|
Jurgan posted:But that was Reagan, PBUTH. Both Cruz and Rubio said it, but Cruz was the one who got called on it and then he tried to semantic his way out of it.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Both Cruz and Rubio said it, but Cruz was the one who got called on it and then he tried to semantic his way out of it. Okay, I didn't actually see the whole debate, just the clip with Cruz arguing with the moderator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
I've become addicted to can't stump the trump vids halp
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Star Man posted:They're going to fellate Scalia on every major source of news all throughout the election season. The only thing people will remember in a month is the vacant SCOTUS chair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
Ether Frenzy posted:This certainly does. Amazing news. The Republican party is rotting in front of our eyes
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Amazing news. The Republican party is rotting in front of our eyes It is indeed a great time to be alive Imagine if this was the 80s and you were into politics. You'd OD by now
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:But that was Reagan, PBUTH. What's that mean? I tried googling it, couldn't come up with a specific answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:What's that mean? I tried googling it, couldn't come up with a specific answer. In Islam, all mentions of the Prophet in writing must be suffixed by the line "Peace Be Upon Him," hence PBUH. Your guess of how to factor a T-word into that is as good as mine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Morroque posted:In Islam, all mentions of the Prophet in writing must be suffixed by the line "Peace Be Upon Him," hence PBUH. Unto I guess?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
I don't celebrate people dying, certain people make this hard to do. Seeya Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
djw175 posted:Unto I guess? Yeah, that's what I thought the phrase was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
"Peace be untoward him," sort of works in Reagan's case. I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:I don't celebrate people dying, certain people make this hard to do. Seeya Scalia. Eh he was 79 it's not like he was robbed of anything
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
He lived a long and productive life. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Star Man posted:If Cheney dies...the eulogy I want to write for that monster is going to make Hunter S. Thompson's eulogy of Nixon look tame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Star Man posted:If Cheney dies...the eulogy I want to write for that monster is going to make Hunter S. Thompson's eulogy of Nixon look tame. You'll have to get in line. In a perfect world, Cheney's name would enter common vernacular the same way Benedict Arnold's has. I'm thinking it would properly be a byword for extremely destructive acts of deceit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Chenny can't die because he was never alive. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Man, watching the media fall all over themselves and the GOP getting in line trying to explain why Obama should wait until after he leaves office to appoint Scalia's replacement has been crazy today. I thought these guys were strict Constitutionalists? The Constitution is pretty clear about this. Meaning the President should appoint a judge. Can you imagine the howling if the situation were reversed and Ginsberg died during Bush's 8th year?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Why is it crazy? Part of being a partisan shill is that you're okay with hypocrisy as long as your team benefits. The way Hillary handled e-mail, for instance, wasn't markedly different than any of her predecessors, but the GOP sure called it a criminal offense when they thought it would benefit them politically. There's a million other examples that could be listed. That's how politics works, and the US public is generally accepting of it as part of the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Well, instead of forcing Americans to wait a year and a half for a new justice, Obama could appoint a right wing judge in the mold of Scalia. Republicans are willing to compromise but Obama just divides everyone. Thanks Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:Well, instead of forcing Americans to wait a year and a half for a new justice, Obama could appoint a right wing judge in the mold of Scalia. Republicans are willing to compromise but Obama just divides everyone. Thanks Obama. I love that this is what all right wing whining can be boiled down to nowadays. "Obama COULD compromise with us by giving in to our every insane demand and doing exactly what we want but instead the TYRANT has his own ideas on how to run the country!!!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
bango skank posted:I love that this is what all right wing whining can be boiled down to nowadays. "Obama COULD compromise with us by giving in to our every insane demand and doing exactly what we want but instead the TYRANT has his own ideas on how to run the country!!!" To be fair, they're giving up the option to remove all minorities and abolish taxes wholesale which is probably what they think of a big sacrifices already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:To be fair, they're giving up the option to remove all minorities and abolish taxes wholesale which is probably what they think of a big sacrifices already. Let's also not forget that gay marriage is 100% legal everywhere in the U.S. now. Figure that should be worth at least 1,000 years of conservative darkness, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
I had a discussion with a friend today about the potential nominations. They were adamant that the GOP can block any nomination until after the election and suffer no political repercussions because "You can't replace the most conservative justice with a progressive candidate. It wouldn't be fair to the American people." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
OxySnake posted:I had a discussion with a friend today about the potential nominations. They were adamant that the GOP can block any nomination until after the election and suffer no political repercussions because "You can't replace the most conservative justice with a progressive candidate. It wouldn't be fair to the American people." Probably plenty of people who feel this way and honestly it's not the worst justification for obstruction. I'd love the court to be stacked with liberals but I can see why it'd be important to try to keep some kind of ideological balance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Probably plenty of people who feel this way and honestly it's not the worst justification for obstruction. I'd love the court to be stacked with liberals but I can see why it'd be important to try to keep some kind of ideological balance. Citizens United. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Probably plenty of people who feel this way and honestly it's not the worst justification for obstruction. I'd love the court to be stacked with liberals but I can see why it'd be important to try to keep some kind of ideological balance. Yes, America needs another Justice who's rationale for allowing extra-legal torture is Jack Bauer, from the fictional television show "  "For  "balance".
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Probably plenty of people who feel this way and honestly it's not the worst justification for obstruction. I'd love the court to be stacked with liberals but I can see why it'd be important to try to keep some kind of ideological balance. There will always be a balance at the average of everyone's views, the question is how far left/right that balance happens to be. Why is the most recent balance automatically worth preserving?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Please tell me none of the "serious" RWM is running with the "Scalia was murdered" theory? It's all over social media, and I know they love to just spit out whatevers on twitter at any one moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
It's like, a very nice older friend of mine is paying way too much attention to the GOP debates because she voted for Obama the last two years and feels like it's the Republican's turn. She may eventually vote democrat, but she still thinks somehow balance is needed, and will be enacted simply by electing someone from the other party. I fell like just because there are two sides doesn't mean both sides are equally valid. That's bullshit. Okay, you have one side that says you'd like a speed bump in our neighborhood road my position is that we should make a speed minimum in the subdivision 50mph and I get to make donuts in your lawn. And poop on it. Because gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Probably plenty of people who feel this way and honestly it's not the worst justification for obstruction. I'd love the court to be stacked with liberals but I can see why it'd be important to try to keep some kind of ideological balance. You can't divide 9 by 2 so how do you keep a balance exactly?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Ahh yes, American politics is like The Force, there must be balance. Nevermind that one side is mostly benevolent and altruistic and the other is all about self-gratification at the expense of everyone else, BALANCE!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
The GOP made this bed when they focused on downticket races to the exclusion of wider appeal and now they get to sleep in it
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
The truth isn't in the middle. There is no need to maintain some weird sense of "balance". Modern American Conservative politics are no mystery, and a conservative justice would be a bad thing because conservative politicians and voters have consistently believed, supported, and pushed for objectively awful things in the last few years alone, to say nothing of the past several decades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
You guys are having a weird argument with a hypothetical person. I'm not saying I think there needs to be a balance or agree there should be, just that people do and I can understand why they feel that way even if I disagree with it. And it being irrational doesn't make it untrue so I'm not sure how raging against it on the internet is going to change reality in any way.beatlegs posted:You can't divide 9 by 2 so how do you keep a balance exactly? Moderates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Moderates. You might be able to get a comedy show or something with your jokes. Should look into that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:You guys are having a weird argument with a hypothetical person. I'm not saying I think there needs to be a balance or agree there should be, just that people do and I can understand why they feel that way even if I disagree with it. And it being irrational doesn't make it untrue so I'm not sure how raging against it on the internet is going to change reality in any way. No one is raging against anything, just pointing out that people who believe that are being dumb and wrong. It isn't any more pointless than pointing out "hey people believe this, which I totally don't agree with, but I can see why they feel that way, even if it is irrational." If anything it is less pointless to point out things that are wrong than to make non-statements like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:You guys are having a weird argument with a hypothetical person. I'm not saying I think there needs to be a balance or agree there should be, just that people do and I can understand why they feel that way even if I disagree with it. And it being irrational doesn't make it untrue so I'm not sure how raging against it on the internet is going to change reality in any way. Well when one of these people says that to you maybe point out that the middleground fallacy is poo poo and when some guy says "I should be able to shoot two black people because I don't like them" maybe a good compromise is to help him deal with his issues rather than to say "OK let's compromise, you can only shoot one black person". Maybe remind this person you're talking to that the balance might not be in the middle between the party that has some good politicians and some corrupt politicians versus the party that has corrupt politicians and bloated shitbags who think they can call themselves christians while praying for slavery to come back and making jokes about how some women deserve rape. Like, give them a tiny jostle by suggesting that sometimes one side is just plain wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
We need a Truth is in the Middle emote, like  only with Stan from South Park pinching the bridge of his nose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
I mean in any case five conservative justices and four liberals isn't balance either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:53
|
|
