Things seem to be going quite well for Joe Biden

[ndawg 1,242]

Just now, TtomTerrific said:

We get it. The liberal (death spiral) orthodoxy needs be met in lockstep to post here or else the most vile shit possible is completely excusable.

Yes, regale us about the most vile shit possible.

[hobbes2702 13,351]

1 minute ago, TtomTerrific said:

You assumed incorrectly and no , straight marriage isn’t in there either

That’s all many of us were trying to say.

Of course. Here. That makes me (us) an immediate hater of homosexuals.

What we “hated” was your legislation from the bench and lumps like Sotomayor who are there only for that purpose while you have kept actual legal talent like Robert Bork( possibly the most giant legal scholar of our time) from that court somehow.

Doesn’t matter in here though because anything against the group think posted here now is automatically vilified and personal attacks replete with some imagined “racism, homophobic , xenophobic ” assignments are not only immediate, but expected.

Of course those who don’t agree with you are not wanting to face this vitriolic backlash.

But I don’t care at all about that and only covet the expository “character revealing” of those who immediately turn to that sort of bombastic response as a reflection of who they really are, deep down, who would trade in some sort of political discourse for that, with the greatest dispatch.

I could spend a lot of time (a) defending myself” here to a bunch of fuckstuck beta male man-buns in skinny jeans or (b)let it go and continue to watch grown people act this way by scribbling out something that is obviously going to launch you into furthers hysteria orbit.

I picked (b) so you can quit pretending that you are not one who would “go there” in a political discussion.

We get it. The liberal (death spiral) orthodoxy needs be met in lockstep to post here or else the most vile shit possible is completely excusable. Here. The few times I’ve returned fire in this way I’ve been “warned about abusive posting” by the reasonable folks who moderate this space.

So, allowing you your demonstration of character, here, in writing has been my effort so far until you begin to eat your young on Tuesday.

Now. Fuck off

[TexEx15 17,913]

1 minute ago, TtomTerrific said:

You assumed incorrectly and no , straight marriage isn’t in there either

That’s all many of us were trying to say.

Of course. Here. That makes me (us) an immediate hater of homosexuals.

What we “hated” was your legislation from the bench and lumps like Sotomayor who are there only for that purpose while you have kept actual legal talent like Robert Bork( possibly the most giant legal scholar of our time) from that court somehow.

Doesn’t matter in here though because anything against the group think posted here now is automatically vilified and personal attacks replete with some imagined “racism, homophobic , xenophobic ” assignments are not only immediate, but expected.

Of course those who don’t agree with you are not wanting to face this vitriolic backlash.

But I don’t care at all about that and only covet the expository “character revealing” of those who immediately turn to that sort of bombastic response as a reflection of who they really are, deep down, who would trade in some sort of political discourse for that, with the greatest dispatch.

I could spend a lot of time (a) defending myself” here to a bunch of fuckstuck beta male man-buns in skinny jeans or (b)let it go and continue to watch grown people act this way by scribbling out something that is obviously going to launch you into furthers hysteria orbit.

I picked (b) so you can quit pretending that you are not one who would “go there” in a political discussion.

We get it. The liberal (death spiral) orthodoxy needs be met in lockstep to post here or else the most vile shit possible is completely excusable. Here. The few times I’ve returned fire in this way I’ve been “warned about abusive posting” by the reasonable folks who moderate this space.

So, allowing you your demonstration of character, here, in writing has been my effort so far until you begin to eat your young on Tuesday.

Now. Fuck off

So simply put gay marriage should have never been an issue in need of a decision by the Supreme Court but because of a discriminatory government it was in fact necessary for folks to fight tooth and nail for the same RIGHT afforded straight couples.

Also, triggered much?

[TtomTerrific 200]

 

Oh. Well. “Critics say”

Front page of Twitter with that

[Thatguy 9,289]

i'd really like to see the rebuttal to this. genuinely curious how this gets reconciled.
unfortunately it seems to be one of those magical 'invisible' posts that somehow get missed by people actively engaged in tracking the conversation and replying to other posts.
uh huh. i'm sure the thread is just moving too fast.

He won't respond. If there is one thing we know about Trump and his Trumpkins, is they don't like tough questions.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[TtomTerrific 200]

May I introduce you to the Constitution of the United States of America:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Spoiler

The Federalists contended that a bill of rights was unnecessary. They responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that, inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights, it would be dangerous to list some and thereby lend support to the argument that government was unrestrained as to those rights not listed.1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.”2 It is clear from its text and from Madison’s statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.3 In 1965, however, the Amendment was construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.
The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court4 until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut.5 The Court in that case voided a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, asserted that the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”6 Thus, although privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.
“The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.”7

 

First person singular in the a Constitution?

Tell me more

[Willfully Horn 8,204]

5 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

First person singular in the a Constitution?

Tell me more

Sure. It’s the ninth Amendment to the US Constitution. It’s part of the Bill of Rights.

[washparkhorn 9,967]

10 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

First person singular in the a Constitution?

Tell me more

[TtomTerrific 200]

Damn. Brisket. I’d hoped that I could count upon you not participating among this decay of the “market place of ideas”. To use your folksy posting style to at least pretend not to plunge into the ad hominem.


Damn- disappointing


Anyway. Yes. The Bill of Rights was kept independent to Articles within the Body of the Constitution so to inform the Republic of their foundational tenets . And to draw specific, directed and focused attention to these rights. There was much debate surrounding this

You could look it up.

And don’t mistake this for me claiming to work day to day within an industry wherein adherence to this Constitution is a day to day requirement of mine to complete my daily tasks. It’s not

You are a lawyer who doesn’t share my view on this and there are many other lawyers who also don’t share my view on this.

But that doesn’t make you “right” because there are an abundance of lawyers who do share my view and, now an abundance of Supreme Court Justices (also lawyers) who do too.

That’s why y’all losing your shit over Amy Barrett because she is committed to studying the law and ruling on whether or not what she is reading as law is coherent with the case in front of her.

You want her to forget the law, ( when convenient for you politically) and adhere to your policy proscriptions and further affect change to that law.

That shit just stopped. Sorry if you really, really, really didn’t want it to.

Sotamayor is eagerly waiting guidance in this matter.

[Incredulity 11,861]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

Also I dunno if you’re aware that typing in capital letters is not typing in big words.

Does Brisket know?

[BradInATX 9,208]

Damn, remember that nice several page stretch where we were talking about cool shit and Enchubben was participating in a pretty solid back and forth about employers and their role in absorbing vs passing taxes on?

That was pretty cool until someone shined the qanon moron bat signal into the sky and TTom showed up and it all went to shit again.

[Incredulity 11,861]

“Pretty solid back and forth” is Enchubben taking shit and being called a moron.  Interdasting.

[burntorangebongos 10,809]

Isn't that normal for Surly? Unless you are in the i'm a drunk thread or cancer thread or my kid is cute thread, what is the problem? Fight your way out of a wet paper bag with logic. 

[Incredulity 11,861]

Logic...lol.

[workswithseed 2,201]

15 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Damn, remember that nice several page stretch where we were talking about cool shit and Enchubben was participating in a pretty solid back and forth about employers and their role in absorbing vs passing taxes on?

That was pretty cool until someone shined the qanon moron bat signal into the sky and TTom showed up and it all went to shit again.

Yeah, no. That wasn't what that was.

[hobbes2702 13,351]

17 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

“Pretty solid back and forth” is Enchubben taking shit and being called a moron.  Interdasting.

It’s almost like posting lies and falsehoods gets you viewed as a moron.

[Hefeweizen 5,416]

Talk stupid shit, win stupid prizes.  Don’t come if you aren’t prepared to defend your dumb hot take.

[BradInATX 9,208]

Yeah, no. That wasn't what that was.

You're right. I'm trying to be civil.

I destroyed his point about "omg biden will raise taxes". Showed my work down to the penny. Then a bunch of actual business owners gave real world experience. Then Enchubben told me my math was bad and never gave any reason why and didn't respond when I asked him to tell my why my math was bad. Then we sorta just politely ended the conversation when TTom the crazy person showed up.

What do you think happened? Be specific. Facts not feelings.

[Underdog 29,101]

Throwing this in here for the hell of it...

We lefties can stroke it like that. 

[hobbes2702 13,351]

3 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Throwing this in here for the hell of it...

We lefties can stroke it like that. 

Needs to tuck his elbow and release the ball higher. I bet that asshole wears tan suits and orders spicy mustard too.

Edited October 31, 2020 by hobbes2702

[Aqua Buddha 14,782]

Obama is the only president I honestly think is cooler than me.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Damn, Hunter was just passing out laptops to everyone apparently.

[Brisketexan 106,618]

Damn. Brisket. I’d hoped that I could count upon you not participating among this decay of the “market place of ideas”. To use your folksy posting style to at least pretend not to plunge into the ad hominem.


Damn- disappointing


Anyway. Yes. The Bill of Rights was kept independent to Articles within the Body of the Constitution so to inform the Republic of their foundational tenets . And to draw specific, directed and focused attention to these rights. There was much debate surrounding this

You could look it up.

And don’t mistake this for me claiming to work day to day within an industry wherein adherence to this Constitution is a day to day requirement of mine to complete my daily tasks. It’s not

You are a lawyer who doesn’t share my view on this and there are many other lawyers who also don’t share my view on this.

But that doesn’t make you “right” because there are an abundance of lawyers who do share my view and, now an abundance of Supreme Court Justices (also lawyers) who do too.

That’s why y’all losing your shit over Amy Barrett because she is committed to studying the law and ruling on whether or not what she is reading as law is coherent with the case in front of her.

You want her to forget the law, ( when convenient for you politically) and adhere to your policy proscriptions and further affect change to that law.

That shit just stopped. Sorry if you really, really, really didn’t want it to.

Sotamayor is eagerly waiting guidance in this matter.

If your point is that there exists a school of thought that is contrary to both the plain words and plain intent of the Constitution, I ain’t arguing against that. There may be a school of thought that believes the Constitution is actually a recipe for peach cobbler, hell if I know. Shit, you may interpret it as saying TTom can do as he wishes, and the feds must back him up no matter what. I have no ability to stop people from having shitty takes.

Doesn’t make them any less wrong. There’s plenty of wrong interpretations of statutes, the constitution, etc. There are a lotta people who think we faked the moon landing, and that JFK jr is still alive. It’s still wrong and foolish.

It’s just fascinating that the “small government, I’m a super conservative” are also so going ho for a powerful federal government and sharply limited rights of the people. Lotta cognitive dissonance.

[Underdog 29,101]

2 hours ago, ndawg said:

He could always sell his investments in McDonald's before his term began.

And buy into McDowell's. 

[elfenix 34,658]

Ttom stanning for Bork, who, in the biggest moment of consequence in his entire life, and with the example of two better men to go by, completely and utterly failed as a man? And yet still got appointed to the DC circuit he was so poorly treated?

:chefskiss:

[Celery Man 21,076]

So pages and pages of discussion and still really if you're trying to cast a vote on your own bottom line and you're not.. you know, including the "what were the economic consequences the one time Trump had to deal with a disaster not of his own creation?" in your evaluation, that is because you are a fucking idiot.

[Willfully Horn 8,204]

59 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Logic...lol.

Y’all remember when Alito wrote an editorial which said there is no right to privacy, without mention of the ninth (or tenth) Amendment(s)? I remember.

Logical conclusion? He’s intellectually dishonest. 

[TtomTerrific 200]

Fair enough. And respectable considering your work within the legal system as your chosen path , I have no doubt that your opinion is grounded in career and very personal life experiences, as you come across as a guy who gets more than an arms length attachment to your cases/clients.

In fact, reading and actually learning from your posts in these communities has actually taught me more than a little bit.

So. In your view. (This is where we detach, because no matter how you answer this, no -insults from me are going to be considered much less offered). In your view. Is there any bedrock foundational code/law/system ethics/ scripture/bingo card. Anything that the rest of that very complicated system of jurisprudence had been built upon that is not malleable in anyway, particularly for the reasons of current political climactic pressures?

I seem to remember your adherence to some sacrosanct idea of “prosecutorial discretion” as one of these.

Not sure if that’s still your stance, but either way ....Is this Constitution - in the the form it’s written in and as (not some “White Board” utility for use in each election cycles’ committee hearings) perhaps a solid “bedrock” foundation from which any shot at unity might start?

Or, fuck it, that shit’s garbage and written by drunk racists that lost meaning before it went to ink?

[Brisketexan 106,618]

Fair enough. And respectable considering your work within the legal system as your chosen path , I have no doubt that your opinion is grounded in career and very personal life experiences, as you come across as a guy who gets more than an arms length attachment to your cases/clients.

In fact, reading and actually learning from your posts in these communities has actually taught me more than a little bit.

So. In your view. (This is where we detach, because no matter how you answer this, no -insults from me are going to be considered much less offered). In your view. Is there any bedrock foundational code/law/system ethics/ scripture/bingo card. Anything that the rest of that very complicated system of jurisprudence had been built upon that is not malleable in anyway, particularly for the reasons of current political climactic pressures?

I seem to remember your adherence to some sacrosanct idea of “prosecutorial discretion” as one of these.

Not sure if that’s still your stance, but either way ....Is this Constitution - in the the form it’s written in and as (not some “White Board” utility for use in each election cycles’ committee hearings) perhaps a solid “bedrock” foundation from which any shot at unity might start?

Or, fuck it, that shit’s garbage and written by drunk racists that lost meaning before it went to ink?

All laws are just a handshake agreement. Seriously. The rule of law is that fragile. As soon as someone or a group of someones who is powerful enough refuses to play by them, they’re dead. So there are no “bedrock” principles.

And as for the Constitution, it is not a foundational document. Rather, it is built on a foundation of enlightenment ideas and ideals - the rights of man, natural law, all sorts of concepts along those lines. But it’s all about what you believe. Do you believe that men have inherent rights? Do you believe that rights are only granted by the powerful? Do you believe that the only rule is the rule of might? All are constructs that people have believed.

Our system here is completely fragile. All it takes to kill it is to refuse to play by the rules and norms the system has established. The constitution is a piece of parchment, only as powerful as the willingness of the powerful to be bound by it.

I oppose the current effort to kill it, so I oppose Trumpism. It’s an easy call for me, it was before he was even nominated.

[washparkhorn 9,967]

31 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

Is there any bedrock foundational code/law/system ethics

Legal scholars on the conservative side of things call it Natural Law.  

Thomas Hobbes wrote about it in Leviathan and De Cive. 

[wildcat09 29,556]

Robert Bork’s contribution to legal scholarship was the rewriting of antitrust law to completely turn it on its head, neuter the ability to use it against monopolistic business practices, and expand its use against organized labor. I can’t think of a better or more destructive example of what legislating from the bench actually looks like.

Of course TTom would cite him as our greatest legal scholar while bitching about how liberal judges are bad because they legislate from the bench.

[henrygandorf 29,219]

2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Damn, Hunter was just passing out laptops to everyone apparently.
 

he used to work for entertainment 720.

[Sawbonz 28,081]

2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Damn, Hunter was just passing out laptops to everyone apparently.
 

[JohnLocke 115]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

All laws are just a handshake agreement. Seriously. The rule of law is that fragile. As soon as someone or a group of someones who is powerful enough refuses to play by them, they’re dead. So there are no “bedrock” principles.

And as for the Constitution, it is not a foundational document. Rather, it is built on a foundation of enlightenment ideas and ideals - the rights of man, natural law, all sorts of concepts along those lines. But it’s all about what you believe. Do you believe that men have inherent rights? Do you believe that rights are only granted by the powerful? Do you believe that the only rule is the rule of might? All are constructs that people have believed.

Our system here is completely fragile. All it takes to kill it is to refuse to play by the rules and norms the system has established. The constitution is a piece of parchment, only as powerful as the willingness of the powerful to be bound by it.

I oppose the current effort to kill it, so I oppose Trumpism. It’s an easy call for me, it was before he was even nominated.

I actually agree with this. The 1st and 2nd amendment mean nothing if they are regulated and excepted out of existence. The problem with your view is that you want the Supreme Court to act as a super legislature and interpret laws as they wish they were written rather than how they actually are written. If Joe Biden wins, and the democrats take the Senate, they will appoint 4 left wing Justices who will do exactly that.  And that is a recipe for revolution.

[BradInATX 9,208]

they will appoint 4 left wing Justices who will do exactly that.  And that is a recipe for revolution.

Well, yeah. That's kinda the point isn't it?

[Bullneck 19,454]

3 hours ago, TtomTerrific said:

Damn. Brisket. I’d hoped that I could count upon you not participating among this decay of the “market place of ideas”. To use your folksy posting style to at least pretend not to plunge into the ad hominem.


Damn- disappointing


Anyway. Yes. The Bill of Rights was kept independent to Articles within the Body of the Constitution so to inform the Republic of their foundational tenets . And to draw specific, directed and focused attention to these rights. There was much debate surrounding this

You could look it up.

And don’t mistake this for me claiming to work day to day within an industry wherein adherence to this Constitution is a day to day requirement of mine to complete my daily tasks. It’s not

You are a lawyer who doesn’t share my view on this and there are many other lawyers who also don’t share my view on this.

But that doesn’t make you “right” because there are an abundance of lawyers who do share my view and, now an abundance of Supreme Court Justices (also lawyers) who do too.

That’s why y’all losing your shit over Amy Barrett because she is committed to studying the law and ruling on whether or not what she is reading as law is coherent with the case in front of her.

You want her to forget the law, ( when convenient for you politically) and adhere to your policy proscriptions and further affect change to that law.

That shit just stopped. Sorry if you really, really, really didn’t want it to.

Sotamayor is eagerly waiting guidance in this matter.

Your posting style sucks.  Try using paragraphs. 

Nice word salad, BTW.

[Bullneck 19,454]

8 minutes ago, JohnLocke said:

I actually agree with this. The 1st and 2nd amendment mean nothing if they are regulated and excepted out of existence. The problem with your view is that you want the Supreme Court to act as a super legislature and interpret laws as they wish they were written rather than how they actually are written. If Joe Biden wins, and the democrats take the Senate, they will appoint 4 left wing Justices who will do exactly that.  And that is a recipe for revolution.

Yeah, sure.  The Trump weirdos are going to revolt while the rest of us move forward.

[BradInATX 9,208]

Yeah, sure.  The Trump weirdos are going to revolt while the rest of us move forward.

We're all just terrified of the macho men that have spent the last four years with their super alpha lips wrapped around the cock of a fat New York socialite who spends more time in the spray tan and makeup booths than he's ever spent using his hands.

Please you manly men of ultimate power, don't overwhelm us with your alphaness all at once.

"Recipe for revolution". Hahaha. What a bunch of nerds.

[Brisketexan 106,618]

We're all just terrified of the macho men that have spent the last four years with their super alpha lips wrapped around the cock of a fat New York socialite who spends more time in the spray tan and makeup booths than he's ever spent using his hands.

Please you manly men of ultimate power, don't overwhelm us with your alphaness all at once.

"Recipe for revolution". Hahaha. What a bunch of nerds.

There are no greater cowards. None.

[hookemATL 12,228]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There are no greater cowards. None.

They are all Corporal Upham. Sniveling pussies who will flail and cry when things get tough for them. I never seen a group of of more disaffected whiny cunts in my life. Except maybe ever Aggy in the history of existence. Enjoy your Trump cum you fucking losers. 

Edited November 1, 2020 by hookemATL

[ndawg 1,242]

25 minutes ago, JohnLocke said:

I actually agree with this. The 1st and 2nd amendment mean nothing if they are regulated and excepted out of existence. The problem with your view is that you want the Supreme Court to act as a super legislature and interpret laws as they wish they were written rather than how they actually are written. If Joe Biden wins, and the democrats take the Senate, they will appoint 4 left wing Justices who will do exactly that.  And that is a recipe for revolution.

Nobody here wants the Supreme Court to act as a super legislature.

[Aqua Buddha 14,782]

3 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Nobody here wants the Supreme Court to act as a super legislature.

[Francisco 2.0 32,543]

 

32 minutes ago, JohnLocke said:

I actually agree with this. The 1st and 2nd amendment mean nothing if they are regulated and excepted out of existence. The problem with your view is that you want the Supreme Court to act as a super legislature and interpret laws as they wish they were written rather than how they actually are written. If Joe Biden wins, and the democrats take the Senate, they will appoint 4 left wing Justices who will do exactly that.  And that is a recipe for revolution.

Rather, most want the Supremes to be something other than the majors for the Federalist Society.  With 2/3 of the Court populated with Federalist alumni, I'd say it's on its way to doing exactly as you have described.

 

 

 

[Valmy77 13,567]

32 minutes ago, JohnLocke said:

I actually agree with this. The 1st and 2nd amendment mean nothing if they are regulated and excepted out of existence. The problem with your view is that you want the Supreme Court to act as a super legislature and interpret laws as they wish they were written rather than how they actually are written. If Joe Biden wins, and the democrats take the Senate, they will appoint 4 left wing Justices who will do exactly that.  And that is a recipe for revolution.

What about the other amendments? I sure would love to see the Fifth Amendment interpreted as written.

Anyway I certainly do not want a super legislature and I disagree with your characterization of what will happen following a Democratic victory. Hopefully we will find out.

 

[Satchel 6,982]

Should the SC invalidate the ACA and overturn Roe v Wade, the path to expanding the courts will be much easier to navigate.

[Valmy77 13,567]

Just now, Satchel said:

Should the SC invalidate the ACA and overturn Roe v Wade, the path to expanding the courts will be much easier to navigate.

The invalidation of ACA now that the mandate has been removed would require some insanely creative super legislating from the Supreme Court. 

[Satchel 6,982]

Just now, Valmy77 said:

The invalidation of ACA now that the mandate has been removed would require some insanely creative super legislating from the Supreme Court. 

They’re up to it. Remember when Roberts told us the racial climate that made pre-clearance necessary, no longer exists?

[JohnLocke 115]

36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There are no greater cowards. None.

Geez, Brisket, you are so melodramatic. You act like you have some great cause.  You don't have shit for a cause. You are aligning with the same old corruptocrats who have been enriching themselves on the government dole for decades.  This election shouldn't be close. I have many conservative friends. Many if not most of them are tired of Trump's act. He's the most narcissistic guy I've ever seen.  Almost all of them will stick with him because he's better than the alternative, and they feel like he's a least on their side. All you had to do was nominate somebody who could plausible pretend to be a moderate left of center guy. And you would have won easily. Instead you nominate somebody who is corrupt even by Washington standards of corruption. Somebody who picks as his running mate a politician who is  somehow left of Bernie Sanders.  This is going to be a close election because you guys have picked a guy who spent his vice presidency vacuuming up millions of dollars from Russia, China, and the Ukraine and using his drug addicted son as the bagman.  And selling out America in the process.  If you guys lose, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Your candidate stinks and your platform has been hijacked by the far left,  and has zero appeal to the middle class. And if you win, you haven't won a great victory, you have just elected a guy who will continue Washington corruption as usual.  

Edited November 1, 2020 by JohnLocke

[wildcat09 29,556]

53 minutes ago, JohnLocke said:

I actually agree with this. The 1st and 2nd amendment mean nothing if they are regulated and excepted out of existence. The problem with your view is that you want the Supreme Court to act as a super legislature and interpret laws as they wish they were written rather than how they actually are written. If Joe Biden wins, and the democrats take the Senate, they will appoint 4 left wing Justices who will do exactly that.  And that is a recipe for revolution.

Every accusation is a confession, part infinity.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

7 minutes ago, JohnLocke said:

Geez, Brisket, you are so melodramatic. You act like you have some great cause.  You don't have shit for a cause. You are aligning with the same old corruptocrats who have been enriching themselves on the government dole for decades.  This election shouldn't be close. I have many conservative friends. Many if not most of them are tired of Trump's act. He's the most narcissistic guy I've ever seen.  Almost all of them will stick with him because he's better than the alternative, and they feel like he's a least on their side. All you had to do was nominate somebody who could plausible pretend to be a moderate left of center guy. And you would have won easily. Instead you nominate somebody who is corrupt even by Washington standards of corruption. Somebody who picks as his running mate a politician who is  somehow left of Bernie Sanders.  This is going to be a close election because you guys have picked a guy who spent his vice presidency vacuuming up millions of dollars from Russia, China, and the Ukraine and using his drug addicted son as the bagman.  And selling out America in the process.  If you guys lose, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Your candidate stinks and your platform has been hijacked by the far left,  and has zero appeal to the middle class. And if you win, you haven't won a great victory, you have just elected a guy who will continue Washington corruption as usual.  

I mean I’ve read some dumb as shit on this site. But this...