U.S. Politics

Page 802 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
5. Running a Fortune 50 multinational corporation... and coming through the ranks to do it is about as good of preparation as there is. If you honestly think that someone can't adapt from that background to public governance then up really is down.


Fiorina is has been called the worst CEO of the tech era. She turned a skyrocketing company into a failing company (two companies really after her mismanagement of the merger). After destroying the company she took her golden 'chute and hit the road. Trump has filed for bankruptcy four or five times. Do we want these "prepped by business" candidates running our country?
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Re:

rhubroma said:
I realize this is a bit outside the time limit, though I couldn't resist. In her infinite propriety of reason and historical awareness Ann Coulter, in response to Governor Nikki Haley's (another republican) call to ban the Confederate flag in South Carolina, has made the following remarks:

Ann Coulter: Nikki Haley 'an immigrant' who doesn’t understand Confederate flag: “I’d really like to like Nikki Haley since she is a Republican, but on the other hand, she’s an immigrant and does not understand America’s history,” Coulter told host Kennedy on her Fox Business show Tuesday evening.

“You think immigrants can’t understand history?” Kennedy asked.

“Well, she doesn’t,” Coulter responded. “The Confederate flag we’re talking about never flew over an official Confederate building.”

“It was a battle flag — it is to honor Robert E. Lee,” she added. “Anyone who knows the first thing about military history knows that there is no greater army that ever took the field than the Confederate Army.”

Apart from the fact that Coulter's intimation about an immigrant's status being less American and thus less capable of understanding US history demonstrates what level of cognitive reasoning we are dealing with here, her dubious historical knowledge (off the top of my head I'd say, if we have history in mind, Alexander the Great's army enjoyed a tad bit more success than the Confederate Army among many others, but let's concede Coulter her patriotic illusions) overlooks an obvious fact. Even if the Confederate flag never flew over an official Confederate building (though had the US split in two it certainly would have), it still remains true that it was borne on the battle field in honor of a military defending a homeland in which abject slavery was the virtuous patrimony of whites. On this account the Confederate flag has become, though in a historical sense always has been, a symbol of white "supremacy" over blacks.

By contrast Nikki Haley (I repeat a fellow republican, born in the US of Indian immigrants), in her alien misunderstanding explains with simple and perfect words why after the massacre of Charleston the Confederate flag should, as a symbol of white southern pride and of slavery, be banned from public display: "This flag, while an integral part of our past, does not represent the future of our great state," she said.

Even today this symbol of southern pride and slavery is commercialized as a happy and cherished souvenir for American racist groups. This fact, though, goes unnoticed by Coulter, who rather criticizes Haley for her exotic background (intimating an inferior status with it - one wonders, though, about Coulter's own immigrant origins, as is necessarily the case) and for the insolent pride with which she has dared to invoke US history, of which she is obviously ignorant!

The logic of civil coexistence, however, even if today a product of political correctness, in a pluralistic age stipulates that if a discriminatory symbol or word "provokes pain for many," then it is appropriate to give it up. This logic has served its purpose the moment it renders social cohabitation less rough and avoids renewing the suffering of many citizens. To cite just one other example, the institutional taboo against the swastika confirms perfectly to this rationale in the name of avoiding the repugnant effect such a symbol causes for the extermination survivors and any civil person.

But when the political debate of the likes of Coulter has become so rudimentary, so historically biased, misconceived and hence falsified, it certainly isn't the fault of Haley's immigrant origins, but the oafish level of discernment that has for some time afflicted the level of public discourse and the appalling level of acculturation of US society at large.
A fine post, professore! Coulter and her vile ilk are directly and personally culpable for fostering, and exploiting, the general dumbing down of the populace.
 
Trump won't be getting any Hispanic votes!

Some will say that this willingness to speak his mind shows some type of honesty, I think it shows his arrogance. Much like him flaunting that he's worth $5 Billion while the tax payers have eaten his losses four or five times when he mismanages businesses...arrogance. He doesn't care about anything but his money.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
jmdirt said:
5. Running a Fortune 50 multinational corporation... and coming through the ranks to do it is about as good of preparation as there is. If you honestly think that someone can't adapt from that background to public governance then up really is down.


Fiorina is has been called the worst CEO of the tech era. She turned a skyrocketing company into a failing company (two companies really after her mismanagement of the merger). After destroying the company she took her golden 'chute and hit the road. Trump has filed for bankruptcy four or five times. Do we want these "prepped by business" candidates running our country?
I was also intending to respond to the thumbnail about Fiorina, but this saves me the effort. ;)

I know someone in a decent position at HP. He's was at HP before Fiorina, and he's still there. He said she was an absolute disaster for the company, and was widely disliked by all who had to deal with her. He thought that the very idea of her thinking that she might have the remotest chance was literally, hysterical. Fiorina is dismissed out of hand.
 
Re:

Amsterhammer said:
I wonder if Scalia will write the dissent for this one too. His work on King v Burwell was pure comedic gold.

I think that there are a number of GOP candidates that are secretly glad that this has been decided, hoping this becomes a back-burner issue and they don't have to talk about it in debates and town halls. Better to sweep it under the carpet than continuing to espouse views to curry favor with the base that are increasingly at odds with the electorate at large.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
jmdirt said:
5. Running a Fortune 50 multinational corporation... and coming through the ranks to do it is about as good of preparation as there is. If you honestly think that someone can't adapt from that background to public governance then up really is down.


Fiorina is has been called the worst CEO of the tech era. She turned a skyrocketing company into a failing company (two companies really after her mismanagement of the merger). After destroying the company she took her golden 'chute and hit the road. Trump has filed for bankruptcy four or five times. Do we want these "prepped by business" candidates running our country?
....are you kidding!?....these peoples are darn near perfect....( and I mean that in the good sense )....

Cheers
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
Amsterhammer said:
I wonder if Scalia will write the dissent for this one too. His work on King v Burwell was pure comedic gold.

I think that there are a number of GOP candidates that are secretly glad that this has been decided, hoping this becomes a back-burner issue and they don't have to talk about it in debates and town halls. Better to sweep it under the carpet than continuing to espouse views to curry favor with the base that are increasingly at odds with the electorate at large.
I think you hit the nail about the inner feelings of most candidates.
Reading a dissent from the bench for the first time in his tenure, Roberts said, “This is a court, not a legislature.”
Evidently he forgot CU pretty quick. :rolleyes:
From the majority opinion: "The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a character protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning."
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re:

King Boonen said:
Pretty sure you'd have to class the Union Army as greater than the confederate Army...
I was going to say something similar to your post.

Confederate Army might have been good but in the end who was victorious the Union Army. I'm quite sure the Confederate Army started out as professionals but they were over matched.

Very happy to live in the United States and not some third world cesspool called the Confederate States or whatever they would have come up with.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
King Boonen said:
Pretty sure you'd have to class the Union Army as greater than the confederate Army...
I was going to say something similar to your post.

Confederate Army might have been good but in the end who was victorious the Union Army. I'm quite sure the Confederate Army started out as professionals but they were over matched.

Very happy to live in the United States and not some third world cesspool called the Confederate States or whatever they would have come up with.
The Union army won in the end because they had a greater store of "resources" to burn through.
If the south would have won, we would have gone on fighting the war every 3 years or so, every time a slave revolt was put down in some barbaric manner, and every time some other John Brown crossed the border.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re:

Amsterhammer said:
Well I guess so. It is a shame that anyone either involved with the teaparty or the republican party would allow this crap to be an issue. Gay Marriage should not be an election issue. Plain and simple.

Even if they want to side step and "leave it up to the states", fine. I just don't want this to muddy the already giant sh!t water the "issues" are.

Leave Gay Marriage, Abortion out of the election issues. Very simple. Instead they get all hung up on it because of the religious vote. What a crack. VERY F-ing tired of this sh!t.

I'm also growing tired of how anyone associated or who might agree with some of the teaparty stuff is called a teabagger or that it is related to a sporting event.

I'm not angry at anyone specific but it just gets old in my opinion. All this hate or berating the "otherside" creates a horrible environment here.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re: Re:

Hugh Januss said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
King Boonen said:
Pretty sure you'd have to class the Union Army as greater than the confederate Army...
I was going to say something similar to your post.

Confederate Army might have been good but in the end who was victorious the Union Army. I'm quite sure the Confederate Army started out as professionals but they were over matched.

Very happy to live in the United States and not some third world cesspool called the Confederate States or whatever they would have come up with.
The Union army won in the end because they had a greater store of "resources" to burn through.
If the south would have won, we would have gone on fighting the war every 3 years or so, every time a slave revolt was put down in some barbaric manner, and every time some other John Brown crossed the border.
It is hard to imagine how horrible everything could have gone if the South would have won.

I never really put much weight into the matter until one day while visiting Wash DC I was at the Lincoln memorial with my daughter. I stood and read the Second Inaugural address and it is profound to say the least. The Gettysburg address is more well known as it used to be required to memorize the speech for school. Those two speeches by Lincoln describes the weight of the times. Very fortunate for the United States to have him as a president during that time.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Glenn, my reference to "teabags" was general. It was no reference to anyone here. I used the word deliberately because all three rulings this week have gone against the conservative interests that brought the cases. These SCOTUS rulings will come to be seen as landmark cases for this court. (I'm sure Chewey will have views about the legal aspects.)

I totally agree with you that these kinds of issues should play no role in election campaigns.

I'm sure that Chewey in particular will enjoy today's dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia, which can only be characterized as 'exploding head'. My learned friend from Soviet Canuckistan will, no doubt, also enjoy Scalia's choice of words. :p

"I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," he begins.

"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me," he offers. "It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best."

"But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law," he opines. "Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its 'reasoned judgment,' thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect."
"The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic," he writes. "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."
:D

More here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/26/antonin-scalia-dissent_n_7671110.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063
 
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
Amsterhammer said:
I wonder if Scalia will write the dissent for this one too. His work on King v Burwell was pure comedic gold.

I think that there are a number of GOP candidates that are secretly glad that this has been decided, hoping this becomes a back-burner issue and they don't have to talk about it in debates and town halls. Better to sweep it under the carpet than continuing to espouse views to curry favor with the base that are increasingly at odds with the electorate at large.
I look at it the other way. I don't think it will be a back-burner issue at all. I think they will take words from Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito and use them to scare the living bejezzus out of old people and fly over people. I think they'll harp on and on for days about the overreach of the Court, and campaign on becoming president to be able to select conservative justices that will stop this "judicial activism."

This could actually hurt the Democratic nominee as an issue that the D base is passionate about is effectively off the table, thereby muting some voter motivation.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
Amsterhammer said:
Well I guess so. It is a shame that anyone either involved with the teaparty or the republican party would allow this crap to be an issue. Gay Marriage should not be an election issue. Plain and simple.

Even if they want to side step and "leave it up to the states", fine. I just don't want this to muddy the already giant sh!t water the "issues" are.

Leave Gay Marriage, Abortion out of the election issues. Very simple. Instead they get all hung up on it because of the religious vote. What a crack. VERY F-ing tired of this sh!t.

I'm also growing tired of how anyone associated or who might agree with some of the teaparty stuff is called a teabagger or that it is related to a sporting event.

I'm not angry at anyone specific but it just gets old in my opinion. All this hate or berating the "otherside" creates a horrible environment here.
I agree on the name calling (and I've done it too), it gets old.
 
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
Amsterhammer said:
I wonder if Scalia will write the dissent for this one too. His work on King v Burwell was pure comedic gold.

I think that there are a number of GOP candidates that are secretly glad that this has been decided, hoping this becomes a back-burner issue and they don't have to talk about it in debates and town halls. Better to sweep it under the carpet than continuing to espouse views to curry favor with the base that are increasingly at odds with the electorate at large.
More legalized sexual immorality.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
jmdirt said:
5. Running a Fortune 50 multinational corporation... and coming through the ranks to do it is about as good of preparation as there is. If you honestly think that someone can't adapt from that background to public governance then up really is down.


Fiorina is has been called the worst CEO of the tech era. She turned a skyrocketing company into a failing company (two companies really after her mismanagement of the merger). After destroying the company she took her golden 'chute and hit the road. Trump has filed for bankruptcy four or five times. Do we want these "prepped by business" candidates running our country?
She was the first woman ever to be CEO of a Fortune 30 company. Ever. The Compaq merger turned out to be crap but she was hardly alone in the blame for that.

"Carly was brought in to catalyze a transformation of HP. She did that in a remarkable fashion," Patricia Dunn, the HP board member who would become the company’s chairwoman after Fiorina’s ouster, said at the time. "Looking forward, we think the job is very reliant on hands-on execution, and we thought a new set of capabilities was called for."
She turned a skyrocketing company into a failing company (two companies really after her mismanagement of the merger). After destroying the company she took her golden 'chute and hit the road.
Uh, not even close.

Carleton S. Fiorina became the most powerful woman in business as an executive with Lucent Technologies in the late 1990s, but she was launched into celebrity CEO status when she took over the top job at storied-but-faltering Hewlett-Packard in 1999. Fiorina was the first outsider to be chief executive at HP, and she was the first woman to take the helm of a company in the Dow 30.
Look, her record as CEO was certainly not perfect and the bet with Compaq pissed backwards. She lost a proxy war because of it. So what? How does that experience and what she learned along the way make her less qualified than Hillary (who's primary accomplishment is she married well)?

Even if you take the position that she failed as the CEO of HP (which one could certainly argue) the road that got her there is pretty amazing and should certainly be considered an incredible success story. Compare the paths of Carly and Hillary and you'll find your double standard.

But she doesn't vote the right way so feel free to Palinize.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
Amsterhammer said:
Well I guess so. It is a shame that anyone either involved with the teaparty or the republican party would allow this crap to be an issue. Gay Marriage should not be an election issue. Plain and simple.

Even if they want to side step and "leave it up to the states", fine. I just don't want this to muddy the already giant sh!t water the "issues" are.

Leave Gay Marriage, Abortion out of the election issues. Very simple. Instead they get all hung up on it because of the religious vote. What a crack. VERY F-ing tired of this sh!t.

I'm also growing tired of how anyone associated or who might agree with some of the teaparty stuff is called a teabagger or that it is related to a sporting event.

I'm not angry at anyone specific but it just gets old in my opinion. All this hate or berating the "otherside" creates a horrible environment here.
This post should be stickied at the top of every page on this thread.
 
Re: Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
I look at it the other way. I don't think it will be a back-burner issue at all. I think they will take words from Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito and use them to scare the living bejezzus out of old people and fly over people. I think they'll harp on and on for days about the overreach of the Court, and campaign on becoming president to be able to select conservative justices that will stop this "judicial activism."

This could actually hurt the Democratic nominee as an issue that the D base is passionate about is effectively off the table, thereby muting some voter motivation.
Definitely possible. It will be interesting to see how it plays out tactically in 2016. I think Priebus and the RNC would rather this issue go away, but some candidates might see it as a perfect opportunity to define themselves against some of the more centrist candidates.

Maybe I didn't state it clearly, but I agree with you that the decision is probably not politically beneficial to Dems, although most would herald this decision as a 'victory'. I am also anticipating the SCOTUS decision on the death penalty challenge in OK. Some very interesting scientific and ethical questions on that one. My favorite line from the article:

'In September, in a speech at the University of Nebraska, he (Chief Justice Roberts) said he was worried that the partisan rancor in Washington might “spill over and affect us. … That’s not the way we do business. We’re not Republicans or Democrats.” ' Riiiggghhhhhhtttt.....

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2015/04/glossip_v_gross_supreme_court_justices_argue_about_lethal_injection_abolition.html
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re:

jmdirt said:
Trump won't be getting any Hispanic votes!

Some will say that this willingness to speak his mind shows some type of honesty, I think it shows his arrogance. Much like him flaunting that he's worth $5 Billion while the tax payers have eaten his losses four or five times when he mismanages businesses...arrogance. He doesn't care about anything but his money.
Huh. I guess Bernie Sanders is right up there then.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
jmdirt said:
Trump won't be getting any Hispanic votes!

