|
Wow
Kavanaugh: temper tantrums, incessant drinking of water, snorting,
argues with and interrupts U.S. Senators, refuses to give straight answers to simple questions, dissembles, totally afraid of FBI queries... Trump certainly picks the best people. Unfortunately, they aren't being well-represented by Kavanaugh. And Lindsay Graham? Ever the sucker of Trump's dick. |
Wow
On 9/27/2018 5:15 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Kavanaugh: temper tantrums, incessant drinking of water, snorting, argues with and interrupts U.S. Senators, refuses to give straight answers to simple questions, dissembles, totally afraid of FBI queries... Trump certainly picks the best people. Unfortunately, they aren't being well-represented by Kavanaugh. And Lindsay Graham? Ever the sucker of Trump's dick. If it weren't so damaging and hurtful to other people this would be comical. During the recent break the talking heads on MSNBC were blaming the whole mess on Trump. |
Wow
On 9/27/18 5:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/27/2018 5:15 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: Kavanaugh: temper tantrums, incessant drinking of water, snorting, argues with and interrupts U.S. Senators, refuses to give straight answers to simple questions, dissembles, totally afraid of FBI queries... Trump certainly picks the best people. Unfortunately, they aren't being well-represented by Kavanaugh. And Lindsay Graham? Ever the sucker of Trump's dick. If it weren't so damaging and hurtful to other people this would be comical. During the recent break the talking heads on MSNBC were blaming the whole mess on Trump. Well, we all know Trump picks the best. Just ask him. |
Wow
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
Kavanaugh: temper tantrums, incessant drinking of water, snorting, argues with and interrupts U.S. Senators, refuses to give straight answers to simple questions, dissembles, totally afraid of FBI queries... Trump certainly picks the best people. Unfortunately, they aren't being well-represented by Kavanaugh. And Lindsay Graham? Ever the sucker of Trump's dick. To his credit Kavanaugh didn't fall into the FBI trap. Smart fella. He'll be a great SC judge. -- x |
Wow
"Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message:
On 9/27/2018 5:15 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: Kavanaugh: temper tantrums, incessant drinking of water, snorting, argues with and interrupts U.S. Senators, refuses to give straight answers to simple questions, dissembles, totally afraid of FBI queries... Trump certainly picks the best people. Unfortunately, they aren't being well-represented by Kavanaugh. And Lindsay Graham? Ever the sucker of Trump's dick. If it weren't so damaging and hurtful to other people this would be comical. During the recent break the talking heads on MSNBC were blaming the whole mess on Trump. Of course. -- x |
Wow
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:15:11 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: Kavanaugh: temper tantrums, incessant drinking of water, snorting, argues with and interrupts U.S. Senators, refuses to give straight answers to simple questions, dissembles, totally afraid of FBI queries... I just saw a man who was frustrated by the whole circus. He didn't say he was afraid of the FBI. He only indicated that he also understood this was simply trying to run out the clock. Even my wife, who is no Trump or Kavanaugh fan said "Since when does the person being investigated get to ask the FBI to investigate them"? Booker just looked stupid asking that question over and over. (certainly not "presidential" if that was where he was going) They did make a good point. If this was really about getting to the truth, why did Feinstein hold on to that for 60 days and not bring it up in the confidential sessions of the vetting process. Also why didn't the senate democrats want to participate in the committee investigation. I hear Feinstein acting like she did not even know that was going on. This was nothing but a cheap political trick. I do bet, if Kavanaugh is damaged by this, it will see a court room where there will be a thorough investigation and more people testifying under oath. At that point Dr Ford will be in a lot more hostile environment as the defendant. |
Wow
|
Wow
On 9/27/2018 9:15 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/27/18 8:53 PM, wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:15:11 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Kavanaugh: temper tantrums, incessant drinking of water, snorting, argues with and interrupts U.S. Senators, refuses to give straight answers to simple questions, dissembles, totally afraid of FBI queries... I just saw a man who was frustrated by the whole circus. He didn't say he was afraid of the FBI. He only indicated that he also understood this was simply trying to run out the clock. Even my wife, who is no Trump or Kavanaugh fan said "Since when does the person being investigated get to ask the FBI to investigate them"? Booker just looked stupid asking that question over and over. (certainly not "presidential" if that was where he was going) They did make a good point. If this was really about getting to the truth, why did Feinstein hold on to that for 60 days and not bring it up in the confidential sessions of the vetting process. Also why didn't the senate democrats want to participate in the committee investigation. I hear Feinstein acting like she did not even know that was going on. This was nothing but a cheap political trick. I do bet, if Kavanaugh is damaged by this, it will see a court room where there will be a thorough investigation and more people testifying under oath. At that point Dr Ford will be in a lot more hostile environment as the defendant. Do you think Dr. Ford will be subject to libel or slander because of her testimony? I would think Congressional testimony is protected by absolute privilege. As for Kavanaugh, he demonstrated he is a man out of control, and unsuitable for the bench in any position. The purpose of the FBI inquiry in this case would be to investigate questions and obtain information that no one has, and get it from people who are under oath. The Repubs and Kavanaugh are scared ****less of what might be turned up. It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess. The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining control in Congress. It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left. If the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it. I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford. She comes across as a troubled woman possibly with issues that are not related to the Kavanaugh issue. Just a guess but she seems very insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry, a university professor who should be very comfortable in public appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes. Somethings just don't add up. I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS, at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape occurred, would be an experience that would cause a life-long trauma in a woman. My wife said no way. That's all I can go by as a male. I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she communicate privately with friends or associates who encouraged her to contact Feinstein. I can't remember if that question was asked of her. I know it's cynical but Ford is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump. I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible. Call it a tie. The tie breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible evidence that backed up their stories. In that case Kavanaugh won hands down. He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for future debates. |
Wow
On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote: It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess. The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining control in Congress. It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left. If the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it. I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford. She comes across as a troubled woman possibly with issues that are not related to the Kavanaugh issue. Just a guess but she seems very insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry, a university professor who should be very comfortable in public appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes. Somethings just don't add up. I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS, at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape occurred, would be an experience that would cause a life-long trauma in a woman. My wife said no way. That's all I can go by as a male. I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she communicate privately with friends or associates who encouraged her to contact Feinstein. I can't remember if that question was asked of her. I know it's cynical but Ford is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump. I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible. Call it a tie. The tie breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible evidence that backed up their stories. In that case Kavanaugh won hands down. He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for future debates. Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him. My post started with: "It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess." Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it. |
Wow
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess. The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining control in Congress. It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left. If the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it. I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford. She comes across as a troubled woman possibly with issues that are not related to the Kavanaugh issue. Just a guess but she seems very insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry, a university professor who should be very comfortable in public appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes. Somethings just don't add up. I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS, at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape occurred, would be an experience that would cause a life-long trauma in a woman. My wife said no way. That's all I can go by as a male. I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she communicate privately with friends or associates who encouraged her to contact Feinstein. I can't remember if that question was asked of her. I know it's cynical but Ford is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump. I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible. Call it a tie. The tie breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible evidence that backed up their stories. In that case Kavanaugh won hands down. He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for future debates. Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him. My post started with: "It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess." Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it. My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. -- Posted with my iPad Pro It's amazing how you are able to gain more insight into his character than the FBI. You da man, Fat Harry. -- x |
Wow
On 9/28/2018 9:18 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess. The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining control in Congress. It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left. If the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it. I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford. She comes across as a troubled woman possibly with issues that are not related to the Kavanaugh issue. Just a guess but she seems very insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry, a university professor who should be very comfortable in public appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes. Somethings just don't add up. I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS, at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape occurred, would be an experience that would cause a life-long trauma in a woman. My wife said no way. That's all I can go by as a male. I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she communicate privately with friends or associates who encouraged her to contact Feinstein. I can't remember if that question was asked of her. I know it's cynical but Ford is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump. I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible. Call it a tie. The tie breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible evidence that backed up their stories. In that case Kavanaugh won hands down. He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for future debates. Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him. My post started with: "It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess." Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it. My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. Now he's a "mass murderer"? Wow. There are really two issues with the testimonies of yesterday. 1. Was Ford's testimony and claims credible? IMO ... yes. Was it backed up with solid evidence? No. 2. Was Kavanaugh's testimony credible? IMO ... yes. Was it backed up with solid evidence .. Yes. Winner: Kavanaugh. Sorry. Oh ... Senator Flake just announced he agrees and will vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation. Now the Senate committee will vote. But not until that blowhard Blumenthal finishes a last ditch attempt to delay again. |
Wow
|
Wow
On 9/28/2018 9:33 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess. The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining control in Congress. It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left. If the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it. I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford. She comes across as a troubled woman possibly with issues that are not related to the Kavanaugh issue. Just a guess but she seems very insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry, a university professor who should be very comfortable in public appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes. Somethings just don't add up. I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS, at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape occurred, would be an experience that would cause a life-long trauma in a woman. My wife said no way. That's all I can go by as a male. I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she communicate privately with friends or associates who encouraged her to contact Feinstein. I can't remember if that question was asked of her. I know it's cynical but Ford is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump. I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible. Call it a tie. The tie breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible evidence that backed up their stories. In that case Kavanaugh won hands down. He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for future debates. Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him. My post started with: "It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess." Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it. My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. -- Posted with my iPad Pro It's amazing how you are able to gain more insight into his character than the FBI. You da man, Fat Harry. The FBI doesn't assess character in the course of these background checks, ****-for-brains. The FBI doesn't make a character judgement but collects information related to character that may be considered by the organization requesting the background check. Kavanaugh has had six such background checks. When I was in the Navy my job required a TS Cryto security clearance. An FBI background check was conducted. I learned later from friends, neighbors and former school teachers that several had been interviewed by a FBI agent who collected their impressions of my character and if there were any issues they were aware of that would make me untrustworthy of holding the required clearance. That's how it works. |
Wow
On 9/28/2018 9:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. Well, Kavanaugh is only a sniveling frat-boy anti-Democrat, attemped rapist, without judicial temperament, not a mass murderer. A fine addition to compliment Thomas on the court. Just think of it: an avowed partisan drunk crybaby on SCOTUS! Regretable that such an lying ****sack should be so elevated, but to be expected with the state of the Republican party. Chief Justice Roberts is sorely disappointed. BTW, when the term for SCOTUS was set at "life," the average life was 36 years. Its obvious that should be examined. I suppose that if Kavanaugh were a sniveling frat-boy, anti-Republican, attemped rapist, without judicial temperament his nomination would have been supported unanimously by Democrats. That's all this is all about. Period. The Dems are still trying to block his confirmation vote as I type. |
Wow
On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 9:46:36 AM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. Well, Kavanaugh is only a sniveling frat-boy anti-Democrat, attemped rapist, without judicial temperament, not a mass murderer. Yawn. "The American Bar Association on Friday awarded Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh its highest rating, giving the judge a unanimous “well-qualified” score. “The rating of ‘Well Qualified’ is reserved for those found to merit the Committee’s strongest affirmative endorsement,” the ABA states in its description of the ranking process." You're welcome for the education on his judicial temperament. All the rest of your descriptors are BS. |
Wow
On 9/28/18 9:42 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 9:18 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess. The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining control in Congress. It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left.* If the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it. I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford.* She comes across as a troubled woman possibly with issues that are not related to the Kavanaugh issue.* Just a guess but she seems very insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry, a university professor who should be very comfortable in public appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes.* Somethings just don't add up.* I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS, at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape occurred, would* be an experience that would cause a life-long trauma in a woman.* My wife said no way. That's all I can go by as a male. I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she communicate privately with friends or associates who encouraged her to contact Feinstein.** I can't remember if that question was asked of her.* I know it's cynical but Ford is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump. I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible.* Call it a tie.** The tie breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible evidence that backed up their stories.* In that case Kavanaugh won hands down. He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for future debates. Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him. My post started with:* "It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess." Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it. My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. Now he's a "mass murderer"?** Wow. I didn't say Kavanaugh was a mass murdered. I said the Repubs would approve one if one were nominated. Kavanaugh simply is a liar, a drunk, and an attacker of women. |
Wow
On 9/28/2018 11:27 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/28/18 9:42 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/28/2018 9:18 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess. The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining control in Congress. It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left.* If the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it. I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford.* She comes across as a troubled woman possibly with issues that are not related to the Kavanaugh issue.* Just a guess but she seems very insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry, a university professor who should be very comfortable in public appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes.* Somethings just don't add up.* I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS, at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape occurred, would* be an experience that would cause a life-long trauma in a woman.* My wife said no way. That's all I can go by as a male. I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she communicate privately with friends or associates who encouraged her to contact Feinstein.** I can't remember if that question was asked of her.* I know it's cynical but Ford is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump. I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible.* Call it a tie. The tie breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible evidence that backed up their stories.* In that case Kavanaugh won hands down. He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for future debates. Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him. My post started with:* "It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess." Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it. My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. Now he's a "mass murderer"?** Wow. I didn't say Kavanaugh was a mass murdered. I said the Repubs would approve one if one were nominated. Kavanaugh simply is a liar, a drunk, and an attacker of women. Deferring to your superior writing skills, I won't debate how one can parse your sentence, "My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat." On second thought, I think I will: To me, you are including Kavanaugh as a mass murderer. If you don't think Kavanaugh is a mass murderer, to be clear it should have been two different sentences representing two different thoughts of opinion. Example: "My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh." "Republicans would approve a mass murderer for that seat". |
