calfoxwc Posted August 24, 2016 Report Share Posted August 24, 2016 Pay higgardly, she'll then do what you want. etc etc. Like the protesters who are paid to protest conservative and/or republicans at rallies, etc. katie couric did a dishonest video against gun control. Did a "private showing" for bloomberg.. he demands the video he doesn't like end up taken out. it' isn't about the truth with these dirtbags. It's about emotionally manipulating masses of emotional, ignorant liberal voters who will watch and respond like fools. http://www.ammoland.com/2016/08/bloomberg-demanded-lott-interview-cut-couric-gun-control-film/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=8901c5d25c-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-8901c5d25c-20770865#axzz4ICQNcXif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted August 24, 2016 Report Share Posted August 24, 2016 As opposed to Trump's single biggest contributor, Robert Mercer? Mercer has gotten over his post-Cruz blues and is now making up for lost time. Running total is now in excess of $2mm. Mercer is reportedly an investor in BreitBart. Also reports that he called The Donald and suggested he bring Bannon on board. As for paid protestors... links? Similar to one below will do... Brooks Brothers "Riot" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot Sorry... could not follow 2nd point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted August 24, 2016 Report Share Posted August 24, 2016 They're all puppets for big money - not just liberals. Trump is far less of a puppet than the others, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 24, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2016 well, paying groups to fight the other side like the libs do... the list is long. I don't see that on the Rep side. Any billionaire financier funding the making of the low budget secret videos of pp? nope. any major group fighting for taking away rights from lefties? nope. any paid protestors raising hell at clinton rallies? nope. but on the flip side, it's obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted August 24, 2016 Report Share Posted August 24, 2016 They're all puppets for big money - not just liberals. Trump is far less of a puppet than the others, though. Reminds me of an old punchline... "We've already established what you are, now we are just negotiating price." ... and an old saying, "You can't get a little pregnant." Donations = Access... undeniable and also legal... beyond that illegal, but harder than ever to prove. well, paying groups to fight the other side like the libs do... the list is long. longer than the one below, I'd hope... I don't see that on the Rep side. Any billionaire financier funding the making of the low budget secret videos of pp? nope. pp? any major group fighting for taking away rights from lefties? nope. excepting: ... the right to an abortion.. ... access to birth control... ... and right to vote... ... right to marry... any paid protestors raising hell at clinton rallies? nope. not many volunteer ones either, lately... $3500 for one white dude? sign me up... but on the flip side, it's obvious. blind in one eye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted August 24, 2016 Report Share Posted August 24, 2016 I feel like cal is stuck in the 80's. Like when he's posting hete he's got elvis costello or belinda carlisle playing in the background. Maybe some pet shop boys when the wifeys out cause, you know....#closet4life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 24, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2016 any major group fighting for taking away rights from lefties? nope. excepting: ... the right to an abortion.. ... access to birth control... ... and right to vote... ... right to marry... Tour *********************************** There is no Constitutional right to murder unborn children. The innocent and unprotected have civil rights to life, too. There is no denying access to birth control. I just don't want to give you free money for it. Nobody on the right is fighting to stop the right for people to vote. bad one there, Tour. Nobody is denying anybody the right to be officially recognized as being together. But society has the right to keep the definition of marriage intact, without radical, bought liberal judges demanding it. It's the definition of Real Marriage that is right, the perverted - ordered redefinition is wrong. The civil union thing was fine, but political power fighting went for broke to slap America and the status quo of Real Marriage in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted August 26, 2016 Report Share Posted August 26, 2016 SCOTUS begs to differ with you, cal... You may not like it... you may not agree... but that's a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 26, 2016 Report Share Posted August 26, 2016 SCOTUS begs to differ with you, cal... You may not like it... you may not agree... but that's a fact. Of course that's only under the assumption that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of right and wrong and morality. You probably have a better chance of impartiality with the politburo just because there are more members. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted August 26, 2016 Report Share Posted August 26, 2016 Of course that's only under the assumption that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of right and wrong and morality. You probably have a better chance of impartiality with the politburo just because there are more members. Humor aside (momentarily)... not at all, WSS. SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is and is not lawful under The Constitution. But "packing" the court... the real FDR style packing, not the "GOP made up Obama wants to fill vacancies" packing... is not the answer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted August 26, 2016 Report Share Posted August 26, 2016 As long as the scotus is ruling in their direction, both sides claim its the final arbiter of whats rigjt and wrong. As soon as the court rules in tje opposite direction they become "judicial activists" subverting the will of tje people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 26, 2016 Report Share Posted August 26, 2016 Humor aside (momentarily)... not at all, WSS. SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is and is not lawful under The Constitution. But "packing" the court... the real FDR style packing, not the "GOP made up Obama wants to fill vacancies" packing... is not the answer... I'd rather have a balanced Court than a conservative one even though a conservative one would probably be better. I prefer someone who actually considers the original intent then someone wants to change things according to their ideology and the ideology of the president that appoints them. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2016 has any scotus liberal ever voted for the conservatives in a decision? roberts, a conservative, did the opposite. what lib did? I dont' remember one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted August 29, 2016 Report Share Posted August 29, 2016 Well... for one the vote to overturn former VA Governor McDonnell's conviction was 8-0. Can't find it now, cal, but a while back I came across a summary of Justice voting and posted it. Quite a bit of "down the line" voting, but a surprising amount of cross-over by Justices not named Kennedy including some really odd combos. One odd one sticks out... there was a 6-2 decision where the two dissenters were Thomas and Sotomayor. So the majority was a real melding as well. The case was a "gun law" case. The majority held that "misdemeanor assault convictions for reckless conduct" do trigger a standing, 20-yo law that bans the convicted from the purchase of firearms. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10154_19m1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2016 oh, there probably is crossover - but the reasons they voted are different. on the gun law case, it was the liberal bent to deny everybody guns, if they can - for libs. on the gun law case, too, it was the penalty for the crime that conservatives would uphold. note - they will vote for the excons to never be allowed to have guns...but they want them to be allowed to vote. for lib justices - it's about political power for the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 has any scotus liberal ever voted for the conservatives in a decision? roberts, a conservative, did the opposite. what lib did? I dont' remember one. Was there something I failed to do? Now you assume there's crossover? Just for different reasons? Why then were only two opinions issued? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaconHound Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 They're all puppets for big money - not just liberals. On that we agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted August 30, 2016 Report Share Posted August 30, 2016 ...Now you assume there's crossover? Just for different reasons? It's because your facts do not align with his narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.