13

Antonin Scalia dies at 79

Posted by $ WilliamShipley 5 years ago to Politics
76 comments | Share | Flag

This is a catastrophe for anyone who thinks the constitution shouldn't be reinterpreted in favor of the latest liberal clause. We've had a lot of 5-4 decisions, most recently the suspension of the EPA's energy plan.
SOURCE URL: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/index.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 14
    Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 5 years ago
    Horrible foreboding news. At least he showed some regard for original intent.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years ago
      My heart sank when I first read about Scalia's death.
      Bet the presidebt's heart jumped for joy--secretly, of course.
      A good man dies and I immediately think balance of political power.
      Should I be ashamed of myself?
      Or maybe yesterday's loss in a struggle of good versus evil is more important.
      We all die.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 5 years ago
        Allosaur...the President should be ashamed...not you.

        If our Republican dominated Congress is willing to show some true leadership, it will vigorously fight to keep the "Dark Lord" from seating another of his extreme liberal puppets.

        Bader-Ginsburg should be comforted, at least...now they'll probably back off on trying to get her to retire so the President could replace her.

        Though Justice Scalia would likely have preferred to stay around to see the court properly "balanced", his days of worrying about his country are over. May he rest in Peace.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
    My sister came up with the perfect candidate black, female, not an attorney, familiar in depth with the workings of government and never a politician.

    All it takes is a no vote from the Senate until Jan 20th then a nomination for

    Condoleeza Rice!

    Can't you hear the leftists squeal like rats breathing pepper spray! (candidate for replacing rats eating onions.)

    It should be reinterpreted but not in terms of the goals of the left. But in terms of the Constitution. Jefferson not Marx.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 5 years ago
      You weren't at HP when Condi was on the BOD, were you?... around the time of Carly's reign?
      She did about as much to help HP as Kerry or Hillary has done for the US' foreign relationships.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years ago
    With the death of the best jurist on the Supreme Court, we will find out what the Republican majority in congress is really all about. Scalia was a Constitutionalist par excellence, He dove into the words as they were meant and expressed by those who wrote them, at the time they wrote them. We know Obama's intent to replace him, we will discover the intent of congress to prevent it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 5 years ago
    Ted Cruz has called for the "Next President" to select his replacement. This would mean that the Senate would refuse to confirm anyone Obama nominated. I'm not sure how that would play out with almost a year to go.

    I can't imagine Obama nominating anyone the Republicans are going to accept and with the court running 5-4 on many cases this is going to be a bare knuckle fight.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 5 years ago
      Cynically/realistically based on the past the GOP members of the senate will accept obama's appointee for political reasons after pretending to oppose her. Oh, yes, it will be a minority female as a PC excuse for them to confirm. Cruz and Rubio will cast their votes just as their GOP masters "advise."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years ago
      What if the "next President" is Hillary or Sanders? It will be a lot easier to block an Obama appointment than one by a newly elected President during the "honeymoon" period.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -2
      Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
      Not if you are talking about the Rinos they are still the right wing OF the left it will be pretend at worst and a pretense at best just like also then the RINOs will cave arf arf lap dogs of the left to the last. the blood is provided from a Hollywood makeup crew.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Itheliving 5 years ago
    The Dems changed the rules to get Kagan and Sotomayer. Now they see the consequences. Meetings, stalls and turn downs. Remember when Jesse Helms threatened a filibuster and doomed Bork in '87? All of OBs shenanigans and Harry Rs power plays will now stare at them in their bitterness and failure.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 5 years ago
      But the Republicans don't even need to threaten a filibuster -- they have a majority. Mitch McConnell has come out in favor of waiting until after the next election so that "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Bobhummel 5 years ago
        There is the prospect of a recess appointment to fill the vacancy. The Senate can stay in session until the end of the term of one third of the senate. There will a period of in January 2017 when the senate is not in session and BHO will still be POTUS where he can appoint someone to serve out one year on the SCOTUS. It will be ugly no matter what the senate does. Justice Scalia set the bar very high for integrity and dedication to the law and the constitution as the foundation for authority in our nation. Rest in peace.
        Cheers
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ISank 5 years ago
    There is a lot on the spring plate for scotus, I wish they would have already decided on the Cali teachers case, I'm so looking forward to hearing the whining of our state teacher union weasels.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by minorwork 5 years ago
    No autopsy. Like it's normal to be found dead with your head UNDER a pillow. Nothing suspicious there.

    President Obama nominates himself for the Supremes or President Hillary Clinton nominates him. Oh joy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 5 years ago
    McConnell not only will cave, he will lead the parade for whomever the Big O nominates. McConnell, keep in mind, introduced a bill a few weeks ago to give the president unlimited power to initiate and maintain war without ever bothering with that now useless body called congress. This guy would be the running mate for Sanders.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Flootus5 5 years ago
    I have had a sense since the breaking of this news, that this could be the spark that ignites a powder keg. I don't know. It feeds into such an old expectation on my part of "what will it take for people to wake up and actually participate in what is happening to the United States?"

    For those that are up to speed, this is so huge in its ramifications, I can only expect that the little spoken of political process will get really wild in the next months.

    How this will manifest into the public stage will be very interesting. I am in trepidation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 5 years ago
    Given Justice Scalias unabashed (and correct) belief that the Constitution must be upheld as written, as opposed to what politicians "think" it should mean, every action and policy pushed through by Obama must have chafed on him greatly. Do you think its possible this champion of Liberty may have left a file somewhere, to be made public upon his death, that would provide the required information to charge and prosecute this president and this administration for corruption, or conspiring with America`s enemies? Would a crafty old Constitutional Patriot consider that?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ohiocrossroads 5 years ago
    Could be truly a dark day for the republic.
    If the Dimocrats are serious about attaining absolute power, here is what they'll do:
    Barack Obama resigns the presidency.
    Joe Biden becomes president without having to run for anything.
    Biden turns around and nominates Barack Obama to be the replacement Supreme Court justice.
    The Republican congress caves again and confirms the nomination, because they don't want to be called "racist".
    Is anybody out there scared now?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RevJay4 5 years ago
      That scenario would be the match to the powderkeg which this country has become in the last several years.
      The other possibility is that the "o" will ignore his term of office, find a "crisis" to use and declare Martial Law, effectively extending his time in the WH until the "crisis" has passed. Which will never happen, of course.
      Both of these scenarios scare the crap outta me because I can see the possibility of either one happening given the political climate we have now.
      Maybe its just me.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years ago
    Maybe Obama will nominate himself after he isnt president any more, and we can go faster down the socialist road and get it over with. Between sanders as president, elizabeth warren as VP, and Obama as a supreme court judge, things would go fast.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 5 years ago
    On the issue of appointment, the Constitution provides that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court." I think this means that Obama has the obligation to nominate someone for this open seat. The Senate can then decide whether or not to consent to the nomination, but just doing nothing does violence to the language and original intendment of the Constitution. I doubt Justice Scalia would have approved. Moreover, on a practical level, it is inadvisable to leave the seat open for the year and a half it would take to fill it if Obama does nothing or the Senate sits on its collective hands. The new President does not take office until January of 2017 followed by a period of months of vetting, nomination, Judiciary Committee hearings and full Senate voting. That all adds up to three terms of an eight person Court with lots of potential 4-4 results where the Courts of Appeals decisions stand. That, in turn, means that possibly significant splits in the Circuits are not resolved and different decisions would hold sway in different regions of the country until resolution after new cases are resolved by the reconstituted Court. This result should be unacceptable to everyone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 5 years ago
      Historical precedent is on both sides of this issue, but seems biased toward waiting. While there are disadvantages to a 4-4 court, moving the court to 5-4 liberal will do far more damage than unresolved issues.

      If a liberal justice had died, I suspect there would be more Republican support for letting Obama replace them. It might be interesting for the Republican candidate to select his choice prior to the election so that the debate can begin but I doubt that will happen.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Eyecu2 5 years ago
      While I see your point. I am on the fence about this at this time. Due to my fear of a Court which could quite possibly swing very liberal for a long time based on the length of time the other justices might live.

      I hate to wish for someone's passing but I can see that happening. At least that is assuming we get a conservative in office next. Though I seriously doubt we get a decent candidate in the foreseeable future.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jabuttrick 5 years ago
        Well, I understand your trepidation but I think we should follow the law. After all, elections do have consequences and Obama was elected in 2012 for a four year term ending in January of 2017. During that period he has obligations and duties to carry out and this is one of them. Let's see who he nominates, at least. Look at it this way: If this were the end of President Cruz's second term and Justice Ginsburg dropped dead, would you advocate that he not nominate anyone or that the Senate not act on his nomination? What would you think of liberals who so argued?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Eyecu2 5 years ago
          I see your point and feel certain that liberals would propose exactly that.

          Not even thinking that there is a possibility that Obama won't nominate someone. I am unsure if I want the Senate to move forward or stonewall. Of course which will be heavily weighted by who Obama puts forward .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
    yes but one was 5-4 from a conservative court which turned money into free speech and gave free reign to anyone from anywhere controlling your precinct. that led to the rigged elections...WHAT were they thinking? I reversed the scenario as they have been doing and decide great fine gotcha fully...Now what is the value of my speech and by donating here is it a tax deduction????? Come on SCOTUS you opened Pandora's Box why did you short change the citizens?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 5 years ago
      Money is speech. There is no way to control money being involved in political campaigns without controlling speech.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -4
        Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
        Bull Shit I'm not going to go through this again. I laid it out in excruciating detail. And not one word received one answer in debate or in this forum except your right to....

        How did it go :
        I have the right without explanation to take all your rights with osolut exception.And do it like a snake in the grass ignoring the rule of law and making such changes with bought and paid for left wing judges and changing Constitutional Law without Amendments.

        A CLU-less?

        That's not a personal attack that's a general observation using thinking, reasoning, and facts in evidence. from Dartmouth College to the 2004 ruling allowing people with money to run closed elections and interfere where they have no business.

        Always pays to be an Objectivist.
        It's in the archives wanna prove me wrong....do the work....takes more than repetitive sloganeering.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • 11
          Posted by $ AJAshinoff 5 years ago
          I earn/create money then where its spend reflects those things I favor or support. How is that not a form free speech? This would include giving money to political parties or my church in whatever measure I CHOOSE. This is not something the government can or should prevent. The Federalist Papers handled factions quite well.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years ago
          The Citizens United decision was the result of over a century of converting the Federal courts judiciary to career judges and academicians isolated from the revelations of politics and the consequences of decisions. The SCOTUS trapped itself by the observation that the historic decisions of Federal courts had evolved the legal description of corporation from an artifact into personhood so that laws involving personal liability could be enforced against corporate "persons". The court long ago absolved itself of responsibility to prevent corruption in the political process.

          The Constitution does not require that members of the SCOTUS come from the legal profession, and in fact the intent was that those members come from professions with public involvement in industry and politics, so that they would have a conscious awareness of the impact of their decisions. This is the unforeseen flaw in a "nation of law": that we become subject to the rules created by a society of legal oligarchs.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jabuttrick 5 years ago
            You are correct that the Constitution does not require that the Justices (or any federal judges for that matter) come from the "legal profession." In fact, formal legal training was very scarce in the colonies. However, it quickly became virtually unthinkable to appoint to the highest court in the land someone without legal training of any kind. Of course during the 19th and 20th centuries it was not uncommon to appoint someone who, while a lawyer by formal training, was neither a practicing lawyer nor a judge at the time of their appointment. Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black all come to mind. In recent years it has become much more fashionable to appoint sitting appellate judges out of the federal or state judiciaries. I guess the reason Presidents like to do this is so they can look at the candidate's written appellate opinions to get a feel for what they might do on the Court. The idea being that if they have already taken stands on a variety of issues the President is less likely to be "fooled" into nominating a sheep when he really wants a goat. See Eisenhower's nomination of Warren for an example of a President who was badly fooled.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
            Excellent summation. It won't be debated straight up and up front all you will get is propaganda and personal opinion disguised as something more than it is. In short...you'll get BS and Hot Air. But points for putting it so neatly.

            Citizens United doesn't stop there. They are now going after the right for anyone with money to directly approach and fund candidates and elected officials. In some places that's called bribery or mordida. Here it's not called influence peddling and buying it's called free speech. No more need to use Pacs, super Pacs, or corporations. as bagmen.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years ago
            Maybe there should be a constitutional amendment that Supreme Court justices NOT be lawyers or judges. This would still leave the seats open to Constitutional scholars, historians, and anyone else with an understanding of the law and the ability to reason.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 5 years ago
          All corporate money does in politics is allow the candidates to run ads and to get their views out to more people. That is speech. It doesn't guarantee that they win.

          Currently Trump is getting the most publicity with the least money. Probably because it's his money and he isn't going to hand it to a "media consultant" to spend. You just have to look at the Bush campaign to see money doesn't buy votes.

          It does let you keep talking when no one is listening, though.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Bethesda-gal 5 years ago
            So true. Big $$$ doesnt guarantee a political win. Besides Jeb's unlikliness to prevail despite his superPACs gazillions, just look at Bloomberg's 'Mayors Against Guns' or whatever he called it, that put tons of $ into races and I dont think they had a single win. Money is A factor in politics but far from THE factor.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
              But you are talking only Presidential level races for the two federal positions. Are you considering the State level positions? The State delegates to the federal government. Are you considering the internal state positions Governor and legislative and judicial. How about cities and towns the Mayors and councils? County Commissioners...Should money alone be the driving factor in the election of key officials in areas where the donor does not live and is not registered to vote simply because they are richer than Hillary?

              Think of it this way If you MAY NOT vote you MAY NOT contribute. Doesn't deny anyone the right to donate at the top level for President or Vice President. Doesn't deny anyone the right to contribute within each State for the State level positions. But it protects the lowest precincts from ward heelers who live fifteen states away. The precinct voters pamphlet and ballot is the guiding factor.

              If one has no geo-political interest why, besides being rich, do they have the right to interfere? Use that one sentence and leave the right to donate as much as they want with no limit...within their own voting precinct's.

              Tell me what do you get out of this money is free speech crap? Answer: Your vote becomes a corporate commodity but you get nothing. It's a one sided deal. If money is free speech then free speech should have a value for everyone especially those who are registered voters within a precinct, county, state.

              What did you get paid? What are you getting paid? Ah yes that's right you didn't get a thin dime. and all the thin dimes in your precinct went to someone from New York City when you live in Elko, Nevada. "

              They have the right to buy control and rig your precinct and you got nothing for it? That went o ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN and the New York Times....

              Be pragmatic. When you sell out...you should get paid..... when they buy you they should pony up some cash for their purchase....Otherwise money is not free speech it's just another way of rigging the election and another form of slavery.

              Why? Because their principle is 'I have the right without explanation to all of your rights without exception." Go through what's left of the Constitution. Their one right trashes five or six of yours. And you get nothing for it.

              If some one or some entity MAY NOT VOTE why do have the RIGHT to influence what is NOT THEIR BUSINESS.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 5 years ago
                You seem to think that you can buy votes. You can't it's illegal. Money wont buy you a single vote

                In order for money to buy votes you have to use it to buy advertising to get your message to the average voter who isn't paying attention and is swayed by advertising campaign. This is speech.

                Yes, if you have more money you get a better "sound system", but in the end, it's speech that makes each voter decide which way to cast his ballot.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
              But you are talking only Presidential level races for the two federal positions. Are you considering the State level positions? The State delegates to the federal government. Are you considering the internal state positions Governor and legislative and judicial. How about cities and towns the Mayors and councils? County Commissioners...Should money along be the driving factor in the election of key officials in areas where the donor does not live and is not registered to vote simply because they are richer than Hillary? think of it htis way If you MAY NOT vote you MAY NOT contribute. Doesn't deny anyone the right to donate at the top level for President or Vice President. Doesn't deny anyone the right to contribute within each State for the State level positions. But it protects the lowest precincts from ward heelers who live fifteen states awaway . The precinct voters pamphlet and ballot is the guiding factor. If you have no geo-political interest why, besides being rich, do you have the right to interfere? Use that one sentence and leave the right to donate as much as they want with no limit...within their own voting precinct's. And tell me what do you get out of this money is free speech crap? Answer your vote becomes a corporate commodity but you get nothing. it's a one sided deal If money is free speech then free speech should have a value from ALL. What did you get paid?

              Ah yes that's right you didn't get a thin dime. and al the thin dimes in your precinct went to someone from New York City when you live in Elkol, Nevada. "

              They not only control your precinct you got nothing for it? That went o ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN and the New York Times....

              When you sell out...you should get paid..... when they buy you they should pony up some cash for their purchase....Otherwise money is not free speech it's just another way of rigging the election.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Bethesda-gal 5 years ago
                I completely disagree. Especially when it comes to congressional or senatorial campaigns. Or, depending on the issues involved, to gubernatorial races outside of my state. I've donated to WI, UT, VA AND IA. (I don't live in any of those states) But there were candidates and/or issues in each of those instances that I really wanted to see win. (And they all did!) And each of the congressional candidates CAN/ DOES effect me too ! And the governor issue in WI I felt was also related to me, insofar as I think rolling back union influence everywhere is a good thing. First WI, then ( I hope) my state ! And believe you me, these candidates are THRILLED to get donations from non-constituents as well as constituents. I also know people who volunteer on campaigns even if they dont live in the district. As far as PACs in local races, I am not aware of that occuring in my state. But each state can legislate local money as they see fit.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
                  the current law nationwide per the Supreme Court is money is free speech and anyone through a PAC or Super Pac or any corporation including LLC may donate any amount to any political purpose anywhere without restriction. I couldn't find a restriction in that conservative court passed opinion to restrict foreign funding.

                  The current effort is to change that deleting the need to go through a PAC or other such organization...

                  If you want to see those candidates win move there and sign up to vote as a local citizen of the state, city, county or whatever. But then the rest of us don't have the money to buy as much free speech as some of you.....

                  Fine...you get two choices left wing of left and right wing of left.

                  No wonder the Constitution and the Republic is dead.

                  The reason we used to have 50 separate states was to provide for differences and that used to mean much more than your big bank account versus my small one.

                  It isn't worth fighting for...I am so glad we never swore an oath to the country. Which just leaves the Constitution and I hope the military does do it's duty and take over...

                  Civilians don't have what it takes to run a constitutional Republic...too many on the take
                  and willing to crap on everyone else's rights and freedoms for their own narrow interests.

                  So learn this it' s your thoughts reduced to a sentence.. 'I have the right without explanation to take all of your rights without exception.'

                  It's exactly what you just said you stood for.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 5 years ago
                    But its ok for you that unions could ( have for years and still do) pour billions into campaigns ? Money doesnt equate to votes. Money only gets out a message. The candidate still must have political talent and be promulgating the right message. I would have thought Objectivists would support more information. That is what money equates to. Each constituent still only gets one vote.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
                      OK to destroy your liberal reasoning. Unions may not donate because they may not vote. They may work within their own group to influence the vote. Corporations may not because they may not vote. Etc. etc. etc. Which is the way it should read instead of Citizens votes may be bought and sold.

                      Any entity that may not vote should confine it's activities to it's own group. If the candidate didn't have fight big bucks interfering it might be just a tid bit easier but then I'm talking all levels you are stuck worrying about the upper crust. Which is where those wealthy enough to buy votes usually reside. There is a whole series of articles of information but you have to be able to read...up in the archives...that tracks how this idiotic idea came to be law and not one amendment involved. ust bought and paid for judges....IF you can afford their buying price.

                      I am a union member we also got to donate tax payer money courtesy of Davis Bacon inflated local wages and watch them laundered into campaign funds. If we wanted to work we had to chip in stated amounts. it's a huge criminal enterprise but when you sought to defend unions you walked right into it and federal employees are the worst of the lot. And that status was one of my unions.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Bethesda-gal 5 years ago
                        What on earth led you to conclude I'm defending unions ?!?!!! My point was that LIBERALS, via unions, have been donating endlessly so now that Citizens United has leveled the playing field by allowing other than liberal big money to enter the race, sudddnly NOW everyone thinks big mobey is bad.
                        But you dont seem like outside $ is truly your beef. If a tiny town had one fat cat who wanted to throw a disproportionate ( to what the rest of the town folk could donate) amt of $ that sounds like you'd find that unfair too, b/c "everyone" couldnt do likewise.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
                          Something in my knowledge of Citizens United and the way your wrote the comment. The rest of your answer was anr attempt at reframing but having nothing to do with anything was only an attempt.

                          You are judged by the words you use and a real dictionary....not by the words you try to put in others comments.

                          I would appreciate being judged by the words I use and a pre-PC dictionary. I'm perfectly capable of putting my own foot in my own mouth assuming some one else hasn't used the space first.

                          Citizens United is not exactly a Constitutional Centrist forum..the attempt is the kick off for getting the much wanted 'direct contact' prohibition lifted.

                          One of their biggest supporters is George Lakoff and the Secular Progressives.....read his elephant book. It's in the end pages...along with a really nice but a little twisted version of the whole money as free speech scam.
                          Except he takes credit for that.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
                            but i still gave you points because i consider you better than that and worth debating the issue which other folks cannot do....so ? Don't get mad get even....don't get upset it's your clock and there is no timer..
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years ago
            I'm just waiting for someone to observe that the Koch brothers (those evil, fascist villain billionaires the left passionately hates) despise Donald Trump, and are considering whether or not to spend $100M in an effort to stop him. That should be worth about another $20M in free media campaigning for Trump to attract Democrat voters.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
              Why shouldn't he...he's to the left of the Rinos anyway they should be funding him.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years ago
                All of his talk about creating jobs already seems to be attracting blue collar crowd, and one union has already endorsed him. I guess all of the socialist talk from Clinton and Sanders has the remaining moderate Democrats nervous. The more frantic Clinton gets about not being far left enough to beat Sanders means the less likely she can credibly attract those voters in the general election. If Bloomberg enters the race, he won't draw many Republicans, but he will attract the few remaining non-socialist Democrats. Like it or not, we better be prepared to see the Trump show rumble into the White House.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years ago
          Well you aren't in the fight unless the left wing gangs up on you and I've got the minus points to prove it. What are they afraid of? They already have rigged the elections and excluded nearly half the population... Sorry Comrades I don't serve your party
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo