Kennedy Leaving SCOTUS

Yeah, I don't give a shit! Seat the most conservative SCOTUS in history!!!!!!!


Another emphatic reply.

TBH, I only care that the perception will drive record Dem turnout. You're close to the upper boundary on turnout in the General, so increased turnout equates to massive Dem leverage come November.

I'll bet anyone here, and give you odds, that Dems win the House. I pay my bets ($1,000) as Poindexter can attest.

My $10K that the Dems win the House on November 6, 2018. I'll even give you +200 on the ML. $10K wins you $20K if GOP maintains control of the House.

Anything else is just conversation from a bunch of GOP mofos in the rust-belt with dirt floors and tax bills.
 
Another emphatic reply.

TBH, I only care that the perception will drive record Dem turnout. You're close to the upper boundary on turnout in the General, so turnout = Dem Congress come November.

I'll bet anyone here, and give you odds, that Dems win the House. I pay my bets ($1,000) as Poindexter can attest.

My $10K that the Dems win the House on November 6, 2018. I'll even give you +200 on the ML. $10K wins you $20K if GOP maintains control of the House.


Womp womp womp..... Desterio doesnt have 10k lol! :D
 
Womp womp womp..... Desterio doesnt have 10k lol! :D

I paid-off Poindexter's wager win and donated $1,000 to the charity of his choice.

Too rich for your blood?

$1,000 wins you $2,000. Well, to anyone other than MaxiPad as he's admittedly broke. He's admitted that he was "ruined" and "bankrupted" by Dodd-Frank legislation.

Why so shy all of a sudden?
 
Read what you just wrote. You hope the selection is far right because you believe it is the democrats worst nightmare. You are basing what you want on what you think will hurt democrats instead of what is best for the country.

This is a perfect example of what I’ve been saying. You’re not really a conservative, you just hate democrats. I am telling you guys watch out, you don’t want this country turning into Iran.
No, I do think that a conservative SCOTUS is best for the country. Dems have been using liberal judges for years to in effect pass law from the bench. I want that to end.

Therefore, I know that all of the liberal scaremongering on MSM and liberal cable can be scary. However, it is mostly scaremongering. For example, I think it is extremely unlikely that Roe vs. Wade is overturned. It has been law for way too long. Perhaps, I am wrong.

Hey, come outside the weather is fine. It is like all of the liberal media have become liberal Alex Jones personalities. Look at Cenk Uygur. I mean have you seen a more pissed little guy? Pretty amusing to watch all of the melt downs.
 
Last edited:
Convenient (for Dems) that the Kagan confirmation occurred over five years before the McConnell precedent.

It's stil Kagan. Two a's.

You're really fucking stupid, aren't you.
Aren’t you?
Did you forget your punctuation for the tag question retard?
 
Another emphatic reply.

TBH, I only care that the perception will drive record Dem turnout. You're close to the upper boundary on turnout in the General, so increased turnout equates to massive Dem leverage come November.

I'll bet anyone here, and give you odds, that Dems win the House. I pay my bets ($1,000) as Poindexter can attest.

My $10K that the Dems win the House on November 6, 2018. I'll even give you +200 on the ML. $10K wins you $20K if GOP maintains control of the House.

Anything else is just conversation from a bunch of GOP mofos in the rust-belt with dirt floors and tax bills.
Huh, if that is the case, perhaps they should go nuclear before November.

They should call it the Reid SCOTUS vote and then go back to supermajority.


ADD: We are talking about generations!!!! Not just a measly 6 years. If Dems get enough seats in November to change the balance, it simply means potentially 2 years of stalemate. I will trade 2 years of stalemate for generations all day every fucking day.

Risk/Reward biatch!!!!!
 
Last edited:
I paid-off Poindexter's wager win and donated $1,000 to the charity of his choice.

Too rich for your blood?

$1,000 wins you $2,000. Well, to anyone other than MaxiPad as he's admittedly broke. He's admitted that he was "ruined" and "bankrupted" by Dodd-Frank legislation.

Why so shy all of a sudden?


Not sure if i can womp womp womp a a piece of garbage, like you but its still funny. :D

 
1. Theocracy is the opposite of conservatism / classical liberalism.
theocracy, communism, nazism... are all around the bend and meet up with each other... after big controlling govt. (and i note in most cases after taking away guns.)

Conservatism is about small central govt and keeping more power locally.

You are conflating ideas of conservatism and theocracy in a very disturbing and disingenuous manner.
if pence were for a theocracy I would be against pence as I am against all big powerful govt telling people what to do.

2. yeah you wrote that on another thread... and it was wrong then as it is now.
Contrary to your statement, the ideas of Classical Liberalism were not developed after the founding of the U.S. The ideas started with people like Locke and Rousseau. You might argue that the term classical liberal should be applied starting in the 1800s... but you can not argue the ideas of classical liberalism were not developed well before 1800 by men like Locke, Rousseau, Hume and others. And everyone knows those men influenced Jefferson and our founders.

Seriously... no educated person would make the claim you just made. It is preposterous.





Our founders were informed by Locke and Rousseau...

For instance the social contract.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke



3. So if you wish to continue to make this argument...
let me know what you think the tenants of classical liberalism are.




Usual Name you have it completely backward. It is amazing to me.
Time after time you put blinders to protect your world view.
Today's liberals are not even close to classical liberals. In many cases you are in favor of the big state and anti liberty and freedom. You favor restricting freedom with Carbon credits. All over Europe you restrict speech with hate crime legislation. Everyday your side and establishment republicans find ways to usurp individual freedom and liberty. You try to take away gun rights. You make us wear helmets when riding motorcycles. You try to ban sugary drinks. The list goes on and on. You try to force people to bake cakes and allow men in womens bathrooms. The last think you believe in is trying to keep govt out of our business...

in general...



And while I see Wikipedia said Classical Liberalism started in the 19th century it is pretty much wrong. The name may have be attached by some to that period of time, but the ideas were pre Jeffersonian. When I studied econ and American history I learned that Jefferson a founding father and classical liberal got many of his ideas from other liberals like John Locke. Liberals believe in the freedom and rights of individuals versus the monachy, state or church.

for instance... this site is correct.

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/what-is-classical-liberalism/

The key, basic insights of classical liberalism were first developed in the late 18th and early 19th century, at which time they weren’t split up into separate disciplines. Was Adam Smith an economist or a philosopher? A sociologist or a psychologist? In some sense he was all of them. And that was true of the other scholars who were around at that time.


---
today's conservatism is classical liberalism...
think about what David Brat ran on to defeat his establishment opponent, Cantor.

in lines up almost perfectly with this...

https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism

"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism. Here we shall use liberalism to signify the classical variety.

The unite


You are totally wrong. I have explained to you already classical liberalism was a philosophy developed AFTER the American Revolution.

Individual rights in a republic is liberalism. Conservatives, like Pence, want a religious theocracy. We are on the road to an Iranian Revolution.

I’m sure the Iranians thought conservatism was a good idea too but now they regret that shit.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top