Page 5 of 9

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:16 pm
by stuper1
The leftists like to say that the US is the laughingstock of the world because we elected Trump as our president. To that I say: 1) I couldn't care less whether anybody else likes our leader, and 2) I don't believe that most of the world is laughing, because I think that much of the world actually respects a leader who conspicuously puts the interests of his own country first.

What I want to know is why aren't the leftists worried about the rest of the world laughing at the US for this manufactured Kavanaugh spectacle about things that supposedly happened in high school? I can't imagine that the rest of the world isn't laughing uproariously at us for this. Not that I really care, but again this is something that the leftists and their minion media like to say all the time about Trump.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:32 am
by moda0306
stuper1 wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:16 pm
The leftists like to say that the US is the laughingstock of the world because we elected Trump as our president. To that I say: 1) I couldn't care less whether anybody else likes our leader, and 2) I don't believe that most of the world is laughing, because I think that much of the world actually respects a leader who conspicuously puts the interests of his own country first.

What I want to know is why aren't the leftists worried about the rest of the world laughing at the US for this manufactured Kavanaugh spectacle about things that supposedly happened in high school? I can't imagine that the rest of the world isn't laughing uproariously at us for this. Not that I really care, but again this is something that the leftists and their minion media like to say all the time about Trump.
Some on the left care about this. Some on the left don't care much. Many probably feign their concern, just as many conservatives feign concern on a number of micro-topics to help them assemble an embarrassing narrative towards "the left," whatever that is.

Other countries probably don't care much about the nomination norms of Supreme Court judges. What many folks in other countries probably find odd is how we give these people lifetime appointments, and while I wouldn't classify that under "embarrassing," I totally agree with that sentiment.

Of far-more concern than whether power treats power (dem senators treat a judicial nominee or Repub senators treat other senators) should be how power treats those without it. Either the masses or individuals. Focusing on the former in lieu of the latter on a consisten basis shows a nakedly partisan slant. One that we should, imo, be embarrassed about, though not because any foreigner tells us we should be.

And Donald Trump may be conspicuous, but the idea that he's acting in American's best interest is ridiculous. He's acting, as the elite does, in American Capital's best interest. I know some of us are good savers, but let's not kid ourselves about who our lot is in with... it's those who sell their labor for compensation.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:35 am
by WiseOne
Tyler wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:57 pm
I agree Ford's accusations deserved investigation and concede that calling out Clinton was unnecessary (even if absolutely believable because of Kavanaugh's ties to the Ken Starr Clinton investigation). But I think reasonable people can also understand that the entire dog & pony show "has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about [Kavanaugh's] judicial record... and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups." It never had to unfold this way, and it was largely orchestrated for maximum political effect (and decidedly not in Blasey Ford's best interests) by Feinstein.
Agreed, Tyler.

To clarify my comment about "paranoia" - in a normal social situation, Kavanaugh's speech about a "left wing hit job" and "millions of dollars" would be entirely understandable, under the circumstances. But, if you're a federal judge and Supreme Court candidate, you really shouldn't be saying such things without solid proof. He could have simply said that this had the appearance of an orchestrated effort to prevent his confirmation, and left it at that. When you're under a spotlight and in a powerful position, you really need to be careful of what you say.

I do recognize the provoking circumstances and the fact that this appears to be atypical for him. But it certainly raised the issue in my mind of whether he has the temperament to serve on the Court.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:49 am
by Cortopassi
WiseOne wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:35 am
When you're under a spotlight and in a powerful position, you really need to be careful of what you say.
Well that's generally out the window lately with Twitter (Trump, Musk, ??) and other platforms! Comments sections of most blogs are from people whose opinions are way far left and right and a lot of times are just comments no normal socially adjusted human would ever say in public.

And I'll swing back to Trump's campaign rally in Mississippi. While all his spokespeople came out and defended him that what he said about Ford was "factually" true, none would touch on HOW he mockingly said those things. Jesus, if I saw the president saying stuff like that about me on TV and seeing the people laugh and hoot it up standing all around him, children included, I would be terrified.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:56 am
by moda0306
Cortopassi wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:49 am
WiseOne wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:35 am
When you're under a spotlight and in a powerful position, you really need to be careful of what you say.
Well that's generally out the window lately with Twitter (Trump, Musk, ??) and other platforms! Comments sections of most blogs are from people whose opinions are way far left and right and a lot of times are just comments no normal socially adjusted human would ever say in public.

And I'll swing back to Trump's campaign rally in Mississippi. While all his spokespeople came out and defended him that what he said about Ford was "factually" true, none would touch on HOW he mockingly said those things. Jesus, if I saw the president saying stuff like that about me on TV and seeing the people laugh and hoot it up standing all around him, children included, I would be terrified.
While it wasn't all factually true (Trump's flatulating speech), it's funny that now the knuckle-draggers want to argue that facts matter with regards to Trumps rhetoric.

And how again is "the left" a uniquely toxic force in this country?

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:11 am
by jacksonM
http://www.unz.com/imercer/christine-bl ... ppocampus/

A good article on Ms. Ford's claims about the repressed memory stored indelibly on her hippocampus for future retrieval 30 years later.

Update: I think the "hippocampus" thing is probably a half truth. With all the craziness going on in universities nowadays it's probably fair to say that the campus had a lot to do with her repressed memory. There was just no hippo involved.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:37 am
by Maddy
I taught a class to high-school aged kids not long ago and was struck by the extent to which young people are seemingly unable to distinguish reality from a position asserted with the object of convincing others of its truth. It seemed to be much more than a political or ideological preference; rather, they appeared to be actually unable to grasp the concept that one version of the facts might be more truthful than another. I see a frightening resemblance to that mindset in these women and their "followers."

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:39 am
by moda0306
Maddy wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:37 am
I taught a class to high-school aged kids not long ago and was struck by the extent to which young people are seemingly unable to distinguish reality from a position asserted with the object of convincing others of its truth. It seemed to be much more than a political or ideological preference; rather, they appeared to be actually unable to grasp the concept that one version of the facts might be more truthful than another. I see a frightening resemblance to that mindset in these women and their "followers."
And Trump, of course. Let's not forget the most powerful human-being amongst 7 Billion.

But I agree with you... far too many people allowing their opinions to drive their digestion of facts.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:53 am
by flyingpylon
Facts = Data + Interpretation + Persuasion

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:02 am
by jacksonM
Cortopassi wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:49 am
WiseOne wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:35 am
When you're under a spotlight and in a powerful position, you really need to be careful of what you say.
Well that's generally out the window lately with Twitter (Trump, Musk, ??) and other platforms! Comments sections of most blogs are from people whose opinions are way far left and right and a lot of times are just comments no normal socially adjusted human would ever say in public.

And I'll swing back to Trump's campaign rally in Mississippi. While all his spokespeople came out and defended him that what he said about Ford was "factually" true, none would touch on HOW he mockingly said those things. Jesus, if I saw the president saying stuff like that about me on TV and seeing the people laugh and hoot it up standing all around him, children included, I would be terrified.
I can see how you would feel that way if you genuinely believed that Ms. Ford was the fragile, emotionally traumatized 15 year old girl who appeared before the senate and couldn't remember anything about the incident or provide one corroborating fact.

Among the deplorables however, she's now seen as a 51 year old adult who has a PHD in "research psychiatry" and who made the conscious choice to accuse a man of attempted rape in front of the whole world without providing a single shred of evidence. IMO She deserves to be mocked just for the fear of flying thing alone. Don't hold your breath about seeing that in an SNL skit.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:48 am
by moda0306
jacksonM wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:02 am
Cortopassi wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:49 am
WiseOne wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:35 am
When you're under a spotlight and in a powerful position, you really need to be careful of what you say.
Well that's generally out the window lately with Twitter (Trump, Musk, ??) and other platforms! Comments sections of most blogs are from people whose opinions are way far left and right and a lot of times are just comments no normal socially adjusted human would ever say in public.

And I'll swing back to Trump's campaign rally in Mississippi. While all his spokespeople came out and defended him that what he said about Ford was "factually" true, none would touch on HOW he mockingly said those things. Jesus, if I saw the president saying stuff like that about me on TV and seeing the people laugh and hoot it up standing all around him, children included, I would be terrified.
I can see how you would feel that way if you genuinely believed that Ms. Ford was the fragile, emotionally traumatized 15 year old girl who appeared before the senate and couldn't remember anything about the incident or provide one corroborating fact.

Among the deplorables however, she's now seen as a 51 year old adult who has a PHD in "research psychiatry" and who made the conscious choice to accuse a man of attempted rape in front of the whole world without providing a single shred of evidence. IMO She deserves to be mocked just for the fear of flying thing alone. Don't hold your breath about seeing that in an SNL skit.
So if someone is raped in a manner where they didn't "collect evidence," should they stay silent about it their whole lives?

She's not asking anyone to believe her wholeheartedly without evidence. She's just asking that her testimony be given as evidence to his character.

