Why is nominating a Ginsburg replacement now a mistake and immaterial

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Vern Humphrey
    Administrator - OFC
    • Aug 2009
    • 15875

    #31
    Originally posted by dryheat
    That's pretty good. I've read a little about a couple of the possible appointees. LGBDT groups are worried. Reports say that these women are antithetical to what Ginsburg stood for. Don't know what that word means but I think it's probably a good thing.
    It means "directly opposed." Ginsberg was the prototype for the rioting, screaming creatures who are out in the street nowadays. She was basically motivated by negativity.

    Comment

    • Roadkingtrax
      Senior Member
      • Feb 2010
      • 7835

      #32
      Originally posted by Vern Humphrey
      It means "directly opposed." Ginsberg was the prototype for the rioting, screaming creatures who are out in the street nowadays. She was basically motivated by negativity.
      LOL
      "The first gun that was fired at Fort Sumter sounded the death-knell of slavery. They who fired it were the greatest practical abolitionists this nation has produced." ~BG D. Ullman

      Comment

      • clintonhater
        Senior Member
        • Nov 2015
        • 5220

        #33
        Originally posted by dryheat
        LGBDT groups are worried.
        Why? One of their perverted kind is already on the court.

        Comment

        • Roadkingtrax
          Senior Member
          • Feb 2010
          • 7835

          #34
          Originally posted by clintonhater
          Why? One of their perverted kind is already on the court.
          You can't possibly know what they do with their gavels. Except for Brett, he probably kept it on his calendar.
          "The first gun that was fired at Fort Sumter sounded the death-knell of slavery. They who fired it were the greatest practical abolitionists this nation has produced." ~BG D. Ullman

          Comment

          • lyman
            Administrator - OFC
            • Aug 2009
            • 11269

            #35
            Originally posted by Sandpebble
            GOSH...!!!! gas chambers....and death camps ????

            how the frig can you belch this xxxx and expect anyone to to take you seriously ?
            the same way the other side complains about abortion rights, taking social security away from the elderly, putting kids in cages , shooting immigrants as they swim the river and death camps for gays etcetc etc,

            it's an election year, gotta fan those flames,

            Comment

            • togor
              Banned
              • Nov 2009
              • 17610

              #36
              Abortion rights in the cross hairs without a doubt. Kids are in cages and people want to privatize SS and make it optional. Those are all real, unlike Dem gas chambers and death camps.

              Comment

              • S.A. Boggs
                Senior Member
                • Aug 2009
                • 8568

                #37
                Originally posted by togor
                Abortion rights in the cross hairs without a doubt. Kids are in cages and people want to privatize SS and make it optional. Those are all real, unlike Dem gas chambers and death camps.


                Not really Togey, murdering babies is much worse. Why support a party that desires the murder of babies and the eradication of the black race by aborting black babies?
                Sam

                Comment

                • Vern Humphrey
                  Administrator - OFC
                  • Aug 2009
                  • 15875

                  #38
                  Originally posted by S.A. Boggs
                  [/B]

                  Not really Togey, murdering babies is much worse. Why support a party that desires the murder of babies and the eradication of the black race by aborting black babies?
                  Sam
                  Of course murdering babies is worse!

                  As for privatizing Social Security, if that had been done in the '40s (and that was Roosevelt's concept) we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now -- you would OWN your retirement fund, and the government couldn't screw with it!

                  Comment

                  • S.A. Boggs
                    Senior Member
                    • Aug 2009
                    • 8568

                    #39
                    Originally posted by Vern Humphrey
                    Of course murdering babies is worse!

                    As for privatizing Social Security, if that had been done in the '40s (and that was Roosevelt's concept) we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now -- you would OWN your retirement fund, and the government couldn't screw with it!
                    Today's socialist party keep following the party of old.
                    Sam

                    Comment

                    • Vern Humphrey
                      Administrator - OFC
                      • Aug 2009
                      • 15875

                      #40
                      Originally posted by S.A. Boggs
                      Today's socialist party keep following the party of old.
                      Sam
                      That's the point of Socialism -- you don't OWN anything. The government owns everything -- including you. Which is why there is no such thing as "democratic socialism."

                      Comment

                      • lyman
                        Administrator - OFC
                        • Aug 2009
                        • 11269

                        #41
                        Originally posted by togor
                        Abortion rights in the cross hairs without a doubt. Kids are in cages and people want to privatize SS and make it optional. Those are all real, unlike Dem gas chambers and death camps.
                        kids in cages was your savior's plan, remember?


                        but of course you would not dare admit that,

                        btw,

                        sure your read what I wrote?

                        Comment

                        • togor
                          Banned
                          • Nov 2009
                          • 17610

                          #42
                          Originally posted by lyman
                          kids in cages was your savior's plan, remember?


                          but of course you would not dare admit that,

                          btw,

                          sure your read what I wrote?
                          Google "obama kids cages" and you have options

                          WASHINGTON (AP) — Michelle Obama assailed President Donald Trump on Monday for ripping migrant children from their parents and throwing them into cages, picking up on a frequent and distorted point made widely by Democrats.


                          The key difference being that Trump separated the kids from their families and sent them into a Nacht und Nebel situation in the Federal system. Do you have kids of your own? If not it may not resonate with you what a cruelty it is to deliberately separate families as a deterrent policy.

                          Comment

                          • clintonhater
                            Senior Member
                            • Nov 2015
                            • 5220

                            #43
                            Originally posted by togor
                            If not it may not resonate with you what a cruelty it is to deliberately separate families as a deterrent policy.
                            Not cruel enough to deter them from invading! And they're still coming, knowing crybabies, handwringers, & traitors like yourself will defend THEIR interests against the best interests of this country!

                            Comment

                            • togor
                              Banned
                              • Nov 2009
                              • 17610

                              #44
                              Pity you don't believe in climate change, CH. If you did it would help you understand some of the forces that cause them to hit the road north in the first place. But rational policy is not your sweet spot.

                              Comment

                              • clintonhater
                                Senior Member
                                • Nov 2015
                                • 5220

                                #45
                                Originally posted by togor
                                Pity you don't believe in climate change, CH. If you did it would help you understand some of the forces that cause them to hit the road north in the first place. But rational policy is not your sweet spot.
                                That's THEIR problem, not ours! Or rather it wouldn't be ours if crybabies, handwringers, & traitors like yourself weren't defending THEIR interests against the best interests of this country! This country was NOT responsible for the mess they've made of theirs! All over the Turd World, the same demand--we've totally f-u our own countries, now YOU in Europe & America have a "duty" to take care of us!

                                By the way, LIAR, find ONE SINGLE STATEMENT of mine suggesting disbelief in climate change!
                                Last edited by clintonhater; 09-25-2020, 07:46.

                                Comment

                                Working...