Double-standard liberalism at its best!

General Metalworking - All aspects of working with metal. 

Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Double-standard liberalism at its best! * 06-20-2008
Posted by * on June 20, 2008, 9:30 am
Please log in for more thread options


>
>
>
> It's not really surprising that the court didn't agree with Bush's ideas
> about law and liberty for those it incarcerates. Bush would just as soon
as
> act like any other tin horn dictator on the block. Too bad for him we
have a
> court that can reign him in. But it also shows why the coming election is
so
> important. The next president will appoint several justices during his
term.
> It's critical that no more of the far right wing radical (Originalist)
> justices get on this court. This decision was another 5 to 4 with the
four
> radical right wingers all voting in lockstep. If they were to get even
one
> more member all the decisions like this one would go the other way.
> Decisions on abortion, civil rights, and on down the line all would go
the
> way the radical right wing wants. On the other hand, if more liberal or
> moderate justices are put on the bench it will negate the far right, nut
> ball decisions the Bush appointees would make. So if we get Obama as
> president we kill two birds with one stone. We get our civil rights back
> that Bush has been taking away, and we get a long term majority on the
> Supreme Court, which would set back the right wing's agenda back decades
if
> not forever. So let's just make a new rule. No more old white men get to
be
> president.
>
> Hawke
>
>
>

Here we have a liberal breaking the posting rules of the newsgroup in order
to grouse about others breaking rules.

Perfect liberal double-standard.

Of course, liberals have a "special dispensation"........


Was that your credibility that just flew down the road, Tweety?



Posted by sittingduck on June 20, 2008, 12:44 pm
Please log in for more thread options
* wrote:

> liberal
> liberal
> liberals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXk4P12p1tU

--
http://improve-usenet.org

Posted by Hawke on June 20, 2008, 3:59 pm
Please log in for more thread options

>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > It's not really surprising that the court didn't agree with Bush's ideas
> > about law and liberty for those it incarcerates. Bush would just as soon
> as
> > act like any other tin horn dictator on the block. Too bad for him we
> have a
> > court that can reign him in. But it also shows why the coming election
is
> so
> > important. The next president will appoint several justices during his
> term.
> > It's critical that no more of the far right wing radical (Originalist)
> > justices get on this court. This decision was another 5 to 4 with the
> four
> > radical right wingers all voting in lockstep. If they were to get even
> one
> > more member all the decisions like this one would go the other way.
> > Decisions on abortion, civil rights, and on down the line all would go
> the
> > way the radical right wing wants. On the other hand, if more liberal or
> > moderate justices are put on the bench it will negate the far right, nut
> > ball decisions the Bush appointees would make. So if we get Obama as
> > president we kill two birds with one stone. We get our civil rights back
> > that Bush has been taking away, and we get a long term majority on the
> > Supreme Court, which would set back the right wing's agenda back decades
> if
> > not forever. So let's just make a new rule. No more old white men get to
> be
> > president.
> >
> > Hawke
> >
> >
> >
>
> Here we have a liberal breaking the posting rules of the newsgroup in
order
> to grouse about others breaking rules.
>
> Perfect liberal double-standard.
>
> Of course, liberals have a "special dispensation"........
>
>
> Was that your credibility that just flew down the road, Tweety?


And look who, of all people, is commenting on and participating in the
thread. If it bothers you so much that people discuss other topics you
should not get involved and butt out. But no, you would rather put your two
cents in and then whine about it. What a manly man you are.

Hawke



Posted by Cliff on June 23, 2008, 8:56 am
Please log in for more thread options

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not really surprising that the court didn't agree with Bush's ideas
>> about law and liberty for those it incarcerates. Bush would just as soon
>as
>> act like any other tin horn dictator on the block. Too bad for him we
>have a
>> court that can reign him in. But it also shows why the coming election is
>so
>> important. The next president will appoint several justices during his
>term.
>> It's critical that no more of the far right wing radical (Originalist)
>> justices get on this court. This decision was another 5 to 4 with the
>four
>> radical right wingers all voting in lockstep. If they were to get even
>one
>> more member all the decisions like this one would go the other way.
>> Decisions on abortion, civil rights, and on down the line all would go
>the
>> way the radical right wing wants. On the other hand, if more liberal or
>> moderate justices are put on the bench it will negate the far right, nut
>> ball decisions the Bush appointees would make. So if we get Obama as
>> president we kill two birds with one stone. We get our civil rights back
>> that Bush has been taking away, and we get a long term majority on the
>> Supreme Court, which would set back the right wing's agenda back decades
>if
>> not forever. So let's just make a new rule. No more old white men get to
>be
>> president.
>>
>> Hawke
>>
>>
>>
>
>Here we have a liberal breaking the posting rules of the newsgroup in order
>to grouse about others breaking rules.
>
>Perfect liberal double-standard.
>
>Of course, liberals have a "special dispensation"........
>
>
>Was that your credibility that just flew down the road, Tweety?

After all the brain-dead winger posts & lies?
--
Cliff


Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap