Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
calfoxwc

Kagan botches Oral argument in Supreme Court Appearance

Recommended Posts

So there was an AP article that I quoted, and now you found someone else quoting that article on the Huffington Post. That's your critique? Really?

 

How devastating.

 

Not at all sir.

As with any source one might sneer at you can usually find an AP or Reuters or other "respectable" basis.

Use the spin from the original but post the "news" link.

 

Let's say we all respect Yahoo news.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100513/ts_nm/...ussia_iran_us_1

Guess where that came from?

 

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all sir.

As with any source one might sneer at you can usually find an AP or Reuters or other "respectable" basis.

Use the spin from the original but post the "news" link.

 

Let's say we all respect Yahoo news.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100513/ts_nm/...ussia_iran_us_1

Guess where that came from?

 

WSS

 

Steve, what are you talking about? Yahoo News isn't a news organization. It's just an aggregator of news. So nobody "respects" it as a news organization. Which is why the story you linked to is from Reuters.

 

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. We don't have to start questioning the source of these quotes like we're idiots. You can just deal with the quotes, because they're real.

 

Can we not go down this stupid rabbit hole? You've got quotes from a bunch of Republican Senators doing a 180 on their positions in a very short amount of time. Clearly, they're being partisan and hypocritical. And so are the people on this board, who are suddenly stunned and offended that someone without judicial experience has been nominated to the court.

 

You can acknowledge that, can't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT?

 

ROF,LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Heck is making a point of being insulted that some quotes might be questioning sources?

 

ROF,LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!

 

LOL

 

It's all you libbies have been doing for years, Heck.

 

It's what the lib media did in the election, and Obamao with all his ugly warts got elected.

 

NOW, ONLY 39% of Americans would vote for him again.

 

Now, you don't like "real quotes" being questioned?

 

Heck, I swear you and the rest of the libbies live in upside-down land.

 

And yes, it's still Bush's fault you get headaches.

 

"sigh"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

 

Sure you do.

;)

 

But it's also hilarious that you've all switched positions now.

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't. From what I can gather, you're upset that you also saw the AP story quoted on the Huffington Post, which makes no sense to me. Then you talked about a hypothetical where we all have respect for Yahoo as a news organization, even though it's not a news organization.

 

And none of this applies to me anyway, since I posted the original AP story, not the link from someone else. So you're also inventing this problem, whatever it is, and then accusing me of having it.

 

And when faced with a bunch of actual Senators switching their positions, you then reply to that by saying I've switched my position, and how funny that is to you.

 

Except that I haven't switched my position.

 

So no, once again, I don't know what your point is. Which is why I type "I don't know what point you're trying to make." And once again, you've steered us into talking about bullshit rather than the issue at hand, which is whether or not having judicial experience is a prerequisite for sitting on the Supreme Court, a position I can see no support for whatsoever.

 

Or that this is a clear case of partisan hypocrisy, and the Republicans listed above are clearly guilty of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, please stop making a fool of yourself.

 

Our nominee had no problem with our Constitution.

 

Your nominee doesn't care for the 1st, nor 2nd Amendments,

 

she things the SC should be "deferential" to Congress,

 

so, I reject her. She isn't an originalist.

 

So, refute what I've just said about her, or understand

 

that she is NOT qualified to be a SC Justice because

 

she leans UNConstitutionally, and TOWARD liberalism.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×