Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Loser left

13

Comments

  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,796 Founders Club

    No

    He doesn't

    And the Supreme Court didn't do anything either. Hillary was an cash cow and she lost

    The AOC kids beat better funded democrats in primaries. AOC has her own dark money network

    Winners win. Losers blame the ref

    Get better ideas and candidates

    Wow one primary it turned out the better funded/corrupt politician was defeated. Good thing I can’t think of dozens/hundreds? of incumbents in each party who would fit that mold

  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    Sledog said:

    BearsWiin said:

    Sledog said:

    BearsWiin said:

    jecornel said:

    BearsWiin said:

    jecornel said:

    A 10 minute interview where he doesn’t talk about policy once.

    Here’s his website- https://www.peteforamerica.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImtiv5d-_4QIVKR6tBh0APQFEEAAYASAAEgJ1nfD_BwE

    You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.

    What policy positions does he have that you support?

    He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.

    He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.
    Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.
    WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.

    BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.

    There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
    Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.
    Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"
    Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?

    Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
    Kind of like when Republicans were defeated in a modern landslide in ‘08 and looked to be locked out of power for a generation and then the consevative supreme court rewrote campaign finance laws to make speech = money giving right-wing billionaires enormous power of our political system overnight
    Hillary outspent Trump by a lot and used the money of billionaires to do so but still

    She owed most of the world favors by the time November rolled around. Trump owed himself
    Race uses direct campaigns to argue why corporations giving to PACs isn't effective.

    That being said, you are more making the point. That when a presidential candidate is promising to buy off corporations with a tax cut. Those same corporations are willing to contribute tons of money to ensure he gets elected and doesn't have to spend as much from his own pocket.

    Thanks Race!!
    Nice gibberish as usual that has nothing to do with what I wrote

    If money wins why did Hillary lose?

    Who took more corporate money Hillary or Trump?

    Fuck off

    If corporations get taxed they get to be part of the election for the representation

    You shills never have an issue with public unions do you
    Race now wants double the representation from corporations. Chinteresting.
  • HardlyClothedHardlyClothed Member Posts: 937

    No

    He doesn't

    And the Supreme Court didn't do anything either. Hillary was an cash cow and she lost

    The AOC kids beat better funded democrats in primaries. AOC has her own dark money network

    Winners win. Losers blame the ref

    Get better ideas and candidates

    Wow one primary it turned out the better funded/corrupt politician was defeated. Good thing I can’t think of dozens/hundreds? of incumbents in each party who would fit that mold

    What goal post is being moved? A handful of successful primary challengers on the democratic side doesn’t make the vast majority of congress reliant on super PACs and wealthy individuals to fund their political campaigns. Which was enabled by the conservatives on the supreme court.

    Claiming I moved the goal posts is a convenient way for you to give up.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,796 Founders Club

    No

    He doesn't

    And the Supreme Court didn't do anything either. Hillary was an cash cow and she lost

    The AOC kids beat better funded democrats in primaries. AOC has her own dark money network

    Winners win. Losers blame the ref

    Get better ideas and candidates

    Wow one primary it turned out the better funded/corrupt politician was defeated. Good thing I can’t think of dozens/hundreds? of incumbents in each party who would fit that mold

    What goal post is being moved? A handful of successful primary challengers on the democratic side doesn’t make the vast majority of congress reliant on super PACs and wealthy individuals to fund their political campaigns. Which was enabled by the conservatives on the supreme court.

    Claiming I moved the goal posts is a convenient way for you to give up.
    The libs had a majority on the court

    Money does not equal wins

    What part of your argument is there left for me to destroy?
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,796 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Sledog said:

    BearsWiin said:

    Sledog said:

    BearsWiin said:

    jecornel said:

    BearsWiin said:

    jecornel said:

    A 10 minute interview where he doesn’t talk about policy once.

    Here’s his website- https://www.peteforamerica.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImtiv5d-_4QIVKR6tBh0APQFEEAAYASAAEgJ1nfD_BwE

    You can buy shit, you can donate, you can’t learn anything about his policy positions.

    What policy positions does he have that you support?

    He wants to expand the supreme court to 15. 10 elected by Congress, the other 5 unanimously voted on by the 10. There is one position I support buddy.

    He doesn't "want to" do that. He says that it's one of many ideas to consider when trying to figure out how to depoliticize the Supreme Court. He also says that term limits for justices should be considered, and he's open to a discussion about rotating judges up from the appellate courts.
    Well, that was his position when talking with Chris Wallace. He is open to other alternatives.
    WALLACE: The Supreme Court, you talk about -- possibly expanding the court from nine justices to 15.

    BUTTIGIEG: Yes, but it's not just about throwing more justices on the court. What I think we need to do it some kind of structural reform that makes the court less political. We can't go on like this where every time there's a vacancy, there's this apocalyptic ideological battle. So the idea that -- one idea that I think is interesting as, you have 15 members, but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion. Five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten.

    There are other ideas that have been floated too about term limits or about rotating justices up from the appellate bench. I think we should have a national debate about what's appropriate, especially within the framework of the Constitution. But the bottom line is, we've got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the Supreme Court.
    Letting the 10 elect 5 with a political majority of either side in the 10 would turn it into a kangaroo court and worse than the current situation.
    Somebody doesn't understnad the meaning of "unanimous"
    Depends who the 10 are doesn't it?

    Odd how when the left loses they want to rewrite all the rules.
    Kind of like when Republicans were defeated in a modern landslide in ‘08 and looked to be locked out of power for a generation and then the consevative supreme court rewrote campaign finance laws to make speech = money giving right-wing billionaires enormous power of our political system overnight
    Hillary outspent Trump by a lot and used the money of billionaires to do so but still

    She owed most of the world favors by the time November rolled around. Trump owed himself
    Race uses direct campaigns to argue why corporations giving to PACs isn't effective.

    That being said, you are more making the point. That when a presidential candidate is promising to buy off corporations with a tax cut. Those same corporations are willing to contribute tons of money to ensure he gets elected and doesn't have to spend as much from his own pocket.

    Thanks Race!!
    Nice gibberish as usual that has nothing to do with what I wrote

    If money wins why did Hillary lose?

    Who took more corporate money Hillary or Trump?

    Fuck off

    If corporations get taxed they get to be part of the election for the representation

    You shills never have an issue with public unions do you
    Race now wants double the representation from corporations. Chinteresting.
    More gibberish

    akiwe 'tj 'pwiojdpasou gpoweut]prvirm]c0weu rntpovquyt'oivyaoruic0wreip'votu 'po utpouer 'porp
    courn'oiwuy
    p[
    prporutopberuty[oueru]tbie
  • HardlyClothedHardlyClothed Member Posts: 937

    No

    He doesn't

    And the Supreme Court didn't do anything either. Hillary was an cash cow and she lost

    The AOC kids beat better funded democrats in primaries. AOC has her own dark money network

    Winners win. Losers blame the ref

    Get better ideas and candidates

    Wow one primary it turned out the better funded/corrupt politician was defeated. Good thing I can’t think of dozens/hundreds? of incumbents in each party who would fit that mold

    What goal post is being moved? A handful of successful primary challengers on the democratic side doesn’t make the vast majority of congress reliant on super PACs and wealthy individuals to fund their political campaigns. Which was enabled by the conservatives on the supreme court.

    Claiming I moved the goal posts is a convenient way for you to give up.
    The libs had a majority on the court

    Money does not equal wins

    What part of your argument is there left for me to destroy?
    “The libs had a majority on the court”

    You’re senile
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,207

    SFGbob said:

    As usual, Thomas and Kavanaugh should be impeached but the Kunt is too big a coward to state why.


    They both lied under oath during their confirmation hearings. You sure feel entitled to a reply to every stupid question you ask.
    No they didn't any more than Ruth Buzzie or the Wise Latina lied when they claimed they'd rule on every case that comes before them with an open mind. They make your snatch sore, that's it.
  • TurdBomberTurdBomber Member Posts: 19,964 Standard Supporter
    edited April 2019
    jecornel said:

    SFGbob said:

    I love leftist cat fights.

    It's entertaining but shows how lost the left is in regards to what they stand for. The Warren's, Kamala's, Bernie's, Beto's are huge problems. They have no shot against Donald.

    Pelosi supporting reparations is a mistake.
    They wouldn’t be reparations anyway. They’d be payments on account for votes rendered and appeasement of AA grievances. Bought votes and bribed loyalties. Period.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,796 Founders Club
    Booker isn't even proposing a bill to pay reparations

    It's a bill to discuss reparations

    Gutless as always

    It's a guide to discuss climate change GND reset
  • jecorneljecornel Member Posts: 9,727

    Booker isn't even proposing a bill to pay reparations

    It's a bill to discuss reparations

    Gutless as always

    It's a guide to discuss climate change GND reset

    To discuss? Wow just wow.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    Booker isn't even proposing a bill to pay reparations

    It's a bill to discuss reparations

    Gutless as always

    It's a guide to discuss climate change GND reset

    You sound old, white and racist. If you think reparations means paying cash to the poor black folk.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,796 Founders Club
    edited April 2019
    2001400ex said:

    Booker isn't even proposing a bill to pay reparations

    It's a bill to discuss reparations

    Gutless as always

    It's a guide to discuss climate change GND reset

    You sound old, white and racist. If you think reparations means paying cash to the poor black folk.
    Sure faggot

    Here's where you stumble about trying to tell me what reparations mean

    Once the bill is passed we can discuss it
  • allpurpleallgoldallpurpleallgold Member Posts: 8,771
    But what does Rush Limbaugh think about reparations?
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    Booker isn't even proposing a bill to pay reparations

    It's a bill to discuss reparations

    Gutless as always

    It's a guide to discuss climate change GND reset

    You sound old, white and racist. If you think reparations means paying cash to the poor black folk.
    Sure faggot

    Here's where you stumble about trying to tell me what reparations mean

    Once the bill is passed we can discuss it
    There's too many white racists in Congress who won't even read the bill and will vote no.

    There was a time when I first started bantering with you that you actually had coherent points to make. Now you are just a bad Rush and Fox parody bot.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,796 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Booker isn't even proposing a bill to pay reparations

    It's a bill to discuss reparations

    Gutless as always

    It's a guide to discuss climate change GND reset

    You sound old, white and racist. If you think reparations means paying cash to the poor black folk.
    Sure faggot

    Here's where you stumble about trying to tell me what reparations mean

    Once the bill is passed we can discuss it
    There's too many white racists in Congress who won't even read the bill and will vote no.

    There was a time when I first started bantering with you that you actually had coherent points to make. Now you are just a bad Rush and Fox parody bot.
    So now that you've called everyone a racist what do reparations mean to you?

    I see Rush is big in the Team Hondo talking points this morning

    Good job team
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,796 Founders Club

    But what does Rush Limbaugh think about reparations?

    Do you know the answer to this question?
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,207
    2001400ex said:

    Booker isn't even proposing a bill to pay reparations

    It's a bill to discuss reparations

    Gutless as always

    It's a guide to discuss climate change GND reset

    You sound old, white and racist. If you think reparations means paying cash to the poor black folk.
    Plenty of black folks think reparations means paying cash to black folks. Are they white racists too Hondo?



  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,207

    But what does Rush Limbaugh think about reparations?

    Why do we need to ask Rush about what you liberal Kunts think reparations means?
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,796 Founders Club
    I see hondo has left the pool or drowned. Either way

    Booker is a craven politician who thinks his base is as stupid as hondo. I'll present a bill to discuss reparations not a bill to implement them which could then be discussed

    Like a guideline for discussions

    Then we call GOP types racists and declare victory
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,207

    I see hondo has left the pool or drowned. Either way

    Booker is a craven politician who thinks his base is as stupid as hondo. I'll present a bill to discuss reparations not a bill to implement them which could then be discussed

    Like a guideline for discussions

    Then we call GOP types racists and declare victory

    Did you know that a majority of "black folks" are really white racists?

    A YouGov online survey in 2014 showed roughly six in 10 black Americans said that the U.S. government should offer cash payments and education and job training programs to the descendants of slaves. A Kaiser Family Foundation/CNN survey from 2015 found that 52% of blacks said that "as a way to make up for the harm caused by slavery" the government should "make cash payments to Black Americans who are descendants of slaves" (8% of whites agreed). A Marist poll from 2016 showed that 58% of blacks supported the idea for reparations for African-American descendants of slaves.
Sign In or Register to comment.