Jump to content

Obama to name Kagan for high court


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

She's a disgusting pig on the outside AND on the inside. Isnt it funny Obama failed to mention before the election that he'd be packing the SC with far-left idealogues?

I try to ignore your tripe, but this is ridiculous. Your first statement shows your intolerance of anything even remotely outside your own ideology, and your second statement shows your stupidity.

 

Crappy way to go through the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try to ignore your tripe, but this is ridiculous. Your first statement shows your intolerance of anything even remotely outside your own ideology, and your second statement shows your stupidity.

 

Crappy way to go through the day.

 

1)Have you seen her?

 

2)You dispute the fact that she's far-left and Obama claimed he would nominate "mainstream" justices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her warped ideology.

 

Do you need a lesson in how to post? If you're going to be insulting, try to provide support.

 

 

For example, when I first called you a racist, I linked to your many anti-black posts as support.

 

Now, when you say she's warped and disgusting, you can provide examples, unless you believe that we find your opinion alone interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you need a lesson in how to post? If you're going to be insulting, try to provide support.

 

 

For example, when I first called you a racist, I linked to your many anti-black posts as support.

 

Now, when you say she's warped and disgusting, you can provide examples, unless you believe that we find your opinion alone interesting.

 

For starters she supprots banning the military from college campuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1)Have you seen her?

 

2)You dispute the fact that she's far-left and Obama claimed he would nominate "mainstream" justices.

First of all, I don't care what she looks like. She's ugly. So am I. And if it weren't for ugly chicks, most of us guys would have waited a lot longer to lose our virginity.

 

Second of all, if you're just now coming to the realization that Obama is a left-leaning president who is going to appoint left-leaning people to the Supreme Court, then I can't help you. Claiming that he would appoint "mainstream" justices means nothing because, again, Obama lives in the world of implied/inferred mastery. You make the mistake of believing that your idea of "mainstream" is the same as his, and then start crying when you find out it's not.

 

While I get tired of hearing this, it remains true: elections have consequences. He's president. He gets to pick. Don't like the pick? Fine. But Obama has gone out of his way to provide more than enough material for which we can be critical of him. This isn't one of them.

 

Nut up. Shut up. Add recognize the fights worth fighting. Here's a hint: this isn't one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nut up. Shut up. Add recognize the fights worth fighting. Here's a hint: this isn't one of them.

 

She's 50 years old. She'll be on the bench at least 20 years. This is a fight worth fighting. If we allow Obama to pack the courts with judicial activists our children will be the ones to suffer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2)DADT

 

3)She has never even been a judge before

 

Just off the top of my head.

 

Her opposition to Don't ask Don't Tell is related to your first reason. She opposed military recruitment on campus at Harvard because of that stupid policy, which violated Harvard's campus rules it seems. (And no, I don't care to get into the specifics of Harvards rules but I am sure they have some uber-liberal statement about how you can't be discriminatory and have a campus organization.)

 

That she has never been a judge is not a mark against her and maybe even you know it.

 

So you're still stuck at 1 reason to oppose her. Keep trying. Your Klan bloggers aren't giving you enough ammo yet eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's not as liberal as the left wants or as conservative as the right wants. The President gets to pick the SC Justices. She's eminently qualified and should pass in a breeze but of course, the right will embarrass itself (again) and vote against her almost en masse. Setting up the left to do the same when some future Republican nominates a conservative judge. Isn't this fun?

The RIGHT will embarrass itself again? Heaven forbid she made suggestive comments to Anita Hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RIGHT will embarrass itself again? Heaven forbid she made suggestive comments to Anita Hill.

 

Yes, the right will embarrass itself yet again. The left has had its turn and will in future (just as I wrote). This time it's your folk's turn to be stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her opposition to Don't ask Don't Tell is related to your first reason. She opposed military recruitment on campus at Harvard because of that stupid policy, which violated Harvard's campus rules it seems. (And no, I don't care to get into the specifics of Harvards rules but I am sure they have some uber-liberal statement about how you can't be discriminatory and have a campus organization.)

 

That she has never been a judge is not a mark against her and maybe even you know it.

 

So you're still stuck at 1 reason to oppose her. Keep trying. Your Klan bloggers aren't giving you enough ammo yet eh?

 

You really think she's the most qualified person for the job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...