2016 Election Taking a toll on Mrs. Clinton.

[zelmo1234]

I was watching the CNN interview of Mrs. Clinton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFQG0Bfqaoo

She looks Tired, She looks Stressed and Well She look Terrible.

And Crooked Hillary has not even Taken on the Donald yet.

Looks like Peter's Theory might come to pass

[domer76]

Who has bigger bags under their eyes?
14738

[zelmo1234]

Trump always look like that?

Hillary looks tuff.

[domer76]

Trump always look like that?

Hillary looks tuff.

Take a good close look at him. He looks like shit. He's the one who had to take time off from the campaign, not Clinton.

[Peter1469]

Hillary will physically break down under Trump. It will be huge.

[Mac-7]

If Hillary falls too far to fast the democrats will dump her

[Common]

I was watching the CNN interview of Mrs. Clinton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFQG0Bfqaoo

She looks Tired, She looks Stressed and Well She look Terrible.

And Crooked Hillary has not even Taken on the Donald yet.

Looks like Peter's Theory might come to pass

This is not a Hillary bash statement. Its something I genuinely gleened from watching her. I dont think the woman is healthy. Im not saying that to disparage her or to make it political either. She does not look healthy right down to her complexion and color. It doesnt appear she has done a bit of exercise in her life. Stressing yourself out and wearing yourself out can make bad health worse. She honestly doesnt look healthy to me

[Tahuyaman]

If Hillary falls too far to fast the democrats will dump her


By then it will be too late. They are stuck with her no matter what.

[Tahuyaman]

Hillary will physically break down under Trump. It will be huge.

Bernie Sanders is aging her daily and he's not going after her on her obvious character and ethical flaws.

She'll vapor lock on national TV when someone goes after her who doesn't give a shit about how the media spins it.

[The Xl]

Bernie Sanders is aging her daily and he's not going after her on her obvious character and ethical flaws.

She'll vapor lock on national TV when someone goes after her who doesn't give a shit about how the media spins it.

I'm glad on not the only one who sees this. Sanders is giving her fits and he's playing a glorified game of pattycake.

[Common]

Everyone sees that Sanders has her enraged, he is exposing all her weakness' and hes brought to light just how bad she is. Hillary never expected a 74 yr old socialist and an american jew to boot to give her such misery. Good for him

[domer76]

Hillary will physically break down under Trump. It will be huge.

Dream on captain. He's already having to take a break.

[Common]

Dream on captain. He's already having to take a break.

Thats the closest thing to a non left wing troll post ive ever seen you write. Bravo!!!!!!!!!

[domer76]

This looks healthy? If this is the start, he'll be dead from stress in a couple of years.

14739

[domer76]

Thats the closest thing to a non left wing troll post ive ever seen you write. Bravo!!!!!!!!!

Are you saying he didn't take a break? Better look at the record

[Common]

This looks healthy? If this is the start, he'll be dead from stress in a couple of years.

14739


From your mouth to god

[domer76]

From your mouth to god

Take a look. He's a pussy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3528294/Why-isn-t-Trump-campaigning-Donald-cancels-press-conference-takes-hiatus-10-day-break-March.html

[Common]

Take a look. He's a pussy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3528294/Why-isn-t-Trump-campaigning-Donald-cancels-press-conference-takes-hiatus-10-day-break-March.html

No thanks If I want to see a pic of that ill look at willy after all his rapes and womanizing he turned into one and Hilly grew a pair

[stjames1_53]

Hillary looks like she's had drywall work done to her face.................

[Mac-7]

By then it will be too late. They are stuck with her no matter what.

They have about two months till the democrat convention in july to take the nomination away from her.

[Cigar]

I'm glad on not the only one who sees this. Sanders is giving her fits and he's playing a glorified game of pattycake.

I honestly don't care who the Democrats pick, just pick someone, end this and let the chips fall where they may.

If Clinton or Sanders Wins, there will be the same obstructions for years.

If Trump Wins, it truly will be the total and complete undoing of The Republican Party.

[Mac-7]

I honestly don't care who the Democrats pick, just pick someone, end this and let the chips fall where they may.

If Clinton or Sanders Wins, there will be the same obstructions for years.

If Trump Wins, it truly will be the total and complete undoing of The Republican Party.

You like the idea of one party rule like they have in cuba or africa?

that has been the liberal/progressive dream for generations

[Cigar]

You like the idea of one party rule like they have in cuba or africa?

that has been the liberal/progressive dream for generations

I like beating Republicans and watching their demise, just for sh!t's and giggles. :grin:

[maineman]

You like the idea of one party rule like they have in cuba or africa?

that has been the liberal/progressive dream for generations

it seems that guys like you and Boris want one party rule with the democrats forever emasculated and banished to permanent minority status.

[Mac-7]

I like beating Republicans and watching their demise, just for sh!t's and giggles. :grin:

There is no serious policy considerstions going on in liberal brains.

just beat the repubs and damn the consequences

[Mac-7]

it seems that guys like you and Boris want one party rule with the democrats forever emasculated and banished to permanent minority status.

I see no evidence of that.

obumer has politicized government agencies like the IRS and the justice department in an attempt to destroy conservative opposition to his agenda.

thst didnt happen when bush was in office

[FindersKeepers]

If Trump Wins, it truly will be the total and complete undoing of The Republican Party.


If Trump wins -- it'll be the undoing of both parties. The American voters have shown in this election that they no longer want to be led by party elitists.

[Cigar]

I see no evidence of that.

obumer has politicized government agencies like the IRS and the justice department in an attempt to destroy conservative opposition to his agenda.

thst didnt happen when bush was in office


Let me guess ... he's suppose to work with people who's sole purpose in political office it to Delegitimize and Obstruct every and any decision the President makes.

I don't blame Obama, F'ck those Losers

[Cigar]

If Trump wins -- it'll be the undoing of both parties. The American voters have shown in this election that they no longer want to be led by party elitists.


I believe you in part ...

I don't think Clinton is the best The Democrats can do, but she can be a place holder until that time comes.

As for Trump ... he speaks for himself each and every day, and most Republicans know deep down he's a Train Reck of their own making.

[Mac-7]

Let me guess ... he's suppose to work with people who's sole purpose in political office it to Delegitimize and Obstruct every and any decision the President makes.



it might hae been a good idea.

the voters were so impressed with obumer since he began taking those free golf trips on Air Force One that the gave the house and senste to the republicans

maybe if he werent such a jerk they may have remained democrat.

[maineman]

I see no evidence of that.

obumer has politicized government agencies like the IRS and the justice department in an attempt to destroy conservative opposition to his agenda.

thst didnt happen when bush was in office

you have the majority in both chambers. Why has your party not tried to work with democrats in crafting compromise legislation that both sides can live with?

[Mac-7]

you have the majority in both chambers. Why has your party not tried to work with democrats in crafting compromise legislation that both sides can live with?

Do you mean stuff like raising the minimum wage to $14.75 instead of $15?

or having the republicans pass an amnesty bill for obumer to sign?

there is little room for compromise with the far left agenda of obama.

[donttread]

I was watching the CNN interview of Mrs. Clinton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFQG0Bfqaoo

She looks Tired, She looks Stressed and Well She look Terrible.

And Crooked Hillary has not even Taken on the Donald yet.

Looks like Peter's Theory might come to pass

It's the wicked witch trying to get out

[maineman]

Do you mean stuff like raising the minimum wage to $14.75 instead of $15?

or having the republicans pass an amnesty bill for obumer to sign?

there is little room for compromise with the far left agenda of obama.

who is talking about the FAR left? there is ALWAYS room for compromise in the middle, and the leadership of both chambers has avoided going there.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm glad on not the only one who sees this. Sanders is giving her fits and he's playing a glorified game of pattycake.

One has to wonder why he's not going after her on her biggest weaknesses?

[Cigar]

One has to wonder why he's not going after her on her biggest weaknesses?


Don't you want to know "HOW" President Trump plans to Govern?

Or is that not important to you?

[Cigar]

it might hae been a good idea.

the voters were so impressed with obumer since he began taking those free golf trips on Air Force One that the gave the house and senste to the republicans

maybe if he werent such a jerk they may have remained democrat.


First Election - 9.5 Million Vote margin
Second Election - 5 Million Vote margin

[Tahuyaman]

you have the majority in both chambers. Why has your party not tried to work with democrats in crafting compromise legislation that both sides can live with?


When the Republicans hold the majority, Democrats demand bipartisanship and for the Republicans to Let them have more say in the development of legislation.

When the Democrats hold the majority, those same people say that it's their way or the hiway. They say that the people have spoken and you lost.

Generally the Republicans cave in and give the Democrats what they want and the liberals still cry foul.

[Tahuyaman]

I honestly don't care who the Democrats pick, just pick someone, end this and let the chips fall where they may.

If Clinton or Sanders Wins, there will be the same obstructions for years.

If Trump Wins, it truly will be the total and complete undoing of The Republican Party.

Trump can't win unless he unifies and expands the Republican Party. So, if he actually does become president it obviously wouldn't be the "complete undoing" of the Republican Party.

Bill Clinton did quite a bit of damage to the Democrat party during his terms. You would say that they recovered since then, wouldnt you? Obama has hurt the party, but I suppose you,don't see that?

[Cigar]

Trump can't win unless he unifies and expands the Republican Party. So, if he actually does become president it obviously wouldn't be the "complete undoing" of the Republican Party.

Bill Clinton did quite a bit of damage to the Democrat party during his terms. You would say that they recovered since then, wouldnt you? Obama has hurt the party, but I suppose you,don't see that?


Think about it, would you Vote for someone who Insults and Berates You?

[maineman]

Trump can't win unless he unifies and expands the Republican Party. So, if he actually does become president it obviously wouldn't be the "complete undoing" of the Republican Party.

Bill Clinton did quite a bit of damage to the Democrat party during his terms. You would say that they recovered since then, wouldnt you? Obama has hurt the party, but I suppose you,don't see that?

your thinking that Obama "hurt" MY party comes from a perspective that prevents the accuracy of such an observation.

Did it "hurt" my party to have its candidate beat the GOP nominee for president twice in a row? I would suggest that my party would be in far worse shape today - and our prospects would be dimmer with Kagan and Sotomayor NOT on the SCOTUS bench, and, in their places, two conservative pro-life justices instead. A woman's right to choose is one of the cornerstones of our party platform, and if those two justices were, instead, two white male pro-lifers picked by President McCain or President Romney, I think our party would have been severely damaged.

Did we suffer a bit because the ADD suffering sheeple were upset at the pace of Washington even though Turtle and the Orange colored crybaby made it clear that they would stop anything and everything that came from the White House? Sure we did... and that had a lot to do with the irrational hatred for Obama that was fueled by birthers and racists... like the one who will be the GOP nominee this time around.

[Tahuyaman]

Don't you want to know "HOW" President Trump plans to Govern?

Or is that not important to you?


I'm not going to vote for him. Ask that question to someone else..

[Tahuyaman]

your thinking that Obama "hurt" MY party comes from a perspective that prevents the accuracy of such an observation.

Did it "hurt" my party to have its candidate beat the GOP nominee for president twice in a row? I would suggest that my party would be in far worse shape today - and our prospects would be dimmer with Kagan and Sotomayor NOT on the SCOTUS bench, and, in their places, two conservative pro-life justices instead. A woman's right to choose is one of the cornerstones of our party platform, and if those two justices were, instead, two white male pro-lifers picked by President McCain or President Romney, I think our party would have been severely damaged.

Did we suffer a bit because the ADD suffering sheeple were upset at the pace of Washington even though Turtle and the Orange colored crybaby made it clear that they would stop anything and everything that came from the White House? Sure we did... and that had a lot to do with the irrational hatred for Obama that was fueled by birthers and racists... like the one who will be the GOP nominee this time around.

Obama was directly responsible for your party losing control of the legislature.

What makes you think McCain or Romney would have selected right wing Supreme Court justices? Neither one of them were or are right wingers.

Do you think that the Democrats would have lost the massive amount of state houses across the country or the large number of governorships and the Congress if Romney or McCain had won?

Obama has been the best thing that could happen to the Republicans. They just have the greatest ability I've ever seen to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[maineman]

Obama was directly responsible for your party losing control of the legislature.

What makes you think McCain or Romney would have selected right wing Supreme Court justices? Neither one of them were or are right wingers.

Obama's failure to get a great deal done in his first term was directly responsible for losing the house and the senate. The majority of the culpability for that lies with the GOP.

Regarding your second question: both have stated publicly that they are pro-life.

[MisterVeritis]

who is talking about the FAR left? there is ALWAYS room for compromise in the middle, and the leadership of both chambers has avoided going there.

Good point. I would like to see the Republicans compromise with the Democrats to roll back all regulations to those we had in 2008.

[Cigar]

I'm not going to vote for him. Ask that question to someone else..


So you're giving up and opting to just B!tch and Complain

[maineman]

Good point. I would like to see the Republicans compromise with the Democrats to roll back all regulations to those we had in 2008.I am not sure I agree with such a sweeping goal, but I certainly would like to see them start to compromise on a few things, just to see how it feels.

[Tahuyaman]

Obama's failure to get a great deal done in his first term was directly responsible for losing the house and the senate. The majority of the culpability for that lies with the GOP.

Regarding your second question: both have stated publicly that they are pro-life.

The things Obama actually got done caused the Democrats to lose the Congress. The Republicans took over by running against Obama's agenda.

Republicans state a lot of things, only to compromise them out of this need for bipartisanship.

[maineman]

The things Obama actually got done caused the Democrats to lose the Congress. The Republicans took over by running against Obama's agenda.

Republicans state a lot of things, only to compromise them out of this need for bipartisanship.

we'll have to agree to disagree on both of those.

[Tahuyaman]

Think about it, would you Vote for someone who Insults and Berates You?


He hasn't insulted or berated me, but I'm not voting for him anyway. Why do you keep assuming that I'm a Trump supporter.

[Tahuyaman]

we'll have to agree to disagree on both of those.

I prefer to view current events and history accurately.

I clearly remember Democrats running for reelection distancing themselves from Obama. So much so that Obama wasn't asked to openly help them. It didn't work.

The Democrats lost control precisely for what they did accomplish, not what they didn't.

[Cigar]

He hasn't insulted or berated me, but I'm not voting for him anyway. Why do you keep assuming that I'm a Trump supporter.

I make no assumptions ... excepts that people on political forums Vote.

People I Know, Love and Trust where Insulted by Donald ...

... and he just Lies .. for that alone I would never Vote for him.

[Tahuyaman]

So you're giving up and opting to just B!tch and Complain


I'm voting for Gary Johnson. I'm going to do something almost unheard of. I'm voting for someone based on something other than party affiliation.

[Tahuyaman]

I make no assumptions ... excepts that people on political forums Vote.

People I Know, Love and Trust where Insulted by Donald ...

... and he just Lies .. for that alone I would never Vote for him.

You can't vote for Trump because he lies to people and insults them. Hillary lies to people Pathologically, so you shouldn't be able to vote for her either.

Maybe you should check out Gary Johnson. I can't find any time he's lied to anyone and I've never known him to insult anyone either.

[Cigar]

I'm voting for Gary Johnson. I'm going to do something almost unheard of. I'm voting for someone based on something other than party affiliation.


Is Gary Johnson in the Race?

... and what has Gary Johnson promised?

[Cigar]

You can't vote for Trump because he lies to people and insults them. Hillary lies to people Pathologically, so you shouldn't be able to vote for her either.

Maybe you should check out Gary Johnson. I can't find any time he's lied to anyone and I've never known him to insult anyone either.


I deal with Facts, and I can Fact Check Donald Trump.

What has Clinton Lied to you about that can be backed up via Facts?

[Tahuyaman]

Is Gary Johnson in the Race?

... and what has Gary Johnson promised?


He's in the race. He's the only alternative to the R's and D's who will be on the ballot in all 50 States.

I know you're not going to like like this, but he stands for shrinking the size and scope of government. He has promised to reduce the influence the federal government has in our lives.

check out his views for yourself.

[Private Pickle]

I deal with Facts, and I can Fact Check Donald Trump.

What has Clinton Lied to you about that can be backed up via Facts?

Landing under sniper fire anyone?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I23fjRN-PGc

[maineman]

I prefer to view current events and history accurately.

I clearly remember Democrats running for reelection distancing themselves from Obama. So much so that Obama wasn't asked to openly help them. It didn't work.

The Democrats lost control precisely for what they did accomplish, not what they didn't.

your spin does not change the actual facts. Would I say that some democrats in some purple districts wanted to run on their independent nature and concentrate on local issues? Of course. To suggest that Obama did not campaign for democrats in the midterms - and help many democrats to win in that election - is wrong.

And your opinion as to why they lost is simply that. an opinion. You seem incapable of wrapping your brain around the conceptual differences between opinion and fact. Reminding you of that failing of yours is really getting fucking tedious.

:yawn:

[Tahuyaman]

I deal with Facts, and I can Fact Check Donald Trump.

What has Clinton Lied to you about that can be backed up via Facts?

You can't come to admit that she lies pathologically because you are guided by blind partisanship.

Blind partisanship has ruined our political process.

[Cigar]

You can't come to admit that she lies pathologically because you are guided by blind partisanship.

Blind partisanship has ruined our political process.


Missing links ... or don't you have any of those?

[Mac-7]

First Election - 9.5 Million Vote margin
Second Election - 5 Million Vote margin

How many times have you had to fall back on that last ditch argument?

about once a day I suspect.

obumer is lucky he is black and mitt romney was such a bad candidate.

[maineman]

How many times have you had to fall back on that last ditch argument?

about once a day I suspect.

obumer is lucky he is black and mitt romney was such a bad candidate.

whose fault is it that Mitt Romney won the GOP's nomination in 2012?

[birddog]

First Election - 9.5 Million Vote margin
Second Election - 5 Million Vote margin

I still believe you owe good Americans an apology for contributing to that!

[Mac-7]

The Republicans took over by running against Obama's agenda.

But then the repubs sat on their behinds and did not keep their promises.

[Mac-7]

whose fault is it that Mitt Romney won the GOP's nomination in 2012?

The republican establishment.

they were better campaigners in the primary than the conservstives .

helped by the IRS who undercut Tea Party fundraising efforts

[Cigar]

I still believe you owe good Americans an apology for contributing to that!


If there's a Line for Apologies ... you can Bet your Ass this brother is not in it. :laugh:

I don't have one Mother F'cking thing to Apologize for. :laugh:

[maineman]

The republican establishment.

they were better campaigners in the primary than the conservstives .

helped by the IRS who undercut Tea Party fundraising efforts

who would the tea party gang preferred to have nominated in 2012?

[birddog]

If there's a Line for Apologies ... you can Bet your Ass this brother is not in it. :laugh:

I don't have one Mother F'cking thing to Apologize for. :laugh:

Oh, you like the "race divider" Obama, huh? You like him also because of his incompetence as CIC and everything else. You must be a racist or just a dimocrat that doesn't know any better, or both.:grin:

[MisterVeritis]

Think about it, would you Vote for someone who Insults and Berates You?
I suppose Trump will have to do without the illegal alien vote. And the votes of the Muslim refugees...

[Cigar]

I suppose Trump will have to do without the illegal alien vote. And the votes of the Muslim refugees...


I bet you believe they Vote ... Trump Supporters :laugh:

[MisterVeritis]

I bet you believe they Vote ... Trump Supporters :laugh:
I bet you believe they vote for Democrats. Motor Voter turned the Department of Motor Vehicles into the Department of Mexican Voters.

Democrats :angry:

[Mac-7]

who would the tea party gang preferred to have nominated in 2012?

I dont know who the consensus TP candidate would have been.

that movement never got off the ground.

[Tahuyaman]

your spin does not change the actual facts. Would I say that some democrats in some purple districts wanted to run on their independent nature and concentrate on local issues? Of course. To suggest that Obama did not campaign for democrats in the midterms - and help many democrats to win in that election - is wrong.

And your opinion as to why they lost is simply that. an opinion. You seem incapable of wrapping your brain around the conceptual differences between opinion and fact. Reminding you of that failing of yours is really getting $#@!ing tedious.

:yawn:


Obama only was wanted in the far left districts where a liberal is always safe.

My opinion of why the Democrats lost the Congress, governorships and state houses across the country is based on the facts.

If you take off the partisan glasses the facts are seen more clearly. Those hyper partisan glasses you wear cause things to be blurry.

[Tahuyaman]

Missing links ... or don't you have any of those?

Do you really think Hillary Clinton is truthful and honest?

If you are honest, you will answer that truthfully.

[Tahuyaman]

Tahuyaman

The Republicans took over by running against Obama's agenda.



But then the repubs sat on their behinds and did not keep their promises.

Both comments are 100% factual.

[Tahuyaman]

Missing links ... or don't you have any of those?

Hillary's continual lies have been made public countless times. If one is so blindly partisan that he or she still needs even more evidence of her dishonesty, there is no hope for them to finally acknowledge the truth.

[birddog]

Do you really think Hillary Clinton is truthful and honest?

If you are honest, you will answer that truthfully.

Cigar does not usually properly respond to posts like that, but I'm sure you already know that.:grin:

[Tahuyaman]

Cigar does not usually properly respond to posts like that, but I'm sure you already know that.:grin:

I know. He just regurgitates what his master tells him to.

[maineman]

Obama only was wanted in the far left districts where a liberal is always safe.

My opinion of why the Democrats lost the Congress, governorships and state houses across the country is based on the facts.

If you take off the partisan glasses the facts are seen more clearly. Those hyper partisan glasses you wear cause things to be blurry.

your opinions of facts are not, themselves, facts.

[zelmo1234]

Are you saying he didn't take a break? Better look at the record

Why not take a break, he defeated his primary opponents?

He can just call for the Press and bash Hillary once or twice a week and wait for the DNC to steal the nomination form Bernie.

[zelmo1234]

I like beating Republicans and watching their demise, just for sh!t's and giggles. :grin:

Well you have the WH to celebrate, And not much else in the last 7 years.

[zelmo1234]

I deal with Facts, and I can Fact Check Donald Trump.

What has Clinton Lied to you about that can be backed up via Facts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c

there is just one. I don't think that the Web can handle all of the information

But the DNC is not going to feed this to you, you will have to come down out of the Big House.

[Tahuyaman]

your opinions of facts are not, themselves, facts.

According to you. You are wrong.

[maineman]

According to you. You are wrong.
in your opinion, I'm always wrong. That doesn't make you right.... you understand that funny thing about opinions, don't you?

[maineman]

Well you have the WH to celebrate, And not much else in the last 7 years.

Kagan and Sotomayor are worth celebrating from my perspective!

[Tahuyaman]

in your opinion, I'm always wrong. That doesn't make you right.... you understand that funny thing about opinions, don't you?

No. You're not always wrong, just usually wrong. You're wrong on this one, as usual.

[Tahuyaman]

Kagan and Sotomayor are worth celebrating from my perspective!


Why?

[birddog]

Kagan and Sotomayor are worth celebrating from my perspective!

Pardon me while I throw up! :rollseyes:

[maineman]

No. You're not always wrong, just usually wrong. You're wrong on this one, as usual.

I understand that is your opinion. You need to understand it that I give you opinion zero value. Do you get that?

[maineman]

Pardon me while I throw up! :rollseyes:

no problem... barf all over your keyboard if you would! It would only match the barf that emanates from it.

[maineman]

Why?

two solid jurists

[Tahuyaman]

I understand that is your opinion. You need to understand it that I give you opinion zero value. Do you get that?


You need to understand that I'll give your opinion the usual amount of consideration.

By the way, I'm not going to criticize typo, if that's what it was.

[Tahuyaman]

two solid jurists


Although you can't explain why.

Don't bother, I know why. They were appointed by a liberal Democrat. That's good enough for you.

[maineman]

Although you can't explain why.

Don't bother, I know why. They were appointed by a liberal Democrat. That's good enough for you.

not only appointed by a democrat, but confirmed by 68 and 63 senators. Both well qualified.

[hanger4]

I deal with Facts, and I can Fact Check Donald Trump.

What has Clinton Lied to you about that can be backed up via Facts?

Seriously Cigar ??

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/barely-true/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/

[maineman]

Kagan: stellar academic record. broad base of experience... clerking for Thurgood Marshall, private law practice, academia, first woman solicitor general, 63 senators agreed with the president on her qualifications.

Sotomayor: stellar academic record. broad base of experience. was an ADA, did private practice, was nominated to the US District Court by Dubya's daddy, to the appeals court by Clinton, and to the Supreme Court and got 68 votes in her confirmation hearing.

Now... can YOU, Tahuyaman, give me any good reasons why those aren't two excellent choices for the Supreme Court?

I'll wait.

[Tahuyaman]

Kagan: stellar academic record. broad base of experience... clerking for Thurgood Marshall, private law practice, academia, first woman solicitor general, 63 senators agreed with the president on her qualifications.

Sotomayor: stellar academic record. broad base of experience. was an ADA, did private practice, was nominated to the US District Court by Dubya's daddy, to the appeals court by Clinton, and to the Supreme Court and got 68 votes in her confirmation hearing.

Now... can YOU, @Tahuyaman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1365), give me any good reasons why those aren't two excellent choices for the Supreme Court?

I'll wait.

Because neither one respects the principles laid out in the US Consititution. They both believe the constitution puts obstacles in the way of the people, not government. Both believe in that utterly silly notion that the constitution is a living and breathing document which expands and contracts based on the prevailing whims of the popular culture of the moment.

[MisterVeritis]

Kagan and Sotomayor are worth celebrating from my perspective!
If you support and defend the Constitution how can you defend either of those anti-constitutional leftists?

[Tahuyaman]

If you support and defend the Constitution how can you defend either of those anti-constitutional leftists?

He can because both were appointed by a liberal Democrat.

[domer76]

Why not take a break, he defeated his primary opponents?

He can just call for the Press and bash Hillary once or twice a week and wait for the DNC to steal the nomination form Bernie.

This was before Indiana. He needed breaks because he was worn out. Lack of energy.

[Professor Peabody]

If Hillary falls too far to fast the democrats will dump her

I've been saying all along if she falls behind Trump in their internal polling, she'll be indicted and Biden will parachute into the Democrat Convention.

[zelmo1234]

Kagan and Sotomayor are worth celebrating from my perspective!

Most that understand that they can't further the Liberal Agenda any further under the rules of the Constitution, feel the same way

Neither of these Justices will even bother to read the constitution, all rulings will be political.

I am not even thrilled with Roberts. The two ladies are political hacks, not judges.

[zelmo1234]

two solid jurists

What ruling do you think they actually based on the Constitution???

[zelmo1234]

Kagan: stellar academic record. broad base of experience... clerking for Thurgood Marshall, private law practice, academia, first woman solicitor general, 63 senators agreed with the president on her qualifications.

Sotomayor: stellar academic record. broad base of experience. was an ADA, did private practice, was nominated to the US District Court by Dubya's daddy, to the appeals court by Clinton, and to the Supreme Court and got 68 votes in her confirmation hearing.

Now... can YOU, @Tahuyaman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1365), give me any good reasons why those aren't two excellent choices for the Supreme Court?

I'll wait.

Neither will actually consider the Constitution in their rulings

[zelmo1234]

This was before Indiana. He needed breaks because he was worn out. Lack of energy.

We shale see, if he can't handle the pace he should not be President either. But Hillary is starting to look like a puffer fish.

She has had issues in the past. only time will tell

[Common]

This was before Indiana. He needed breaks because he was worn out. Lack of energy.

Trump took a break from campaigning because he had a court case that he had to appear at

[maineman]

Neither will actually consider the Constitution in their rulings

give me an example from their decisions where they have failed to base that decision on the constitution.

[maineman]

What ruling do you think they actually based on the Constitution???

all of them.

[zelmo1234]

give me an example from their decisions where they have failed to base that decision on the constitution.

Gay Marriage? Please inform me where the Government has or ever had the right to Legislate Marriage.

While they lost the decision the DC 2nd amendment case their rulings were clearly in violation of the Constitution.

And along with Roberts The ACA. In no possible way has the government ever had the right to force people to Purchase something.

Please understand that it is not only these 2 but 7 of the current 8 have the same affliction. It is high time that the Justices became elected by the people, because their role in government has changed.

[zelmo1234]

all of them.

then please justify the ACA, Gay Marriage, and their ruling on the DC 2nd amendment case.

I will be happy to search out the 4 pages of the constitution for the exact wording that gives them that right.

[maineman]

Gay Marriage? Please inform me where the Government has or ever had the right to Legislate Marriage.

While they lost the decision the DC 2nd amendment case their rulings were clearly in violation of the Constitution.

And along with Roberts The ACA. In no possible way has the government ever had the right to force people to Purchase something.

Please understand that it is not only these 2 but 7 of the current 8 have the same affliction. It is high time that the Justices became elected by the people, because their role in government has changed.

The writers of the constitution could not imagine our world today. The members of SCOTUS have all taken the following oath:

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

I believe that every man or woman who has ever served on SCOTUS has taken that oath quite seriously. You may disagree with some of their interpretations of the Constitution, and that is your right to do so... but I, for one, refuse to disparage SCOTUS and say that they do not follow the constitution even when they make some ruling like Citizens United.... I know that they are serious about their task, and that their final decisions are well considered and well reasoned, and that every member of SCOTUS has forgotten more about the Constitution since their coffee this morning than you or I will ever know.

[zelmo1234]

The writers of the constitution could not imagine our world today. The members of SCOTUS have all taken the following oath:

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

I believe that every man or woman who has ever served on SCOTUS has taken that oath quite seriously. You may disagree with some of their interpretations of the Constitution, and that is your right to do so... but I, for one, refuse to disparage SCOTUS and say that they do not follow the constitution even when they make some ruling like Citizens United.... I know that they are serious about their task, and that their final decisions are well considered and well reasoned, and that every member of SCOTUS has forgotten more about the Constitution since their coffee this morning than you or I will ever know.

And clearly they each have at least 3 rulings that do in fact regard persons and they clearly did not defend the constitution. NOW like is said there is only one justice left that is a constitutionalist and he is certainly not as strong as the one that just died. So it is not just them.

And to your first point the founders of the constitution absolutely understood that the constitution needed to be changed and updated.

They allowed that to happen via the amendment process. Which is very hard and time consuming. As it was meant to be.

And just as when the Senators role changed from watch dog for States rights, to the 2nd body of legislators they went from being appointed to being elected. The Justices now have taken on the role of social justice. and thus should be elected as well. So they are accountable to the people

[maineman]

to you they clearly did not defend the constitution, I don't share that opinion. sorry.

[zelmo1234]

to you they clearly did not defend the constitution, I don't share that opinion. sorry.

Then Back up you opinion Show me where it is written in the constitution?

I can show you exactly where the Federal government is not allowed to do that

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/p/constfastfacts.htm) was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/f/billofrights.htm) on December 15, 1791. It is the key amendment reinforcing the idea of federalism. In other words, that unless the Constitution specifically gave a power to the federal government or denied it to the states, then it was reserved for the states. Over time, the federal government has taken more power from the states as the courts have given it wider powers due to amendments such as the 14th amendment.
Text of the 10th AmendmentThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[maineman]

Gay marriage, for example...your question is the wrong one. The federal government is not "legislating marriage". The court found that laws that prevented gay marriage violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment. SCOTUS certainly ruled in accordance with their interpretation of that amendment. You just don't happen to like it. Tough titty.

[Tahuyaman]

give me an example from their decisions where they have failed to base that decision on the constitution.

Voting in favor of the ACA. That's a clear example.

[maineman]

Voting in favor of the ACA. That's a clear example.The Chief Justice disagrees with you.

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

[Tahuyaman]

The Chief Justice disagrees with you.

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

Yes he does. He's wrong.

[maineman]

Yes he does. He's wrong.in the opinion of a grunt with no legal training.

If I wanted to know which variety of MRE didn't give me the shits, I wouldn't ask the Chief Justice. I'd ask you. If I wanted a legal opinion on the constitutionality of a law, I wouldn't ask you. Understand?

But tell me, what part of his statement quoted above to you take issue with, and why?

[Tahuyaman]

in the opinion of a grunt with no legal training.

If I wanted to know which variety of MRE didn't give me the $#@!s, I wouldn't ask the Chief Justice. I'd ask you. If I wanted a legal opinion on the constitutionality of a law, I wouldn't ask you. Understand?

But tell me, what part of his statement quoted above to you take issue with, and why?


I can't think of anything of any kind of importance I'd ask you. Understand?

By the way, MRE's don't give you the shits. Just the opposite.

Of course, you have no more room for any more shit.

[Ethereal]

I'm not seeing it.

[maineman]

I can't think of anything of any kind of importance I'd ask you. Understand?couldn't answer the simple question? Why not just man up and say so?

[maineman]

Again... Tahuyaman. Please tell me which part of this quote is wrong, and what is your legal basis for saying so?

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

[Tahuyaman]

The ACA is unconstitutional for two obvious reasons. First, it violates the commerce clause. The government can not compel people to engage in commerce or purchase a particular product.

Second, it originated in the Senate which is in violation of the origination clause. All legislation is required by the US Constitution to originate in the House of reprentatives. These two points aren't even arguable.

[Tahuyaman]

couldn't answer the simple question? Why not just man up and say so?


Now you can't read? Ok......

[maineman]

Now you can't read? Ok......there was nothing to read when I posted that question.

[maineman]

The ACA is unconstitutional for two obvious reasons. First, it violates the commerce clause. The government can not compel people to engage in commerce or purchase a particular product.

No one is forced to purchase anything. If one chooses to not participate, all that happens is that they incur a little tax.


Second, it originated in the Senate which is in violation of the origination clause. All legislation is required by the US Constitution to originate in the House of reprentatives. These two points aren't even arguable.

False. The bill, HR3962, originated in the house. It was significantly amended by the senate committee and returned to the house committee.

[stjames1_53]

Think about it, would you Vote for someone who Insults and Berates You?

he's berating and insulting YOU, not me.................

[stjames1_53]

I deal with Facts, and I can Fact Check Donald Trump.

What has Clinton Lied to you about that can be backed up via Facts?

Benghazi was a result of a video
We landed under intense enemy fire
We did NOT liberate furnishings, fine china, and artwork when we left the WH
We were dirt poor when we left the WH
There are no illegal aliens in America........

[Peter1469]

The Chief Justice disagrees with you.

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

Obamacare also was initiated in the Senate. Tax bills must be initiated in the House. It is the Origination Clause in Article 1, US Const.

Additionally I don't see how Congress's tax power can be used on something outside of the enumerated powers.

But the ruling on the Commerce Clause was key if the liberals on the Court don't ignore it in the future. Most of the governmental abuses since 1937 were laws based on the Commerce Clause.

[stjames1_53]

Again... @Tahuyaman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1365). Please tell me which part of this quote is wrong, and what is your legal basis for saying so?

well, everyone was suppose to be able to afford HI. This year our premiums went up $350/mo. with less coverage, higher deductible.....
The whole thing was a fucking lie. Roberts called it right, all it was, was just another tax that the American people aren't the benefit of. It just lined the coffers of a government agency.
When was the last time a government run agency ever ran in the black? AND.....this is brought to you by the same people who fucked up the VA.

[stjames1_53]

No one is forced to purchase anything. If one chooses to not participate, all that happens is that they incur a little tax.



False. The bill, HR3962, originated in the house. It was significantly amended by the senate committee and returned to the house committee.


No one is forced to purchase anything. If one chooses to not participate, all that happens is that they incur a little tax.

For 2014, the fine is the greater of $95 per person or 1% of household income above the threshold for filing taxes. It will jump in 2015 to the greater of 2% of income or $325. By 2016, the average fine will be about $1,100, based on government figures.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/30/us-health-insurance-irs-penalties-2015
You ARE required, by federal law to have HI. That's why they call it a "penalty," that is collected by the IRS. You get the bill from Fed Gov, but no benefit.
I had good coverage before Obie put this burden on the American people. I have less for more money since then, and it is becoming a financial burden to my household.
We have already received a notice for another increase next year. Another 200 bucks a month. We have also been advised that our deductible is going from 2,500 to 3000 per person.
The federal government has no business in health insurance. It is not their job to insure illegal aliens and capable folks.
Reagan said it best that if government got its hooks into the insurance industry, it would end badly.
"I'm from the government and I am here to help...."

[zelmo1234]

Gay marriage, for example...your question is the wrong one. The federal government is not "legislating marriage". The court found that laws that prevented gay marriage violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment. SCOTUS certainly ruled in accordance with their interpretation of that amendment. You just don't happen to like it. Tough titty.

You are mistaken they did not violate the Equal protection laws, There was no law stopping a Gay person from getting married. and a straight person could not marry a person of the same sex. Not to mention that Marriage for thousands of years was a religious ceremony. There is the entire false doctrine of separation of church.

So please tell me in your wisdom, #1 How the Federal Government had the constitutional right to get involved in Marriage, and #2 What was not equal about marriage before the ruling?

[zelmo1234]

Gay marriage, for example...your question is the wrong one. The federal government is not "legislating marriage". The court found that laws that prevented gay marriage violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment. SCOTUS certainly ruled in accordance with their interpretation of that amendment. You just don't happen to like it. Tough titty.

Actually Gay Marriage was starting to become legal by the vote of the people and that did not bother me in the least.

But please tell me where the Constitution give the right to the federal government to define Marriage?

[zelmo1234]

The Chief Justice disagrees with you.

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

Can you show me where the Administration called the fine a Tax, at any time leading up to the Court Case.

And can you show me any other tax that comes from not purchasing a product?

As I have said the Justices are not following the constitution, and that is for both the right and the left. And of course please show me where the constitution allows the Federal Government to regulate Health Insurance.

[zelmo1234]

in the opinion of a grunt with no legal training.

If I wanted to know which variety of MRE didn't give me the $#@!s, I wouldn't ask the Chief Justice. I'd ask you. If I wanted a legal opinion on the constitutionality of a law, I wouldn't ask you. Understand?

But tell me, what part of his statement quoted above to you take issue with, and why?

Actually, you should read the constitution, it is 4 pages after all.

[stjames1_53]

Actually, you should read the constitution, it is 4 pages after all.

they should read the DoI................it explains it all quite clearly....

[Subdermal]

Don't you want to know "HOW" President Trump plans to Govern?

Or is that not important to you?

Give. Me. A. Break.

You have been slobbering all over Obama since the moment he entered the National Stage, and not once did you bother to concern yourself with how he would govern.

You are the last focking person to be clucking to someone about what's important.

[Subdermal]

Think about it, would you Vote for someone who Insults and Berates You?

I hear you.

But then again you say that you're up voting for Hillary, and that's exactly what she does. (http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/hillary-insults-caucuses-private-email-released-doj-creatures-parties-extremes)

And that makes you entirely FOS.

[domer76]

Actually Gay Marriage was starting to become legal by the vote of the people and that did not bother me in the least.

But please tell me where the Constitution give the right to the federal government to define Marriage?

You had no problem with the definition of marriage as long as it fit YOUR definition. When gays came into the picture and wanted to marry the person that they lived, all of a sudden, the government needs to butt out. Actually, it's the opposite. YOU need to butt out

[Mac-7]

You had no problem with the definition of marriage as long as it fit YOUR definition. When gays came into the picture and wanted to marry the person that they lived, all of a sudden, the government needs to butt out. Actually, it's the opposite. YOU need to butt out

Government was just doing what the people wanted since for thousands of years marriage was only between a man and a woman.

the the unelected dictators in the court overruled the will of the people for the sake of a few sexual misfits.

[stjames1_53]

Government was just doing what the people wanted since for thousands of years marriage was only between a man and a woman.

the the unelected dictators in the court overruled the will of the people for the sake of a few sexual misfits.

when one pares the numbers down, the LGBT is less than a minority, they are an anomaly..............

[stjames1_53]

You had no problem with the definition of marriage as long as it fit YOUR definition. When gays came into the picture and wanted to marry the person that they lived, all of a sudden, the government needs to butt out. Actually, it's the opposite. YOU need to butt out

while the faygits rub it in our face? not hardly, pilgrim, not hardly at all.................
IF they want us to butt out, then they need to go back into the closet

[MisterVeritis]

The writers of the Constitution could not imagine our world today. The members of SCOTUS have all taken the following oath:

What has changed?

Have Men become Angels? Has evil been vanquished? Have we solved the problems of the struggle between individual liberty and totalitarianism? Has any important thing changed?

Yes. Men have figured out that they can violate the Constitution with impunity. The dumbest among us applaud the politicians' rapine as long as we get our share of the plunder. Instead of death through tar and feathers, the evilest among us become incredibly wealthy by selling access and favors to the powerful, and recently, to foreign nations.


Supreme Court justices are a very large part of our problem. They usurped enormous powers, and we fail to hold them accountable.


Only an Article V Convention of States to propose amendments has the slightest chance of righting our path without revolution.

[MisterVeritis]

to you they clearly did not defend the constitution, I don't share that opinion. sorry.
Subverting the Constitution does not have the same meaning as defending it.

[Tahuyaman]

there was nothing to read when I posted that question.

You seem to have this idea that when you ask a question, it must be responspded to within 13 seconds or something.

[maineman]

Government was just doing what the people wanted since for thousands of years marriage was only between a man and a woman.

the the unelected dictators in the court overruled the will of the people for the sake of a few sexual misfits.

The court was asked whether refusing to allow gays to marry violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th. they looked at the arguments from both sides and agreed with those that believed our current laws were a violation of the amendment. That's how the process is SUPPOSED to work.

[MisterVeritis]

You had no problem with the definition of marriage as long as it fit YOUR definition. When gays came into the picture and wanted to marry the person that they lived, all of a sudden, the government needs to butt out. Actually, it's the opposite. YOU need to butt out
The Federal government has no authority over marriage.

State legislatures may unless the people take it away from them. The rules under which we agree to live are best hammered out in state legislatures. When five men and women in black dresses get involved where they have no authority to act the decision will be viewed as illegitimate by the majority of the people. That is what we see today.

[maineman]

You seem to have this idea that when you ask a question, it must be responspded to within 13 seconds or something.

not at all... you seem to post that I can't read when, at the time of your posting, there was nothing to read. Can you really be this thick, or is it an act?

[maineman]

The Federal government has no authority over marriage.

State legislatures may unless the people take it away from them. The rules under which we agree to live are best hammered out in state legislatures. When five men and women in black dresses get involved where they have no authority to act the decision will be viewed as illegitimate by the majority of the people. That is what we see today.

and I suppose that should apply to how we interact with citizens of different colors, too, eh?

[maineman]

Subverting the Constitution does not have the same meaning as defending it.

silly word games. I do not believe that SCOTUS is subverting the constitution. :yawn:

[Tahuyaman]

No one is forced to purchase anything. If one chooses to not participate, all that happens is that they incur a little tax.



False. The bill, HR3962, originated in the house. It was significantly amended by the senate committee and returned to the house committee.


Wrong on both. Even the administration argued initially that the penalty imposed was not a tax. Plus, the ACA did originate from the senate.

Those justices who voted in favor of the ACA clearly ignored constitutional principles.

[MisterVeritis]

Gay marriage, for example...your question is the wrong one. The federal government is not "legislating marriage". The court found that laws that prevented gay marriage violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment. SCOTUS certainly ruled in accordance with their interpretation of that amendment. You just don't happen to like it. Tough titty.
I understand your point.

Now that the door is open can several men and several women, or for that matter any group of any size and any composition that cannot be married?

This was a very poor decision. It will have consequences.

[MisterVeritis]

silly word games. I do not believe that SCOTUS is subverting the constitution. :yawn:
Of course not. As long as their tyranny goes your way you will support them. But the subversion remains. You have tossed aside the most important safeguard you have against tyranny directed against you when you threw away the protections affords all of us by limiting the role of the Federal government.

[Tahuyaman]

not at all... you seem to post that I can't read when, at the time of your posting, there was nothing to read. Can you really be this thick, or is it an act?


At that time there was credible evidence to support my comment.

[MisterVeritis]

and I suppose that should apply to how we interact with citizens of different colors, too, eh?
Yes. Any social construct that is not part of the enumerated powers should be left to the states. Or the Constitution can be amended giving the Federal government some additional, limited power.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution set the stage for slavery's elimination. Would we have been worse off if each state came to its own conclusions on how to end slavery?

[Tahuyaman]

silly word games. I do not believe that SCOTUS is subverting the constitution. :yawn:


When they make decisions which ignore principles clearly explained in the constitution, they are in fact subverting it whether they, or you, think so or not.

[maineman]

Wrong on both. Even the administration argued initially that the penalty imposed was not a tax. Plus, the ACA did originate from the senate.

Those justices who voted in favor of the ACA clearly ignored constitutional principles.

you are wrong. What the administration argued and what the court found to be the case need not be congruent.

And, even though the LANGUAGE of the ACA was created nearly entirely in the Senate, they did so in the form of a committee amendment to a HOUSE bill. Tricky? no doubt. Unconstitutional? no.

And what is "clear" in your addled mind is not necessarily clear in others'. What about Justice Robert's paragraph that I posted do you specifically find to be erroneous?

[maineman]

When they make decisions which ignore principles clearly explained in the constitution, they are in fact subverting it whether they, or you, think so or not.

so you think. What principle did they ignore this time?

[maineman]

Yes. Any social construct that is not part of the enumerated powers should be left to the states. Or the Constitution can be amended giving the Federal government some additional, limited power.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution set the stage for slavery's elimination. Would we have been worse off if each state came to its own conclusions on how to end slavery?

or separate but equal? Do you honestly think there would not still be colored only water fountains in Alabama if the federal government had not acted?

[maineman]

At that time there was credible evidence to support my comment.

not true.

[Tahuyaman]

you are wrong. What the administration argued and what the court found to be the case need not be congruent.

And, even though the LANGUAGE of the ACA was created nearly entirely in the Senate, they did so in the form of a committee amendment to a HOUSE bill. Tricky? no doubt. Unconstitutional? no.

And what is "clear" in your addled mind is not necessarily clear in others'. What about Justice Robert's paragraph that I posted do you specifically find to be erroneous?


Clearly, I was right in my previous comments.

Your iniability to acknowledge or even face the facts surrounding many issues is why you have zero credibility. You view things completely through a partisan lense. No one can be completely objective, but you posess no objectivity at all.

[MisterVeritis]

or separate but equal? Do you honestly think there would not still be colored only water fountains in Alabama if the federal government had not acted?
Beats me. But if we want the government to be viewed as legitimate we must use legitimate means to come to our correct conclusions. The Constitution can be amended. Or the state legislatures can struggle with these problems. A judicial pronouncement is appropriate where the Court has a legitimate, Constitutional interest.

[Tahuyaman]

so you think. What principle did they ignore this time?

it was explained already.

[Tahuyaman]

or separate but equal? Do you honestly think there would not still be colored only water fountains in Alabama if the federal government had not acted?

while I believe government hastened that chenge, that change would have happened. After all, there were no "coloreds only" water fountains in the rest of the country. The south would have been forced into change naturally.

[maineman]

Beats me. But if we want the government to be viewed as legitimate we must use legitimate means to come to our correct conclusions. The Constitution can be amended. Or the state legislatures can struggle with these problems. A judicial pronouncement is appropriate where the Court has a legitimate, Constitutional interest.

the 14th needs no amending.

[domer76]

Government was just doing what the people wanted since for thousands of years marriage was only between a man and a woman.

the the unelected dictators in the court overruled the will of the people for the sake of a few sexual misfits.

Laughing at you. Another pitiful POS that cries tyranny and dictators when things don't go your way.

Here's a clue about how this government works. Whether YOU like it or not, we do not live in a democracy. Shitweasels like you, even in the majority, don't get to have your way. We protect the minorities in this country BECAUSE of people just like you.

Cowboy up, Martha. Let it go.

[domer76]

Government was just doing what the people wanted since for thousands of years marriage was only between a man and a woman.

the the unelected dictators in the court overruled the will of the people for the sake of a few sexual misfits.

Fuck o dear. Another tyranny/dictator lemming.

[domer76]

while the faygits rub it in our face? not hardly, pilgrim, not hardly at all.................
IF they want us to butt out, then they need to go back into the closet

A great big eff you in your direction.

[domer76]

The Federal government has no authority over marriage.

State legislatures may unless the people take it away from them. The rules under which we agree to live are best hammered out in state legislatures. When five men and women in black dresses get involved where they have no authority to act the decision will be viewed as illegitimate by the majority of the people. That is what we see today.

You lost, dickhead. Nothing you can do about it. Move on.

[domer76]

Of course not. As long as their tyranny goes your way you will support them. But the subversion remains. You have tossed aside the most important safeguard you have against tyranny directed against you when you threw away the protections affords all of us by limiting the role of the Federal government.

Two "tyrannies" in one post. Where is the "blood in the streets"?

[MisterVeritis]

the 14th needs no amending.
Has the 14th Amendment become the Left's new "get out of jail free" card? Is it the answer to every tyranny the left wants to invoke? If so how will you complain when the right exercises its tyranny using the same reasoning?

[MisterVeritis]

Two "tyrannies" in one post. Where is the "blood in the streets"?
At the velocity we are moving it could be coming soon. The Federal government, for example, has recently nationalized zoning. The Federal government has decided that there are too many Republican-voting districts so it will be moving welfare recipients into our neighborhoods to speed up one-party, Democratic-Party hegemony.

This is very worthy of blood in the streets. Just keep pushing and you will experience all the joys you are seeking.

[MisterVeritis]

You lost, dickhead. Nothing you can do about it. Move on.
It seems we all lost. There is always another move. Always.

[MisterVeritis]

Laughing at you. Another pitiful POS that cries tyranny and dictators when things don't go your way.

Here's a clue about how this government works. Whether YOU like it or not, we do not live in a democracy. $#@!weasels like you, even in the majority, don't get to have your way. We protect the minorities in this country BECAUSE of people just like you.

Cowboy up, Martha. Let it go.
The same tyranny you enjoy today will be used against you in the future. Enjoy whatever victories you think you have.

[MisterVeritis]

Laughing at you. Another pitiful POS that cries tyranny and dictators when things don't go your way.

Here's a clue about how this government works. Whether YOU like it or not, we do not live in a democracy. $#@!weasels like you, even in the majority, don't get to have your way. We protect the minorities in this country BECAUSE of people just like you.

Cowboy up, Martha. Let it go.
You typify the authoritarian statist. The state can exercise, raw, naked power against whomever it chooses to. At the moment, the state is crushing individuals, businesses, and states that get in its way. You applaud because you like the results. Today.

Tomorrow, President Trump may unleash his brand of tyranny to be used against the radical Leftists. You will have no argument as you applauded lawlessness for so long.

[domer76]

Has the 14th Amendment become the Left's new "get out of jail free" card? Is it the answer to every tyranny the left wants to invoke? If so how will you complain when the right exercises its tyranny using the same reasoning?

Two more "tyrannies" in one post. Are you out to set a record, MVman? Why do you have a problem with equal protection under the law?

[domer76]

It seems we all lost. There is always another move. Always.

Venezuela for you?

[domer76]

You typify the authoritarian statist. The state can exercise, raw, naked power against whomever it chooses to. At the moment, the state is crushing individuals, businesses, and states that get in its way. You applaud because you like the results. Today.

Tomorrow, President Trump may unleash his brand of tyranny to be used against the radical Leftists. You will have no argument as you applauded lawlessness for so long.

Double down on your anti-psychotics. The world will look better in the morning. I promise.

[MisterVeritis]

Two more "tyrannies" in one post. Are you out to set a record, MVman? Why do you have a problem with equal protection under the law?
There is a great deal of federal tyranny in play.

What does equal protection under the law mean to you? Does it mean, as you have implied that all laws must be identical everywhere? If I have a concealed carry permit in Alabama is that permit now acceptable in all 50 states?

[stjames1_53]

I understand your point.

Now that the door is open can several men and several women, or for that matter any group of any size and any composition that cannot be married?

This was a very poor decision. It will have consequences.

wait for it.............wait for it............
http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517
Why should just the gays get Rights to sexual preferences?
I said a long time ago, the baby rapers would make such demands, and they will use the same tools the gays used.

[MisterVeritis]

Venezuela for you?
You appear to be unusually confused today. On second thought, I guess your confusion is about the same.

[MisterVeritis]

Double down on your anti-psychotics. The world will look better in the morning. I promise.
I am fine. But you are in for some very tough sledding.

[domer76]

I am fine. But you are in for some very tough sledding.

Sure I am. In what manner?

[domer76]

The same tyranny you enjoy today will be used against you in the future. Enjoy whatever victories you think you have.

Triple down on the meds

[domer76]

You typify the authoritarian statist. The state can exercise, raw, naked power against whomever it chooses to. At the moment, the state is crushing individuals, businesses, and states that get in its way. You applaud because you like the results. Today.

Tomorrow, President Trump may unleash his brand of tyranny to be used against the radical Leftists. You will have no argument as you applauded lawlessness for so long.

Oh dear! What the fuck will I do?

[MisterVeritis]

Sure I am. In what manner?
The tyranny you have wholeheartedly embraced will turn on you.

[MisterVeritis]

Oh dear! What the $#@! will I do?
I wouldn't worry about it. Just enjoy it.

[MisterVeritis]

Triple down on the meds
I am fine. But you are heading for a fall.

[domer76]

I am fine. But you are heading for a fall.

I am? When do I expect blood in my street?

[domer76]

The tyranny you have wholeheartedly embraced will turn on you.

Shit! When?

[zelmo1234]

You had no problem with the definition of marriage as long as it fit YOUR definition. When gays came into the picture and wanted to marry the person that they lived, all of a sudden, the government needs to butt out. Actually, it's the opposite. YOU need to butt out

Actually I was constantly bitching about the marriage penalty tax, but it is not that if fit my definition, it fit the definition in the Bible. So I was willing to be part of it. It no longer does, so I no longer am.

And that has really piss some fruitcups off on this forum. In our little Church there are 16 that have either used or are planning to use the covenant commitment instead of a State sponsored Marriage

I am hoping that it catches on because it really keeps a lot of money in the private sector.

[MisterVeritis]

I am? When do I expect blood in my street?
I believe that depends on who lives on your street.

[zelmo1234]

The court was asked whether refusing to allow gays to marry violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th. they looked at the arguments from both sides and agreed with those that believed our current laws were a violation of the amendment. That's how the process is SUPPOSED to work.

No according to the constitution, they certainly can rule that the issue is for the states to decide, and that they don't have standing. Which in this case would have been correct.

[MisterVeritis]

$#@!! When?
Are you asking for precision? Trump's elections may hold a clue or two for you. Given the constant pushing and weekly outrage, it could begin any day. Or it could be decades. It is possible we are in the opening stages. One cannot tell until fairly late in the initial stage.

[zelmo1234]

and I suppose that should apply to how we interact with citizens of different colors, too, eh?

the Color of your skin is not a choice. Who you have sex with, or even if you have sex is a choice.

[MisterVeritis]

the Color of your skin is not a choice. Who you have sex with, or even if you have sex is a choice.
Even so, if the people and the states did not grant the Federal government the authority then the answers are up to the states or to the people.

[zelmo1234]

Laughing at you. Another pitiful POS that cries tyranny and dictators when things don't go your way.

Here's a clue about how this government works. Whether YOU like it or not, we do not live in a democracy. $#@!weasels like you, even in the majority, don't get to have your way. We protect the minorities in this country BECAUSE of people just like you.

Cowboy up, Martha. Let it go.

That is the exact attitude that Good old King George had.

It the government keeps amassing power and control it will reach an point where the people can't afford to live under the massive restrictions. It will likely come when the dollar becomes insolvent and we truly have poverty with no social safety net.

Then we will see just how well all of these special interest make out.

[zelmo1234]

You lost, dickhead. Nothing you can do about it. Move on.

Actually there is. You don't have to be part of it.

And you can do anything and everything that you can do to limit the amount of taxes you pay to the Federal Government.

Starving the beast is the best revenge.

[zelmo1234]

Two "tyrannies" in one post. Where is the "blood in the streets"?

the liberals had not brought it up, until well NOW!

It is liberals that bring blood to the streets, not conservatives

[maineman]

No according to the constitution, they certainly can rule that the issue is for the states to decide, and that they don't have standing. Which in this case would have been correct.

should the courts have ruled that civil rights was a states rights issue to be decided individually in 50 different cases? and why would you think that SCOTUS did not have standing to intervene in a violation of the 14th amendment?

[zelmo1234]

$#@!! When?

If Trump is elected in Jan. You have to understand that all of the court rulings can be overturned by an act of congress. All of the Executive orders can be killed with the stroke of a pen.

Nearly all of the Obama accomplishments have been without congress. Which means day one, they could end.

[maineman]

the Color of your skin is not a choice. Who you have sex with, or even if you have sex is a choice.

irrelevant.

[domer76]

Actually I was constantly bitching about the marriage penalty tax, but it is not that if fit my definition, it fit the definition in the Bible. So I was willing to be part of it. It no longer does, so I no longer am.

And that has really piss some fruitcups off on this forum. In our little Church there are 16 that have either used or are planning to use the covenant commitment instead of a State sponsored Marriage

I am hoping that it catches on because it really keeps a lot of money in the private sector.

14751

[zelmo1234]

should the courts have ruled that civil rights was a states rights issue to be decided individually in 50 different cases? and why would you think that SCOTUS did not have standing to intervene in a violation of the 14th amendment?

No congress should have passed the civil rights act of 1964 and the President should have signed it into law.

See how that works?

[maineman]

No congress should have passed the civil rights act of 1964 and the President should have signed it into law.

See how that works?

we'll just have to agree to disagree.... and it is interesting that you say that the no congress should have passed it, yet the president should have signed it.

[domer76]

Are you asking for precision? Trump's elections may hold a clue or two for you. Given the constant pushing and weekly outrage, it could begin any day. Or it could be decades. It is possible we are in the opening stages. One cannot tell until fairly late in the initial stage.

"May", "could", "cannot tell", "possible"? What kind of a pussy are you?

[domer76]

the Color of your skin is not a choice. Who you have sex with, or even if you have sex is a choice.

As is your religion

[domer76]

No congress should have passed the civil rights act of 1964 and the President should have signed it into law.

See how that works?

Take your "should" and a dime and see if you buy a cup of coffee with that.

[zelmo1234]

we'll just have to agree to disagree.... and it is interesting that you say that the no congress should have passed it, yet the president should have signed it.

Congress did pass it and the President did sign it into law.

It caused Alabama, and Mississippi to stage a Walkout in the DNC convention that year.

If congress would have passed the fruit Cup marriage bill and the president signed it? That would have been the proper way

[maineman]

congress shouldn't have passed it, but the president should have signed it? that is what your post says.

[zelmo1234]

Take your "should" and a dime and see if you buy a cup of coffee with that.

Yes it is the old way of doing things that if for sure.

Let me ask you this if Trump wins and get three justices off his list and they start doing away with things like abortion, and Gay marriage and let things like School prayer back in school.

Will you be happy that the current administration did not stop legislating form the bench? Or will you cry unconstitutional

[maineman]

fixed it for ya

No congress should have passed the civil rights act of 1964 and NO President should have signed it into law.

See how that works?

[zelmo1234]

congress shouldn't have passed it, but the president should have signed it? that is what your post says.

My bad, I will correct it

Thanks!

[Professor Peabody]

I was watching the CNN interview of Mrs. Clinton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFQG0Bfqaoo

She looks Tired, She looks Stressed and Well She look Terrible.

And Crooked Hillary has not even Taken on the Donald yet.

Looks like Peter's Theory might come to pass

If Hillary falls too far behind Trump in the DNC's internal polling, she'll be indicted over the eMail server and ole Joe......

http://rack.3.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE1LzEwLzEzLzlhL2JpZGVuMi42ZjI4Ni5qcGcKcAl0aH VtYgkxMjAweDk2MDA-/eebd2e65/255/biden2.jpg

....will just parachute into the Democrat Convention.

[maineman]

Yes it is the old way of doing things that if for sure.

Let me ask you this if Trump wins and get three justices off his list and they start doing away with things like abortion, and Gay marriage and let things like School prayer back in school.

Will you be happy that the current administration did not stop legislating form the bench? Or will you cry unconstitutional

I won't be happy if SCOTUS changes course, but it certainly will be, by definition, constitutional.

[domer76]

Yes it is the old way of doing things that if for sure.

Let me ask you this if Trump wins and get three justices off his list and they start doing away with things like abortion, and Gay marriage and let things like School prayer back in school.

Will you be happy that the current administration did not stop legislating form the bench? Or will you cry unconstitutional

Take your "ifs" to someone who gives them any credence.

[zelmo1234]

I won't be happy if SCOTUS changes course, but it certainly will be, by definition, constitutional.

Actually it will not. It would be my hope that they would just end the federal law and let the states decide that would be constitutional.

[maineman]

I firmly believe that SCOTUS has standing to rectify situations where the constitution is being violated. In the case of states preventing gay marriage, the 14th was being violated. SCOTUS has every right to step in in those situations, imho.

[zelmo1234]

I firmly believe that SCOTUS has standing to rectify situations where the constitution is being violated. In the case of states preventing gay marriage, the 14th was being violated. SCOTUS has every right to step in in those situations, imho.

Really? What right was being denied. Or should I say what was different about the rights of a gay person and a straight person.

Next who the hell gave the federal government the right to regulate marriage.

[maineman]

Really? What right was being denied. Or should I say what was different about the rights of a gay person and a straight person.

Next who the hell gave the federal government the right to regulate marriage.

they are not "regulating marriage". There are rectifying a violation of the 14th amendment's due process clause AND the equal rights clause. They gave their constitutional rationale. You are free to disagree, just as I am free to heartily concur.

[zelmo1234]

they are not "regulating marriage". There are rectifying a violation of the 14th amendment's due process clause AND the equal rights clause. They gave their constitutional rationale. You are free to disagree, just as I am free to heartily concur.

OK who said marriage was a right? Where in the constitution was that right given?

You see I am very consistent. I am by definition a constitutionalist. Marriage for thousands of years was a religious ceremony. The Government becoming involved in it at all is a violation of the constitution if you believe in the 1st amendment like liberals do

[maineman]

OK who said marriage was a right? Where in the constitution was that right given?

You see I am very consistent. I am by definition a constitutionalist. Marriage for thousands of years was a religious ceremony. The Government becoming involved in it at all is a violation of the constitution if you believe in the 1st amendment like liberals do

if the state bestows a right on one class of people, it must bestow it on everyone. that's pretty simple.

and are you suggesting that one must be religious in order to marry?

are you suggesting that, for thousands of years, only religious people got married?

[zelmo1234]

if the state bestows a right on one class of people, it must bestow it on everyone. that's pretty simple.

and are you suggesting that one must be religious in order to marry?

are you suggesting that, for thousands of years, only religious people got married?

There was not one gay person that was being denied the right to be married.

But using your definition?

There are still plenty of people that are being discriminated against? should they receive those rights as well?

Which one is it? There is always a level of depravity that people are willing to accept and a place where they draw the line. So discrimination will always take place.

[domer76]

There was not one gay person that was being denied the right to be married.

Liar

[zelmo1234]

Liar

Please explain?

[maineman]

There was not one gay person that was being denied the right to be married.

But using your definition?

There are still plenty of people that are being discriminated against? should they receive those rights as well?

Which one is it? There is always a level of depravity that people are willing to accept and a place where they draw the line. So discrimination will always take place.

See... we're not even in the same universe. There is absolutely no sense in having this discussion because we will only be talking past one another and, in the process, angering one another. I do not believe that homosexuality is depraved. You do. Ergo, we have no common ground upon which to carry this discussion any further. Thanks for playing.

[zelmo1234]

See... we're not even in the same universe. There is absolutely no sense in having this discussion because we will only be talking past one another and, in the process, angering one another. I do not believe that homosexuality is depraved. You do. Ergo, we have no common ground upon which to carry this discussion any further. Thanks for playing.

actually I believe it to be a choice, Not in the I choose to like men or women, but I choose to act on my sexual urges.

That is what I believe. And now I believe that a segment of that population is looking for special treatment.

[stjames1_53]

if the state bestows a right on one class of people, it must bestow it on everyone. that's pretty simple.

and are you suggesting that one must be religious in order to marry?

are you suggesting that, for thousands of years, only religious people got married?

getting married is not a Right. You should know that.

[Peter1469]

if the state bestows a right on one class of people, it must bestow it on everyone. that's pretty simple.

and are you suggesting that one must be religious in order to marry?

are you suggesting that, for thousands of years, only religious people got married?

They don't bestow the right on everyone.

[domer76]

getting married is not a Right. You should know that.

Equal protection is.

[maineman]

getting married is not a Right. You should know that.

if you allow some people to do it, but not others, that is in violation of the 14th. Sorry.

[maineman]

actually I believe it to be a choice, Not in the I choose to like men or women, but I choose to act on my sexual urges.

That is what I believe. And now I believe that a segment of that population is looking for special treatment.

what is special about wanting to be married to the person you love?

the word depravity was yours, not mine. We cannot continue.

[domer76]

what is special about wanting to be married to the person you love?

the word depravity was yours, not mine. We cannot continue.

Zelmo is not married anymore, but still doing the nasty with a divorcee. Sinful, I tells ya.

[Peter1469]

Zelmo is not married anymore, but still doing the nasty with a divorcee. Sinful, I tells ya.

They appear to have a great relationship. Although it isn't your business either way.

[domer76]

They appear to have a great relationship. Although it isn't your business either way.

Zelmo chose to make it public, didn't he? It's no more my business than it is his on gay marriage, is it?

[MisterVeritis]

should the courts have ruled that civil rights was a states rights issue to be decided individually in 50 different cases? and why would you think that SCOTUS did not have standing to intervene in a violation of the 14th amendment?
Yes.

What violation of the 14th occurred (I assume we are talking about men marrying men and women marrying women)?

[MisterVeritis]

"May", "could", "cannot tell", "possible"? What kind of a $#@! are you?
This is incomprehensible. I need a translation from radical Leftist to normal, please.

[zelmo1234]

Zelmo is not married anymore, but still doing the nasty with a divorcee. Sinful, I tells ya.

Kind of HOT if you think about it.

And just because you don't feel comfortable unless you have a State Sanctioned marriage? don't blame me.

After going through this, I can't imagine why anyone would want to pay to have the state bless your marriage??

[zelmo1234]

They appear to have a great relationship. Although it isn't your business either way.

Sure it is, I am the one that brought it up! I have no issues with it, the liberals do, especially since it denies their God, the government, lots of money.

I think it is Great, we should have never went through with the state sanctioned marriage in the first place.

And if they bring back the second home deductions like they are talking about. Just think we will be able to deduct 4 homes. and the new boat being 50' counts as a home. Cool is it not.

[zelmo1234]

Zelmo chose to make it public, didn't he? It's no more my business than it is his on gay marriage, is it?

You are correct. And I certainly don't mind

[stjames1_53]

if you allow some people to do it, but not others, that is in violation of the 14th. Sorry.

you an domer didn't get it.
Any time you incorporate with the state, you create a liability. You instantaneously gave the State permission the power to intercede in your marriage for any reason. If you think those offspring are really yours, why are you required to register them just about every place you go?
BTW, do you have the original birth document of all your children, or just a certificate issued by the state?
Your original marriage license?
Original Title for your car, or just a certificate of title?
Who holds all these originating documents? The owner!!!!
You can lawfully own guns. Why make it legal?
Legal terms......legal
That which is lawful may not be legal.
Why would you want to get a license, inter into a corporate third party arrangement with someone who has arbitrary authority...just cuz?

[maineman]

you an domer didn't get it.
Any time you incorporate with the state, you create a liability. You instantaneously gave the State permission the power to intercede in your marriage for any reason. If you think those offspring are really yours, why are you required to register them just about every place you go?
BTW, do you have the original birth document of all your children, or just a certificate issued by the state?
Your original marriage license?
Original Title for your car, or just a certificate of title?
Who holds all these originating documents? The owner!!!!
You can lawfully own guns. Why make it legal?
Legal terms......legal
That which is lawful may not be legal.
Why would you want to get a license, inter into a corporate third party arrangement with someone who has arbitrary authority...just cuz?
Seriously. Seek psychiatric help. I fear your tether to reality is near the breakng point and may have actually let go.

[Subdermal]

Seriously. Seek psychiatric help. I fear your tether to reality is near the breakng point and may have actually let go.

Your response is bullshit; a non-answer. You are part of the problem in this forum.

[stjames1_53]

Seriously. Seek psychiatric help. I fear your tether to reality is near the breakng point and may have actually let go.

ok, what part did I miss?
a license is permission to do that which is already lawful.............

[stjames1_53]

Your response is bull$#@!; a non-answer. You are part of the problem in this forum.

I noticed this member responds in that manner when he has no argument Subdermal

[zelmo1234]

Your response is bull$#@!; a non-answer. You are part of the problem in this forum.

What can the left say? The reality must smack them in the face everyday. I really don't think that anyone can be that stupid. So if you are on the left, you have to look yourself in the mirror everyday and admit that the Democrats have failed and liberalism has once again been proven at best a lie, and more than likely a disguise to control the population.

All this they will endure, with the hope that the government will make those that have worked hard for more than they have pay for their success.

Have you ever met a liberal, that was actually happy?

[zelmo1234]

I noticed this member responds in that manner when he has no argument @Subdermal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1758)

Or will tell you that they can't continue the conversation because their feelings were hurt. Fragile creatures these liberals are

[FindersKeepers]

Seriously. Seek psychiatric help. I fear your tether to reality is near the breakng point and may have actually let go.


STjames made a decent point and your response was uncalled for. You are only free to the extent that the law allows it. People in this country lose their possessions every day through civil forfeiture and they don't even have to commit a crime in order for it to happen. The IRS watches how much money you put into your bank accounts. Homeland Security algorithms run silently behind the scenes to catch certain word patterns you might type.

I know -- you think this is all good and beneficial in an ordered world -- and some of undoubtly it is. The point Stjames was making (and he can correct me if I'm wrong), is that little by little, you've given authority for your life and your decisions to the state. How much more will you give? How much more will you demand that the rest of us give?

The goal of the State is singular: to ensure that every citizen acts, thinks and speaks in a like manner. In other words, the State's goal is to create lemmings...sheeple.

You may do many things -- but only within the limits set by the State.

It's not a difficult concept. Even most liberals are able to understand it.