Wow
|
Wow
|
Wow
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:46:36 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: BTW, when the term for SCOTUS was set at "life," the average life was 36 years. Huh? Do you think they were saying the president would be dead one year into office? (minimum age 35) The rich white men who they thought would run the government lived as long as we do. Hamilton died at 49 ... but he was shot by Aaron Burr Washington died at 67 Franklin died at 84 John Jay was 84 James Madison was 86 John Adams was 91 Your 36 number, as suspect as it is, referred to the average guy working in a hazardous job with no access to health care and an insecure supply of food and clean water. |
Wow
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:58:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 9/28/2018 9:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. Well, Kavanaugh is only a sniveling frat-boy anti-Democrat, attemped rapist, without judicial temperament, not a mass murderer. A fine addition to compliment Thomas on the court. Just think of it: an avowed partisan drunk crybaby on SCOTUS! Regretable that such an lying ****sack should be so elevated, but to be expected with the state of the Republican party. Chief Justice Roberts is sorely disappointed. BTW, when the term for SCOTUS was set at "life," the average life was 36 years. Its obvious that should be examined. I suppose that if Kavanaugh were a sniveling frat-boy, anti-Republican, attemped rapist, without judicial temperament his nomination would have been supported unanimously by Democrats. That's all this is all about. Period. The Dems are still trying to block his confirmation vote as I type. This, like most things in American politics is all about abortion and guns. The same people who have their hair on fire about Kavanaugh felt the same way last week (including Harry) but it was all about Roe. I imagine if you could get them to stop talking about Roe for a second they would say they think Kavanaugh would be soft on gun control. I am agnostic on abortion since I think the government should stay out of it either way. If I did want the government to be involved in any way, it would be to make abortion a covered service under medicaid along with any birth control services available today. Both of those are huge money savers. |
Wow
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 11:27:54 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 9/28/18 9:42 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/28/2018 9:18 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess. The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining control in Congress. It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left.* If the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it. I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford.* She comes across as a troubled woman possibly with issues that are not related to the Kavanaugh issue.* Just a guess but she seems very insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry, a university professor who should be very comfortable in public appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes.* Somethings just don't add up.* I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS, at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape occurred, would* be an experience that would cause a life-long trauma in a woman.* My wife said no way. That's all I can go by as a male. I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she communicate privately with friends or associates who encouraged her to contact Feinstein.** I can't remember if that question was asked of her.* I know it's cynical but Ford is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump. I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible.* Call it a tie.** The tie breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible evidence that backed up their stories.* In that case Kavanaugh won hands down. He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for future debates. Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him. My post started with:* "It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess." Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it. My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. Now he's a "mass murderer"?** Wow. I didn't say Kavanaugh was a mass murdered. I said the Repubs would approve one if one were nominated. Kavanaugh simply is a liar, a drunk, and an attacker of women. Too bad there is no evidence of any of that but it never stopped democrats. I do find it funny that the same people who will leap to the defense of a known thug like Trayvonn Martin or Michael Brown are so quick to demonize a federal judge, simply because Trump tried to elevate him. |
Wow
|
Wow
|
Wow
|
Wow
Kalif Swill guzzles.....
"I heard you and Don drank all the available beer." If that's the case y'all must be cheap supplying the bar. I'd be hard pressed to finish off a six pack.....even your sissy beer.* |
Wow
On 9/28/18 3:31 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:46:36 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: BTW, when the term for SCOTUS was set at "life," the average life was 36 years. Huh? Do you think they were saying the president would be dead one year into office? (minimum age 35) The rich white men who they thought would run the government lived as long as we do. I gave you average life expectancy at birth. Figure in infant mortality. The average years of life for Washington's appointments to SCOTUS was 66.9 years. Average term served was 7.9 years. You can compare that to recent times. How dare you question anything Trump says, does, appoints...don't you want to get along in this right-wing pig pen? Come on, Trump, who hired a felon lawyer, a felon campaign chair, a felon foreign policy adviser, a felon deputy campaign manager, a felon National Security advisor, a two-times alleged wife beater Staff Secretary, and the most corrupt EPA boss ever, assures us Brett Kavanaugh is spectacular. Accept! |
Wow
True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles..... "I heard you and Don drank all the available beer." If that's the case y'all must be cheap supplying the bar. I'd be hard pressed to finish off a six pack.....even your sissy beer.* Hell I would have a hard time finishing off a six-pack in a couple months. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com