bbb Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 He looked old 23 years ago That's the key. The Sparky Anderson method Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 That's the key. The Sparky Anderson method https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY9x1SyUwxo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 TIME.comVerified account @TIME 1h1 hour ago Bernie Sanders says he has never worn a tuxedo http://ti.me/1Pk5N9Q Well, that does it.........................Hillary is finished.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Well, that does it.........................Hillary is finished.......... I'll bet that he used to wear a turtleneck with a peace-sign medallion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Naysayers can say what they like about him but there aren't many bald men who need a haircut. What I don't get is how a man for whom foreign policy is an empty space can be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 What I don't get is how a man for whom foreign policy is an empty space can be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 What I don't get is how a man for whom foreign policy is an empty space can be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Do you have any idea of who's in the White House at present? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) What I don't get is how a man for whom foreign policy is an empty space can be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Obama's not a candidate this time. Oh sorry. Posted my reply before I read dev's and Keuka's posts. Edited January 18, 2016 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Do you have any idea of who's in the White House at present? Wasn't saying Pres Obama had a good foreign policy. That's a different question and, well, kettle of fish. Only that from what little I know Saunders's foreign policy seems to = the vacuum nature abhors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) After reading through the rest of the thread since my last...finding some humor but mostly tedium, I have to say: GO BERNIE! I'm going back to my first post in this mess: I want Bernie to be the proud and true socialist he is. I want him to lead those elected Democrats that remain out of their socialist closet and into the light. Finally everyone will know exactly what they stand for. Then, we can shove them back into the closet and nail the door shut, because we aren't buying. After all, with a few exceptions, the only places where Democrats still hold House seats are the looney bins/crime dens/handout-ridden holes of this country, where the 29% which represent the far left, live. So, why not stand on their true platform? Handouts for all, open borders, mass irresponsibility underwritten by other people's money, cowardice in the face of the enemy, negotiation with evil, and as many scams and cons like Global Warming paid for by the loss of middle class jobs and taxpayer $ as possible! All this, plus Bernie looks like he's gonna win IA and NH, and Hillary's headed for an indictment! Seriously, what is not to like? When Laffer first said the Rs were gonna carry 45 states I thought he was crazy. Now? I still think he's crazy. But, every day, another tiny straw falls, and from where I sit the camel's face looks like "Oh F Me!". How many straws until 45 is the baseline? Stay tuned! Edited January 20, 2016 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 After reading through the rest of the thread since my last...finding some humor but mostly tedium, I have to say: GO BERNIE! I'm going back to my first post in this mess: I want Bernie to be the proud and true socialist he is. I want him to lead those elected Democrats that remain out of their socialist closet and into the light. Finally everyone will know exactly what they stand for. Then, we can shove them back into the closet and nail the door shut, because we aren't buying. After all, with a few exceptions, the only places where Democrats still hold House seats are the looney bins/crime dens/handout-ridden holes of this country, where the 29% which represent the far left, live. So, why not stand on their true platform? Handouts for all, open borders, mass irresponsibility underwritten by other people's money, cowardice in the face of the enemy, negotiation with evil, and as many scams and cons like Global Warming paid for by the loss of middle class jobs and taxpayer $ as possible! All this, plus Bernie looks like he's gonna win IA and NH, and Hillary's headed for an indictment! Seriously, what is not to like? When Laffer first said the Rs were gonna carry 45 states I thought he was crazy. Now? I still think he's crazy. But, every day, another tiny straw falls, and from where I sit the camel's face looks like "Oh F Me!". How many straws until 45 is the baseline? Stay tuned! I keep hoping exactly that happens. Hillary gets indicted and fitted for an orange pantsuit. Then Bern wins the nomination. Regressive ideology is exposed and gets thoroughly trounced on a national level. Rs win all but NY,CT,CA,NH,VT. The regressive movement gets set back 2 decades. Great success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) I keep hoping exactly that happens. Hillary gets indicted and fitted for an orange pantsuit. Then Bern wins the nomination. Regressive ideology is exposed and gets thoroughly trounced on a national level. Rs win all but NY,CT,CA,NH,VT. The regressive movement gets set back 2 decades. Great success. You don't need Hillary in an orange jumpsuit to make that happen. Put her in the oval office. Make it a landslide. With eight years of Hillary following eight years of Obama, progressives won't be able to get elected dog catcher. Edited January 20, 2016 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 You don't need Hillary in an orange jumpsuit to make that happen. Put her in the oval office. Make it a landslide. With eight years of Hillary following eight years of Obama, progressives won't be able to get elected dog catcher. The country as we know it can't survive 8 more years of regressive policy. The supreme court will be loaded with hardcore liberals. The constitution will be destroyed. The divisions within the country will be even more fractured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 You don't need Hillary in an orange jumpsuit to make that happen. Put her in the oval office. Make it a landslide. With eight years of Hillary following eight years of Obama, progressives won't be able to get elected dog catcher. Actually here's my dream. Trump as President and Hillary as VP or the other way around, it doesn't matter. That way after 8 years of them either party will not be able to be elected dog catcher. Oh what a glorious thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Do you think they'd literally destroy the Constitution, or rather add/remove some amendments? Edit: Dammit, Jim, stop posting at the same time. Edited January 20, 2016 by Dorkington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Do you think they'd literally destroy the Constitution, or rather add/remove some amendments? Edit: Dammit, Jim, stop posting at the same time. Is it your belief that the SCOTUS adds or removes Constitutional Amendments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Is it your belief that the SCOTUS adds or removes Constitutional Amendments? Nope. But I can't really figure out how SCOTUS (Conservative or Liberal) would destroy the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Nope. But I can't really figure out how SCOTUS (Conservative or Liberal) would destroy the Constitution. What is the purpose of SCOTUS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 What is the purpose of SCOTUS? My understanding is that they determine if existing laws are Constitutional or not, and also (generally) the final say on other cases. How does the SCOTUS destroy the Constitution if their word is the final word on the Constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 My understanding is that they determine if existing laws are Constitutional or not, and also (generally) the final say on other cases. How does the SCOTUS destroy the Constitution if their word is the final word on the Constitution? If their word is final, then their interpretation of the constitution itself is vital and ultimately determines how we as a nation implement and understand the constitution. Look back at history and see how many times the court has made monumental rulings that have changed not only how the country operates but how the people view the constitution itself. The issue isn't whether or not the justices are going to willingly blow up the constitution, (they aren't) but how their interpretations and leanings can sway and change the nation's understanding of the document itself. A liberal judge (in the LEGAL sense, not the political sense) is going to take more liberty with how they read and apply the constitution and precedent to existing cases whereas a conservative judge (in the LEGAL sense) is going to stick more closely to the actual text and intent of the founders. Who's right? That's a matter of opinion (legal opinion and political opinion), but make no mistake, SCOTUS has the ability to dramatically change how we view and understand the constitution with their decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts