Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

a house divided upon itself cannot stand

Page 5 of 5 [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Previous topic | Next topic

how much longer has america got before it fractures along social fault lines?
problems? what problems? :scratch: 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
not too much longer, find hiding places now :o 23%  23%  [ 10 ]
we will rise above our differences and unify within a few decades at most :star: 14%  14%  [ 6 ]
I don't know :shrug: 16%  16%  [ 7 ]
I believe things can continue just as they are :| 9%  9%  [ 4 ]
a tyrannical ruler will launch a coup and bang everybody's heads together, what other way is there? :star: :star: :star: :star: 5%  5%  [ 2 ]
I resent this line of questioning :x 7%  7%  [ 3 ]
just gimme my @#$% icecream :chef: 23%  23%  [ 10 ]
Total votes : 43

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

28 Feb 2016, 10:29 pm

MDD123 wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
No candidate has been nominated yet to the court, so we cannot conjecture the jurisprudence of any candidate at this moment of time. However, democratic presidents have been known to appoint left leaning candidates so such an assumption is very much a real possibility.


Sentence 1: Lets not make any assumptions
Sentence 2: My assumption is probably right though


So you just made an oxymoron, if you contend that one should not make any assumptions and yet make one right off the bat, than your logic is suspicious.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

28 Feb 2016, 10:36 pm

Deltaville wrote:
MDD123 wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
No candidate has been nominated yet to the court, so we cannot conjecture the jurisprudence of any candidate at this moment of time. However, democratic presidents have been known to appoint left leaning candidates so such an assumption is very much a real possibility.


Sentence 1: Lets not make any assumptions
Sentence 2: My assumption is probably right though


So you just made an oxymoron, if you contend that one should not make any assumptions and yet make one right off the bat, than your logic is suspicious.


Do you not see your own quote bolded and italicized above? In one sentence, you explain why we can't assume who Obama would pick. In the next sentence, you make your own assumption.


_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

28 Feb 2016, 10:40 pm

MDD123 wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
MDD123 wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
No candidate has been nominated yet to the court, so we cannot conjecture the jurisprudence of any candidate at this moment of time. However, democratic presidents have been known to appoint left leaning candidates so such an assumption is very much a real possibility.


Sentence 1: Lets not make any assumptions
Sentence 2: My assumption is probably right though


So you just made an oxymoron, if you contend that one should not make any assumptions and yet make one right off the bat, than your logic is suspicious.


Do you not see your own quote bolded and italicized above? In one sentence, you explain why we can't assume who Obama would pick. In the next sentence, you make your own assumption.


I am not making an assumption, just merely pointing out the historical jurisprudence of previous judges appointed by Democratic presidents.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

28 Feb 2016, 10:50 pm

Deltaville wrote:
I am not making an assumption, just merely pointing out the historical jurisprudence of previous judges appointed by Democratic presidents.


Oh, I see, instead of making an assumption, you just hinted at one, my bad.


_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

28 Feb 2016, 10:52 pm

MDD123 wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
I am not making an assumption, just merely pointing out the historical jurisprudence of previous judges appointed by Democratic presidents.


Oh, I see, instead of making an assumption, you just hinted at one, my bad.


No problem. Just simply put, liberal appointees tend to be selected by Democratic presidents. Though you are correct, with a republican majority in the senate, the calculus might change a little.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck