Rob's House Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 anyone read this critique of the men in black? That piece did not contain one legal argument. Just a bunch of fuming rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buff_bills4ever Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 anyone read this critique of the men in black? Haha anyone who gets up in arms about Citizen's United, yet clings to Roe v Wade is an idiot. George Will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 anyone read this critique of the men in black? No, because I'm still on the floor over this exercise of logic. Maureen Dowd? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) On a conservative board I visit, they have to post a picture of Catherine Zeta Jones on every thread Dowd is mentioned. Edited April 5, 2012 by Wacka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 anyone read this critique of the men in black? That turned me off right away. What, are you advertising for some kinky movie? "Men in the back" is just not right, no matter how much you try to disguise it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 On a conservative board I visit, they have to post a picture of Catherine Zeta Jones on every thread Dowd is mentioned. A fine tradition...................I lurk there often. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Haha, this is why Smith seems like such an out of control hot head to me right now. To sit from the bench in the 5th circuit and basically use an active case to demand an answer from the president through the DOJ about a comment he makes publicly regarding his opinion of the possible ruling in the States case? Get over yourself. Obama is the president he will do what all politicians do and he will speak his mind and lead his side as he sees fit. As a sitting judge you STFU when the President speaks (are you listening Alito?) act judgly and then go about your day. Nobody is threatening judicial review, but if you were smart you would show humility as a judge and appreciate the concerns about the recent (and more importantly possible future) trend in showing too little defernce (according to some not all) to the elected branches who are also sworn to uphold the constitution. When someone accuses you of a power grab you don't threaten to punch them unless they take it back. Certainly not when they can just decline to take it back and you can't punch them. I'm guessing that you are a kid. Well for your sake , at least I hope you are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I'm guessing that you are a kid. Well for your sake , at least I hope you are Anyone who types haha as often as he doesn't ain't even old enough to drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 On a conservative board I visit, they have to post a picture of Catherine Zeta Jones on every thread Dowd is mentioned. I don't get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I don't get it? Michael Douglas dated Dowd and dumped her for C-ZJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Michael Douglas dated Dowd and dumped her for C-ZJ. And hence Dowd's commentary has been ever more bitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 What would be the benefit to this Nation of such policy? A sicker, less productive, segment of the Nation that feels downtrodden and at risk... how does that help this great Nation? The providers in this country take an oath which dictates the opposite of that very sentiment. I get buying a home- if you can't afford it, you shouldn't get the loan If you can't afford a Car, walk or take the Bus If you can't pay your Cable Bill, tough. If you get Cancer, and everybody just strugged and says "sucks to be you", how would that make us a more benelovent people? Sickness does not seek out the Poor or People with Unhealthy lifestyles, its indiscrminant. What happens if you get idiot from your parents? I can assure you idiot doesn't seek out poor people or unhealthy life styles either. The typical VC firm has at least one partner who inherited gobs of money, yet suffers from severe idiot. At one point in time Jane Fonda was the healthiest woman in the world, yet she still suffers from idiot. What is idiot's cost to society? If we are going to base health care on this argument, shouldn't we also require people to buy "idiot insurance" so that when they do stupid things that cost society money, we can file a claim against that insurance? Knocking up 5 different women with 0 chance of supporting any? What is the cost of treating cancer....compared to that? What is the cost of treating cancer, compared to Dick Fuld's severe case of idiot causing Lehman Brothers to fail? What is benevolent about using this argument for people who get sick, and not using it for confirmed idiots? We don't know who's going to get sick, but we do know the idiots. Isn't that a stronger case for forcing idiots to buy insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 What happens if you get idiot from your parents? If you want to know that just watch a Canadian in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 anyone read this critique of the men in black? Tying the not-yet-ruled health care ruling to Hurricane Katrina. Awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Afetr reading that crap I'd say that Maureen needs to get laid. Then again who would !@#$ that hating wacko skank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 That piece did not contain one legal argument. Just a bunch of fuming rhetoric. And factually distorted, at that. But it's Maureen, so the fangirls will gone wild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) Afetr reading that crap I'd say that Maureen needs to get laid. Then again who would !@#$ that hating wacko skank. Michael Douglas? Edited April 5, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Afetr reading that crap I'd say that Maureen needs to get laid. Then again who would !@#$ that hating wacko skank. They all look the same FDAU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 They all look the same FDAU I had to look up that acronym. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 What happens if you get idiot from your parents? I can assure you idiot doesn't seek out poor people or unhealthy life styles either. The typical VC firm has at least one partner who inherited gobs of money, yet suffers from severe idiot. At one point in time Jane Fonda was the healthiest woman in the world, yet she still suffers from idiot. What is idiot's cost to society? If we are going to base health care on this argument, shouldn't we also require people to buy "idiot insurance" so that when they do stupid things that cost society money, we can file a claim against that insurance? Knocking up 5 different women with 0 chance of supporting any? What is the cost of treating cancer....compared to that? What is the cost of treating cancer, compared to Dick Fuld's severe case of idiot causing Lehman Brothers to fail? What is benevolent about using this argument for people who get sick, and not using it for confirmed idiots? We don't know who's going to get sick, but we do know the idiots. Isn't that a stronger case for forcing idiots to buy insurance? Excellent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts