Scalia

townsend said:
Better than crazy conservatives that shoot up planned parenthoods and theaters when people disagree with them.
Click to expand...

It would be an interesting study looking at the demographics and political makeup of most mass shooters. From what I've seen the bulk are liberals and/or muslims.
 
12670472_1120449261310271_21019579674172982_n.jpg
 
VA Cowboy said:
It would be an interesting study looking at the demographics and political makeup of most mass shooters. From what I've seen the bulk are liberals and/or muslims.
Click to expand...

What are you seeing to make that statement.

I would say most have no real political leanings with conservative leanings coming in 2nd.
 
Well, Republicans can't win a Presidential election; so when Hillary is President, what happens if she nominates Obama?
 
Carl said:
Well, Republicans can't win a Presidential election; so when Hillary is President, what happens if she nominates Obama?
Click to expand...

I was thinking similarly. They contain the Senate for sure right now. They can get a moderate swing vote like Kennedy on the court. After November they MIGHT control the Senate and the White House, but so might the Democrats. Who knows who Hillary or Bernie would nominate with a Democratically-controlled Senate.
 
VA Cowboy said:
It would be an interesting study looking at the demographics and political makeup of most mass shooters. From what I've seen the bulk are liberals and/or muslims.
Click to expand...

Radical right wingers are the majority of active terrorists in the U.S.

The two incidents I was referring to was the planned parenthood shooter and the Lafayette Theater shooter from last year. You could also lump in Dylan Roof since the white supremacists he was associated either were very active politically. Donating to a number of republican presidential candidates.

I think 20 to 40 years ago, when communism and environmental terrorism was all the rage, they trended more to the left. But in the post 9-11 era, radical right wing is the most common US terrorist affiliation.
 
townsend said:
Radical right wingers are the majority of active terrorists in the U.S.

The two incidents I was referring to was the planned parenthood shooter and the Lafayette Theater shooter from last year. You could also lump in Dylan Roof since the white supremacists he was associated either were very active politically. Donating to a number of republican presidential candidates.

I think 20 to 40 years ago, when communism and environmental terrorism was all the rage, they trended more to the left. But in the post 9-11 era, radical right wing is the most common US terrorist affiliation.
Click to expand...

You are describing extremist not conservatives. I am amazed you can lump them together.
 
L.T. Fan said:
You are describing extremist not conservatives. I am amazed you can lump them together.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that most extremists are still working within a conservative ideology. Now if you think my description of conservatives was deliberately inflammatory, it was.

Schmitty (in the comment I was responding too) described the responses of "brain dead liberals" tacitly implying that "brain dead" was a default state of liberalism, and celebrating a man's death was somehow in line with progressive ideals.

I responded by highlighting a similar minority of self identifying conservatives, to intentionally point out how inflammatory it is to apply the actions a few idiots to a political ideal.
 
townsend said:
Don't forget that most extremists are still working within a conservative ideology. Now if you think my description of conservatives was deliberately inflammatory, it was.

Schmitty (in the comment I was responding too) described the responses of "brain dead liberals" tacitly implying that "brain dead" was a default state of liberalism, and celebrating a man's death was somehow in line with progressive ideals.

I responded by highlighting a similar minority of self identifying conservatives, to intentionally point out how inflammatory it is to apply the actions a few idiots to a political ideal.
Click to expand...

So Schmittys comments about liberals, which you disagree with give legitimatecy to erroneously categorizing conservatives? Doesn't that make your position about them as wrong as you think his is?
 
L.T. Fan said:
So Schmittys comments about liberals, which you disagree with give legitimatecy to erroneously categorizing conservatives? Doesn't that make your position about them as wrong as you think his is?
Click to expand...
Sort of. Since I was deliberately jabbing back at conservatives the same way Schmitty was jabbing at liberals. I would say that my response was a deliberate use of the same broken standard, that judges a movement by the actions of the assholes from within the movement (who are present on every side of every movement.) Rather than the ideals the movement embodies.
My statement was faulty, and also was meant to show why Schmitty's was faulty as well.
 
Typical Obama. Tried to filibuster Alitos nomination when he was still in the Senate but now wants to lash out at the prospects the Republicans may do what he and his colleagues tried.

Not to mention the last time the Dems had control of the Senate Harry Reid instituted the nuclear option so no one on that side of the aisle has room to talk about anything the R's may do.
 
It's hilarious how some people are choosing to ignore the constitution on this matter and it's even more galling considering how much Scalia touted his being a textualist when it comes to the reading of the constitution.

This refusing to even consider a candidate is the most hypocritical thing by republicans in recent memory.

It's going to be fun watching them talk out of both sides of their mouths concerning what was said when Reagan nominated Kennedy.

And McConnell is just a joke after having written this.

“What standard then can be drawn for the Senate from the experiences of the past year in advising and consenting to Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court? They have been set out above but should be reiterated in conclusion. At the outset, the Senate should discount the philosophy of the nominee. In our politically centrist society, it is highly unlikely that any Executive would nominate a man of such extreme views of the right of the left as to be disturbing to the Senate…

The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform. To that end, the Constitution gives to him the power to nominate. As mentioned earlier, if the power to nominate had been given to the Senate, as was considered during the debates at the Constitutional Convention, then it would be proper for the Senate to consider political philosophy.”
Click to expand...

http://news.groopspeak.com/8646-2/
 
Mitch McConnell of 1970 Contradicts Mitch McConnell of 2016 On SCOTUS Confirmations Last Updated on February 15, 2016296


In a move that rather coldly politicized Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky pointed out within barely an hour that he did not believe that a president in his last year should appoint a Supreme Court judge.

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Notwithstanding the fact that the American people would have a voice in Obama’s nomination through their right to vote since they voted for Obama and he still has 11 months of the term he was elected for to go, McConnell’s words are proving to be problematic in other ways.


First, it was widely reported shortly after that statement that McConnell confirmed the nomination of Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1988, which just happened to be the final year of a president’s term. That president, however, was Ronald Reagan, Republican hero. That one was fairly simple to find, and one wonders whether or not Mitch McConnell has ever heard of Google.

Now, an article published by Kentucky Law Journal has also emerged from their 1970-71 issue, written by a much younger Mitchell A. McConnell.

“What standard then can be drawn for the Senate from the experiences of the past year in advising and consenting to Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court? They have been set out above but should be reiterated in conclusion. At the outset, the Senate should discount the philosophy of the nominee. In our politically centrist society, it is highly unlikely that any Executive would nominate a man of such extreme views of the right of the left as to be disturbing to the Senate…

The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform. To that end, the Constitution gives to him the power to nominate. As mentioned earlier, if the power to nominate had been given to the Senate, as was considered during the debates at the Constitutional Convention, then it would be proper for the Senate to consider political philosophy.”

So while 1970s Mitch McConnell found it a “perfectly legitimate part” of a president’s job to steer the Supreme Court in a particular ideological direction until that president was Barack Obama. Suddenly, McConnell’s entire philosophy around the responsibilities of the president have changed. Suddenly, McConnell is concerned for “voters.”

This is unsurprising considering that Mitch McConnell is the same man who said that his first priority was to make a newly-elected President Obama a “one-term president.” The book “The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era,” written by the award-winning author Michael Grunwald, revealed in 2008, McConnell led private meetings with other Republican political leaders and along with Eric Cantor initiated a strategy in which Republicans agreed to simply block everything Obama tried to pass.

“[McConnell and Cantor in 2009] laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. ‘If he was for it,’ former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, ‘we had to be against it.’”

McConnell seems to be absolutely stuck on that strategy, despite the fact that he failed at his mission to keep President Obama from serving a second term. Perhaps now, it’s time for McConnell to accept that voters elected president Obama to do a job, and we meant for him to do that job throughout his entire two terms.
 
:lol To call a guy out for potentially contradicting something he said 46 years ago is an enormous stretch, even by liberal democrat standards. Holy Shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom