Supreme Court Justice nominee Liu

[1979Shocker]

Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.

don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.

So how is Obama rewriting the constitution? Facts please! 8)

Address what I said, not your own agenda please.

BTW, it WAS NOT a tea bagger who tried to bomb NY Times Square but a naturalized Pakistani - I'm sure you and your friends are disappointed.

Actually, it was a naturalized American citizen.

Feds Identify Person of Interest in Times Square Bomb Plot

(Fox News) - Federal authorities have identified a person of interest in the investigation into the Times Square bomb plot, described as a naturalized American citizen who recently returned from Pakistan, Fox News confirmed Monday.

[SB Shock]

Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.

don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.

So how is Obama rewriting the constitution? Facts please! 8)

Address what I said, not your own agenda please.

BTW, it WAS NOT a tea bagger who tried to bomb NY Times Square but a naturalized Pakistani - I'm sure you and your friends are disappointed.

Actually, it was a naturalized American citizen.

Feds Identify Person of Interest in Times Square Bomb Plot

(Fox News) - Federal authorities have identified a person of interest in the investigation into the Times Square bomb plot, described as a naturalized American citizen who recently returned from Pakistan, Fox News confirmed Monday.

that is what I meant, although I could see how that could be not clear.

[Maggie]

Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.

don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.

So how is Obama rewriting the constitution? Facts please! 8)

Enough – you are not being clever, kc. Actually, I rank your retort on about the same level as Bill Maher attempting to claim on This Week on Sunday that Brazil has been “off oil” for about four decades.

As an aside, I don’t know if anyone watched on Sunday but what the heck were they thinking when they assembled that panel?

[kcshocker11]

Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.

don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.

So how is Obama rewriting the constitution? Facts please! 8)

Enough – you are not being clever, kc. Actually, I rank your retort on about the same level as Bill Maher attempting to claim on This Week on Sunday that Brazil has been “off oil” for about four decades.

As an aside, I don’t know if anyone watched on Sunday but what the heck were they thinking when they assembled that panel?

Funny how you never chastise those on the right. Thank you for comparing to BM, I'll take that as a compliment. :D 8)

[SubGod22]

I used to kinda enjoy Maher. After his move to HBO he became pretty much unwatchable.

[ISASO]

Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.

don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.

So how is Obama rewriting the constitution? Facts please! 8)

Enough – you are not being clever, kc. Actually, I rank your retort on about the same level as Bill Maher attempting to claim on This Week on Sunday that Brazil has been “off oil” for about four decades.

As an aside, I don’t know if anyone watched on Sunday but what the heck were they thinking when they assembled that panel?

Funny how you never chastise those on the right. Thank you for comparing to BM, I'll take that as a compliment. :D 8)

So, your goal in life is to be someone who celebrates the erosion of this country?

[SB Shock]

Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.

don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.

So how is Obama rewriting the constitution? Facts please! 8)

Address what I said, not your own agenda please.

BTW, it WAS NOT a tea bagger who tried to bomb NY Times Square but a naturalized Pakistani - I'm sure you and your friends are disappointed.

If you read the thread I was talking about , the statement, and comment on Obama rewriting the constitution! So whats that got to do with tea baggers, Pakistani's or whatever? 8)

Did I write anything untrue?

The reference to tea baggers was because Bloomberg suggested the time square attempted bombing was politically motivated.

“If I had to guess, twenty five cents, this would be exactly that,” Bloomberg said. “Homegrown maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.”

[Maggie]

Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.

don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.

So how is Obama rewriting the constitution? Facts please! 8)

Enough – you are not being clever, kc. Actually, I rank your retort on about the same level as Bill Maher attempting to claim on This Week on Sunday that Brazil has been “off oil” for about four decades.

As an aside, I don’t know if anyone watched on Sunday but what the heck were they thinking when they assembled that panel?

Funny how you never chastise those on the right. Thank you for comparing to BM, I'll take that as a compliment. :D 8)

Oh come on – I have had many disagreements with “those on the right” in the past – where I think it is warranted – not that it matters. But I don’t stick my nose into every single argument and neither do you. In this case; however, you were starting to get annoying by taking a cue from our President and continuing to pound that strawman argument of yours. No one was seriously asserting that anyone, in government, was actually going to the National Archives and taking a red pen to the Constitution.

As for Bill Maher, you can take it as a compliment but I wouldn’t. From what I have seen of Maher, before proceeding to the petty insults, he simply attempts to argue what the thinks the Left wants to hear (and he probably believes) and if he has to make something up to support that argument, he will - enthusiastically. It is called bombast. Which might fly with the people in Maher’s echo chamber but it will not work in front of a rational audience. His little oil comment about Brazil is a perfect example – and when called on it, by George Will, he looked like a sad, scared, confused, little fool.

That said – you didn’t quite rise to that level in this thread. But if you want to be like Bill Maher – go for it. ;-)

[kcshocker11]

Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.

don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.

So how is Obama rewriting the constitution? Facts please! 8)

Enough – you are not being clever, kc. Actually, I rank your retort on about the same level as Bill Maher attempting to claim on This Week on Sunday that Brazil has been “off oil” for about four decades.

As an aside, I don’t know if anyone watched on Sunday but what the heck were they thinking when they assembled that panel?

Funny how you never chastise those on the right. Thank you for comparing to BM, I'll take that as a compliment. :D 8)

Oh come on – I have had many disagreements with “those on the right” in the past – where I think it is warranted – not that it matters. But I don’t stick my nose into every single argument and neither do you. In this case; however, you were starting to get annoying by taking a cue from our President and continuing to pound that strawman argument of yours. No one was seriously asserting that anyone, in government, was actually going to the National Archives and taking a red pen to the Constitution.

As for Bill Maher, you can take it as a compliment but I wouldn’t. From what I have seen of Maher, before proceeding to the petty insults, he simply attempts to argue what the thinks the Left wants to hear (and he probably believes) and if he has to make something up to support that argument, he will - enthusiastically. It is called bombast. Which might fly with the people in Maher’s echo chamber but it will not work in front of a rational audience. His little oil comment about Brazil is a perfect example – and when called on it, by George Will, he looked like a sad, scared, confused, little fool.

That said – you didn’t quite rise to that level in this thread. But if you want to be like Bill Maher – go for it. ;-)

Spoken like a true right winger! :D 8)

[kcshocker11]

Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.

don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.

So how is Obama rewriting the constitution? Facts please! 8)

Enough – you are not being clever, kc. Actually, I rank your retort on about the same level as Bill Maher attempting to claim on This Week on Sunday that Brazil has been “off oil” for about four decades.

As an aside, I don’t know if anyone watched on Sunday but what the heck were they thinking when they assembled that panel?

Funny how you never chastise those on the right. Thank you for comparing to BM, I'll take that as a compliment. :D 8)

Oh come on – I have had many disagreements with “those on the right” in the past – where I think it is warranted – not that it matters. But I don’t stick my nose into every single argument and neither do you. In this case; however, you were starting to get annoying by taking a cue from our President and continuing to pound that strawman argument of yours. No one was seriously asserting that anyone, in government, was actually going to the National Archives and taking a red pen to the Constitution.

As for Bill Maher, you can take it as a compliment but I wouldn’t. From what I have seen of Maher, before proceeding to the petty insults, he simply attempts to argue what the thinks the Left wants to hear (and he probably believes) and if he has to make something up to support that argument, he will - enthusiastically. It is called bombast. Which might fly with the people in Maher’s echo chamber but it will not work in front of a rational audience. His little oil comment about Brazil is a perfect example – and when called on it, by George Will, he looked like a sad, scared, confused, little fool.

That said – you didn’t quite rise to that level in this thread. But if you want to be like Bill Maher – go for it. ;-)

Spoken like a true right winger! :D 8)

[Maggie]

True to form, kc. Oh and I see you are working on the bombast :good:

[ISASO]

Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.

don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.

So how is Obama rewriting the constitution? Facts please! 8)

Enough – you are not being clever, kc. Actually, I rank your retort on about the same level as Bill Maher attempting to claim on This Week on Sunday that Brazil has been “off oil” for about four decades.

As an aside, I don’t know if anyone watched on Sunday but what the heck were they thinking when they assembled that panel?

Funny how you never chastise those on the right. Thank you for comparing to BM, I'll take that as a compliment. :D 8)

So you wish Rush Limbaugh was dead just like Maher wished?

[kcshocker11]

Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.

don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.

So how is Obama rewriting the constitution? Facts please! 8)

Enough – you are not being clever, kc. Actually, I rank your retort on about the same level as Bill Maher attempting to claim on This Week on Sunday that Brazil has been “off oil” for about four decades.

As an aside, I don’t know if anyone watched on Sunday but what the heck were they thinking when they assembled that panel?

Funny how you never chastise those on the right. Thank you for comparing to BM, I'll take that as a compliment. :D 8)

So you wish Rush Limbaugh was dead just like Maher wished?

No only to live up to his promise to move to Costa Rica, where he can be drugged out all he wants!

[ISASO]

That would create the perfect storm for the Obama Administration.

1. Limbaugh leaves his show to move to Costa Rica
2. Bill Maher takes over his show
3. Ratings tank 87% to the level of other liberal talk shows
4. The EIB network lays off thousands of employees
5. Former EIB employees become dependents of the government

One simple move would so greatly improve Obama's poll numbers and give the Thought Police such an easier time, I'm surprised Rahm Emanuel hasn't "encouraged" Rush to take that opportunity for a drug-induced eternity out of the country.

[RoyalShock]

Rush won't move to Costa Rica since all those libs moved there after Bush's re-election.

Oh wait, I guess they didn't really mean it either.