Main Restorations Software Audio/Jukebox/MP3 Everything Else Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements Monitor/Video GroovyMAME Merit/JVL Touchscreen Meet Up Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing Woodworking Software Support Forums Consoles Project Arcade Reviews
Automated Projects Artwork Frontend Support Forums Pinball Forum Discussion Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board controls.dat Linux Miscellaneous Arcade Wiki Discussion Old Archives
Lightguns Arcade1Up Try the site in https mode Site News

Unread posts | New Replies | Recent posts | Rules | Chatroom | Wiki | File Repository | RSS | Submit news

  

Author Topic: Bush's supreme court nominees  (Read 10092 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Stingray

  • Official Slacker - I promise to try a lot less
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10463
  • Last login:April 08, 2021, 03:43:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2005, 12:22:15 pm »
  (Not Safe For Work/Kids - Swearing/Audio)

...there's a bit about the Supreme Court in there too.
mrC

That video would be much better if the hot french chick were in it.

-S
Stingray you magnificent bastard!
This place is dead lately.  Stingray scare everyone off?

Tiger-Heli

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5447
  • Last login:January 03, 2018, 02:19:23 pm
  • Ron Howard? . . . er, I mean . . . Run, Coward!!!
    • Tiger-Heli
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #41 on: October 05, 2005, 02:24:26 pm »
Do Orion slave girls qualify for the supreme court? If so I say we fill the whole bench with 'em.
-S
Probably at least as much as the latest nominee, from what I'm hearing . . .
It's not what you take when you leave this world behind you, it's what you leave behind you when you go. - R. Travis.
When all is said and done, generally much more is SAID than DONE.

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10397
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #42 on: October 05, 2005, 02:26:47 pm »

I'm still interested to know why shmokes is pissed off that a white woman was nominated.

You're not serious...

Sure I am.

Well, I'm not.  Look at the post directly above my post about being pissed. 
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38211
  • Last login:October 19, 2022, 12:01:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #43 on: October 05, 2005, 02:30:44 pm »
Quote
I'm surprised that no one has complained that she is white.
Quote
What pisses me off is that she's white.

That is the direct order of the comments.

Stingray

  • Official Slacker - I promise to try a lot less
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10463
  • Last login:April 08, 2021, 03:43:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #44 on: October 05, 2005, 02:32:48 pm »
Jessica Simpson has a lot of free time on her hands. Lets paint her green and get her name in the hat.

-S
Stingray you magnificent bastard!
This place is dead lately.  Stingray scare everyone off?

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10397
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #45 on: October 05, 2005, 02:41:42 pm »
Exactly....I said it for your benefit.  I was joking.  I'm sorry that nobody is giving you an opportunity to use all the arguments you've pre-readied for the, "Shouldn't a black person be replaced with another black person?" argument.
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

PetitMorte

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 332
  • Last login:December 11, 2015, 10:03:43 am
  • . . . - - - . . .
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #46 on: October 05, 2005, 02:43:50 pm »
Did you see, they did a Harriet Miers look-alike contest over on Wonkette?



Senator Palpatine won.
Bitten by the cabinet bug... obsessing ever since.

Stingray

  • Official Slacker - I promise to try a lot less
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10463
  • Last login:April 08, 2021, 03:43:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #47 on: October 05, 2005, 02:52:29 pm »
She looks more like Dr. Pulaski to me.



Oh and I hate you for making me post a picture of Dr. Pulaski. ;)

-S
Stingray you magnificent bastard!
This place is dead lately.  Stingray scare everyone off?

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38211
  • Last login:October 19, 2022, 12:01:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #48 on: October 05, 2005, 06:32:13 pm »
Exactly....I said it for your benefit.

Stingray

  • Official Slacker - I promise to try a lot less
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10463
  • Last login:April 08, 2021, 03:43:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #49 on: October 06, 2005, 10:23:05 am »
There are valid points for most points of view on this.

Not mine. My point of view is unbelievably silly.

-S
Stingray you magnificent bastard!
This place is dead lately.  Stingray scare everyone off?

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9740
  • Last login:May 15, 2021, 05:31:18 pm
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #50 on: October 06, 2005, 08:50:36 pm »
There are valid points for most points of view on this.

Not mine. My point of view is unbelievably silly.

-S

I agree, thereby making your point of view valid, and somehow turning your argument against itself.  And stop flipping that light switch. >:(
You’re always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadn’t

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10397
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #51 on: October 06, 2005, 10:25:35 pm »
Exactly....I said it for your benefit.  I was joking.  I'm sorry that nobody is giving you an opportunity to use all the arguments you've pre-readied for the, "Shouldn't a black person be replaced with another black person?" argument.

You can stop trying to express how much smarter you are than everyone else.  I actually wanted to hear what you had to say.  There are valid points for most points of view on this.

Sorry if I jumped to conclusions.  You struck me as jabbing the hornet's nest with a stick.  I don't mean to be an ---uvula---.
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38211
  • Last login:October 19, 2022, 12:01:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #52 on: October 07, 2005, 08:55:50 am »

Fair enough.  I'm actually surprised that it's not a hispanic woman, myself.  I don't particularly care about the issue, but with the explosion in hispanic population in the US, there is a valid argument that a hispanic person should be on the Supreme Court.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3833
  • Last login:October 11, 2021, 07:15:49 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #53 on: October 08, 2005, 01:55:08 am »
Apparently, we need more idiots on the Supreme Court, you know...to represent all the rest of us idiots out here in America. Or that's what is sounds like when this Republican senator defends Miers as the choice. You decide.

"If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole," Mr. Coats said in a CNN interview."



mrC
« Last Edit: October 10, 2005, 10:26:21 am by mr.Curmudgeon »

Stingray

  • Official Slacker - I promise to try a lot less
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10463
  • Last login:April 08, 2021, 03:43:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #54 on: October 10, 2005, 10:10:28 am »
Americans are stupid. We don't need us no smart people makin' all the rules.

-S
Stingray you magnificent bastard!
This place is dead lately.  Stingray scare everyone off?

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3453
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #55 on: October 10, 2005, 05:16:57 pm »
Less than half of Americans are stupid.

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38211
  • Last login:October 19, 2022, 12:01:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #56 on: October 10, 2005, 06:52:17 pm »

Depends on your standards.  Most of the people I encounter are stupid.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3833
  • Last login:October 11, 2021, 07:15:49 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #57 on: October 10, 2005, 11:39:17 pm »
Less than half of Americans are stupid.

We call them Bush voters. GORE WON!!!!      bwaaaaahahahahah!

Dexter

  • Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. -- Irish, darnit!
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 975
  • Last login:February 01, 2024, 04:36:19 pm
  • "MAKE POVERTY HISTORY......."
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #58 on: October 11, 2005, 06:05:15 am »
Getting her stance on abortion should be a priority. The bush regieme could be stacking the bench to get Roe vs Wade overturned.

Any thoughts people??

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38211
  • Last login:October 19, 2022, 12:01:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #59 on: October 11, 2005, 07:42:05 am »

Overturning Roe V Wade isn't nearly as important as the media would have you think.  It's not like it would legalize or make abortion illegal across the board.  All it would do is return that decision to the individual states, yes?

Havok

  • Keeper of the __Blue_Stars___
  • Trade Count: (+17)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4523
  • Last login:June 12, 2024, 11:16:26 pm
  • Insufficient facts always invite danger.
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #60 on: October 11, 2005, 08:12:15 am »
She looks more like Dr. Pulaski to me.



Oh and I hate you for making me post a picture of Dr. Pulaski. ;)

-S

Yeah! Cheesecake!

Errr.... no, not cheesecake...

Beverly Crusher is better looking...

Daniel270

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 753
  • Last login:April 10, 2011, 12:34:14 pm
  • Older Than PONG!!!
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #61 on: October 11, 2005, 08:24:36 am »
She looks more like Dr. Pulaski to me.



Oh and I hate you for making me post a picture of Dr. Pulaski. ;)

-S

Yeah! Cheesecake!

Errr.... no, not cheesecake...

Beverly Crusher is better looking...


"Human Females are so repulsive....."

I Haven't Lost My Mind, It's Backed Up On Disk Somewhere.

Havok

  • Keeper of the __Blue_Stars___
  • Trade Count: (+17)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4523
  • Last login:June 12, 2024, 11:16:26 pm
  • Insufficient facts always invite danger.
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #62 on: October 11, 2005, 08:43:59 am »
Klingon chicks have great racks...

Stingray

  • Official Slacker - I promise to try a lot less
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10463
  • Last login:April 08, 2021, 03:43:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #63 on: October 11, 2005, 09:33:11 am »
Klingon chicks have great racks...

But terrible teeth.

-S
Stingray you magnificent bastard!
This place is dead lately.  Stingray scare everyone off?

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38211
  • Last login:October 19, 2022, 12:01:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #64 on: October 11, 2005, 09:40:41 am »

3 million years into deep space, she'd look like the most succulent cheesecake available.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3833
  • Last login:October 11, 2021, 07:15:49 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #65 on: October 11, 2005, 12:11:32 pm »
All it would do is return that decision to the individual states, yes?

That is my understanding. That, and it would be the final nail in the coffin of the GOP. Their viability as a party would be nil. Seriously. Overturning Roe is about the stupidest thing they could do, next to starting a war on false pretenses, and/or outing a CIA agent.

I actually kinda' hope they do it. Their base needs to be exposed for the extremists they are. If they held the 'majority' view, like they imply...why is it they have to hide their views on abortion to get nominated/appointed for anything? Pro-Choice candidates don't hide their views.

Even Bush won't come and say he'd want to overturn Roe. Why is that?


mrC

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38211
  • Last login:October 19, 2022, 12:01:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #66 on: October 11, 2005, 12:20:05 pm »

Probably because the guy can't even say he needs to use the toilet without people using it to criticize him.

"Well, that bastard, people are dying and he wants to take a leak."

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3833
  • Last login:October 11, 2021, 07:15:49 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #67 on: October 11, 2005, 12:26:07 pm »
Probably because the guy can't even say he needs to use the toilet without people using it to criticize him.

He really does make it too easy.

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38211
  • Last login:October 19, 2022, 12:01:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #68 on: October 11, 2005, 12:27:45 pm »

Of course, while everyone is running around saying "why does he need to ask Condi to use the john", they're not making valid criticisms about things that matter.

Stingray

  • Official Slacker - I promise to try a lot less
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10463
  • Last login:April 08, 2021, 03:43:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #69 on: October 11, 2005, 12:29:53 pm »

Even Bush won't come and say he'd want to overturn Roe. Why is that?




I suppose that it could mean that he isn't as stupid as he seems. He'd have to be at least a little smarter than he seems. Right? Okay, maybe not.

-S
Stingray you magnificent bastard!
This place is dead lately.  Stingray scare everyone off?

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3453
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #70 on: October 11, 2005, 12:35:25 pm »

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38211
  • Last login:October 19, 2022, 12:01:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #71 on: October 11, 2005, 12:37:11 pm »

Government:  The New Xtreme Sport

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3833
  • Last login:October 11, 2021, 07:15:49 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #72 on: October 11, 2005, 12:48:18 pm »

Of course, while everyone is running around saying "why does he need to ask Condi to use the john", they're not making valid criticisms about things that matter.

Again, "One-Track Chad"...people HAVE been making valid criticisms of "things that matter", myself included. But I also make fun of Bush because he's a blathering idiot. You agree with this, but at the same time you keep getting hung up on the part where people make fun of him. You have this sad, almost sociopathic need to always defend the most vile characters (Foley, Bush, etc) for really no reason other than being argumentative. You focus too much on the personal criticisms (as if they are actually directed at *you*)...and completely avoid the ACTUAL criticisms when they do appear. In fact, it's like this weird, parallel-universe-like, blatant violation of your own idiosyncratic criticism in the first place.

Get over it. People can do BOTH at the same time (criticize policy, and criticize the idiot making them) So, stop defending him, even as you claim you don't like him.

mrC

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38211
  • Last login:October 19, 2022, 12:01:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #73 on: October 11, 2005, 12:59:29 pm »

Yep, one track criticism of a behaviour that is not useful.  Criticism and attack without suggestion for improvement or positive action is simply negative hot air and only makes the situation worse, highlighting the fact that the complainer needs to bring everyone else down in order to elevate themself in some manner.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3833
  • Last login:October 11, 2021, 07:15:49 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #74 on: October 11, 2005, 01:17:43 pm »
You thought going to war in Iraq exposed them for the extremists they are.  You thought that not finding WsMD was proof that they were extremists.

You seem to think that's over. Bush's approval rating is at 30%...the VAST majority of Americans disapprove of the War in Iraq. So how am I wrong?

Oh, furthermore....One word. Plame.

Keep defending the traitors. Can't wait for indictments. What will you say then?

mrC

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3833
  • Last login:October 11, 2021, 07:15:49 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #75 on: October 11, 2005, 01:19:30 pm »
Yep, one track criticism of a behaviour that is not useful.  Criticism and attack without suggestion for improvement or positive action is simply negative hot air and only makes the situation worse, highlighting the fact that the complainer needs to bring everyone else down in order to elevate themself in some manner.

What exactly are you talking about? Which issue? Why are you so vague? Could it be that you have no point...Come on Chad...SOLUUUUUTIONS!!!




mrC

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38211
  • Last login:October 19, 2022, 12:01:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #76 on: October 11, 2005, 01:27:13 pm »

Solution:

Don't criticize when you don't have a solution or a better way. 

We all know Bush sucks.  We all know the country has gone to crap in the last few years, faster than at any time in the last 50.  Constantly criticizing stupid things only creates useless noise, making it that much harder for constructive ideas to get through.

Doing things like constantly posting bashing posts where there isn't even any possible positive output cannot have any positive outcome.

Keep the signal to noise ratio positive so the useful commentary isn't drowned out by the garbage.

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3833
  • Last login:October 11, 2021, 07:15:49 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #77 on: October 11, 2005, 01:43:39 pm »
Keep the signal to noise ratio positive so the useful commentary isn't drowned out by the garbage.

You do realize that this is *you*, ChadTower, saying this, right? You aren't known around these parts for being Mister Chipper Care Bear. Just saying.

Furthermore, you started the whole "negative criticism" derail...I simply asked a question, "Even Bush won't come and say he'd want to overturn Roe. Why is that?"

And you answered with an inanity about people criticizing him for using the bathroom. I think there is a valid reason he won't admit to wanting to overturn Roe (if he truly does want to)...and it isn't related to your answer.

mrC
« Last Edit: October 11, 2005, 01:45:57 pm by mr.Curmudgeon »

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38211
  • Last login:October 19, 2022, 12:01:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #78 on: October 11, 2005, 01:47:39 pm »

I agree with that.  I am not specifically pointing a finger at you, either.  I am simply tired of watching people run around yelling "bush bad bush bad bush bad weeeeeeeeeee", knowing full well that given the chance, 95% of those people couldn't solve their way out of a wet paper bag.

I speak out about a lot of crap, but I also go well out of my way to post positive potential improvements, at least as I see them, to a lot of things.

Plus, I'm funny.   :angel:

Stingray

  • Official Slacker - I promise to try a lot less
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10463
  • Last login:April 08, 2021, 03:43:54 pm
Re: Bush's supreme court nominees
« Reply #79 on: October 11, 2005, 01:54:43 pm »
Bush bad.

-S

PS: Wheeee!
Stingray you magnificent bastard!
This place is dead lately.  Stingray scare everyone off?