OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t understand why the national anthem gets played at sporting events. I understand doing it when teams from two countries are competing, but what does every random sports game have to do with national unity besides redneck sports fans having a love of jingoism?
 
fAlDG85h.jpg
 
smurfco said:
The cartoon above sums it up. What I mean by "who cares" is isn't the whole point of the flag and the United States that you don't have to stand up if you don't want to? I don't see how self proclaimed super patriots saying the guy should leave the country fail to recognize that what he is doing is almost by definition American?
Click to expand...
I think you missed the fact that he's a black guy.
 
VoidTerraFirma said:
Hey! Isn't there a SC Confirmation hearing we should be having?
Click to expand...

No! The last thing that we need right now is people focusing on Garland. If the Democrats take the Senate they can rewrite the filibuster rules to require standing filibusters. Which means Hillary can drop Garland for a minority female intellectual. Then the GOP senators who want to block it have to stand up and rant about why a minority female intellectual isn’t qualified to be on the Supreme Court. The GOP ends up looking even more horrible and loses more ground.
 
jp_nyc said:
No! The last thing that we need right now is people focusing on Garland. If the Democrats take the Senate they can rewrite the filibuster rules to require standing filibusters. Which means Hillary can drop Garland for a minority female intellectual. Then the GOP senators who want to block it have to stand up and rant about why a minority female intellectual isn’t qualified to be on the Supreme Court. The GOP ends up looking even more horrible and loses more ground.
Click to expand...

You're a savage.
 
jp_nyc said:
No! The last thing that we need right now is people focusing on Garland. If the Democrats take the Senate they can rewrite the filibuster rules to require standing filibusters. Which means Hillary can drop Garland for a minority female intellectual. Then the GOP senators who want to block it have to stand up and rant about why a minority female intellectual isn’t qualified to be on the Supreme Court. The GOP ends up looking even more horrible and loses more ground.
Click to expand...
You make that sound like a bad thing.
 
jp_nyc said:
No! The last thing that we need right now is people focusing on Garland. If the Democrats take the Senate they can rewrite the filibuster rules to require standing ON ONE LEG filibusters. Which means Hillary can drop Garland for a minority female intellectual. Then the GOP senators who want to block it have to stand up and rant about why a minority female intellectual isn’t qualified to be on the Supreme Court. The GOP ends up looking even more horrible and loses more ground.
Click to expand...

FIFY :grin:
 
Chad said:
I think the GOP may have screwed themselves with that. If the Dems can get a few more senate seats, Hillary can nominate someone more liberal than Obama did. I still think if she wins and the Dems take back the senate, she should nominate Obama.
Click to expand...

Better yet, he should nominate himself during the couple of months that he's still president after the election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top