Author Topic: Attention Fellow Conservatives  (Read 36594 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline slucat

  • GIRL ALERT, GIRL ALERT
  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 706
  • This SLU, not the city
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #250 on: September 19, 2014, 12:50:14 PM »

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37157
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #251 on: September 19, 2014, 01:07:04 PM »
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?

And George HW Bush appointed "republican" David Souter to the USSC, so that obviously means he was a conservative, right?  :rolleyes: The KSSC is currently composed (until Stegall joins) of hard leftists and a couple of squishy "moderates." Our current nominating process, by which a predominantly liberal group of attorneys first screens the candidates, has done a good job of ensuring this.

Anyway, back to the point you keep dodging, you really believe Taylor didn't lie when he "declared" that he's incapable of serving? Wow.

No, I don't. I certainly would never vote for him.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #252 on: September 19, 2014, 01:33:57 PM »
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?

And George HW Bush appointed "republican" David Souter to the USSC, so that obviously means he was a conservative, right?  :rolleyes: The KSSC is currently composed (until Stegall joins) of hard leftists and a couple of squishy "moderates." Our current nominating process, by which a predominantly liberal group of attorneys first screens the candidates, has done a good job of ensuring this.

Anyway, back to the point you keep dodging, you really believe Taylor didn't lie when he "declared" that he's incapable of serving? Wow.

No, I don't. I certainly would never vote for him.

Ok, so you agree that Taylor lied in a notarized letter to the SoS. Now, would you also agree that lying to satisfy a legal requirement, in order to give your party a political advantage, is a dirty trick?

It's interesting to me that not a single justice thought to ask Mr. Taylor's attorney the reason he was incapable of serving. They didn't ask because they know he's lying (as we all do), and they are complicit in his lie by removing him from the ballot without requiring an explanation.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37157
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #253 on: September 19, 2014, 01:36:33 PM »
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?

And George HW Bush appointed "republican" David Souter to the USSC, so that obviously means he was a conservative, right?  :rolleyes: The KSSC is currently composed (until Stegall joins) of hard leftists and a couple of squishy "moderates." Our current nominating process, by which a predominantly liberal group of attorneys first screens the candidates, has done a good job of ensuring this.

Anyway, back to the point you keep dodging, you really believe Taylor didn't lie when he "declared" that he's incapable of serving? Wow.

No, I don't. I certainly would never vote for him.

Ok, so you agree that Taylor lied in a notarized letter to the SoS. Now, would you also agree that lying to satisfy a legal requirement, in order to give your party a political advantage, is a dirty trick?

It's interesting to me that not a single justice thought to ask Mr. Taylor's attorney the reason he was incapable of serving. They didn't ask because they know he's lying (as we all do), and they are complicit in his lie by removing him from the ballot without requiring an explanation.

No, it's just following the letter of the law to get your name off of the ballot. If you don't want to be a senator, you don't have to be a senator.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #254 on: September 19, 2014, 01:43:49 PM »
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?

And George HW Bush appointed "republican" David Souter to the USSC, so that obviously means he was a conservative, right?  :rolleyes: The KSSC is currently composed (until Stegall joins) of hard leftists and a couple of squishy "moderates." Our current nominating process, by which a predominantly liberal group of attorneys first screens the candidates, has done a good job of ensuring this.

Anyway, back to the point you keep dodging, you really believe Taylor didn't lie when he "declared" that he's incapable of serving? Wow.

No, I don't. I certainly would never vote for him.

Ok, so you agree that Taylor lied in a notarized letter to the SoS. Now, would you also agree that lying to satisfy a legal requirement, in order to give your party a political advantage, is a dirty trick?

It's interesting to me that not a single justice thought to ask Mr. Taylor's attorney the reason he was incapable of serving. They didn't ask because they know he's lying (as we all do), and they are complicit in his lie by removing him from the ballot without requiring an explanation.

No, it's just following the letter of the law to get your name off of the ballot. If you don't want to be a senator, you don't have to be a senator.

No, you're still not getting this. It is most certainly not "following the letter of the law" to withdraw in the manner Taylor did unless he actually is incapable of serving. That's kind of the whole friggin point of the law. So, he lied.

Politicians lie all the time, of course. The difference here, and what makes this such a galling dirty trick, is that Taylor, a District Attorney, lied to the legal system, and a court of 6 esteemed jourists - who knew the same as you and I that he was lying - let him get away with it without so much as asking for a reason because of ideology.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37157
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #255 on: September 19, 2014, 01:54:24 PM »
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?

And George HW Bush appointed "republican" David Souter to the USSC, so that obviously means he was a conservative, right?  :rolleyes: The KSSC is currently composed (until Stegall joins) of hard leftists and a couple of squishy "moderates." Our current nominating process, by which a predominantly liberal group of attorneys first screens the candidates, has done a good job of ensuring this.

Anyway, back to the point you keep dodging, you really believe Taylor didn't lie when he "declared" that he's incapable of serving? Wow.

No, I don't. I certainly would never vote for him.

Ok, so you agree that Taylor lied in a notarized letter to the SoS. Now, would you also agree that lying to satisfy a legal requirement, in order to give your party a political advantage, is a dirty trick?

It's interesting to me that not a single justice thought to ask Mr. Taylor's attorney the reason he was incapable of serving. They didn't ask because they know he's lying (as we all do), and they are complicit in his lie by removing him from the ballot without requiring an explanation.

No, it's just following the letter of the law to get your name off of the ballot. If you don't want to be a senator, you don't have to be a senator.

No, you're still not getting this. It is most certainly not "following the letter of the law" to withdraw in the manner Taylor did unless he actually is incapable of serving. That's kind of the whole friggin point of the law. So, he lied.

Politicians lie all the time, of course. The difference here, and what makes this such a galling dirty trick, is that Taylor, a District Attorney, lied to the legal system, and a court of 6 esteemed jourists - who knew the same as you and I that he was lying - let him get away with it without so much as asking for a reason because of ideology.

The law says you have to declare yourself incapable of serving. It doesn't say you have to prove that you are incapable or even really be incapable. Plus, as secretary of state, you have to be consistent in how you apply the law. If you allow other candidates withdraw with no declaration, you have to let this candidate withdraw, too.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #256 on: September 19, 2014, 02:08:21 PM »
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?

And George HW Bush appointed "republican" David Souter to the USSC, so that obviously means he was a conservative, right?  :rolleyes: The KSSC is currently composed (until Stegall joins) of hard leftists and a couple of squishy "moderates." Our current nominating process, by which a predominantly liberal group of attorneys first screens the candidates, has done a good job of ensuring this.

Anyway, back to the point you keep dodging, you really believe Taylor didn't lie when he "declared" that he's incapable of serving? Wow.

No, I don't. I certainly would never vote for him.

Ok, so you agree that Taylor lied in a notarized letter to the SoS. Now, would you also agree that lying to satisfy a legal requirement, in order to give your party a political advantage, is a dirty trick?

It's interesting to me that not a single justice thought to ask Mr. Taylor's attorney the reason he was incapable of serving. They didn't ask because they know he's lying (as we all do), and they are complicit in his lie by removing him from the ballot without requiring an explanation.

No, it's just following the letter of the law to get your name off of the ballot. If you don't want to be a senator, you don't have to be a senator.

No, you're still not getting this. It is most certainly not "following the letter of the law" to withdraw in the manner Taylor did unless he actually is incapable of serving. That's kind of the whole friggin point of the law. So, he lied.

Politicians lie all the time, of course. The difference here, and what makes this such a galling dirty trick, is that Taylor, a District Attorney, lied to the legal system, and a court of 6 esteemed jourists - who knew the same as you and I that he was lying - let him get away with it without so much as asking for a reason because of ideology.

The law says you have to declare yourself incapable of serving. It doesn't say you have to prove that you are incapable or even really be incapable.

:facepalm: :lol: Hey - the law doesn't say you can't lie! No really, that's your argument? :lol: Whatever man, there's no convincing you. You're hopeless.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37157
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #257 on: September 19, 2014, 02:11:28 PM »
You can't accept other withdrawals from other campaigns without verifying statements and then take this one to court just because somebody you like might lose his office. If the law had been consistently applied the way you want it to be in the past, I would have no problem with Kobach trying to leave Taylor on the ballot. This is just the Secretary of State trying to rig an election, and the people who support that are just as bad as he is.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37157
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #258 on: September 19, 2014, 02:54:28 PM »
Just look at this liberal filth . . . I bet he named the white dog Harry Reid and the brown dog Barack Obama Jr.


Offline Institutional Control

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 14983
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #259 on: September 19, 2014, 03:09:36 PM »
LOL

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 64252
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #260 on: September 19, 2014, 04:00:00 PM »
White one actually looks like Pelosi a little
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #261 on: September 19, 2014, 04:06:00 PM »
Regarding the Orman family picture, the dog children look happy.  According to his bio no children; I don't trust a man who won't spawn.  Also he had a company that sold energy effecient lighting, damn dim blue bulbs.  Is this guy a prairie al gore?

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53899
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #262 on: September 19, 2014, 04:27:22 PM »
Regarding the Orman family picture, the dog children look happy.  According to his bio no children; I don't trust a man who won't spawn.  Also he had a company that sold energy effecient lighting, damn dim blue bulbs.  Is this guy a prairie al gore?

Maybe his wife can't conceive and it's very painful for them jerk

Offline Mr Bread

  • We Gave You Bruce
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 7867
  • I've distressing news.
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #263 on: September 19, 2014, 05:02:42 PM »
Regarding the Orman family picture, the dog children look happy.  According to his bio no children; I don't trust a man who won't spawn.  Also he had a company that sold energy effecient lighting, damn dim blue bulbs.  Is this guy a prairie al gore?

Maybe his wife can't conceive and it's very painful for them jerk

He should still be judged harshly for that. 
My prescience is fully engorged.  It throbs with righteous accuracy.  I am sated.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #264 on: September 20, 2014, 09:23:22 AM »
What is the penalty for not replacing him? I would assume it is that you just don't get your party on the ballot. Seems fair.

It's not fair if the reason you pulled your candidate was to consolidate the vote behind another liberal running as an "Independent." It's a dirty trick. There doesn't need to be a "penalty" for the Court to order that the law be obeyed.

The court can order whatever they want, but the dems still have to find a guy who actually agrees to run for senate. What happens if they can't find somebody?

Probably just have a check box next to "democrat"

I don't understand why this whole charade isn't humiliating for the Democrats. The pubs acting like babies and the sorry state of Dem party is probably why.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #265 on: September 20, 2014, 09:27:15 AM »
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?

Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.

The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?

He lost interest, I guess. Does it really matter if he was telling the truth?

I would guess perjury is not something lawyers should be engaged in. If Taylor is capable of serving, and a court has now ruled he swore under oath he is not, he has committed perjury.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #266 on: September 20, 2014, 09:30:08 AM »
The court ruled unanimously. Did the republican justices get it wrong, too?

Per curiam does not necessarily mean unanimous.  What's was bizarre (chicken-crap) is that they had the interim judge sign the opinion.

Politics aside, our Supreme court is in an extremely sad state right now.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #267 on: September 20, 2014, 09:34:13 AM »
None of this will matter in November when Roberts wins reelection in a landslide. I don't think the tea party people pissed at Roberts are ultimately going to support orman. Just like I don't think they'll ultimately support davis.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37157
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #268 on: September 20, 2014, 01:36:46 PM »
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?

Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.

The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?

He lost interest, I guess. Does it really matter if he was telling the truth?

I would guess perjury is not something lawyers should be engaged in. If Taylor is capable of serving, and a court has now ruled he swore under oath he is not, he has committed perjury.

I didn't even see where the court questioned Taylor.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37157
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #269 on: September 20, 2014, 01:38:16 PM »
What is the penalty for not replacing him? I would assume it is that you just don't get your party on the ballot. Seems fair.

It's not fair if the reason you pulled your candidate was to consolidate the vote behind another liberal running as an "Independent." It's a dirty trick. There doesn't need to be a "penalty" for the Court to order that the law be obeyed.

The court can order whatever they want, but the dems still have to find a guy who actually agrees to run for senate. What happens if they can't find somebody?

Probably just have a check box next to "democrat"

I don't understand why this whole charade isn't humiliating for the Democrats. The pubs acting like babies and the sorry state of Dem party is probably why.

It absolutely should be humiliating to the democrats. The icing on the cake will be when Orman caucuses with the pubs.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #270 on: September 20, 2014, 03:58:45 PM »
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?

Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.

The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?

He lost interest, I guess. Does it really matter if he was telling the truth?

I would guess perjury is not something lawyers should be engaged in. If Taylor is capable of serving, and a court has now ruled he swore under oath he is not, he has committed perjury.

I didn't even see where the court questioned Taylor.

I don't think the Kobonster raised the issue.  He should have ranted and raved about how rough ridin' incompetent you have to be to be incapable of being a senator.  How Stuart smally is a senator. And demanded that someone so incompetent immediately resign from his da position for the safety of all women, children and cops in Shawnee county.  At least get your money's worth.

What is also troubling is how willy nilly our S.Ct issued a writ of mandamus, and how they did some pathetic statutory construction that didn't even get into legislative intent or a single canon of construction. It was a frighteningly terrible opinion and they should be embarrassed. If I was kobach I probably would disregard it.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #271 on: September 20, 2014, 09:33:58 PM »
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?

Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.

The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?

He lost interest, I guess. Does it really matter if he was telling the truth?

I would guess perjury is not something lawyers should be engaged in. If Taylor is capable of serving, and a court has now ruled he swore under oath he is not, he has committed perjury.

I didn't even see where the court questioned Taylor.

They didn't, and the letter is not a sworn statement, so he didn't perjure himself. He did lie to the legal system, which is blatantly unethical, but he'll never be called out for that, just like the justices chose not to call him out for his lie. Instead, they aided him in his lie. That's the part that's so infuriating. It's just another example of how the government no longer has any sense of justice or right and wrong - the government only cares about government, and the liberal expansion of more government.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20526
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #272 on: September 20, 2014, 10:33:08 PM »
Question: Do you disagree that this is a dirty trick? Do you actually think that Taylor honestly is incable of serving?

Yes, I disagree. If a candidate doesn't want to be on the ballot, he should be able to withdraw. There is nothing dirty about this.

The law doesn't allow you to withdraw for "not wanting to be on the ballot." You can onloy withdraw if you are "incapable of serving." Do you understand the definitional difference between "can't" and "I don't wanna"? Now I'll ask you again, do you think Taylor told the truth when he said he was "incapable of serving if elected"? If so, what do you think changed?

He lost interest, I guess. Does it really matter if he was telling the truth?

I would guess perjury is not something lawyers should be engaged in. If Taylor is capable of serving, and a court has now ruled he swore under oath he is not, he has committed perjury.

I think Kobach should sue and try to prove that Chad Taylor would be an outstanding US Senator.

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 64252
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #273 on: September 20, 2014, 10:37:27 PM »
 :lol:
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Headinjun

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1226
    • View Profile
Re: Attention Fellow Conservatives
« Reply #274 on: September 20, 2014, 11:33:20 PM »
Regarding the Orman family picture, the dog children look happy.  According to his bio no children; I don't trust a man who won't spawn.  Also he had a company that sold energy effecient lighting, damn dim blue bulbs.  Is this guy a prairie al gore?

You're kidding about the bulbs right?