Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Elena Kagan to be nominated to Supreme Court (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Elena Kagan to be nominated to Supreme Court
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As being widely reported.

Seeing as the Republicans have tended to take every flawed decision of the Bush Administration and fiercely accuse the Obama Administration of doing worse, I expect to see conservative pundits contorting themselves to explain why the former Dean of the Harvard Law School is as unqualified as Harriet Miers.

Posts: 3579 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I expect to see conservative pundits contorting themselves to explain why the former Dean of the Harvard Law School is as unqualified as Harriet Miers.
Some "liberals" are already doing just that!

Glenn Greenwald

TNR

Count me in. She's never been a judge. She's published next to nothing. We have no clue what her constitutional philosophy is, except for a vague sense that her politics are "centrist." What she has written seems to defend what are, for me, the most unsavory aspects of the Clinton administration. She seems like a calculating careerist.

Sotomayor was a great choice - intelligent and accomplished. I'm not happy about this one at all.

[ May 10, 2010, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: KidB ]

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
She comes from a partisan provenance, but I don't know enough about her to have an opinion one way or the other. I'll wait to see if she gets Mier'd first. These days the Presidential prerogative to choose the Justice is practically null, so I'll then wait to hear what she has to say (or not say) for herself if she makes it to the hearings. Since Obama is well-known for having a legal mind himself (or as an academically inclined law professor by many Republicans), I'm sure he'll give us plenty to chew on when he announces the selection this morning.

[ May 10, 2010, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Al Wessex ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sauurman
Member
Member # 6467

 - posted      Profile for Sauurman   Email Sauurman       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well from my point of view - its not as bad as it could have been. We were never going to have a Democrat pick a judge that believes we should look at the constitution from the lens of its writers but at least she doesn't seem to be bat **** crazy like the judge she's replacing.
Posts: 174 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is now official. With the selection of Kagan, Obama has confirmed that he has absolutely no intention of doing the one thing I hoped he might do while in office. Ergo, I shall not be voting for him again.

Next person I hear call Obama a "liberal" to my face gets slapped.

Posts: 20924 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't know enough about her yet to decide one way or another. At first glance seems very qualified, techincally, for the job. I mean the position does not require one to be or have been a judge, so that part does not bother me. Her lack of a paper trail is a bit bothersome.

msquared

Posts: 3987 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, Obama has given up his right to the Liberal mantle. I am not so sorry about that, as the label no longer means what it did when modern liberals (1960's) were minted. It's also been made into a pathetic pejorative by Conservatives to mean Communist, Fascist and/or Socialist depending on context, which are not the same thing but all sound really bad. I wonder if we'll go back to using "Progressive". I'm fine with that because there are no hardened expectations in the term any longer. I have been an old time 60's Liberal going back to those early days, but there's no longer an agenda or purpose to the name. I commented elsewhere that Nixon was more "liberal" in many respects than today's so-called leftist Democrats. That alone tarnishes the name beyond recognition.

[ May 10, 2010, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Al Wessex ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thing that frustrates me is that I'm not actually all that liberal, but on the issues I care about, Obama is considerably to my right.
Posts: 20924 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
She'll be just exactly another liberal tool the same as all the rest. When was the last time one of them surprised anyone?

All of this hype about how unpredictable she might be is just a diversion to sneak her under the wire.

The only real question is whether the liberals really believe their own spin or are they part of the conspiracy to sneak her in under more false pretenses?

Yes, I admit at first when I started reading about her I was taken in and was almost optimistic for a time, until I remembered how clever and convincing the party machine and their co-conspirators everywhere can be in their favorite tactic of lie, lie, and then lie some more. Just look at the campaign of President Obama for proof of that. This is just more of it, and the shovels are industrial grade machines.

--------------------------------------------

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/05/03/26081/comments/

I actually liked this article as the attempts at obfuscation were only made half-heartedly because the gushing pride and good will toward Kagan just couldn't keep itself restrained.

Posts: 7412 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TomD,

what is the 'one issue'?

Posts: 7835 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry, all I can say is THANK GOD we have hard-core Conservative gun-toting party-line followers like you to explain it to the rest of us who are deceived by...reality.

Stock up on your Limbaugh (anti-white), Imhofe (anti-military), Bill Kristol (Lesbian), Bunning (extreme religious views, distorted morality), Kyl (no reason, just because), Specter (no reason, still looking), it's going to be a bumpy ride.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR: executive power.
Posts: 20924 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm confused. The one thing you hoped he might do while in office is executive power? What do you mean?
Posts: 3634 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The thing that frustrates me is that I'm not actually all that liberal, but on the issues I care about, Obama is considerably to my right.

Perhaps you are more liberal than you realize.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, I think, had hoped that Obama would set limits on his own executive power. Kagan does not seem like someone who would be willing to limit the President's power, at least from what we know of her so far. At least that what I think Tom is thinking.

msquared

Posts: 3987 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Obama went for the easi(er) confirmation battle by picking someone without a real paper trail. This is something an number of Republican presidents have done, looking to get their nominees through Democratic Senates, and the results have sometimes been disappointing. Going all the way back to Thomas Beckett, you can't necessarily predict how people will act when promoted to positions of sovereignty.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is a unitary executive pick. I'll be calling my senators to ask them to oppose this appointment.
Posts: 1956 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do admit to agreeing with the liberals that however liberal she may be on social issues, she is certainly likely to be one for expanding the power of the government and especially the executive branch. This is why President Obama absolutely loves her. After all his criticism of Bush and Bush's abuse of the power of the office, once he got that power he wants to keep it, (ab)use it, and make it grow.

This notion that she'll be any friend to conservatives is ridiculous though. She'll be the worst of both worlds, concentrating executive power while expanding government power in general over every aspect of our lives, the perfect appointment for megaegolomaniacs in government who know what you need and deserve more than you ever will.

There may also be a gay angle here for President Obama (and I see nobody wants to touch it), but that's still a bit speculative and just an extra bonus for his LGBT cred.

Posts: 7412 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Regarding executive power (which is an issue I care a great deal about), I would like to see a deeper discussion than the hints of alarm I have heard (primarily on the Left). I believe that the concern is based on one article, and that did not concern executive power as in the bogus unitary executive formulation (ie; vs. legislative and judiciary branches), it spoke more about executive power over executive agencies.

And if she is gay, then the Administration will have angered gay groups because they denied it pretty strongly.

Posts: 3579 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I maintain, along with most conservatives, that the single most important issue in judging any nominee for the Supreme Court is whether he/she is a strict constructionist--going along with the explictly stated provision in the Constitution defining the authority of the Supreme Court as consisting solely of advising whether laws are in harmony with the Constitution or not--or someone who believes in using the courts for social engineering, and will make decisions motivated by pushing a liberal agenda based on personal opinion rather than on existing Constitutional law.

Here is another angle that was not immediately apparent. If Kagan is approved as Supreme Court Justice, then there will be no Protestants on the Supreme Court. Kagan is Jewish, as is Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The other five justices are Roman Catholic.

Diana Butler Bass, a liberal Protestant, said in lamenting Kagan's nomination:
quote:
I'm not lamenting the loss of representation; I don't think that Supreme Court picks should be ruled by affirmative action. Rather, the primary qualification should be that the person knows the law, understands the law, upholds the law, and possesses a certain sort of empathy for the way that the law impacts the lives of Americans. Accordingly, anyone--a Protestant, Jew, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist--can be an excellent Supreme Court justice.

However, the faith in which one was raised or which one practices forms the basis of one's worldview--the way in which a person interprets contexts and circumstances. It involves nuances regarding theology, outlook, moral choice, ethics, devotion, and community. All religious traditions provide these outlooks to their adherents, and they are present in both overt and subtle ways through our lives. I'm not lamenting the numerical absence of Protestants. Instead, I will miss the fact that there will be no one with Protestant sensibilities on the court, no one who understands the nuances of one of America's oldest and most traditional religions--and the religion that deeply shaped American culture and law.

. . . .

First, Protestants hold central the idea that nothing should or can impede individual conscience. From Martin Luther's clarion call at the time of the Reformation, "Here I stand, I can do no other," Protestants of all sorts emphasize the free expression of individual rights and conscience. Those individual rights can--and do--empower liberation and freedom against corrupt institutions and unjust states.

Second, Protestants believe that symbols like the cross and the flag mean something. Going back to the days when Protestants stripped churches of religious statues and painted over icons, they believed that symbols convey the meaning of the thing depicted. Crosses, icons, flags, paintings, and other representations cannot be separated from their theological or political intention. Thus, Protestants have historically fought over the power of symbols and their meaning in public space. As a result, they often argue for empty public space because they understand the internal power of symbols.

Third, Protestants (in partnership with free-thinking Enlightenment philosophers) created the concept of the separation of church and state in the 17th and 18th centuries. Indeed, some historians argue that the Constitution's Establishment and Free Exercise clauses--the phrases that guide the relationship between religion and politics--might well be the most important contributions of American Protestantism to Christian theology.

Link: http://blog.beliefnet.com/christianityfortherestofus/2010/05/elena-kagan-the-supreme-court-and-a-lament-for-american-protestantism.html

Can anyone else see the ingredients being assembled now for real catastrophe in the near future for the whole idea of Constitutional government?

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No protestants on the Supreme Court? No WASPS?

Dear God, what will become of my people! Our whole way of life is threatened! They might outlaw ham sandwiches and gin! Noooooooooooo.....!

*Wipes eyes with tattered copy of Mayflower Compact*
[Crying]

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I maintain, along with most conservatives, that the single most important issue in judging any nominee for the Supreme Court is whether he/she is a strict constructionist--going along with the explictly stated provision in the Constitution defining the authority of the Supreme Court as consisting solely of advising whether laws are in harmony with the Constitution or not--or someone who believes in using the courts for social engineering, and will make decisions motivated by pushing a liberal agenda based on personal opinion rather than on existing Constitutional law.
Hi Ron,

Is there any way an outsider can tell the difference between what is "harmony with the Constitution" and what are just policies that Conservatives prefer?

Because I see a long historical tradition of hypocrisy with conservative concerns with state's rights going all the way back to the Civil War. Revisionist conservatives claimed that rebellion was about state rights, but that hypocrisy was laid bare when you consider their position on the Fugitive Slave Laws (that is, they argue that state's rights are of primary value when it came time to justifying rebellion to preserve slavery, but earlier when slavery and state's rights came into conflict, they sided with the power of the federal government to over-rule state laws when it came to preserving slavery (by maintaining that slaves were still property even when they had escaped to states where slavery was illegal).

Posts: 3579 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm not lamenting the loss of representation .... Accordingly, anyone--a Protestant, Jew, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist--can be an excellent Supreme Court justice.
...
However ... I will miss the fact that there will be no one with Protestant sensibilities on the court"


Translation : "I AM lamenting the loss of representation, I DO think that a Protestant should be in the supreme court"

Further translation : "I am a hyppocrite"

Posts: 3437 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And Ron

Since there are 9 Justices and 3 are/will be Jewish, that makes 6 Catholics not 5, right?

msquared

Posts: 3987 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
She's never been a judge. She's published next to nothing.

G2 has been distracted lately and not able to follow this so G2 is quite surprised to see someone with such a lack of experience nominated. It's downright weird. Kagan is a creature of academia with no practical legal experience. She's never served as a judge nor even argued a case in front of an appellate court. In fact, before she became Solicitor General last year, she had never argued a case anywhere.

Let's take a look at her "qualifications":
  • After classes, she would "get into her car, turn up the rock 'n' roll music loud, and drive home fast.
  • A popular teacher and an opera lover, Kagan played in faculty-student 16-inch softball games.
  • Kagan was also a star of the faculty trivia team, much to the chagrin of the student team that went up against her.
  • She got good marks from students in their class reviews.
  • She brought them to lunches and dinners at -- among other places -- Cafe Ba Ba Reeba at 2024 N. Halsted, the tapas eatery.



So that's what we know and that's the qualifications for the SC. Oh wait, she's a Chicago and Harvard buddy of The One. Now, it's all clear. This is cronyism, 100% pure unadulterated cronyism:
quote:
Cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. Hence, cronyism is contrary in practice and principle to meritocracy. Cronyism exists when the appointer and the beneficiary are in social contact; often, the appointer is inadequate to hold his or her own job or position of authority, and for this reason the appointer appoints individuals who will not try to weaken him or her, or express views contrary to those of the appointer.
Yep, that's exactly what this is and that's all this is.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2, seriously, picking a bunch of known personal facts about her and pretending she hasn't had a career of any sort ranks among the most transparent things you've ever done. You're usually more subtle.
Posts: 1915 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bwahahahaa! [Big Grin]

Diet coke all over the keyboard.

Posts: 10241 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
"I'm not lamenting the loss of representation .... Accordingly, anyone--a Protestant, Jew, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist--can be an excellent Supreme Court justice.
...
However ... I will miss the fact that there will be no one with Protestant sensibilities on the court"


Translation : "I AM lamenting the loss of representation, I DO think that a Protestant should be in the supreme court"

Further translation : "I am a hyppocrite"

LMAO That's beautiful.

What exactly are protestant sensibilities as compared to catholic or jewish sensibilities? And why does my spellchecker demand that I capitalize "jewish", but not "catholic" or "protestant?" Is this another sign of the machinations of the "Learned Elders of Zion" Hannibal?

Posts: 2974 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
No protestants on the Supreme Court? No WASPS?

Dear God, what will become of my people! Our whole way of life is threatened! They might outlaw ham sandwiches and gin! Noooooooooooo.....!

*Wipes eyes with tattered copy of Mayflower Compact*
[Crying]

ROFL Oh man, who made the original post? I can't find it. LOL

Kid, you and Hannibal have made my day!

Posts: 2974 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Smile] Only a protestant in America would have the balls to admit that their religion shapes their world view and philosophy. If a Catholic or Jew said something like that, the KKK would come pouring out of the woodworks. I somewhat sympathize, I wouldn't want a baptist lawyer defending me at my DUI trial, LOL. I'd much prefer a catholic. Heh Heh.
Posts: 2974 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron doth Protestant too much, methinks ...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
If a Catholic or Jew said something like that, the KKK would come pouring out of the woodworks.

That's not really true.

quote:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she has told Catholic cardinals, archbishops and bishops that she wants them to speak from the pulpit for immigration reform and tell Catholics who oppose it that reform “is a manifestation of our living the gospels.”
Source
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Smile]

Not true eh? Heh, how many years was it before we had a Catholic President? Still havn't had a Jewish one right? And why? Because their religion "shapes their world view and philosophy." Man, you didn't hear all the rumblings surrounding Huckabee and Lieberman?? An Eskimo (pardon me, Inuit) has a better shot at winning the presidency.

Doesn't the fact that this woman would prefer a protestant over a catholic or a jew, in the sweetest language by the way, point to how she would vote?

And what the heck does Nancy Pelosi have to do with the KKK? Do you even live south of Mason Dixon? I gay ron tee that the idea of a jew or catholic saying "my religion influences my philosophy and world view" would have people screaming "separation of church and state" post pronto.

I suggest you actually go to a forum that attracts certain citizens, and loudly proclaim that you are running for office, you are catholic or jewish, and that your religion has influenced the way you think and your world view. No matter what you think of your fellow posters here at Ornery, the forum does attract a certain level of intelligentsia. National politics are not decided by what the posters at Ornery think, but rather what the people who post two second blurbs on the Yahoo news forum think. Your ability to spell is in direct opposite proportion to how much weight your political opinion has at large.

Posts: 2974 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
[Smile] Only a protestant in America would have the balls to admit that their religion shapes their world view and philosophy. If a Catholic or Jew said something like that, the KKK would come pouring out of the woodworks. I somewhat sympathize, I wouldn't want a baptist lawyer defending me at my DUI trial, LOL. I'd much prefer a catholic. Heh Heh.

This reminded (remond?) me of a conversation I had online last week:

Friend: Hey hows it goin
TommySama: Hey *sarcastic comment*
Friend: Haha lol yeah that happens sometimes. lol
Friend: lol well gotta get going peace

Posts: 6387 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, msquared--you are right. I should have said six members of the Supreme Court are Roman Catholics.

The U.S. Constitution was created and enacted by Protestants. It is a Protestant document, upholding such unique Protestant innovations as the separation of church and state (which many Roman Catholic clergy will still admit they hate, at least in private, since the non-establishment clause of the first amendment is directly aimed at the very kind of church-state union that existed under the "Holy Roman Empire"). This is what made Protestants Protestants!

[ May 11, 2010, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
[Smile] Only a protestant in America would have the balls to admit that their religion shapes their world view and philosophy. If a Catholic or Jew said something like that, the KKK would come pouring out of the woodworks. I somewhat sympathize, I wouldn't want a baptist lawyer defending me at my DUI trial, LOL. I'd much prefer a catholic. Heh Heh.

This reminded (remond?) me of a conversation I had online last week:

Friend: Hey hows it goin
TommySama: Hey *sarcastic comment*
Friend: Haha lol yeah that happens sometimes. lol
Friend: lol well gotta get going peace

[Confused]
Posts: 2974 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, I only meant to quote the end of your post, where you have an LOL and a heh heh within 3 inches of each other [Smile]
Posts: 6387 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I'm a chuckler, you got me. I'll watch my emotes.
Posts: 2974 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
G2, seriously, picking a bunch of known personal facts about her and pretending she hasn't had a career of any sort ranks among the most transparent things you've ever done. You're usually more subtle.

Actually, that was the list provided in the Washington Post. Seriously. That's what's being reported. Don't blame the messenger.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's a pretty major distortion of the truth, G2.
Posts: 20924 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1