For those who think a Degree is the Answer All

[olevetonahill]

https://scontent-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/10960456_879028272141155_8187537844591816537_o.jpg

[Turd_Ferguson]

LMMFAO!!! Wonder how she got it? Her dumb *** thinkS 2+2=Jello...LMMFAO!!!!

[SicEmBaylor]

Affirmative Action

[yermom]

i don't follow

her degree has probably helped her more than mine...

i don't know her though. what's her deal? i was thinking this was the moron from Florida at first.

[SicEmBaylor]

i don't follow

her degree has probably helped her more than mine...

i don't know her though. what's her deal? i was thinking this was the moron from Florida at first.

She's an absolute idiot. Not because I disagree with her politically (which I do), but because she truly and honestly is dumber than a rock. For example, Michele Bachmann (a Republican) is dumber than a post.

[olevetonahill]

i don't follow

her degree has probably helped her more than mine...

i don't know her though. what's her deal? i was thinking this was the moron from Florida at first.
here ya go Dave
https://scontent-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/l/t1.0-9/10945570_10153915908182316_8550348931902927353_n.j pg?oh=e2c1937f52a7f04c8dccf28ee12974f2&oe=5551FBB2

[olevetonahill]

Theres a million out there how many ya want?


http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0L3a3YCcAAlhuQ.jpg:large
http://dancingczars.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/577308_341427129311255_463210281_n.png?w=300&h=218

[yermom]

i still don't follow the logic.

it's not like she's a gangbanger or rock hoe with a law degree

granted, it seems like she's a grade A moron

[olevetonahill]

i still don't follow the logic.

it's not like she's a gangbanger or rock hoe with a law degree

granted, it seems like she's a grade A moron

Bro Its simply a Funny Meme. No logic intended LOL

[SicEmBaylor]

i still don't follow the logic.

it's not like she's a gangbanger or rock hoe with a law degree

granted, it seems like she's a grade A moron

I think the point is that if Yale University will bestow a degree on a woman like that, a college degree doesn't mean much. I disagree, but it's somewhat a fair point at least insofar as she is concerned.


However, I will say this about her, I definitely approve of her middle and last names.

[olevetonahill]

I think the point is that if Yale University will bestow a degree on a woman like that, a college degree doesn't mean much. I disagree, but it's somewhat a fair point at least insofar as she is concerned.


However, I will say this about her, I definitely approve of her middle and last names.

No, the Point is and was, That ANYONE can get a Degree, No matter how fu*cking Stupid they are.
Lets see can I pizz off a few More Libs
I have a degree dont mean Shat. Learn something from the WORLD.

[SCOUT]

I have long believed that there is a distinct difference between someone who is educated and someone who is smart. Sheila only makes me believe that more.

[olevetonahill]

I have long believed that there is a distinct difference between someone who is educated and someone who is smart. Sheila only makes me believe that more.

Cept I dont believe that bitch is in either category!

[hawaii 5-0]

And some people go and college and can't cut it. They drop out.

Some people just fail at taking tests. Some fail at telling the truth.

Just ask Scott Walker. He's a college dropout. He fails at tests. He fails at truth telling. He's good at changing the things he stands for.

Even a Jr. High basketball coach needs a degree.

I wouldn't vote for any Chief Executive that didn't have at least a Master's Degree. Obviously some people would.


5-0

[olevetonahill]

And some people go and college and can't cut it. They drop out.

Some people just fail at taking tests. Some fail at telling the truth.

Just ask Scott Walker. He's a college dropout. He fails at tests. He fails at truth telling. He's good at changing the things he stands for.

Even a Jr. High basketball coach needs a degree.

I wouldn't vote for any Chief Executive that didn't have at least a Master's Degree. Obviously some people would.


5-0

Dayum Water boy, Ya took lessons from 8th on how to spin,twist and deflect dint Ya ?Yer funny

[REDREX]

And some people go and college and can't cut it. They drop out.

Some people just fail at taking tests. Some fail at telling the truth.

Just ask Scott Walker. He's a college dropout. He fails at tests. He fails at truth telling. He's good at changing the things he stands for.

Even a Jr. High basketball coach needs a degree.

I wouldn't vote for any Chief Executive that didn't have at least a Master's Degree. Obviously some people would.


5-0---Some of the smartest and richest people I know never finished college

[hawaii 5-0]

---Some of the smartest and richest people I know never finished college

Lots of very successful people didn't graduate.


I repeat I would never vote for anyone for a high level office with out at least a decent college education.

5-0

[REDREX]

Our current President went to Harvard Law School----And he is sure a dud

[SicEmBaylor]

Our current President went to Harvard Law School----And he is sure a dud

SJL is dumber than a post. Obama isn't dumb at all. He's still a highly intelligent guy. People mistake his ideological indifference to the Constitution and his poor judgement as equating to low intelligence. He's a perfectly smart guy; he's just very wrong.

[REDREX]

SJL is dumber than a post. Obama isn't dumb at all. He's still a highly intelligent guy. People mistake his ideological indifference to the Constitution and his poor judgement as equating to low intelligence. He's a perfectly smart guy; he's just very wrong.---Don't disagree but having a big time education does not make you a good leader

[SicEmBaylor]

---Don't disagree but having a big time education does not make you a good leader

More times than not, it makes you a worse leader. Obama, Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson, and John Adams come immediately to mind.

[Sooner8th]

SJL is dumber than a post. Obama isn't dumb at all. He's still a highly intelligent guy. People mistake his ideological indifference to the Constitution and his poor judgement as equating to low intelligence. He's a perfectly smart guy; he's just very wrong.Indifference to the constitution? LOL One thing overturned by the supreme court. Funny I haven't heard the two most glaring examples of this - dubya and palin..............

[SicEmBaylor]

Indifference to the constitution? LOL One thing overturned by the supreme court. Funny I haven't heard the two most glaring examples of this - dubya and palin..............

The Supreme Court are fallible men and women appointed by one branch of the Federal government and confirmed by half of another branch of the Federal government. They have a vested interest in protecting and expanding the powers of the Federal government. Need I remind you how often in the past the Supreme Court has been very very wrong? The Supreme Court is one of the worst ways to judge the constitutionality of an act.

And, yes, 'W' was also indifferent to the Constitution. Not in precisely the same way or, arguably, quite to the extent but indifferent nonetheless. And Palin? She was never elected to anything outside of a second-rate backwater state. I wish we could stop playing the "....but the other guy did it too!" game.

[REDREX]

Indifference to the constitution? LOL One thing overturned by the supreme court. Funny I haven't heard the two most glaring examples of this - dubya and palin..............---Funny I thought Obamacare was not a tax

[REDREX]

The Supreme Court are fallible men and women appointed by one branch of the Federal government and confirmed by half of another branch of the Federal government. They have a vested interest in protecting and expanding the powers of the Federal government. Need I remind you how often in the past the Supreme Court has been very very wrong? The Supreme Court is one of the worst ways to judge the constitutionality of an act.

And, yes, 'W' was also indifferent to the Constitution. Not in precisely the same way or, arguably, quite to the extent but indifferent nonetheless. And Palin? She was never elected to anything outside of a second-rate backwater state. I wish we could stop playing the "....but the other guy did it too!" game.---That's about all he has-----Blame or compare to Bush

[SicEmBaylor]

---Funny I thought Obamacare was not a tax

So said the Administration until it became the savior for the entire ACA.......then it became a tax.

[Sooner8th]

The Supreme Court are fallible men and women appointed by one branch of the Federal government and confirmed by half of another branch of the Federal government. They have a vested interest in protecting and expanding the powers of the Federal government. Need I remind you how often in the past the Supreme Court has been very very wrong? The Supreme Court is one of the worst ways to judge the constitutionality of an act.And, yes, 'W' was also indifferent to the Constitution. Not in precisely the same way or, arguably, quite to the extent but indifferent nonetheless. And Palin? She was never elected to anything outside of a second-rate backwater state. I wish we could stop playing the "....but the other guy did it too!" game.At first when I started to read your posts I thought to myself here is a guy who is actually trying to think about what is going on in our country, but now you are a just a caricature of "intellectual" conservative. This entire post is laughable. You have repeatedly taken the position that the constitution is the ultimate word on how our country is to be run. The constitution is crystal clear about the final arbitrator for what is and what isn't constitution. Are you seeing the irony here? Are you seeing the hypocrisy here? Are you seeing the complete and total lack of integrity on you and your fellow conservatives part. You and your fellow conservatives are not the ones to determine what is and what isn't constitutional. The supreme court is. Any ruling you agree with is constitutional and those you disagree with are not. You are very right about palin, she was never elected to anything outside of a second-rate backwater state, but that is not the point of the thread - For those who think a Degree is the Answer All is. You can be stupid and still have a degree, bush and palin are the best examples of that. As for playing but the other guy did it too - that is not the game I am playing. Case in point the letter from dumbass traitorous conservative republicans to iran, when there was a outcry same conservative republicans sprinted to find ANYTHING democrats did even closely resembling the letter. I do bring up bush a lot - it is a comparison of outcomes and how conservative republicans acted when it was their guy doing the same damn thing obama does. It is about irony, hypocrisy and here lack of integrity by conservatives.

[Sooner8th]

---That's about all he has-----Blame or compare to BushConservatives blame or compare to carter for decades. Payback is a b!tch................

[SicEmBaylor]

The constitution is crystal clear about the final arbitrator for what is and what isn't constitution. Are you seeing the irony here?
Actually, no the Constitution does absolutely no such thing. The Supreme Court's role as outlined by the Constitution is to preside over Federal cases. That's it. Marbury vs. Madison saw the court defining its role as arbiters of the Constitutionality of an act; however, that is a power and role not specifically delegated to them under the Constitution.

Now, I accept Marbury vs. Madison....by and large. My problem isn't that the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of law -- my problem is that there is no 'check' on that Federal power on the state level. The reason there isn't an equivalent state power is because the Supreme Court, as I just stated, created that power and delegated it to themselves. The states should most certainly be free to delegate to themselves the power to determine the Constitutionality of an act if the Supreme Court is going to do the same in order to provide Constitutional equilibrium.


Are you seeing the hypocrisy here?
Quite honestly, no. I think I'm more than fair when I point out the many many many examples of Republican and faux-conservative behavior that is unacceptable from a legal, Constitutional, ethical, and even moral point of view. I question how often you do the same.


Are you seeing the complete and total lack of integrity on you and your fellow conservatives part.
My personal lack of integrity? I've tried to treat you with a degree of respect that others have not, and I've tried to engage with you civilly. Now, as in the case of discussions we had earlier, we get to the point that we go around-and-around, so I do jump off the rhetorical merry-go-round when it's clear we're at impasse. But to question my personal integrity? Come on now...


You and your fellow conservatives are not the ones to determine what is and what isn't constitutional. The supreme court is. Any ruling you agree with is constitutional and those you disagree with are not. You are very right about palin, she was never elected to anything outside of a second-rate backwater state, but that is not the point of the thread - For those who think a Degree is the Answer All is. You can be stupid and still have a degree, bush and palin are the best examples of that. As for playing but the other guy did it too - that is not the game I am playing. Case in point the letter from dumbass traitorous conservative republicans to iran, when there was a outcry same conservative republicans sprinted to find ANYTHING democrats did even closely resembling the letter. I do bring up bush a lot - it is a comparison of outcomes and how conservative republicans acted when it was their guy doing the same damn thing obama does. It is about irony, hypocrisy and here lack of integrity by conservatives.

It's absolutely my right to argue the Constitutionality of an act just as it is your right to do the same. I most certainly do not believe only conservatives should make that determination; in fact, that prospect scares the absolute bejesus out of me. The wonderful thing about state power and, indeed, the wonderful thing about individual state providing leverage against Federal rulings is that your more progressive and liberal states can reject unconstitutional rulings by the Supreme Court. God help us, if the Supreme Court ever ruled that a DOMA-style law was Constitutional (which it isn't) then I would hope more progressive states would reject the ruling.

Now, you know my position on the letter to Iran. I've been emphatic that the letter broke the law both Constitutionally and statutorily. If you're creating a straw man for me to whack away at then you're out of luck on that issue.

Finally, I agree Sarah Palin is irrelevant to this conversation, but I'm not the one who brought her up.

[Sooner8th]

Actually, no the Constitution does absolutely no such thing. The Supreme Court's role as outlined by the Constitution is to preside over Federal cases. That's it. Marbury vs. Madison saw the court defining its role as arbiters of the Constitutionality of an act; however, that is a power and role not specifically delegated to them under the Constitution.Now, I accept Marbury vs. Madison....by and large. My problem isn't that the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of law -- my problem is that there is no 'check' on that Federal power on the state level. The reason there isn't an equivalent state power is because the Supreme Court, as I just stated, created that power and delegated it to themselves. The states should most certainly be free to delegate to themselves the power to determine the Constitutionality of an act if the Supreme Court is going to do the same in order to provide Constitutional equilibrium. Quite honestly, no. I think I'm more than fair when I point out the many many many examples of Republican and faux-conservative behavior that is unacceptable from a legal, Constitutional, ethical, and even moral point of view. I question how often you do the same.My personal lack of integrity? I've tried to treat you with a degree of respect that others have not, and I've tried to engage with you civilly. Now, as in the case of discussions we had earlier, we get to the point that we go around-and-around, so I do jump off the rhetorical merry-go-round when it's clear we're at impasse. But to question my personal integrity? Come on now...It's absolutely my right to argue the Constitutionality of an act just as it is your right to do the same. I most certainly do not believe only conservatives should make that determination; in fact, that prospect scares the absolute bejesus out of me. The wonderful thing about state power and, indeed, the wonderful thing about individual state providing leverage against Federal rulings is that your more progressive and liberal states can reject unconstitutional rulings by the Supreme Court. God help us, if the Supreme Court ever ruled that a DOMA-style law was Constitutional (which it isn't) then I would hope more progressive states would reject the ruling.Now, you know my position on the letter to Iran. I've been emphatic that the letter broke the law both Constitutionally and statutorily. If you're creating a straw man for me to whack away at then you're out of luck on that issue.Finally, I agree Sarah Palin is irrelevant to this conversation, but I'm not the one who brought her up.You are so hung up on this phantom states rights. They do not exist to the lever you keep insisting they do. This is a rightwingnut circle jerk material. It is a fantasy created to whine about supreme court decisions they disagree with. The nation you keep saying we live in was under the articles of confederation not the constitution. The constitution is clear about it - cases work their way to the supreme court who has final say, if the framers would have wanted it different they would have fixed it with the 11 amendment. You do have the right to argue it - but not to ignore their rulings. I never said sarah palin is irrelevant to this conversation - I said the exact opposite - she is the poster child for having a degree does not make you smart.

[SoonerorLater]

Tenth Amendment - U.S. Constitution


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

[SicEmBaylor]

You are so hung up on this phantom states rights. They do not exist to the lever you keep insisting they do. This is a rightwingnut circle jerk material. It is a fantasy created to whine about supreme court decisions they disagree with. The nation you keep saying we live in was under the articles of confederation not the constitution. The constitution is clear about it - cases work their way to the supreme court who has final say, if the framers would have wanted it different they would have fixed it with the 11 amendment. You do have the right to argue it - but not to ignore their rulings. I never said sarah palin is irrelevant to this conversation - I said the exact opposite - she is the poster child for having a degree does not make you smart.

No. They aren't "phantom states' rights." They're historical and constitutional reality despite how much your liberal/progressive ideology hates it. Now, I'd have more respect for your position if you advocated a complete re-write of the Constitution including entirely abolishing state sovereignty and subjugating us all to the national will. I'd oppose it, of course, but I'd have respect for that position.

As it is, you completely reject historical and constitutional fact. The states created the Federal government and limited its power to only those powers no one state can reasonably exercise. They clearly enumerated those powers, left all other powers up to the states, they delegated the responsibility of enforcing law to the President, and they left the Supreme Court in charge of overseeing all Federal cases. That's it. Your liberal orthodoxy and blind even slavish devotion to progressivism doesn't change the fact that what you say doesn't jive with fact. You are so committed to progressive ideology that you have this brainwashed and pathological hatred of states' rights. A position that's the result of years of brainwashing in liberal orthodoxy and public education intended to influence the citizenry into unquestioned devotion to the central government. Sadly, I lack the psychological training necessary to de-program a human being.

Nobody is advocating we go back to the Articles of Confederation. What I'm arguing isn't the Articles of Confederation -- it's the United States Constitution as written and intended by the delegates of the individual states assembled in convention. /story