Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Posted: 6/29/2015 8:46:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 8:46:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2015 8:47:34 PM EDT by generalissimo]
the issue is not the issue. the issue is the revolution.

ETA: the issue of the day will be used as a lever to move FORWARD!™
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 8:48:46 PM EDT
ballot box
soap box
and now
jury box
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 8:49:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 8:56:30 PM EDT
There is no contradiction.
At the time of her statement in 2009 she was not a Supreme Court justice.

Once a person becomes a justice, rights which are hidden from mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras which surround the Constitution. Words which cannot be seen by mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras of statutes.

It's a completely different world.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 8:58:34 PM EDT
You have to say stuff like that to get through your confirmation hearings.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 8:58:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By generalissimo:
the issue is not the issue. the issue is the revolution.

ETA: the issue of the day will be used as a lever to move FORWARD!™
View Quote


Yep.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 8:59:53 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By quick2k3:
You have to say stuff like that to get through your confirmation hearings.
View Quote


Was it her or the wise latina who said she agreed with the Heller decision then turned around and fucked 2a in Chicago?
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 9:00:18 PM EDT
Purgery?
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 9:00:54 PM EDT
But that's so 2009...
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 9:03:12 PM EDT
Imagine that, a politician reversed themselves.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 9:03:58 PM EDT

She "evolved" in her thinking. She didn't lie -- you see. And you are too obtuse to know the difference.

.....now pick up that can !
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 9:17:56 PM EDT
I've read thread after thread here in GD telling me gay marriage is a right.

People have even cited the 14th Amendment and everything.

It appears Kagan's position "evolved" almost in lockstep with Barack Hussein.

So:

1. Was Kagan lying in 2009?

-or-

2. Was she (and the 4 other Justices) full of shit in their decision last week?

-and/or-

3. Are all the morons crying "it's a right" and "more freedom" clueless?
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 9:19:49 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By quick2k3:
You have to say stuff like that to get through your confirmation hearings.
View Quote


And there you have it.


Link Posted: 6/29/2015 9:20:37 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
There is no contradiction.
At the time of her statement in 2009 she was not a Supreme Court justice.

Once a person becomes a justice, rights which are hidden from mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras which surround the Constitution. Words which cannot be seen by mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras of statutes.

It's a completely different world.
View Quote



She evolved.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 9:21:26 PM EDT
Lying liar fucking lies
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 9:43:30 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
There is no contradiction.
At the time of her statement in 2009 she was not a Supreme Court justice.

Once a person becomes a justice, rights which are hidden from mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras which surround the Constitution. Words which cannot be seen by mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras of statutes.

It's a completely different world.
View Quote

Thank you for clarifying. Now I understand.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 9:49:11 PM EDT
Sleeper agent has been activated.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:00:43 PM EDT
Activist judges lie to get confirmed. Who'd have thunk it?

Confirmation should be a serious process, not the dog and pony show they put on now
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:02:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2015 10:03:25 PM EDT by Number0neGun]
So people can't change their minds? Seriously?

I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too.

When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh?
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:03:01 PM EDT
My shocked face.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:03:55 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously?

I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too.

When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh?
View Quote


She never changed her mind.

She just said what she had to at the time.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:04:14 PM EDT
that motherfucker really switched gears when King Of Queens got canceled.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:05:37 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Eagle_19er:
ballot box
soap box
and now
jury box
View Quote


If only there was another type of box.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:06:21 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously?

I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too.

When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh?
View Quote



Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:09:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2015 10:10:43 PM EDT by Stevil1300]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously?

I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too.

When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh?
View Quote



"Kagan’s 2009 testimony before the Senate during confirmation hearings on her nomination to be Solicitor General.

In the course of that testimony, Kagan stated: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

She was under oath.

She didn't "change her mind," she was being honest because there is NO constitutional right to same sex marriage.

She, and the four other justices made one up.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:09:42 PM EDT
I always assumed she was a lesbian anyway.



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:09:55 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sydney7629:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously?

I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too.

When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh?


http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/e6/fa/ce/e6facee6882ddfc676bf54194d55d5f0.jpg

Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:10:00 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By quick2k3:
You have to say stuff like that to get through your confirmation hearings.
View Quote

Right there.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:11:51 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously?

I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too.
View Quote

True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say.

Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution.

There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious.

The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:19:35 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GarandM1:
<snip>

There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious.

The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye.
View Quote

Well said.

As Justice Scalia stated:

"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began:
‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag.

The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:23:30 PM EDT
Once those assholes get one of those seats, all bets are off. FOR FUCKING LIFE.

The Constitution is less than toilet paper to those lower specimens of the lawyer sub species.

The next Congress needs to impeach the whole lot of traitorous shitheads, then execute them all, by wood chipper.

Time to start over with a fresh batch of black dress wearing pieces of shit.



Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:24:59 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GarandM1:

True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say.

Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution.

There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious.

The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GarandM1:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously?

I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too.

True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say.

Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution.

There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious.

The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye.




the last two paragraphs above are excellent. well stated.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:26:15 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By quick2k3:
You have to say stuff like that to get through your confirmation hearings.
View Quote



Yup.

Lies.


Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:32:50 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GarandM1:

True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say.

Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution.

There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious.

The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GarandM1:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously?

I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too.

True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say.

Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution.

There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious.

The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye.


Okay. Serious question.

Did Roe vs. Wade not do the same shit in regards to state laws?
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:35:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:35:51 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:


Okay. Serious question.

Did Roe vs. Wade not do the same shit in regards to state laws?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
Originally Posted By GarandM1:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously?

I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too.

True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say.

Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution.

There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious.

The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye.


Okay. Serious question.

Did Roe vs. Wade not do the same shit in regards to state laws?

Yes, it did. Abortion was traditionally a state issue; the Supreme Court simply "found" a new federal right that had never existed before.

Interestingly, Roe didn't "solve" the abortion issue, not by a long shot. I get the feeling that the gay marriage issue will be festering for quite a while, too.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:43:37 PM EDT
They ignored their duty to uphold the constitution. So ignore their interpretation of a "law".

Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:47:00 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Eagle_19er:
ballot box
soap box
and now
jury box
View Quote


+1

Fuck Kagan right in the mouth.

Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:50:34 PM EDT
It depends on what the word, "is", is.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:51:16 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GarandM1:

Yes, it did. Abortion was traditionally a state issue; the Supreme Court simply "found" a new federal right that had never existed before.

Interestingly, Roe didn't "solve" the abortion issue, not by a long shot. I get the feeling that the gay marriage issue will be festering for quite a while, too.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GarandM1:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
Originally Posted By GarandM1:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously?

I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too.

True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say.

Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution.

There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious.

The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye.


Okay. Serious question.

Did Roe vs. Wade not do the same shit in regards to state laws?

Yes, it did. Abortion was traditionally a state issue; the Supreme Court simply "found" a new federal right that had never existed before.

Interestingly, Roe didn't "solve" the abortion issue, not by a long shot. I get the feeling that the gay marriage issue will be festering for quite a while, too.


Then one could argue that the legal precedent was already set.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:56:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2015 11:02:22 PM EDT by Cincinnatus]
Shee needed to lie to bring us individual Freedom.

I have been told right here, on THIS site, by Libertarian Lovers of Individual Freedom...that the means justify the ends.

Sit back and enjoy your Freedom.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 10:56:53 PM EDT
Oh,......................you were serious about that?


Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:03:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2015 11:09:35 PM EDT by TheTaxMonkey]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
Then one could argue that the legal precedent was already set.
View Quote


Sure, you could make that argument but why would you? Precedent does not matter with the SCOTUS as they are not bound by other SCOTUS decisions (theoretically, they are bound only by the text of the Constitution along with any further limitations set by Congress).

They have reversed their own positions numerous times in the last 220+ some odd years.

Unless your argument would be "SCOTUS has ruled in ways contrary to the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution in the past ergo this is not new or surprising" in which case I would say you had a point.

To anyone paying attention who thinks this case (Obergefell v. Hodges) will help 2A jurisprudence, I have bad news for you: 4 of the 5 justices who voted in the majority were the same 4 who voted against Heller, McDonald, and would not have a problem reversing either Heller or McDonald on a future case. Take a look on what Alan Gura has said on what he thinks about certain SCOTUS jurists following Heller and McDonald and it will chill your blood.

I do not care what one, two, or half a dozen + people do in their own homes or on their own property but this was an incredibly horrific ruling that will haunt this country for decades upon decades to come.

Take a look around at how the lower courts are interpreting Heller and McDonald and behold just how little stare decisisi actually means (Bonidy vs USPS is a good example).

We're in deep **** here folks.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:05:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2015 11:06:17 PM EDT by 9divdoc]
Say whatever you have to to get elected or appointed to power...do whatever you want once you are.

Psychopaths Narcissists and Sociopaths are attracted to politics like tall people are attracted to basketball.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:08:44 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Eagle_19er:
ballot box
soap box
and now
jury box
View Quote



hahaha haha hahaha. Let me guess - cheese it box? ??
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:10:22 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hostile1:



hahaha haha hahaha. Let me guess - cheese it box? ??
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hostile1:
Originally Posted By Eagle_19er:
ballot box
soap box
and now
jury box



hahaha haha hahaha. Let me guess - cheese it box? ??


May as well be a cracker jack box where we are heading.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:11:57 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously?

I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too.

When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh?
View Quote


Dude. You're fourteen. You don't know this yet, but you don't actually know or believe anything yet.
Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:19:26 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously?

I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too.

When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh?
View Quote
The constitution did not change since 2009.

Justices have to be confirmed by the senate, and saying she was for gay marriage could have hurt her chances.

I have nothing wrong with a politician changing their minds. Peoples thoughts and opinions can change, and I have nothing wrong with that, but the constitution did not change in the last 5 years, and the supreme court should rule on what the constitution says.

Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:19:36 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Shee needed to lie to bring us individual Freedom.

I have been told right here, on THIS site, by Libertarian Lovers of Individual Freedom...that the means justify the ends.

Sit back and enjoy your Freedom.
View Quote


Why do I get the impression Libertarians are unwittingly being used by the Democrat party to further the Democrat agenda?

Link Posted: 6/29/2015 11:22:02 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FightingHellfish:


Dude. You're fourteen. You don't know this yet, but you don't actually know or believe anything yet.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FightingHellfish:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously?

I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too.

When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh?


Dude. You're fourteen. You don't know this yet, but you don't actually know or believe anything yet.


Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Top Top