Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

Just Remember.....


Recommended Posts

  • Platinum Contributing Member
3 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Wrong question :bc:  Why did Neil sign on with Clarence to hear another campaign finance case?  

 

 

1 minute ago, SnowRider said:

Any R campaign fimamce reform legislation limiting money in politics?  Any D's filibustering campaign finance legislation limiting money in politics?  

 

:snack:

 

:lol: 

 

Dumbski:kissmyass:Repugs 

 

1 minute ago, Skidooski said:

How much did Hillary raise before she lost?

Looking forward to your exsmples :snack:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, SnowRider said:

 

 

Looking forward to your exsmples :snack:

Great...just wait right there   :lol: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keep waiting :lmao: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
12 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Dumbski has been :owned::bc: 

 

Dumbski :groin: SnowRider

You're the idiot who think the Dems actually want to remove the money from politics while just recently supporting a campaign that raised record levels of cash and still lost. And how much did Obama raise before that because we know you supported him as well?

How much did/do the Clinton's get per speech? How much is Obama getting now while being shuffled around making speeches? They love the $$$ 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorsuch joined Justice Clarence Thomas in an unwritten dissent. That means Gorsuch and Thomas wanted the court to hear the case, and likely wanted to vote to overturn yet another limit on big money in politics.

seriously?

the article is based on this premise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, oleroule said:

Gorsuch joined Justice Clarence Thomas in an unwritten dissent. That means Gorsuch and Thomas wanted the court to hear the case, and likely wanted to vote to overturn yet another limit on big money in politics.

seriously?

the article is based on this premise?

Like there was ever a doubt what a fucking complete Dunning Kruger patient this hack was :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SnowRider said:

Then why the 5-4 split on these issues?  :snack:

Is it your contention that the court has more 5-4 splits and less 9-0 decsions than in the past?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said:

It what happens when you don't have the god given tools to do research into the drivel you hear belching from the radio or the likes of a Sean Hannity.

right cause the lefts always so honest in their dealings, just ask bernie.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
48 minutes ago, SSFB said:

Is it your contention that the court has more 5-4 splits and less 9-0 decsions than in the past?

 

No - it's my contention that many important cases like campaign finance reform, individual rights, environmental issues, etc will now be 5-4 decisions in favor of big business, polluters, fundamentalist Christians, etc....  

But in your opinion - this doesn't matter as both sides are on the same team.  :snack:

Edited by SnowRider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...