Welcome to GateWorld Forum! If this is your first visit, we hope you'll sign up and join our Stargate community. If you have questions, start with the FAQ. We've been going strong since 2004, are we are glad you are here.
No disrespect towards the deceased, but this deserves a response.
But it's ok if multimillionaires like Soros or Zuckerberg or whatever is running google these days putting their money on the left, right?
And, Fox news isn't "govt. news". That would be PBS.
you bring up Zuckerberg? that pieceofs helped Trump get elected far more than he "helped" the DNC with his minuscule donations (what a cheapf) hope he croaks the same way
was hoping you'd bring up Soros you lot are too predictable
you mean the one who's orders of magnitude less wealthy than Koch? you realize that's a stupid example right?
Koch is everything the neocons accuse Soros of magnified by 10 just like he's 10x richer than Soros
Koch is basically the real elites that Trump pretended he'd fight back in 2016 yet Trump is Koch Industries' little beotch despite what he claims in his twits
Koch is more proof that GOP = party of the elites
Koch is the one who instructed Trump to pick Kavanaugh & who thanks to him controls the Supreme Court
and @ the Prolife(tm) lot Koch is one of the real baby killers - you know indu$trial pollution cancer etc. - yet the Prolifers defend him
tbh it'd be funny when pollution from his factories causes a neocon couple's wife to miscarry
come to think of it for a mass murdering capitalist cancer like him it's only poetic that he was offed by cancer
yesterday was a good day for the Commonfolk democracy & the planet
I can imagine in his will he requested that his ashes be blown into a baby's lungs lol
you bring up Zuckerberg? that sociopathic pieceofs helped Trump get elected far more than he "helped" the DNC with his minuscule donations (what a cheapf) hopefully he croaks the same way
Are you really not seeing that there are other and more valuable things than cash that someone like Zuckerberg can provide? Such as the political bias of his social networking platform?
Originally posted by SoulReaver
I was hoping you'd bring up Soros
you mean the one who's orders of magnitude less wealthy than Koch? you realize that's a stupid example right?
Koch is everything the neocons accuse Soros of magnified by 10 just like he's 10x richer than Soros
Who cares if he's 10 or 100 times richer than God? Once you're at that level, the details don't matter.
Originally posted by SoulReaver
Koch is essentially part of the real elites that Trump ...(insert anti-trump rambling)
Are you really not seeing that there are other and more valuable things than cash that someone like Zuckerberg can provide? Such as the political bias of his social networking platform?
well yeah that's what I meant his platform helped Trump & his rusky acolytes
he has yet to be held accountable for that
'accessory to high treason' if there's such a charge sounds good
Who cares if he's 10 or 100 times richer than God? Once you're at that level, the details don't matter.
how about that all of a sudden it's a detail
Yawn.
hey what happened to all your "anti-elites" ramblings from 2016?
was it bollox just like your king's? (rhetorical question)
Could or Couldn't?
I'm reading that like it's missing a word, and that's not like you Womble.
You are correct.
Do you think that is possible?
Israel, for good or bad has so many religious connections, by themselves, or those seeking to use them.
Could Iran give up theirs, or would you believe it if they did?
Syria?
I just don't know if that's a possible outcome Womble.
I honestly don't care about Iran or Syria.
In Israel, religion is not an all-or-nothing thing. Lots of people won't drive on Yom Kippur, will only eat kosher but would love to see the Chief Rabbinate dismantled and buses operated on Saturdays. The fall of the April government proved that secular pushback is a viable election platform right now.
If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.- Abba Eban.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is reportedly doing well after a course of radiation therapy for pancreatic cancer, but the news of her latest treatment sent Washington into collective cardiac arrest on Friday. Echoing many David Axelrod of CNN declared that President Trump potentially filling her vacancy would “tear this country apart.”
Hey, David. It's perfectly fine when the left has control of the court, though, isn't it? You don't seem to mind when the 9th Circus blocks Trump for political reasons, do you?
Ok, fine. Trump will likely get another pick for SCOTUS, if Ginsburg passes, there's nothing that can be done about that, and that's gonna suck for you and the other lefties. You can't change it, so deal with it.
Granted, this is an opinion piece, but the bias is overwhelming, even for that. No wonder CNN is "Fake News".
the Supreme Court is the most vulnerable to potential incapacities, not only because of its small number of nine justices,
Oh, there aren't enough justices? Seems there was plenty when the left ruled the court.
And, of course, it turns out that the author has wanted to expand the court for a long time.
The absence of any rule to deal with incapacities on the Supreme Court is particularly troublesome for a bench with only nine members. A single inactive member leaves the Supreme Court in a tie. For that and other reasons, I proposed more than two decades ago that the Supreme Court be expanded to 19 members. Democrats have now latched on to that idea for the wrong reason to stack the Supreme Court ideologically.
And here we have Democrats telling the justices how they had better vote:
In an unprecedented filing, Democratic Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Richard Durbin, and Kirsten Gillibrand, warned conservative justices that they should change their voting patterns or face congressional intervention. They wrote that the Supreme Court “can heal itself before the public demands” it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”
Again, it was fine when the court favored the left, wasn't it? Lousy bunch of hypocrites.
These Democrats seem to forget that they're not likely to be able to "restructure" it.
Hey, David. It's perfectly fine when the left has control of the court, though, isn't it? You don't seem to mind when the 9th Circus blocks Trump for political reasons, do you?
the 9th circuit? how's the bloody 9th circuit of any relevance? the 9th circuit is below the Supreme so it doesn't even count
you might as well cite a local village court it's the same thing in the end both get overruled
find a court of equal level to the Supreme which the left has controlled and then you might have an argument
Ok, fine. Trump will likely get another pick for SCOTUS, if Ginsburg passes, there's nothing that can be done about that, and that's gonna suck for you and the other lefties. You can't change it, so deal with it.
which is why - assuming again Govt. doesnt rig the election - the next president had better either find a way to expand the Supreme court...or just ignore Supreme Court rulings (because even a constitutional crisis is better than a Supreme court owned by Koch indu$tries & the elites, wouldn't you say?)
the 9th circuit? how's the bloody 9th circuit of any relevance? the 9th circuit is below the Supreme so it doesn't even count
you might as well cite a local village court it's the same thing in the end both get overruled
find a court of equal level to the Supreme which the left has controlled and then you might have an argument
How can you say the circuit courts are irrelevant? How many time has Trump been stymied by the 9th circus? Every liberal looney in the county deliberately files suit in that courts jurisdiction to get a favorable ruling.
And review by SCOTUS isn't guaranteed. And can take years.
And don't forget, SCOTUS itself has leaned left for quite some time. How do you think some of the crazy shiznit has gotten past it?
which is why - assuming again Govt. doesnt rig the election - the next president had better either find a way to expand the Supreme court...or just ignore Supreme Court rulings (because even a constitutional crisis is better than a Supreme court owned by Koch indu$tries & the elites, wouldn't you say?)
And what if Trump wins in 2020, which is quite likely? Should he immediately start expanding the court & stacking it with ultra conservatives? (Not likely to come to pass, regardless of who is trying) Or ignore the rulings he doesn't like?
Again, it's pure hypocrisy on the part of the left. It's fine and dandy if the courts will rubber stamp every looney liberal idea that comes down the pike, but put the shoe on the other foot, and all of a sudden it's a "crisis".
How can you say the circuit courts are irrelevant? How many time has Trump been stymied by the 9th circus? Every liberal looney in the county deliberately files suit in that courts jurisdiction to get a favorable ruling.
none of those courts count since they're overruled by the Supreme court
And review by SCOTUS isn't guaranteed. And can take years.
irrelevant the review cannot be postponed indefinitely so the end result is ineluctable that's all that counts
And don't forget, SCOTUS itself has leaned left for quite some time
on important issues they only leaned left on very very few select instances like when justice Kennedy ruled that the death penalty can only be applied to killing crimes (just about the only thing that still differentiates the US from dictatorships) and this could change with the new court
And what if Trump wins in 2020, which is quite likely? Should he immediately start expanding the court & stacking it with ultra conservatives? (Not likely to come to pass, regardless of who is trying) Or ignore the rulings he doesn't like?
if he wins then states should unilaterally secede
maybe a civil war is the only remedy for what's rotted through
Again, it's pure hypocrisy on the part of the left. It's fine and dandy if the courts will rubber stamp every looney liberal idea that comes down the pike.
again the hypocrisy's all yours cause this has never happened except in lesser courts & those dont count since they get overruled. it's the right that always has controlled the Supreme court/deep state the only court that matters
Scotus is basically a conservative court & has been for as long as most remember (since at least the 21st century)
on important issues they only leaned left on very very few select instances like when justice Kennedy ruled that the death penalty can only be applied to killing crimes (just about the only thing that still differentiates the US from dictatorships) and this could change with the new court
How did we end up with Roe v. Wade then? How did we end up with affirmative action? Or so many infringements on the 2nd amendment? Or any of the many other liberal decisions that the court has rendered.
again the hypocrisy's all yours cause this has never happened except in lesser courts & those dont count since they get overruled. it's the right that always has controlled the Supreme court/deep state the only court that matters
Scotus is basically a conservative court & has been for as long as most remember (since at least the 21st century)
Damn, you have a short memory. SCOTUS decisions resonate throughout or society for many years, decades, or more.
And please stop using the term "Deep state", you obviously misunderstand it.
In Israel, religion is not an all-or-nothing thing. Lots of people won't drive on Yom Kippur, will only eat kosher but would love to see the Chief Rabbinate dismantled and buses operated on Saturdays. The fall of the April government proved that secular pushback is a viable election platform right now.
So, what is the -point- of Israel?
A safe home for Jews I can understand, we all want a "home"
What if we took religion out of Vatican City?
Would it still be what it supposed to be?
What would it's point be then?
If I set up "new Asgard", as a state, then ignored anything to do with Asgard, why would I do it?
Last edited by Gatefan1976; 25 August 2019, 07:21 PM.
sigpic
ALL 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 yet
Did you not read where I said that SCOTUS review is not guaranteed?
ok so how exactly's it possible to prevent a Scotus review indefinitely?
How did we end up with Roe v. Wade then? How did we end up with affirmative action?
again that was last century things back when Scotus was +- balanced
Or so many infringements on the 2nd amendment? Or any of the many other liberal decisions that the court has rendered.
what 2nd amendment rights did you lose recently? under Obama?
You just can't accept that he might be the legitimate winner, can you?
about as legitimate as 2016
And please stop using the term "Deep state", you obviously misunderstand it.
no you just don't like when your own arguments are turned back upon themselves
(Supreme) Deep State applies to the SCOTUS better than anything else
it behoves the next president to declare SCOTUS/SDS public enemy #1
2016 was legitimate. Aside from the fact that your side lost. Again, that's the left's natural way of thinking; that they are entitled to be in power, and why they can't understand why they lost. And it's really going to be a shocker for them when they lose again in 2020.
But don't take my word for it, look at their behavior in the ongoing runup to 2020. The candidates they are discussing are 9/10 crazy, completely unelectable in the general election, and they're falling over themselves to eat the one guy they have that might be able to win alive.
Is this the behavior of a party that thinks it can lose?
no you just don't like when your own arguments are turned back upon themselves
(Supreme) Deep State applies to the SCOTUS better than anything else
it behoves the next president to declare SCOTUS/SDS public enemy #1
Again, you need to educate yourself. The "Deep State" has absolutely nothing to do with SCOTUS.
As used today, in reference to the US, the "Deep State" is comprised of behind the scenes bureaucrats, functionaries and other unelected and unaccountable people who carry out the actual administration of laws, for example, writing the regulations to enforce a law. These folks often have their own agenda, many of which are decidedly anti-Trump. Such as the CIA? (or some other 3 letter agency) folks who were caught plotting to overthrow Trump's election, and may have been responsible for touching off the two+ year "collusion" witch hunt.
Other examples are writing the regulations in ways that either go beyond or do something utterly different than what the law that was passed is supposed to do.
The court chooses what cases it hears. It does not have to take all cases presented to it.
there you go so your previous argument was bollox: the SDS/SCOTUS can choose what it reviews since it's (even more) elitist & to the right than ever then it will choose those reviews that benefits Trump the GOP & the elites, the lesser courts or anyone else are powerless to stop a case from reaching the SDS, only the SDS decides, therefore those reviews are inevitable & the rulings of the lesser courts dont count
quod erat demonstrandum
And by balanced, you mean biased to the left. See? That's the left's natural way of thinking; that they are entitled to be in power.
aside from last century I meant more biased to the right but still more or less balanced
Educate yourself about NY state's "safe act", pushed through the NY legislature in the dark of night and signed by the dictator of NY, Cuomo.
ah but that's a local (state) law. the GOP always claims is supports "states' rights" doesn't it? not "states' people's rights". so there NYC's rights; it's the same rationale that lets you justify the existence of this anti-democratic aberration you call the electoral college
2016 was legitimate. Aside from the fact that your side lost.
your side won & you lost
But don't take my word for it, look at their behavior in the ongoing runup to 2020. The candidates they are discussing are 9/10 crazy, completely unelectable in the general election, and they're falling over themselves to eat the one guy they have that might be able to win alive.
Is this the behavior of a party that thinks it can lose?
you dont think that pisses me off
but apparently this isn't hurting Biden's poll numbers
Again, you need to educate yourself. The "Deep State" has absolutely nothing to do with SCOTUS.
As used today, in reference to the US, the "Deep State" is comprised of behind the scenes bureaucrats, functionaries and other unelected and unaccountable people who carry out the actual administration of laws, for example, writing the regulations to enforce a law. These folks often have their own agenda, many of which are decidedly anti-Trump. Such as the CIA? (or some other 3 letter agency) folks who were caught plotting to overthrow Trump's election, and may have been responsible for touching off the two+ year "collusion" witch hunt.
Other examples are writing the regulations in ways that either go beyond or do something utterly different than what the law that was passed is supposed to do.
(I like when others make the argument for me) and you just added more water to the mill
the SCOTUS is that, and more: unelected & unaccountable people (like regular govt officials they have an indefinite tenure, worse than that they are completely unaccountable can't be fired, hence 'Supreme' Deep State) and they go beyond administering law because they interpret the law & in effect make their own laws which trump those passed by legit (elected) bodies like the parliament/congress/legislature etc. they of course have their agenda which is to further that of the elites like Koch (and their minions like Trump) to the detriment of the People
the only small difference is that they're not quite as behind-the-scenes as the regular deep state but at their level of power & total impunity why should they care
Comment