Some will say that this willingness to speak his mind shows some type of honesty, I think it shows his arrogance. Much like him flaunting that he's worth $5 Billion while the tax payers have eaten his losses four or five times when he mismanages businesses...arrogance. He doesn't care about anything but his money.
Huh. I guess Bernie Sanders is right up there then.
If Trump can truly put together a plan to put in front of the voters then he can actually make headway into the independent vote. Not just his words but actual plans. His speaking his mind works well with people.

Agree that Sanders is the same. He speaks quite clearly what his mind is on the issues. Sanders so far seems to have put forth more plans than anyone else.

Would be interesting to see Trump and Sanders debate the issues one on one.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re:

Amsterhammer said:
Glenn, my reference to "teabags" was general. It was no reference to anyone here. I used the word deliberately because all three rulings this week have gone against the conservative interests that brought the cases. These SCOTUS rulings will come to be seen as landmark cases for this court. (I'm sure Chewey will have views about the legal aspects.)

I totally agree with you that these kinds of issues should play no role in election campaigns.

I'm sure that Chewey in particular will enjoy today's dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia, which can only be characterized as 'exploding head'. My learned friend from Soviet Canuckistan will, no doubt, also enjoy Scalia's choice of words. :p

"I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," he begins.

"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me," he offers. "It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best."

"But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law," he opines. "Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its 'reasoned judgment,' thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect."
"The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic," he writes. "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."
:D

More here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/26/antonin-scalia-dissent_n_7671110.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063
....Lord Thundering Jaysus !....that is some stinky pile of dissentifying....frankly, words fail me....considering this fool is like in a position of some power makes me very very glad to be a citizen of Soviet Canuckistan....could go on but its pointless...tossed word salad topped with rancid dressing would be an appropriate quick summary ( is it just me or was that sort of like SoWrong on steroids....and HGH...and EPO...and AICAR...and some testosterone...three case of Coors Tri-Lite...a couple of bottles of rotgut tequila...a couple of pounds of coke....several handfuls of uppers...and three hits of the scariest brown blotter ever seen...and btw SoWrong, welcome back, we missed you...well, not really, but I am however, compelled, as a proud citizen in good standing of the great and very polite country to your north ( and east ), to say something polite...ok ok ok I missed you but just a little tiny microscopic bit and just to keep within Soviet Canuckistanian spec...)...

Cheers
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,273
0
0
Only males can think abortion shouldn't be an election issue. Abortion is a tragic and terrible thing, but laws about it are fundamentally about whether women are full citizens with full rights to make medical decisions about their own bodies.

--

Hillary was introduced at Rev. Pinckney's service to thunderous applause. At this point, I don't see Bernie appealing to African American Democrats nearly so much as her - will be curious to see if he can change that.

--

It was reported on TV yesterday that the National Parks Service will discontinue selling confederate flags at all locations. OK, this is one decision I don't agree with, since the flags sold at the battlefield gift shops traditionally are about the historical uses, how the flag changed over time, who used what flag and why, etc. I have an ancestor on the monument at Kings Mountain, and a grandmother who dragged the whole family out there periodically. On one of these trips, I got a set of small Revolutionary War flags from their shop - to me the Civil War battlefields are sort of the same thing. YMMV.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re:

Amsterhammer said:
Glenn, my reference to "teabags" was general. It was no reference to anyone here. I used the word deliberately because all three rulings this week have gone against the conservative interests that brought the cases. These SCOTUS rulings will come to be seen as landmark cases for this court. (I'm sure Chewey will have views about the legal aspects.)

I totally agree with you that these kinds of issues should play no role in election campaigns.

I'm sure that Chewey in particular will enjoy today's dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia, which can only be characterized as 'exploding head'. My learned friend from Soviet Canuckistan will, no doubt, also enjoy Scalia's choice of words. :p

"I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," he begins.

"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me," he offers. "It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best."

"But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law," he opines. "Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its 'reasoned judgment,' thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect."
"The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic," he writes. "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."
:D

More here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/26/antonin-scalia-dissent_n_7671110.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063
I totally understood what you wrote in your post. That is why I said I'm not angry with anyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS