The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, what does that idiot know about the law?

Sorry, the new rule is once you make a statement, that statement is true, because the statement has already been stated.BTWObama is probably not a legal immigrant...And this after I apologize to you...that will be my last apology for a while I can tell you

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

saying thomas is the least qualified judge on the current supreme court is like saying the sky is blue or grass is green.

Are you REALLY saying you can't see the difference between those two sorts of statements?

i would expect you to be able to use google or some other method of search to teach yourself why this is the case if you weren't previously aware.

And I would expect you to be able to defend a point of view without me having to help by doing the research to add CONTENT to a statement you're either too lazy or ignorant to do yourself.

if you want to have some kind of debate as to why this is isn't the case, the burden of proof is very much on your shoulders.

Horseshit. Seriously. That isn't they way it is done. If you want to make a credible point then have at it. But just essentially posting "Thomas Sucks" puts the "burden" on your shoulders.

[brvheart 1,759]

Yeah, what does that idiot know about the law?

Are you implying that Thomas, a former judge, knows nothing about the law? All of them went to Ivy League schools, and she is the only one without any judging experience, which would by definition, make her the least qualified to be a judge.btw, I like the idea of non-judges being on the court.

[Balloon guy 158]

Are you implying that Thomas, a former judge, knows nothing about the law? All of them went to Ivy League schools, and she is the only one without any judging experience, which would by definition, make her the least qualified to be a judge.btw, I like the idea of non-judges being on the court.

Don't think that your racial undertones went unnoticed..racist.

[mk 11]

i mean clarence thomas is basically indefensible, even for people as blindingly conservative as BG and pot odds and brv.the man has said he doesn't even LIKE being a justice. he's a joke.“There’s not much that entices about the job...I wouldn’t say I like it.”“I like sports,” Thomas said. “I like to drive a motor home.”

[JoeyJoJo 18]

So maybe he's being a judge out of civic duty? I love you, mk, but your posts in here have been super lame.(I have no opinion on Thomas because I'm not very edumacated.)

[mk 11]

you kidding?

[Balloon guy 158]

i mean clarence thomas is basically indefensible, even for people as blindingly conservative as BG and pot odds and brv.the man has said he doesn't even LIKE being a justice. he's a joke.“There’s not much that entices about the job...I wouldn’t say I like it.”“I like sports,” Thomas said. “I like to drive a motor home.”

I don't think this means what you think it means, unless you were trying to compliment us, in which case thank you.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

you kidding?

Partly. Which part are you referring to?

[brvheart 1,759]

i mean clarence thomas is basically indefensible, even for people as blindingly conservative as BG and pot odds and brv.the man has said he doesn't even LIKE being a justice. he's a joke.“There’s not much that entices about the job...I wouldn’t say I like it.”“I like sports,” Thomas said. “I like to drive a motor home.”

lolI would love for you to dissect my posts and show me where I was defending Thomas.

[mk 11]

Partly. Which part are you referring to?

my posts in here have been super lame because....i'm the lone voice of reason amidst a sea of rabid conservatives? as always?

[Balloon guy 158]

you kidding?

I don't really know you, but other people have said you are a really good guy, so I just assume we disagree because of the internet thing and my love of being confrontational which is obviously annoying to people who don't fall lock step behind my Love for George W. Bush and all his accomplishments.I have never seen you really engage the debate here, you kind of hit and run with a little, 'I've tried before' speech on your way out.I can not honestly think of one time you have come in and argued a position with any serious substance, and from others talk, you are a smart guy.So I for one actually hope to see some post from you where you set aside this superior attitude and mix it up.Cane, Henry, Strat, and even on really rare occasions Speedz, mix it up, state their opinions with passion and insult with the best of us. And they have all challenged me to rethink the biased one sided information I receive because I only listen to Rush Limbaugh for all my political news.I would like you to be one of the people who comes in here and defends your ideas instead of hit and running. Especially with regards to financial issues thatyou probably have a better grasp of than most of the people on the forum.Although I know arguing politics on the web can lead to strokes, just remember that working in a good joke is the only real reason most of us are here.

[Balloon guy 158]

my posts in here have been super lame because....i'm the lone voice of reason amidst a sea of rabid conservatives? as always?

Haha..Cane and LLY are rabid conservatives....Here's your first order of business now to get involvedLink

[Balloon guy 158]

lolI would love for you to dissect my posts and show me where I was defending Thomas.

I know, you were trying to sublimely plant the thought that all blacks play basketball.That's all you were trying to do.

[mk 11]

lolI would love for you to dissect my posts and show me where I was defending Thomas.

dude, you were unwilling to pass judgement on him for safford v redding, saying that the wp is a biased source. in his dissent (he was the lone dissenter, obviously) for that case, he not only granted the school administrators immunity for their unthinkable actions but PRAISED them for their dedication to student safety.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

cool, now go defend the healthcare bill!

[strategy 4]

1. I like what they done with wikipedia!2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thom...nd_confirmationanyway, I'm no legal expert, but this might maybe be what mk is talking about"However, the ABA rating of Thomas was the least favorable of any confirmed Supreme Court nominee dating back to the Eisenhower administration (most nominees receive unanimous "well qualified" evaluations).[38] Thomas had never argued a case in the high courts, though others have also been appointed without Supreme Court oral argument experience,[40] and prior to Thomas, forty Supreme Court justices had been appointed without any prior judicial service (though none have since).[41] Thomas had never written a legal book, article, or brief of any consequence, and had been a judge for only a year.[40]"I'm off to search CB's posts to see if he talked about Thomas before.

[Balloon guy 158]

dude, you were unwilling to pass judgement on him for safford v redding, saying that the wp is a biased source. in his dissent (he was the lone dissenter, obviously) for that case, he not only granted the school administrators immunity for their unthinkable actions but PRAISED them for their dedication to student safety.

Is it possible he dissented to present the argument that he did in his dissension about the problem with the idea of the federal government dictating rules to local schools?That would fall in line with his opinion that state's rights are something to be protected.I assume he could tell the way the vote was going to fall and didn't have to worry about his vote being a tie breaker.

[mk 11]

I don't really know you

i mean, if you're bored or something you can search my old posts. i used to engage. it never leads anywhere or accomplish anything. so now, i admit, i don't really contribute anything but will hop into threads when people are posting things that i find REALLY ridiculous and i'll make fun of them. it's petty, it's childish...i suppose sometimes i can't NOT point out things i think are insane or ridiculous.i used to be a lot more bored at work, and it used to be a lot easier to make money....i have to pay attention these days so i also just don't have as much time to make well researched posts, but maybe i'll start: trying harder.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

oohhhhhhhhh, he's got me on ignore. that explains a lot.

[Balloon guy 158]

i mean, if you're bored or something you can search my old posts. i used to engage. it never leads anywhere or accomplish anything. so now, i admit, i don't really contribute anything but will hop into threads when people are posting things that i find REALLY ridiculous and i'll make fun of them. it's petty, it's childish...i suppose sometimes i can't NOT point out things i think are insane or ridiculous.i used to be a lot more bored at work, and it used to be a lot easier to make money....i have to pay attention these days so i also just don't have as much time to make well researched posts, but maybe i'll start: trying harder.

Yea, can't search because JJJ locked up some proprietary rights there..it's complicated.I understand the desire to not waste an afternoon arguing with people who probably will not even read what you wrote, will misunderstand your argument, and will be so blind in their allegiance to a faulty conclusion that they are unable to expand their minds enough to even remotely entertain the notion that not only are they wrong, they are dead wrong.I got that way in the religion section...

[JoeyJoJo 18]

it never leads anywhere or accomplish anything.

I form all my political opinions based on the posts in this forum. Which is really sad, I know. But I'm sure I've been on the opposite side of an issue that I wouldn't normally have been because of the arguments presented here. I mean, not by everyone, but some people I respect.

[CaneBrain 95]

I'm off to search CB's posts to see if he talked about Thomas before.

I have. He sucks but a lot of the Supreme Court sucks.......Thomas just tends to be the guy who is most out there (which is why when you see an 8-1 vote, the 1 is usually Thomas).

[strategy 4]

Here's an old CB post I found on Thomas. The whole supreme court nomination thread is basically a bunch of people who don't know law arguing law with CaneBrain.

Oh Clarence Thomas, all out on a limb.First, the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to not void the Voting Rights Act. The only person to dissent? Clarence Thomas. The Voting Rights Act protects minorities from voter intimidation and disenfranchisement. Anyone else shocked Thomas voted against minorities?Then, today, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that an Arizona school performed an unreasonable search when they strip-searched a pre-teen girl suspected of hiding ibuprofen (known as advil on the mean streets). Even Scalia, who thinks torture is good times, was not willing to say that strip-searching a young girl for advil was kosher. The lone dissenter? Wacky Clarence Thomas who worries that this ruling will let everyone student know (since lots of pre-teens follow the SCOTUS) where to hide their contraband and that if schools need to strip search kids for advil then so be it.I wonder what the prison sentence is for punching a supreme court justice in the balls.

I form all my political opinions based on the posts in this forum. Which is really sad, I know. But I'm sure I've been on the opposite side of an issue that I wouldn't normally have been because of the arguments presented here. I mean, not by everyone, but some people I respect.

why's it sad? you get both sides here, unlike most sources other people consult. you pretty much have to understand both sides before you can form an opinion worth anything.

[mk 11]

I assume he could tell the way the vote was going to fall and didn't have to worry about his vote being a tie breaker.

man, i mean...i think this is probably the case, but if it is it means he voted against what he knew was right in order to make a political statement, which i think is the opposite of what we want in our supreme court justices.