NationStates Jolt Archive

not talking about the war, the economy, or the inability to say nuclear


i am referring to the supreme court and the REAL activist judges: the radical right (yes radical i'll explain)

i was reminded that Bush's FAVORITE supreme court justice is the most hardnosed and DANGEROUS conservative: Justice Thomas Clarence.

and what makes him dangerous one might wonder. Justice Clarence could care less about case law and precedence or even constitutional law. He rules conservative every time despite if it would be correct in considering of precedence or constitutionality. he has even stated he believes it is ok for the state government's to establish an official religion and rules around them.

would that be great everyone?! in alabama, you have to go to church on sunday or be fined, non-baptist churches would have to start paying taxes not previously required. or in Utah, no one could break teh rules of mormanism: soft drinks would be removed from all schools, private or public, work places could not have soft drinks or cofee machines (caffeine is illegal).

woo hoo i can't wait

there is a guaranteed chance that within the next 4 years we will lose 2-4 judges: the liberal justice John Paul Stevens, the old less conservative than the rest William Rehqnuist, and probably the moderate Sandra Day O'Conner, and if worse come to worse, the liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Bush said he wants more justices like thomas and scalia. and thomas makes scalia look like god's gift to any left thinking person.

right now many crucial decisions are made 5-4 or 6-3, imagine if we replaced a liberal and more compromising conservative now with 2 hardcore thomas's. we get definate 6-3s and 7-2s in favor of the radical conservative agenda


when you vote for the president in november, you will also be deciding the composition of the highest and most powerful court in the land


if you want to ban contraceptives, bow to christianity (or mormoanism depending where you live), pretend abortions dont happen if you ban them, outlaw sex ed and replace it with "abstinence ed", overturn crucial decisions like Roe v Wade, Griswald v Connecticutt, Texas v Johnson and many more that protect our personal rights. Vote Bush


if you want to protect your personal freedoms and liberties from the like of the conservatives who wish to utterly destroy them and replace them with their God said so ideaology and near racism and sexism. Vote Kerry

not talking about the war, the economy, or the inability to say nuclear


i am referring to the supreme court and the REAL activist judges: the radical right (yes radical i'll explain)

i was reminded that Bush's FAVORITE supreme court justice is the most hardnosed and DANGEROUS conservative: Justice Thomas Clarence.

and what makes him dangerous one might wonder. Justice Clarence could care less about case law and precedence or even constitutional law. He rules conservative every time despite if it would be correct in considering of precedence or constitutionality. he has even stated he believes it is ok for the state government's to establish an official religion and rules around them.

would that be great everyone?! in alabama, you have to go to church on sunday or be fined, non-baptist churches would have to start paying taxes not previously required. or in Utah, no one could break teh rules of mormanism: soft drinks would be removed from all schools, private or public, work places could not have soft drinks or cofee machines (caffeine is illegal).

woo hoo i can't wait

there is a guaranteed chance that within the next 4 years we will lose 2-4 judges: the liberal justice John Paul Stevens, the old less conservative than the rest William Rehqnuist, and probably the moderate Sandra Day O'Conner, and if worse come to worse, the liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Bush said he wants more justices like thomas and scalia. and thomas makes scalia look like god's gift to any left thinking person.

right now many crucial decisions are made 5-4 or 6-3, imagine if we replaced a liberal and more compromising conservative now with 2 hardcore thomas's. we get definate 6-3s and 7-2s in favor of the radical conservative agenda


when you vote for the president in november, you will also be deciding the composition of the highest and most powerful court in the land


if you want to ban contraceptives, bow to christianity (or mormoanism depending where you live), pretend abortions dont happen if you ban them, outlaw sex ed and replace it with "abstinence ed", overturn crucial decisions like Roe v Wade, Griswald v Connecticutt, Texas v Johnson and many more that protect our personal rights. Vote Bush


if you want to protect your personal freedoms and liberties from the like of the conservatives who wish to utterly destroy them and replace them with their God said so ideaology and near racism and sexism. Vote Kerry
Nice out of context thread.
Can you show some proof?
Other than your personal addition at the bottom about who to vote for, what are you really trying to prove here?

Man...thats such a load of...

But then again, im part of your "right wing conspiricy" *chuckle*

Not only am i from Alabama, but I am also Mormon (the one-two punch)

Very few baptists are like that, Alabama wouldn't require it (trust me, i've heard state politics in 'bama alot longer than you have

And as for Mormons, ever heard of "free agency"? We feel that people can make their own decision. We try to give them the information to work off of, but we can't force them, and we aren't interested in forcing them

Speaking of Mormons, i have church that I CHOOSE to attend now...

so I'll finish this later

Nice out of context thread.
Can you show some proof?
Other than your personal addition at the bottom about who to vote for, what are you really trying to prove here?
1) it cant be out of context when there is no context but my opinion and any facts i bring in

2) why should i give shit to you? you are a right wing nutjob who i could throw 50 sets of case law in your face and you would tell me they are all wrong.


i'm sure you know where to stick it

Man...thats such a load of...

But then again, im part of your "right wing conspiricy" *chuckle*

Not only am i from Alabama, but I am also Mormon (the one-two punch)

Very few baptists are like that, Alabama wouldn't require it (trust me, i've heard state politics in 'bama alot longer than you have
really have you? you're damn naive. i bet you support roy moore don't you?

And as for Mormons, ever heard of "free agency"? We feel that people can make their own decision. We try to give them the information to work off of, but we can't force them, and we aren't interested in forcing them

Speaking of Mormons, i have church that I CHOOSE to attend now...

so I'll finish this later
of course not, you dont control alabama, you control utah and into parts of surrounding states. BAPTISTS control alabama and i ALSO live in alabama and i know damn well what baptists would do if they could do whatever they want.

ever heard of blue laws?

I'd rather have two more Clarence Thomases than two more Ruth Bader-Ginsburgs.

I'd rather have two more Clarence Thomases than two more Ruth Bader-Ginsburgs.
so you like state sponsored religion and the banning of anything religion disagrees with eh? that would mean the overturning of Roe v Wade, Griswold v Conecticutt, Johnson v Texas, the list goes on and on

so you like state sponsored religion and the banning of anything religion disagrees with eh? that would mean the overturning of Roe v Wade, Griswold v Conecticutt, Johnson v Texas, the list goes on and on
Roe v Wade, yes.

Roe v Wade, yes.
oh please, you think thats all that would be overturned?

thomas has said he thinks states can establish their own religions

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/nation/9078629.htm?1c



"Flying in the face of long-settled church-state policy, Thomas wrote that while the Establishment Clause "probably prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion," it does not "purport to protect individual rights." "
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6843&abbr=cs_



bush wants justices like thomas and scalia

its half way down the page
http://forums.christianity.com/html/P1177511/

1) it cant be out of context when there is no context but my opinion and any facts i bring in

2) why should i give shit to you? you are a right wing nutjob who i could throw 50 sets of case law in your face and you would tell me they are all wrong.


i'm sure you know where to stick it
Just as I suspected, another whackjob shooting off on the internet with nothing of real value to say, just personal expression, and who has dreams of placing things in their rectal cavity.

Just as I suspected, another whackjob shooting off on the internet with nothing of real value to say, just personal expression, and who has dreams of placing things in their rectal cavity.
and another dumbass republicn puppet who has nothing even slightly intelligent to add to a conversation but "im right because im conservative and liberals are evil" with no proof or explanation as to why, you're ignored, ass

and another dumbass republicn puppet who has nothing even slightly intelligent to add to a conversation but "im right because im conservative and liberals are evil" with no proof or explanation as to why, you're ignored, ass
First there has to be an intelligent conversation before one can add anything remotely intelligent to it.
Furthermore, you seem to have an issue with anal influence, or desires.
On that note, Tchuss!

Ahh but those mormons are evil. You saw how they ran things back in the old days. With the murders and the horrible kidnappings and every thing.

Think about it. Maddox lives in Utah. If states were able to run their own theocracies maddox would be executed, no Doubt! Therefore a vote for Bush is a vote against Maddox. :D

i see no one else has commented but this kewl guy here and the crazy rgiht wing nutjobs who like to go around shooting everything down because they are well, right wing nutjobs.

this is a serious issue folks

uuh wtf's going on?

Anyway Phear the Danite Band! they gonna gitcha...

And maddox If you vote for bush XD

Nice out of context thread.
Can you show some proof?
Other than your personal addition at the bottom about who to vote for, what are you really trying to prove here?

He was an abused child. Humor him. :D

i am a magnet for the unintelligent and kick ass pirate, oh well maybe me and my fellow ass kicking pirates can draw and quarter some right wing nutjobs

not talking about the war, the economy, or the inability to say nuclear


i am referring to the supreme court and the REAL activist judges: the radical right (yes radical i'll explain)

i was reminded that Bush's FAVORITE supreme court justice is the most hardnosed and DANGEROUS conservative: Justice Thomas Clarence.

1. It's Associate Justice Clarence Thomas....
2. Apparently it has escaped you, that Clarence Thomas was nominated by George Bush Sr.
"In July, 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Thomas to the Supreme Court, to replace Thurgood Marshall."
3. Do you have source(s) that shows G.W. Bush's favorite judge is Clarence Thomas?



Vote Kerry

No thanks. I'm voting Badnarik.

In your quote it says he is bushes favourite justice. Nothing about who nominated him.

And is Thurgood... Oh Wait that was thurgood Stubbs :D

Carry on...

i am a magnet for the unintelligent and kick ass pirate, oh well maybe me and my fellow ass kicking pirates can draw and quarter some right wing nutjobs

Bring it on, lugnut! :D

not talking about the war, the economy, or the inability to say nuclear


i am referring to the supreme court and the REAL activist judges: the radical right (yes radical i'll explain)

i was reminded that Bush's FAVORITE supreme court justice is the most hardnosed and DANGEROUS conservative: Justice Thomas Clarence.

and what makes him dangerous one might wonder. Justice Clarence could care less about case law and precedence or even constitutional law. He rules conservative every time despite if it would be correct in considering of precedence or constitutionality. he has even stated he believes it is ok for the state government's to establish an official religion and rules around them.

would that be great everyone?! in alabama, you have to go to church on sunday or be fined, non-baptist churches would have to start paying taxes not previously required. or in Utah, no one could break teh rules of mormanism: soft drinks would be removed from all schools, private or public, work places could not have soft drinks or cofee machines (caffeine is illegal).

woo hoo i can't wait

there is a guaranteed chance that within the next 4 years we will lose 2-4 judges: the liberal justice John Paul Stevens, the old less conservative than the rest William Rehqnuist, and probably the moderate Sandra Day O'Conner, and if worse come to worse, the liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Bush said he wants more justices like thomas and scalia. and thomas makes scalia look like god's gift to any left thinking person.

right now many crucial decisions are made 5-4 or 6-3, imagine if we replaced a liberal and more compromising conservative now with 2 hardcore thomas's. we get definate 6-3s and 7-2s in favor of the radical conservative agenda


when you vote for the president in november, you will also be deciding the composition of the highest and most powerful court in the land


if you want to ban contraceptives, bow to christianity (or mormoanism depending where you live), pretend abortions dont happen if you ban them, outlaw sex ed and replace it with "abstinence ed", overturn crucial decisions like Roe v Wade, Griswald v Connecticutt, Texas v Johnson and many more that protect our personal rights. Vote Bush


if you want to protect your personal freedoms and liberties from the like of the conservatives who wish to utterly destroy them and replace them with their God said so ideaology and near racism and sexism. Vote Kerry

I guess I'll vote for Bush.

1. It's Justice Clarence Thomas....
no idea why i said thomas clarence at the beginning, i fixed later i think


2. Apparently it has escaped you, that Clarence Thomas was nominated by George Bush Sr.
do you have a point?

"In July, 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Thomas to the Supreme Court, to replace Thurgood Marshall."
he only replaces him in that he is black. you have no point, at all


3. Do you have source(s) that shows G.W. Bush's favorite judge is Clarence Thomas?
yes i gave my source on the last page with my 2 other sources for clarence thomas being the nuttiest of right wing nut jobs




No thanks. I'm voting Badnarik.
another person to draw and quarter if bush wins, the stakes are far too high to pretend a 3rd party can win

Maybe he was reading A different article?

judging by the response of jackasses who read this and think im a raving lunatic or are still voting for bush, this country will fall within the next decade.

judging by the response of jackasses who read this and think im a raving lunatic or are still voting for bush, this country will fall within the next decade.

Judging from the unsubstantiated arguments and sheer stupidity of this poster, I can safely say that the human race will collapse within the next millenium.

Judging from the unsubstantiated arguments and sheer stupidity of this poster, I can safely say that the human race will collapse within the next millenium.
i find it sad you are so blinded by partisan bullshit that you are so dense as to not accept a rational thought process and are no longer able to think intelligently.

we're all fucked

Judging from the unsubstantiated arguments and sheer stupidity of this poster, I can safely say that the human race will collapse within the next millenium.

ROFLMAO!! :D

Judging from the unsubstantiated arguments and sheer stupidity of this poster, I can safely say that the human race will collapse within the next millenium.

Yes, because there is no reason to believe that conservative activist judges will cause problems in our country. None at all.

i will give kwangistarr some credit, he didnt continue forth and act like a spoilt 12 year old on too much caffeiene after being provided evidence for my reasoning

the rest of you are ignorant middle aged children who probably think we actually are on a holy crusade against terrorism

If it means overturning Roe v Wade... then I'm voting for BUSH!!!

yeah... abortions will happen regardless... but while we're at it why don't we legalize murder... afterall... murder will happen regardless...

If it means overturning Roe v Wade... then I'm voting for BUSH!!!

yeah... abortions will happen regardless... but while we're at it why don't we legalize murder... afterall... murder will happen regardless...

Yes, because judges should be chosen and put in positions for life based on your view of one particular case. That's a *great* idea!!

If it means overturning Roe v Wade... then I'm voting for BUSH!!!

yeah... abortions will happen regardless... but while we're at it why don't we legalize murder... afterall... murder will happen regardless...
except legalized abortion doesnt kill the mother.

and you think they will just overturn roe v wade? you are naive if not stupid.

try griswold v connecticutt, johnson v texas and thats just to name a couple

PS Chess Squares, maybe you should re-read the thread to find out how much of a hypocritical, fanatical 12 year old you are coming across as. Compose yourself and maybe your ideas would be heard. I find it funny that you expect people to believe your word based soley on its merit when you act like a child. Also that you expect people to refute the credibility of your sources. Anyone who disagrees with you is partisan. See where I'm going with this?

all flaming aside

if you are undecided about who to vote for (it amazes me that there are any people left who cant decide between the 2 men) you should take the supreme court into consideration

all claims to not using a litmus test aside

bush WILL appoint only very conservative judges. DUH. he is not going to appoint a judge from that court in san francisco that OKed the outlawing of the pledge of allegaince just because they guy has good experience. it should be obvious to anyone that he will appoint judges who share his point of view

kerry WILL appoint only liberal judges. because of the make up of the senate, he wont be able to appoint (or at least get through) the VERY liberal judges he would prefer. same DUH, hes not going to appoint anyone who has a record of opposing roeVwade.

the make up of the supreme court is very important. if you want it to reflect YOUR point of view, you should consider who you are voting for for president.

anyone old enough to vote should know who that makes them lean toward. no flaming necessary.

man... it's not simply a matter of legislation that won't protect mothers. It's a matter of legislation that will protect children against unneccessary abortions. The ONLY time an abortion should be allowed to happen is if the mother's life is in danger. Let's face facts: most abortions are not the consequence of the threat on a woman's life.

Yes, because judges should be chosen and put in positions for life based on your view of one particular case. That's a *great* idea!!
well of course! as long as a judge is prepared to take away the Constitutional rights of 50% of the population he is a good judge in my book!

*sigh* i really wish there weren't so many people trying to make my uterus their business. i don't tell them what to do with their uterus, or with their prostate, or with any other part of their body, and i would really appreciate if they could get a life and stop fussing about mine.

I think Ashmoria makes a good point.

judging by the response of jackasses who read this and think im a raving lunatic or are still voting for bush, this country will fall within the next decade.


Really?

Compared to:
Little Rock in '63
Kent State
Numerous draft riots
The Oil Crisis '73-'74


another person to draw and quarter if bush wins, the stakes are far too high to pretend a 3rd party can win.

And you've been voting since .....????

So you should only vote for someone you think will win. Not for a party you support? That's intelligent.

PS Chess Squares, maybe you should re-read the thread to find out how much of a hypocritical, fanatical 12 year old you are coming across as. Compose yourself and maybe your ideas would be heard. I find it funny that you expect people to believe your word based soley on its merit when you act like a child. Also that you expect people to refute the credibility of your sources. Anyone who disagrees with you is partisan. See where I'm going with this?
no, i've been here a while, i know who is partisan which side: assassin is a right wing nutjob, if i recall he made a thread the other day about radical liberals being evil and bad or something, eutrusca is some crazy 13 yer old claiming to be a 60 year old who blatantly supports bush, kwangistarr is republican but apparently not as crazy as the rest.

and you obviously didnt read anything i have posted yet if you think bush is a good vote jsut to overturn roe v wade. i listed 2 other cases and if i looked i could list another dozen

and no one has refusted my sources

bush WILL appoint only very conservative judges. DUH. he is not going to appoint a judge from that court in san francisco that OKed the outlawing of the pledge of allegaince just because they guy has good experience. it should be obvious to anyone that he will appoint judges who share his point of view

The fact that you can right "DUH" after that statement is a demonstration of something that is very wrong in this country.

kerry WILL appoint only liberal judges. because of the make up of the senate, he wont be able to appoint (or at least get through) the VERY liberal judges he would prefer. same DUH, hes not going to appoint anyone who has a record of opposing roeVwade.

Again, although I think the DUH is less obvious here, it is a demonstration of what is wrong with the political system in this country.

Meanwhile, we must remember that a judge with a history of opposing Roe v Wade is essentially an activist judge (unless they've been a judge since before the decision, in which case they have only been asking as an activist judge since then).

man... it's not simply a matter of legislation that won't protect mothers. It's a matter of legislation that will protect children against unneccessary abortions. The ONLY time an abortion should be allowed to happen is if the mother's life is in danger. Let's face facts: most abortions are not the consequence of the threat on a woman's life.
BUT, you acknowledged abortions will happen anyway, and if they are not legalized they will not be performed in sterilized conditions, thus unnecisarily endangering the lives of mothers who you aready acknowledged will have abortions anyway.

try listening to yourself before trying to contradict me

Really?

Compared to:
Little Rock in '63
Kent State
Numerous draft riots
The Oil Crisis '73-'74




And you've been voting since .....????

So you should only vote for someone you think will win. Not for a party you support? That's intelligent.
what i SAID was this election is far too important to pretend a 3rd party can win

on the other hand

you really DONT know what a judge is going to do when s/he gets onto the supreme court. when they are judges in other courts they have to go by the law and the rulings of the supreme court.

when they are on the supreme court THEY are the final judge. it can turn a conservative into a liberal. its happened before. some of our finest judges were crass political appointments who turned out to be better choices than their presidents knew.

another person to draw and quarter if bush wins, the stakes are far too high to pretend a 3rd party can win

The truth: Neither of these guys is going to be good for the country, but neither of them is going to ruin it either. That said, my vote is too important to waste on some establishment party moron who's not going to make the country better.

The truth: Neither of these guys is going to be good for the country, but neither of them is going to ruin it either. That said, my vote is too important to waste on some establishment party moron who's not going to make the country better.
if you honestly believe bush can't ruin this country if he gains 4 more years, you may need to do some research as to what he supports and what has been done under him in the last four

really have you? you're damn naive. i bet you support roy moore don't you?


of course not, you dont control alabama, you control utah and into parts of surrounding states. BAPTISTS control alabama and i ALSO live in alabama and i know damn well what baptists would do if they could do whatever they want.

ever heard of blue laws?

first off, no i did not support roy moore. not because i thought having the 10 commandments in the courthouse was wrong, but because, from his actions, this was a attempt to get attention. congratuations, liberal whack-jobs, you gave it to him. there were two possible arguements here. One was, that they were the basis of modern law, much like the magna carta, and thus, belong there. this one would have worked, and if he were truely interested in it, this is what he would have used. Instead, he used the second option. That is, because of his religion. Since i assume he's not stupid, this was after national attention. THANK YOU LIBERAL MEDIA! he got it.

second, there are only 11 million mormons...worldwide. we dont control utah, and the baptists only WISHED they totally controlled Alabama. The christians as a whole might(yes, that includes us crazy mormons), but not just the baptists

since its obvious, your haunting this thread, go ahead and respond with your freakin' insults...here, ill even give you some ammo. Im only 16, so why not try the "well, you'll understand when your older..." line of attack. Surely that'll give you the advantage. heh

I'm suprised that there are this many morons who like Bu$h. I guess these fools actually WANT to throw their rights away and live in a Christo-fascist state with the shrub as absolute ruler. Only weak-minded idiots could actually buy into his "War on Terror" bullshit. I hope you choke.

first off, no i did not support roy moore. not because i thought having the 10 commandments in the courthouse was wrong, but because, from his actions, this was a attempt to get attention. congratuations, liberal whack-jobs, you gave it to him. there were two possible arguements here. One was, that they were the basis of modern law, much like the magna carta, and thus, belong there. this one would have worked, and if he were truely interested in it, this is what he would have used. Instead, he used the second option. That is, because of his religion. Since i assume he's not stupid, this was after national attention. THANK YOU LIBERAL MEDIA! he got it.
rofl, the liberals are the wackjobs? we dont believe the whole of media is a mass conspiracy by the leftists to do things the republicans dont like. you might want to see a psychiatrist if you think the liberals are the wackjobs there.

and argument one never existed because you cant just put a single religious item in a building, especially a federal building. and after doing so after being told no, like moore, REFUSE to add any other documents with it, like moore did.

second, there are only 11 million mormons...worldwide. we dont control utah, and the baptists only WISHED they totally controlled Alabama. The christians as a whole might(yes, that includes us crazy mormons), but not just the baptists
right the baptists dont control alabama

~25% of alabama is baptist
first off, no i did not support roy moore. not because i thought having the 10 commandments in the courthouse was wrong, but because, from his actions, this was a attempt to get attention. congratuations, liberal whack-jobs, you gave it to him. there were two possible arguements here. One was, that they were the basis of modern law, much like the magna carta, and thus, belong there. this one would have worked, and if he were truely interested in it, this is what he would have used. Instead, he used the second option. That is, because of his religion. Since i assume he's not stupid, this was after national attention. THANK YOU LIBERAL MEDIA! he got it.
rofl, the liberals are the wackjobs? we dont believe the whole of media is a mass conspiracy by the leftists to do things the republicans dont like. you might want to see a psychiatrist if you think the liberals are the wackjobs there.

and argument one never existed because you cant just put a single religious item in a building, especially a federal building. and after doing so after being told no, like moore, REFUSE to add any other documents with it, like moore did.

second, there are only 11 million mormons...worldwide. we dont control utah, and the baptists only WISHED they totally controlled Alabama. The christians as a whole might(yes, that includes us crazy mormons), but not just the baptists
right the baptists dont control alabama


over half of alabama is baptist, maybe not one cut of them, but all together baptists have power over alabama

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_bap.html


and utah IS controlled by mormond, over 70%
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_lds.html

Frankly I don't need another reason to vote Bush out, I've known this all along.

However, I forget about the split Supreme Court from time to time...If he packs it with Scalias and Thomases I probably will have to convert to Christianity. :(