Hope & change vs. sour grapes

[Freewill]

That is going to be the 2016 election. Obama has fulfilled his promise of change, there's no denying it. Healthcare and equal rights trophies sit on his mantle. And the only things the GOP have to run on is repealing them Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and repeal of the ACA.
The other issues for republicans are immigration to split up Mexican families and deport them, another war with Iran and ISIS, privatizing Social Security and Medicare which will throw the elderly out in the street, and demonizing Hilary's emails.
Meanwhile, the democrats will be running on getting single payer for the ACA, getting rid of the remnants of bigotry, getting the rich to pay their taxes, and making it possible for immigrants to come out of the shadows and become responsible citizens.

The 2016 election couldn't be a more clear choice between positive and negative.

So tell me moron, what exactly did obama do to grant gays the right to marry?

I swear to God you progressives get dumber and dumber by the day.

Obama promised change. Because of his appointments to the SC, that change happened, instead of the ones Mittens would have put on the court. If that's too complicated for you to understand, maybe I can find a childrens book that illustrates it for you.

Hey dumb fuck, John Roberts was the deciding vote, he was put in by George W.

As usual, you don't have a clue what you are saying. Idiot.

Technically Roberts was not the deciding vote. He could have voted against and it still would have passed.

 

[nuhuh]

I don't want to turn this discussion into one about religion but if Jesus Christ stood for anything at all it would be a wholesale concern for the poor. Something that would bring him into direct opposition to Republican politicians and their policies. JC made it clear that concern for the poor was an essential principle of his faith.

Not true. That is the big lie of the left. Democrats aren't concerned about the poor. They just want to make more of them.

BTW, Jesus said the poor would always be with us....he wouldn't be.

It was Romney who said he wasn't very concerned about the poor and his thoughts represent the party quite well.

LOL, you obviously have no concept of context.

The point he made about the "47%" was spot on, it was not derisive nor was it a "put down".

Talk about out of context. Mittens wasn't saying 47% were poor, he was writing off 47% of voters. And he was insinuating that the 47% were less American. That's a "put down".

Nope....he was saying that 47% of us don't pay income taxes.....so offering them tax-cuts is a useless endeavor. Those who own businesses and pay huge tax bills are the only ones that Republicans can reach with that argument.

Demonstrating perfectly how out of touch he was with almost half the American people.

 

[hangover]

Let me break it down for you as simply as I can.
Jesus is all about peace, love, forgiveness, helping the elderly, giving to the poor, feeding the hungry, and paying your taxes.
Those are all liberal issues, which cons are against.

Let me make it even simpler, you are full of crap.

I don't want to turn this discussion into one about religion but if Jesus Christ stood for anything at all it would be a wholesale concern for the poor. Something that would bring him into direct opposition to Republican politicians and their policies. JC made it clear that concern for the poor was an essential principle of his faith.

Not true. That is the big lie of the left. Democrats aren't concerned about the poor. They just want to make more of them.

BTW, Jesus said the poor would always be with us....he wouldn't be.

It's the left that stands up for welfare for the poor, the right tries to destroy it. Your shit don't flush. It's the left that stands up for foodstamps for the hungry, the right tries to destroy it. Your shit don't flush. It's the right that stands up for the rich, not the poor. Your shit don't flush.
It's obvious that the rich do as much as they can to insure the poor remain. It's been like that since before Jesus.
you mis-interpret your bible...Jesus said, "Where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am also." That's forever.

Every single one of those Democrats in Washington are rich. Their primary goal is to take our money and give it to themselves. Their other goal is to make the Middle-class pay through the nose till they are poor as well. They want two classes in the country, themselves and the unwashed masses that depend on them.

And I didn't mis-interpret the Bible. Jesus said there will always be poor people. Give to them when you can help. That's what charity is. That's what Republicans statistically do in greater numbers than Democrats. Democrats believe in Governmental Charity that forces everyone to give to the the government.....and then the government decides who benefits from that charity.

Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals?
government social programs has revived the old debate over who is more charitably inclined, conservatives or liberals?

Skipping to the last page of the story first, the answer is neither: As two MIT political scientists determined in a 2013 paper, the inclination to give appears to have virtually no relationship to one's partisan or ideological views. There are distinctions, however, in the kind of giving between the two poles.

First, some context. The received wisdom, at least in the media, is that conservatives are more giving. The prevalence of this view may result from its irresistibly counterintuitive flavor -- you know, how curious that conservatives are against spending on social programs and liberals say they care about the poor, but conservatives are generous in their private lives and liberals are skinflints. Conservative pundits like George F. Will ran with this ball because, as he put it, the mismatch "subverts a stereotype." (One that makes his conservative readers look bad, it might be added.)

The source of the notion that conservatives are more generous is the 2006 book "Who Really Cares," by Arthur C. Brooks, who later became president of the pro-business American Enterprise Institute.

The book was a brief for "compassionate conservatism," but its claim raised a lot of skepticism, and not only among liberals. One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)

The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.

An extreme case may have been that of Mitt Romney, whose tax disclosures during his 2012 presidential campaign indicated that he gave a higher percentage of his income away than his Democratic opponent, President Obama, 29.4% to 21.8%. Of course he was richer, so he gave away a lot more dollars. But fully 80% of Romney's donations went to the Mormon church; and a large further chunk went to a family foundation that also funneled much of it to the church.

The Obamas' contribution mostly went to humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross and the United Negro College Fund. In 2011 there weren't any general church donations, though $5,000 was listed to the Sidwell Friends School, which educates the Obama daughters.

The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income."

Who s more charitable -- conservatives or liberals - latimes

Most of your charity goes to preachers private jets.

 

[PredFan]

That is going to be the 2016 election. Obama has fulfilled his promise of change, there's no denying it. Healthcare and equal rights trophies sit on his mantle. And the only things the GOP have to run on is repealing them Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and repeal of the ACA.
The other issues for republicans are immigration to split up Mexican families and deport them, another war with Iran and ISIS, privatizing Social Security and Medicare which will throw the elderly out in the street, and demonizing Hilary's emails.
Meanwhile, the democrats will be running on getting single payer for the ACA, getting rid of the remnants of bigotry, getting the rich to pay their taxes, and making it possible for immigrants to come out of the shadows and become responsible citizens.

The 2016 election couldn't be a more clear choice between positive and negative.

So tell me moron, what exactly did obama do to grant gays the right to marry?

I swear to God you progressives get dumber and dumber by the day.

He put two Dykes on the court.

Those two replaced previous liberals. He didn't do anything to deserve credit for the SCOTUS decision.

Actually he does. Both of his picks are a guarantee. The others could go either way. The goal was to get two, possibly three judges that wouldn't rule according to the laws and our constitution, but rule the way Obama wants....and remain there for decades ruling that way. Future laws will come under review that these appointees will effect. Gun rights are up for grabs now.

Name a decision where any one of those liberal judges, any of them, went over to the conservative side. The conservatives supposedly have a 5-4 majority in the court, but John Roberts sided with gay marriage, the correct decision IMO, obama was not responsible for Roberts. Obama had nothing at all to do with the decision.

 

[mudwhistle]

Let me make it even simpler, you are full of crap.

I don't want to turn this discussion into one about religion but if Jesus Christ stood for anything at all it would be a wholesale concern for the poor. Something that would bring him into direct opposition to Republican politicians and their policies. JC made it clear that concern for the poor was an essential principle of his faith.

Not true. That is the big lie of the left. Democrats aren't concerned about the poor. They just want to make more of them.

BTW, Jesus said the poor would always be with us....he wouldn't be.

It's the left that stands up for welfare for the poor, the right tries to destroy it. Your shit don't flush. It's the left that stands up for foodstamps for the hungry, the right tries to destroy it. Your shit don't flush. It's the right that stands up for the rich, not the poor. Your shit don't flush.
It's obvious that the rich do as much as they can to insure the poor remain. It's been like that since before Jesus.
you mis-interpret your bible...Jesus said, "Where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am also." That's forever.

Every single one of those Democrats in Washington are rich. Their primary goal is to take our money and give it to themselves. Their other goal is to make the Middle-class pay through the nose till they are poor as well. They want two classes in the country, themselves and the unwashed masses that depend on them.

And I didn't mis-interpret the Bible. Jesus said there will always be poor people. Give to them when you can help. That's what charity is. That's what Republicans statistically do in greater numbers than Democrats. Democrats believe in Governmental Charity that forces everyone to give to the the government.....and then the government decides who benefits from that charity.

Republicans all claim to be devout Christians. But between the compassionate works of Christ and their cold-hearted, mean spirtited ideology, there is a great gulf in interpretation of being Christlike.

That is an invention created in the media. Nobody is more cold-hearted than an angry liberal looking to get even. You can't be friends with them if you don't fall in line with their ideology.

Christians are taught to be good to people...all people. It carries over with the media. A liberal is considered a friend on Fox News...even when they disagree with them. Juan Williams was fired by NPR because he was a commentator on Fox. The left doesn't allow opposing viewpoints or even associating with conservatives.

 

[mudwhistle]

Let me make it even simpler, you are full of crap.

I don't want to turn this discussion into one about religion but if Jesus Christ stood for anything at all it would be a wholesale concern for the poor. Something that would bring him into direct opposition to Republican politicians and their policies. JC made it clear that concern for the poor was an essential principle of his faith.

Not true. That is the big lie of the left. Democrats aren't concerned about the poor. They just want to make more of them.

BTW, Jesus said the poor would always be with us....he wouldn't be.

It's the left that stands up for welfare for the poor, the right tries to destroy it. Your shit don't flush. It's the left that stands up for foodstamps for the hungry, the right tries to destroy it. Your shit don't flush. It's the right that stands up for the rich, not the poor. Your shit don't flush.
It's obvious that the rich do as much as they can to insure the poor remain. It's been like that since before Jesus.
you mis-interpret your bible...Jesus said, "Where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am also." That's forever.

Every single one of those Democrats in Washington are rich. Their primary goal is to take our money and give it to themselves. Their other goal is to make the Middle-class pay through the nose till they are poor as well. They want two classes in the country, themselves and the unwashed masses that depend on them.

And I didn't mis-interpret the Bible. Jesus said there will always be poor people. Give to them when you can help. That's what charity is. That's what Republicans statistically do in greater numbers than Democrats. Democrats believe in Governmental Charity that forces everyone to give to the the government.....and then the government decides who benefits from that charity.

Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals?
government social programs has revived the old debate over who is more charitably inclined, conservatives or liberals?

Skipping to the last page of the story first, the answer is neither: As two MIT political scientists determined in a 2013 paper, the inclination to give appears to have virtually no relationship to one's partisan or ideological views. There are distinctions, however, in the kind of giving between the two poles.

First, some context. The received wisdom, at least in the media, is that conservatives are more giving. The prevalence of this view may result from its irresistibly counterintuitive flavor -- you know, how curious that conservatives are against spending on social programs and liberals say they care about the poor, but conservatives are generous in their private lives and liberals are skinflints. Conservative pundits like George F. Will ran with this ball because, as he put it, the mismatch "subverts a stereotype." (One that makes his conservative readers look bad, it might be added.)

The source of the notion that conservatives are more generous is the 2006 book "Who Really Cares," by Arthur C. Brooks, who later became president of the pro-business American Enterprise Institute.

The book was a brief for "compassionate conservatism," but its claim raised a lot of skepticism, and not only among liberals. One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)

The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.

An extreme case may have been that of Mitt Romney, whose tax disclosures during his 2012 presidential campaign indicated that he gave a higher percentage of his income away than his Democratic opponent, President Obama, 29.4% to 21.8%. Of course he was richer, so he gave away a lot more dollars. But fully 80% of Romney's donations went to the Mormon church; and a large further chunk went to a family foundation that also funneled much of it to the church.

The Obamas' contribution mostly went to humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross and the United Negro College Fund. In 2011 there weren't any general church donations, though $5,000 was listed to the Sidwell Friends School, which educates the Obama daughters.

The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income."

Who s more charitable -- conservatives or liberals - latimes

Most of your charity goes to preachers private jets.

And most of Democrats charities go to their private jets.

 

[hangover]

I don't want to turn this discussion into one about religion but if Jesus Christ stood for anything at all it would be a wholesale concern for the poor. Something that would bring him into direct opposition to Republican politicians and their policies. JC made it clear that concern for the poor was an essential principle of his faith.

Not true. That is the big lie of the left. Democrats aren't concerned about the poor. They just want to make more of them.

BTW, Jesus said the poor would always be with us....he wouldn't be.

It's the left that stands up for welfare for the poor, the right tries to destroy it. Your shit don't flush. It's the left that stands up for foodstamps for the hungry, the right tries to destroy it. Your shit don't flush. It's the right that stands up for the rich, not the poor. Your shit don't flush.
It's obvious that the rich do as much as they can to insure the poor remain. It's been like that since before Jesus.
you mis-interpret your bible...Jesus said, "Where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am also." That's forever.

Every single one of those Democrats in Washington are rich. Their primary goal is to take our money and give it to themselves. Their other goal is to make the Middle-class pay through the nose till they are poor as well. They want two classes in the country, themselves and the unwashed masses that depend on them.

And I didn't mis-interpret the Bible. Jesus said there will always be poor people. Give to them when you can help. That's what charity is. That's what Republicans statistically do in greater numbers than Democrats. Democrats believe in Governmental Charity that forces everyone to give to the the government.....and then the government decides who benefits from that charity.

Republicans all claim to be devout Christians. But between the compassionate works of Christ and their cold-hearted, mean spirtited ideology, there is a great gulf in interpretation of being Christlike.

That is an invention created in the media. Nobody is more cold-hearted than an angry liberal looking to get even. You can't be friends with them if you don't fall in line with their ideology.

Christians are taught to be good to people...all people. It carries over with the media. A liberal is considered a friend on Fox News...even when they disagree with them. Juan Williams was fired by NPR because he was a commentator on Fox. The left doesn't allow opposing viewpoints or even associating with conservatives.

Fact-FUX NEWS spends the majority of time demonizing liberals.

 

[nuhuh]

Let's face it, when Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and Republican politicians were the figures in the story, Newt Gingrich would have picked up a big old rock and heaved it at the adulteress's head and the rest of the amoral pack of Republican sociopathic politicians would have quickly followed suit.

 

[hangover]

I don't want to turn this discussion into one about religion but if Jesus Christ stood for anything at all it would be a wholesale concern for the poor. Something that would bring him into direct opposition to Republican politicians and their policies. JC made it clear that concern for the poor was an essential principle of his faith.

Not true. That is the big lie of the left. Democrats aren't concerned about the poor. They just want to make more of them.

BTW, Jesus said the poor would always be with us....he wouldn't be.

It's the left that stands up for welfare for the poor, the right tries to destroy it. Your shit don't flush. It's the left that stands up for foodstamps for the hungry, the right tries to destroy it. Your shit don't flush. It's the right that stands up for the rich, not the poor. Your shit don't flush.
It's obvious that the rich do as much as they can to insure the poor remain. It's been like that since before Jesus.
you mis-interpret your bible...Jesus said, "Where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am also." That's forever.

Every single one of those Democrats in Washington are rich. Their primary goal is to take our money and give it to themselves. Their other goal is to make the Middle-class pay through the nose till they are poor as well. They want two classes in the country, themselves and the unwashed masses that depend on them.

And I didn't mis-interpret the Bible. Jesus said there will always be poor people. Give to them when you can help. That's what charity is. That's what Republicans statistically do in greater numbers than Democrats. Democrats believe in Governmental Charity that forces everyone to give to the the government.....and then the government decides who benefits from that charity.

Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals?
government social programs has revived the old debate over who is more charitably inclined, conservatives or liberals?

Skipping to the last page of the story first, the answer is neither: As two MIT political scientists determined in a 2013 paper, the inclination to give appears to have virtually no relationship to one's partisan or ideological views. There are distinctions, however, in the kind of giving between the two poles.

First, some context. The received wisdom, at least in the media, is that conservatives are more giving. The prevalence of this view may result from its irresistibly counterintuitive flavor -- you know, how curious that conservatives are against spending on social programs and liberals say they care about the poor, but conservatives are generous in their private lives and liberals are skinflints. Conservative pundits like George F. Will ran with this ball because, as he put it, the mismatch "subverts a stereotype." (One that makes his conservative readers look bad, it might be added.)

The source of the notion that conservatives are more generous is the 2006 book "Who Really Cares," by Arthur C. Brooks, who later became president of the pro-business American Enterprise Institute.

The book was a brief for "compassionate conservatism," but its claim raised a lot of skepticism, and not only among liberals. One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)

The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.

An extreme case may have been that of Mitt Romney, whose tax disclosures during his 2012 presidential campaign indicated that he gave a higher percentage of his income away than his Democratic opponent, President Obama, 29.4% to 21.8%. Of course he was richer, so he gave away a lot more dollars. But fully 80% of Romney's donations went to the Mormon church; and a large further chunk went to a family foundation that also funneled much of it to the church.

The Obamas' contribution mostly went to humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross and the United Negro College Fund. In 2011 there weren't any general church donations, though $5,000 was listed to the Sidwell Friends School, which educates the Obama daughters.

The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income."

Who s more charitable -- conservatives or liberals - latimes

Most of your charity goes to preachers private jets.

And most of Democrats charities go to their private jets.

You deflect. Most dems couldn't buy a jet if they have every penny they made their whole lives. And the few rich dems that can buy one, give more charity to those that need it, than the cons that contribute to preachers private jets. And it's NEVER the dems that complain about the poor, it's always the cons.

 

[mudwhistle]

That is going to be the 2016 election. Obama has fulfilled his promise of change, there's no denying it. Healthcare and equal rights trophies sit on his mantle. And the only things the GOP have to run on is repealing them Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and repeal of the ACA.
The other issues for republicans are immigration to split up Mexican families and deport them, another war with Iran and ISIS, privatizing Social Security and Medicare which will throw the elderly out in the street, and demonizing Hilary's emails.
Meanwhile, the democrats will be running on getting single payer for the ACA, getting rid of the remnants of bigotry, getting the rich to pay their taxes, and making it possible for immigrants to come out of the shadows and become responsible citizens.

The 2016 election couldn't be a more clear choice between positive and negative.

So tell me moron, what exactly did obama do to grant gays the right to marry?

I swear to God you progressives get dumber and dumber by the day.

He put two Dykes on the court.

Those two replaced previous liberals. He didn't do anything to deserve credit for the SCOTUS decision.

Actually he does. Both of his picks are a guarantee. The others could go either way. The goal was to get two, possibly three judges that wouldn't rule according to the laws and our constitution, but rule the way Obama wants....and remain there for decades ruling that way. Future laws will come under review that these appointees will effect. Gun rights are up for grabs now.

Name a decision where any one of those liberal judges, any of them, went over to the conservative side. The conservatives supposedly have a 5-4 majority in the court, but John Roberts sided with gay marriage, the correct decision IMO, obama was not responsible for Roberts. Obama had nothing at all to do with the decision.

John Roberts was in the minority on same-sex marriage. He was in the majority on Obamacare.

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com

 

[mudwhistle]

Let's face it, when Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and Republican politicians were the figures in the story, Newt Gingrich would have picked up a big old rock and heaved it at the adulteress's head and the rest of the amoral pack of Republican sociopathic politicians would have quickly followed suit.

I don't think so. That's just your opinion. The right believes in mercy and grace. That is why the right worships Jesus Christ and why the left doesn't.....wanted to have God totally removed from their platform during the DNC in 2012.

 

[hangover]

Let's face it, when Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and Republican politicians were the figures in the story, Newt Gingrich would have picked up a big old rock and heaved it at the adulteress's head and the rest of the amoral pack of Republican sociopathic politicians would have quickly followed suit.

...and he would have cast that stone while boinking his mistress as his wife lay dying of cancer.

 

[PredFan]

So tell me moron, what exactly did obama do to grant gays the right to marry?

I swear to God you progressives get dumber and dumber by the day.

He put two Dykes on the court.

Those two replaced previous liberals. He didn't do anything to deserve credit for the SCOTUS decision.

Actually he does. Both of his picks are a guarantee. The others could go either way. The goal was to get two, possibly three judges that wouldn't rule according to the laws and our constitution, but rule the way Obama wants....and remain there for decades ruling that way. Future laws will come under review that these appointees will effect. Gun rights are up for grabs now.

Name a decision where any one of those liberal judges, any of them, went over to the conservative side. The conservatives supposedly have a 5-4 majority in the court, but John Roberts sided with gay marriage, the correct decision IMO, obama was not responsible for Roberts. Obama had nothing at all to do with the decision.

John Roberts was in the minority on same-sex marriage. He was in the majority on Obamacare.

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com

I stand corrected. My point though that a conservative Justice sided with the liberal ones, whomever that was, still stands. Obama had nothing at all to do with it.

 

[hangover]

He put two Dykes on the court.

Those two replaced previous liberals. He didn't do anything to deserve credit for the SCOTUS decision.

Actually he does. Both of his picks are a guarantee. The others could go either way. The goal was to get two, possibly three judges that wouldn't rule according to the laws and our constitution, but rule the way Obama wants....and remain there for decades ruling that way. Future laws will come under review that these appointees will effect. Gun rights are up for grabs now.

Name a decision where any one of those liberal judges, any of them, went over to the conservative side. The conservatives supposedly have a 5-4 majority in the court, but John Roberts sided with gay marriage, the correct decision IMO, obama was not responsible for Roberts. Obama had nothing at all to do with the decision.

John Roberts was in the minority on same-sex marriage. He was in the majority on Obamacare.

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com

I stand corrected. My point though that a conservative Justice sided with the liberal ones, whomever that was, still stands. Obama had nothing at all to do with it.

Man, I'd like to shake your hand. To see a con admit he was corrected, is a quantum leap in evolution. Thank you, really.

 

[PredFan]

Those two replaced previous liberals. He didn't do anything to deserve credit for the SCOTUS decision.

Actually he does. Both of his picks are a guarantee. The others could go either way. The goal was to get two, possibly three judges that wouldn't rule according to the laws and our constitution, but rule the way Obama wants....and remain there for decades ruling that way. Future laws will come under review that these appointees will effect. Gun rights are up for grabs now.

Name a decision where any one of those liberal judges, any of them, went over to the conservative side. The conservatives supposedly have a 5-4 majority in the court, but John Roberts sided with gay marriage, the correct decision IMO, obama was not responsible for Roberts. Obama had nothing at all to do with the decision.

John Roberts was in the minority on same-sex marriage. He was in the majority on Obamacare.

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com

I stand corrected. My point though that a conservative Justice sided with the liberal ones, whomever that was, still stands. Obama had nothing at all to do with it.

Man, I'd like to shake your hand. To see a con admit he was corrected, is a quantum leap in evolution. Thank you, really.

Whatever moron, I'm still waiting for you to tell us how obama had anything to do with the SCOTUS decision. Your lame attempt so far failed.

 

[mudwhistle]

He put two Dykes on the court.

Those two replaced previous liberals. He didn't do anything to deserve credit for the SCOTUS decision.

Actually he does. Both of his picks are a guarantee. The others could go either way. The goal was to get two, possibly three judges that wouldn't rule according to the laws and our constitution, but rule the way Obama wants....and remain there for decades ruling that way. Future laws will come under review that these appointees will effect. Gun rights are up for grabs now.

Name a decision where any one of those liberal judges, any of them, went over to the conservative side. The conservatives supposedly have a 5-4 majority in the court, but John Roberts sided with gay marriage, the correct decision IMO, obama was not responsible for Roberts. Obama had nothing at all to do with the decision.

John Roberts was in the minority on same-sex marriage. He was in the majority on Obamacare.

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com

I stand corrected. My point though that a conservative Justice sided with the liberal ones, whomever that was, still stands. Obama had nothing at all to do with it.

Obama started the ball rolling......like he always does.

He's basically the guy that farts in the elevator and leaves ....leaving everyone else to go the rest of the way dealing with the smell.

 

[nuhuh]

I remember George Bush, his breath was so foul we farted to make it smell better.

 

[hangover]

Actually he does. Both of his picks are a guarantee. The others could go either way. The goal was to get two, possibly three judges that wouldn't rule according to the laws and our constitution, but rule the way Obama wants....and remain there for decades ruling that way. Future laws will come under review that these appointees will effect. Gun rights are up for grabs now.

Name a decision where any one of those liberal judges, any of them, went over to the conservative side. The conservatives supposedly have a 5-4 majority in the court, but John Roberts sided with gay marriage, the correct decision IMO, obama was not responsible for Roberts. Obama had nothing at all to do with the decision.

John Roberts was in the minority on same-sex marriage. He was in the majority on Obamacare.

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com

I stand corrected. My point though that a conservative Justice sided with the liberal ones, whomever that was, still stands. Obama had nothing at all to do with it.

Man, I'd like to shake your hand. To see a con admit he was corrected, is a quantum leap in evolution. Thank you, really.

Whatever moron, I'm still waiting for you to tell us how obama had anything to do with the SCOTUS decision. Your lame attempt so far failed.

Sheesh! Thick as a brick, cons are. I wish I could draw you a picture, as you can't comprehend what you read. Obama Obama Obama appointed appointed appointed two two two of the judges judges judges to the Supreme Court Supreme Court
Supreme Court that made made made the decision decision decision that gave gave gave equal equal equal rights rights rights to gays gays gays to marry marry marry. The failure failure failure is your your your inability inability inability (inability means not able) to get logical explanations through your thick skull. A skull is a head. Logical and explanations are probably too big a words for you too. Oh well.

 

[PredFan]

Name a decision where any one of those liberal judges, any of them, went over to the conservative side. The conservatives supposedly have a 5-4 majority in the court, but John Roberts sided with gay marriage, the correct decision IMO, obama was not responsible for Roberts. Obama had nothing at all to do with the decision.

John Roberts was in the minority on same-sex marriage. He was in the majority on Obamacare.

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com

I stand corrected. My point though that a conservative Justice sided with the liberal ones, whomever that was, still stands. Obama had nothing at all to do with it.

Man, I'd like to shake your hand. To see a con admit he was corrected, is a quantum leap in evolution. Thank you, really.

Whatever moron, I'm still waiting for you to tell us how obama had anything to do with the SCOTUS decision. Your lame attempt so far failed.

Sheesh! Thick as a brick, cons are. I wish I could draw you a picture, as you can't comprehend what you read. Obama Obama Obama appointed appointed appointed two two two of the judges judges judges to the Supreme Court Supreme Court
Supreme Court that made made made the decision decision decision that gave gave gave equal equal equal rights rights rights to gays gays gays to marry marry marry. The failure failure failure is your your your inability inability inability (inability means not able) to get logical explanations through your thick skull. A skull is a head. Logical and explanations are probably too big a words for you too. Oh well.

Yeah I understood it the first time and I debunked that stupidity. Got anything else? Something not stupid hopefully?

 

[hangover]

John Roberts was in the minority on same-sex marriage. He was in the majority on Obamacare.

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com

I stand corrected. My point though that a conservative Justice sided with the liberal ones, whomever that was, still stands. Obama had nothing at all to do with it.

Man, I'd like to shake your hand. To see a con admit he was corrected, is a quantum leap in evolution. Thank you, really.

Whatever moron, I'm still waiting for you to tell us how obama had anything to do with the SCOTUS decision. Your lame attempt so far failed.

Sheesh! Thick as a brick, cons are. I wish I could draw you a picture, as you can't comprehend what you read. Obama Obama Obama appointed appointed appointed two two two of the judges judges judges to the Supreme Court Supreme Court
Supreme Court that made made made the decision decision decision that gave gave gave equal equal equal rights rights rights to gays gays gays to marry marry marry. The failure failure failure is your your your inability inability inability (inability means not able) to get logical explanations through your thick skull. A skull is a head. Logical and explanations are probably too big a words for you too. Oh well.

Yeah I understood it the first time and I debunked that stupidity. Got anything else? Something not stupid hopefully?

No you didn't.