Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Check out the definition of "completely wrong" on google


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#51 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,418 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:50 PM

As long as imposed law applies equally, you can call it a ham sandwich for all it really matters.

#52 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:16 PM

you could, but apparently there are people with a rod up their asses about calling it "marriage"

#53 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,519 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:51 PM

Is that really true, Greg?

I think joker is saying that in context of the states laws, civil union should pertain to the whole crowd, while marriage, being a sanctity by historical reality, is a religious issue which should be free from the confines of state interference.

Exactly, I'd prefer the term marriage was stricken from everything as far as benefits and rights go and that it be replaced with "civil unions" for all, with both gay and straight civil unions receiving the same benefits.

Then anyone that wants to be "married" can do whatever they please.

#54 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,519 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:58 PM

Joker I think you're missing the point here.

What Andy is trying to drive home is that fact that you are wrong. You're just wrong. Everything you are saying. Wrong. That's really all you need to know.

I really wish I could be wrong just once. Closest I ever came was questioning whether or not I did the right thing letting you carry my beers down to the field at ILCC. Turns out it was the right thing because while they were only Bud Lights I can still give you shit about it Posted Image

I can't imagine what it's like to actually not be right about something...hopefully someday I'll get that thrill



:bull:

#55 BHB

BHB
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,898 posts
  • LocationLong Beach, NY

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:29 AM

eh it's more fun to be wrong.

good point though... remember the days when you could actually carry beers onto the vibes concert field? we're getting old man.

hey what gives? it took me 20 minutes to find this thread. how come it was on the main page but now it's over in P&R? how'd that happen?

#56 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:11 AM

I think it was the 9/11 conspiracy talk.

someone else start another thread in the family forum and try again?

#57 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,519 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:11 AM

YOU are getting old, I already am :huh:

Damn VibeGuides taking away our freedom again :angry:

Thread was destined to get moved once Java Time GayWilma'd it.


as in "a dabbah-doo time"?


Thanks a lot Java time!!! :rolleyes:

#58 Java Time

Java Time
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,882 posts
  • Locationthe Island

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:36 AM

YOU are getting old, I already am :huh:

Damn VibeGuides taking away our freedom again :angry:

Thread was destined to get moved once Java Time GayWilma'd it.




Thanks a lot Java time!!! :rolleyes:

what?!? :wow:






:funny1:


oh stop...we both know you're just being silly... Mr. anti gay marriage guy :tapfoot:


:funny1:

#59 Eco

Eco
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,106 posts
  • LocationFoxboro MA

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:40 AM

remember the days when you could actually carry beers onto the vibes concert field? we're getting old man.



Might I suggest a fine seasonal brew called Natural Ice, you can bring it anywhere and well people just feel sorry for you and they don't make you throw it away.

#60 Java Time

Java Time
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,882 posts
  • Locationthe Island

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:42 AM

you're just a poitical and personal attack magnet
..A MAGNET I TELL YA!!! :joker:

#61 Phishfolk

Phishfolk
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,849 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:28 PM

The Part that annoys me the most is that mostly, either from the right or left stance, neither side seems to be voting FOR a candidate, only against the other. It's called divide and conquer. Iw ould love to hear a Romney supporter tell me why they aqre voting FOR Romney, void of "we gotta get Obama out" and I'd also love to hear an Obama supporter tell me why they are voting FOR Obama, instead "Romney is a total liar".

I've only heard one voice on this so far and it encompasses supreme court appointments. It's the only fair argument I've heard so far and it's still kind of a "we dont want romney to do that, so" argument.


I'm torn on who to vote for. I think Romney is the right canidate for the economy. I don't think he is right for supreme court appointments which can have far reaching consequences beyond 4-8 years. I want Obama to be way ahead in the polls and vote for Gary Johnson to try sending a message to the Republican party but the way things are looking now I'll probably vote for someone I don't want again.

#62 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,418 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:37 PM

I'm torn on who to vote for. I think Romney is the right canidate for the economy. I don't think he is right for supreme court appointments which can have far reaching consequences beyond 4-8 years. I want Obama to be way ahead in the polls and vote for Gary Johnson to try sending a message to the Republican party but the way things are looking now I'll probably vote for someone I don't want again.


That's kind of my whole thing. Economy. When it comes right down to it, both of the establishment parties have identical foreign policy, civil liberties stances and use the social issues they "view" differently as the chasm. So I would have to vote on it in according to who was going to make the best economic decisions for the US. It is beyond any debate that Romney would do a better job on the economy. Even though he is a corporatist whore. Corporatism is a long throw better than crony socialism for the average american taxpayer. So my support really goes to them.

All the other issues I dont see any real difference from Bush to Obama, and not much would change with Willard either on war, imperialism, civil liberty erosion, etc....

As for supreme court appointments, we dont even know if any justices will retire in the next four years. What if none come up and then on the eve of the following election, the GOP pushes some other fluke candidate that makes willard look good and that one gets elected to make the decisions. It's a stance built on a lot of gambling.

#63 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 11 October 2012 - 02:42 PM

Republicans do not want full employment.

They purposely keep the unemployment rate high in order to keep wages down.

Obama's problem (in my personal opinion) is that he's too conservative. However, I believe if he wasn't so conservative, he would have never made it to become President.

#64 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,519 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:17 PM

you're just a poitical and personal attack magnet
..A MAGNET I TELL YA!!! :joker:

Mom always said I was an attractive little boy :fays:

#65 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,474 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 11 October 2012 - 07:31 PM

yes let's not...I have no idea what being Jewish has to do with this anyways


Huh?

Exactly, I'd prefer the term marriage was stricken from everything as far as benefits and rights go and that it be replaced with "civil unions" for all, with both gay and straight civil unions receiving the same benefits.

Then anyone that wants to be "married" can do whatever they please.


Marriage will never be stricken from anything. It is ingrained in our lexicon.

It seems easier to just let every one get married, and the people who may be offended by this, can take the marriage stick out of their arse.

Just my .02.

I know Joker will not approve of this, but I do not think the Joker solution is feasible or realistic.

#66 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,418 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 07:39 PM

Neither is mixing church and state in teh first place, Andy. In fact, it's unconstitutional. So the state shoudl not be licensing marriages or making legal guide lines for it in the first place.

#67 beerzrkr

beerzrkr
  • VibeTribe
  • 716 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 07:44 PM

40+% of the nation is polling too put a man in charge who believes in magic underpants. This is the lesser of 2 evils according to about half our nation. How bad do you have to be too loose your job like that? Yet Obama is still blindly defended.

#68 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 11 October 2012 - 07:55 PM

40+% of the nation is polling too put a man in charge who believes in magic underpants. This is the lesser of 2 evils according to about half our nation. How bad do you have to be too loose your job like that? Yet Obama is still blindly defended.


Sadly, I don't think the hatred for Obama has anything to do with his performance as President.

I don't think there are too many people in the world who could have done better given the shitty circumstances he was facing, and if there was they weren't willing to take on that responsibility.

The only thing that I like about Romney is that he's a windsock and will go whichever way the wind blows.

#69 Java Time

Java Time
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,882 posts
  • Locationthe Island

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:06 PM

Mom always said I was an attractive little boy :fays:


mmmmmyes...yes indeed! :rolleyes:

:funny1: I didn't know I would create a firestorm using a Flinstone's theme song excerpt...sorry 'bout that

#70 Java Time

Java Time
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,882 posts
  • Locationthe Island

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:10 PM

Java Time, on 10 October 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

yes let's not...I have no idea what being Jewish has to do with this anyways





Huh?



semitic-semantic
Norm Crosby'd

#71 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,474 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:21 PM

Neither is mixing church and state in teh first place, Andy. In fact, it's unconstitutional. So the state shoudl not be licensing marriages or making legal guide lines for it in the first place.


Isn't the law in place to recognize the religious ceremony and have a system to verify marriage when applied to things like healthcare, taxes, etc...?

The law should not exclude anyone from this right because of religious beliefs.

Period.

#72 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,519 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:28 PM

Huh?



Marriage will never be stricken from anything. It is ingrained in our lexicon.

It seems easier to just let every one get married, and the people who may be offended by this, can take the marriage stick out of their arse.

Just my .02.

I know Joker will not approve of this, but I do not think the Joker solution is feasible or realistic.

Good luck with that. Doesn't seem like it's been easy at all nor does it appear to be getting any easier. Hell you're voting for a guy who won't even step up and sign a paper to stop the discrimination of gays working for the government despite his promise.



LGBT activists say ending workplace discrimination has popular support. They point to several polls, including one by the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress, that shows three-fourths of
voters support workplace nondiscrimination protections for gay and transgender people.

This is "the low hanging fruit," Almeida told Hotsheet.


As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to ban employee discrimination.

And in an interview with The Advocate in 2010, the president said he could circumvent Congress.

"There still a lot of things we can do administratively even if we don't pass things legislatively. So my ability to make sure that the federal government is an employer that treats gays and lesbians fairly, that's something I can do, and sets a model for folks across the board," Mr. Obama said.

The Executive Order represented one possible way to bypass Congress. A bill in Congress that would have had the same impact called the the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has been stalled in the Republican-led House of Representatives.



http://www.cbsnews.c...ation-inaction/



Is voting for someone who has shown he won't do what he has promised to do, and what he still CAN do with a simple stroke of the pen, really the more feasible and realistic way to accomplish the goal?

Take the Obama blinders off if it's honestly that big a deal for you. There are other candidates out there to choose from who will do more for gay rights than this guy. I'll most likely be voting for one of them, will you?

Remember, Obama only came out for gay marriage after Biden forced his hand on the subject. If not for that he may never have "evolved" at all.

#73 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,474 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:30 PM

The only thing that I like about Romney is that he's a windsock and will go whichever way the wind blows.


This is what I dislike about Romney most.

Wasn't it 8 years ago when this would have been be called flip flopping?

Say what you will about W, but he convictions and stood by them.

#74 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,474 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:35 PM

Good luck with that. Doesn't seem like it's been easy at all nor does it appear to be getting any easier. Hell you're voting for a guy who won't even step up and sign a paper to stop the discrimination of gays working for the government despite his promise.


I know.

Is voting for someone who has shown he won't do what he has promised to do, and what he still CAN do with a simple stroke of the pen, really the more feasible and realistic way to accomplish the goal?

Take the Obama blinders off if it's honestly that big a deal for you. There are candidates out there to choose from who will do more for gay rights than this guy. I'll most likely be voting for one of them, will you?

Remember, Obama only came out for gay marriage after Biden forced his hand on the subject. If not for that he may never have "evolved" at all.


I wasted my vote in 1992 on Ross Perot.

I was young and naive.

Voting for anyone other than the major two parties is wasting a vote in my opinion.

So no, I will not be voting for someone who will do more, but your vote will be lost in oblivion and will not matter.

Good luck with that.

All sarcasm aside, I enjoy these debates.

#75 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,418 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:50 PM

Isn't the law in place to recognize the religious ceremony and have a system to verify marriage when applied to things like healthcare, taxes, etc...?

The law should not exclude anyone from this right because of religious beliefs.

Period.


No, it isn't. Marriage is outlawed without permission granted (a license) by the state. Meaning that anyone who takes upon themselves to lock their relationship in holy matrimony is not deemed legally binding by the state apparatus. Of course I agree, no legal rights should be withheld from anyone who wants to engage in marital vows. Most ceremonies are even riddled with acknowledgement that it is the state, not the religion of choice, that deems the status binding.

#76 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,519 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:02 PM

I doubt either vote will matter more than the other.

However mine won't be cast for someone who has proven he's willing to lie about giving gays equal rights and was unwilling to give them those rights when he could.

So when you talk about my stance on gay issues in the future please try and remember that I backed up my support for equal rights for gays at the voting booth while yourself and any other Obama voters knowingly chose the guy who lied about wanting equality for gays.

Actions do speak louder than words


Oh and I love a good debate free of all the bullshit

#77 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,474 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:09 PM

I doubt either vote will matter more than the other.

However mine won't be cast for someone who has proven he's willing to lie about giving gays equal rights and was unwilling to give them those rights when he could.

So when you talk about my stance on gay issues in the future please try and remember that I backed up my support for equal rights for gays at the voting booth while yourself and any other Obama voters knowingly chose the guy who lied about wanting equality for gays.

Actions do speak louder than words


Oh and I love a good debate free of all the bullshit


But in 20 years from now things will change, and 40 years, times will keep changing, don't be left behind.

Remember 100 years ago women couldnt vote, 50 years ago blacks had no rights, etc...

Think about how we think of the people who withheld those rights now. You see a movie from that time and you cringe (not you but in general), we cringe.

History is just a reminder of how dumb we once were and not to be as stupid again.

I say change now, or be looked at like like the archie bunker of today.

And if obama does not come around and evolve he will be seen in the same light ultimately too.

While I will vote for Obama, if Romney wins, his stance is even more deplorable.


And no neither individual vote will count, but a lot of people think just like you and I.

#78 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,519 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:32 PM

You're kind of making my point. I'm the one voting for the change now, anyone voting for Obama is voting for someone who, despite the bumper sticker, won't make the change despite being in the position and having the authority to do so.

#79 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,474 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:48 PM

You're kind of making my point. I'm the one voting for the change now, anyone voting for Obama is voting for someone who, despite the bumper sticker, won't make the change despite being in the position and having the authority to do so.


Your vote will be lost in obscurity unfortunately.

My vote is for someone who will do more than the other. Gary Johnson is my choice, but he cant win.

I took the quiz, I agree 10% with romney. 95 with Johnson and 81 for obama.

#80 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,519 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:14 PM

Lost in obscurity or not it will be a vote for positive change now rather than a vote for Archie.

Your vote will be for someone who "promises" to do more but has clearly shown that on this issue he can't be trusted to keep his promise

#81 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:59 AM

no, his vote will be against a possibly Chinese Government sponsored (Manchurian) Candidate.

and yeah, China could easily sponsor a candidate through SuperPACs, and they probably did this year.

#82 Phishfolk

Phishfolk
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,849 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:43 PM

Your vote will be lost in obscurity unfortunately.

My vote is for someone who will do more than the other. Gary Johnson is my choice, but he cant win.

I took the quiz, I agree 10% with romney. 95 with Johnson and 81 for obama.


But if he gets enough votes that sends a big message to the GOP on social issues.

#83 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,766 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:12 PM

The Part that annoys me the most is that mostly, either from the right or left stance, neither side seems to be voting FOR a candidate, only against the other. It's called divide and conquer. Iw ould love to hear a Romney supporter tell me why they aqre voting FOR Romney, void of "we gotta get Obama out" and I'd also love to hear an Obama supporter tell me why they are voting FOR Obama, instead "Romney is a total liar".

I've only heard one voice on this so far and it encompasses supreme court appointments. It's the only fair argument I've heard so far and it's still kind of a "we dont want romney to do that, so" argument.


I think the Supreme Court picks are one of the most compelling reasons for voting one way or another. IMO, Obama is more likely to put up moderate picks with no real litmus tests. Romney - once a moderate - now seems to placate to right-wingers and is more likely to put up ideologues. heck, the guys got Robert Bork on his legal team :lol: That's my read. Whoever the next justices are, they are going to be in a position to influence the workings of this country for decades - far beyond whatever damage or good either candidate can do in the next 4 years.

My 0.02 :coffee:

#84 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:37 PM

But if he gets enough votes that sends a big message to the GOP on social issues.


It absolutely does, and if you manage to get 10% then you can participate in the debates next round.

I got one thing to say to anyone who has already decided they will not vote at all this year:

SLYGSAASISOI

#85 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,474 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:35 PM

But if he gets enough votes that sends a big message to the GOP on social issues.


The problem is, I have never heard Gary Johnson speak. So while I agree with him most on issues, how can I vote for someone I have never heard speak.

Where is he, without me having to go look for him?

Is he even campaigning?

#86 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:38 PM

he was just on MSNBC, but that was the first time I ever seen him.

He seemed like a decent guy with a sense of humor. At the end of the interview he said, "Waste your vote on me, I'm the next President" and laughed.

#87 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,519 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:51 PM

The problem is, I have never heard Gary Johnson speak. So while I agree with him most on issues, how can I vote for someone I have never heard speak.

Where is he, without me having to go look for him?

Is he even campaigning?

That's just another part of the problem we're stuck with as long as the Dems and Reps are calling the shots. They keep the other parties marginalized and shut out of the debates so they can't really be heard and we're left with the choice of douche or turd.


http://www.gathering...hy-were-fucked/

#88 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,474 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:19 PM

That's just another part of the problem we're stuck with as long as the Dems and Reps are calling the shots. They keep the other parties marginalized and shut out of the debates so they can't really be heard and we're left with the choice of douche or turd.


http://www.gathering...hy-were-fucked/


I agree, and why it will never change until we put pressure on them, other than casting a wasteful vote in the hopes of getting to 10%.



http://finance.yahoo...-164000800.html


Wealth Gap Between Congress and Average Americans Widens



According to a new report in The Washington Post, the median net worth of the current Congressrose 5% during the recession while it fell 39% for the average American. The wealthiest one-third of lawmakers saw their net worth rise 14%.
The Washington Post disclosed these statistics in a recent story on the wealth gap between Congressional members and the American public.

"These are supposed to be our representatives," says The Daily Ticker's Aaron Task. "If they're not living the same lives or understanding the lives that the average American is living, how can they really represent our interests?"
The Post analyzed the financial disclosure forms and public records for all Congressional members from 2004 to 2010. Some key findings of the report are:
  • By 2010, the median estimated wealth for members of the House of Representatives was $746,000; for senators it was $2.6 million.
  • There was virtually no difference between the wealth of Republicans and Democrats in 2010. Just six years earlier, the net worth of Republicans was 44% higher than the net worth of Democrats.
  • 28% of Congress, or 150 members, reported earning more income from outside jobs and investments than from their Congressional salary of $174,000.
  • 27% of Congressional members saw a decline in their net worth between 2004 and 2010.
Lawmakers acquired their wealth in a variety of ways but real estate, institutional funds and the wealth of their spouses were the top three sources.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi increased her wealth by an estimated $60 million between 2004 and 2010. The gains primarily came from the commercial real estate holdings of her husband, according to The Post. Representative Darrell Issa made his reported $448 million in commercial real estate as well as other financial investments.

"We have this huge disparity that's only getting worse in terms of inequality in this country," says The Daily Ticker's Henry Blodget. "If it continues, the country will begin to break apart and get more and more antagonistic class warfare. It's something we have got to solve not only in Congress but in the American public at large."


Is Congress pursuing policies that benefit middle and lower income Americans? The Washington Post found that 73 lawmakers sponsored or co-sponsored legislation that could benefit businesses or industries that involved those Congressional members or their families.

"It's just outrageous that our legislators could be profiting directly from the legislation that they're making," says Aaron Task.

Top 10 Wealthiest Members of Congress (by household assets, 2010) according to The Washington Post:
  • Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) $448.1M
  • Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) $380.4M
  • Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) $231.7M
  • Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) $143.2M
  • Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) $136.2M
  • House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) $101.1M
  • Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. VA) $99.1M
  • Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) $85.6M
  • Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) $73.2M
  • Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) $69.0M


#89 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:33 PM

You want to really know what's even more important than your vote? (to an extent anyway)

A little (not so) secret... your cash.

You have to donate to whomever you support so that they can promote themselves.

#90 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,418 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:36 PM

None of ti is going to change until the system implodes. Cast a vote, signa petition, join a protest. Whatver makes you feel good. It's all a waste of time. The system is broken beyond repair. Andy's post regarding the congressional wealth gap proves that. We're being run roughshod by crooks.

#91 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,519 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:46 PM

So the question becomes how do we put pressure on them other than voting against them?

I hear ya TASB.

The way it's set up now folks just won't vote for who they want because they don't think they have a chance to win and they'll never have a chance if people won't vote for them.

I think at this point it's going to have to get real ugly and we'll have to tear it down and rebuild the whole thing

#92 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,418 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 04:08 PM

I think the Supreme Court picks are one of the most compelling reasons for voting one way or another. IMO, Obama is more likely to put up moderate picks with no real litmus tests. Romney - once a moderate - now seems to placate to right-wingers and is more likely to put up ideologues. heck, the guys got Robert Bork on his legal team :lol: That's my read. Whoever the next justices are, they are going to be in a position to influence the workings of this country for decades - far beyond whatever damage or good either candidate can do in the next 4 years.

My 0.02 :coffee:


Someone has to retire in order for a new appointment. There is no guarantee that will happen. So it's a gamble to support Obama for re-election on this basis. If the two who are in question hold out, it could be a far worse republican choice making the appointments following the Obama second term. I also disagree that Obama will install a moderate, while Romney will install right leaning judges. The whole point here is to make sure that Ginsburg is replaced with another sure-fire liberal supporting judge. Not a moderate.

#93 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 12 October 2012 - 04:09 PM

"tear it all down and rebuild"

when I was 18 I would have probably agreed with you, but now I realize that if the whole thing gets tore down, then I'm most likely getting torn down with it.

I opt for survival.

after all, it isn't your short bus lego kit that can be easily torn down and rebuilt in an afternoon with the help of your uncle

tearing down is the easy part... that can be done in our lifetime. I think it's the goal of some people -- or maybe it's just all they're capable of doing.

#94 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,474 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:50 PM

Someone has to retire in order for a new appointment. There is no guarantee that will happen. So it's a gamble to support Obama for re-election on this basis. If the two who are in question hold out, it could be a far worse republican choice making the appointments following the Obama second term. I also disagree that Obama will install a moderate, while Romney will install right leaning judges. The whole point here is to make sure that Ginsburg is replaced with another sure-fire liberal supporting judge. Not a moderate.


This will be an issue is Obama not elected because ss of May 2011, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is oldest at 78 (March 15, 1933), and she is a Liberal.

Romney puts in a GOPer and we are all F'd in the A.

The next two are Conservatives, and under 70, so they may hang on through the next term if Obama is elected, if Romney, then they do not have to worry about the effects of them retiring.

#95 Phishfolk

Phishfolk
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,849 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:00 PM

The thing that scares me about voting for supreme court picks is like TASB posted. What if nobody retires and we end up with 4 more years of bad policy from Obama then at least 4 years of bad policy from whoever the GOP picks because everyone is sick of the Dems and then the republican pick justices.

#96 Phishfolk

Phishfolk
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,849 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:03 PM

I opt for survival.



To be honest mine and my wife's best bet at survival would be Obama over Romney because of the industries we are in.

#97 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,418 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:05 PM

That's speculation all around. Especially the part about being ass fucked because of a GOP justice installation. We're being fucked now, so I really don't see how it is that we could be fucked IF whatever.

The fact is, Ginsburg may hold out. It is a gamble to assume that a re-election of the current administration is necessary due to the appointment of a judge that has not signaled retirement.

#98 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,474 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:16 PM

That's speculation all around. Especially the part about being ass fucked because of a GOP justice installation. We're being fucked now, so I really don't see how it is that we could be fucked IF whatever.

The fact is, Ginsburg may hold out. It is a gamble to assume that a re-election of the current administration is necessary due to the appointment of a judge that has not signaled retirement.


No we will be F'd in the A.

How?

Say Romney is elected, then re-elected. Ginsberg will be 86. Do not think she can hold out that long.

#99 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,418 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:42 PM

And you're still making the claim that a Romney appointment means we're fucked. I say that's already the case.

#100 Phishfolk

Phishfolk
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,849 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:01 PM

And you're still making the claim that a Romney appointment means we're fucked. I say that's already the case.


devils advocate:

I would trust someone with all daughters that claims to support women's then someone with all sons that claims to not support women's right to choose.