Messianism: Not just for Obamaphiles anymore!

[kevon67 2,368]

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Mind your own business Mr. Internet Tough Guy. 

Salty called me a hypocrite for no reason.  Although I probably should, I don't feel obligated to simply turn the other cheek and take it without comment.  It's a weakness of mine.   

People who make such charges without evidence to back them up are weasels. 

Lol how does that make me an "Internet Tough Guy"?

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

@GiveEmElle when hot bed issues are on the horizon of the court, sure, you can have a general idea of which way particular justices will vote (but not all). However, the reality is that on a typical day, the Supreme Court is interpreting the equivalent of a federal IRS regulation, buried deep in the code, that few people even know exists. 

Well I wasn’t addressing the typical day. 

I’m addressing gay rights and voter rights, two issues recently decided by SCOTUS. 

And did I miss your answer to why McConnell would block Obama’s SCOTUS pick if it would have no impact? 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 hours ago, kevon67 said:

You and that weasel s***......lucky you can hide behind a monitor........you say that s*** in person someone is going to slap the frost off your pumpkin.

Me if I ever see him.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 hours ago, kevon67 said:

Lol how does that make me an "Internet Tough Guy"?

And homie of all people says "mind your own business." Hypocrite to the core.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

11 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Don’t be. Homer has been missing his meds and naps. On top of that, can’t stand Trump being his president and getting owned by a little law student every day.

I thought slavery had been abolished.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

35 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

What matters is voter rights are being suppressed to favor Republicans. 

https://usat.ly/2sXnE4I

I give up. You’re just pulling my chain now. 

Ready for football?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

28 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Well I wasn’t addressing the typical day. 

I’m addressing gay rights and voter rights, two issues recently decided by SCOTUS. 

And did I miss your answer to why McConnell would block Obama’s SCOTUS pick if it would have no impact? 

Make your mind up. First, you were talking about abortion. Now it’s about two other cases, both of which you haven’t read. The cake case was literally one of narrowest opinions I’ve ever read in my life. It was a 7-2 decision. Do you not understand that the case was not a “swing vote” determination? Come on Elle. 

When did I say it would have no impact? I’ve said the opposite. However, the SCOTUS is not a political arena by any means, if commonality of decisions means anything. One of the reasons hot-bed issue cases make the news is becuase they are so rare. Please go look at the SCOTUS docket right now. I promise you will fall asleep.

Lastly, everyone thought the cake case would be a “close” case, which it was not. Idk why you’re trying to use it to advance your assertions. That case, and particularly the way you’re trying to use it, underscores the notion that the general public is unfamiliar with the operation of the court. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Mind your own business Mr. Internet Tough Guy. 

Salty called me a hypocrite for no reason.  Although I probably should, I don't feel obligated to simply turn the other cheek and take it without comment.  It's a weakness of mine.   

People who make such charges without evidence to back them up are weasels. 

[SaltyTiger 7,825]

5 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

It’s taking away the right to vote from people if they fail to vote in an election. That is voter suppression. I work within the electoral process so I’m speaking from that experience. 

I thought you volunteered to pass out " I voted " stickers at the local voting precinct on election day. Is that the experience you are talking about Elle? 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

8 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

It’s taking away the right to vote from people if they fail to vote in an election. That is voter suppression. I work within the electoral process so I’m speaking from that experience. 

Yep heaven forbid if they took old Al Capone off the list in Chicago along with all the other dead people.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I give up. You’re just pulling my chain now. 

Ready for football?

I’m never NOT READY for football. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

35 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Yep heaven forbid if they took old Al Capone off the list in Chicago along with all the other dead people.

That is complete BS. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

3 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

I thought you volunteered to pass out " I voted " stickers at the local voting precinct on election day. Is that the experience you are talking about Elle? 

As a matter of fact I do pass out “I voted” stickers. A voter in the state of Alabama actually sent a complaint in to the SOS about not being handed a sticker ? and our probate judge stresses handing every voter a sticker. I also monitor the voting machine and handle any problems that arise with it. I train before every election and am paid to work there. Anything else, smart ass?

[augolf1716 21,235]

19 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

I am offended. 

The weasel should be.......j/k salty I say with peace and love...............aka Chris Childers

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

7 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Make your mind up. First, you were talking about abortion. Now it’s about two other cases, both of which you haven’t read. The cake case was literally one of narrowest opinions I’ve ever read in my life. It was a 7-2 decision. Do you not understand that the case was not a “swing vote” determination? Come on Elle. 

When did I say it would have no impact? I’ve said the opposite. However, the SCOTUS is not a political arena by any means, if commonality of decisions means anything. One of the reasons hot-bed issue cases make the news is becuase they are so rare. Please go look at the SCOTUS docket right now. I promise you will fall asleep.

Lastly, everyone thought the cake case would be a “close” case, which it was not. Idk why you’re trying to use it to advance your assertions. That case, and particularly the way you’re trying to use it, underscores the notion that the general public is unfamiliar with the operation of the court. 

Seriously, one judge isn't going to change the outcome from 7-2 in favor of the baker into a 5-4 in favor of the gay couple. There's no logic to conclude that taking Gorsuch off the bench and putting Garland on it that the cake case would have changed that dramatically. 

The justices decision was based on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violating the baker's rights and that they showed hostility towards religion:

Quote

The case's outcome hinged on the actions of the Colorado commission. In one exchange at a 2014 hearing cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that "freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust."

Openly antagonistic

Kennedy noted that the commission had ruled the opposite way in three cases brought against bakers in which the business owners refused to bake cakes containing messages that demeaned gay people or same-sex marriage.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

8 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Make your mind up. First, you were talking about abortion. Now it’s about two other cases, both of which you haven’t read. The cake case was literally one of narrowest opinions I’ve ever read in my life. It was a 7-2 decision. Do you not understand that the case was not a “swing vote” determination? Come on Elle. 

When did I say it would have no impact? I’ve said the opposite. However, the SCOTUS is not a political arena by any means, if commonality of decisions means anything. One of the reasons hot-bed issue cases make the news is becuase they are so rare. Please go look at the SCOTUS docket right now. I promise you will fall asleep.

Lastly, everyone thought the cake case would be a “close” case, which it was not. Idk why you’re trying to use it to advance your assertions. That case, and particularly the way you’re trying to use it, underscores the notion that the general public is unfamiliar with the operation of the court. 

Your deflections are the reason I jumped from abortion to SCOTUS decisions. And yes I haven’t read the cake case in its entirety but I’m able to see the effects this decision is having on gay rights. Since that decision a hardware store owner has placed a “No Gays Allowed” sign in his store and a landlord is refusing to rent to homosexuals. This is discrimination. 

Wheter you agree or not SCOTUS is a political arena. Franklin Graham promoted Trump just for the SCOTUS seat. Religious leaders elevated Trump to messianic level for this seat. McConnell blocked for this seat. That’s about as political as you can get

[AUFAN78 3,916]

13 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Your deflections are the reason I jumped from abortion to SCOTUS decisions. And yes I haven’t read the cake case in its entirety but I’m able to see the effects this decision is having on gay rights. Since that decision a hardware store owner has placed a “No Gays Allowed” sign in his store and a landlord is refusing to rent to homosexuals. This is discrimination. 

Wheter you agree or not SCOTUS is a political arena. Franklin Graham promoted Trump just for the SCOTUS seat. Religious leaders elevated Trump to messianic level for this seat. McConnell blocked for this seat. That’s about as political as you can get

I think she just called you a wheter. Depends?

[augolf1716 21,235]

11 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I think she just called you a wheter. Depends?

Damn that's lower then whale crap on the bottom of the ocean. Just crap

[SaltyTiger 7,825]

3 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Anything else, smart ass?

Yes there is Elle. How many husbands did you notice forcing the wife to vote Trump in the last presidential election? I heard that sorta thing was running rampant.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

That is complete BS. 

If you say so I have to agree since you are the expert when it comes to BS.

[Mims44 1,882]

3 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Your deflections are the reason I jumped from abortion to SCOTUS decisions. And yes I haven’t read the cake case in its entirety but I’m able to see the effects this decision is having on gay rights. Since that decision a hardware store owner has placed a “No Gays Allowed” sign in his store and a landlord is refusing to rent to homosexuals. This is discrimination. 

Wheter you agree or not SCOTUS is a political arena. Franklin Graham promoted Trump just for the SCOTUS seat. Religious leaders elevated Trump to messianic level for this seat. McConnell blocked for this seat. That’s about as political as you can get

Just because it's only now popping up on your FB feed doesn't mean this stuff wasn't happening constantly before.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Your deflections are the reason I jumped from abortion to SCOTUS decisions. And yes I haven’t read the cake case in its entirety but I’m able to see the effects this decision is having on gay rights. Since that decision a hardware store owner has placed a “No Gays Allowed” sign in his store and a landlord is refusing to rent to homosexuals. This is discrimination. 

Wheter you agree or not SCOTUS is a political arena. Franklin Graham promoted Trump just for the SCOTUS seat. Religious leaders elevated Trump to messianic level for this seat. McConnell blocked for this seat. That’s about as political as you can get

If someone honestly thinks that case means they can LAWFULLY put signs in their window reading “no gays allowed,” then they are fooled. This is another reason people should inform themselves. 

I know its not a political arena becuase I’ve read the Constitution as well as The Federalist Papers. Furthermore, the case you’re trying to use to advance your point was a 7-2 decision... it wasn’t based on any singular bend and hence, Obama’s SCOTUS pick wouldn’t have changed the outcome. 

Have you ever read the concerns of Adams or Hamilton concerning the province of the court? Trust me, if SCOTUS was truly a political arena, our government would fall apart. There are cases that are political talking points and one can make a reasonable guess as to how a Justice will vote (and sometimes Justices surprise us with their votes). But I maintain that justices on the Supreme Court are first and foremost yoked to the Constitution and Rule of Law, not a political party. It’s not even close. 

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

If someone honestly thinks that case means they can LAWFULLY put signs in their window reading “no gays allowed,” then they are fooled. This is another reason people should inform themselves. 

Welcome to Trump’s America, where immigrants are rapist and thugs, black athletes are sons of bitches and white supremacists are very fine people. 

You’re catching on grasshopper! ?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said:

Welcome to Trump’s America, where immigrants are rapist and thugs, black athletes are sons of bitches and white supremacists are very fine people. 

You’re catching on grasshopper! ?

Are you that desperate to dissect a portion of what I said and manipulate it? 

Ok I’ll take the bait. Yes, some ILLEGAL immigrants (which is what he actually said) are rapists and thugs. I can’t recall him saying “black athletes are SOBs and white supremacists are very fine people.” I think he called the NFL players who kneel SOBs, and some white players kneeled, therefore it’s error to even make the tenuous argument that he called black athletes SOBs.

I don’t blame you for trying to abdicate the initial route you were on in this convo. I know I’m young and should never “be right” in an argument against an elder, but dang, next time just tip your hat instead of treading water.

You’re good though. AuFam Elle

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Your deflections are the reason I jumped from abortion to SCOTUS decisions. 

I didn’t deflect. You erroneously criticized Republicans for not trying to overturn Roe v Wade. Thus, that logically warranted a teaching lesson on proper province of respective roles of government, I.e, including the judiciary.