Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Political Discussion Thread
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostDo we allow the murder of innocent babies in the womb or not?
Originally posted by SGalisa View PostThose "[rusky] events" were fabricated reports ..
Comment
-
Ooops! (EDIT) Huffingtonpost agrees with your version.. (Please refer to the below article..)
"THE BLOG--Obama: Fool Me Thrice, Shame on Whom?"
Mary L. G. Theroux Senior Vice President, The Independent Institute
08/14/2013 08:27 am ET, Updated Oct 14, 2013
. . .
Obama's campaign promises and election gave me faith that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for votes. Many Americans felt similarly. Unfortunately, shortly after assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge.
. . .
The cynics among us might think President Obama's promises to institute reforms for enhanced privacy protections for the American people are simply a response to recent opinion polls showing that Americans are, for the first time since 9/11{/2001}, more concerned about civil liberties abuses than terrorism.
There's an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." So, do we believe the president now?
Presidential candidate Obama promised to bring an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to close Guantanamo, and end the use of torture, for which he was preemptively awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yet rather than brokering a responsible transition from occupation to self-rule for Iraq — including promoting proposals such as partitioning the country for peace — Iraqis were essentially abandoned.
. . .
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostYou go right on thinking that. Events in the real world say otherwise.
He LOST.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by SGalisa View PostIt may be, but I can't confirm it. I've seen it quoted both ways, with the reverse --as you noted it-- claiming to be the actual, factual version (it was also mentioned that way by another website member on another forum many, MANY years ago, which I thought she had phrased it incorrectly, because it just didn't make sense to me that way..).
Ooops! (EDIT) Huffingtonpost agrees with your version.. (Please refer to the below article..)
Anywho, I prefer my version better. It makes the *you* portion more guilty of deliberate deception, with a more gullibility emphasis on the *me*.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostOh, well, to each their own. But it should be much harder to fool someone twice, they should be on guard at that point, so if the same person is fooled again, he should have been watching for it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by garhkal View PostAnd as me and Annoyed have been saying.. Take out the illegal votes, the duplicate votes, the fraudulet votes (such as those machines in several states which recorded votes for hillary when someone was clearly selecting trump as explained in SEVERAL news stories).. Did she really win the pop vote?
Did she win the popular vote?
Yes, why yes she did, why do you keep stomping your feet and crying like a whiney libtard about it
Which is where the phrase being "borked over" came from..
Exactly Annoyed.. When the liberals do it, its all ok. If the right does it "Shame on them"..
Let's look at his stances shall we...
Guns - against
Abortion, Affirmative action and immigration - never weighed in on.
Environment - pro epa
Pro police though
Also he voted to remove the enemy combatant disclaimer on gitmo detainees..
Doesn't seem a good match for "everyone", more liberal than anything.
Especially when we have seen twitter feeds of liberals calling for the assassination of trump, i can't see HOW those dunces came up with that decision..
Twitter feeds of liberals assassinating trump -bad-
Trump himself he could commit murder and no one would care, and "second amendment solutions" to getting rid of Hillary -just rhetoric-
Of these two players, who has the power to make good on their threats?sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostThere was -no tampering- with the machines, even trump admitted that (in an attempt to say that Russia had no influence in the election.)
Did she win the popular vote?
Yes, why yes she did, why do you keep stomping your feet and crying like a whiney libtard about it
Thurmond rule, remember that one, the beginning of this kind of behaviour?
No it's not. The two most -vocal- lefties here (FH and I) think that the SCOTUS should be non partisan. Some things should be above petty party politics, and the highest court in the land is the most important of those things.
He should not -be- a good match for everyone, he should be impartial, that's the actual JOB of a judge, not to rubber stamp partisan ideals.
Hang on.
Twitter feeds of liberals assassinating trump -bad-
Trump himself he could commit murder and no one would care, and "second amendment solutions" to getting rid of Hillary -just rhetoric-
Of these two players, who has the power to make good on their threats?Originally posted by aretood2Jelgate is right
Comment
-
Originally posted by jelgate View PostThe non lefties think it as well. It really ticks me off that the Supreme Court has been useless because of a congressional political move
However, I find it interesting that the righties assume behaviour on the left that they brazenly engage in themselves. I believe it is called projectionsigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by SGalisa View PostUnless *you* are prone to being gullible (like me). I don't expect people to be deliberately antagonizing others on fool-dom. I give them the benefit of *innocence* more often than I should. But some people, I've seen repeatedly fool everyone most of the time, and it's become challenging to figure out if that person is just jiving nonsense or telling the actual truth.. For that particular person, my *caution* radar goes up instantly now.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostNo it's not. The two most -vocal- lefties here (FH and I) think that the SCOTUS should be non partisan. Some things should be above petty party politics, and the highest court in the land is the most important of those things.
For example, my ideal would be someone who reads the Constitution literally, just as it is written or amended. I'm willing to bet that your idea might be different.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostBut who decides the centerpoint? Or how do you pick your non-partisan justices? No matter how you go about it, each side will try to influence the process.
As for the centre point, you use the constitution as the centre point.
For example, my ideal would be someone who reads the Constitution literally, just as it is written or amended. I'm willing to bet that your idea might be different.
I would be happy if the SCOTUS ruled on the constitution as written, but there should be a mechanism for issues to be highlighted by their decisions if they feel that a constitutional amendment should be brought before congress, rather than doing it themselves.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Are you saying you want to change process for amending it?
The bar for amendments was intentionally set very high, but possible. I think that is fine where it is. There are two processes in place already. Neither is easy, but it wasn't supposed to be changeable on a passing whim or by a small subset of the population.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostAre you saying you want to change process for amending it?
The bar for amendments was intentionally set very high, but possible. I think that is fine where it is. There are two processes in place already. Neither is easy, but it wasn't supposed to be changeable on a passing whim or by a small subset of the population.
Personally, I would think the best way to adjust the constitution "in general" would be via national referendum, rather than congress as congress is always skewed one way or another. Let the congress and the SCOTUS hammer out the laws, but put the generic question to the people.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
Comment