Status
Not open for further replies.
Learned a couple things today from Twitter (for what it's worth):

I learned what a White Power sign is.

I thought Kavanaugh getting up and exiting so quickly for the break was probably because he had to pee so bad. Apparently he was avoiding someone.
 
They care to the extent that they're hoping to find dirt. But they've already made the decision to oppose him regardless of what's in those documents. They aren't waiting for information from those documents in order to make their decision.

No, I do not object to that either. His judicial record is extensive and public. He's a conservative judge. If you're a liberal politician, that suffices to oppose him. Nothing objectionable about that. I object to pretending that your mind isn't made up when it already is, but I don't object to having already made up your mind.


It's funny the rationalizations you make for setting up a straw man. And you're in no position to lecture me about intellectual integrity.

No, it did not. You are now simply lying, as I have already corrected you on this point. You constructed a straw man, and now you are trying to blame me for the fact that you lied.


My 'observation' is correct.

Own your arguments.
 
Yum yum! That is some fine regaling.

Readers, you see want to know why my post replying to eeyore was IN FACT an REPLY to our correspondent here.

And anyone who says differently:

INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.

Some of the very finest regaling one will ever see.

Your contention really is that you can't follow the argument?

His conflict of interest did not involve hotels, but was a conflict of interest, and his lying about it could well be perjury from his 2006 confirmation (that last point being the issue YOU brought up that doesn't in any way have a requirement to be about hotels). I never even suggested it relied on hotels and nothing in the conversation indicates it would.

And thanks for proving that you indeed cannot address the point I was make and are desperate to deflect. Good to know you don't care about perjury during confirmations, nor conflicts of interest going undisclosed from judges. More of your heroes of course.
 
Democrat with a capital D is a noun. The adjective form of the noun is Democratic.

On the second word, I can't figure out any proper version of it that fits. "Democrat itself" makes no grammatical sense. 'Democrats themselves' would work.

I didn't make any mistake. They're afraid of overreach by the Democrats. Democrat overreach. The second word is democracy, not democrat. Sheesh.
 
The leftists were ina tizzy because some aide sitting behind the nominee was making the 'white power" sign. Sure she is the granddaughter of holocaust survivors and was merely crossing her arms. what a pack of clowns.

All 100 million of them?

Stop saying nonsense. You read one opinion on this, didn't you?
 
Your contention really is that you can't follow the argument?

His conflict of interest did not involve hotels, but was a conflict of interest, and his lying about it could well be perjury from his 2006 confirmation (that last point being the issue YOU brought up that doesn't in any way have a requirement to be about hotels). I never even suggested it relied on hotels and nothing in the conversation indicates it would.

And thanks for proving that you indeed cannot address the point I was make and are desperate to deflect. Good to know you don't care about perjury during confirmations, nor conflicts of interest going undisclosed from judges. More of your heroes of course.

Say, you are walking back the whole i replied to you are ya, that is good, because pretty clear you came slamming into the discussion totally out of control.

Anything polite to say about the actual topic i was discussing when you declared the post moronic?

Because. Yikes. Amiright?
 
Last edited:
You know what I hate most about the impending confirmation process? That it matters.

It really shouldn't. The law ought to be the law. The Supreme Court should be made up of smart guys who have really good reading comprehension skills and no agenda. Instead, left and right have both tried to get justices that will use the power of the court to push their policies. (Yes, right wingers, some on the right have been "judicial activists" as well. Roberts doesn't seem to bad that way, but Thomas can twist anything into a right wing opinion.)


Oh, well. That's the way it is. Kavanaugh says he is the sort of judge I like, i.e. neutral, but I have my doubts.
 
Say, you are walking back the whole i replied to you are ya, that is good, because pretty clear you came slamming into the discussion totally out of control.

No. Looks like I'm going to have to break it down Barney style for you because I don't have a song or pictures ready.

You were responding to me, my argument didn't rely on the example of hotels. Now, let's walk back a few baby steps. Skeptic Ginger was talking about what the documents that are being denied might show that would make this nomination problematic. She used the hypothetical example of hotel stuff causing conflicts of interest. Now, that doesn't actually change the subject to hotel ownership. Eeyore also addressed that hypothetical, but again, the subject doesn't have to stay on hotels. You said you were confident based on his 2006 confirmation that no such thing existed, and that's when I pointed out such confidence is misplaced because the documents might show he perjured himself.

Notice how I explicitly talked about perjuring himself in his confirmation making your confidence based on that confirmation moronic. There is nothing there saying that it was about hotels, just that his confirmation does not show he is free from conflicts or other problems. An example being used doesn't mean I have to stick to that hypothetical example. The supporting evidence you presented, that his confirmation means people should be confident he's clear, was dumb.

Anything polite to say about the actual topic i was discussing when you declared the post moronic?

Again, these documents being denied might prove he perjured himself at his past confirmation. Going to address that at all? Can you? Isn't that reason to provide these documents to the Senate, so they can clear him of what from public information looks like perjury? Got anything, polite or not, to address that?

Because. Yikes. Amiright?

Yikes indeed. Deflecting from possible perjury in a SCOTUS nom is indeed scary.

The poor quality of the deflection is insulting. Baby steps again for you so I'll explain; when people with self respect see so little effort and skill being brought to bear on them, even for the purpose of lying to them, they are rightfully insulted. If you're going to deflect at least put some effort into it! That's hard for Trump supporters I know, but that's a toxic dynamic.
 
Say, you are walking back the whole i replied to you are ya, that is good, because pretty clear you came slamming into the discussion totally out of control.

Anything polite to say about the actual topic i was discussing when you declared the post moronic?

Because. Yikes. Amiright?


Cool, thanks for posting. Think how much embarrassment you could have saved yourself.
 
Kavanaugh "refused" to shake the hand of Parkland victim's father, apparently. Media jumping all over that but I think this is just a part of the knee-jerk blooper reel.

Brett Kavanaugh ‘turned his back,’ says father of Parkland victim

Either Kavanaugh didn't know who this guy was, in which case why would he give him the time of day given the atmosphere of the proceedings, or he did know who this guy was, in which case what he has already said publicly about Kavanaugh would warrant a back turn.
 
Cool, thanks for posting. Think how much embarrassment you could have saved yourself.

My post is directly above yours and shows that my 'no' was not in response to that part of your post. I separated it out and everything.

Don't worry, Zigg will be right along to call our your lie, because consistency.

You're still failing to deflect from possible perjury from a SCOTUS nominee. Have anything, polite or not, on the topic?
 
And Chuck Grassley doesn't give a rats posterior about any objections. His only objective is to steamroll this confirmation hearing through.

Edit: Frankly, if this keeps up, the Democrats should just stay away the next few days. Let the Republicans field their softball questions and vote him through by themselves, as it would be the only way to ensure that Kavanaugh's entire time as a justice would be tainted with an asterisk.

This reminds me of the argument that, somehow, Harry Reid "allowed" McConnell to throw out the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices.

They don't care about your asterisks, or your traditions. This GOP is about power. If they have to toss out rule of law, okay. If they have to side with ethnonationalists, they already did.
 
This reminds me of the argument that, somehow, Harry Reid "allowed" McConnell to throw out the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices.

They don't care about your asterisks, or your traditions. This GOP is about power. If they have to toss out rule of law, okay. If they have to side with ethnonationalists, they already did.

Changing the fillibuster isn't throwing out the rule of law.
 
Says who? There's no source for TBD's claim.

I’ve seen a bunch of people freaking out over it on twitter. The numbers may still be small (certainly much less than 100 million), so I’m not trying to claim any great significance to this, but they aren’t 1 either.
 
I’ve seen a bunch of people freaking out over it on twitter. The numbers may still be small (certainly much less than 100 million), so I’m not trying to claim any great significance to this, but they aren’t 1 either.

One should not give any credence, but unfortunately the mob was howling about it this afternoon, it was appalling.

Here is the woman’s husband, who is also a United States District Attorney

https://mobile.twitter.com/USAttyBa...-kavanaugh-hearing-white-amanda-prestigiacomo

Monsters
 
This reminds me of the argument that, somehow, Harry Reid "allowed" McConnell to throw out the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices.

They don't care about your asterisks, or your traditions. This GOP is about power. If they have to toss out rule of law, okay. If they have to side with ethnonationalists, they already did.

This is very true. They don't care about rules, decorum, tradition or even law. All they care about is power. They are doing whatever it takes to hijack the Judicial branch, from the top down. It is just another tear in the democracy in favor of their authoritarianism. They are the honey-badger party, they don't give a **** about anything but power.
 
This reminds me of the argument that, somehow, Harry Reid "allowed" McConnell to throw out the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices.

They don't care about your asterisks, or your traditions. This GOP is about power. If they have to toss out rule of law, okay. If they have to side with ethnonationalists, they already did.

This is very true. They don't care about rules, decorum, tradition or even law. All they care about is power. They are doing whatever it takes to hijack the Judicial branch, from the top down. It is just another tear in the democracy in favor of their authoritarianism. They are the honey-badger party, they don't give a **** about anything but power.

Ah, in 2013, the Democrats use the Nuclear Option to throw out filibuster on all judicial candidates other than SCOTUS. In 2017, the Republican use the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees.

But the GOP are the bad guys because tradition!! You know, that thing the Democrats threw out in 2013?

too ******* funny
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom