RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO?

RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 9:31:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC America -- 94 million Americans out of work. How has this misleading fact not been corrected? I'm not disputing the 94M figure of people being out of work, but is that really a problem in the economy? https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ 7/1/2014 population estimate: 318M 7/1/2014 persons 65 years or older, percent: 14.5% That means, on 7/1/2014, the estimated # of people 65 or older was 46.1M That 94M people out of work figure includes 46.1M people over the age of 65. How many of those 46M actually are looking for work, or are willing to work? I guaran-damn-tee you it's not 46M. How many people, out of the, roughly, 36.5% people over the age of 16 who aren't participating in the workforce aren't participating because they have freely chosen not to? There aren't 94M people "out of work" who want to or are willing to work. While it might, technically, be true that 94M people are not in the workforce, to blame the President or the economy for it is grossly misleading. Its why He cannot be taken seriously. in the slightest.

joether -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 9:33:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC Oh I'm sorry. I didn't know you needed a link to point out what everyone in America has been going through for the past 7 years. If you need something from the internet, and we all know everything on the Internet is true, then you obviously have not been paying attention. America -- 19 trillion dollars in debt. America -- 94 million Americans out of work. America -- millions of illegal aliens flooding the country. America -- Syrian Muslim refugees allowed in while Syrian Christians are kept out. I can go on and on and on. Where did the majority of that $19 trillion dollar debt originate? The Bush Administration and all those tax cuts from between 2001-2003. Not to mention paying for two wars on borrowed money and poor management of the budget books for every year he was in office (actually, that was the Republican Controlled Congress's duty). The second biggest chunk of that debt comes from interest Congress simply lumped onto the debt rather than raise taxes to help pay for things. Finally, yes, President Obama has added on to some of that total debt. So if your bitching at President Obama and the Democrats; then by logic, you should be pissing-ass-angry at the Republican and Tea Party by a factor of eight! Don't see you doing that, because you give the GOP/TP a blank check on responsibility. A typical conservative 'trait'.... Yes, the debt is high. Yes, it has to be handled correctly. It will not get handled under any of the GOP candidates views. That's because it involves raising taxes on everyone (including the 1%). We could do it now and pay a small raise in taxes; or 8-12 years and pay a percentage that nearly reaches double digits. Its 4% or 9%. One would think conservatives would go for the 4%; but seeing as they have massive amounts of misinformation, they'll stay ignorant until the nation is forced at the 9% (or higher) in a few years from now. On the front of refugees; I saw take them all in! Regardless of their religion! An not just a pokey 10,000, but 200,000-300,000. We are a 'Christian Nation', or so all the Republicans and many millions of conservatives state this nation is at current. If its an ACTUAL Christian Nation, it would take in as many refugees as possible. Spending money to help them safely relocate. Providing them food, shelter, job training, jobs, medicine, etc. We could place them in those states that do not have a big population; like Montana, Idaho, or the Dakotas. In a few years, they become US Citizens. Most likely voting for the Democrats since Republicans hate their guts. Maybe you should get your facts updated.....

Lucylastic -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 9:55:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 If Obama was smart (which is questionable) he'd nominate Sri Srinivasan. But my guess is Sri isn't progressive enough for this President. I found this from 2013 about Sri. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/23/sri-srinivasan-judge-supreme-court-circuit-dc-obama-bush/2351543/ updated yesterday by all accounts. This story was first published on May 23, 2013. Srikanth Srinivasan is seen as a possible nominee by President Obama to the Supreme Court. WASHINGTON — The issue before the Supreme Court was the Defense of Marriage Act, and the smooth-talking native of India representing the United States of America at the podium had a tough argument to make. Why, Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to know, was the government not only refusing to defend the law, which denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples, but arguing the other side — all while continuing to enforce it? From his post feet away from the nine justices March 27, Srikanth Srinivasan (SREE-kont SREE-nee-vah-sun) calmly explained what Roberts called a "totally unprecedented" situation. Along the way, the mathematics professor's son sprinkled in references to numerators, denominators and algorithms, the statutes 28 U.S.C. 530(d) and 28 U.S.C. 1254, and the precedents established by INS v.Chadha, United States v. Lovett and Turner Broadcasting v. FCC. Without notes. I think Obama may have more smarts...than you thought... interesting watch list tho.

vincentML -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 11:26:59 AM)
@Knightimequiet quote: What needs to occur is another more liberal justice like Ginsburg to tell the President that it was wrong to make this a political issue while her friend's body is not even cold yet. That is why I will retire the very day the next President takes office because the Supreme Court is meant not to be a political tool but a place where the rule of law and our Constitution takes priority and not your legacy. That would be a fitting result and tribute to Scalia. Actually, it was the Senate majority (Republican) leader who spoke out before Obama and announced the Senate would block any nomination. You are totally wrong about who made this a political issue. Secondly, the Supreme Court made itself a political tool in 2000 Gore v Bush when they overturned the ruling of the Florida court.

vincentML -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 11:29:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Knightimequiet You are obviously not versed nor accredited in history. You are letting you passion govern your argument which is a sign of someone knows very little about the subject and prefer to insight anger. This kind of remark is just total crap!

MrRodgers -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 11:44:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC Bill Clinton? Seriously? A man who purgured himself before a federal judge and had his law license revoked, that's the man you want sitting on the supreme court? The only United States president to ever be impeached. You want that guy on the supreme court? Seriously? Seems you forgot about Andrew Johnson.

MrRodgers -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 11:52:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC Lucy, you are so sadly mistaken. Obama and the dumbocrats have gotten EVERYTHING that they've wanted for the past 7 years. The G.O.P. has done NOTHING to stop any of this. That's why America is so fucked up right now. Hopefully the next President will have the courage to tell the libturds and dumbocrats to go pound sand up their ass and shut the fuck up. Man just where have you been for 7 years ? The repubs as much as told Obama, don't even try for univ. health care. They blocked his stimulus and declared almost day 1 they intended to make him a 1 term pres. The house has tried top repeal the ACA how many times ? They've shut down the govt. over the debt ceiling, something they willingly passed 6 times without a peep under W. They forced the pres to haggle over things that the dems graciously negotiated with RR and Bush I. More historical revisionism. OH and Obama should have a nominee in front of the senate judiciary committee on Tues. Then tell congress they need to stay and get it done.

vincentML -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 12:00:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC Lucy, you are so sadly mistaken. Obama and the dumbocrats have gotten EVERYTHING that they've wanted for the past 7 years. The G.O.P. has done NOTHING to stop any of this. That's why America is so fucked up right now. Hopefully the next President will have the courage to tell the libturds and dumbocrats to go pound sand up their ass and shut the fuck up. Really? Totally mistaken. [sm=rofl.gif] Failed to confirm one-quarter of President Obama’s judicial nominees. - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/senate-gops-unprecedented-obstruction-five-charts#sthash.aQYzlv9l.dpuf

MrRodgers -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 12:02:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC Lucy, you are so sadly mistaken. Obama and the dumbocrats have gotten EVERYTHING that they've wanted for the past 7 years. The G.O.P. has done NOTHING to stop any of this. That's why America is so fucked up right now. Hopefully the next President will have the courage to tell the libturds and dumbocrats to go pound sand up their ass and shut the fuck up. Really? Totally mistaken. Failed to confirm one-quarter of President Obama’s judicial nominees. - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/senate-gops-unprecedented-obstruction-five-charts#sthash.aQYzlv9l.dpuf Seems I read somewhere 1/3 of all lower courts have vacancies.

Hillwilliam -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 12:47:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC Lucy, you are so sadly mistaken. Obama and the dumbocrats have gotten EVERYTHING that they've wanted for the past 7 years. The G.O.P. has done NOTHING to stop any of this. That's why America is so fucked up right now. Hopefully the next President will have the courage to tell the libturds and dumbocrats to go pound sand up their ass and shut the fuck up. You learned your history from FOX didn't you? How can one who has been around so long still be so ignorant?

ifmaz -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 12:53:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC Oh I'm sorry. I didn't know you needed a link to point out what everyone in America has been going through for the past 7 years. If you need something from the internet, and we all know everything on the Internet is true, then you obviously have not been paying attention. America -- 19 trillion dollars in debt. America -- 94 million Americans out of work. America -- millions of illegal aliens flooding the country. America -- Syrian Muslim refugees allowed in while Syrian Christians are kept out. I can go on and on and on. Where did the majority of that $19 trillion dollar debt originate? The Bush Administration and all those tax cuts from between 2001-2003. Not to mention paying for two wars on borrowed money and poor management of the budget books for every year he was in office (actually, that was the Republican Controlled Congress's duty). The second biggest chunk of that debt comes from interest Congress simply lumped onto the debt rather than raise taxes to help pay for things. Finally, yes, President Obama has added on to some of that total debt. So if your bitching at President Obama and the Democrats; then by logic, you should be pissing-ass-angry at the Republican and Tea Party by a factor of eight! Don't see you doing that, because you give the GOP/TP a blank check on responsibility. A typical conservative 'trait'.... Did you just avoid blaming the democratic party using the excuse of "republicans did it first"? Both major parties have drastically increased the national debt with wars and socialist programs. This does not make one party in the clear, nor does it mean one party gets a pass because the other party set precedent. I knew you projected things onto others (mostly the republican party) but being unable to acknowledge one's party doing something questionable or outright wrong?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 1:18:20 PM)
LOL You guys are hilarious

Marini -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 1:38:34 PM)
It's sad to see Democrats never facing up to all the things they have fucked up and done wrong. It's sad to see Republicans never facing up to all the things they have fucked up and done wrong It's sad to see all the continuous partisan bickering as this country goes slip Sliding downhill. It's sad to see people lying to themselves, I wonder how many look at themselves in the mirror. [8\|] Denial is not just a river in Africa. Both parties have royally screwed up this country.

Knightimequiet -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 1:42:16 PM)
This is why this country is on the path to Civil War. You have zero to back up your claim. The Majority Leader was compelled to make such a statement due to the debate that was hours away. This was exactly what should be done to protect the candidates as I would expect from either party. Obama is a unabashed social engineer that has done more to destroy the separation of powers that is written in our Constitution that many other Presidents. Period. The Congress has been complicit in many of his acts as well. The goes back over and over right back to FDR no matter what party the President is in.The point is the current administration only cares for itself and not the people. Otherwise polling data would be followed religiously. It never is at all. The polarization of the public leads us to taking up arms against each other. Concensus must rule the data as intended but we don't care for that. Only feeling our side is winning. Your attitude lays bare the fact you only care for your views and those that agree with you. That is not American and indicates your own self loathing and regret. The Constitution is a contract made by past generations for future ones to set down a way to address common issues. Your continued name calling is baseless and in point of fact would preclude you from the decision making structure within our government. That is why currently there are no fit candidates running for president or holding the office. Concensus is a non starter for these people. This makes for individuals like yourself and others that feel it is your duty to say hateful and hurtful words to get your say. While I protect and believe it's your right I know it is nothing more than a set mind set based upon experience not shared by all. Anger based upon that experience. Unwillingness to forgive and grow and make sure life is better for the next generation by setting the right example, along with a lack of civics education. Of course you will not agree with my assessment but when you think to yourself about the anger and hate in this world are you good with adding to it? Does that advance your point of view? No. Anger and hate breeds only more. It is a wonderful thing to spout vitriol on the Internet but you will have to live with the consequences. Something tells me that you cannot or would not because you were hurt and for that I am sorry and full of pity.

MrRodgers -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 2:00:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Knightimequiet This is why this country is on the path to Civil War. You have zero to back up your claim. The Majority Leader was compelled to make such a statement due to the debate that was hours away. This was exactly what should be done to protect the candidates as I would expect from either party. Obama is a unabashed social engineer that has done more to destroy the separation of powers that is written in our Constitution that many other Presidents. Period. The Congress has been complicit in many of his acts as well. The goes back over and over right back to FDR no matter what party the President is in.The point is the current administration only cares for itself and not the people. Otherwise polling data would be followed religiously. It never is at all. The polarization of the public leads us to taking up arms against each other. Concensus must rule the data as intended but we don't care for that. Only feeling our side is winning. Your attitude lays bare the fact you only care for your views and those that agree with you. That is not American and indicates your own self loathing and regret. The Constitution is a contract made by past generations for future ones to set down a way to address common issues. Your continued name calling is baseless and in point of fact would preclude you from the decision making structure within our government. That is why currently there are no fit candidates running for president or holding the office. Concensus is a non starter for these people. This makes for individuals like yourself and others that feel it is your duty to say hateful and hurtful words to get your say. While I protect and believe it's your right I know it is nothing more than a set mind set based upon experience not shared by all. Anger based upon that experience. Unwillingness to forgive and grow and make sure life is better for the next generation by setting the right example, along with a lack of civics education. Of course you will not agree with my assessment but when you think to yourself about the anger and hate in this world are you good with adding to it? Does that advance your point of view? No. Anger and hate breeds only more. It is a wonderful thing to spout vitriol on the Internet but you will have to live with the consequences. Something tells me that you cannot or would not because you were hurt and for that I am sorry and full of pity. I disgree completely in that rhetorically, it has been a steady stream of venom and its discourse from the right in general as reflected by your comment on alleged social engineering and usurpation of power, which by comparison to others is patently untrue and in general again from the right, that is chief among the culprits for the country's political division. Almost nothing from the right today...advances their point of view.

Knightimequiet -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 2:16:11 PM)
Thanks for making my point. You can only see right and left and that is the problem. We ARE ALL Americans. There should be no parties only issue based politics. Read up on George Washington.

Lucylastic -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 2:41:25 PM)
No....we are not all americans..... There are parties....and there are many passionate subjects. This is a forum on religion and politics. You are entitled to your opinion. But....Not your own facts.

Knightimequiet -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 3:03:07 PM)
This is a thread about American politics. Therefore using the phrase "we are all Americans"is correct. As with most Americans, I really don't give a damn about another country until it threatens my own. That is my right and my protection under OUR U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if you are going to play the whole I am not an American so you cannot give me grief card, I politely respond that your comments belong in a separate thread about comparative politics. Again, that would require you understanding the difference and being about to advance a conversation without anger and assumptions in your tone and writing style. Unfortunately for you in your own words stated within this discussion topic you have displayed nonsense when it comes to your understanding of American civics. I humbly submit that you study up on American civics before you try to compare it to another country's political organization. The world has divisions and obviously you have trouble reading and comprehending arguments at this level. Might I offer something that will be worth your time. It is called Icivics.org. It will help you as it has many other elementary and middle school aged students understand the basics of the American political system. It is also a fact that George Washington did not like political parties and believed in issue based politics. My comment was a call for candor and understanding, but it seems that is beyond the grasp of certain individuals within this discussion thread. It must be wonderful to be so full of hate, ignorance, and enjoy being told how to think. I think perhaps before you decide whom you believe is an appropriate nominee and who might advance a more consensus driven court that puts the power in the hands of the people you brush up on your Orwell as well; or should be forget a house divided can not stand. Wise words from Lincoln.

BamaD -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 5:19:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC Bill Clinton? Seriously? A man who purgured himself before a federal judge and had his law license revoked, that's the man you want sitting on the supreme court? The only United States president to ever be impeached. You want that guy on the supreme court? Seriously? While I agree that Clinton would be a horrible choice you forget Andrew Johnson.

MrRodgers -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/14/2016 5:20:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Knightimequiet Thanks for making my point. You can only see right and left and that is the problem. We ARE ALL Americans. There should be no parties only issue based politics. Read up on George Washington. Except that there are parties and for one of them and for 40 years, it's been all about party, with too much of it's subsequent success built on division and derision. And except when it comes to describing Obama's action as 'an unabashed social engineer that has done more to destroy the separation of powers' when he has fewer EO's than most for one example and those he has, have plenty of precedent. In fact in his inaugural address I think or first SOU address, Obama said there is no Red America and no Blue America...we are all Americans, just like you. If only that were true. Washington was in a very unique position being the first and had an equally unique perspective not being a, and few of his contemporaries even grasping the concept of, anyone being called...a 'career' politician.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625