Biden To Roberts: 'You're The Best'

[Marcus Bryant]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20050914/i/r2306048005.jpg


Biden To Roberts: 'You're The Best'

Exclusive Drudge sources in the U.S. Senate's Hart Building heard Democrat Sen. Joe Biden say to Judge John G. Roberts in a private conversation on the hearing room floor: 'You're the best I've ever seen before the committee'...

Developing...

Rehnquist dies and Bush replaces him with a 50 year old version who the Demos can't touch. How exactly is Bush so weak in DC?

[Marcus Bryant]

Seriously, if Bush was so damn weak shouldn't the Dems be able to derail Roberts' nomination? They haven't been able to land a glove on him.

Next Bush will nominate Brown to replace O'Connor. Will the Dems find themselves filibustering the nomination of the first African-American female to the Supreme Court? That's going to play well. Time to trot out the Uncle Tom card, I suppose.

[boutons]

"How exactly is Bush so weak in DC?"

I bet Bush didn't know who TF Roberts was until various Repubs put the short list together. Remember, Bush isn't a detail main, nor a lawyer, he's a Big Picture Artist, yeah right. Bush is weak everywhere, above all between his ears, and where his so-called brain connects to his tongue. He's an embarrassment to the US overseas. He's an insult from the Repub to the USA.

Roberts not as bad as Scalia or Thomas. So I don't find it so painful to see this guy get in.

The next nominee will probably a lot worse, the Repub attempt, having gotten some good will with a digestible first pick, to pack the court with a extreme far-right activist idealogue.

[Dos]

as opposed to the dems packing the court with extreme leftist....

[whottt]

I dunno...but it seems like you almost want to see the court go totally conservative...

I don't. I don't want to see Roe V Wade overturned(and no sane politician does, including W)...

I am not going to rip the Dems for playing hardball on the next nominee...checks and balances you know. I don't want a court comprised totally of 50 years old consrervatives...I want a balanced court. I will however rip them if the nature of their attacks is similar to their attacks on the President....IE Demonization.

And Bush is never going to be a lameduck with a Republican controlled congress...the idea is asinine.

[Marcus Bryant]

"How exactly is Bush so weak in DC?"

I bet Bush didn't know who TF Roberts was until various Repubs put the short list together. Remember, Bush isn't a detail main, nor a lawyer, he's a Big Picture Artist, yeah right. Bush is weak everywhere, above all between his ears, and where his so-called brain connects to his tongue. He's an embarrassment to the US overseas. He's an insult from the Repub to the USA.

Yet despite all of that, he replaces the 80+ year old conservative stalwart Chief Justice with a 50 year old one. That's a potentially 3 decades long imprint that Bush is apparently going to get on the federal judiciary. For such an awful "repug", "shrub" certainly has "owned" the Senate Dems.




Roberts not as bad as Scalia or Thomas. So I don't find it so painful to see this guy get in.

Keep telling yourself that. Other than replacing one of the liberal bloc justices with a conservative, replacing Rehnquist as Chief Justice with a 50 year old is the GOP's wet dream.

[Clandestino]

boutons cracks me the fuck.. anything good, he couldn't possibly have come up with... anything bad, no matter how complex or smart you had to be to pull it off, bush did it!!! :lmao

[mookie2001]

i beg to differ clan

[FromWayDowntown]

I dunno...but it seems like you almost want to see the court go totally conservative...

I don't. I don't want to see Roe V Wade overturned(and no sane politician does, including W)...

I am not going to rip the Dems for playing hardball on the next nominee...checks and balances you know. I don't want a court comprised totally of 50 years old consrervatives...I want a balanced court.

And Bush is never going to be a lameduck with a Republican controlled congress...the idea is asinine.

More than Roe is in the balance with the next appointment. Justice O'Connor's legacy as a swing vote derives as much from her positions on Establishment Clause cases, and racial and gender discrimination cases, as it does on her support for Roe (even through a slow erosion). Roe remains the big-ticket item that connects the public to the Court, but the other issues are vitally important to large numbers of people; a change in the composition of the Court could seriously threaten a number of matters that we take for granted.

For instance, Justice O'Connor provided a crucial vote in a gender case in which a party argued that gender-based classifications should be subject only to rational review, rather than so-called intermediate scrutiny. The difference is fairly substantial, since legislative acts that are subject to rational review are presumably constitutional and are unlikely to be struck down, while those that are subject to intermediate scrutiny enjoy no such presumption. In practical effect, subjecting gender-based discrimination to only rational review would allow legislatures to treat men and women very differently in many different ways, based solely on the happenstance of their chromosomes. A more conservative justice might not have the same qualms with that scenario that Justice O'Connor did.

It's but one example, but it paints the picture. The battle over a replacement for O'Connor will be bloody and I don't think the Democrats are going to fret too seriously about fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo, regardless of the identity of the nominee. At this point, the Democrats have some arrows in their political quiver, with an election still 3 years away, with an increasingly unpopular war beginning to look quagmire-ish, with a degradation of individual rights in the crosshairs, and with a lame-duck President in the White House. I actually think the Democrats would take the losses that might result from a filibuster if it meant that the ideological composition of the Court could be roughly maintained.

[boutons]

"could be roughly maintained."

esp if the next nominee is mid 40's to early 50s, looking at 30 - 35 years on the bench.

[jochhejaam]

"How exactly is Bush so weak in DC?"

I bet Bush didn't know who TF Roberts was until various Repubs put the short list together. Remember, Bush isn't a detail main, nor a lawyer, he's a Big Picture Artist, yeah right. Bush is weak everywhere, above all between his ears, and where his so-called brain connects to his tongue. He's an embarrassment to the US overseas. He's an insult from the Repub to the USA. .


Whaaat? Bouts, you called the President "Bush" instead of shrub?
Please don't tell me you've been Hannitized. :lol

[SpursWoman]

Whaaat? Bouts, you called the President "Bush" instead of shrub?
Please don't tell me you've been Hannitized. :lol


dude...shhhhhh! I had to beg for that, please don't fuck it up. :)

[whottt]

More than Roe is in the balance with the next appointment. Justice O'Connor's legacy as a swing vote derives as much from her positions on Establishment Clause cases, and racial and gender discrimination cases, as it does on her support for Roe (even through a slow erosion). Roe remains the big-ticket item that connects the public to the Court, but the other issues are vitally important to large numbers of people; a change in the composition of the Court could seriously threaten a number of matters that we take for granted.

For instance, Justice O'Connor provided a crucial vote in a gender case in which a party argued that gender-based classifications should be subject only to rational review, rather than so-called intermediate scrutiny. The difference is fairly substantial, since legislative acts that are subject to rational review are presumably constitutional and are unlikely to be struck down, while those that are subject to intermediate scrutiny enjoy no such presumption. In practical effect, subjecting gender-based discrimination to only rational review would allow legislatures to treat men and women very differently in many different ways, based solely on the happenstance of their chromosomes. A more conservative justice might not have the same qualms with that scenario that Justice O'Connor did.

It's but one example, but it paints the picture. The battle over a replacement for O'Connor will be bloody and I don't think the Democrats are going to fret too seriously about fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo, regardless of the identity of the nominee. At this point, the Democrats have some arrows in their political quiver, with an election still 3 years away, with an increasingly unpopular war beginning to look quagmire-ish, with a degradation of individual rights in the crosshairs, and with a lame-duck President in the White House. I actually think the Democrats would take the losses that might result from a filibuster if it meant that the ideological composition of the Court could be roughly maintained.


Well I don't know what justice made what decision...and I do support the Democrats trying to maintain the balance of the court...


But the Democrats are not in control of anything...I see the term lame-duck being bandied about inaccurately these days...technically...it's impossible for Bush to be a lame duck...and that's without having the backing of a Republican Congress and 3 years to go into his term.

On top of that...Republicans are actually incrasing their margin over Democratic Candiates for the 2008 Presidency(for those who think polls mean everything)...so while Bush himself may have some low approval ratings...there is nothing to indicate the Democrats are doing anything to regain popularity in this country...


As for the Democratic strategy with regards to the nominees...

The Dems can get away with fillibustering one minority Nominee...but they cannot pull off doing it with two...


What will your strategy be if the first Bush nominee is Alberto Gonzalez?


Then you filibuster the first Hispanic Supreme Court Nominee and the first African American Female?


LOL..Lame Duck indeed...Good luck with that one. I'll remember the Democratic Party fondly...

This doesn't even take into account the probably 3rd Justice Spot Bush is going to have the opportunity to fill when Stephens retires...yes he's become a liberal...but he was a Republican apointee...


Like I say...I am all for maintaining the balance of the court...but it's going to be harder to pull off than you would think with a lame duck president in office...In any case...I think you should trust the Republicans...they've done a better job of appointing moderates or even conservatives who move to the left...than the Democrats have. Pick your battles carefully.

[jochhejaam]

dude...shhhhhh! I had to beg for that, please don't fuck it up. :)

I thought he did it on his own, my bad. :)

[Marcus Bryant]

Something to think about. The ages of the current Supreme Court Justices...

Stevens 85
O'Connor 75
Ginsburg 72
Scalia 69
Kennedy 69
Breyer 67
Souter 66
Thomas 57

Out of the top 3 oldest justices, 2 are members of the liberal bloc of the Court. The other, regarded as a "swing vote" yet one who leans somewhat to the right, has announced her retirement. With 3 years left in Bush's 2nd term, he could very well have another shot at nominating a SC justice and this time, one who could turn a 5-4 split into 6-3, with 5 of those 6 being more ardent conservatives than O'Connor and Kennedy.

[Spurminator]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20050914/i/r2306048005.jpg

"Good game, buddy, good game."

[Vashner]

Sounds like he was kissing up a bit.. Just.. in case... ..

[hussker]

Biden was probably plagiarizing again...

[The Ressurrected One]

I dunno...but it seems like you almost want to see the court go totally conservative...
No, just cancel out Ginsburg.

I don't. I don't want to see Roe V Wade overturned(and no sane politician does, including W)...
Why not? It never should have been a federal issue to begin with.


I am not going to rip the Dems for playing hardball on the next nominee...checks and balances you know. I don't want a court comprised totally of 50 years old consrervatives...I want a balanced court. I will however rip them if the nature of their attacks is similar to their attacks on the President....IE Demonization.
I'd like to see them try and Bork Judge Brown. Now, THAT'S entertainment!

And Bush is never going to be a lameduck with a Republican controlled congress...the idea is asinine.
Nope, he's not.

[whottt]

No, just cancel out Ginsburg.

Whatever needs to be done to maintain a moderate and balanced court.


Why not? It never should have been a federal issue to begin with

Trust me...I keep these views largely to my self on this forum for a reason...get me started talking on this subject and I'll start to sound a whole lot like the Chinese Government. I don't necessarily think abortion should be the #1 form of birth control....but I am definitely among those in favor of taking an pro active stance in how many people the world is producing. You show me a world problem...historically or otherwise...and one way or another it's going to lead back to over-population 99% of the time. This includes terrorism by the way..

[The Ressurrected One]

Whatever needs to be done to maintain a moderate and balanced court.
Define moderate and balanced.


Trust me...I keep these views largely to my self on this forum for a reason...get me started talking on this subject and I'll start to sound a whole lot like the Chinese Government. I am don't necessarily think abortion should be the #1 form of birth control....but I am definitely among those in favor of taking an active role in how many people the world is producing.
You know, I'm comfortable letting God, nature's God, Allah, Mother Nature, whomever or whatever you wish to call it, take the lead on population control.

Who knows, you may be killing the child that would grow to solve such problems... Wouldn't that be a pisser?

[whottt]

Define moderate and balanced.

You know, I'm comfortable letting God, nature's God, Allah, Mother Nature, whomever or whatever you wish to call it, take the lead on population control.

Sure...we have brains...no sense in actually using them....remember that the next time you get life saving surgery or medical aid.


Who knows, you may be killing the child that would grow to solve such problems

The solution is already obvious. You don't out produce the ability of the land to sustain you...you don't have more children than you can adequately care for, this means emotionally as well. You don't produce so many people that they are denied educaton and the opportunity for good life. Forced to live in squalor and poverty...or the flipside...that they are brought up parentally detached, a budding sociopath.

And besides...being a god-fearing Christain...why would you think death is the worst thing that can happen to a person? Isn't it a reward for a life well lived? You think god is going to punish someone who never had the chance?


Wouldn't that be a pisser?

Maybe god'll just send them back to someone who wants them.

[Yonivore]

Sure...we have brains...no sense in actually using them....remember that the next time you get life saving surgery or medical aid.
Big difference between terminating a life and saving one. If I were a betting man, I'm not, and if I were a God-fearing man, I am; I'd put my money on believing God has no problem with the latter and is pretty ticked about the former. But, that's just me.

The solution is already obvious. You don't out produce the ability of the land to sustain you...
And we haven't. If you'll look at the areas where people are starving it's because of political strife, not unproductive land.

you don't have more children than you can adequately care for, this means emotionally as well. You don't produce so many people that they are denied educaton and the opportunity for good life. Forced to live in squalor and poverty...or the flipside...that they are brought up parentally detached, a budding sociopath.
None of the problems you mention are due to too many people...just too many unproductive people.

And besides...being a god-fearing Christain...why would you think death is the worst thing that can happen to a person? Isn't it a reward for a life well lived? You think god is going to punish someone who never had the chance?
As a God-fearing Christian, I'm as concerned for the murderer as the murdered. I don't believe God created man to be killed in the womb and I don't believe God -- well he said it right there in the 10 commandments -- intended for his creation to kill its offspring.

Maybe god'll just send them back to someone who wants them.
That's reincarnation...different religion.

[whottt]

Big difference between terminating a life and saving one. If I were a betting man, I'm not, and if I were a God-fearing man, I am; I'd put my money on believing God has no problem with the latter and is pretty ticked about the former. But, that's just me.

Well...God knows Christians have never killed anyone before...I see your point.


And we haven't. If you'll look at the areas where people are starving it's because of political strife, not unproductive land.

I disagree...the decline of nearly every great civilization and period of enlightenment has been due to over-population...

And political strife comes out over-population...not vice versa. Political strife usually ends it.




None of the problems you mention are due to too many people...just too many unproductive people.

So are you saying it's possible for these governments to give everyone a job?
You little commie you.




As a God-fearing Christian, I'm as concerned for the murderer as the murdered. I don't believe God created man to be killed in the womb and I don't believe God -- well he said it right there in the 10 commandments -- intended for his creation to kill its offspring.

I must have missed the commandment that said Though shalt not kill thy offspring...which one is it?

And aren't you Pro-Death Penalty?




That's reincarnation...different religion.

I don't think it's ever been specified one way or the other...Where did God say he won't send them back if they were never given a chance to live?

[Yonivore]

Well...God knows Christians have never killed anyone before...I see your point.
They may have called themselves Christians...many do. That doesn't make them followers of Christ.

I disagree...the decline of nearly every great civilization and period of enlightenment has been due to over-population...
Really? Name one.

And political strife comes out over-population...not vice versa. Political strife usually ends it.
Tell that to the Subsaharan Africans being systemically starved by corrupt totalitarian regimes that retard agricultrual advancement and hijack international aid. Tell that to the North Koreans...

So are you saying it's possible for these governments to give everyone a job?

You little commie you.
Give? No, allow them to work and be productive without fear of having the fruits of their labor taken by communist or totalitarian regimes.

I must have missed the commandment that said Though shalt not kill thy offspring...which one is it?
#6; "You shall not murder."


And aren't you Pro-Death Penalty?
Yep. Legal execution for a capital crime is not murder.

I don't think it's ever been specified one way or the other...Where did God say he won't send them back if they were never given a chance to live?
Sorry, I'm not a theologian. Why don't you find me the passage where it says He will. Me, absent any clear direction, I'm going to err on the side of life.

[Yonivore]

Capital Punishment:


13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

That seems to support Capital Punishment...and, I don't think you can shoehorn killing an unborn child into that passage. Nope.

And, I can't find any mention of reincarnation in the Bible...

[MannyIsGod]

I like Roberts quite a bit. I listened to what he said in the hearings today, and was ratehr impressed.

[IcemanCometh]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20050913/i/r2839689154.jpg


Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee Judge John Roberts listens to a question from Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) during the second day of his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington September 13, 2005. Roberts was pressed by senators for his views on the strength of established legal precedent with regard to the controversial issue of abortion rights and the landmark Roe vs. Wade abortion case

[IcemanCometh]

since when is drudge credible anyways?

[Marcus Bryant]

That seems to support Capital Punishment...and, I don't think you can shoehorn killing an unborn child into that passage. Nope.

And, I can't find any mention of reincarnation in the Bible...


So Jesus was down with vengeance killing? Doesn't sound like the Christ I know. Then again, I don't go to a church with a big ass billboard out front.

[Yonivore]

since when is drudge credible anyways?
Since when is he not? One legitimate retraction in all the years he's been doing this? Hell, the New York Times has 10 times that many on a good Sunday.

[Marcus Bryant]

since when is drudge credible anyways?

After The New York Times was found to have published make believe shit, anything is credible.

[Yonivore]

So Jesus was down with vengeance killing? Doesn't sound like the Christ I know. Then again, I don't go to a church with a big ass billboard out front.
No, Jesus was "down" with respecting authority and abiding by the laws of the government.

[IcemanCometh]

what was the last drudge "scoop" to actually be true.

jesus was about civil disobedience like gandhi, you fucking moron

[Yonivore]

what was the last drudge "scoop" to actually be true.
I thought we were talking credibility not scoops.

jesus was about civil disobedience like gandhi, you fucking moron
Well, that's the way to engage in a civil debate.

So, explain Romans 13...then, tell me what was meant by Jesus saying, "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." How about the notion that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it? (somewhere in Matthew).

[IcemanCometh]

jesus respected authority and abided by the law so much he was crucified for it. maybe you should try reading more books, you wouldn't be so dumb.

[Yonivore]

jesus respected authority and abided by the law so much he was crucified for it. maybe you should try reading more books, you wouldn't be so dumb.
He accepted the authority of those who crucified him...to the point of forgiving them. He stopped his disciples from fighting for his freedom in the Garden of Gethsemene and even healed the ear of one of his captors.

What's your point?

[MannyIsGod]

The point was that while he accepted the penalty for his "crimes", he thought it was wrong.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes, Christ's capital punishment served a great purpose, but that doesn't mean we gotta keep on doing it.

[Drachen]

:: WARNING :: Thread in danger of being highjacked.

:lol

[whottt]

They may have called themselves Christians...many do. That doesn't make them followers of Christ.

And some would say support of the death penalty and war doesn't make you a follower of Christ...what makes you right and them wrong?


Really? Name one.

Name one that didn't?

Overpopulation is a relative thing....the first thing it attacks is the culture, then it attacks the environement, it creates multiple class societies...

Any cause you want to name for the fall of a civilization the root cause will be over-population in most cases, whether the technical cause be economic or environmental...

War for instance...how often do you see one man declare war? It takes an army to declare war.

The root cause of most wars is a lack of natural resources...why do nations with enough people to field a major military lack resources?

You name it...the Mayans...the Mesopotamians...

The Roman Empire...and the Roman Empire is a tricky one...The Roman Empire itself didn't suffer from over-population per se...but the Barbarians did...


It's a real simple formula...life isn't near as precious when it is common.



Tell that to the Subsaharan Africans being systemically starved by corrupt totalitarian regimes that retard agricultrual advancement and hijack international aid. Tell that to the North Koreans...

Over-population produces corrupt cultures...

Tell you what...go a week without eating and tell me if don't feel just a little bit more desperate than you normally do.






Give? No, allow them to work and be productive without fear of having the fruits of their labor taken by communist or totalitarian regimes.

Ironically...communism nearly always takes root in poverty stricken countries.


#6; "You shall not murder."

Ok so...aborting a partially formed fetus is murder but capital punishment and war aren't?

Back Asswards.

You are picking and choosing the definition as it suits you...technically speaking...and entity that cannot survive outside of the body of another is not alive at all...



Sorry, I'm not a theologian. Why don't you find me the passage where it says He will. Me, absent any clear direction, I'm going to err on the side of life.


Well it says Jesus will return....would that not be re-incarnation? So obviously he can do it, now can't he? He seems to have a knack for the people that he wants to be born being born....

[Vashner]

Did you see where Biden slapped him in the ass and said "you like long dong silver??"

[Drachen]

Well it says Jesus will return....would that not be re-incarnation? So obviously he can do it, now can't he? He seems to have a knack for the people that he wants to be born being born....


Ahh, but it never specifies that he will be back in human form, thus your reincarnation statement hasnt been proven. BTW I dont really have a side in this debate, ill just choose things that i think are wrong in each arguement and point it out. (I hate those kind of people like me) :lol

[whottt]

Well maybe the aborted fetuses will come back as something other than human as well...so my point still holds true. And I am not claiming to know how it works BTW...Just a thought.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=whottt]And some would say support of the death penalty and war doesn't make you a follower of Christ...what makes you right and them wrong?

I think yonivore correctly pointed out that there is a big difference between supporting murder (10 commandment no-no) and supporting Capital punishment. Scripture says; Put your sword back in its place "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword". You reap what you sow, if you don't want to be executed don't execute.

You think that people who were warned and able to flee Katrina and ended up perishing because of their lack of action deserved to die but you don't think Capital punishment is warranted for someone who murdered ?
What's the rationale behind that Whottt?

Whottt's philosphy
Inaction = deserved to die.
Murder = doesn't deserve to die.



Well it says Jesus will return....would that not be re-incarnation? So obviously he can do it, now can't he? He seems to have a knack for the people that he wants to be born being born...

No, Jesus was resurrected as the same embodiment that was crucified. Resurrection and Reincarnation are not similar. Reincarnation is the rebirth of a soul in a new human body, resurrection is the same body brought back to life.

[jochhejaam]

Originally posted by IcemanCometh: jesus was about civil disobedience like gandhi, you fucking moron


So, explain Romans 13...then, tell me what was meant by Jesus saying, "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." How about the notion that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it? (somewhere in Matthew).


IceManCometh :owned :lol

[Yonivore]

The point was that while he accepted the penalty for his "crimes", he thought it was wrong.
No, he knew it was his destiny...the greatest RIGHT that ever occurred. "For God so love the world..."

[spurster]

Back to whether Roberts confirmation indicates that Bush is strong or weak:

Here's a different view.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/09/15/robertss_testimony_alarms_conservatives/

Roberts's testimony alarms conservatives
Some contend he could be moderate

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | September 15, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s testimony about the existence of a right to privacy, the importance of respecting precedent, and the need for the Constitution to adapt to changing conditions has alarmed some rank-and-file conservatives, who are filling up Internet message boards with predictions that Roberts may turn out to be a moderate justice.

Many say they believe that Roberts's answers have shown him to be to the left of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, whom President Bush promised to use as models in selecting new justices. Some compare Roberts to David Souter and Anthony Kennedy -- Republican appointees who proved to be moderates who supported abortion rights.

One writer on the conservative FreeRepublic.org site wrote that yesterday's questioning by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, had ''exposed Roberts" as a moderate.

''Biden gave Roberts every opportunity to even minimally associate himself with Scalia and Thomas, and he ran away from them like he was running from a burning building -- not a good sign," the post said.

...

[SpursWoman]

I prefer a moderate justice. :fro

[Jelly]

Jesus Christ people!!! Isn't this thread supposed to be about Biden and Roberts??!!
Why they hell do some of you have to bring religion into every Goddamn thing!!
Stay on topic!

[Hook Dem]

http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/7555/mentallydeficient4sq.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[MannyIsGod]

Back to whether Roberts confirmation indicates that Bush is strong or weak:

Here's a different view.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/09/15/robertss_testimony_alarms_conservatives/

Roberts's testimony alarms conservatives
Some contend he could be moderate

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | September 15, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s testimony about the existence of a right to privacy, the importance of respecting precedent, and the need for the Constitution to adapt to changing conditions has alarmed some rank-and-file conservatives, who are filling up Internet message boards with predictions that Roberts may turn out to be a moderate justice.

Many say they believe that Roberts's answers have shown him to be to the left of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, whom President Bush promised to use as models in selecting new justices. Some compare Roberts to David Souter and Anthony Kennedy -- Republican appointees who proved to be moderates who supported abortion rights.

One writer on the conservative FreeRepublic.org site wrote that yesterday's questioning by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, had ''exposed Roberts" as a moderate.

''Biden gave Roberts every opportunity to even minimally associate himself with Scalia and Thomas, and he ran away from them like he was running from a burning building -- not a good sign," the post said.

...
He comes across to me as someone who reads the law for what it is. He doesn't push HIS views, he pushes his interpretation of the law.

Thats just fine with me.

[whottt]

[QUOTE]

I think yonivore correctly pointed out that there is a big difference between supporting murder (10 commandment no-no) and supporting Capital punishment. Scripture says; Put your sword back in its place "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword". You reap what you sow, if you don't want to be executed don't execute.


That's bullshit...you can't quote a commandment to back up your point and then turn around and ignore it when it doesn't...


The commandment says...thou shalt not kill...

With no qualifiers and no exceptions. Period.






You think that people who were warned and able to flee Katrina and ended up perishing because of their lack of action deserved to die but you don't think Capital punishment is warranted for someone who murdered ?
What's the rationale behind that Whottt?

Whottt's philosphy
Inaction = deserved to die.
Murder = doesn't deserve to die.

Absolutely and totally false...

I support the death penalty.

That kinda fucked you up now didn't it?


Pro War
Pro Death Penalty
Pro Abortion


At least I am consistent....and abortion is probably the one I have the toughest stance on....but I'd consider it less of an act of murder than either of the other two.









No, Jesus was resurrected as the same embodiment that was crucified. Resurrection and Reincarnation are not similar. Reincarnation is the rebirth of a soul in a new human body, resurrection is the same body brought back to life.


Pssst...he's supposed to be coming back you know....

[Yonivore]

That's bullshit...you can't quote a commandment to back up your point and then turn around and ignore it when it doesn't...


The commandment says...thou shalt not kill...

With no qualifiers and no exceptions. Period.
Actually, translated from the original Greek text the word is "murder" not "kill." In fact, most current revisions of the bible have made the correction.

Pssst...he's supposed to be coming back you know....
Yep; but, not reincarnated...as himself. You can't use the Messiah as an example of reincarnation. He was fully man and fully God...he can do as he likes.

[whottt]

Actually, translated from the original Greek text the word is "murder" not "kill." In fact, most current revisions of the bible have made the correction.

Original Greek Text?

You mean Hebrew right?

They also don't say anything about abortion...

And that still leaves you attempting to justify declaring war upong those who had never attacked you...IE, Iraq, Korea, Vietnam.

Have innocents been killed in this war?

Then that is murder...



Yep; but, not reincarnated...as himself. You can't use the Messiah as an example of reincarnation. He was fully man and fully God...he can do as he likes.

And why can't I? Is there a commandment that says thou shalt not re-incarnate?

I think the one thing made clear in the bible is that God can do whatever he wants with your soul...He put the souls he wanted born where he wanted them and I highly doubt that he would have said fuck it all if one of them was a miscarriage...

[Yonivore]

Original Greek Text?

You mean Hebrew right?
You're right. The new testament is mostly translated from Greek. The Old Testament, Hebrew.


They also don't say anything about abortion...
No, but the Bible talks about God knowing us from the time He forms us in the womb.


And that still leaves you attempting to justify declaring war upong those who had never attacked you...IE, Iraq, Korea, Vietnam.
I'm talking about abortion and capital murder. War is another subject. And, yes, if it's not legitimate, war would be wrong.

Have innocents been killed in this war?
Yes...but, was that intentional? [see murder defined]

Then that is murder...
Not necessarily.

And why can't I? Is there a commandment that says thou shalt not re-incarnate?
Yeah, pretty much. I believe there's a passage that says you've only got one life.


I think the one thing made clear in the bible is that God can do whatever he wants with your soul...He put the souls he wanted born where he wanted them and I highly doubt that he would have said fuck it all if one of them was a miscarriage...
Now, you're presuming for God. Can't say you're wrong, I just prefer to err on the side of life. You can't undo an abortion.

[Spurminator]

Can't say you're wrong, I just prefer to err on the side of life. You can't undo an abortion.

I think you're pretty safe, seeing as it would be difficult for you to have an abortion.

:lol

[jochhejaam]

Jesus Christ people!!! Isn't this thread supposed to be about Biden and Roberts??!!
Why they hell do some of you have to bring religion into every Goddamn thing!!
Stay on topic!

Commandment # 3
Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain

[Oscar DeLa]

I don't know what it is but have you no morals?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=whottt]That's bullshit...you can't quote a commandment to back up your point and then turn around and ignore it when it doesn't...

There's the whole rest of the Bible wrapped around the Commandments, if you don't understand it in it's entirety then it's understandable that you view the commandment at face value only.




The commandment says...thou shalt not kill...
With no qualifiers and no exceptions. Period.

That's nonsense, if that were the case even self defense with lethal force being necessary would be breaking the commandment. David killed Goliath, Samson, being strengthed by God brought down the house on the Phillistines, the Bible is replete with history of justifiable killing.


And yes, you supporting the death penalty KO'd me trying to point out hypocrisy in your philosophy. I incorrectly thought you calling out yonivore for his pro death penalty stance meant you were against it.
I should have known better. :lol

[whottt]

No, but the Bible talks about God knowing us from the time He forms us in the womb.

The bible talks about a lot of things...what it doesn't talk about however, is abortion being murder...and any claim that it does is strictly interpretation.


I'm talking about abortion and capital murder. War is another subject. And, yes, if it's not legitimate, war would be wrong.

Yes...but, was that intentional? [see murder defined]

Saddam never declared war on us...We declared war on him.




Yeah, pretty much. I believe there's a passage that says you've only got one life.

Even if you are aborted? I doubt it.



Now, you're presuming for God. Can't say you're wrong, I just prefer to err on the side of life.
Unless they're actually out of the womb and alive...then you err on the side of death...with a big oops...my bad.


You can't undo an abortion.

That's very true...since death is suppose to be the gateway to eternal life for the righteous...aren't you just saving that fetus a lot of BS? Especially if it's being born to those who won't care for it?

I mean what...the fetus doesn't get into heaven if someone aborts it?

[whottt]

[QUOTE]

There's the whole rest of the Bible wrapped around the Commandments, if you don't understand it in it's entirety then it's understandable that you view the commandment at face value only.


Oh I understand...just like I understand you can find a quote to back up just about any point you want to make...

But the 10 commandments are the explicit word of god...






That's nonsense, if that were the case even self defense with lethal force being necessary would be breaking the commandment. David killed Goliath, Samson, being strengthed by God brought down the house on the Phillistines, the Bible is replete with history of justifiable killing.

But wait...I thought Jesus said turn the other cheek?

Did he defend himself against those who crucified him?



And yes, you supporting the death penalty KO'd me trying to point out hypocrisy in your philosophy. I incorrectly thought you calling out yonivore for his pro death penalty stance meant you were against it.
I should have known better. :lol

No..I am just pointing out the contradictory nature of the anti-abortion argument.

Basically you pick and choose the parts of the bible that suits your view...Kinda like Usama does with the Koran.

I mean Jesus turned the other cheek...he didn't defend himself...he celebrated that he was going to his father's kingdom.

[gtownspur]

That's bullshit...you can't quote a commandment to back up your point and then turn around and ignore it when it doesn't...


The commandment says...thou shalt not kill...

With no qualifiers and no exceptions. Period.







Absolutely and totally false...





I support the death penalty.

That kinda fucked you up now didn't it?


Pro War
Pro Death Penalty
Pro Abortion


At least I am consistent....and abortion is probably the one I have the toughest stance on....but I'd consider it less of an act of murder than either of the other two.











Pssst...he's supposed to be coming back you know....


Problem is whott. That the bible was written in Hebrew and not English. In the original translation it is "thou shall not murder".

[gtownspur]

Oh I understand...just like I understand you can find a quote to back up just about any point you want to make...

But the 10 commandments are the explicit word of god...







But wait...I thought Jesus said turn the other cheek?

Did he defend himself against those who crucified him?




No..I am just pointing out the contradictory nature of the anti-abortion argument.

Basically you pick and choose the parts of the bible that suits your view...Kinda like Usama does with the Koran.

I mean Jesus turned the other cheek...he didn't defend himself...he celebrated that he was going to his father's kingdom.


Jesus was here to do a different task. Jesus was not a king and he was not a governor. Paul in the book of Romans later states that the state has the right to carry the sword. You need to interpret the bible in its entirety.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=whottt]Oh I understand...just like I understand you can find a quote to back up just about any point you want to make...

I don't have exclusive referrencing rights. Help yourself.



But the 10 commandments are the explicit word of god...

Correct, and if you had a thorough understanding of the Bible you would be able to easily reconcile his commandments with what may appear to be contradictions.
The correct translation of "thou shalt not kill" is found in many translations;


"You shall not murder. (WEB)

Do not put anyone to death without cause. (BBE)

Thou shalt not murder. (JPS)

Thou dost not murder. (YLT)

You shall not murder. (NIV)

Definition of Murder; (MW) The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Makes all the difference whottt.






But wait...I thought Jesus said turn the other cheek? Did he defend himself against those who crucified him


He could have.
Matt: 26 Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? (legion = 1,000)

But this is why he didn't.
54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"


Had Christ been selfish those who came to crucify him would have been toast. But he chose to sacrifice his life for ours and in doing so become a testator for all of mankind.




Basically you pick and choose the parts of the bible that suits your view

I post the Scriptures that are relevant to the discussion, why would I do otherwise?

[whottt]

Problem is whott. That the bible was written in Hebrew and not English. In the original translation it is "thou shall not murder".

Already been discussed...as has the double standard of people applying it to somethings and not to others.

[whottt]

Jesus was here to do a different task. Jesus was not a king and he was not a governor. Paul in the book of Romans later states that the state has the right to carry the sword. You need to interpret the bible in its entirety.

Is Paul god?

[whottt]

I don't have exclusive referrencing rights. Help yourself.




Correct, and if you had a thorough understanding of the Bible you would be able to easily reconcile his commandments with what may appear to be contradictions.
You mean interpret...



The correct translation of "thou shalt not kill" is found in many translations;


"You shall not murder. (WEB)

Do not put anyone to death without cause. (BBE)

Thou shalt not murder. (JPS)

Thou dost not murder. (YLT)

You shall not murder. (NIV)

Definition of Murder; (MW) The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Makes all the difference whottt.

It also has a broad definition of murder when translated from the original Hebrew...murder does not just mean taking a life..if you are talking the original interpretation.

And that last example is an ambiguous one...since abortion is not illegal it is therefore not unlawful..so you see....you are leaving the right and the wrong of it up to man, to justify a stance on one issue, and ignoring it on others...not using the Commandments. If that is your rationale then nothing sets abortion apart from any other nationalistic form of killing. And due to other factors abortion is probably less of an act of killing.









He could have.
Matt: 26 Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? (legion = 1,000)

And what's the point you are trying to make? It looks to me like he is condemning killing of any kind...



But this is why he didn't.
54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

And why must it have happened that way?



Had Christ been selfish those who came to crucify him would have been toast. But he chose to sacrifice his life for ours and in doing so become a testator for all of mankind.

And what point was he trying to make by doing that?

I don't think it was...fry someones ass if they commit murder.








I post the Scriptures that are relevant to the discussion, why would I do otherwise?

Why not post the ones concerning abortion?
Preferabily the ones that aren't somehow related to the births of messiahs and prophets...

[FromWayDowntown]

Curious to me that the staunch anti-choice (per abortion) faction in this debate stands by the mantra that you can't read the Ten Commandments literally and that they must be understood in the context of an interpretation of God's Word. At the same time, the heart of the anti-choice movement is a fundamental belief that the Constitution (written not by an infalliable God, but by inherently falliable men) should only be read literally and should not be subject to any interpretation beyond its text -- particularly the interpretations offered by "liberal" judges.

It's an interesting inconsistency to me.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=whottt]You mean interpret...

No, I meant reconcile.





It also has a broad definition of murder when translated from the original Hebrew...murder does not just mean taking a life..if you are talking the original interpretation.

I'm talking about the scholarly accurate translation. And this response to kill being translated to murder utterly fails to address the point that was being made. Way to dance around an issue where you can't come up with points valid enough to support your reasoning.





And that last example is an ambiguous one...since abortion is not illegal it is therefore not unlawful..so you see....you are leaving the right and the wrong of it up to man, to justify a stance on one issue, and ignoring it on others...not using the Commandments. If that is your rationale then nothing sets abortion apart from any other nationalistic form of killing. And due to other factors abortion is probably less of an act of killing.

The Bible is clear on the difference between murder and punishment for commiting murder so man is correctly following scripture in implementing CP.
That being said your comments about abortion are null and void.








And what's the point you are trying to make? It looks to me like he is condemning killing of any kind...

As stated before, you don't have a good grasp of the scripture in it's entirety. David/Goliath, Samson/Phillistines, Joshua at Jericho etc.




And why must it have happened that way?
Just as Christ said, to fulfill scripture.





And what point was he trying to make by doing that?
I don't think it was...fry someones ass if they commit murder.

Scripture tells us 'not to fear him that can destroy the body but him (God) who can destroy both the body and soul. All that are unrepentant of their sins have rejected God and receive of their own free will eternity in Hell.
All that repent of their sins, including murderers, receive the gift of eternity in heaven.

[MannyIsGod]

I love how the all powerful god puts the responsibility in the hands of people. I guess it is people that are actually the all powerful ones.

[mookie2001]

internal strife cripples me deciding who comes correct between whottt and jochchheejjajaaam


but I would have to say whottt

[smeagol]

internal strife cripples me deciding who comes correct between whottt and jochchheejjajaaam


but I would have to say whottt
Actually, I'm with joch.

[jochhejaam]

I love how the all powerful god puts the responsibility in the hands of people. I guess it is people that are actually the all powerful ones.


You argue that God has too much control (omnipotence inhibiting free will) and you argue that man has too much control.

http://www.limbermen.com/Stephen_c/Confused.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

You argue that God has too much control (omnipotence inhibiting free will) and you argue that man has too much control.


No, I argue about the contradictions within your belief structure that you rationalize away.

This is another one. You say God is all powerfull but that he puts the decision in the persons hands to choose whether or not they are saved. Therefore, if the person is damned to hell, it is not something God did, but the person did.

However, God is the one who is saving people. You don't say those people saved themselves. And if god really is putting the choice in peoples hands, then he really has no power and is not all powerful

Confusing? Hell yeah your religion is confusing.

[Dos]

I wish we had a religions discussion thread on this forum.. :)

[whottt]

No, I meant reconcile.

You may mean reconcile...but you are interpreting.







I'm talking about the scholarly accurate translation. And this response to kill being translated to murder utterly fails to address the point that was being made. Way to dance around an issue where you can't come up with points valid enough to support your reasoning.


Sure I can...

#1. Murder isn't a Hebrew word. So it is not possible for the literal translation to say thou shalt not Murder.

#2. I can find a Hebrew translation that claims it does indeed say..no killing.


#3. The Hebrew definition of their word for murder is broader than just taking a life unlawfully...come to think of it...so is the English.

Using the most liberal definitions you could indeed make a claim that the taking of any life is murder...you could also argue that you shouldn't even hurt someones feelings.


And before you laugh about the hurting someones feelings aspect...just realize that there is a segment in the Old Testament where God does indeed kill someone for mocking.



The Bible is clear on the difference between murder and punishment for commiting murder so man is correctly following scripture in implementing CP.
That being said your comments about abortion are null and void.


No...the bibles comments concerning abortion being murder are non-existent.










As stated before, you don't have a good grasp of the scripture in it's entirety. David/Goliath, Samson/Phillistines, Joshua at Jericho etc.

Um...those guys all came before Jesus...are you Jewish or Christian?

Jesus turned the other cheek and forgave his killers.

You can't flip flop back and forth between commandments, old and new testaments as it suits you...be consistent.


The Old Testament is Ghetto...

Do you eat pork?





Just as Christ said, to fulfill scripture.

It was to make a point about forgiving and death not being punishment if you are blessed with eternal life...you seem to have missed it.







Scripture tells us 'not to fear him that can destroy the body but him (God) who can destroy both the body and soul. All that are unrepentant of their sins have rejected God and receive of their own free will eternity in Hell.
All that repent of their sins, including murderers, receive the gift of eternity in heaven.


That's got nothing to do with abortion...and if anything it makes it clear that there is a difference between killing the body and killing the soul...

But if you want quotes on abortion let's a have a few:


If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5


That statement strongly seems to indicate that it is better to not be born than it is to live a life of suffering.

[Yonivore]

No, it's correctly translated “Thou shall not murder.” This is more accurate because the Hebrew word so translated does not refer to killing in general but to malicious and unlawful killing.

Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable homicide (Ex. 22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment. Neither killing in war nor capital punishment are necessarily forbidden in this commandment since God required both in certain cases (Ex.21:12). So the correct translation is, “You shall not murder.”

I'm through arguing this with you whottt. We've hijacked the thread and you're not going to change your mind.

[Marcus Bryant]

Face it, God's a conservative Republican.

[mookie2001]

Face it, God's a conservative Republican.

dude thats a funny joke, I'm just not sure youre joking
please tell me so
if not then you just made cbf's sig

[Marcus Bryant]

No, I'm for real.

[Mr Dio]

Face it, God's a conservative Republican

Yet ANOTHER dumbass that speaks to God.
OK, PROVE IT..ask for the winning lottery #s! :lol

[Marcus Bryant]

That makes two dumbasses who thought I was being serious.

Sarcasm isn't a disease. Though if it was, your ass would be dead.

[Mr Dio]

That makes two dumbasses who thought I was being serious.

You can never tell with a woman. Something under your skin sweetie? :lol

Talk about a dumbass not knowing sarcasm. :lol

Just goes to show that 1, 2 or 10 degrees can't instill common sense. :lol

[Marcus Bryant]

Damn, that was hilarious.

[gtownspur]

Is Paul god?
No he's not. But he was inspired by the HOly Spirit. Whott your exegis is horrible. You can not base theology out of silence. Just because Jesus didnt promote capital punishment doesnt mean he condemned it. Jesus was giving instructions on the Kingdom of heaven and not the Kingdom of the Temporal Earth!

[whottt]

No he's not. But he was inspired by the HOly Spirit.
Still doesn't mean he's the word of god...


Whott your exegis is horrible. You can not base theology out of silence. Just because Jesus didnt promote capital punishment doesnt mean he condemned it. Jesus was giving instructions on the Kingdom of heaven and not the Kingdom of the Temporal Earth!

And just because Jesus didn't promote abortion doesn't mean he condemned it either...

[jochhejaam]

Originally posted by whottt: No...the bibles comments concerning abortion being murder are non-existent.

It doesn't say "don't hold someone's head under water until they are dead" either , guess that's okay too?

God tells us (Psalms) that we are 'beautifully created in our mothers womb'.
And you don't think God has an opinion about abortion?

http://schema-root.org/people/political/activists/anti-abortion/baby.jpg

http://biblia.com/abortion/abortion-5month.jpg


^^^^^5 months old, aborted by suction, God has no opinion? The Bible is silent? So concerned about over population that you blind yourself to the crime of abortion or you just don't give 2 flips about the millions just like the baby above that are aborted each year?

[whottt]

Um...if you or I had been aborted we'd have never known it and our suffering would be far less than that of people brought into this world by idiots who cannot care for them.

I certainly hope you have several adopted children...otherwise your beliefs are nothing more than carelessness and passing the responsiblity and side effects of your beliefs on to someone else.


Please go adopt several children...Post haste...Yoni and Gtown need to do this as well.


When there are no more unwanted children in orphanages, or homeless, or being sold into slavery...then you can start lecturing me on the evils of abortion.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=whottt]Um...if you or I had been aborted we'd have never known it and our suffering would be far less than that of people brought into this world by idiots who cannot care for them.

Which idiots are you talking about? Do some of these idiots still have children? Should we put these children out of their misery too or just the ones pictured above?


I certainly hope you have several adopted children...otherwise your beliefs are nothing more than carelessness and passing the responsiblity and side effects of your beliefs on to someone else.

Two adopted via marriage and three more (not adopted). Trying to foist guilt and blame for the aborted babies on those that haven't adopted is a strawmans arguement.
The blame lies directly with those that perform abortions, abortion activists and those that know the fetus is a human being and willfully seek to have him or her aborted.

Considered yourself lectured on the evils of abortion.

[whottt]

Which idiots are you talking about? Do some of these idiots still have children? Should we put these children out of their misery too or just the ones pictured above?

Nope...once they are out of the womb they are living breathing people...

Late in the pregnancy you can't really do it safely anyway...but early in the pregnancy?

If it cannot survive independently out of the womb than it cannot truly be considered a person.







Two adopted via marriage and three more (not adopted).

It doesn't count unless they were parentless children.



Trying to foist guilt and blame for the aborted babies on those that haven't adopted is a strawmans arguement.
The blame lies directly with those that perform abortions, abortion activists and those that know the fetus is a human being and willfully seek to have him or her aborted.

I am not placing blame for the aborted babies on you...

I am placing the blame for the unadopted babies and homeless children on you...especially since you want to make more of them.


Considered yourself lectured on the evils of abortion.

Consider your self with a warped sense of suffering and sympathy...and an inability to see the forest for the trees.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=whottt]Nope...once they are out of the womb they are living breathing people...

They are living and breathing in the womb too.




If it cannot survive independently out of the womb than it cannot truly be considered a person.

Once the baby is outside the womb it needs the same nutrition it was given inside the womb. He or she cannot survive independently outside of the womb either.




I
am placing the blame for the unadopted babies and homeless children on you...especially since you want to make more of them.

Have you killed a terrorist lately? If not then you are to blame for all of those children who are parentless because of suicide attacks.


Consider your self with a warped sense of suffering and sympathy...and an inability to see the forest for the trees.

Your vision is clouded because of your worries about world overpopulation.

http://www.carmical.net/features/pics/saline_abortion.gif

^^^This (saline abortion at 4 mos) doesn't phase you and I have a warped sens of suffering and sympathy....okay.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Face it, God's a conservative Republican.


Actually, if someone makes a comment so incredibly stupid, it puts everything you've ever said, previous to this point, into perspective.

I always thought that behind the constant Depth Charts, Salary Information, Plausible salaries for the next season, wishful thinking, and "contributions" to the forum, there lied a decent-minded person just posting their points of view.


But now I realize you're the biggest douche on this forum, far beyond the likes of any previous douche.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

MB makes Clandestino look like W.D. Hamilton.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Marcus Bryant, what you've just said is one of the most

insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.

At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.

Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it.

I award you no points,

and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Marcus Bryant]

What a dumb motherfucker.

You do realize that was a sarcastic comment, no?

:lol

Your last three posts are instant classics. Congrats.

[Vashner]

Chill the fuk out...

Yes he slaped Roberts on the butt and said.. "your the best baby" and winked at him.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

What a dumb motherfucker.

You do realize that was a sarcastic comment, no?

:lol

Your last three posts are instant classics. Congrats.

What fantastic idiocy!

[Marcus Bryant]

Hey, it's not my fault you don't understand the concept of sarcasm. Next time, think before you embarass yourself again.