Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - RSS Headlines   RSS Headlines   Twitter   Twitter
View
53 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


53. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 16:50 Beamer
 
Redmask wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 16:43:
You guys are wasting your time, he has no original thoughts on the matter, just whatever was gurgled up on talk radio. He wants to talk at you, not with you. Actually understanding and discussing the issues requires a level of rational thought he clearly isn't capable of given his extreme zeal in resisting it. You will be better off talking politics with a house pet.

What's that Sparky? Ruff ruff you dont like Obama? You're so cute!

I've been down this road with him before. He'll say something and never, ever source it or follow through on it. I'll respond with links to numbers from the census or sources in the media and he'll respond with, at best, Breitbart. At best.

Here he thinks giving a post detailing voting history proves his point, but his point isn't about how she voted, it's about why. He said she's the worst ever because she votes based on stupidity. A mere voting record doesn't prove this.
 



-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

52. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 16:43 Redmask
 
You guys are wasting your time, he has no original thoughts on the matter, just whatever was gurgled up on talk radio. He wants to talk at you, not with you. Actually understanding and discussing the issues requires a level of rational thought he clearly isn't capable of given his extreme zeal in resisting it. You will be better off talking politics with a house pet.

What's that Sparky? Ruff ruff you dont like Obama? You're so cute!
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

51. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 15:24 Agrajag
 
Axis wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 14:56:
Why should I go into detail and point out that 8 out of the 11 stances she took on just that ONE link I posted is textbook liberal?

And, are therefore wrong? Is it your claim that if a decision is one that liberals applaud it's always wrong, no matter what? If so, then wow, I have nothing more to say... But, if not, then what makes you think she reached all those decisions due solely to bias rather than by just reaching the correct decision based on the Constitution, which then just happened to match what liberals wanted?

Also, I assume you also think as little of Alito, Scalia, and Thomas? Because, most of their decisions seem to line up pretty damn closely with conservative agendas, too... So, they must be just as biased, right? Or, is it ok, because they're biased the "right way"?
 
Avatar 1965
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

50. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 15:14 Agrajag
 
Axis wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 14:22:
Roberts has proven to be fairly neutral, much to the disappointment of the hard right.

Let me guess what one of you peas in the pod will say next... you'd like me to give you specific examples in regards to Robert's neutrality? See Ag, there are mind readers here on Blues...

Actually, I know the perfect example case you could cite to backup that claim: Obamacare! He was the only conservative to join the liberals in finding it Constitutional (though via his tax theory rather than via the way they wanted it upheld)... Even Kennedy, the traditional swing vote, didn't side with them!
 
Avatar 1965
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

49. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 15:06 Agrajag
 
Beamer wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 14:25:
We're floundering like lost children?

And is this the same guy a few posts ago complaining about insults?

Horrible insults like asking if one is a native English speaker! I never knew being from a foreign country was such an insulting thing to be... And, here I thought I was being nice by giving him the benefit of the doubt that that was his problem...
 
Avatar 1965
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

48. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 15:03 Verno
 
Axis wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 14:56:
Thanks for your keen interest in my opinions, I'll again decline to add my opinions and simply point you to the same link of voting fact I posted for you to read. I'd also ask you to reread my earlier statements on the matter, as they covered all your regurgitated "Prove it" remarks I keep responding to.

That's a list of decisions, nothing else. I didn't ask for a list of her decisions, I can look that up myself. I asked for the specifics of why you accused her of being dumb, too politically ideological and how it has affected her decisions. Those were your assertions, not mine. It shouldn't be difficult to articulate the how or why you came to that conclusion. You can't co-opt a list of decisions and say its a fact that represents your decision without offering your interpretation of it. Also the whole handwave with "blah blah cant you see whats liberal" is really silly. You said it affected her decision making in a negative way and questioned her credentials, I just asked you to point to where it occurred. Not exactly unreasonable.


Two people say they don't approve of a conservative presidential candidate, one lists reasons why and the other just makes loud noises. Who do you give more credence to?

You aren't going to fool me with this transparent stuff about changing the subject and etc. So again, I will repeat it:

Which decision there? What ideology of hers is the issue? Why is she not qualified for the job? Other posters asked for the same thing and you haven't responded to them either. Its your opinion, these things shouldn't be difficult to answer.

That's it. It's pretty simple. Just one case is fine even in the interest of brevity. Also you seem to have confused me with a liberal here, I'm not a liberal. So you're just taking the piss with someone who is more likely to agree with you but needs context. It's context, not proof by the way.
 
Avatar 51617
 



Playing: Hades, Beat Saber, Control
Watching: Uncut Gems, The Good Place, The Office
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

47. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 14:56 Axis
 
Verno wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 14:35:
Axis wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 14:22:
Glad you guys think so highly of my statements that you flounder like lost children when I don't comply to your demands.

Quite the opposite. Your complete inability to articulate even a single point of reference for your "opinion" leaves me no choice but to conclude you have no actual foundation for your opinion and are just simply parroting something you picked up from media or a third party.

You were the one posting here, no one made you come out with something so accusatory and then utterly fail to back it up with anything of substance. Here's yet another opportunity, I'll keep repeating it until you stop pretending:

Which decision there? What ideology of hers is the issue? Why is she not qualified for the job? Other posters asked for the same thing and you haven't responded to them either. Its your opinion, these things shouldn't be difficult to answer.

If I said the same thing about a person and someone asked why, I could easily explain my thoughts. I wouldn't necessarily expect everyone to agree but explaining why I believe something isn't a hardship or something. It's less time than it took you to write 12 overly defensive posts that say literally nothing at all.

Thanks for your keen interest in my opinions, I'll again decline to add my opinions and simply point you to the same link of voting fact I posted for you to read. I'd also ask you to reread my earlier statements on the matter, as they covered all your regurgitated "Prove it" remarks I keep responding to.

Unfortunately you still don't understand that qualifications and voting record is public and factual. Facts that will be ugly or beauty in the eyes of the beholder, but easily discerned to be liberal or conservative by even infantile awareness of political posturing. I could point out her stance on abortion, religious freedom, unionizing, global warming, blah blah blah, but why?

Why should I go into detail and point out that 8 out of the 11 stances she took on just that ONE link I posted is textbook liberal? I shouldn't, and I won't. And you should be ashamed you can't comprehend it for your own self. Instead demanding me to write you an essay on liberalism and conservatism and how her voting record sides almost implicitly with liberalism. You wouldn't need me to respond if you knew the difference.

You know nothing John Snow. Hoder for president...

This comment was edited on Jan 7, 2015, 15:01.
 
Avatar 57462
 



Yours truly,

Axis
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

46. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 14:35 Verno
 
Axis wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 14:22:
Glad you guys think so highly of my statements that you flounder like lost children when I don't comply to your demands.

Quite the opposite. Your complete inability to articulate even a single point of reference for your "opinion" leaves me no choice but to conclude you have no actual foundation for your opinion and are just simply parroting something you picked up from media or a third party.

You were the one posting here, no one made you come out with something so accusatory and then utterly fail to back it up with anything of substance. Here's yet another opportunity, I'll keep repeating it until you stop pretending:

Which decision there? What ideology of hers is the issue? Why is she not qualified for the job? Other posters asked for the same thing and you haven't responded to them either. Its your opinion, these things shouldn't be difficult to answer.

If I said the same thing about a person and someone asked why, I could easily explain my thoughts. I wouldn't necessarily expect everyone to agree but explaining why I believe something isn't a hardship or something. It's less time than it took you to write 12 overly defensive posts that say literally nothing at all.

It seems like you have some sort of negative attention disorder because you have a pattern of pursuing these political topics with similar results every time. Post something loud to get attention, cry foul, insult everyones intelligence and run away when details get involved.

This comment was edited on Jan 7, 2015, 14:43.
 
Avatar 51617
 



Playing: Hades, Beat Saber, Control
Watching: Uncut Gems, The Good Place, The Office
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

45. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 14:25 Beamer
 
We're floundering like lost children?

And is this the same guy a few posts ago complaining about insults?
 



-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

44. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 14:22 Axis
 
Glad you guys think so highly of my statements that you flounder like lost children when I don't comply to your demands.

Roberts has proven to be fairly neutral, much to the disappointment of the hard right.

Let me guess what one of you peas in the pod will say next... you'd like me to give you specific examples in regards to Robert's neutrality? See Ag, there are mind readers here on Blues...

 
Avatar 57462
 



Yours truly,

Axis
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

43. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 13:18 Agrajag
 
Beamer wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 12:34:
Just one case she clearly botched so horribly she could be considered one of the worst of all time.

Just one. Not even a preponderance of the evidence that she's the absolute worst of all time, just one case that demonstrates that, if all cases were exactly like that, she'd be in even the bottom 10%.

What's most amusing is that this entire thread is about a story about a case which clearly demonstrates that she didn't allow her personal feelings and opinions to bias her judgement... So, we already have at least one counter-example against his claim, and he can't even provide a single supporting example for it!

/I think she was on the wrong side in Aereo, but so was Roberts, and I wouldn't say he had a big liberal bias...
 
Avatar 1965
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

42. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 12:36 Verno
 
Axis wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 11:42:
I won't waste time with those who are known to have no interest in debate or facts. I'm including you on the list.

Nonsense, that's all you've done here is waste time. Yours and ours. Replied over a dozen times and still haven't answered a single question. You keep making these childish, vague allusions to things that are supposed to be apparent but you can't seem to point to any. I am starting to suspect you can't because your actual opinion is "liberals bad!" and nothing else. Nothing wrong with that but next time say that instead of seemingly making things up.

For the 5th time:

Which decision there? What ideology of hers is the issue? Why is she not qualified for the job? Other posters asked for the same thing and you haven't responded to them either. Its your opinion, these things shouldn't be difficult to answer.

Instead of last word tripe and failing to be smarmy maybe just answer the question which is all anyone wanted. You could've avoided all of this by just saying "oh because of this and this and because she thinks this way as this example shows". Sheesh.

This comment was edited on Jan 7, 2015, 12:42.
 
Avatar 51617
 



Playing: Hades, Beat Saber, Control
Watching: Uncut Gems, The Good Place, The Office
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

41. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 12:34 Beamer
 
Just one case she clearly botched so horribly she could be considered one of the worst of all time.

Just one. Not even a preponderance of the evidence that she's the absolute worst of all time, just one case that demonstrates that, if all cases were exactly like that, she'd be in even the bottom 10%.
 



-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

40. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 12:24 Agrajag
 
Axis wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 12:00:
I know that when someone starts a "debate" with insults like "Meh Meh Is English not your native language or something?? Meh Meh", they aren't to be taken seriously.

How in the hell is that an insult? Are you unaware of the existence of other countries where English is not the native language or that they have access to the Internet? It was a genuine question, because you honestly appeared to not understand what Verno was asking you, and kept replying with something completely unrelated and unhelpful while insisting that you had provided him with the "proof" he asked for... I simply assumed you might be foreign and struggling with the language... I guess I should've just jumped to the obvious conclusion that you were being deliberately obtuse and trolly...

And when that same someone follows up with a "Meh Meh fuck you very much as well", I know I was correct in my thinking.

Just responding in kind to you! Telling me I'm unworthy of your time because I don't care about debate or facts is just a nice way of saying "Fuck you!"... I just tend to be a bit more blunt when I insult someone...
 
Avatar 1965
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

39. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 12:00 Axis
 
Agrajag wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 11:50:
Axis wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 11:42:
I won't waste time with those who are known to have no interest in debate or facts. I'm including you on the list.

Seriously, I don't even post enough regularly around here for you to be likely to recognize me, nor have the faintest clue what my politics are nor my debating skills nor interest in facts...

I know that when someone starts a "debate" with insults like "Meh Meh Is English not your native language or something?? Meh Meh", they aren't to be taken seriously.

And when that same someone follows up with a "Meh Meh fuck you very much as well", I know I was correct in my thinking.

Just to be clear, I added the "Meh Meh" as I think that's how you sounded. Called creative license. Might have been "*grumble* Hrmph*, I was torn between the two, ended up going with the Meh path...

 
Avatar 57462
 



Yours truly,

Axis
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

38. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 11:50 Agrajag
 
Axis wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 11:42:
I won't waste time with those who are known to have no interest in debate or facts. I'm including you on the list.

Oh... Well, then, fuck you very much as well!

Seriously, I don't even post enough regularly around here for you to be likely to recognize me, nor have the faintest clue what my politics are nor my debating skills nor interest in facts... But, from your posts here, I've seen all I need to know to understand about you now... Have fun continuing to project all of your own faults onto others!
 
Avatar 1965
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

37. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 11:42 Axis
 
Agrajag wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 11:16:
Axis wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 10:42:
I stated TWICE already Verno that I humored you and linked your "proof" of her voting record. Your problem is you cannot comprehend or don't bother to read.

Is English not your native language or something?

No one asked for proof of her voting record... Everyone already knows how she ruled on every case, or can very easily find out themselves...

What was asked for is which decisions, specifically, do you have a problem with and feel reflect a liberal bias? You can't expect anyone else to possibly find those, since it would require them knowing what you think constitutes liberal bias... I know Blue's has some cool people, but I don't think any of them are qualified mind-readers...

I won't waste time with those who are known to have no interest in debate or facts. I'm including you on the list.

Anyone paying even a mote of attention to politics could look through her voting record/s and figure out which topics are hawt stuff for liberals, you don't need me to point them all out. And if you do, then I can only assume you know nothing John Snow.

 
Avatar 57462
 



Yours truly,

Axis
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

36. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 11:16 Agrajag
 
Axis wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 10:42:
I stated TWICE already Verno that I humored you and linked your "proof" of her voting record. Your problem is you cannot comprehend or don't bother to read.

Is English not your native language or something?

No one asked for proof of her voting record... Everyone already knows how she ruled on every case, or can very easily find out themselves...

What was asked for is which decisions, specifically, do you have a problem with and feel reflect a liberal bias? You can't expect anyone else to possibly find those, since it would require them knowing what you think constitutes liberal bias... I know Blue's has some cool people, but I don't think any of them are qualified mind-readers...
 
Avatar 1965
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

35. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 11:06 Verno
 
Axis wrote on Jan 7, 2015, 11:00:

So in conclusion, I posted a single fact -- a single relevant fact, well before you stated I had not.

That is all, I move on. Feel free to continue attempting to sway the folks who read only the last post that you were right. That is something I never feel compelled to do.

This is seriously childish, what is wrong with you? I read your link in detail twice. Which decision there? What ideology of hers is the issue? Why is she not qualified for the job? Other posters asked for the same thing and you haven't responded to them either. Its your opinion, these things shouldn't be difficult to answer.
 
Avatar 51617
 



Playing: Hades, Beat Saber, Control
Watching: Uncut Gems, The Good Place, The Office
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

34. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 7, 2015, 11:01 Beamer
 
I like that he calls others "forum warriors," yet at least three people have asked several times for even just one case where she did something worthy of being the "least qualified justice ever."

Frankly, in the 1800s we had some extremely unqualified justices, so that's also a fairly tall order. I haven't paid much attention to individual justice' opinions in the past five years or so, except for when they've been particularly newsworthy, but it'd be nice to hear him mention just one case he feels she particularly flubbed.

He's already told us, though, that the law is interpreted via the law, which again is utter nonsense because you can't interpret something based only on itself.
 



-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >