Thread: BORK HER !!!

Originally Posted by Hawkeye5

No change in the balance of the court if everything comes out as expected.

Barring the unforeseen, it is hard to see Obama being able to change the balance of the court, even if he is in office for two terms, unless Kennedy up and leaves.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

claiming I'm angry?
hmm... sounds familiar..........where have I heard that before.....

Oh yes
I predicted as much several posts ago!



Check and mate.
You sir have just lost.

Originally Posted by igitur55

You, sir, fight like a little girl, and I will not debate you until you calm down.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye5

Let us all calm down.

One's tone can mean a lot in this forum. In my mind here, there are no winners and losers just pot stirrers and those who rise to the bait of said stirrers.

And those who take the high road.

Clever language or not, baiting and rising to the bait are ungentlemanly in my opinion. They derail and demean the art of true debate.

-Rob

GWH... I dont agree with the bulk of what you say most of the time.

But dont ever stop being you

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

don't be sorry
this is how the Left operates

see the poll option concerning racists?

accusations accusations
Let's keep it clean there you Igit


see the concept is to pick a poorly qualified woman, from a group of poorly qualified women
then you say " Hey, how come only women?"

then they accuse you of being sexist

this is their means of setting up a straw man, and you can't argue a point because you are too busy arguing about not being sexist
pretty slick huh?

now everyone shuffles away from you as fast as they can because they don't want to be seen with a sexist

naturally you are angry at having your words twisted and having words put in your mouth

so then they call you angry
" Oh, look at how angry he is! He HATES women and anyone who would disagree with him!"

see the poll option concerning racists ???
this is their game, but it's only a game
DON"T LET THEM BACK YOU DOWN
You didn't insult anyone, he insulted you by implying you are a bigot.
DON'T LET THEM BACK YOU DOWN !!

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

GWH... But dont ever stop being you

I don't think there is any risk of that.

Originally Posted by sicboater

And those who take the high road.
-Rob

I don't think that anyone in this particular thread would claim to be engaging in the great art of debate. I would think of it more like linguistic WWF. It may not be pretty, but as long as no one gets hurt, I don't see the harm.

Originally Posted by sicboater

Clever language or not, baiting and rising to the bait are ungentlemanly in my opinion. They derail and demean the art of true debate.
-Rob

The is no debate sir, not when people insist on making accusations instead of philosophical points.
You can not debate against lies, not can you refute "The Chewbacca Defense" because there is no logic to argue against.

I did not bait, I predicted.

Originally Posted by sicboater

And those who take the high road.

We are all in the same boat sir.

Those who would think themselves above the fray are still directly affected and would do well to take a side.

There is nothing to be found in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead opossums.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

The is no debate sir, not when people insist on making accusations instead of philosophical points.

I did not bait, I predicted.


We are all in the same boat sir.

Those who would think themselves above the fray are still directly affected and would do well to take a side.

There is nothing to be found in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead opossums.

You see? GWH is back on his feet, and swinging wildly. The crowd roars!

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

The is no debate sir, not when people insist on making accusations instead of philosophical points.
Exactly.

I did not bait, I predicted.
To what end did you feel it warrented pointing out? I believe your tone is one of baiting. I am sorry if that is incorrect, just how it appears.

We are all in the same boat sir.
Obviously.

Those who would think themselves above the fray are still directly affected and would do well to take a side.
A side in what? You've explained there is no debate. I have a side on the issue and choose not to share it here.

There is nothing to be found in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead opossums.
There is more than the right, the left, and the middle of said road.

I will desist in hi-jacking this thread further. You all seem to be enjoying it I see no need to derail that fun.
I will continue this conversation via PM with anyone interested.
-Rob

She's a shoo-in. And as a premier situational ethicist will have great sport in molding law to fit her current feelings about the the Constitution, that great, flexible, living document which obviously wasn't sufficiently framed by our foremothers.

Originally Posted by Bruce

She's a shoo-in. And as a premier situational ethicist will have great sport in molding law to fit her current feelings about the the Constitution, that great, flexible, living document which obviously wasn't sufficiently framed by our foremothers.

No worries there, Bruce, I don't see her penning too many majority opinions.