Would you confirm Sotomayor for the Supreme Court?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Unsure, leaning yes, because nothing stands out as OMGZ WE CANT HAVE THIZ LUNATIC.

[Nym90]

Yes.

[Keystone Phil]

I obviously Marokai's signature, suggesting that I don't know what policy making is in the judicial system. This kid has had something about me in his signature for quite some time now and he still has the nerve to say that he's not an obsessive troll. What a messed up child.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I obviously Marokai's signature, suggesting that I don't know what policy making is in the judicial system. This kid has had something about me in his signature for quite some time now and he still has the nerve to say that he's not an obsessive troll. What a messed up child.

Well, see, the simple solution would be to just say what you interpret as policy making by the judiciary. Unfortunately that appeared to be too hard for you, so you fell back to ignoring the question and ultimately dismissing me.

[Keystone Phil]

I obviously Marokai's signature, suggesting that I don't know what policy making is in the judicial system. This kid has had something about me in his signature for quite some time now and he still has the nerve to say that he's not an obsessive troll. What a messed up child.

Well, see, the simple solution would be to just say what you interpret as policy making by the judiciary. Unfortunately that appeared to be too hard for you, so you fell back to ignoring the question and ultimately dismissing me.

Maybe one day you'll finally realize that I gave up "debating" with you after horrific experiences between the two of us both personally and on this forum. I would say something and then you'd respond with something completely inappropriate. You suffer from some serious "foot in mouth." I choose not to engage in that nonsense with you anymore. Time to get over it already.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I obviously Marokai's signature, suggesting that I don't know what policy making is in the judicial system. This kid has had something about me in his signature for quite some time now and he still has the nerve to say that he's not an obsessive troll. What a messed up child.

Well, see, the simple solution would be to just say what you interpret as policy making by the judiciary. Unfortunately that appeared to be too hard for you, so you fell back to ignoring the question and ultimately dismissing me.

Maybe one day you'll finally realize that I gave up "debating" with you after horrific experiences between the two of us both personally and on this forum. I would say something and then you'd respond with something completely inappropriate. You suffer from some serious "foot in mouth." I choose not to engage in that nonsense with you anymore. Time to get over it already.

If you want to use the fact that we had an argument that went nowhere once before to ignore every question I have for you, that's convenient and fine and all, but you maybe shouldn't have responded to me at all then.

It's not like I was acting you to write an essay. I asked what you viewed 'policy making' from the judiciary as because I'd had this argument with someone off-site earlier yesterday and I wanted someone to actually explain it. You declined to about four times before you finally ignored the question entirely, like many other things you "debate" around here.

[Keystone Phil]

I obviously Marokai's signature, suggesting that I don't know what policy making is in the judicial system. This kid has had something about me in his signature for quite some time now and he still has the nerve to say that he's not an obsessive troll. What a messed up child.

Well, see, the simple solution would be to just say what you interpret as policy making by the judiciary. Unfortunately that appeared to be too hard for you, so you fell back to ignoring the question and ultimately dismissing me.

Maybe one day you'll finally realize that I gave up "debating" with you after horrific experiences between the two of us both personally and on this forum. I would say something and then you'd respond with something completely inappropriate. You suffer from some serious "foot in mouth." I choose not to engage in that nonsense with you anymore. Time to get over it already.

If you want to use the fact that we had an argument that went nowhere once before to ignore every question I have for you, that's convenient and fine and all, but you maybe shouldn't have responded to me at all then.

It's not like I was acting you to write an essay. I asked what you viewed 'policy making' from the judiciary as because I'd had this argument with someone off-site earlier yesterday and I wanted someone to actually explain it. You declined to about four times before you finally ignored the question entirely, like many other things you "debate" around here.

LOL

Once! Haha, oh, boy.

I don't know when you'll get over your feelings of incredible self importance but I hope it's soon. I'll state again that I don't owe you explanations.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not interested in getting into another senseless argument with you. I asked you a simple question that you ignored not once, but countless times, and then ultimately dismissed entirely. If you have some point other than being here just to bash me over something yet again, then I'd really appreciate you answering the question, otherwise I've no interest in this.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Hell no. (R)

[The Dowager Mod]

Yup.

[Verily]

I'm not interested in getting into another senseless argument with you. I asked you a simple question that you ignored not once, but countless times, and then ultimately dismissed entirely. If you have some point other than being here just to bash me over something yet again, then I'd really appreciate you answering the question, otherwise I've no interest in this.

You were the one who started this particular argument, however. Just stop commenting irritably on everything conservative on this forum, please.

[Jake]

Probably not, not because her politics are disagreeable, but because I think the Court should have the best legal intellects on it. Sotomayor is not one of those people.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not interested in getting into another senseless argument with you. I asked you a simple question that you ignored not once, but countless times, and then ultimately dismissed entirely. If you have some point other than being here just to bash me over something yet again, then I'd really appreciate you answering the question, otherwise I've no interest in this.

You were the one who started this particular argument, however. Just stop commenting irritably on everything conservative on this forum, please.

Uh, I asked him what he thought policy making from the judiciary meant, I wasn't out to get him or something. It was a simple question that he obviously had enough interest in to post something on, and I would've done the same to anyone else who mentioned something negative about "judicial policy making."

Where the hell did that come from anyway? Are you trying out to be a moderator or something? What a terrifically unnecessary comment to make.

And don't comment on everything conservative on this forum? Uh, I have political views on a forum where people have political discussions, how dare I comment on something I disagree with wanting to understand their positions! I'm such a terrible person! You could literally complain to half the forum about commenting "irritably" towards something.

I'm just confused as to why you even felt the need to make that comment because it really wasn't necessary and really doesn't make much sense. What do you want me to do, not talk about anything at all?

[tmthforu94]

I'm not interested in getting into another senseless argument with you. I asked you a simple question that you ignored not once, but countless times, and then ultimately dismissed entirely. If you have some point other than being here just to bash me over something yet again, then I'd really appreciate you answering the question, otherwise I've no interest in this.

You were the one who started this particular argument, however. Just stop commenting irritably on everything conservative on this forum, please.

Uh, I asked him what he thought policy making from the judiciary meant, I wasn't out to get him or something. It was a simple question that he obviously had enough interest in to post something on, and I would've done the same to anyone else who mentioned something negative about "judicial policy making."

Where the hell did that come from anyway? Are you trying out to be a moderator or something? What a terrifically unnecessary comment to make.

And don't comment on everything conservative on this forum? Uh, I have political views on a forum where people have political discussions, how dare I comment on something I disagree with wanting to understand their positions! I'm such a terrible person! You could literally complain to half the forum about commenting "irritably" towards something.

I'm just confused as to why you even felt the need to make that comment because it really wasn't necessary and really doesn't make much sense. What do you want me to do, not talk about anything at all?

I am also quite confused.
One of the purposes of this forum is to debate with other members, and that is what Marokai. I fail to see what's wrong with that.

[Mint]

No. Based on her rulings on affirmative action, gun control, etc. I feel she reaches a lot and makes overtly political decisions. While I do not view an aggressive legal philosophy as necessarily activism, I don't really trust her to be objective with the law.

[Keystone Phil]

He's not interested in debating. Marokai trolls. He's fine for awhile and then wants to start trouble. Believe me, I've had to deal with his nonsense off the forum. He then gets manipulative (like right now) and does this, "Who, me?" innocent game when you expose his baiting.

His signatures almost always include a jab at me, too. He craves attention and when you refuse to give it to him (which is what I was doing earlier in the thread when I refused to "debate"), he has to do stuff (like his signatures) to provoke a response. He's a sad, sad child.

[Marokai Backbeat]

He's not interested in debating. Marokai trolls. He's fine for awhile and then wants to start trouble. Believe me, I've had to deal with his nonsense off the forum. He then gets manipulative (like right now) and does this, "Who, me?" innocent game when you expose his baiting.

His signatures almost always include a jab at me, too. He craves attention and when you refuse to give it to him (which is what I was doing earlier in the thread when I refused to "debate"), he has to do stuff (like his signatures) to provoke a response. He's a sad, sad child.

Couldn't you at least spend your time trying to come up with better insults?

I couldn't care less if you or Verily don't like my style, but to pretend I don't have serious discussion on this site or don't participate in debate is laughable at best and a downright lie at worst. When people refuse to participate in such a discussion, it says more about you than me. (I'm too tired to go link digging through my posts, but it should be clear.)

I asked you a simple question, and you ignored it several times. Not my fault.

[Keystone Phil]

He's not interested in debating. Marokai trolls. He's fine for awhile and then wants to start trouble. Believe me, I've had to deal with his nonsense off the forum. He then gets manipulative (like right now) and does this, "Who, me?" innocent game when you expose his baiting.

His signatures almost always include a jab at me, too. He craves attention and when you refuse to give it to him (which is what I was doing earlier in the thread when I refused to "debate"), he has to do stuff (like his signatures) to provoke a response. He's a sad, sad child.

Couldn't you at least spend your time trying to come up with better insults?

I couldn't care less if you or Verily don't like my style, but to pretend I don't have serious discussion on this site or don't participate in debate is laughable at best and a downright lie at worst. When people refuse to participate in such a discussion, it says more about you than me. (I'm too tired to go link digging through my posts, but it should be clear.)

I asked you a simple question, and you ignored it several times. Not my fault.

When did I say you don't have serious discussions on this site?

I said what you do with me is bait me. You're a troll. You have hinted in the past that I'm not really smart. You've thrown tantrums about me (of all people!) being "too popular." You're an unstable child and I refuse to "debate" with you because it always ends the same way. Enough already.

[Marokai Backbeat]

He's not interested in debating. Marokai trolls. He's fine for awhile and then wants to start trouble. Believe me, I've had to deal with his nonsense off the forum. He then gets manipulative (like right now) and does this, "Who, me?" innocent game when you expose his baiting.

His signatures almost always include a jab at me, too. He craves attention and when you refuse to give it to him (which is what I was doing earlier in the thread when I refused to "debate"), he has to do stuff (like his signatures) to provoke a response. He's a sad, sad child.

Couldn't you at least spend your time trying to come up with better insults?

I couldn't care less if you or Verily don't like my style, but to pretend I don't have serious discussion on this site or don't participate in debate is laughable at best and a downright lie at worst. When people refuse to participate in such a discussion, it says more about you than me. (I'm too tired to go link digging through my posts, but it should be clear.)

I asked you a simple question, and you ignored it several times. Not my fault.

When did I say you don't have serious discussions on this site?

I said what you do with me is bait me. You're a troll. You have hinted in the past that I'm not really smart. You've thrown tantrums about me (of all people!) being "too popular." You're an unstable child and I refuse to "debate" with you because it always ends the same way. Enough already.

Keller, Einzige, Coburn, are trolls. They're trolls because they're idiots who have little to no interest in serious discussion, don't debate anyone seriously, insult people constantly, and fly in and out of discussions randomly. You can't call someone a troll while simultaneously saying they have serious debates.

If you actually mean the "get over it, stop talking to me, enough already" remarks, then shut up and suddenly these things stop! Amazing how it works that way!

[Keystone Phil]

He's not interested in debating. Marokai trolls. He's fine for awhile and then wants to start trouble. Believe me, I've had to deal with his nonsense off the forum. He then gets manipulative (like right now) and does this, "Who, me?" innocent game when you expose his baiting.

His signatures almost always include a jab at me, too. He craves attention and when you refuse to give it to him (which is what I was doing earlier in the thread when I refused to "debate"), he has to do stuff (like his signatures) to provoke a response. He's a sad, sad child.

Couldn't you at least spend your time trying to come up with better insults?

I couldn't care less if you or Verily don't like my style, but to pretend I don't have serious discussion on this site or don't participate in debate is laughable at best and a downright lie at worst. When people refuse to participate in such a discussion, it says more about you than me. (I'm too tired to go link digging through my posts, but it should be clear.)

I asked you a simple question, and you ignored it several times. Not my fault.

When did I say you don't have serious discussions on this site?

I said what you do with me is bait me. You're a troll. You have hinted in the past that I'm not really smart. You've thrown tantrums about me (of all people!) being "too popular." You're an unstable child and I refuse to "debate" with you because it always ends the same way. Enough already.

Keller, Einzige, Coburn, are trolls. They're trolls because they're idiots who have little to no interest in serious discussion, don't debate anyone seriously, insult people constantly, and fly in and out of discussions randomly. You can't call someone a troll while simultaneously saying they have serious debates.

You personally troll me because you're an obsessive, messed up child.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did stop but you had to keep going. And don't tell me that I'm the one who has to shut up. You start this nonsense all the time.

You're a messed up child, Marokai. We know this to be true. Time to acknowledge it here, leave me alone and seek help.

[tmthforu94]

He's not interested in debating. Marokai trolls. He's fine for awhile and then wants to start trouble. Believe me, I've had to deal with his nonsense off the forum. He then gets manipulative (like right now) and does this, "Who, me?" innocent game when you expose his baiting.

His signatures almost always include a jab at me, too. He craves attention and when you refuse to give it to him (which is what I was doing earlier in the thread when I refused to "debate"), he has to do stuff (like his signatures) to provoke a response. He's a sad, sad child.

Couldn't you at least spend your time trying to come up with better insults?

I couldn't care less if you or Verily don't like my style, but to pretend I don't have serious discussion on this site or don't participate in debate is laughable at best and a downright lie at worst. When people refuse to participate in such a discussion, it says more about you than me. (I'm too tired to go link digging through my posts, but it should be clear.)

I asked you a simple question, and you ignored it several times. Not my fault.

When did I say you don't have serious discussions on this site?

I said what you do with me is bait me. You're a troll. You have hinted in the past that I'm not really smart. You've thrown tantrums about me (of all people!) being "too popular." You're an unstable child and I refuse to "debate" with you because it always ends the same way. Enough already.

Keller, Einzige, Coburn, are trolls. They're trolls because they're idiots who have little to no interest in serious discussion, don't debate anyone seriously, insult people constantly, and fly in and out of discussions randomly. You can't call someone a troll while simultaneously saying they have serious debates.

You personally troll me because you're an obsessive, messed up child.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did stop but you had to keep going. And don't tell me that I'm the one who has to shut up. You start this nonsense all the time.

You're a messed up child, Marokai. We know this to be true. Time to acknowledge it here, leave me alone and seek help.

Looking at this from an outside perspective, it looks like you are the one who is attacking. Marokai is just defending himself from your attacks on him.
We can debate on here, and still be friendly about it. Being nasty, calling people children, and telling them they need help is unnecessary.

[Keystone Phil]

Looking at this from an outside perspective, it looks like you are the one who is attacking. Marokai is just defending himself from your attacks on him.
We can debate on here, and still be friendly about it. Being nasty, calling people children, and telling them they need help is unnecessary.

Ok, then you aren't familiar with our past battles and you're obviously ignoring his past and current signature material.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm kind of sad Marokai has replaced me as Phil's archnemesis.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm kind of sad Marokai has replaced me as Phil's archnemesis.

Uh, please don't flatter yourself. You were never even in the top five.

[tmthforu94]

Looking at this from an outside perspective, it looks like you are the one who is attacking. Marokai is just defending himself from your attacks on him.
We can debate on here, and still be friendly about it. Being nasty, calling people children, and telling them they need help is unnecessary.

Ok, then you aren't familiar with our past battles and you're obviously ignoring his past and current signature material.

He still doesn't deserve to be treated so rudely.
And I actually find his current signature funny and witty, and the picture also makes an excellent point.