- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Racist NYT Editor Sarah Jeong forgets the constitution
Posted on 2/21/19 at 5:47 pm to jbond
Posted on 2/21/19 at 5:47 pm to jbond
quote:Indeed. But the population density disparity has risen, not decreased.
Let's not forget the context of why our legislature took its current form. It was a compromise that was necessary to form a u ion. Just because something was necessary to form a government doesn't mean it should be kept in perpetuity.
1
Posted on 2/21/19 at 5:49 pm to tiggerthetooth
I'm wondering how she can sit and drink coffee at the same time.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 5:50 pm to tiggerthetooth
She would most assuredly believe differently about the District of Columbia if somehow it were granted statehood.
There's your racism, texridder.
There's your racism, texridder.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 6:20 pm to PickupAutist
I enjoyed digging into that website.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 7:48 pm to Rock the Casbah
quote:Well, you are a turd.
One person, one vote
jbond is a liar. That’s not what the link is....
A liar is someone who lies. A lie is to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.
So, someone is a liar because they link to something that is not exactly congruent with the link?
BTW, a turd is a person regarded as obnoxious or contemptible.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 7:56 pm to CptBengal
quote:Why don't you impart some wisdom and explain why that is false?
That was amended eventually, because people recognized it wasn't as democratic as it could be.
That's fricking false too.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 7:56 pm to lsu1919
quote:I suspect that she understands it as well as you do. She just thinks it should be changed.
Just sitting here thinking about how stupid people don't understand how the house and senate work, and why they work that way.
I disagree with that proposition, but that disagreement does not mean that she is uninformed.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:03 pm to tiggerthetooth
People like her are why zero tolerance policies suck. She should have been bullied and beaten more in high school so that she could conform and not be a mindless fricking retard
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:06 pm to AggieHank86
Her opinion is dangerous. Do you not see that?
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:17 pm to NIH
quote:I disagree with the idea of changing Senatorial apportionment, but "dangerous?" No. Just different, in a way that I would not support.quote:Her opinion is dangerous. Do you not see that?quote:I disagree with that proposition, but that disagreement does not mean that she is uninformed.
Just sitting here thinking about how stupid people don't understand how the house and senate work, and why they work that way.
I suspect that she understands it as well as you do. She just thinks it should be changed.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:21 pm to AggieHank86
You’re keeping in your head in the sand under the guise of civility. Good for you, I guess.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:34 pm to NIH
quote:Dude, the founders of this country INTENDED us to be able to amend the Constitution ... even Senatorial apportionment, or they would have excluded it from the concept of amendment.
You’re keeping in your head in the sand under the guise of civility. Good for you, I guess.
If 3/4 of the States WANT to change the Senate from 2/state to pro-rata apportionment, that is EXACTLY what the founders intended them to BE ABLE to do.
I might not LIKE the change. I might think that the change is a TERRIBLE idea. But it would nonetheless be ENTIRELY in accord with our Constitutional framework.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:45 pm to Smart Post
quote:You concocted a hypothetical to demonstrate her racialism.
She would most assuredly believe differently about the District of Columbia if somehow it were granted statehood.
There's your racism, texridder.
Unassailable strategy.
This post was edited on 2/21/19 at 9:13 pm
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:52 pm to texridder
quote:She's demonstrated her racism all by herself enough in the past.
You concocted a hypothetical to demonstrate her racialism.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:53 pm to texridder
These people have no respect or regard for the Constitution. That is in essence what makes them enemies of the state.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:54 pm to AggieHank86
The Founders also set it up where white, male property owners could vote.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:54 pm to tiggerthetooth
Bicammeral legislature operating in a dual federalist Republic.
I'd challange you to ask any progressive what any of those words mean
I'd challange you to ask any progressive what any of those words mean
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:56 pm to NIH
"The Founders also set it up where male property owners could vote."
Sounds like a pretty good system to me. It's a hell of lot better than this massive twat's idea.
Sounds like a pretty good system to me. It's a hell of lot better than this massive twat's idea.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:57 pm to texridder
quote:I mean, you can't spout racist things for years then expect to be defended by "but she's not really a racist". Doesn't work that way. She did this to herself. Overtly.
You concocted a hypothetical to demonstrate her racialism.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:58 pm to Nguyener
quote:Answer: Racism because they were white men.
I'd challange you to ask any progressive what any of those words mean
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News