A simple question
What choices, if any, have you made in your life so that you would not be sexually assaulted?
Now ask your wife, sister, mother or daughter that question.

What was the evidence with Franken?

well there was a photo of him groping, or at the very least pretending to fondle, a sleeping soldier, like a pervert.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A simple question
What choices, if any, have you made in your life so that you would not be sexually assaulted?
Now ask your wife, sister, mother or daughter that question.

women have it rough, no question.

Nonetheless, an accusation isn’t evidence.

ask your sons what they are doing to prevent being falsely accused of something which is almost impossible to disprove. there are two sides to this, two people involved. Both deserve consideration, not just the one which serves your agenda.

have you noticed that in the statues of lady justice, she’s always blindfolded? Do you know the purpose of the blindfold? Gender doesnt imply credibility.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

women have it rough, no question.

Nonetheless, an accusation isn’t evidence.

ask your sons what they are doing to prevent being falsely accused of something which is almost impossible to disprove. there are two sides to this, two people involved. Both deserve consideration, not just the one which serves your agenda.

have you noticed that in the statues of lady justice, she’s always blindfolded? Do you know the purpose of the blindfold? Gender doesnt imply credibility.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Conflating Sexual Assault with False Accusations is a great methodology for reducing the importance of women being assaulted.
I'll play that game.
How many things have you done in your life so that you were not falsely accused of Sexual Assault?

well there was a photo of him groping, or at the very least pretending to fondle, a sleeping soldier, like a pervert.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is a comedian and we all know he never touched her (and that is why you added the last part).

So the Dems. made a man quit even though you just admitted he never touched her and yet the Repubs. elected someone who has multiple sex accusations against him (and let's not forget Roy Moore where 550,000 people voted for a pervert/pedophile) and you think the Dems are the party that is morally bankrupt. :eek5:

Ford was wrong thinking that she could keep this from getting out, DC could use an army of plumbers to plug all the leaks on both sides of the aisle. Feinstein on receipt of the letter should have reached out to Ford and insisted for her cooperation if she was that concerned about his confirmation. Clearly this should have come out on receipt or at least concerns should have been raised, even if you couldn't put a name to the accusations.

The where is the evidence argument is crap, someone please tell me what kind of evidence exists in a sexual assault case, not like they had smart phones back then and were putting it out on YouTube. I'm sure the thousands of women and boys out there who come forward later in life would be so happy at the outpouring of support and empathy. I would also suggest that a victim of this type of assault isn't ever going to forget who did it, I'm not buying into her mistaking him for someone else.

I was a skinny kid growing up in high school and I can remember every single person by first and last name who bullied me and caused me severe emotional distress. Do I remember the exact day, date or event those traumas happened, no I don't; but I remember vividly who the F-heads were. Point is when anyone experiences severe trauma at the hands of another, you don't EVER forget their faces or their names.

I have empathy for her, for him (if proven innocent of the charges) and the families of both. Public office is not for the weak of heart, but this isn't some low level cabinet post and these are serious charges and speak to his character. I'm not as forgiving as some might be of what might have happened when the man was 17, because at 17 you should be responsible for your behavior; almost everyone on this board would be held accountable at that age.

Why doesn't the FBI want to talk to Kerry Berchem?

BC she appears to have info. that K may have (again) lied in his sworn testimony about when he 1st heard about Ramirez's claims. She may have texts showing K contacted her before the release of the New Yorker Mag. article.

I have empathy for her, for him (if proven innocent of the charges) and the families of both.

Therein lies the problem, he should need to be proven guilty, not proven innocent. But that's not how things work these days.

He is a comedian and we all know he never touched her (and that is why you added the last part).

So the Dems. made a man quit even though you just admitted he never touched her and yet the Repubs. elected someone who has multiple sex accusations against him (and let's not forget Roy Moore where 550,000 people voted for a pervert/pedophile) and you think the Dems are the party that is morally bankrupt. :eek5:
That's not fair, you know he doesn't like Trump and besides he has ..................

How many things have you done in your life so that you were not falsely accused of Sexual Assault?

What can you do? Its false so its a lie, there is nothing anybody can do to stop somebody from lying.

What was the evidence with Franken?

photograph for starters

photograph for starters

of what?

He is a comedian and we all know he never touched her (and that is why you added the last part).



no we don't....I don't think many women found it humorous

you think the Dems are the party that is morally bankrupt. :eek5:



noone said the republicans are pure...but the democrats are consistently taking gold, silver and bronze in every event for the morally bankrupt

Therein lies the problem, he should need to be proven guilty, not proven innocent. But that's not how things work these days.
This is a Senate hearing, not a court of law.
He will not be sentenced to anything here, only rewarded if he is confirmed.
Brent Kavanaugh is a lawyer and a very experienced washington politician, he knows exactly what game he is playing and what the stakes are, he played this game himself for years.
One could say that this is retribution for Merrick Garland, but there were a hundred other federal judicial positions left unfilled by the republican congress during Obama's last two years. It is a political game for control of the third branch of the federal government, make no mistake about it. It has very little to do with voters and their choices, far more to do with money and power.
Neither side is without guilt here, Flake said if he was running he could not have delayed the vote. There would have been political consequences that he could not have withstood. Is that acceptable?
I think without term and contribution limits this will never end.

Conflating Sexual Assault with False Accusations is a great methodology for reducing the importance of women being assaulted.
I'll play that game.
How many things have you done in your life so that you were not falsely accused of Sexual Assault?

"Conflating Sexual Assault with False Accusations is a great methodology for reducing the importance of women being assaulted.
"

Only a thoughtless person says that mentioning one, is necessarily conflating it with the other. I said both parties are deserving of consideration.


"How many things have you done in your life so that you were not falsely accused of Sexual Assault"

Not much you can do.

He is a comedian and we all know he never touched her (and that is why you added the last part).

So the Dems. made a man quit even though you just admitted he never touched her and yet the Repubs. elected someone who has multiple sex accusations against him (and let's not forget Roy Moore where 550,000 people voted for a pervert/pedophile) and you think the Dems are the party that is morally bankrupt. :eek5:

"He is a comedian "

Ha ha ha, a 60 year-old man pretending to grope a sleeping soldier, oh please stop my stomach hurts from laughing so hard.

Has Franken denied that he did anything wrong? I thought he apologized. If he confessed, well that's pretty good evidence he acted stupidly.

Here's the photo. If this is genuine and not doctored, it looks like he's touching her in a way I wouldn't let him touch my wife. Is this not the photo?

"you think the Dems are the party that is morally bankrupt"

I think politicians in general, on both sides, are corrupt. If you want to talk about degree, the democrats are worse, every day and twice on Sunday.

I'd agree DC has become a good old boy and girl club, where partisan politics rule the day, Flatks comments about him never pulling that for fear of party retribution if he were running again is proof enough. So if he lied and in front of the senate, where he is running for the highest court in the land, you are ok with that series of lies because they all do it. That's a sad commentary on acceptance of what our system has become and being ok with just throwing another lier into the system. Now I'm going to grant you, he has yet to be proven a lyer, but I found her testimony far more believable than his denial.

DC and all other "clubs" are ruled by a dominant or "partisan" faction. Flake has attempted to appear as one not afraid of party retribution by resisting and opposing his own party rulers. He is rumored to be trying to actually head the club and run for President. Beware . . . that Flake is a lean and hungry man.

I'm not OK with any of it. A bunch of liars trying to prove another man a liar is not an attractive scenario to me. Pretending that it is purely about the truth, not about influencing the outcome of the midterms and preventing the possibility of appointing more constitutionalists to the Court is disgusting to me.

I am not going to be tempted to surrender my ultimate goal to a spurious moral argument. Especially not by those whose morality shifts from situation to situation. By those who dismiss their pretended morality when it comes in the way of gaining or maintaining power. Quite frankly, they can shove their phony morality up the dark hole in their lying azz. They've shown that they don't care about either Ford or Kavanaugh. They just care about power, and if it destroys someone in their way, too effin bad.

Those who do not recognize or admit to the depravities that lurk in their own humanity, are not competent to judge others. Those who fervently proclaim that they would not lie to save themselves from destruction are either saints or liars. According to those who wanted the Clinton's to remain in power, Hillary was justified in her lies about her husbands infidelity so that they COULD remain in power.

Unless we are saints, we are all in need of some redemption. Even several saints led dissolute lives before they were canonized. Personally, I would find it nearly impossible to forgive someone who willingly, premeditatively, for selfish reasons, murdered an innocent person. That's up to God, and some politicians.

I do not want to hear from politicians about morality. I even squirm when someone like Pence bathes himself in a halo of moral integrity. I want only one thing from them, and as well from Justices of the Supreme Court. Fidelity to the original text of the Constitution. I certainly don't care what they were like as teenagers, so long as they have abandoned their unacceptable ways and do their constitutional duty.

I'm not going to be cornered or stuffed into a moral box that leads to the destruction of my ultimate goal. I believe that the Founder's Constitution is the most politically moral structure of government ever devised. They did understand the moral depravity that lies somewhere in the depths of human nature. They did understand the extremes of power to which humanity is prone. That is why they constructed a most moderate system of government with its checks and balances and its limitations on government. It is the most equitable dividing line between lawlessness and tyranny.

I refuse to agree to snake in the garden whispers (lies) that say times are better, that people are better, that we can come over to the side that promises the best life if we surrender those supposedly outdated inalienable rights we think we have, to a superior, limitless government that can give us the most usable "rights," that it thinks we require.

You keep trying to persuade me to agree to a selective moral argument which, in my opinion, will further lead to the erosion of freedom. (I would certainly agree to expand my reasoning if you can stand to have that discussion). If you want to try to suck me into agreeing to your version of morality, you can give that a rest now.

This is a Senate hearing, not a court of law.
He will not be sentenced to anything here, only rewarded if he is confirmed.


So What....

no we don't....I don't think many women found it humorous

That photo was debunked as you can clearly see the shadow.

So now we are making people resign bc of jokes that are not funny?

Ford was wrong thinking that she could keep this from getting out, DC could use an army of plumbers to plug all the leaks on both sides of the aisle. Feinstein on receipt of the letter should have reached out to Ford and insisted for her cooperation if she was that concerned about his confirmation. Clearly this should have come out on receipt or at least concerns should have been raised, even if you couldn't put a name to the accusations.

The where is the evidence argument is crap, someone please tell me what kind of evidence exists in a sexual assault case, not like they had smart phones back then and were putting it out on YouTube. I'm sure the thousands of women and boys out there who come forward later in life would be so happy at the outpouring of support and empathy. I would also suggest that a victim of this type of assault isn't ever going to forget who did it, I'm not buying into her mistaking him for someone else.

I was a skinny kid growing up in high school and I can remember every single person by first and last name who bullied me and caused me severe emotional distress. Do I remember the exact day, date or event those traumas happened, no I don't; but I remember vividly who the F-heads were. Point is when anyone experiences severe trauma at the hands of another, you don't EVER forget their faces or their names.

I have empathy for her, for him (if proven innocent of the charges) and the families of both. Public office is not for the weak of heart, but this isn't some low level cabinet post and these are serious charges and speak to his character. I'm not as forgiving as some might be of what might have happened when the man was 17, because at 17 you should be responsible for your behavior; almost everyone on this board would be held accountable at that age.

"The where is the evidence argument is crap"

The hell it is.

"what kind of evidence exists in a sexual assault case"

In cases of assault, there can be all manner of physical evidence. In cases of harassment, usually not so much. It's a tough problem, the common lack of evidence. I don't think the solution is to abandon the presumption of evidence.

Al Sharpton falsely accused white cops of rape. The Duke lacrosse players were falsely accused of rape. Rolling Stone falsely accused a UVA student of rape.

This doesn't mean that all accusers of lying, nor does it mean that the guilty don't deserve severe punishment. But it does mean, that especially in this political climate where nothing matters except winning (especially on the left), that you need more than an accusation.

"I'm not buying into her mistaking him for someone else. "

You don't have to buy it. You just have to admit that there's no proof. She lied about her fear of flying. All 4 witnesses she put there, including a woman who has been a lifelong friend, refuse to corroborate her story. That's evidence. Evidence that she's mistaken, or perhaps lying, I can't know.

" can remember every single person by first and last name who bullied me and caused me severe emotional distress."

So can I. I can also point to cases, as I have done, where people were falsely accused, often for liberal political gain. The fact that you and I can remember the names of our tormentors, means absolutely nothing in this case. You aren't her, neither am I.

That's not fair, you know he doesn't like Trump and besides he has ..................

Accusations are not evidence. They are accusations.

That photo was debunked as you can clearly see the shadow.

So now we are making people resign bc of jokes that are not funny?

I didn't say he should resign because he's not funny. I just said he's not funny.

This photo was shown to be a fake?

If all there were, were accusations, especially if they were from conservative women, then he should not have had to resign. Fair enough? Any hypocrisy there on my part? Any at all?

So What....
Brent Kavanaugh is a lawyer and a very experienced washington politician, he knows exactly what game he is playing and what the stakes are, he played this game himself for years.
Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.
When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)
But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time.
Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by peddling the same garbage at Starr's office.
A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.
Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.

"He is a comedian "

Ha ha ha, a 60 year-old man pretending to grope a sleeping soldier, oh please stop my stomach hurts from laughing so hard. not a soldier Leean Tweedan or something like that. On the trip w/him. Staunch conservative who wasn't upset w/the picture until he bc a Senator. On a comedy tour to visit the soldiers together.

Has Franken denied that he did anything wrong? Yes, in fact he did. Admitted to nothing. I thought he apologized. If he confessed, well that's pretty good evidence he acted stupidly.Never confessed - I believe he denied.

Here's the photo. If this is genuine and not doctored, it looks like he's touching her in a way I wouldn't let him touch my wife. Is this not the photo?It is but everyone says you can see shadows below the hands.

"you think the Dems are the party that is morally bankrupt"

I think politicians in general, on both sides, are corrupt. If you want to talk about degree, the democrats are worse, every day and twice on Sunday.

So we disagree on that statement. I see some/(many but not all) Republicans and having bc morally bankrupt. Falling in lockstep w/Trump - environment, fiscal policies, etc. Allow his lies and scummy deeds to go unchecked (more news today about that Trump and Eric talked about Stormy D. even thought he repeatedly said he didn't). They have risen to a level of anger and pettiness previously not seen. You can see it here.

So the Repubs are corrupt but the Dems are some degree more corrupt yet that "degree" causes you to hate the Dems. the way you do - wow.

So we disagree on that statement. I see some/(many but not all) Republicans and having bc morally bankrupt. Falling in lockstep w/Trump - environment, fiscal policies, etc. Allow his lies and scummy deeds to go unchecked (more news today about that Trump and Eric talked about Stormy D. even thought he repeatedly said he didn't). They have risen to a level of anger and pettiness previously not seen. You can see it here.

So the Repubs are corrupt but the Dems are some degree more corrupt yet that "degree" causes you to hate the Dems. the way you do - wow.

"So the Repubs are corrupt "

Some, sadly yes. There are tens of millions of, any group that size has bad apples.

"the Dems are some degree more corrupt"

A lot more.

"that "degree" causes you to hate the Dems"

I dislike their policies, and especially dislike their methods. I see Republicans trying to talk about issues, and the democrat response is, way too often, an accusation of hate. I hate the identity politics. I keep hearing liberals talking about the Kavanaugh case in terms of race. Everyone involved is white, why is it a racial issue?

Accusations are not evidence. They are accusations.
Truth has nothing to do with it.
"You've got to deny, deny, deny and push back on these women, If you admit to anything and any culpability, then you're dead."

Truth has nothing to do with it.
"You've got to deny, deny, deny and push back on these women, If you admit to anything and any culpability, then you're dead."

Truth has everything to do with it for me, and unfortunately, in this case we likely won't ever know the truth. And in this country, according to our vision of justice, when we can't establish what happened, we treat the accused as if he's innocent. That's our system, and sometimes it's tough to swallow, but we don't apply it selectively. Again, that's exactly why Lady Justice has the blindfold.

And if the democrats want to establish that an accusation is enough to establish guilt, what do they suspect will happen when they are in the majority, and they want to fill SCOTUS seats? Are they this short-sighted?

Truth has everything to do with it for me, and unfortunately, in this case we likely won't ever know the truth. And in this country, according to our vision of justice, when we can't establish what happened, we treat the accused as if he's innocent. That's our system, and sometimes it's tough to swallow, but we don't apply it selectively. Again, that's exactly why Lady Justice has the blindfold.

And if the democrats want to establish that an accusation is enough to establish guilt, what do they suspect will happen when they are in the majority, and they want to fill SCOTUS seats? Are they this short-sighted?
I think without term and contribution limits this will never end.

I keep hearing liberals talking about the Kavanaugh case in terms of race. Everyone involved is white, why is it a racial issue?

I Didn't think people where talking about it in terms of race.

I Didn't think people where talking about it in terms of race.

The senators are not making race an issue. The entire liberal media is, "look at all these old white guys judging poor Dr Ford".

I don't see a racial component to this.

I hate the identity politics.
I can see why you would
A new paper finds that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support their party because of their own cultural identity
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/03/22/how-republicans-embraced-identity-politics
Who’s Campaigning on Identity Politics?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/opinion/republicans-midterms-immigration.html
Why identity politics benefits the right more than the left
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/14/identity-politics-right-left-trump-racism
The Republicans are now the party of identity politics
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/06/republicans-now-party-identity-politics-donald-trump
People don’t vote for what they want. They vote for who they are.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/people-dont-vote-for-want-they-want-they-vote-for-who-they-are/2018/08/30/fb5b7e44-abd7-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html?utm_term=.4fd8d23ebaca
Republicans and their identity politics are destroying America
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/349428-republicans-and-their-identity-politics-are-destroying
this is the one you should read
Democrats Are Wrong About Republicans. Republicans Are Wrong About Democrats.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-wrong-about-republicans-republicans-are-wrong-about-democrats/

A lot of “what if” going around from the left. Haha
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can see why you would
A new paper finds that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support their party because of their own cultural identity
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/03/22/how-republicans-embraced-identity-politics
Who’s Campaigning on Identity Politics?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/opinion/republicans-midterms-immigration.html
Why identity politics benefits the right more than the left
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/14/identity-politics-right-left-trump-racism
The Republicans are now the party of identity politics
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/06/republicans-now-party-identity-politics-donald-trump
People don’t vote for what they want. They vote for who they are.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/people-dont-vote-for-want-they-want-they-vote-for-who-they-are/2018/08/30/fb5b7e44-abd7-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html?utm_term=.4fd8d23ebaca
Republicans and their identity politics are destroying America
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/349428-republicans-and-their-identity-politics-are-destroying
this is the one you should read
Democrats Are Wrong About Republicans. Republicans Are Wrong About Democrats.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-wrong-about-republicans-republicans-are-wrong-about-democrats/

I read the one about how Republican identity politics are destroying America. That was a real eye-opener. The very first sentence labeled Republicans as racist.

If you think that Republicans focus on identity politics more than Democrats, well, suffice to say I disagree. That's practically all you hear from democrats these days.

The senators are not making race an issue. The entire liberal media is, "look at all these old white guys judging poor Dr Ford".That is not racism. Just pointing out the lack of diversity (age, sex and race) on the panel, how it didn't change from the Thomas hearings and how they did not want to question her so they farmed it out.

I don't see a racial component to this.

I don't see a racial component either.

And I think if K has problems at this point it isn't what he may or may not have done to Ford.

McConnell should give them another week...the dems look incredibly stupid and they are doing a great job getting out the vote...for the republicans :kewl:

I read the one about how Republican identity politics are destroying America. That was a real eye-opener.

.

I didn't think anyone read his posts...let that be a lesson for you...:bl:

McConnell should give them another week...the dems look incredibly stupid and they are doing a great job getting out the vote...for the republicans :kewl:

Actually.. they look pretty smart to me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A long read by a writer from the Brookings Institute, I would gladly read a considered opinion for why.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/

Actually.. they look pretty smart to me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in that case....2 more weeks....we are going to need to close a lot of bridges if Kavanaugh ends up on the court and the republicans have success in the election.... I'm not sure how the snowflakes will cope

I don't see a racial component either.

And I think if K has problems at this point it isn't what he may or may not have done to Ford.

"Just pointing out the lack of diversity (age, sex and race) on the panel"

Who cares? Why does gender and skin color correlate with due process?

"And I think if K has problems at this point it isn't what he may or may not have done to Ford"

I respect you for saying that, and you may well be right.

A long read by a writer from the Brookings Institute, I would gladly read a considered opinion for why.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/

A lot of doubts, uncertainty, and questions there. Sounds like the kind of article you really like. Good for him though. He actually was able to squeak out a decision.

Upcoming Supreme Court decision
One precedent at risk concerns the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause, which forbids subsequent prosecutions for the same crimes. The Supreme Court has made one exception, saying that the federal government and the states are independent sovereigns, meaning that the same conduct can be prosecuted separately in state and federal courts.

In 2016, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, called for a fresh look at whether the exception makes sense. “The matter warrants attention in a future case in which a defendant faces successive prosecutions by parts of the whole U.S.A.,” she wrote.

The court will consider the question in Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646.

Its answer may have implications for the legal problems faced by associates of Mr. Trump. Should he pardon them for federal crimes, a Supreme Court ruling narrowing the definition of double jeopardy could complicate attempts by state prosecutors to pursue parallel charges.

big scoop in the new york times today, it’s reported that when in college, Kavanaugh threw ice over someone during a bar fight.

Just how pathetic are these people? What’s next, that he said nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah in kindergarten? is this a joke?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

big scoop in the new york times today, it’s reported that when in college, Kavanaugh threw ice over someone during a bar fight.

Just how pathetic are these people? What’s next, that he said nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah in kindergarten? is this a joke?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I believe what was reported was that he threw ice starting a bar fight.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

big scoop in the new york times today, it’s reported that when in college, Kavanaugh threw ice over someone during a bar fight.

Just how pathetic are these people? What’s next, that he said nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah in kindergarten? is this a joke?


You mean K was actually in a bar fight. And throwing stuff at people. Sounds like the man has some bonifide stones. Respect.

You mean K was actually in a bar fight. And throwing stuff at people. Sounds like the man has some bonifide stones. Respect.

I wish he'd punch Blumenthal in the face.....

You mean K was actually in a bar fight. And throwing stuff at people. Sounds like the man has some bonifide stones. Respect.

Hiding behind a 6 11, 250 guy? I wouldn't call that having stones.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Truth be told he was probably a great athlete and in fantastic shape
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump mocking Brett Kavanaugh accuser at rally


POTUS character assassination.... where lindsey grahams outrage now?

Senator Lindsey Graham has emerged as the most vocal champion of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. But on Wednesday, he suggested that President Donald Trump’s recent attacks on Christine Blasey Ford, the judge’s accuser, aren’t useful—though they could, he noted, “be worse.”

“President Trump went through a factual rendition that I didn’t particularly like,” Graham said. “I would tell him, ‘Knock it off. You’re not helping.’”

Senator Lindsey Graham has emerged as the most vocal champion of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. But on Wednesday, he suggested that President Donald Trump’s recent attacks on Christine Blasey Ford, the judge’s accuser, aren’t useful—though they could, he noted, “be worse.”

“President Trump went through a factual rendition that I didn’t particularly like,” Graham said. “I would tell him, ‘Knock it off. You’re not helping.’”
Never in my life or from what I know of history has this country ever seen a president so depraved.

Never in my life or from what I know of history has this country ever seen a president so depraved.

You're version of history is very short.

You're version of history is very short.
I was going back a few hundred years.

Never in my life or from what I know of history has this country ever seen a president so depraved.

and yet he cannot stoop low enough to match the depravity of elected democrats...we're really in a pickle

Never in my life or from what I know of history has this country ever seen a president so depraved.

The thing is, you didn't say "a man so depraved," you said "a President so depraved."

It's even very questionable to say that Trump is the most depraved man who then became President. But how is Trump the most depraved President actually while being President?

Not to split hairs,but Jeff has an opinion and to him it is valid and meaningful. Personally, the Clinton years make this look like scout camp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The thing is, you didn't say "a man so depraved," you said "a President so depraved."

It's even very questionable to say that Trump is the most depraved man who then became President. But how is Trump the most depraved President actually while being President?

Maybe he meant “a president who is such an outright #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&”

Edit: I mean “butt hole”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe he meant “a president who is such an outright #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&”

Edit: I mean “butt hole”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's possible . . . I'd rather not make an accusation without corroboration.

Maybe he meant “a president who is such an outright #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&”

Edit: I mean “butt hole”


Spence did say "depraved." How's this for a President being depraved, or even a butt hole including when in office:

(From http://www.cracked.com/article_18945_6-presidential-secrets-your-history-teacher-didnt-mention.html)

Lyndon Johnson Was a Dong-Waving Sex Machine

Lyndon Johnson took over as president after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and today most people know him as the president who made Vietnam happen (he being the one who really escalated the conflict). He wasn't terribly popular and had his share of scandals.

That drink in his hand is pretty much straight Everclear.
But at the time, he did have a reputation for getting things done. When he wanted something passed, he'd badger the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of everybody to get it, so much so that people came to call his relentless lobbying "the Johnson Treatment." We bring that up because after reading this, you're going to picture something else entirely anytime someone threatens you with "the Johnson Treatment." Something much worse.

Johnson was a sexual beast, and also fond of (literally) waving his #^&#^&#^&#^& around.

He would often use language like "Ford's economics are the worst thing that's happened to this country since pantyhose ruined finger-#^&#^&#^&#^& [fu...king]"

While other unfaithful presidents were satisfied with little affairs here and there, Johnson's bevy of babes was referred to by his male aides as a harem (he was said to be jealous of Kennedy's womanizing ways and wanted to top him). Johnson would make passes at secretaries, and it was known that any who accepted would be promoted to private secretary, two words that in this context should probably have air quotes around them anytime they are uttered. By the time he was done, virtually all of his secretaries, plus his two mistresses, got the Johnson Treatment.

He then tasked the Secret Service with keeping his philandering from his wife, but it obviously did not do a good job at that. His wife had full knowledge of everything and sometimes even supported it. At parties, he would make obvious passes at girls right in front of his wife. One of the girls who stayed over at his place got awakened in the middle of the night by Johnson holding a flashlight and saying, "Move over. This is your president."

Which goes down in history as the second-greatest pickup line ever, losing just barely to, "Hello, I'm an astronaut."
As for waving around his cock (a little extension of him that he had affectionately nicknamed "Jumbo"), he was said to piss in public whenever he felt like it, and if anyone dared confront him, he would whip his #^&#^&#^&#^& around and challenge the poor sap with, "Have you seen anything bigger than this?"

Spence did say "depraved." How's this for a President being depraved, or even a butt hole including when in office:

(From http://www.cracked.com/article_18945_6-presidential-secrets-your-history-teacher-didnt-mention.html)

Lyndon Johnson Was a Dong-Waving Sex Machine

Lyndon Johnson took over as president after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and today most people know him as the president who made Vietnam happen (he being the one who really escalated the conflict). He wasn't terribly popular and had his share of scandals.

That drink in his hand is pretty much straight Everclear.
But at the time, he did have a reputation for getting things done. When he wanted something passed, he'd badger the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of everybody to get it, so much so that people came to call his relentless lobbying "the Johnson Treatment." We bring that up because after reading this, you're going to picture something else entirely anytime someone threatens you with "the Johnson Treatment." Something much worse.

Johnson was a sexual beast, and also fond of (literally) waving his #^&#^&#^&#^& around.

He would often use language like "Ford's economics are the worst thing that's happened to this country since pantyhose ruined finger-#^&#^&#^&#^& [fu...king]"

While other unfaithful presidents were satisfied with little affairs here and there, Johnson's bevy of babes was referred to by his male aides as a harem (he was said to be jealous of Kennedy's womanizing ways and wanted to top him). Johnson would make passes at secretaries, and it was known that any who accepted would be promoted to private secretary, two words that in this context should probably have air quotes around them anytime they are uttered. By the time he was done, virtually all of his secretaries, plus his two mistresses, got the Johnson Treatment.

He then tasked the Secret Service with keeping his philandering from his wife, but it obviously did not do a good job at that. His wife had full knowledge of everything and sometimes even supported it. At parties, he would make obvious passes at girls right in front of his wife. One of the girls who stayed over at his place got awakened in the middle of the night by Johnson holding a flashlight and saying, "Move over. This is your president."

Which goes down in history as the second-greatest pickup line ever, losing just barely to, "Hello, I'm an astronaut."
As for waving around his cock (a little extension of him that he had affectionately nicknamed "Jumbo"), he was said to piss in public whenever he felt like it, and if anyone dared confront him, he would whip his #^&#^&#^&#^& around and challenge the poor sap with, "Have you seen anything bigger than this?"

Is this where calling a penis a Johnson came from?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this where calling a penis a Johnson came from?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:cheers2: :rotf3:

I think it's been close to 50 years since I've seen Cracked magazine, perhaps we should check with that other esteemed source, Alfred E. Neuman

I think it's been close to 50 years since I've seen Cracked magazine, perhaps we should check with that other esteemed source, Alfred E. Neuman

If you can't refute the message, kill the messenger. Cracked did not invent those things, they were fairly well known and noted in several other sources.

But anything said about Trump in really solid (sarc) "esteemed" sources like Salon must be believed. Or any uncorroborated accusation about Trump or Trump's associates must be believed.

"Esteemed" is in the eye of the beholder. Much of what is "esteemed" turns out to be bullchit.

Nice to see that you refer to Alfred E. Neuman as an esteemed source. Hey, Mad Magazine is deemed by many to be esteemed.

If you can't refute the message, kill the messenger. Cracked did not invent those things, they were fairly well known and noted in several other sources.

But anything said about Trump in really solid (sarc) "esteemed" sources like Salon must be believed. Or any uncorroborated accusation about Trump or Trump's associates must be believed.

"Esteemed" is in the eye of the beholder. Much of what is "esteemed" turns out to be bullchit.

Nice to see that you refer to Alfred E. Neuman as an esteemed source. Hey, Mad Magazine is deemed by many to be esteemed.
Did I say it was not true?
I grew up with Mad and Cracked magazines, it was always the big decision of which to buy when we went to town from camp to do laundry.
I thought your source was and is funny, it had nothing to do with Don the Con.

Did I say it was not true?
I grew up with Mad and Cracked magazines, it was always the big decision of which to buy when we went to town from camp to do laundry.
I thought your source was and is funny, it had nothing to do with Don the Con.

Cool. Mad mag was great stuff. For me, it was about Don the Con since the point of my post, to which you replied, was to point out that Spence's view that Trump was the most depraved is highly suspect. There's a bunch of depraved, racist, war-mongering, sexist, phobists of all sorts, Presidents that topped what is said about Trump.

Cool. Mad mag was great stuff. For me, it was about Don the Con since the point of my post, to which you replied, was to point out that Spence's view that Trump was the most depraved is highly suspect. There's a bunch of depraved, racist, war-mongering, sexist, phobists of all sorts, Presidents that topped what is said about Trump.

It is tough to imagine someone in the 20s not being at least the same if not more sexist/racist/misogynistic... but it should be noted that using US history as a moral barometer might not be the best tool for the job...

I do wonder how Spence’s comment would hold up if he referred to the temperament of the person in office compared to popular culture of that time (think of what everyone is saying about Kavanaugh and the 80s right now.) I’m sure Trump, as a fairly obvious outlier in today’s public society, might win a “most” award there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interested to see who spent millions?
Conservatives ahead in spending 2-1 on advertising for Kavanaugh, hours of ad time are close though
https://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/pro-kavanaugh-groups-outspend-anti-kavanaugh-groups-tv-ads/315160/

Interested to see who spent millions?
Conservatives ahead in spending 2-1 on advertising for Kavanaugh, hours of ad time are close though
https://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/pro-kavanaugh-groups-outspend-anti-kavanaugh-groups-tv-ads/315160/

Maybe those ads influenced the FBI.

They were tuned in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is tough to imagine someone in the 20s not being at least the same if not more sexist/racist/misogynistic... but it should be noted that using US history as a moral barometer might not be the best tool for the job...

That is a more thoughtful approach for making comparisons. Certainly so in our time when relativity is preferred over absolutes.


I do wonder how Spence’s comment would hold up if he referred to the temperament of the person in office compared to popular culture of that time (think of what everyone is saying about Kavanaugh and the 80s right now.) I’m sure Trump, as a fairly obvious outlier in today’s public society, might win a “most” award there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My answer, though, was to Spence's comment as he phrased it. He did frame it as "Never in my life or from what I know of history," and he did say "I was going back a few hundred years." And it seemed that he was passionate about it and that it was a really important thing to consider and comment on.

Your approach is more astute and interesting. And worth a discussion rather than a snide or sarcastic retort.

As for Trump's temperament compared to the popular culture of our time, I'd say that Trump fits the temperament of our popular culture very well. That may be one of the major reasons he got elected. We live in a brash, in your face time. Check out our current popular music compared to that of the 18th and 19th century or even that of the first 60 years of the 20th century.

How about sports. There used to be something called sportsmanship and modesty of one's talent. Athletes up to the mid to latter twentieth century would be astonished to see the self congratulatory hijinks on the field of today's athletes. And how many are guilty of drug abuse and abuse of women.

Our movies and videos are filled with gratuitous violence and casual sex and semi to full nudity, among other things, that pre-1960 movies mostly shunned. Our reality entertainment scene is full of Jerry Springer types. Actually, Trump's reality TV show, The Apprentice (I admit that I found it boring), was a relief from the unstructured and biased hit job shows such as The View.

Our politics is one constant attack on opponents, filled with smears, lies; the mainstream media has gone beyond old-fashioned slanting and become outright advocates and arms of a political party; our divorce rates, unwed births, abortions, destruction of history and its relics, student violence and suppression of speech and diversity on college campuses, etc., etc., etc., etc.

And all that stuff is acceptable to half of the public, or so we are told, by the mainstream media that supports much of it.


If Trump is an outlier of todays contemporary scene, its because he is a reaction against it. "Conservatives" were tired of weak, mealy mouthed Republicans who caved, conceded, and were afraid of negative press. They saw who was winning. They decided to throw a pit bull into the arena. And most are now happy they did.

Trump is certainly no old-fashioned "conservative" model. But I find that most of the claims of him being misogynous, racist, anti-Semitic, stupid, mean, lacking direction, in short--a mess, are either exaggerated or untrue. The left which once loved him as one of their own have turned loose every means at their command to bring him down. Because, in my opinion, he is an existential threat, if he succeeds, to who they are, what they have politically built, and what they are/were on the verge of establishing as their version of, to use one of their favorite phrases, "who we are."

Comparing, say, LBJ relative to his time to Trump relative to our time, I would say that LBJ was far more the outlier of the culture of his time than Trump is. And LBJ was a far more crass, sexist, racist, depraved war monger than Trump ever was, even before Trump became President.

And we could probably go throughout U.S. history using your method of comparison and find many Presidents to be far more outliers of the popular culture of their time regarding corruption, morality or depravity, or coarseness and vulgarity than Trump is. But our current Press is far more interested in exposing every nook and cranny of Trump's life that has a taint of some sort of corruption. Probably because it has far more to lose than the media's hey day of the mid to late twentieth century when it was far more influential and was in bed with the Progressive movement, protecting the privacy of their like minded Presidents, that was again sweeping across this country.

That mainstream, Progressive media, is on the verge of becoming an outlier if Trump and his supporters succeed.

My answer, though, was to Spence's comment as he phrased it. He did frame it as "Never in my life or from what I know of history," and he did say "I was going back a few hundred years." And it seemed that he was passionate about it and that it was a really important thing to consider and comment on.

Your approach is more astute and interesting. And worth a discussion rather than a snide or sarcastic retort.

As for Trump's temperament compared to the popular culture of our time, I'd say that Trump fits the temperament of our popular culture very well. That may be one of the major reasons he got elected. We live in a brash, in your face time. Check out our current popular music compared to that of the 18th and 19th century or even that of the first 60 years of the 20th century.

How about sports. There used to be something called sportsmanship and modesty of one's talent. Athletes up to the mid to latter twentieth century would be astonished to see the self congratulatory hijinks on the field of today's athletes. And how many are guilty of drug abuse and abuse of women.

Our movies and videos are filled with gratuitous violence and casual sex and semi to full nudity, among other things, that pre-1960 movies mostly shunned. Our reality entertainment scene is full of Jerry Springer types. Actually, Trump's reality TV show, The Apprentice (I admit that I found it boring), was a relief from the unstructured and biased hit job shows such as The View.

Our politics is one constant attack on opponents, filled with smears, lies; the mainstream media has gone beyond old-fashioned slanting and become outright advocates and arms of a political party; our divorce rates, unwed births, abortions, destruction of history and its relics, student violence and suppression of speech and diversity on college campuses, etc., etc., etc., etc.

And all that stuff is acceptable to half of the public, or so we are told, by the mainstream media that supports much of it.


If Trump is an outlier of todays contemporary scene, its because he is a reaction against it. "Conservatives" were tired of weak, mealy mouthed Republicans who caved, conceded, and were afraid of negative press. They saw who was winning. They decided to throw a pit bull into the arena. And most are now happy they did.

Trump is certainly no old-fashioned "conservative" model. But I find that most of the claims of him being misogynous, racist, anti-Semitic, stupid, mean, lacking direction, in short--a mess, are either exaggerated or untrue. The left which once loved him as one of their own have turned loose every means at their command to bring him down. Because, in my opinion, he is an existential threat, if he succeeds, to who they are, what they have politically built, and what they are/were on the verge of establishing as their version of, to use one of their favorite phrases, "who we are."

Comparing, say, LBJ relative to his time to Trump relative to our time, I would say that LBJ was far more the outlier of the culture of his time than Trump is. And LBJ was a far more crass, sexist, racist, depraved war monger than Trump ever was, even before Trump became President.

And we could probably go throughout U.S. history using your method of comparison and find many Presidents to be far more outliers of the popular culture of their time regarding corruption, morality or depravity, or coarseness and vulgarity than Trump is. But our current Press is far more interested in exposing every nook and cranny of Trump's life that has a taint of some sort of corruption. Probably because it has far more to lose than the media's hey day of the mid to twentieth century when it was far more influential and was in bed with the Progressive movement, protecting the privacy of their like minded Presidents, that was again sweeping across this country.

That mainstream, Progressive media, is on the verge of becoming an outlier if Trump and his supporters succeed.
Keep believing, many people thought Bernie Madoff was telling the truth also, for twenty years he kept it going.
A small loan of a million dollars in Brooklyn yadayadayada
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep believing, many people thought Bernie Madoff was telling the truth also, for twenty years he kept it going.
A small loan of a million dollars in Brooklyn yadayadayada
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Believing in what? That Trump hasn't done some corrupt things in his past BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT unlike so many others who continued their depraved ways after becoming President, even escalating them? Never said that Trump didn't do some despicable things in his life. How does that make him the most depraved President in Spence's lifetime or in the past couple of hundred years. And most of your yadayadayada has not been proven to be true. And he has not been a depraved President, but a hard working one who has accomplished a lot, been keeping his promises, and says stupid stuff.

Believing in what? That Trump hasn't done some corrupt things in his past BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT unlike so many others who continued their depraved ways after becoming President, even escalating them? Never said that Trump didn't due some despicable things in his life. How does that make him the most depraved President in Spence's lifetime or in the past couple of hundred years. And most of your yadayadayada has not been proven to be true. And he has not been a depraved President, but a hard working one who has accomplished a lot, been keeping his promises, and says stupid stuff.
Succession of the north, mid eastern and western states may change your attitude.
If you only care about your “base”
You might lose your funding
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Succession of the north, mid eastern and western states may change your attitude.
If you only care about your “base”
You might lose your funding
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are we talking about the same thing here?

Are we talking about the same thing here?

Look at his “rallys” and where they occur, who does he claim as his “base”
Can the flyover states survive without the “evil” Democrats on the coasts?
This is the split that is coming
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at his “rallys” and where they occur, who does he claim as his “base”
Can the flyover states survive without the “evil” Democrats on the coasts?
This is the split that is coming
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It feels like you've shifted into hyperdrive and landed in another thread.

Pete hinges his hopes on conspiracies and any possible divide.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this seems to have fallen on deaf ears

Justice Stevens said he came to the conclusion reluctantly, changing his mind about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination after the second round of the judge’s confirmation hearings last week. Judge Kavanaugh’s statements at those hearings, Justice Stevens said, revealed prejudices that would make it impossible for him to do the court’s work, a point he said had been made by prominent commentators.

“They suggest that he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities,”

I said i never thought what may have happened in highschool should define him and his life's work

But his opening statement clearly exposed what was hidden behind the facade

yet those who complain about “Legislating from the Bench” Judicial activism' have or will seat a justice who will forever be tainted will a partistan Halo he himself revealed to the country and placed proudly on his own head.. go figure

this seems to have fallen on deaf ears

No it hasn't. It was very well publicized. Anyone paying attention to mainstream news or other sources is aware of what Stevens said. Which already had been, and was being, said by others before Stevens. The fact he served on the Court does not give him the authority or credentials to say who is fit to serve. That is left up to Congress to decide. He can have his say, but it is just an opinion which repeats that of others. And there are many others who disagree with him.

Justice Stevens said he came to the conclusion reluctantly, changing his mind about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination after the second round of the judge’s confirmation hearings last week. Judge Kavanaugh’s statements at those hearings, Justice Stevens said, revealed prejudices that would make it impossible for him to do the court’s work, a point he said had been made by prominent commentators.

“They suggest that he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities,”

I said i never thought what may have happened in highschool should define him and his life's work

But his opening statement clearly exposed what was hidden behind the facade

So he agrees that the BS which the hearing was about should not define K and his life's work. And he had thought that K's life work up till the hearing qualified him to serve.

But he "interpreted" K's opening statement as contradicting his previous life's work, and as the real clue that would define him as a judge. Why K's 12 years of decisions as a Judge on the D.C. Circuit Court does not reveal his "biases," but an accurate statement about what the Dems were doing to him, reveals a bias that never showed itself in his decisions, nor how truth is a bias, is strange.

Now you may quibble as to the veracity of K's opening remarks. But then you may be going against your notion of personal interpretations being a legitimate means of making judicial decisions.

Somehow, you assume that once becoming a judge, it's perfectly fine to interpret what is truth. But for the rest of us, we must depend on an ex judge to tell us what we must think about the veracity of K's remarks. Many of us, including prominent members of the Senate committee, believe that what K said is true. There certainly are no corroborating facts to disprove our belief. The facts mostly favor our opinion. So forgive us for not being persuaded by Stevens' opinion.

yet those who complain about “Legislating from the Bench” Judicial activism' have or will seat a justice who will forever be tainted will a partistan Halo he himself revealed to the country and placed proudly on his own head.. go figure

Negative comments about legislating from the bench by a judge who did his fair share of judicial activism and who has recently called for the repeal of the Second Amendment are not to be taken seriously. Kavanaugh's judicial record and his statements about what a judge is do not foreshadow the kind of Progressive jurisprudence that has existed on the Court for years and is exemplified by the three women and Breyer who are now serving, and who all show a strong bias toward judicial activism. Has Stevens spoken about their fitness for being a SCOTUS Justice? I suspect K will be less partisan than them. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion--regardless of your opinion that Stevens' remarks seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

this seems to have fallen on deaf ears

Justice Stevens said he came to the conclusion reluctantly, changing his mind about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination after the second round of the judge’s confirmation hearings last week. Judge Kavanaugh’s statements at those hearings, Justice Stevens said, revealed prejudices that would make it impossible for him to do the court’s work, a point he said had been made by prominent commentators.

“They suggest that he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities,”

I said i never thought what may have happened in highschool should define him and his life's work

But his opening statement clearly exposed what was hidden behind the facade

yet those who complain about “Legislating from the Bench” Judicial activism' have or will seat a justice who will forever be tainted will a partistan Halo he himself revealed to the country and placed proudly on his own head.. go figure

It's funny no one reported when Stevens supported Kavanaugh, it only became a story when he opposed Kavanaugh. That tells you everything, and I mean everything, you need to know about the media.

The SCOTUS has been a liberal activist court for longer than I've been alive, since Ike put Earl Warren on there. That ends today.

It's funny no one reported when Stevens supported Kavanaugh, it only became a story when he opposed Kavanaugh. That tells you everything, and I mean everything, you need to know about the media.

The SCOTUS has been a liberal activist court for longer than I've been alive, since Ike put Earl Warren on there. That ends today.


why would it be reported there was a long list of prominent people who supported him.. then he opened his mouth

Cause and effect

The SCOTUS has been a liberal activist court for longer than I've been alive,



you eat the rights propaganda like ice cream .. not surprising

you eat the rights propaganda like ice cream .. not surprising

You pronounce something propaganda, and the only argument or evidence you ever produce that's supposed to show it is propaganda is to post various leftist propaganda.

If you could coherently, in your own words, backed by facts not leftist opinion, show us that Jim has eaten the right's propaganda, it would be appreciated.

why would it be reported there was a long list of prominent people who supported him.. then he opened his mouth

Cause and effect

The SCOTUS has been a liberal activist court for longer than I've been alive,



you eat the rights propaganda like ice cream .. not surprising

WDMSO, for decades the democrats have used the supreme court to ram their social agenda down our throats, when they haven't been able to get such things passed legislatively as they're supposed to do (abortion, gay marriage, etc).

That tool has been taken away from them. It's a huge deal, which is why they fought this so passionately, and why after not getting their way, their temper tantrum has been so bratty.

I disagree with the GOP agenda on big issues like gay marriage and the death penalty and the right to good healthcare (Detbuch and I have had heated disagreements on this, and the difference when disagreeing with him, is that he doesn't lob baseless insults, he supports his positions and he listens to what I'm saying, rather than listening to what MSNBC claims I'm saying), so no I don't thoughtlessly regurgitate right wing talking points. On what major issues, do you disagree with the democrats? Let's see who is more blindly partisan, and who is more of an independent thinker? Shall we?

That binky has been taken away from them.

fixed it....this explains the collective reaction :bl:

Trump, Rush, Foxnews and the NRA tell me Kavanaugh is awesome, so to hell with the rest of you ;)

WDMSO, social agenda down our throats, (abortion, gay marriage, etc).

That tool has been taken away from them. It's a huge deal,



abortion, gay marriage, Has zero affect on you unless you want an abortion or are gay or gay and wish to get married...


life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” for all you can't have it both ways

Trump, Rush, Foxnews and the NRA tell me Kavanaugh is awesome, so to hell with the rest of you ;)

don't forget Sen. Susan Collins....

a fair-minded spence would say he has a " very impressive resume'"

fixed it....this explains the collective reaction :bl:

use if the word binky, was hilarious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

don't forget Sen. Susan Collins....

a fair-minded spence would say he has a " very impressive resume'"

You better not forget her. Because after November she will be out on the street.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

abortio Has zero affect on you unless you want an abortion




here’s what you don’t understand, what you apparently are incapable of understanding. See, I get that Im not the only person who matters. I care about what happens to others, it’s called ‘empathy’, looknit up in the dictionary. So while I agree with you that it’s too late for me to be aborted, that doesn’t mean I’m not impacted by it. I have empathy for the millions of babies not born.

Same with the death penalty, I’m not going to commit a capital offnse, but I still would rather that people who do so, be allowed to live.

e-m-p-a-t-h-y
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You better not forget her. Because after November he will be out on the street.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

?....I guess that's too progressively intellectual for me to grasp

use if the word binky, was hilarious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

isn't it funny that after the hearing and all that happened there where the left's elected officials, operatives and rent-a-mob acted like monkeys throwing feces....the left wants to re-elect the monkeys throwing feces and target the republicans who acted like adults and statesmen for removal from Washington..."intellectualism" at work

the left wants to re-elect the monkeys throwing feces

I can hear their Campaign slogan now...

"Slinging poo in 2022" :hihi:

?....I guess that too progressively intellectual for me to grasp

Probably.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Slinging poo in 2022" :hihi:

That is freaking awesome!!!

You better not forget her. Because after November she will be out on the street.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She getting evicted? Because her term isn't up until 2020.

Must be some of that "Progressive Intellect" that is all the rage these days :hihi:

She getting evicted? Because her term isn't up until 2020.

Must be some of that "Progressive Intellect" that is all the rage these days :hihi:

The list of senate seats up in November, could not have been more fortunate for the Republicans. If they let me pick which 33 seats would be up in 2018, I could not have picked a better list for the GOP, it's amazing how lucky they got. If the whole senate was up every 2 years, the GOP would be in serious trouble.