Justice Kennedy Retires

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Is this poor soul Dback or Trip?

The left is so fucking evil they have made it so I kinda dont care if people are ACTUALLY Nazis. I love where they are right now mentally and I hope a lot of them end the problem for us.

[kalm]

Except when it's used to build roads, schools, win wars, maintain public lands, and keep the hoi poloi from taking up pitchforks.

Seriously...you guys crack me the **** up.

Look! A socialist fire fighter just saved a cat! A librarian just checked out a book...for free!

BOO!!!!!!!!

So you equate a Constitutionally mandated service (the military) to being socialist???

Other government services like building roads - socialism???

Interesting perspective...dumb, but interesting...

There are certain things that should be non profit, like war. We are a mixed economy and a mixed form
of government. Capitalism AND socialism. A democratic republic. We’re both.

The true argument lies only in the matter of degree.

Jefferson struggled with the idea of the Louisiana Purchase fitting with the original intent of government. He wrote the check anyway. Could you imagine if he hadn’t?

Talk about stupid.

[kalm]

Because THIS TIME it will work

Nothing works for too long...
It always ends up over time favoring a specific group and imploding
When a dozen families own more than the bottom half - it's not for long - I don't care what name you call it

I think they like to call it capitalism.

[css75]

http://www.bing.com/images/search?view= ... edIndex=13

I am beginning to think this is totally 100% correct based on the left coming uncorked.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

So you equate a Constitutionally mandated service (the military) to being socialist???

Other government services like building roads - socialism???

Interesting perspective...dumb, but interesting...

There are certain things that should be non profit, like war. We are a mixed economy and a mixed form
of government. Capitalism AND socialism. A democratic republic. We’re both.

The true argument lies only in the matter of degree.

Jefferson struggled with the idea of the Louisiana Purchase fitting with the original intent of government. He wrote the check anyway. Could you imagine if he hadn’t?

Talk about stupid.

War is now and has always been for profit ever since we started sharpening the first pointy sticks. It is the ultimate for profit endeavor

Why don't you say buttholes shouldn't smell bad? Just as pertinent

[Baldy]

Thank you, Senator Reid.

Forever yours,
'Merica

[Ivytalk]

There are certain things that should be non profit, like war. We are a mixed economy and a mixed form
of government. Capitalism AND socialism. A democratic republic. We’re both.

The true argument lies only in the matter of degree.

Jefferson struggled with the idea of the Louisiana Purchase fitting with the original intent of government. He wrote the check anyway. Could you imagine if he hadn’t?

Talk about stupid.

War is now and has always been for profit ever since we started sharpening the first pointy sticks. It is the ultimate for profit endeavor

Why don't you say buttholes shouldn't smell bad? Just as pertinent

Nobody puts Klam in his place, with such panache, like CID.

[HI54UNI]

So how many Democrats senators vote for the nominee? Manchin, Tester, Heitkamp all are up for re-election in Trump states. Will they have to vote for the nominee to try and save their seats?

[HI54UNI]

Matthew K.
‏ @mattiek17
18h18 hours ago

Literally in tears. Haven’t felt this hopeless in a long time. With Justice Kennedy leaving, we now have two options as Americans: get fitted for your Nazi uniform or report directly to your death camp. How do you fight the darkness without light? My spark is going out. #SCOTUS

[kalm]

War is now and has always been for profit ever since we started sharpening the first pointy sticks. It is the ultimate for profit endeavor

Why don't you say buttholes shouldn't smell bad? Just as pertinent

Nobody puts Klam in his place, with such panache, like CID.

The motivation for WWII was profit?

I get what CID is saying and it's correct in a way, but that doesn't mean that profit should (CID must have missed that word while he was typing butthole) be the motivation or that military spending should be privatized or profit driven. But yes, it is.

CID the Bulldog and Ivy the Terrier....

phpBB [video]

[Ibanez]

I doubt that I will be a leader in any such movement. But the point is that if you have a problem with the Constitution there is a process for changing it. In the case of the Electoral College it should be possible to make both sides see benefits to eliminate it.

For example: If you are a Republican you need to understand that both Texas and Florida are evolving demographically towards becoming "blue" states in Presidential elections. The States with the largest electoral vote totals are California, Texas, New York, and Florida. California and New York went for the Democrat last time by 30 and 23 percentage points. Texas and Florida went for the Republican by 9 and 1 percentage points. The 2012 State by State exit polls are not readily available but between 2008 and 2016 the percent White vote in Texas went from 63% to 57% and that in Florida went from 71% to 62%. The handwriting is on the wall. Texas and Florida ARE going to flip, at some point, to being reliably blue.

If you are a Republican, do you want the President to be elected through the electoral college under circumstances where the four largest electoral college States that had 151 electoral votes in 2016 are firmly in the "blue" column? That's going to happen.

So, you still haven’t answered the question. If the population trends continue and those states all turn bluer than a polar bear’s dick, there’s no need to eliminate the EC.

By the way, John, once these demographic trends happen and we have a solid Donk electorate that elects Sanders-type socialists and public-assistance freeloaders for the rest of your life, you’ll be bitching and moaning worse than anyone — if you are a true conservative, which I doubt. All in the name of getting rid of Trump.

I didn't want this gem to go unnoticed. I've never heard of that one.

Spoiler: show

Meanwhile, today it's hotter than a two dick dog.

[Ibanez]

Puhleeaaaaaase.

It's now going to a full three branch control. And 51 votes in the Senate gets anything through, including judicial nominations. The GOP has worn down checks and balances so much that it's essentially non-existent. And a progressive generation will have to deal with a regressive court long after you're dead.

The system is broken; it's time to throw it out.

We can all thank Harry Reid, a great democrat, for 51 votes now in the Senate.

Are you just trying to tweak us with your insane ideas, or do you actually believe that nonsense? If you believe it, you have to be a Millennial as they have no brains.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Some of us millennials, like myself and SD Hornet, have plenty of brians!

Spoiler: show

[Ibanez]

So you’re just a feckless young nihilist at heart. Got it.

This nation needs a major shake up; it's clear the Constitution isn't working and hasn't been for a while. Or split the nation and end this ridiculous 50 state relationship. I have nothing in common with the people of the heartland; let them do their thing and let the coasts do theirs:

East Coast of America, West Coast of America, United States of America, Utah, and Texas. We can continue having economic relationships, open borders, and military alliances, but governance can be separate.

The Constitution is working just fine. The Constitution is a document - it's up to the "intelligent" beings charged with it's interpretation and protection to follow it. I'd say the real problem is that it's not being followed.

And I thought you loved the US. Now you want to secede? Dback! Look! A traitor!!!

[Ibanez]

He was right of center, how about that?

But he was spot on with Roe and Gay marriage. It comes down to personal freedom and equality - I thought you Republicans were for personal freedoms and gov't staying out your lives.

Telling a state govt to take an action (forcing to recognize gay marriage) vs continuing an inaction (not recognizing) isn’t govt staying out of peoples lives- it is the opposite. It actually increases govt involement.
Decreasing govt involvement would be getting out of the marriage business.
And I didnt see it as discrimination- any man could marry any women & vice versa. States’ rights. If its not a power granted to the fed in the Constitution then it should be left up to the states.

As far as Roe, no reason the states’ shouldnt be able to decide for themselves. States’ rights. If its not a power granted to the fed in the Constitution then it should be left up to the states.

Who do you want deciding on issues that arent mentioned in the constitution- your local stae govt, or politicians in DC?

1) The gov't should be out of the marriage business, 100%. Gay or straight, get out. But since it won't, you need to treat people equally. I've said that for years. Hell, I think marriage licenses should be renewed. There may be an argument for "easier" and quicker divorces if a couple just had to wait for their license to not be renewed (of course there's much more involved - money, assets, children - but it's just a thought.) You also might see couple split up sooner b/c they don't feel locked in.

2) Roe is about access to healthcare. I set my views on abortion aside - this is about access to quality healthcare.

Why shouldn't a woman, facing a difficult decision, have the ability to have a safe and clean procedure? you have to stop thinking that only people with your political/religious perspective have a say in this country. We aren't the United States of Republican Americans or Democratic Americans.

We have to consider the minority - they are still citizens and deserve to be heard, even if they aren't in power.

[kalm]

Telling a state govt to take an action (forcing to recognize gay marriage) vs continuing an inaction (not recognizing) isn’t govt staying out of peoples lives- it is the opposite. It actually increases govt involement.
Decreasing govt involvement would be getting out of the marriage business.
And I didnt see it as discrimination- any man could marry any women & vice versa. States’ rights. If its not a power granted to the fed in the Constitution then it should be left up to the states.

As far as Roe, no reason the states’ shouldnt be able to decide for themselves. States’ rights. If its not a power granted to the fed in the Constitution then it should be left up to the states.

Who do you want deciding on issues that arent mentioned in the constitution- your local stae govt, or politicians in DC?

1) The gov't should be out of the marriage business, 100%. Gay or straight, get out. But since it won't, you need to treat people equally. I've said that for years. Hell, I think marriage licenses should be renewed. There may be an argument for "easier" and quicker divorces if a couple just had to wait for their license to not be renewed (of course there's much more involved - money, assets, children - but it's just a thought.) You also might see couple split up sooner b/c they don't feel locked in.

2) Roe is about access to healthcare. I set my views on abortion aside - this is about access to quality healthcare.

Why shouldn't a woman, facing a difficult decision, have the ability to have a safe and clean procedure? you have to stop thinking that only people with your political/religious perspective have a say in this country. We aren't the United States of Republican Americans or Democratic Americans.

We have to consider the minority - they are still citizens and deserve to be heard, even if they aren't in power.

[CID1990]

Nobody puts Klam in his place, with such panache, like CID.

The motivation for WWII was profit?

I get what CID is saying and it's correct in a way, but that doesn't mean that profit should (CID must have missed that word while he was typing butthole) be the motivation or that military spending should be privatized or profit driven. But yes, it is.

CID the Bulldog and Ivy the Terrier....

phpBB [video]

Yes, WWII at its root had for-profit causes

And profit isn't the motivation today... credible fear is - you will say it is created by Northrop Grumman, but it is created by the reality that our adversaries are continually trying to outspend us. .... for some strange peaceful reason, I guess

so that sphere of influence politics (China, Russia) can get a leg up on consensus, globalist politics

and now, adjusted for the fact that China's military industrial complex is state owned and state controlled, they spend more on their military combined with Russia than we do

we either play their game and maintain our illusionary edge (illusionary because we lack martial will and they dont) or we dont play their game and they control the sea lanes AND the markets

we maintain military superiority within a capitalist system - it isn't perfect but you offer no viable alternatives other than

McDonnell Douglas = BAD

the alternative is fascism (private ownership, state control) or communism (state ownership, state control)

so which are you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

The motivation for WWII was profit?

I get what CID is saying and it's correct in a way, but that doesn't mean that profit should (CID must have missed that word while he was typing butthole) be the motivation or that military spending should be privatized or profit driven. But yes, it is.

CID the Bulldog and Ivy the Terrier....

phpBB [video]

Yes, WWII at its root had for-profit causes

And profit isn't the motivation today... credible fear is - you will say it is created by Northrop Grumman, but it is created by the reality that our adversaries are continually trying to outspend us. .... for some strange peaceful reason, I guess

so that sphere of influence politics (China, Russia) can get a leg up on consensus, globalist politics

and now, adjusted for the fact that China's military industrial complex is state owned and state controlled, they spend more on their military combined with Russia than we do

we either play their game and maintain our illusionary edge (illusionary because we lack martial will and they dont) or we dont play their game and they control the sea lanes AND the markets

we maintain military superiority within a capitalist system - it isn't perfect but you offer no viable alternatives other than

McDonnell Douglas = BAD

the alternative is fascism (private ownership, state control) or communism (state ownership, state control)

so which are you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if I placed the word “private” in front of profit does that change anything for you?

[Chizzang]

Nothing works for too long...
It always ends up over time favoring a specific group and imploding
When a dozen families own more than the bottom half - it's not for long - I don't care what name you call it

I think they like to call it capitalism.

Well it sure as hell isn't Free Market Capitalism
Whatever kind of Capitalism it is that we're running today - it isn't going to work for too much longer

as an example:
Our Federal Government used to restrict monopolies - now it encourages them
Restriction of monopolies worked by allowing new smaller more agile competition '

add to that:
Allowing Political Free Agents (congress people) to now be completely financially under the control of
These same monopolies doubles down on the problem of smaller agile competition

Imagine if Starbucks was allowed to entirely control the flow of coffee beans into North America
You would never see another free standing independent coffee shop

Imagine all the scenarios where small business bumps into monopoly business
Look there and you will find pending legislation in favor of the monopoly



It's not a good trend

[∞∞∞]

^^^This era will be known as the Second Gilded Age.

[GannonFan]

The motivation for WWII was profit?

Yes, WWII at its root had for-profit causes

CID's right, a lot of what started WWII was about profit. The Japanese were fighting to get more access to raw materials (especially oil) that they didn't have naturally. The Germans were doing much of the same (the whole annexing of the Sudetenland was mostly to get access to the manufacturing facilities and raw materials found there). Without those motives who knows if we would've had a WWII.

[GannonFan]

^^^This era will be known as the Second Gilded Age.

Only if you don't have an appreciation for the true despair of poverty in America during the First Gilded Age.

[kalm]

Yes, WWII at its root had for-profit causes

CID's right, a lot of what started WWII was about profit. The Japanese were fighting to get more access to raw materials (especially oil) that they didn't have naturally. The Germans were doing much of the same (the whole annexing of the Sudetenland was mostly to get access to the manufacturing facilities and raw materials found there). Without those motives who knows if we would've had a WWII.

Sure. My point (and I apologize for not being more succinct) is that our motivation wasn’t profit.

[Ibanez]

^^^This era will be known as the Second Gilded Age.

Only if you don't have an appreciation for the true despair of poverty in America during the First Gilded Age.

Or immense social issues.

[GannonFan]

Only if you don't have an appreciation for the true despair of poverty in America during the First Gilded Age.

Or immense social issues.

Indeed. Trying to compare today's issues with the desperate reality of late 19th century America is to show a lack of historical understanding of late 19th century America. Given the poor status of history education in America today, though, it's expected that some folks will make that mistake and think to connect the two eras.

[GannonFan]

CID's right, a lot of what started WWII was about profit. The Japanese were fighting to get more access to raw materials (especially oil) that they didn't have naturally. The Germans were doing much of the same (the whole annexing of the Sudetenland was mostly to get access to the manufacturing facilities and raw materials found there). Without those motives who knows if we would've had a WWII.

Sure. My point (and I apologize for not being more succinct) is that our motivation wasn’t profit.

Well, one could argue, if seen as a zero sum game, that our motivation was to a point about profit - any profit that Germany and, to more of an extent for the USA, Japan captured, would be profit that we couldn't obtain or that we were losing. Remember, Japan didn't attack us until we started putting up roadblocks to prevent them from securing more oil to fuel their war effort. We certainly had motivations that went much past profit, but we were also fighting for a world order, that you've railed against by the way, that protects American profits. I think we were far more altruistic with regards to fighting Germany, and certainly a lot that Japan had done in Manchuria in the 30's was enough to take the moral high road against Japan, but to some extent we were concerned about profits.