Unemployed? Get a crony job through the US government!

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052
Her nomination is not in conflict with Hamilton's writings in the Federalist Papers (IMO) or precident (this has been repeatedly pointed out to you).

BTW: before you go wraping youself up in the holy robes of the Federalist Papers and run around screaming about the huge injustice being done you should know a little more about the papers and their writers.

Her judgeship experience or lacktherof is not what i was getting at with the federalist papers. Try again.

I don't see you compaining about that vile John Adams who appointed his SecState to the Supreme Court.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.cronyjobs.com/

😀

If there's anything that this administration has taught us, you don't actually NEED to be qualified to do some of these jobs... just ask michael brown (head of FEMA) and Harriet Miers (pending supreme court justice)!

Easy six figures baby! $$$ :thumbsup: $$$

39 people have been appointed to the SC with no prior judicial experience.

Bush chose a former employee whom he has an intimate knowledge of her character and qualifications. Promoting a current/former employee is always favorable to hiring cold.

It doesn't take a judge to be a judge, it takes a legal expert. And in that, Miers is more than qualified.

As for Brown, congrats on falling for mindless scapegoating. Seems he did an excellent job last year when not one, not two, but four hurricanes hit Florida.

Keep drinking that kool-aid amused. Even prominent rightwingers are screaming cronyism on the part of miers, hell even psycho-b1tch ANN COULTER is opposed to miers on these grounds: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46682

You have to be pretty incredible to be even LOONIER than coulter.

As for michael brown, i'm sure we can all agree that someone who was fired from a horse judging association is not qualified to handle being the head of an agency like FEMA.

Who CARES what the far right wingers are saying???

The fact that the far right AND far left oppose her is a GOOD sign. Anything partisan hacks like you hate MUST be a good thing.

Uh no, the problem is not only her views, but also the fact that she is UNQUALIFIED. You have to be an idiot to look at her resume and say she belongs on the supreme court. Every conservative publication from National Review to Wall Street Journal has blasted Bush on nominating miers. Moderates and extremists alike are lambasting bush's nomination. Of course you have to have your head in the sand to not even know any of this.

One thing no one EVER details is how she is any less qualified than the other 39 SC justices who were appointed with no previous judicial experience.

The fact is, it IS her views. And the far right and left are using the "unqualified" argument to hide their true agenda.

Actualy, from social conservatives, it's the lack of INFORMATION about her views that she's attacking. They don't know what they're getting with her. But she's being universally panned because her resume is so thin and laughable. Her judicial experience isn't of concern, it's her academic and other legal experience that's being attacked.

Read what alexander hamilton said in the federalist papers about this type of cronyism (from your favorite website, worldnetdaily, no less):

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46745

Republicans are the best argument for smaller government. :thumbsdown:

First, Worldnetdaily is NOT my favorite website. Unlike you, I am an actual libertarian. Not a closeted authoritarian socialist masquerading as a libertarian.

Secondly, you just made my point. It IS her views. Well, here's a shocker: A judge is supposed to remain neutral on issues, until they hear the cases and decide each case on it's merits, not pre-existing views. She doesn't HAVE to explain her views on individual issues, as that would make her prejudice.

Yes, i'm sure libertarians such as yourself would blindly follow an administration would increase the size and scope of government to levels not seen before. What you are is a fraud. :disgust:

No, i didn't make your point, moron, the majority of people panning her are panning her for her QUALIFICATIONS. She has ***NONE***. It's the social conservatives who are panning her for the lack of information on her views. But that's somewhat of a side issue.

If you think she's qualified, you're the biggest partisan hack on the planet that not even ann coulter could reach.

Nice tirade of personal attacks.

Meanwhile, how is supporting a CONSTITUTIONAL appointment to the SC supporting the increase in government? Nice strawman, and a whole lot of nice suppositions you can't in any way support... but in the end, it's a swing and a miss.

And, yet again, you cannot point out how she is any less qualified than any of the other 39 SC justices appointed with no previous judicial experience.

I've seen you support nothing but left wing causes and political hackery. Any libertarian will agree with the left about as much as they agree with the right. You NEVER agree with the right. You're a socialist in libertarian clothing.

Like i said, you blindly support bush who has increased the size and scope of the federal government more than any other republican or democrat ever has. The only socialist in libertarian clothing is you. As for the constitutional appointment thing, i see you haven't read the federalist papers yet. Not surprising a fake libertarian such as yourself would condone corruption and cronyism in government though. :thumbsdown:

Again with the strawmen. Just because I support his right to choose a CONSTITUTIONAL appointment to the SC, I now am blindly supporting all his other policies?

Explain to me, oh psychic hotline operator, how you come to this fallacious conclusion?

For me, Bush was the lessor of two evils. Kerry would have increased socialism far more than Bush has. That doesn't mean I particularly like either one.

Oh you mean LIKE CLINTON DID? Oh wait, government expansion was actually at one of the SLOWEST points in our country's history under him. You have to be a f***ing moron to believe that the gov't would increase more under kerry than bush. If anything, the gridlock between the dems and republicans would've stopped the increase of the federal government.

Read all these articles from Cato:

http://www.cato.org/current/federalspending/index.html

You know cato, right, the LIBERTARIAN think tank that wholy opposes bush?

Again, you're a republican hack and you should know it.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052
Her nomination is not in conflict with Hamilton's writings in the Federalist Papers (IMO) or precident (this has been repeatedly pointed out to you).

BTW: before you go wraping youself up in the holy robes of the Federalist Papers and run around screaming about the huge injustice being done you should know a little more about the papers and their writers.

Her judgeship experience or lacktherof is not what i was getting at with the federalist papers. Try again.

I don't see you compaining about that vile John Adams who appointed his SecState to the Supreme Court.

Two wrongs make a right :disgust:, read what hamilton had to say about cronyism and presidential appointments in the federalist papers:

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

Emphasis mine.

GG, i win you and amused lose.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.cronyjobs.com/

😀

If there's anything that this administration has taught us, you don't actually NEED to be qualified to do some of these jobs... just ask michael brown (head of FEMA) and Harriet Miers (pending supreme court justice)!

Easy six figures baby! $$$ :thumbsup: $$$

39 people have been appointed to the SC with no prior judicial experience.

Bush chose a former employee whom he has an intimate knowledge of her character and qualifications. Promoting a current/former employee is always favorable to hiring cold.

It doesn't take a judge to be a judge, it takes a legal expert. And in that, Miers is more than qualified.

As for Brown, congrats on falling for mindless scapegoating. Seems he did an excellent job last year when not one, not two, but four hurricanes hit Florida.

Keep drinking that kool-aid amused. Even prominent rightwingers are screaming cronyism on the part of miers, hell even psycho-b1tch ANN COULTER is opposed to miers on these grounds: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46682

You have to be pretty incredible to be even LOONIER than coulter.

As for michael brown, i'm sure we can all agree that someone who was fired from a horse judging association is not qualified to handle being the head of an agency like FEMA.

Who CARES what the far right wingers are saying???

The fact that the far right AND far left oppose her is a GOOD sign. Anything partisan hacks like you hate MUST be a good thing.

Uh no, the problem is not only her views, but also the fact that she is UNQUALIFIED. You have to be an idiot to look at her resume and say she belongs on the supreme court. Every conservative publication from National Review to Wall Street Journal has blasted Bush on nominating miers. Moderates and extremists alike are lambasting bush's nomination. Of course you have to have your head in the sand to not even know any of this.

One thing no one EVER details is how she is any less qualified than the other 39 SC justices who were appointed with no previous judicial experience.

The fact is, it IS her views. And the far right and left are using the "unqualified" argument to hide their true agenda.

Actualy, from social conservatives, it's the lack of INFORMATION about her views that she's attacking. They don't know what they're getting with her. But she's being universally panned because her resume is so thin and laughable. Her judicial experience isn't of concern, it's her academic and other legal experience that's being attacked.

Read what alexander hamilton said in the federalist papers about this type of cronyism (from your favorite website, worldnetdaily, no less):

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46745

Republicans are the best argument for smaller government. :thumbsdown:

First, Worldnetdaily is NOT my favorite website. Unlike you, I am an actual libertarian. Not a closeted authoritarian socialist masquerading as a libertarian.

Secondly, you just made my point. It IS her views. Well, here's a shocker: A judge is supposed to remain neutral on issues, until they hear the cases and decide each case on it's merits, not pre-existing views. She doesn't HAVE to explain her views on individual issues, as that would make her prejudice.

Yes, i'm sure libertarians such as yourself would blindly follow an administration would increase the size and scope of government to levels not seen before. What you are is a fraud. :disgust:

No, i didn't make your point, moron, the majority of people panning her are panning her for her QUALIFICATIONS. She has ***NONE***. It's the social conservatives who are panning her for the lack of information on her views. But that's somewhat of a side issue.

If you think she's qualified, you're the biggest partisan hack on the planet that not even ann coulter could reach.

Nice tirade of personal attacks.

Meanwhile, how is supporting a CONSTITUTIONAL appointment to the SC supporting the increase in government? Nice strawman, and a whole lot of nice suppositions you can't in any way support... but in the end, it's a swing and a miss.

And, yet again, you cannot point out how she is any less qualified than any of the other 39 SC justices appointed with no previous judicial experience.

I've seen you support nothing but left wing causes and political hackery. Any libertarian will agree with the left about as much as they agree with the right. You NEVER agree with the right. You're a socialist in libertarian clothing.

Like i said, you blindly support bush who has increased the size and scope of the federal government more than any other republican or democrat ever has. The only socialist in libertarian clothing is you. As for the constitutional appointment thing, i see you haven't read the federalist papers yet. Not surprising a fake libertarian such as yourself would condone corruption and cronyism in government though. :thumbsdown:

Again with the strawmen. Just because I support his right to choose a CONSTITUTIONAL appointment to the SC, I now am blindly supporting all his other policies?

Explain to me, oh psychic hotline operator, how you come to this fallacious conclusion?

For me, Bush was the lessor of two evils. Kerry would have increased socialism far more than Bush has. That doesn't mean I particularly like either one.

Oh you mean LIKE CLINTON DID? Oh wait, government expansion was actually at one of the SLOWEST points in our country's history under him. You have to be a f***ing moron to believe that the gov't would increase more under kerry than bush. If anything, the gridlock between the dems and republicans would've stopped the increase of the federal government.

Read all these articles from Cato:

http://www.cato.org/current/federalspending/index.html

You know cato, right, the LIBERTARIAN think tank that wholy opposes bush?

Again, you're a republican hack and you should know it.

Clinton was a moderate. Kerry had a voting record to the left of Ted Kennedy. Apples and oranges.

Nice try, though.

Meanwhile, not even the folks at Cato would have voted for Kerry over Bush.

Again, more strawmen. But then, what more should I expect from someone with no valid argument whatsoever? The only half assed arguments you've tried giving are those of other people. You are patently unable to form your on opinion, much less your own argument.

Sorry, phokus, but people in OT are a lot better debaters than you deal with in P&N. If you don't like having your ass handed to you, go back where you belong with this partisan political nonsense.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.cronyjobs.com/

😀

If there's anything that this administration has taught us, you don't actually NEED to be qualified to do some of these jobs... just ask michael brown (head of FEMA) and Harriet Miers (pending supreme court justice)!

Easy six figures baby! $$$ :thumbsup: $$$

39 people have been appointed to the SC with no prior judicial experience.

Bush chose a former employee whom he has an intimate knowledge of her character and qualifications. Promoting a current/former employee is always favorable to hiring cold.

It doesn't take a judge to be a judge, it takes a legal expert. And in that, Miers is more than qualified.

As for Brown, congrats on falling for mindless scapegoating. Seems he did an excellent job last year when not one, not two, but four hurricanes hit Florida.

Keep drinking that kool-aid amused. Even prominent rightwingers are screaming cronyism on the part of miers, hell even psycho-b1tch ANN COULTER is opposed to miers on these grounds: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46682

You have to be pretty incredible to be even LOONIER than coulter.

As for michael brown, i'm sure we can all agree that someone who was fired from a horse judging association is not qualified to handle being the head of an agency like FEMA.

Who CARES what the far right wingers are saying???

The fact that the far right AND far left oppose her is a GOOD sign. Anything partisan hacks like you hate MUST be a good thing.

Uh no, the problem is not only her views, but also the fact that she is UNQUALIFIED. You have to be an idiot to look at her resume and say she belongs on the supreme court. Every conservative publication from National Review to Wall Street Journal has blasted Bush on nominating miers. Moderates and extremists alike are lambasting bush's nomination. Of course you have to have your head in the sand to not even know any of this.

One thing no one EVER details is how she is any less qualified than the other 39 SC justices who were appointed with no previous judicial experience.

The fact is, it IS her views. And the far right and left are using the "unqualified" argument to hide their true agenda.

Actualy, from social conservatives, it's the lack of INFORMATION about her views that she's attacking. They don't know what they're getting with her. But she's being universally panned because her resume is so thin and laughable. Her judicial experience isn't of concern, it's her academic and other legal experience that's being attacked.

Read what alexander hamilton said in the federalist papers about this type of cronyism (from your favorite website, worldnetdaily, no less):

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46745

Republicans are the best argument for smaller government. :thumbsdown:

First, Worldnetdaily is NOT my favorite website. Unlike you, I am an actual libertarian. Not a closeted authoritarian socialist masquerading as a libertarian.

Secondly, you just made my point. It IS her views. Well, here's a shocker: A judge is supposed to remain neutral on issues, until they hear the cases and decide each case on it's merits, not pre-existing views. She doesn't HAVE to explain her views on individual issues, as that would make her prejudice.

Yes, i'm sure libertarians such as yourself would blindly follow an administration would increase the size and scope of government to levels not seen before. What you are is a fraud. :disgust:

No, i didn't make your point, moron, the majority of people panning her are panning her for her QUALIFICATIONS. She has ***NONE***. It's the social conservatives who are panning her for the lack of information on her views. But that's somewhat of a side issue.

If you think she's qualified, you're the biggest partisan hack on the planet that not even ann coulter could reach.

Nice tirade of personal attacks.

Meanwhile, how is supporting a CONSTITUTIONAL appointment to the SC supporting the increase in government? Nice strawman, and a whole lot of nice suppositions you can't in any way support... but in the end, it's a swing and a miss.

And, yet again, you cannot point out how she is any less qualified than any of the other 39 SC justices appointed with no previous judicial experience.

I've seen you support nothing but left wing causes and political hackery. Any libertarian will agree with the left about as much as they agree with the right. You NEVER agree with the right. You're a socialist in libertarian clothing.

Like i said, you blindly support bush who has increased the size and scope of the federal government more than any other republican or democrat ever has. The only socialist in libertarian clothing is you. As for the constitutional appointment thing, i see you haven't read the federalist papers yet. Not surprising a fake libertarian such as yourself would condone corruption and cronyism in government though. :thumbsdown:

Again with the strawmen. Just because I support his right to choose a CONSTITUTIONAL appointment to the SC, I now am blindly supporting all his other policies?

Explain to me, oh psychic hotline operator, how you come to this fallacious conclusion?

For me, Bush was the lessor of two evils. Kerry would have increased socialism far more than Bush has. That doesn't mean I particularly like either one.

Oh you mean LIKE CLINTON DID? Oh wait, government expansion was actually at one of the SLOWEST points in our country's history under him. You have to be a f***ing moron to believe that the gov't would increase more under kerry than bush. If anything, the gridlock between the dems and republicans would've stopped the increase of the federal government.

Read all these articles from Cato:

http://www.cato.org/current/federalspending/index.html

You know cato, right, the LIBERTARIAN think tank that wholy opposes bush?

Again, you're a republican hack and you should know it.

Clinton was a moderate. Kerry had a voting record to the left of Ted Kennedy. Apples and oranges.

Nice try, though.

Meanwhile, not even the folks at Cato would have voted for Kerry over Bush.

Again, more strawmen. But then, what more should I expect from someone with no valid argument whatsoever? The only half assed arguments you've tried giving are those of other people. You are patently unable to form your on opinion, much less your own argument.

Sorry, phokus, but people in OT are a lot better debaters than you deal with in P&N. If you don't like having your ass handed to you, go back where you belong with this partisan political nonsense.

Oh... cato wouldn't have voted for kerry over Bush?

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/bandow-040420.html

"The conservative case for voting democratic"

Complaints about Republican profligacy have led the White House to promise to mend its ways. But Bush's latest budget combines accounting flim-flam with unenforceable promises. So how do we put Uncle Sam on a sounder fiscal basis?

Vote Democratic.

I win, you lose. BOW DOWN TO ME AMUSED.

Like i said, you're a sham libertarian. Go back to worshiping bush, you hack.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052
Her nomination is not in conflict with Hamilton's writings in the Federalist Papers (IMO) or precident (this has been repeatedly pointed out to you).

BTW: before you go wraping youself up in the holy robes of the Federalist Papers and run around screaming about the huge injustice being done you should know a little more about the papers and their writers.

Her judgeship experience or lacktherof is not what i was getting at with the federalist papers. Try again.

I don't see you compaining about that vile John Adams who appointed his SecState to the Supreme Court.

Two wrongs make a right :disgust:, read what hamilton had to say about cronyism and presidential appointments in the federalist papers:

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

Emphasis mine.

GG, i win you and amused lose.

She is a former EMPLOYEE and state APPOINTEE. Not a lover, not a family member, and not a family friend.

Reading comprehension is your friend, Phokus.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus


I win, you lose. BOW DOWN TO ME AMUSED.

Like i said, you're a sham libertarian. Go back to worshiping bush, you hack.

My gawd, you really are deluded. :roll:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus


I win, you lose. BOW DOWN TO ME AMUSED.

Like i said, you're a sham libertarian. Go back to worshiping bush, you hack.

My gawd, you really are deluded. :roll:

Funny how you talked about handing my ass to me. Like my new sig amused? Bow down before me, i own your soul.

 

[Riceball]

^ Goddamn this is entertaining 😀

I need to venture over to P&N more if this the type of verbal brawls I can expect to see.:beer:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Riceball
^ Goddamn this is entertaining 😀

Thanks, like my new sig? I'm going to keep it there for quite a while to remind amused how i own his @$$ every now and then 😀

 

[Riceball]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Riceball
^ Goddamn this is entertaining 😀

Thanks, like my new sig? I'm going to keep it there for quite a while to remind amused how i own his @$$ every now and then 😀

I'd prefer to remain neutral in this arguement while enjoying my ringsode seat. 😛

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052
Her nomination is not in conflict with Hamilton's writings in the Federalist Papers (IMO) or precident (this has been repeatedly pointed out to you).

BTW: before you go wraping youself up in the holy robes of the Federalist Papers and run around screaming about the huge injustice being done you should know a little more about the papers and their writers.

Her judgeship experience or lacktherof is not what i was getting at with the federalist papers. Try again.

I don't see you compaining about that vile John Adams who appointed his SecState to the Supreme Court.

Two wrongs make a right :disgust:, read what hamilton had to say about cronyism and presidential appointments in the federalist papers:

Tell me who Adams appointed.
Go ahead, its ok.

 

[CarlKillerMiller]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.cronyjobs.com/

😀

If there's anything that this administration has taught us, you don't actually NEED to be qualified to do some of these jobs... just ask michael brown (head of FEMA) and Harriet Miers (pending supreme court justice)!

Easy six figures baby! $$$ :thumbsup: $$$

39 people have been appointed to the SC with no prior judicial experience.

Bush chose a former employee with whom he has an intimate knowledge of her character and qualifications. Promoting a current/former employee is always favorable to hiring cold.

It doesn't take a judge to be a judge, it takes a legal expert. And in that, Miers is more than qualified.

As for Brown, congrats on falling for mindless scapegoating. Seems he did an excellent job last year when not one, not two, but four hurricanes hit Florida.

Sigh...man, being the head of FEMA isn't a hit-or-miss job. You can't just do really well on one natural disaster, and completely blow the next and still cover your arse. He failed pretty hardcore, and his job during last year's hurricane doesn't exempt him from that.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus


I win, you lose. BOW DOWN TO ME AMUSED.

Like i said, you're a sham libertarian. Go back to worshiping bush, you hack.

My gawd, you really are deluded. :roll:

Funny how you talked about handing my ass to me. Like my new sig amused? Bow down before me, i own your soul.

Good Gawd, you are a fvcking moron. Shouldn't you, Conjur and the local computer felon(dmcowen aka Chicken Little) be jerking off to the writings of Lenin?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus


I win, you lose. BOW DOWN TO ME AMUSED.

Like i said, you're a sham libertarian. Go back to worshiping bush, you hack.

My gawd, you really are deluded. :roll:

Funny how you talked about handing my ass to me. Like my new sig amused? Bow down before me, i own your soul.

Good Gawd, you are a fvcking moron. Shouldn't you, Conjur and the local computer felon(dmcowen aka Chicken Little) be jerking off to the writings of Lenin?

Yes well, i'm a fvcking moron who just schooled amused. Looks like amused logged off because he knows i'm his master now. GG hacks. :beer:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus


I win, you lose. BOW DOWN TO ME AMUSED.

Like i said, you're a sham libertarian. Go back to worshiping bush, you hack.

My gawd, you really are deluded. :roll:

Funny how you talked about handing my ass to me. Like my new sig amused? Bow down before me, i own your soul.

One editoral does not make a consensus. Really, Phokus. You need to realize that some people can think critically for themselves.

Why yes, look at all the positive articles on Kerry at Cato:

http://search.cato.org/query.html?col=allcato&qc=allcato&pw=100%25&rf=0&qt=kerry

500+ and all negative.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus


I win, you lose. BOW DOWN TO ME AMUSED.

Like i said, you're a sham libertarian. Go back to worshiping bush, you hack.

My gawd, you really are deluded. :roll:

Funny how you talked about handing my ass to me. Like my new sig amused? Bow down before me, i own your soul.

Good Gawd, you are a fvcking moron. Shouldn't you, Conjur and the local computer felon(dmcowen aka Chicken Little) be jerking off to the writings of Lenin?

Yes well, i'm a fvcking moron who just schooled amused. Looks like amused logged off because he knows i'm his master now. GG hacks. :beer:

Um, no. But it's nice to see you're happy in your delusions.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052
Her nomination is not in conflict with Hamilton's writings in the Federalist Papers (IMO) or precident (this has been repeatedly pointed out to you).

BTW: before you go wraping youself up in the holy robes of the Federalist Papers and run around screaming about the huge injustice being done you should know a little more about the papers and their writers.

Her judgeship experience or lacktherof is not what i was getting at with the federalist papers. Try again.

I don't see you compaining about that vile John Adams who appointed his SecState to the Supreme Court.

Two wrongs make a right :disgust:, read what hamilton had to say about cronyism and presidential appointments in the federalist papers:

Tell me who Adams appointed.
Go ahead, its ok.

Waiting....

 

[MidasKnight]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.cronyjobs.com/

😀

If there's anything that this administration has taught us, you don't actually NEED to be qualified to do some of these jobs... just ask michael brown (head of FEMA) and Harriet Miers (pending supreme court justice)!

Easy six figures baby! $$$ :thumbsup: $$$

39 people have been appointed to the SC with no prior judicial experience.

Bush chose a former employee with whom he has an intimate knowledge of her character and qualifications. Promoting a current/former employee is always favorable to hiring cold.

It doesn't take a judge to be a judge, it takes a legal expert. And in that, Miers is more than qualified.

As for Brown, congrats on falling for mindless scapegoating. Seems he did an excellent job last year when not one, not two, but four hurricanes hit Florida.

Excellent reply ... well put ! :thumbsup:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus


I win, you lose. BOW DOWN TO ME AMUSED.

Like i said, you're a sham libertarian. Go back to worshiping bush, you hack.

My gawd, you really are deluded. :roll:

Funny how you talked about handing my ass to me. Like my new sig amused? Bow down before me, i own your soul.

One editoral does not make a consensus. Really, Phokus. You need to realize that some people can think critically for themselves.

Why yes, look at all the positive articles on Kerry at Cato:

http://search.cato.org/query.html?col=allcato&qc=allcato&pw=100%25&rf=0&qt=kerry

Awwwwwww what happened amused? Where's that tough guy attitude? Aren't you handing my ass to me? Or it looks like you're sticking around to do some damage control.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/bandow-040420.html

Yeah, with articles such as "Bush's Overspending Problem", "Bush?s Bigger, Fatter Welfare State", "The Bush Betrayal", "Budget Busting Bushies: Overspending is not fiscal responsibility.", "A History of Broken Promises" (in reference to the republican party), "The Republican Spending Explosion", ""The Grand Old Spending Party: How Republicans Became Big Spenders,", it really sounds like they're just RUSHING to support bush over ANYONE ELSE! :laugh:

GG, i own your soul still. Care to stick around and let me own you more?

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus


I win, you lose. BOW DOWN TO ME AMUSED.

Like i said, you're a sham libertarian. Go back to worshiping bush, you hack.

My gawd, you really are deluded. :roll:

Funny how you talked about handing my ass to me. Like my new sig amused? Bow down before me, i own your soul.

One editoral does not make a consensus. Really, Phokus. You need to realize that some people can think critically for themselves.

Why yes, look at all the positive articles on Kerry at Cato:

http://search.cato.org/query.html?col=allcato&qc=allcato&pw=100%25&rf=0&qt=kerry

Awwwwwww what happened amused? Where's that tough guy attitude? Aren't you handing my ass to me? Or it looks like you're sticking around to do some damage control.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/bandow-040420.html

Yeah, with articles such as "Bush's Overspending Problem", "Bush?s Bigger, Fatter Welfare State", "The Bush Betrayal", "Budget Busting Bushies: Overspending is not fiscal responsibility.", "A History of Broken Promises" (in reference to the republican party), "The Republican Spending Explosion", ""The Grand Old Spending Party: How Republicans Became Big Spenders,", it really sounds like they're just RUSHING to support bush over ANYONE ELSE! :laugh:

GG, i own your soul still. Care to stick around and let me own you more?

Just go back to P&N where you and your cronies can get back to the "Everything is Bush's Fault" circlejerk. There's a reason you trolls got your own padded cell, stay there.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052
Her nomination is not in conflict with Hamilton's writings in the Federalist Papers (IMO) or precident (this has been repeatedly pointed out to you).

BTW: before you go wraping youself up in the holy robes of the Federalist Papers and run around screaming about the huge injustice being done you should know a little more about the papers and their writers.

Her judgeship experience or lacktherof is not what i was getting at with the federalist papers. Try again.

I don't see you compaining about that vile John Adams who appointed his SecState to the Supreme Court.

Two wrongs make a right :disgust:, read what hamilton had to say about cronyism and presidential appointments in the federalist papers:

Tell me who Adams appointed.
Go ahead, its ok.

Waiting....

Unless it was Hamilton (which it's not), you really don't have any sort of argument.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus


I win, you lose. BOW DOWN TO ME AMUSED.

Like i said, you're a sham libertarian. Go back to worshiping bush, you hack.

My gawd, you really are deluded. :roll:

Funny how you talked about handing my ass to me. Like my new sig amused? Bow down before me, i own your soul.

One editoral does not make a consensus. Really, Phokus. You need to realize that some people can think critically for themselves.

Why yes, look at all the positive articles on Kerry at Cato:

http://search.cato.org/query.html?col=allcato&qc=allcato&pw=100%25&rf=0&qt=kerry

Awwwwwww what happened amused? Where's that tough guy attitude? Aren't you handing my ass to me? Or it looks like you're sticking around to do some damage control.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/bandow-040420.html

Yeah, with articles such as "Bush's Overspending Problem", "Bush?s Bigger, Fatter Welfare State", "The Bush Betrayal", "Budget Busting Bushies: Overspending is not fiscal responsibility.", "A History of Broken Promises" (in reference to the republican party), "The Republican Spending Explosion", ""The Grand Old Spending Party: How Republicans Became Big Spenders,", it really sounds like they're just RUSHING to support bush over ANYONE ELSE! :laugh:

GG, i own your soul still. Care to stick around and let me own you more?

Again, you miss the boat. I never said the consensus at Cato particularly liked Bush. Only that when picking the less of two evils, they, by and large, would pick Bush over Kerry.

As with any libertarian, they disagree with the right ring about as often as they do with the left wing.

However, given Kerry's support for socialized medicine and anti-corporate stance, Bush would edge him out among the folks at Cato. That much is sure.

Nor have I ever said I liked Bush much. Only that he was the lessor of two evils compared to Kerry.

Grow up, Phokus. Learn how to think for yourself.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus


I win, you lose. BOW DOWN TO ME AMUSED.

Like i said, you're a sham libertarian. Go back to worshiping bush, you hack.

My gawd, you really are deluded. :roll:

Funny how you talked about handing my ass to me. Like my new sig amused? Bow down before me, i own your soul.

One editoral does not make a consensus. Really, Phokus. You need to realize that some people can think critically for themselves.

Why yes, look at all the positive articles on Kerry at Cato:

http://search.cato.org/query.html?col=allcato&qc=allcato&pw=100%25&rf=0&qt=kerry

Awwwwwww what happened amused? Where's that tough guy attitude? Aren't you handing my ass to me? Or it looks like you're sticking around to do some damage control.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/bandow-040420.html

Yeah, with articles such as "Bush's Overspending Problem", "Bush?s Bigger, Fatter Welfare State", "The Bush Betrayal", "Budget Busting Bushies: Overspending is not fiscal responsibility.", "A History of Broken Promises" (in reference to the republican party), "The Republican Spending Explosion", ""The Grand Old Spending Party: How Republicans Became Big Spenders,", it really sounds like they're just RUSHING to support bush over ANYONE ELSE! :laugh:

GG, i own your soul still. Care to stick around and let me own you more?

Again, you miss the boat. I never said the consensus at Cato particularly liked Bush. Only that when picking the less of two evils, they, by and large, would pick Bush over Kerry.

As with any libertarian, they disagree with the right ring about as often as they do with the left wing.

However, given Kerry's support for socialized medicine and anti-corporate stance, Bush would edge him out among the folks at Cato. That much is sure.

Nor have I ever said I liked Bush much. Only that he was the lessor of two evils compared to Kerry.

Grow up, Phokus. Learn how to think for yourself.

Look at the titles of the Kerry articles in your search verses the ones in i just threw out at you.

"Kerry Has No Social Security Plan" Vs. "The Bush Betrayal"

"Kerry vs. Health Care" Vs. "Bush?s Bigger, Fatter Welfare State"

"How Would You Fix Social Security, Senator Kerry?" vs. ""A History of Broken Promises"

BOY, IT SURE SOUNDS LIKE CATO IS BEING AS ROUGH WITH KERRY AS THEY ARE WITH BUSH!

GG, i own your soul, thanks for that link, because it further proves my point. GG.

P.S. You're still a fraudulent libertarian. Most libertarians i know either voted Badnarik or Kerry. Again, GG fraud.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052
Her nomination is not in conflict with Hamilton's writings in the Federalist Papers (IMO) or precident (this has been repeatedly pointed out to you).

BTW: before you go wraping youself up in the holy robes of the Federalist Papers and run around screaming about the huge injustice being done you should know a little more about the papers and their writers.

Her judgeship experience or lacktherof is not what i was getting at with the federalist papers. Try again.

I don't see you compaining about that vile John Adams who appointed his SecState to the Supreme Court.

Two wrongs make a right :disgust:, read what hamilton had to say about cronyism and presidential appointments in the federalist papers:

Tell me who Adams appointed.
Go ahead, its ok.

Waiting....

Unless it was Hamilton (which it's not), you really don't have any sort of argument.

Bull and you know it.

Also, Hamilton was appointed as the first SecTreas by his old friend and commander George Washington.

People in politics commonly draw from those around them and have since the founding of this nation.