Do I need to make the text bigger and bright red so it can penetrate the haze of drugs?
you're right
I might not be posting if John Kerry were appointing the next Supreme Court Justice. That doesn't make any of my comments with regards to whether the system works any more or less valid.
But since I just said that, I can only conclude that your entire purpose in posting was to, how do you say it?, "start a pissing contest", because for all your pretenses that you're so much better than everyone else, don't care about anything, and hopped up on drugs and booze constantly, you're still petty enough to care.
And yes, I am petty enough to care. But I don't pretend I'm not.
diss, i do drugs, good one demo. thats almost as good as accusing me of being petty when i post something thats one line, which you eventually admitted to being true, and got called an idiot in reply. write for leno.
though i admit i pretty much didnt read your post very thoroughly. so yeah thanks, you actually did need to put it in big red letters like that.
Oh, I wasn't dissing you for doing drugs. There's nothing wrong with doing drugs in general, assuming it's not causing you to harm people. I'm dissing you because you run around TRF trying to be all "yo i do drugs im too cool for this place" and use it to pretend you know more/have "lived" more than anyone else, when really you're every pit as petty, needy, et al. as everyone else here.
In a nutshell - everything you laugh at us for you are yourself.
Regardless of his intent, Demo has a point. The Supreme Court of the country is a powerful institution, one onto which the appointment of polarized and biased judges serves only to perpetuate the polarized attitudes that have well suited both parties in their rallying cries. As nation, the United States should be becoming more united, but it is actually progressing the opposite way into a nation of squabbling, bickering, and endless protesting.
If I may offer a radical suggestion: allow the losing party of the election to propose the justices. In this way, barring a lame duck president, you would have the party in power of an opposing ideological viewpoint to the party promoting the justices. This would lead to mutually assured moderation... take the current situation. The democrats could never promote a social liberatarian, as the conservatives would block it. And the democrats would never promote a hard line conservative. At most, you would have moderate liberals or conservatives appointed. In general, you would then achieve a centrist court. The only situation in which this would not apply would be in the election of a lame duck President. But generally, when that happens, majorities in the house and senate are not overwhelming.
We could argue that 'coolness' is entirely objective and in the eye of the beholder, meaning that you might only see yourself as cooler. Even a poll revealing that you were seen as coolest by a majority of the posters would really only mean they choose to view you as cool, since it is not a state but a label. Thus, drugs only enhance your 'coolness' if you want them to, since only by your own perceptions can coolness be defined for yourself.
Not that you wouldn't already know that, it was just a mental exercise.
