This comment shows exactly why anything you say should not be taken seriously.I agree with your last paragraph. Ruth Buzzy should never have been serving as long as she did.
This comment shows exactly why anything you say should not be taken seriously.I agree with your last paragraph. Ruth Buzzy should never have been serving as long as she did.
Okay Stan.This comment shows exactly why anything you say should not be taken seriously.
So you you think she should serve longer, she was 87 and in very poor health? Explain how the statement by TT discredits his post.This comment shows exactly why anything you say should not be taken seriously.
No, I don't think judges should serve past their deaths.So you you think she should serve longer, she was 87 and in very poor health? Explain how the statement by TT discredits his post.
OR, they have developed the ability (as most adults do) to discuss a specific issue without it affecting personal day to day relationships.Some of people on these pages are no more than charlatans in that they will lull one into a sense of commradarie with day to day
conversation concerning farm or ranch life but it is always done with the goal of changing your political outlook to their devious
way of thinking.
To my knowledge, Ruth Buzzy never served on the Court. Unless, of course, he was simply name-calling which is very common. No solutions, just rhetoric. It appears that is difficult for some on here to have an adult conversation and debate about real issues.So you you think she should serve longer, she was 87 and in very poor health? Explain how the statement by TT discredits his post.
Again, who is Stan?Okay Stan.
Did you or did you not ask a Moderator to instruct me to stop calling you by your name?Again, who is Stan?
Yes, Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg is the affectionate nickname we assigned the old fossil of the court. I apologize for omitting her last name. You knew who I meant and even your cohorts on the left begged her to step aside during Barry's term.To my knowledge, Ruth Buzzy never served on the Court. Unless, of course, he was simply name-calling which is very common. No solutions, just rhetoric. It appears that is difficult for some on here to have an adult conversation and debate about real issues.
I have been on this Board long enough to know that no one here is going to change anyone else's mind on politics.
I did and in the old days you would have been banned for that.Did you or did you not ask a Moderator to instruct me to stop calling you by your name?
Do you support Democrats' efforts to add 4 seats to the Supreme Court?You can have your opinion and I support your right to have it. I will however always maintain that both sides have the goal of wanting to have control of all they can, otherwise there would not be millions of dollars spent during election cycles across the nation each time, as well as frantic efforts to seat judges on the Supreme Court during the times that they come open.
If you do not understand what is going on then nothing anyone can say can help you. You simply do not want to understand.Just looked at Faux News and they had a headline to the effect of Democrats demand liberal packing of the supreme court. Then looked at CannedNN and its headline was to that there were no plans to bring any legislation on court packing to the house floor. No mention that I could see on MesSNBC on the subject. It just goes to show how different sides can spin a topic to suit their needs.
Who ended the filibuster on naming judges? Who is trying to end the filibuster on passing legislation?Won't happen!
Plus, where was all the consternation when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and the Legislature? That was just two and a half years ago.
Who told you that, Don Lemon?Carlson isn't an unbiased news reporter. He is very much of a partisan political personality.
No I do not. The view that hive on that is that if they were successful in doing so which I don't think it will be, that it would set a precedent to do more changes each election cycle. That is something that no one should want.Do you support Democrats' efforts to add 4 seats to the Supreme Court?
I can only take them at their word.Do you honestly believe any civilized society in the world is seeking to ban law enforcement of the very laws they've enacted?
Wild eyed Fear Mongering causes the loss of all credibility.
Talk about The Sky Is Falling - The Sky Is Falling. sheesh
It wasn't an accident. Policing in our country is inherently & intentionally racist.
Daunte Wright was met with aggression & violence. I am done with those who condone government funded murder.
No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can't be reformed.
— Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) April 12, 2021
Do you support the uncontrolled influx of illegal immigrants?No I do not. The view that hive on that is that if they were successful in doing so which I don't think it will be, that it would set a precedent to do more changes each election cycle. That is something that no one should want.
It's not as simple as wanting or not wanting to understand another's conclusion. It's more of a desire to take a broader view of the issues and try to get more of an understanding of the surrounding circumstances that have direct and indirect effect on what ever topic is being discussed so that the best conclusion can be reached. Nowhere have I said or intended to say that my views were the only way, or that yours were wrong. It would be much easier for me to just say yes you are correct on all points as usual. There would however be something missing without a broader discussion. I have said many times on this forum that I support the concept of two party system and that those parties holding power in various branches of government are the best scenario.If you do not understand what is going on then nothing anyone can say can help you. You simply do not want to understand.