LaxPower Back-Up Stick

dislaxxic wrote:If i lived in fattyrussellwheat's world, i'd be damned scared to even go out of my HOUSE! He said THIS, but what about THAT!? Even though THIS happened, WHAT ABOUT that!? I must be pretending something because i didn't call THAT out because THIS happened. No position is credible because THAT happened and what about THIS? NO POSITION IS CREDIBLE because someone i supported in THIS way said THAT ABOUT this or that support back before the narrative veered off in THAT direction. Your narrative is "boring" because you said THIS or didn't repudiate THAT back in 2003 or 2011. But no matter, since he's a SHAYSIAN, it all makes perfect sense!!

We always used to joke about using our "Fatty Goggles" to attempt to understand WHAT THE FORK this guy is even talking about. There are contrarians, and then there's fatty. It's exhausting, and yet he/she still gets all grumpy when he thinks someone is ignoring him.

Isn't there a street corner out there missing its lunatic? Or, as he/she would probably prefer it, its King Lear, raging at the storm???



..

Its called THE LAW. (of course in your world, precedence holds no value)

Why don't you just ever answer the questions? What's boring is your hypocrisy. Your boring rants about nothing meaningful. Who is your Congressperson? Oh, right, you don't answer questions. Run for office. Change your district. Did your Congressperson vote for the big budget deficit increase?

exactly. Debate or go away. yawn

Oldbarndog wrote:Since neither party is willing to bypass their own interests and fill this lengthy SC vacancy, maybe it's time they are selected by us wee folk. Think our Founding Fathers would be pretty pissed off with this gross distortion of checks and balances.

I think our founding fathers believed that the "wee folk" should be cordoned off where they could do as little damage as possible, while the landed gentry and business owners went about the job of running the country....

fattyrussellwheat wrote:Why don't you just ever answer the questions? What's boring is your hypocrisy. Your boring rants about nothing meaningful. Who is your Congressperson? Oh, right, you don't answer questions. Run for office. Change your district. Did your Congressperson vote for the big budget deficit increase? exactly. Debate or go away. yawn

Yawn is right. Not going to answer nonsensical, circle-jerk "questions" that get thrown down the lane like a candle pin ball, with bumpers on all sides. Where's that Jill Stein thread??

..

Since neither party is willing to bypass their own interests and fill this lengthy SC vacancy, maybe it's time they are selected by us wee folk. Think our Founding Fathers would be pretty pissed off with this gross distortion of checks and balances.

You make a good point. Appointing judges is supposed to be better than electing them -- to keep it above the partisan fray. But at this point, hard to see how the appointment process could get any worse. And the root problem with SCOTUS is the length of the terms.

Life expectancy was a lot shorter in 1789 than it is today. Our current politics are highly polarized and so presidents only appoint 50-somethings who could serve 30 years or more. Sitting Justices now openly manage their departure dates to coincide with whether their party is in power. So SCOTUS seats become hereditary partisan assets that need to be preserved at all cost for ridiculous amounts of time. The current open seat was filled by Nixon in 1971 (Lewis Powell), then by Reagan in 1988 (Kennedy), then by Trump in 2018 (Kav or someone else). Assume that seat will come open again about 2045 -- that's effectively a 75 year long GOP term. If Kav (or whoever) times his departure right, the seat will have been in GOP hands for literally 100 years. Ridiculous.

Making it worse is Congress' complete inability to do anything. So many issues that should be decided in Congress get punted to the courts. And once the courts rule, there's little chance that Congress (if they disagree then or later) will act to overturn a court ruling (which is almost always an available legal option). Result is that the court rulings become much more important and much more permanent than they really should be.

My pet solution is SCOTUS term limits. Fixed terms of 18 years. Every 4 year presidential term would therefore get two appointments. 18 years is plenty of time to keep the Justices out of the political fray. But no more letting the Justice decide who his successor will be. And SCOTUS will be somewhat more representative of current times -- rather than political conditions as they existed 50-100 years prior.

I'd really love to see CJ Roberts and a few of his colleagues take this up as their cause. It's time.

BAM. So true hoodat.

What is past is prologue, unless you are a pretend.

How did the 19th amendment vote break down? exactly Unanimous in favor, write?

dislaxxic wrote:

fattyrussellwheat wrote:Why don't you just ever answer the questions? What's boring is your hypocrisy. Your boring rants about nothing meaningful. Who is your Congressperson? Oh, right, you don't answer questions. Run for office. Change your district. Did your Congressperson vote for the big budget deficit increase? exactly. Debate or go away. yawn

Yawn is right. Not going to answer nonsensical, circle-jerk "questions" that get thrown down the lane like a candle pin ball, with bumpers on all sides. Where's that Jill Stein thread??

..

Just answer the question. Or just post a link from some valuable source.

What is it about DOCTOR Jill Stein that you dislike? Oh, gosh, another question. You voted for Hillary? Enough said.

NBC reporter Kate Snow has thrown a little shade on Julie Swetnick's story.

Retired / EX FBI talking heads claim the FBI investigation still has handcuffs on (this from their sources inside the FBI). The WH and Senate republicans are just playing a game. Not really a surprise. So the question becomes, do Collins and Flake have any balls.

She said she filed a police reportbut then didn’t follow up. Maybe someone should look. We throw nothing out.

runrussellrun wrote:What is it about DOCTOR Jill Stein that you dislike?

I think it'd be interesting to get a coherent summation of the kinds of things DR. JILL STEIN stands for. Oh wait! I said "coherent". Never mind.

We're still trying to understand why she was sitting at a table with Vlad and Flynn a few years back...

..

Truth and Borowitz collide.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowit ... under-oath

dislaxxic wrote:

runrussellrun wrote:What is it about DOCTOR Jill Stein that you dislike?

I think it'd be interesting to get a coherent summation of the kinds of things DR. JILL STEIN stands for. Oh wait! I said "coherent". Never mind.

We're still trying to understand why she was sitting at a table with Vlad and Flynn a few years back...

..

It would be interesting to get a summation from YOU as to why you don't like Dr. Jill Steins positions. Now you are deflecting with the word "coherent". Compare and contrast Steins/Sanders vs Clintons issue statements and get back to us on "coherent" words. Most every politicians issue statements are vague nothingness. Kinda like your responses. YOU have the ball. Stop deflecting .

Here is a direct link

https://www.jill2016.com/plan

What's not coherent?

She said she filed a police reportbut then didn’t follow up. Maybe someone should look. We throw nothing out.

Reports yesterday were that it would take 30 days to retrieve the police report (if it exists).

Probably doesn't matter. Swetnick's claims are pretty vague about Kav specifically -- basically he was a drunk horn dog who treated girls badly at big parties where lots of people present. Her account is consistent with the picture we now have of Kav and Judge. So at most, it seems like it would be a piece of mildly corroborating information.

Seems like the Yale/exposure story might be the most likely one to get verified. Lots of Yale classmates seem to be available and willing to talk about that one. Good chance that there is something there if Kav was calling around a few months ago trying to find people to back up his side of the story.

Ford's claims aren't going to become more validated unless Judge or someone else can ID the party and the house.

runrussellrun wrote:

dislaxxic wrote:

runrussellrun wrote:What is it about DOCTOR Jill Stein that you dislike?

I think it'd be interesting to get a coherent summation of the kinds of things DR. JILL STEIN stands for. Oh wait! I said "coherent". Never mind.

We're still trying to understand why she was sitting at a table with Vlad and Flynn a few years back...

..

It would be interesting to get a summation from YOU as to why you don't like Dr. Jill Steins positions. Now you are deflecting with the word "coherent". Compare and contrast Steins/Sanders vs Clintons issue statements and get back to us on "coherent" words. Most every politicians issue statements are vague nothingness. Kinda like your responses. YOU have the ball. Stop deflecting .

Here is a direct link

https://www.jill2016.com/plan

What's not coherent?

Stein was a Fred Hampton devotee!

My entries in the "who or what is the real, actual factual BANDITO" contest. Either Anne Coulter, Trump's legitimate son Eric or Betsy DeVos's little brother, Erik Prince.

Any other candidates?

wahoomurf wrote:My entries in the "who or what is the real, actual factual BANDITO" contest. Either Anne Coulter, Trump's legitimate son Eric or Betsy DeVos's little brother, Erik Prince.

Any other candidates?

Bannon

Typical Lax Dad wrote:

wahoomurf wrote:My entries in the "who or what is the real, actual factual BANDITO" contest. Either Anne Coulter, Trump's legitimate son Eric or Betsy DeVos's little brother, Erik Prince.

Any other candidates?

Bannon

KellyAnne

..

fatrussellwheatie wrote:It would be interesting to get a summation from YOU as to why you don't like Dr. Jill Steins positions.

i like plenty about Jill Stein. So, once again, your assumptions are just plain wrong and incoherent. Have voted in that manner in the past. Besides, it has (as of 15 years ago) grown so old and tired listening to you blow hot air about ANY position ANYONE takes with whataboutisms and incoherent rants about being a "pretend".

Take a stand, start your thread and let us know about all the things you DO STAND FOR, instead of constantly, incessantly and always incoherently babbling about WHY EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG IN THEIR BELIEFS...jeebus, this is it. Out.

..

jhu72 wrote:Why daughters don't tell their dads.

Agreed 100% with this post about women, what is your point?