Justice Souters replacement

Re: Justice Souders replacement

You're right. Just because a bunch working class dolts in Conneticut lost their homes so the government could give the land to a realestate developer and the Supreme Court said that was legal, doesn't mean that will happen to you personally, right? Now, go back to sleep. Nothing here to concern an accomplished Academia nut such as yourself.
When did this happen? Suddenly over the last couple of months? Or did this happen last year?

If you are talking about the abuse of Eminent Domain... I am there with you, sir! Taking citizens' property and redistributing it to your business buddies is NOT what Eminent Domain was meant for.
 
No it's you who takes my meaning and makes it worst case scenario because you have typical conservative paranoia. Most of it (the Constitution) still applies, you'd get no argument from me there, but my point is, that when new realities face us, we need to be able to amend it (as we have always been able to do). Sometimes I hear that tired old argument, mostly regarding Social Security, and the "New Deal", about how the founding fathers never intended....blah, blah, blah and blah!

Well I got news for you, economic times had changed when FDR, probably one of the greatest men of the last century, helped make a program that was needed at the time. The supreme court upheld the constitutionality. What the founding fathers intended in that case means less than squat. Who can say how they would have felt had they lived to see the great depression? Perhaps there would have been a whole other mindset.

See the whole precept of conservative politics rests on traditionalism, and keeping things unchanged, or perhaps reverting to times past. That is not to say that all Republicans subscribe to that idiotology, and thank God for that! Times change, technology changes, society changes, and we must be able to react sensibly and accordingly. So all that drama of yours.....Well save it for someone who you might scare, because that ain't me!
All the "what the Founding Fathers meant" arguments often come from people who have never actually read seriously about the Founding Fathers or what they had intended. They read propaganda and use those written arguments to boost their viewpoint. These people can not be taken seriously and I certainly don't. Few people have ever really done the actual research for themselves.

I love the argument "The USA was meant to be governed under Christian law because the 'Founding Fathers' were Christians". Nothing could be farther from the truth about their intentions, and each of them knew the danger a Theocracy posed.
 
Perhaps if you did a little research, you'd realize what great harm was done by both Roosevelts. Popular doesn't mean quality.

Kinda funny how it took WW2 to end the Great Depression (often called the depresssion by other nations) due to the meddling by politicians.

minkey, if you know important-to-be-learnt stuff, bring it out. Otherwise, we're just discussing another Progressive...one who acted upon his beliefs-to the detriment of the US.

What about violent sexual offenders?

Already answered.

No, it hasn't been. Before beginning to insitute your ideas, you're already changing the rules.
 
I'm not sure I've ever encountered someone so full of himself. That smug, I know better, I am better, attitude.

Well you don't and you aren't though I know I'll not convince you. Hell even mr. know-it-all does extensive research and linking to "prove" his points, but somehow it makes him all that much more palatable. You just state your every opinion as if its a widely accepted fact, and we all should have known it. There is no point in discussion with you because you know it all and everyone else is an idiot. I am sorry you have so suffer such fools, it must be such a heavy burden. I think I'll go weep know while I contemplate your hardships....
 
dude, chill it. don't blow your whole sack on gonz. he's hardly the worst blowhard around here, and occasionally he does have something interesting to add. not often, but... ha ha...
 
minkey, if you know important-to-be-learnt stuff, bring it out.

the gimp's sleeping.

okay, okay... i'll wake him up.

Otherwise, we're just discussing another Progressive...one who acted upon his beliefs-to the detriment of the US.

right. "progressive." i seem to recall another roosevelt who was known as that. you gonna pork sword him too?

i'd really like to hear you say "that massive public works project known as WW2 and its aftermath made the modern US economy what it is." you can do it. just pucker up like you would if peel was looking at ya from across the picnic table at the rest stop.
 
Perhaps if you did a little research, you'd realize what great harm was done by both Roosevelts. Popular doesn't mean quality.

Obviously in this case it does.

Kinda funny how it took WW2 to end the Great Depression.

That's a republican lie. I do find it interesting that you think of massive government spending as the solution though. ;)

another Progressive...one who acted upon his beliefs-to the detriment of the US.

His actions were to the great benefit of the US.
 
You just state your every opinion as if its a widely accepted fact, and we all should have known it.

My library is right over there <-----

Or go to your local library & get some books. If I have an easy (or known) link, I'll post it. Otherwise, it's stuff I've read while learing about our history.
 
Nope, I'm pretty sure he's talking about the pure opinion that you often state as if it's fact. Maybe your library consists of mainly opinion journals though.
 
Perhaps if you did a little research, you'd realize what great harm was done by both Roosevelts. Popular doesn't mean quality.

Kinda funny how it took WW2 to end the Great Depression (often called the depresssion by other nations) due to the meddling by politicians.
<<snippety snip>>
Are you referring to such meddling as the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff of 1930?

WW2 was necessary. We didn't start that war but it was necessary. Whether the results pulled the US out of the Great Depression or not, it was necessary.
 
US President Barack Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the country's Supreme Court.
Ms Sotomayor, 54, who has now to be approved by a Senate vote, would be the first Hispanic to take the position.
She would replace Justice David Souter, who announced his retirement from the top US court earlier this month.
Mr Obama said he had chosen Ms Sotomayor after an "exhaustive" process, and paid tribute to her as an "inspiring woman".
He said she would bring a "depth of experience and a breadth of perspective" to the role.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8068467.stm
 
An obviously bigotted & sexist latina with a history of being overruled by the SCotUS. Great choice.

By the way...are we supposed to care that she's not caucasian or that she is Puerto Rican?
 
So is this one of those: A racist nominates another racist and the
cans roll over and take it in the tushy again, deals?

No KY for you this time Honey!
 
The worst part is....she's a shoe-in.

The Republicans don't have the balls to say no because they might piss off the hispanic voters who already don't vote for them.
 
Back
Top