Page 85 of 100
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:43 pm
by Malcolm
White House thinks your doctor should lecture you about climate change. You also need to be reminded of it every time you head to the grocery store.
Obama spends $800K of your dollars to campaign against political rivals.
Edited By Malcolm on 1435254470
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:46 pm
by Troy
It's been quite a week for the guy's legacy, whether you agree with his politics or not.
Edited By Troy on 1435452515
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:48 pm
by GORDON
I think this was more the Supreme Court's big week. It just changed quite a bit, it seems.
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:01 pm
by TheCatt
Troy wrote:It's been quite a week for the guy's legacy, whether you agree with his politics or not.
Wait, what did he do this week?
He didn't bring the court case. He didn't even support gay marriage when he was elected. He had to wait for public opinion to hit 50+% first.
Fuck that guy.
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:13 pm
by Malcolm
TheCatt wrote:Troy wrote:It's been quite a week for the guy's legacy, whether you agree with his politics or not.
Wait, what did he do this week?
He didn't bring the court case. He didn't even support gay marriage when he was elected. He had to wait for public opinion to hit 50+% first.
Fuck that guy.
It's kind of funny how the only people who are free to make a decision are the ones that don't have to give a fuck about Gallup surveys.
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:36 am
by Troy
TheCatt wrote:Troy wrote:It's been quite a week for the guy's legacy, whether you agree with his politics or not.
Wait, what did he do this week?
He didn't bring the court case. He didn't even support gay marriage when he was elected. He had to wait for public opinion to hit 50+% first.
Fuck that guy.
I get that and what Gordo said. Just don't think history is going to care, is all.
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:48 am
by Malcolm
I get that and what Gordo said. Just don't think history is going to care, is all.
Eh, the US has a history of whitewashing any bureaucratic stupidity. It's why Jimmy Carter wasn't set upon by an angry mob the day after he left office. The Pacific trade agreement or Obamacare would need to explode in a H-bomb-like fashion.
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:49 am
by Malcolm
Know how the military is always bitching they want more money? Maybe they should stop wasting it.
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:17 am
by GORDON
"Reality is now discretionary."
Exchanges established by the federal government are exchanges established by the state. Rachel Dolezal is black. Iran will honor an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons. ISIS is a JV team. There's an epidemic of sexual assaults on college campuses. Michael Brown had his hands up and pleaded "don't shoot." Caitlyn Jenner is a woman. Obamacare is working. 2+2 doesn't necessarily equal 4. The polar ice caps are disappearing. The IRS is doing a decent job. The border is secure.We've ended two wars responsibly. Hillary Clinton turned over all work-related e-mails. An $18,200,000,000,000 debt can grow without mention. People who burn down buildings and overturn cars aren't thugs. The OPM hack is manageable. We've reset relations with Russia. Entitlement reform can be kicked down the road. We're more respected around the world.
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:13 pm
by Malcolm
Supreme Court hears another AA case.
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:17 pm
by GORDON
Doesn't matter, it will turn out however the 4 liberal judges feel like it should turn out.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive....urt.php
Did you notice that there was not an iota of speculation about how the four Progressive justices would vote?
There was never a shadow of a doubt. In the plethora of opinions generated by these three cases, there is not a single one authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor. There was no need. They are the Left’s voting bloc. There was a better chance that the sun would not rise this morning than that any of them would wander off the reservation.
How can that be? Jurisprudence is complex. Supple minds, however likeminded, will often diverge, sometimes dramatically, on principles of constitutional adjudication, canons of statutory construction, murky separation-of-powers boundaries, the etymology of language, and much else.
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:22 pm
by Malcolm
Whatever. Same reason I don't need to figure how Clarence Thomas and Ebeneezer Scalia will vote. Only Roberts and Kennedy are on the fence anymore.
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:50 pm
by TPRJones
Indeed. Almost all the justices are purely political in their decisions now. Democrats have twice as many sure votes than Republicans but that doesn't matter as much as the whole process being warped to begin with.
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:58 pm
by Vince
I don't think progressives have anything to complain about. Remember that time Ruth Ginsberg broke with ideology and voted with the conservatives? Yeah, neither does anyone else.
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:13 pm
by Malcolm
Vince wrote:I don't think progressives have anything to complain about. Remember that time Ruth Ginsberg broke with ideology and voted with the conservatives? Yeah, neither does anyone else.
Wtf? When was the last time Thomas or Scalia moved to the left of Julius Caesar?
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:04 pm
by TPRJones
No, no, you don't understand. Democrats are ideologues. Republicans stick to their principles.
Can't you see the difference?
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:35 pm
by Vince
I would just like for ONCE for the left to be completely blindsided by having a justice confirmed to the court only to discover that they actually think the Constitution should be followed.
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:42 pm
by TPRJones
That may be the funniest thing you've said all year.
EDIT: Although it would blindside the right just as hard, of course. The Constitution is just a myth told about the founding fathers, it's not something any politician is actually interested in following in it's entirety.
Edited By TPRJones on 1435617845
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:28 pm
by Vince
Regardless of your views, you know what I mean. When was the last time a prog nominated and got through a justice that was a bitter disappointment to the progs? When was the last time a prog justice tipped a court decision conservative?
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:47 pm
by TPRJones
When was the last time a conservative nominated and got through a justice that was a bitter disappointment to the conservatives? When was the last time a conservative justice tipped a court decision progressive?
I really don't see an imbalance here, they all suck pretty equally. The fact that the progressives have a couple of pocket votes more than the conservatives is purely a consequence of timing and Presidents, not part of some imagined anti-conservative conspiracy.
EDIT: And you seem to have me pegged as a progressive but that's not correct. If we spent all our time talking about fiscal issues you'd think I was a staunch conservative. I am opposed to government interference in people's lives beyond the absolute minimum necessary to secure the constitutional rights of other citizens when those rights are in opposition. So on social issues I'm very progressive but I'm just as strongly conservative on fiscal affairs.
Edited By TPRJones on 1435621842