This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Alternative Facts
Pages: 1 ... 606162 6364 ... 306
1831
« on: February 23, 2016, 07:37:17 PM »
Some sort of bird.
1832
« on: February 23, 2016, 07:12:32 PM »
Oh, even better
What do you mean?
(Assuming you're in 'Merica), then by the letter of the law, the girl produced and distributed child pornography, and your brother coerced and received said pornography. Of course, many people have pushed for situations like this to not fall under such laws, but it would ultimately come down to whomever is handling the case to make that decision. If Flee ever gets around, he can likely explain better
1833
« on: February 23, 2016, 07:08:46 PM »
If I may ask, how old is your brother and the girl?
Both are 13...
Oh, even better
1834
« on: February 23, 2016, 07:06:10 PM »
If I may ask, how old is your brother and the girl?
1835
« on: February 23, 2016, 06:28:09 PM »
Being supportive of a loved one or friend who's been accused of committing a crime isn't unheard of - it's actually quite common, and doesn't mean you're a bad guy. You should be there for him, but you should try to avoid letting it cloud your personal judgement (As in, don't let your protection of him get in the way of listening to the other side and seeing if your brother really did what he is accused of)
1836
« on: February 23, 2016, 04:55:14 PM »
Same thing the Dems did in 92 like the article said. Payback is a bitch.
Article says no such thing - simply says that Democrats are trying to do damage control from when Biden gave a speech telling Bush Sr. not to do such a thing. There was never obstruction of even a hearing then.
1837
« on: February 23, 2016, 04:08:39 PM »
Why is this back?
Stahp
1838
« on: February 23, 2016, 03:33:08 PM »
Senate Judiciary Committe Will Also Hold no HearingsWASHINGTON — The Senate will hold no hearings, much less confirm, any Supreme Court nominee put forward by President Obama before the November election, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, stated unequivocally on Tuesday, as he urged the president to reconsider even submitting a name.
With a few cracks showing in Republican ranks, Mr. McConnell showed no sign of relenting to the pressure Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats are trying to apply.
And Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were unanimous in their opposition to confirmation hearings, said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican.
“This is his moment,” Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor, addressing the president. “He has every right to nominate someone. Even if doing so will inevitably plunge our nation into another bitter and avoidable struggle, that is his right. Even if he never expects that nominee to actually be confirmed but rather to wield as an electoral cudgel, that is his right.”
Mr. McConnell added: “But he has also has the right to make a different choice. He can let the people decide and make this an actual legacy-building moment rather than just another campaign roadshow.”
Mr. Obama has made clear that he will choose a nominee, and two Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, have already broken ranks to say that they would be willing to vote on a candidate.
But Mr. McConnell and the vast majority of Republicans were holding firm.
“I don’t think we should have a hearing. I think we should let the next president pick,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who a decade ago was one of 14 senators who brokered a deal to end the threat of filibusters against President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.
As Republican senators emerged from a meeting in Mr. McConnell’s office, Mr. Cornyn said, “We believe that the American people need to decide who is going to make this appointment rather than a lame-duck president.”
Aides to Mr. McConnell said the majority leader had spoken to Mr. Obama and told him directly that no nominee to the Supreme Court would be confirmed before the election, and they expressed confidence that the Republicans had chosen the best course of action — or inaction, as the case may be.
Mr. McConnell gathered Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in his suite in the Capitol, just off the Senate floor, to confer before a weekly policy luncheon attended by all Republican senators.
While Mr. McConnell has already stated that no nominee will be confirmed, it is ultimately up to the committee chairman, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, to decide if any hearings will be held on Mr. Obama’s pick.
Republican maneuvering came as Democrats scrambled to contain any damage from Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s floor speech as a senator in June 1992 urging President George Bush not to make a nomination to the Supreme Court until after that year’s presidential election.
Mr. Biden, now the vice president, said his words were taken out of context, and he issued a statement boasting of his record in confirming federal judges while chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Aides to Mr. Biden also insisted on Tuesday that he had been warning against filling a vacancy created by a voluntary resignation of a justice rather than a vacancy created by an unexpected death. In any event, no such vacancy occurred. Your move, Obama.
1839
« on: February 23, 2016, 12:59:51 PM »
It should not be free.
However, costs are quite a bit out of control
1840
« on: February 22, 2016, 11:12:29 PM »
Also, way to not even address Clinton's college plan. I spent, like, 1 whole minute finding that for you.
Because reading.
Is it bad? No. Would it help? Yes. But it seems to treat more symptoms than it does the disease, focusing more on things like interest rates and refinancing options than it does the fact that tertiary education is fucking absurdly expensive.
In-state college assistance? That's great in some respects, but if you're stuck in a shit state that doesn't have very good schools...well...good luck. The difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition is obscene.
So like we addressed in the last thread, you want Sanders to essentially dismantle and rebuild three essential government systems - colleges, healthcare, and elections. You also want him to rebuild our infrastructure, rethink how we engage in foreign affairs, and change criminal justice laws at a federal level.
You want all of this done, or at least making decent progress, within four years, through (at best) a split Congress, and when the global economy is still recovering. Oh, and for fun - lets add in the fact that Sanders likely will have to get a justice appointed to the Supreme Court amidst all of this.
And nothing less than this is satisfactory?
Yes, I do want all those things.
In four years. And we are still saying that Bernie Sanders supporters have a good understanding of government and how it works?
1841
« on: February 22, 2016, 11:09:16 PM »
and when the global economy is still recovering
It has already recovered.
Get used to the new normal.
This is why I avoid economics.
1842
« on: February 22, 2016, 11:06:58 PM »
Also, way to not even address Clinton's college plan. I spent, like, 1 whole minute finding that for you.
Because reading.
Is it bad? No. Would it help? Yes. But it seems to treat more symptoms than it does the disease, focusing more on things like interest rates and refinancing options than it does the fact that tertiary education is fucking absurdly expensive.
In-state college assistance? That's great in some respects, but if you're stuck in a shit state that doesn't have very good schools...well...good luck. The difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition is obscene.
So like we addressed in the last thread, you want Sanders to essentially dismantle and rebuild four essential government systems - colleges, healthcare, immigration and elections. You also want him to rebuild our infrastructure, completely rethink how we engage in foreign affairs while we are in the midst of a psuedo-war, and also somehow overhaul criminal justice laws at a federal level. You want all of this done, or at least making decent progress, within four years, through (at best) a split Congress, and when the global economy is still recovering. Oh, and for fun - lets add in the fact that Sanders likely will have to get a justice appointed to the Supreme Court amidst all of this. And nothing less than this is satisfactory?
1843
« on: February 22, 2016, 10:58:30 PM »
I don't think we don't understand, we just have a fundamentally different view on how it should function. Huh. Where have I seen that line given before... Also, way to not even address Clinton's college plan. I spent, like, 1 whole minute finding that for you.
1844
« on: February 22, 2016, 10:49:31 PM »
What are Hillary's plans to reign in college costs and student loan debt?
Time Story from Augustother than "Sanders supporters are just kids who don't understand"
Because it's true - they're voracious and passionate, sure. But they fail to have a basic level of knowledge of the American election and governmental system.
1845
« on: February 22, 2016, 10:45:28 PM »
Unreliable? Perhaps. There is no "perhaps" about it - Voters 18-29 are the least likely to come out and vote by an average of 10-12%. Not to mention the fact that this upcoming month, when many of the states where Sanders will need young college voters assistance, they will be on break and (likely) relaxing, not voting. But he's the only candidate who has indicated any desire to fix the problems that effect young people more than the older folks. Yes. He is the only one making suggestions to fix issues like student debt, healthcare, and other issues that millennials care for. My apologies for overlooking this absolutely correct statement. You know this is bullshit, or I hope that you do - but Sanders is far from the only one who has proposed changes to these institutions. He's just the only one throwing out buzzwords like "Free tuition!" that 18 year olds who don't have a grasp as to the ramifications of such policies grab onto with a frenzy and scream "Bernie cares for us!" I'd be genuinely surprised if you didn't see a bigger 18-34 turnout in 2016 than in 2008.
...Based on any specific polling/studies?
1846
« on: February 22, 2016, 10:34:05 PM »
"Wall Street speeches"
Can't have our candidate getting paid to speak to those big, mean public corporations now, can we?
It's not about "big mean corporations," it's about transparency. The fact she hasn't released anything seems to indicate she has something to hide.
If she's trying to win over people who are skeptical of her, this isn't how you do it.
And if Bernie is trying to win a Presidential election, continually pandering to a base of unreliable voters isn't how to do it. Is there a point of this thread aside from showing some cool Bernie insider joke?
1847
« on: February 22, 2016, 10:29:38 PM »
"Wall Street speeches"
Can't have our candidate getting paid to speak to those big, mean public corporations now, can we?
It's not about "big mean corporations," it's about transparency. The fact she hasn't released anything seems to indicate she has something to hide.
1848
« on: February 22, 2016, 08:05:26 AM »
The problem, I believe, is in our word choice.
1849
« on: February 21, 2016, 09:08:31 PM »
 OG motherfucker
1850
« on: February 21, 2016, 03:36:50 PM »
As far as I know she has been barely keeping ahead against Bernie. Weren't the caucus' extremely close?
Yes and no - depends on the demographics.
Sanders biggest problem is his base of young voters that are so loud in online polls and forums and websites. They support Sanders by an overwhelming amount (80+ percent) - the problem is that they are not reliable voters for elections. And when his base does not come out and voter turnout is low, like how it was in Nevada, the whole message of Sanders starting a "political revolution" falls flat on it's ass.
Sanders other issue is with the minority voters - especially blacks, who supported Clinton in Nevada overwhelmingly. And as we go into more diverse states like South Carolina and Texas, Sanders is facing an uphill battle to try and get his message into key communities that, by the looks of it, do not want him.
Yeah, but it still looks like Hillary is doing everything possible.
While Sanders hasn't done as much.
Imagine if Sanders were to go all out.
He is - he outspent Hilary in January in advertisements and such. It's not like Bernie is just sitting around.
1851
« on: February 21, 2016, 12:37:40 PM »
Apparently the Unions supporting Clinton gave their employees paid time off to leave work and go vote for Clinton.
And?
1852
« on: February 21, 2016, 12:37:07 PM »
As far as I know she has been barely keeping ahead against Bernie. Weren't the caucus' extremely close? Yes and no - depends on the demographics. Sanders biggest problem is his base of young voters that are so loud in online polls and forums and websites. They support Sanders by an overwhelming amount (80+ percent) - the problem is that they are not reliable voters for elections. And when his base does not come out and voter turnout is low, like how it was in Nevada, the whole message of Sanders starting a "political revolution" falls flat on it's ass. Sanders other issue is with the minority voters - especially blacks, who supported Clinton in Nevada overwhelmingly. And as we go into more diverse states like South Carolina and Texas, Sanders is facing an uphill battle to try and get his message into key communities that, by the looks of it, do not want him.
1853
« on: February 21, 2016, 11:15:45 AM »
I'll probably get mine over spring break.
1854
« on: February 21, 2016, 10:58:26 AM »
I was too busy memorizing the details of Ryan Reynold's ass.
1855
« on: February 21, 2016, 10:55:58 AM »
Do mine
1856
« on: February 20, 2016, 10:17:12 PM »
I think you told someone to go fuck themselves for implying you're racist.
Oh yeah. Charlie said something about me not caring about Teryvon Martin and not thinking of him as a person when in fact I don't know a single person who is a bigger advocator for human rights than me.
Not sure that warrants a ban though. How long is it?
Pretty sure it's one day. The sticky has been up for at least two months now, and it's straightforward. If you don't get it, one of us would be happy to explain in more detail.
1857
« on: February 20, 2016, 08:40:08 PM »
What GOP primaries are left anyway?
Uh, every state besides South Carolina, Iowa, and New Hampshire? Including Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and some other regions.
1858
« on: February 20, 2016, 07:48:05 PM »
Wow. Thought he would fight til the bitter end even if he didn't get much support.
I won't be surprise if he lines up behind Rubio within two weeks.
1859
« on: February 20, 2016, 07:45:41 PM »
StoryAnother one bites the dust
1860
« on: February 20, 2016, 05:54:14 PM »
Why does Clinton win if Sanders has more?
What?
Pages: 1 ... 606162 6364 ... 306
|
Show Posts