Who would have thought! War is peace. Truly the liberals are beyond help.Better to fight the evil moslem man at home rather than abroad, apparently.
Who would have thought! War is peace. Truly the liberals are beyond help.Better to fight the evil moslem man at home rather than abroad, apparently.
I'm not a liberal mate
I'm not a liberal mate
Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the political standing? and/or not make statements that make you look like one? I mean i couldn't care less but stillI ain't a liberal mate
Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the political standing? and/or not make statements that make you look like one? I mean i couldn't care less but still
Like said i really couln't care less about names, labeling(liberal favorite activity) the Near East as evil moslem countries we have to fight is straight from the playbook.Maybe you should learn things about liberalism instead of using the term as a generic slur.
To start with I assume you're unfamiliar with the Australian Liberal Party.
Like said i really couln't care less about names, labeling(liberal favorite activity) the Near East as evil moslem countries we have to fight is straight from the playbook.
Duh like funding al-qaeda and then fighting it.Er, which playbook is that?
Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the political standing? and/or not make statements that make you look like one? I mean i couldn't care less but still
Absolutely. While driving this is my most frequently used word. And you guys change names so often it never gets outdated.Looks to me like the accusation that you just use "liberal" as a generic slur for anyone you disagree with is spot on.
Meanwhile, I'm getting to a fever pitch in response to many people, but mostly Joe Scarborough, insisting that coastal liberal elites stop being coastal liberal elites. This morning they went on about how the SNL cold open was inappropriate in tone, because an awful lot of Americans are not upset that Hillary lost. I'm getting tired of this. If Middle America can't be asked to consider why we're in mourning, why people are reacting the way they are to what rightfully feels like a huge step backward in the struggle for a more equal society, then we might as well not bother having a country.
pissing on the cross and Bible
Personally, I'm not worked up over it either way. The difference with me is that I can understand both positions and make an informed choice. I prefer the small chance that Trump will actually be able to do anything negative. It's much less risk than the alternative. A liberal SCOTUS could permanently negate the religion clause and the 2nd, and that's totally unacceptable.
Even though I don't care really, I can very easily give the pro-trump position. Being able to understand both, I know exactly what decided things. There are people rejoicing that they won't have HC and the democrats pissing on the cross and Bible just because it makes a tiny minority feel better(*). Not to mention that if you try to take their guns you'll end up full of holes. Those two issues were enough to swing it on their own.
(*) Wanna know what's the irony of it all? The LGBT folk could have everything they want and more if they'd just shut their traps once in a while. What's the best approach to getting told no at a business? Go to another one. There are other florists and bakers. Common sense people... What does a trans do when they need a bathroom -- ask permission or just use it? If they look like the picture on the door, just use it. It only became an issue because they opened their mouths in the first place. The right wing's response is not smart, but it is their right to assert their religious beliefs.
On a theoretical level that's a false dichotomy. Legal theory is a whole academic discipline; according to some, the short answer to your question is 'no', according to others the short answer is 'yes', and according to others still, the answer is 'yes, as they should'. The last approach is probably most reflective of the predominant American theoretical approach in the last hundred or so years.Do American judges rule based on their own personal opinions and biases and not, you know, the law of the land?
I know what Ted Cruz would sayBut when you have little direction from laws and precedent to work with, what makes more sense - applying first principles using current sensibilities, or trying to discern the mindset of someone who lived 240 years ago and figure out what they would have done?