The Left's Worst Nightmare

[icanhelp1]

The left and the right want the same thing: control. Both sides have fear of uncontrollable people. The left particularly needs men to fight wars now, so mass emasculation has limits. The fantasy that we can just buy a victory with other nations doing the fighting is now being blown to bits in Ukraine. The more immediately happening nightmare for the left is the government's money becomes worthless, so it must drastically cut spending. That could be when the left wakes up to reality and becomes literally woke.

You’re premise is inaccurate. Conservatives and republicans alike are always on the defense from extreme leftist ideology. Conservative values like a belief in family values, the nuclear family, a belief in God, schools that teach the ABCs and not gender indoctrination are under constant attack. Freedom of speech and the second amendment constantly challenged by the left. Abortion on demand, normalization of lgbtq and trans culture. They tell you they believe the right doesn’t believe in our constitution while they openly skirt the meaning of the constitution as the law of the land. The left openly challenges rulings by the court and are always touting the court as being illegitimate. They believe in globalist ideals over nationalism and take zero pride in our country. They believe America is evil and systemically racist. The Democratic Party is Marxism veiled in the premise of progressivism and democratic principles.

 

[PaxNurgle]

More Hisarpy (or whichever screen name you used) retardation at work.

What you just posted is a typical homophobic, paranoid, hate-filled screed masquerading as legitimate discourse. NO, tolerance and acceptance of GLBT people is NOT Marxism, or a belief in America as "Evil." NO, Freedom of speech is not being challenged by the left (though there is one political faction who are constantly trying to ban books, they certainly don't claim to be the "left.")

Overturning an election, trying to undo the Bill of Rights, blocking court nominees that aren't activist or biased enough is not "defending" the constutition, rather it is threatening it. The Left are not the ones doing this.

Nobody wants "Abortion on demand." Rather, they want reasonable and fair abortion laws, with reasonable and fair limits, which does NOT mean, "Turn women into State-controlled breeding stock." (Nor does it mean, abortion on demand for any reason at any time.)

I shoudln't even have to dignify this kind of drivel with a response, but this is why I get so frustrated with this board.

 

[ll74]

The left openly challenges rulings by the court and are always touting the court as being illegitimate

This is horseshit.

The right literally wants to dismantle the department of justice.

 

[icanhelp1]

This is horseshit.

The right literally wants to dismantle the department of justice.

The left went apoplectic over the R v W. Schumer actually threatened members of the court. The left wanted to pack the court till they got the numbers that supported their ideology.

The DOJ is an extension of the democratic party.

 

[ll74]

The left went apoplectic over the R v W. Schumer actually threatened members of the court. The left wanted to pack the court till they got the numbers that supported their ideology.

The DOJ is an extension of the democratic party.

So the left and the courts are the same BUT the left says the courts are illegitimate.

Do you ever listen to yourself?

 

[PaxNurgle]

When a court rules that the Bill of Rights do not apply- the very premise that the Constitution and our freedoms were founded on- then no, the public has legitimate reasons to question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

When an appointee is blocked on flimsy grounds ("An outgoing president with one year left should not be allowed to pick a supreme court justice") simply because he is not deemed to be ideologically biased enough, and the very same congress rushes through an eleventh hour appointee during a lame duck president's tenure, because said justice has been public for their ideological anti-Bill of Rights bias, then the public has every grounds to question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

When one justice has demonstrated their willingness to take bribes from wealthy donors, and is married to a woman who has expressed a desire to support a coup and remove a lawfully elected president, the public has grounds to question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

Remember, the Supreme Court should be neither "Liberal" nor "Conservative" but should interpret the Constitution and the intent of the framers- which was to protect and preserve liberty and prevent tyrrany.

"The DOJ is an extension of the Dmocratic Party" Dude, shut the fuck up. Just stop. You make yourself look more idiotic with each post (and each new screen name) you come up with.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

You’re premise is inaccurate. Conservatives and republicans alike are always on the defense from extreme leftist ideology. Conservative values like a belief in family values, the nuclear family, a belief in God, schools that teach the ABCs and not gender indoctrination are under constant attack. Freedom of speech and the second amendment constantly challenged by the left. Abortion on demand, normalization of lgbtq and trans culture. They tell you they believe the right doesn’t believe in our constitution while they openly skirt the meaning of the constitution as the law of the land. The left openly challenges rulings by the court and are always touting the court as being illegitimate. They believe in globalist ideals over nationalism and take zero pride in our country. They believe America is evil and systemically racist. The Democratic Party is Marxism veiled in the premise of progressivism and democratic principles.

https://thesoprano.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/trump-2016-fuck-your-feelings-720x480.jpg?w=840

this has been the open sandwich face of your side for almost a decade.

bitch, please.

 

[icanhelp1]

So the left and the courts are the same BUT the left says the courts are illegitimate.

Do you ever listen to yourself?

Where on God's green earth did I write that the left and the courts are the same? After the repeal of R v W the left wanted the heads of conservative judges on a platter. They want to replace conservative judges with leftist activist.

 

[ll74]

Where on God's green earth did I write that the left and the courts are the same? After the repeal of R v W the left wanted the heads of conservative judges on a platter. They want to replace conservative judges with leftist activist.

Do you even pay attention to appointments of judges at all? May want to look at the last couple of decades on those.

The right wing has been the more.activist by a long shot.. they handpicked SCOTUS and literally blocked a legitimate appointment with bullshit and turned around and appointed and approved theirs using the same bullshit.

Also, see below.

The left went apoplectic over the R v W. Schumer actually threatened members of the court. The left wanted to pack the court till they got the numbers that supported their ideology.

The DOJ is an extension of the democratic party.

The bullshit about "packing the court" is all spin by the right which you believe. Nobody has put forward any legislation to do so.

 

[icanhelp1]

Do you even pay attention to appointments of judges at all? May want to look at the last couple of decades on those.

Yah I do. Did you watch the Kavanaugh senate confirmation hearing. I did! The democrat senate was a disgusting misrepresentation of the proud heritage the senate enjoyed for centuries. That hearing is when I lost all respect for Dianne Feinstein as a senator, whom, by the way, I always held in the highest regard as a democrat ( may she rest in peace ). You can blame that disgusting democrat liar, senate majority leader Reid for dirty politics. If Reid doesn't impose the nuclear option for lower court appointments maybe just maybe Garland gets appointed to the Supreme court.

The right wing has been the more.activist by a long shot.. they handpicked SCOTUS and literally blocked a legitimate appointment with bullshit and turned around and appointed and approved theirs using the same bullshit.

Also, see below.

The bullshit about "packing the court" is all spin by the right which you believe. Nobody has put forward any legislation to do so.

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-introduce-bill-to-expand-u-s-supreme-court/

 

[ll74]

Yah I do. Did you watch the Kavanaugh senate confirmation hearing. I did! The democrat senate was a disgusting misrepresentation of the proud heritage the senate enjoyed for centuries. That hearing is when I lost all respect for Dianne Feinstein as a senator, whom, by the way, I always held in the highest regard as a democrat ( may she rest in peace ).

So did he get the position?

You can blame that disgusting democrat liar, senate majority leader Reid for dirty politics. If Reid doesn't impose the nuclear option for lower court appointments maybe just maybe Garland gets appointed to the Supreme court.

How many appointments did 45 roll in?

I'm out the one blaming anyone
...you are.

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-introduce-bill-to-expand-u-s-supreme-court/

Ok..
.a little off.

How did that bill go? I'm sure all Democrats voted for it based on your horseshit.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Where on God's green earth did I write that the left and the courts are the same? After the repeal of R v W the left wanted the heads of conservative judges on a platter. They want to replace conservative judges with leftist activist.

They want to replace conservative judges with non-partisan, non-activists who DO THEIR JOB AND FAIRLY AND ACCURATLY INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. Something people like Kavanaugh, Barrett, and especially Thomas are incapable of- because they are partisan and activists.
I repeat: Justices should not be liberal. Justices should not be conservative. They should be non-partisan and fair and interpret the law, not overturn decades of precedent, a la Thomas and the recent court.

 

[dkovic77]

It's for the intellectually superior with a sense of humor, that rules your dump truck of inferiority out twice.

Have to believe that because if you admitted you just like when people tell you what you want to hear regardless of the facts.

 

[icanhelp1]

They want to replace conservative judges with non-partisan, non-activists who DO THEIR JOB AND FAIRLY AND ACCURATLY INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. Something people like Kavanaugh, Barrett, and especially Thomas are incapable of- because they are partisan and activists.
I repeat: Justices should not be liberal. Justices should not be conservative. They should be non-partisan and fair and interpret the law, not overturn decades of precedent, a la Thomas and the recent court.

The left is partisan that's why they're called leftist. I find it quite comical that you believe leftist politicians would replace conservative judges with neutral, unbiased, non- partisan, non-activist judges. That's pretty funny, you should get a job as a stand-up comedian.

 

[Chobham]

They want to replace conservative judges with non-partisan, non-activists who DO THEIR JOB AND FAIRLY AND ACCURATLY INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. Something people like Kavanaugh, Barrett, and especially Thomas are incapable of- because they are partisan and activists.
I repeat: Justices should not be liberal. Justices should not be conservative. They should be non-partisan and fair and interpret the law, not overturn decades of precedent, a la Thomas and the recent court.

The Constitution needs very little 'interpretation.' It's written in plain English with few ambiguities and most of those ambiguities were clarified by writings of the authors of the document.

What you refer to as conservatives are in reality 'originalist's', Thomas and Alito being the most steadfast with the others falling more towards the originalist camp. On the other hand the leftist's on the court believe the Constitution to be a 'living document' whose meaning changes with time and circumstance.

The originalist's believe that if you want to change the Constitution and as a consequence all of the laws of the land derived therefrom, you must go through the Article V process. Whereas the leftist's on the court believe that they can 'interpret' the Constitution so to suit current political thought (which when you think about it is a Constitutional violation in and of itself).

A court that believes the document is malleable over time and circumstance has, in effect, placed itself in the position of being a monarch that can dictate the behavior of the legislative and administrative branches of government. And if that is the case we can just dispense with those branches and allow the court to make all decisions. Over the years we have witnessed absolutely disastrous decisions out of the courts that cleaved to the 'living document' philosophy.

 

[RoryN]

You’re premise is inaccurate.

Just so we're clear:

You do not make typos.

You do make grammatical errors. Frequently.

 

[PaxNurgle]

The Constitution needs very little 'interpretation.' It's written in plain English with few ambiguities and most of those ambiguities were clarified by writings of the authors of the document.

What you refer to as conservatives are in reality 'originalist's', Thomas and Alito being the most steadfast with the others falling more towards the originalist camp. On the other hand the leftist's on the court believe the Constitution to be a 'living document' whose meaning changes with time and circumstance.

The originalist's believe that if you want to change the Constitution and as a consequence all of the laws of the land derived therefrom, you must go through the Article V process. Whereas the leftist's on the court believe that they can 'interpret' the Constitution so to suit current political thought (which when you think about it is a Constitutional violation in and of itself).

A court that believes the document is malleable over time and circumstance has, in effect, placed itself in the position of being a monarch that can dictate the behavior of the legislative and administrative branches of government. And if that is the case we can just dispense with those branches and allow the court to make all decisions. Over the years we have witnessed absolutely disastrous decisions out of the courts that cleaved to the 'living document' philosophy.

I can name at least two utterly disasterous decisions by the court which have upended constitutional precedent and law, and which a non-partisan court would (and should) never have allowed: Namely the Dobbs decision and the Citizens United decision. I suspect you have no problem with either decision, which is, in itself, exactly the problem we have with you. (well, besides the whole sock-puppet posting thing.)

 

[Chobham]

What the Dobbs decision did was return the issue of abortion to the states, where it should have been to begin with. And quite frankly we've already seen where it's backfired on some legislatures (Kansas for example).

Re. Citizens United, it seems to me that the left benefited as much from that decision as the right, perhaps more in some instances.

 

[schism666]

trump is the left's worst nightmare because he's america's worst nightmare.

 

[icanhelp1]

Just so we're clear:

You do not make typos.

You do make grammatical errors. Frequently.

Typos, errors, all the same. More chicken shit from the peanut galeery.

An example above, I typed in gallery and that word above was substituted in its place. That happens with predictive text, when using an I-phone with a small screen you sometimes miss it.

 

[icanhelp1]

Just so we're clear:

You do not make typos.

You do make grammatical errors. Frequently.

That certainly is the wrong *your*

 

[RoryN]

An example above, I typed in gallery and that word above was substituted in its place. That happens with predictive text, when using an I-phone with a small screen you sometimes miss it.

We all have auto-correct/predictive text on our phones.

You're the one making grammatical errors, not us.

It's not the technology - it's you.

 

[phrodeau]

We all have auto-correct/predictive text on our phones.

You're the one making grammatical errors, not us.

It's not the technology - it's you.

They are features that can be turned off. I use predictive but not autocorrect.

 

[Lazaran]

Typos, errors, all the same. More chicken shit from the peanut galeery.

An example above, I typed in gallery and that word above was substituted in its place. That happens with predictive text, when using an I-phone with a small screen you sometimes miss it.

^
(Quited for posterity and stupidity)

ineedhelp1 did NOT type in "gallery" and have "galeery" substituted.



ineedhelp1

 

[icanhelp1]

We all have auto-correct/predictive text on our phones.

You're the one making grammatical errors, not us.

It's not the technology - it's you.

OK! You win, take your participation trophy and move on.