On the other hand, if it was reported that Biden was seen praying to a pentogram, could you really rule it out?
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
and then I'm reminded that his son didn't die in Iraq anyway, he died of cancer after his deployment was over. Now I can remember Biden using his son's cancer death in the same sympathy-grabbing way. He has no shame.
The other side??? Your He God must be into sodomy. Strange take given how he kicked it in the OT.
just be glad He shares your proclivities. And take some lube to the grave with you.
why is it, do you suppose, that @carolinablue34 will not respond to my post on this subject, or even on my requests for her attention to it? I really don't understand. I can hardly believe she's avoiding it on purpose for fear of it exposing her to ridicule. If she has a reasonable, non-hypocritical response, there will be no ridicule.
" Part of you knows that the behavior is wrong and reprehensible. But, you can't fully accept that because of your higher calling, so to speak, to the MAGA movement."
No. We're not like you and so quit projecting. For example, we give solid facts and logic to make a point. You do not. You just attack the person or media disagreeing with you, and that's because you cannot refute the facts and logic.
So Strum is a "bottom" in his relationships? I suppose somebody has to be.
I might go with that ol' stump treatment. You have the pedo sit naked on a stump and you nail his sack to it, hand him a knife and push him off the stump backwards. He then resolves the problem himself.
No I kid. Pedophilia is a sickness, and should be treated as one, with the care and understanding given to any other unwell person. PSYCH!!! Make sure the knife is dull.
I don't know what that means in this context, but for sure I think of him as a 'bottom'.
Sooo... your He-god is a necrophiliac, too??? God could have anyone she wants. I doubt she'd go for a dead body.
Who is "we?" Who are you speaking for besides yourself? And, just because you claim to do that... or whoever "we" is, in your case... doesn't mean it's objectively true.
Apparently than either his father or his brother. I'll never understand cancer.
Joe is a career politician. He’s morally neutral in that regard. He’s not a saint, he’s not the villain the far right thinks he is. But Hunter is a grifter. No doubt about that.
I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree as I believe that in a vast majority of cases, the terms "career politician" and "morally neutral" are what's known as an oxymoron. There is nothing morally neutral about Joe Biden. Joe, like many, is interested in Joe.
I don’t blame you for feeling that way. We all get caught up in the person we feel represents our side or doesn’t.
But I’ve heard so many times that the immorality of DJT doesn’t matter as long as the policies are in line. Well Biden aligns pretty well with my thinking and he hasn’t threatened Armageddon if he and his people don’t win.
What’s the difference aside from the obvious confirmation bias every single one of us displays on this board?
Sometimes you only get what you can afford, poop. And speaking of your personal economy, I suppose that's why Mrs. Slinger left you -- your inadequacy as a bread winner. That explains the hatred in your heart over the government and inflation. It makes you look bad. Me, I just dig deeper into my fat wallet and pay up. Complaining about the cost of things is so classless in front of chicks.
Had you only worked harder and made some sacrifices in your youth you could be an educated man today. That would have enabled you to have a career or at least make choices to benefit yourself and your family rather than taking whatever low-paying jobs were available. I'm sure your kids tell you you're the best thing since sliced bread because kids say the cutest things and are eternally optimistic . . . until they grow up and wise up accordingly. In the meantime, however, mommy says daddy is a deadbeat so the writing is on the wall for you.
I know we don't get along for the most part, but right now you have my sympathy. Hang in there, li'l fella.
Last edited:
Show me where I exempted orangeman from this group or have ever excused his moral behavior. Just because I am in alignment with many of his policies (and frankly against almost all of Joe's new found stances versus the last couple of decades as a senator) doesn't mean I would consider him an honorable man. It's no different from absolutely hating and detesting ratface, but I still have to give him his due as a coach.
ETA: I think Jimmy Carter was a honorable man and might technically qualify as a career politician - I'm not sure when you reach that point. But he was horrible as president.
Conservatives in general. You guys mainly depend on censorship and denigrating the source.
Hunter is just Joe's bag man. That's why Hunter has to pay percentages to the Big Guy, akin to how the mafia works.
That's not speculation. It's fact. The laptop and other documents along with first hand, eye-witness testimony prove that.
Both are grifters but Joe is the crime boss in that family.
Trying to think of something that matters less than what you think, or agree with, regarding CT's interpretation of the constitution and rule of law - and I can't even.
To be fair, what I or any citizen think about abortion or affirmative action, or any SCOTUS issue, is 100% irrelevant. It's good that (at least the originalist) justices don't write opinions based on opinion polls - given the lack of knowledge, education, misinformation of the population at large. (I understand that Kagan and Soto and Kijani etc are on the court largely driven by a social justice bent / agenda)
All that matters is: are the justices interpreting the law and the constitution, and past cases appropriately? It is not their job to make laws based on some left-leaning policy position that the left minority just can't get passed into law via the proper legislative process. Not enough citizens or legislators agree with the far left minorities' radical views on some issues. (Like 2A gun control overreach, as another example)
All that matters is how adept a justice is at reading and understanding constitution, other laws, and cases and rulings on those laws. Period. That's it. And in that regard, few if any other justices are in the same playing field as CT. Alito and Scalia are / were both strong, too.
Does this apply to Clarence's stances on the right to same sex marriage, right to a same sex relationship, or right to contraception? Are these far left radical views? I think not.
It's not the their job to make policy based on politically right wing beliefs which is exactly what they've been doing ever since that conservative supermajority was created. See where I'm going with this?
Edit: I respect Scalia. Not Thomas. Scalia was a textualist which has respect for basic consistency. Thomas and Alito are originalists, which goes back to that old conservative stance that anything written in 1788 is sacred and cannot/must not be changed, which is foolish. Certainly the Founders were right about a lot of things. But certainly there are aspects of our society now that we have either evolved on or they could not envision 230 years down the road. To say we should uphold our society same as it was in those days is intellectually dishonest.
PedoPete as sonny boy Hunter refers to him would probably confuse praying to a pentagram....
with preying on young girls at the pentagon....
he'd be all in!
What policy have they made? I'm especially interested in if you think the Dobbs / abortion case is making policy, or upholding 2A, or striking down affirmative action in college admissions which is likely coming.
None of these are "making policy". In nearly every case, they are restricting, taking away other courts wrongly interpreted overreach, or the federal government agencies overreach, or institutions like media, universities, corporations.
That is the role of the Constitution. To limit, define, enumerate , restrict federal govt powers (see 10th A). The courts being an official or referee, and stating where past courts or institutions got it wrong, created rulings or orders out of step with constitution or past rulings - certainly is not "making policy".
Maybe this is true... its hard to imagine some as utterly dementia-riddled (now) and stupid, lying, tall tale telling, repulsive (all his life) being a legit competent "crime boss" - smart enough to be a kingpin in a crime ring.
Wasn't Hunter banging Beau's wife / widow while he was dying, or soon after? (along with this or that stripper he knocked up, other trailer trash, etc) Man of the Year level classy guy, Hunter.
Really? So if a liberal court was giving everything the lefties wanted right now, you'd have no problem with it whatsoever?
You only hold this position because you've been moved to believe the conservative position is the most honorable one- to limit, enumerate, and restrict Federal power. Or perhaps it's to limit and restrict people like myself that others in the backwoods don't view as equal citizens.
Conservative courts have a track record of making some of the worst decisions this country has ever seen and before this is all said and done, the same will be said of this Court- Citizens United, gutting the Voting Rights Act, allowing gerrymandering, imposing limits on the EPA, disempowering Unions at the expense of the middle class, and possibly giving a green light to state legislatures to override the will of the people on election day.
SCOTUS has lost its credibility and that started when Mitch McConnell denied Obama the ability to hold even a vote on Merrick Garland and Trump then appointed three hyper conservatives to the Court further adding to the divide we experience now.
You don't speak for anyone else except yourself. "Conservatives in general" is so vague and indistinct that it's foolish to even contend such a thing. You don't represent conservatives "in general" at all.
ETA: And, another thing; I'm not "you guys." I dunno who the hell "you guys" even are. Neither do you!
This is such a horrible take. To be fair almost all takes on the supreme court are horrible, so you aren't alone.
I couldn't possibly care less about twitter, I just wish he'd stop blatantly lying about the vaporware that Tesla is selling to people.
than what? Anything else with the last name of Biden? How could he miss?
bullshit. His entire career he has sought advancement over actually acting on anything resembling ethics or morals. Just go back and see his speeches where he rails against those things he now supports out of political expediency. He was almost drummed out of the Senate at one point for being such an ethically bankrupt POS. That might not seem so bad to you, but the inept MF positioned himself to be imposed on us to our huge detriment just so he could put the political cherry on top of his garbage career.
If you think I'm just slinging crap from my chosen POV, which you undoubtedly will, if you want to bother to do so you can go back and find that long before the election, I was warning of what we could expect of this dimwit.
Hunter Biden is also a turd, but Hunter Biden isn't affecting us beyond acting as a conduit for Joe's influence-peddling endeavors. The only good thing I can say about Biden is that he was capable of learning from the Clintons.
LMAO. What was it you have told me about posts filled with logical fallacies? The SCOTUS, to sum up your accusations, is considering reigning in a government that has overstepped its proper bounds, just as it shitcanned RvW because it was an improperly installed piece of SCOTUS lawmaking. Yet you cried and cried, and are still crying, that they are all manner of assholes FOR DOING WHAT WAS RIGHT, just because you didn't happen to care for the ramifications.
I wonder if you realize how much credibility you have tossed out the window with your biases.
Couple of things. First, stop with the media line of the court being super conservative. It's not. I get so tired of the constant refrain that the court is 6-3 conservative. Just because an R appointed someone, it doesn't make them conservative or an originalist and Chief Justice Roberts is anything but that. If you look at his rulings and actual opinions, he's much more middle of the road (look at what he wanted to do in Dobbs). So, the court does have a conservative lean (and that's Ruth and Obama's fault, frankly), but the breakdown is really 5-3-1. And that's after decades of being liberal. Some balance and swing after all that time being liberal is not necessarily a bad thing.
Next, the Court is not a change vehicle. It's not there to create or change what the constitution says. There is an amendment process to do that. It is not a substitute for the legislative process. For example, the constitution never said there was a right to abortion in every corner of the country until a liberal Court created it out of thin air in Roe. All these years later, there was no reason that the constitution couldn't have been amended to recognize that "right" or to put one in place. They could have done national legislation to have one. They didn't.
Indeed, there are many things that one might consider good or appropriate that are not addressed or contemplated in the constitution. It is not the court's role or job to insert itself on topics that the constitution doesn't address.
The last thing is the notion that has long been forgotten and that is the actual design and layout of our governmental system. States have all the rights not specifically given to the feds. The federal government is not supposed to be an all encompassing, all controlling entity. As such, the constitution specifically says so and has many, many topics it doesn't cover. It is not the answer to every problem. Consequently, if the court says the constitution doesn't address something, it doesn't automatically mean that they are being super conservative, it likely just means they can read.
Similar threads
