Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Mix Presidents to make the best...

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 7:46:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
How would you mix the presidents to make the best?

George Washington for his foreign policy
Thomas Jefferson for his ideas
LBJ for his social agendas
Teddy Roosevelt for his mind
Obama for his rhetoric
Coolidge for is economic policies

So my president would be...

Geomas L Roosbamidge

What would yours be?
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 9:58:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Obama for his policies + George Washington for being dead.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 10:02:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 9:58:44 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Obama for his policies + George Washington for being dead.

Haha, win.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 10:06:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 7:46:38 PM, comoncents wrote:
How would you mix the presidents to make the best?

George Washington for his foreign policy
Thomas Jefferson for his ideas
LBJ for his social agendas
Teddy Roosevelt for his mind
Obama for his rhetoric
Coolidge for is economic policies

Are you retarded? That's like picking Nixon for his honesty.
Demauscian
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 12:47:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 10:06:31 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/17/2010 7:46:38 PM, comoncents wrote:
How would you mix the presidents to make the best?

George Washington for his foreign policy
Thomas Jefferson for his ideas
LBJ for his social agendas
Teddy Roosevelt for his mind
Obama for his rhetoric
Coolidge for is economic policies

Are you retarded? That's like picking Nixon for his honesty.

If he is referring to the "Great Society" then LBJ had a great Social Agenda, but he just never got around to it because he was busy with his war in Vietnam.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 1:00:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 9:58:44 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Obama for his policies + George Washington for being dead.

And which particular policy are you speaking of?

@common
LBJ - ha ha ha ha ha
that war on poverty did miracles, eh?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 5:38:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 10:06:31 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/17/2010 7:46:38 PM, comoncents wrote:
How would you mix the presidents to make the best?

George Washington for his foreign policy
Thomas Jefferson for his ideas
LBJ for his domestic policies
Teddy Roosevelt for his mind
Obama for his rhetoric
Coolidge for is economic policies

Are you retarded? That's like picking Nixon for his honesty.

I was talking about his fight in civil right you dummy. With Arkansas, and Thurgood Marshall.

Better wordc would be domestic policies
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 12:53:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 5:38:50 AM, comoncents wrote:
I was talking about his fight in civil right you dummy. With Arkansas, and Thurgood Marshall.

Better wordc would be domestic policies

Parts of the CRA are unconstitutional, and sorry for assuming that you meant what you actually said, dummy.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 12:57:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 12:53:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/18/2010 5:38:50 AM, comoncents wrote:
I was talking about his fight in civil right you dummy. With Arkansas, and Thurgood Marshall.

Better wordc would be domestic policies

Parts of the CRA are unconstitutional, and sorry for assuming that you meant what you actually said, dummy.

Oh so now the Constitution's infallible?
President of DDO
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 1:18:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 12:57:01 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/18/2010 12:53:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/18/2010 5:38:50 AM, comoncents wrote:
I was talking about his fight in civil right you dummy. With Arkansas, and Thurgood Marshall.

Better wordc would be domestic policies

Parts of the CRA are unconstitutional, and sorry for assuming that you meant what you actually said, dummy.

Oh so now the Constitution's infallible?

Fallability is the one thing all of our rules and documents have in common...
no comment
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 1:22:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 12:57:01 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Oh so now the Constitution's infallible?

Of course not, though I happen to agree with it on this particular point. Comon describes himself as a "constitutional conservative," so it seemed relevant.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 2:49:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 1:22:25 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/18/2010 12:57:01 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Oh so now the Constitution's infallible?

Of course not, though I happen to agree with it on this particular point.

Of course you do; you're a white male.
President of DDO
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 3:28:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 2:49:21 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/18/2010 1:22:25 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/18/2010 12:57:01 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Oh so now the Constitution's infallible?

Of course not, though I happen to agree with it on this particular point.

Of course you do; you're a white male.

. . . as far as the human genome is concerned . . . everyone is black . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 5:12:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 2:49:21 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/18/2010 1:22:25 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/18/2010 12:57:01 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Oh so now the Constitution's infallible?

Of course not, though I happen to agree with it on this particular point.

Of course you do; you're a white male.

...racist...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 5:15:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 3:28:34 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
. . . as far as the human genome is concerned . . . everyone is black . . .

Actually, no one's black. We're all different shades of brown :P
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 5:21:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 2:49:21 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/18/2010 1:22:25 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Of course not, though I happen to agree with it on this particular point.

Of course you do; you're a white male.

Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell agree with me :P
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 5:29:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 5:15:30 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/18/2010 3:28:34 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
. . . as far as the human genome is concerned . . . everyone is black . . .

Actually, no one's black. We're all different shades of brown :P

or yellow, since brown is just a dark yellow.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 6:18:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 12:53:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/18/2010 5:38:50 AM, comoncents wrote:
I was talking about his fight in civil right you dummy. With Arkansas, and Thurgood Marshall.

Better wordc would be domestic policies

Parts of the CRA are unconstitutional, and sorry for assuming that you meant what you actually said, dummy.

It depends on how you look at the constitution.

Pragmatic Ideological

Judicial activism = Living constitution

Jud Restraint = Original intent
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 6:30:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 6:18:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 11/18/2010 12:53:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/18/2010 5:38:50 AM, comoncents wrote:
I was talking about his fight in civil right you dummy. With Arkansas, and Thurgood Marshall.

Better wordc would be domestic policies

Parts of the CRA are unconstitutional, and sorry for assuming that you meant what you actually said, dummy.

It depends on how you look at the constitution.



Pragmatic Ideological





Judicial activism = Living constitution


Jud Restraint = Original intent

Or if you even care.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 6:51:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 6:18:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 11/18/2010 12:53:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/18/2010 5:38:50 AM, comoncents wrote:
I was talking about his fight in civil right you dummy. With Arkansas, and Thurgood Marshall.

Better wordc would be domestic policies

Parts of the CRA are unconstitutional, and sorry for assuming that you meant what you actually said, dummy.

It depends on how you look at the constitution.



Pragmatic Ideological





Judicial activism = Living constitution


Jud Restraint = Original intent

So you can look at it as though it doesn't exist? Interesting.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 7:48:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Barry Goldwater for his policies.

any president who actually won an election for actually having been elected president.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 8:58:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Jonh Mccain before he got sent to vietnam cus he's such a dreamboat. http://noreah.typepad.com...

Martin Van Buren cus he looks like freaking wolverine or something http://martinvanburenbiography.com...

^Better decision than most voters.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 6:14:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 6:51:35 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/18/2010 6:18:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 11/18/2010 12:53:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/18/2010 5:38:50 AM, comoncents wrote:
I was talking about his fight in civil right you dummy. With Arkansas, and Thurgood Marshall.

Better wordc would be domestic policies

Parts of the CRA are unconstitutional, and sorry for assuming that you meant what you actually said, dummy.

It depends on how you look at the constitution.



Pragmatic Ideological





Judicial activism = Living constitution


Jud Restraint = Original intent

So you can look at it as though it doesn't exist? Interesting.

No you cannot. The difference between what you think is unconstitutional is not a bluntly over looking of it, but a "living constitution" approach. Even the patriot act is constitutional to people that look at the constitution as "living."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 6:19:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 6:18:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
Judicial activism = Living constitution

mm... last I checked.. it was made up of words... not flesh.

Jud Restraint = Original intent

How bout we keep it nice and simple... The constitution means what the words say.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 6:23:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 6:18:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
Judicial activism

the judge's claim to legitimacy is THROUGH the constitution...

if he rules anything contradicting the constitution... he's contradicting that which gives him legitimacy.

such rulings have no legitimacy.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 6:25:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
There is no rule of law, only the rule of man. http://faculty.msb.edu...

Monarchy is anarchy the king, and slavery for everyone else. Democracy is anarchy for the majority and slavery for the minority. Think about that the next time you argue against anarchy.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 6:25:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 6:19:14 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/18/2010 6:18:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
Judicial activism = Living constitution

mm... last I checked.. it was made up of words... not flesh.

words can be added, and words can be taken away...

but not by judges.... by super-majorities of the legislature.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 6:26:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 6:25:19 AM, Sieben wrote:
There is no rule of law, only the rule of man. http://faculty.msb.edu...

Monarchy is anarchy the king, and slavery for everyone else. Democracy is anarchy for the majority and slavery for the minority. Think about that the next time you argue against anarchy.

who argued against anarchy???
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 6:27:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 6:23:03 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/18/2010 6:18:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
Judicial activism

the judge's claim to legitimacy is THROUGH the constitution...

if he rules anything contradicting the constitution... he's contradicting that which gives him legitimacy.

such rulings have no legitimacy.

But it is how they look at the constitution.
"Living constitution"= They feel that with the changing of the times, the interpretation has to apply to the change. Like gay marriage passing b/c Equal Protection Clause, that would have never happened 100 years ago. It is a "living constitutional" look that interprets it that way.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 6:27:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 6:26:14 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/19/2010 6:25:19 AM, Sieben wrote:
There is no rule of law, only the rule of man. http://faculty.msb.edu...

Monarchy is anarchy the king, and slavery for everyone else. Democracy is anarchy for the majority and slavery for the minority. Think about that the next time you argue against anarchy.

who argued against anarchy???
Comon. Most people. You obviously didn't :)
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...