General Discussion

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)

13. Sure you have that right

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:21 PM

Jan 2012

Just as I have the right to point out that your "criticisms" are stupid and not based in reality, and are rather based on the assumption that "Obama = Always Bad."

In this country, we don't elect dictators? Considering you and the other Fauxgressives are the main impetus behind the would-be dictators and theocrats taking home the bacon in 2010, and here you are now trying to discourage people in order to ensure another such sweep, I have to wonder how you figure.

I'll tell you what. After you and the other fauxgressives get president Gingrich / Romney into office come January, you come back and show us your big brown-stained, shit-eating grin and tell us again how "they're all the same"

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If Obama Loses: The Courts [View all] WilliamPitt Jan 2012 OP

This is the best reason to not be complacent. hifiguy Jan 2012 #1

Thanks for this, Will. CaliforniaPeggy Jan 2012 #2

Yep. That's proven reality. 2000. SCOTUS. Bush. Cheney. Rove. Zorra Jan 2012 #3

A really good reason to ensure a second term for Pres. Obama and holding the Senate. nt Cognitive_Resonance Jan 2012 #4

If he wins, based on his actions can you promise that he will not shift the Court more to the right? AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #5

Has he with his 2 previous nominees to the SCOTUS? FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #6

I can certainly promise WilliamPitt Jan 2012 #7

He is going to get the nomination. He's going to win. It's a sure thing. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #36

For real? Scootaloo Jan 2012 #8

People who rely upon logic are not "demonizing Obama." In a democracy, the people have a right AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #9

Sure you have that right Scootaloo Jan 2012 #13

"Fauxgressives" = Namecalling. I'm now selecting the ignore button. Bye. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #14

The problem is the lack of logic in your question -- not that it "relies on logic." BzaDem Jan 2012 #17

Thank you for your suggestion, but the Supreme Court is full. He does not have any current nominees AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #23

Have you actually read many of their Supreme Court opinions? BzaDem Jan 2012 #24

Interesting that you read case law. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #29

Sotomayor and Kagan Pab Sungenis Jan 2012 #11

Who are the more qualified candidates you refer to? jsmirman Jan 2012 #16

Just two I can name right now Pab Sungenis Jan 2012 #35

Take Moreno jsmirman Jan 2012 #39

That is patently absurd. BzaDem Jan 2012 #18

We are pretty close to being unprotected by the courts already jsmirman Jan 2012 #21

No argument there. BzaDem Jan 2012 #25

I know jsmirman Jan 2012 #27

why is Sotomayor so hated? DonCoquixote Jan 2012 #22

The funny thing is that I would not be surprised if Sotomayor ended up being known to history as the BzaDem Jan 2012 #26

Ha jsmirman Jan 2012 #28

i can promise a true shit stain from president newt romney spanone Jan 2012 #33

And if Obama wins? Pab Sungenis Jan 2012 #10

what is your issue with Elena Kagan? donheld Jan 2012 #15

Here. Pab Sungenis Jan 2012 #31

Sotomayor and Kagan may turn out to be more liberal than any liberal justice in decades. BzaDem Jan 2012 #19

I say stick to the economic issues Pab Sungenis Jan 2012 #32

"The man who moved the Court further to the right in his first term" BzaDem Jan 2012 #38

Ms. Lithwick makes a really good point re: federal appellate courts pinto Jan 2012 #12

K&R. Thanks for posting this, Will! highplainsdem Jan 2012 #20

Interesting MFrohike Jan 2012 #30

This is the advantage of purchasing both parties. woo me with science Jan 2012 #34

Too true. And how strange that some are not only not enraged, they are cheerleaders. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #37

Slow and painful or quick and painful SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #40