(Untitled)

Jul 17, 2009 12:25



Read more... )

Leave a comment

xforge July 17 2009, 16:46:14 UTC
OMFG RU F'N SERIOUS? Franken asked good questions that spoke to the judge's character as a human being. The bottom line in all this is that a jurist has to be concerned with the rights and wellbeing of other human beings. As Alito and Roberts both plainly said in their confirmation hearings. And were gleefully passed right on through by the Democrats on their respective committees.

Sessions on the other hand spoke to Sotomayor like she was his fucking MAID and he was trying to make it clear he wanted the bathroom floor scrubbed every Tuesday before poker night. I have never in my life heard a guy say in so many different ways that he wanted it to be perfectly clear that the judge understood that people have the right to own guns. Dude, say it again, she didn't understand you the first 150 times you said it. Jesus CHRIST!!

Reply

jlc20thmaine July 17 2009, 16:51:59 UTC
Nice rant. I give you a C-.

However the wise latina is anti-gun ownership and has ignored the Heller decision. So Sessions had every right to say what he did.

By the way, care to provide the 150 times Sessions talked about gun rights? or is this just another lie, like the millions of scientists or the 5 million of people that were in the National Mall?

Reply

xforge July 17 2009, 17:11:34 UTC
You really, honestly don't know the meaning of the word "rhetoric," do you?

You're that fucking stupid. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Sotomayor is no more anti-gun than any other jurist. It's a fucking amdendment to the Constitution, it's pretty fucking black and white what the intent was. Sessions and his puppetmasters are just paranoid and listen to Limbaugh too much, who tells them to believe that any liberal and anyone Obama would choose is anti-gun. Which is y'know, stupid and insane, which is what we've come to expect from the nutball right, so it's par for the course, I guess.

Reply

blueduck37 July 17 2009, 18:23:21 UTC
You know what he also doesn't know the meaning of? A conservational ice-breaker.

Reply

xforge July 17 2009, 18:26:48 UTC
God forf*ckingbid a guy should be friendly and polite with someone who's being grilled in front of a committee.

Reply

jlc20thmaine July 17 2009, 18:51:04 UTC
You're a riot. Laughable, simply laughable.

Reply

xforge July 17 2009, 18:54:25 UTC
Dude. Stop typing. Every character you type, you only make more of a fool of yourself. Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop.

Reply

jlc20thmaine July 17 2009, 18:47:11 UTC
If it's so fucking black and white then why was the Heller decision 5-4? Maybe because libtards can't read the constitution!

Reply

xforge July 17 2009, 18:57:15 UTC
Sooooo... you're really calling Supreme Court Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer "libtards?"

You're really, really doing that?

You... are a very. VERY special person. Yes indeed.

Reply

special i July 17 2009, 21:00:53 UTC
in an olympic kind of way. (apologies to all disabled people)

Reply

Dumb bastard kept trying to gnaw on the hurdles. lafinjack July 18 2009, 04:47:26 UTC
He's too special for the Special Olympics.

Reply

jlc20thmaine July 17 2009, 18:54:09 UTC
Why yes, I do know what rhetoric is. Although it's obvious that you don't, that is unless you apply only this part of the definition: insincere or grandiloquent language. In which case that suits you perfectly as nothing you say is sincere and nor can be taken seriously.

Reply

xforge July 17 2009, 18:59:00 UTC
Yeeeeess. Even definitions pulled from dictionary.reference.com are taken out of context. You so da champ at THAT.

Of COURSE it's insincere, you fucking retard; it's insincere because (a) I don't take anything you say seriously and (b) it's all bullshit anyway!! Don't you GET IT YET??

Reply

donolectic July 19 2009, 21:12:45 UTC
Strap on your helmet and hold tight to your gold star little buddy! Lookit you go!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up