time to "invade" and fight with others, and they are somehow the enemy, so no need to be polite and/or respectful or try to get along and get to know one another. And that there is where it starts, ALWAYS does.

[BoogyMan]

In the absence of even a hint of an argument as to how Kennedy's retirement would be "great for the court", that all boils down to "beyond comical to watch the Dems go ape shit." That's what a lot on this site amounts to, and the same is true for much of the public support for Trumpism. As a motivation for public policy making, it's about as crappy as it gets, but thanks for your honesty anyway.

I can understand disagreement with the OP as that is what debate sites are supposed to be all about. Why would you come in and take a personal shot not only at the person posting the OP but the whole site? There are a few of us here who are by no means Trump fans, and the ones who are are decent folk looking for discussion.

[jimnyc]

I can understand disagreement with the OP as that is what debate sites are supposed to be all about. Why would you come in and take a personal shot not only at the person posting the OP but the whole site? There are a few of us here who are by no means Trump fans, and the ones who are are decent folk looking for discussion.

Don't bother, I tried with a few already and failed. They couldn't seemingly care less about whether the folks here are friendly or respectful. Some have their ways and that's how it'll be apparently.

[O E]

I can understand disagreement with the OP as that is what debate sites are supposed to be all about. Why would you come in and take a personal shot not only at the person posting the OP but the whole site? There are a few of us here who are by no means Trump fans, and the ones who are are decent folk looking for discussion.

Okay, this posting is so instructive, I'll give it a shot.

Wisely, you refrained from pointing out what my "personal shot" has been. There was none in the posting you quoted.

Rather not so wisely, you accused me of a shot at "the whole site", when my statement read, "That's what a lot on this site amounts to".

I have yet to call anyone an "asshole". I have yet to accuse anyone of being "dumb". I have yet to instruct anyone to "get laid". And yet, this is what I got to read. Most scurrilously, I was accused of using "Obama grammar", whatever that means; that was even vaguely funny. No, I don't mind in the least, for this kind of infantile silliness shines a light on those who use it. Just then to turn around and accuse me of "personal shots" is ... well, you find the name for that on your own.

So, what we got with the OP is gloating about the Dems going "ape shit". In the short short while I've been here, I've read that or equivalent several times, but pointing it out is a big fat No-No. Right?

So, self-proclaimed philosopher, you should know a thing or two about "debate", which means respect for reason, facts, and, most of all, respect for the medium in which you deal, that is, language. You've shown yourself lacking in respect for facts (there was no personal shot), and language ("a lot" is not the equivalent of "the whole site"), and with that respect for reason is an impossibility. But you blissfully assert that there's decent folk on here "looking for discussion", when, on this very thread, I was instructed that dumping opinions is the way to go.

Finally, how you come up with the idea that anyone could support the most foul-mouthed, mendacious, fraudulent, disrespectful, misogynist, and vulgar person ever to gain the office of the President, and still be "decent folk", escapes me entirely. Moreover, how anyone could be called "decent" who just proclaimed gloating delight at the prospect of seeing other persons' predicament - going "ape shit" - and hopes for it to be brought about, escapes me as well, for that appears to be the very opposite of decent.

[jimnyc]

Okay, this posting is so instructive, I'll give it a shot.

Should anyone even bother attempting to reply? We've been told that the ball is being taken away and you're all going home. If we aren't worthy.... So can we assume that any remaining posts from the group will now only be parting shots?

You have wrote an awful lot about your problems with my post. In that amount of time you could have made posts in other threads of your choosing. You could have started threads of your own. Hell, you could have simply destroyed my post/article and moved along.

There were many options, but you seemingly got hung up on this one. You'll deny it, as denial is a part of the liberal world, but this is the comedy I speak of. Boo Hoo, you don't like my stance. You'll whine about how I'm wrong in every different direction. And yet it would instantly be a better world if we see another conservative judge in the SC, and almost heaven if yet another were added on Trump's dime. And the comedy has already begun, thank you.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Should anyone even bother attempting to reply? We've been told that the ball is being taken away and you're all going home. If we aren't worthy.... So can we assume that any remaining posts from the group will now only be parting shots?

You have wrote an awful lot about your problems with my post. In that amount of time you could have made posts in other threads of your choosing. You could have started threads of your own. Hell, you could have simply destroyed my post/article and moved along.

There were many options, but you seemingly got hung up on this one. You'll deny it, as denial is a part of the liberal world, but this is the comedy I speak of. Boo Hoo, you don't like my stance. You'll whine about how I'm wrong in every different direction. And yet it would instantly be a better world if we see another conservative judge in the SC, and almost heaven if yet another were added on Trump's dime. And the comedy has already begun, thank you.

Jim, this new group, trio--whatever the number of them -- came in here pretending to be Gods above we mere "Deplorables" -- with their pretentious attitudes and hate-filled personal agenda..
Myself, they seem to be high school kids trying to act like college professors --with us being grade school kids, needing a damn good thrashing.
However, it is both sad and laughable that none of them have shown respect, or even common decency as new arrivals to a new site..
Such arrogance which is a mainstay of liberals/leftists and these few seem to have a lock on it.
Then they whine because we failed to bow down to their godlike wisdom.
I find it to be childishly and massively arrogant on their part , much like exactly what we have seen since Hillary got thrashed and Trump took control away from the dem party, its corrupt members, with its treasonous agenda.-Tyr

[aboutime]

Okay, this posting is so instructive, I'll give it a shot.

Wisely, you refrained from pointing out what my "personal shot" has been. There was none in the posting you quoted.

Rather not so wisely, you accused me of a shot at "the whole site", when my statement read, "That's what a lot on this site amounts to".

I have yet to call anyone an "asshole". I have yet to accuse anyone of being "dumb". I have yet to instruct anyone to "get laid". And yet, this is what I got to read. Most scurrilously, I was accused of using "Obama grammar", whatever that means; that was even vaguely funny. No, I don't mind in the least, for this kind of infantile silliness shines a light on those who use it. Just then to turn around and accuse me of "personal shots" is ... well, you find the name for that on your own.

So, what we got with the OP is gloating about the Dems going "ape shit". In the short short while I've been here, I've read that or equivalent several times, but pointing it out is a big fat No-No. Right?

So, self-proclaimed philosopher, you should know a thing or two about "debate", which means respect for reason, facts, and, most of all, respect for the medium in which you deal, that is, language. You've shown yourself lacking in respect for facts (there was no personal shot), and language ("a lot" is not the equivalent of "the whole site"), and with that respect for reason is an impossibility. But you blissfully assert that there's decent folk on here "looking for discussion", when, on this very thread, I was instructed that dumping opinions is the way to go.

Finally, how you come up with the idea that anyone could support the most foul-mouthed, mendacious, fraudulent, disrespectful, misogynist, and vulgar person ever to gain the office of the President, and still be "decent folk", escapes me entirely. Moreover, how anyone could be called "decent" who just proclaimed gloating delight at the prospect of seeing other persons' predicament - going "ape shit" - and hopes for it to be brought about, escapes me as well, for that appears to be the very opposite of decent.


More proof ^ that Liberals really can't handle being presented with the Truth in any form. When we lower ourselves to THEIR Liberal Standards, they get anxious, miserable, and frustrated to see WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE from our point of view. Even when we try to accommodate Liberals by acting like them...they threaten with all of the standard, constantly repeated DNC talking points again.
In other words...like the little bully who runs away with his football because he ALWAYS loses...We say..Bye Bye to the Liberal Snowflakes who are convinced everyone must bow down to their rules..or suffer the consequences of their IGNORANCE.

Just watch, in case one of them ignores what I said above, and chooses to lecture me on my Vocabulary, and English instead.

[PostmodernProphet]

In the absence of even a hint of an argument as to how Kennedy's retirement would be "great for the court", that all boils down to "beyond comical to watch the Dems go ape shit." That's what a lot on this site amounts to, and the same is true for much of the public support for Trumpism. As a motivation for public policy making, it's about as crappy as it gets, but thanks for your honesty anyway.
can't think of a better reason to love everyone here........

[PostmodernProphet]

So, OE, what do you think of our newest SCOTUS Justice?

Pretty solid choice, don't you think?
at first I didn't think it could possibly be better.......then I realized I have at least two more chances to see if it can be......

[PostmodernProphet]

That's the cost of merely taking a dump in public, lazily and shamefully, unthinkingly dumping mere unsupported opinions on here, regardless of the proud claims at the top left of the page. Now, Jim let me know in no uncertain terms he doesn't "give a shit" about my thinking - he's an honest guy like that - but he also doesn't give a shit about what he himself is thinking, as that would be a hindrance to merely dumping.

I'm okay with people taking a dump in public if they're taking a dump on a lib'rul's head......

[aboutime]

I'm okay with people taking a dump in public if they're taking a dump on a lib'rul's head......


PostmodernProphet: After seeing the number of Trolls from the left arrive here in July. I see them more as THE DUMP of lib'rul's on the rest of society that just didn't FLUSH.:laugh:

Like electing Trump got rid of this one....<img src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/69/10/bb/6910bb44b0bc41f8a63bdde7b596640e.jpg">

[Little-Acorn]

I'm a conservative, so upping the right side of the court is great for the right.
Also great for the left.

A conservative justice is much more likely to obey and support the Constitution, which is a fundamentally conservative document. He is likely to make decisions restricting or striking down big-govt programs such as Obamacare or whatever program (not authorized by the Const) the Republicans replace it with. Followed by EPA zoning and restrictions, national workplace restrictions (both should be enacted by states, not the Fed), etc.

As businesses get out from under hugely burdensome Federal restrictions, they will be able to expand their prosperity, hire more, produce more etc. The left will benefit from this as well as the right. A rising tide lifts all boats.