If he did what she claims, I think she has every right to come forward whenever she pleases. What this really comes down to is whether he did it or not. It totally changes the nature of both her coming forward and him acting in such a defensive, unprofessional manner. The only things that don't hing on that are that democrat senators are playing games, and that masses of "the right" are willing to openly mock a woman insofar as she came forward as a sexual assault victim.

An innocent Kavanaugh is a better moral position to be in (even with his awful views on the 4th amendment and unprofessional testimony) than any of the disgusting mockers on "the right," including Trump and his slimeball son. Deplorable, indeed.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:45 pm
by jacksonM
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:48 am
jacksonM wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:02 am
Cortopassi wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:49 am


Well that's generally out the window lately with Twitter (Trump, Musk, ??) and other platforms! Comments sections of most blogs are from people whose opinions are way far left and right and a lot of times are just comments no normal socially adjusted human would ever say in public.

And I'll swing back to Trump's campaign rally in Mississippi. While all his spokespeople came out and defended him that what he said about Ford was "factually" true, none would touch on HOW he mockingly said those things. Jesus, if I saw the president saying stuff like that about me on TV and seeing the people laugh and hoot it up standing all around him, children included, I would be terrified.
I can see how you would feel that way if you genuinely believed that Ms. Ford was the fragile, emotionally traumatized 15 year old girl who appeared before the senate and couldn't remember anything about the incident or provide one corroborating fact.

Among the deplorables however, she's now seen as a 51 year old adult who has a PHD in "research psychiatry" and who made the conscious choice to accuse a man of attempted rape in front of the whole world without providing a single shred of evidence. IMO She deserves to be mocked just for the fear of flying thing alone. Don't hold your breath about seeing that in an SNL skit.
So if someone is raped in a manner where they didn't "collect evidence," should they stay silent about it their whole lives?

She's not asking anyone to believe her wholeheartedly without evidence. She's just asking that her testimony be given as evidence to his character.

If he did what she claims, I think she has every right to come forward whenever she pleases. What this really comes down to is whether he did it or not. It totally changes the nature of both her coming forward and him acting in such a defensive, unprofessional manner. The only things that don't hing on that are that democrat senators are playing games, and that masses of "the right" are willing to openly mock a woman insofar as she came forward as a sexual assault victim.

An innocent Kavanaugh is a better moral position to be in (even with his awful views on the 4th amendment and unprofessional testimony) than any of the disgusting mockers on "the right," including Trump and his slimeball son. Deplorable, indeed.
When the only evidence someone has is a recovered memory arising from the hippocampus 30 years after the fact, with no other corroborating evidence and other evidence that actually contradicts their memory then yes, I think they should stay silent about it before lodging an accusation to destroy someone's life. Or at least refrain from parading it in front of the whole world in the middle of a senate confirmation process.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:28 pm
by Lonestar
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:48 am
If he did what she claims, I think she has every right to come forward whenever she pleases. What this really comes down to is whether he did it or not. It totally changes the nature of both her coming forward and him acting in such a defensive, unprofessional manner. The only things that don't hing on that are that democrat senators are playing games, and that masses of "the right" are willing to openly mock a woman insofar as she came forward as a sexual assault victim.
"Unprofessional" is subjective judgement. If he DID NOT do what he was so aggressively accused of, wouldn't a "defensive" posture be expected? Assume for a moment you have spent your entire adult life practicing law and setting as a judge on several courts. Your credentials are impeccable. All of a sudden you have a partisan group of individuals acting as a lynching party, based on sketchy, uncorroborated evidence. Under the conditions, I would not trust anyone who would not stand up and offer a scathing defense.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:03 am
by Maddy
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:48 am
She's not asking anyone to believe her wholeheartedly without evidence. She's just asking that her testimony be given as evidence to his character.

If he did what she claims, I think she has every right to come forward whenever she pleases.
Nobody's questioning her right to come forward. Nor has anyone denied her the opportunity to have her evidence considered. (Lordy, how much more attention could she have garnered?)

What you are actually contending, it seems to me, is that she had a right to be believed. Nobody has that right, no matter what's being alleged and no matter when the allegation is made.

Here, the timing of the revelation, the complete absence of corroboration, and the flat-out refuting of her testimony by multiple witnesses (including those she identified) bears strongly on her credibility and raises the unmistakable inference of an ulterior, political, motive. The suggestion that she is entitled, despite all that, to be believed (presumably because she is a woman and because the allegation resonates of "cultural oppression") is just nutty.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:35 am
by Tyler
No matter where you fall on the spectrum of Kavanaugh opinions, you owe it to yourself to take the time to listen to Susan Collins' full speech where she outlines all of the reasons she is voting for his confirmation. Her tone, reasoning, and genuine sense of professional responsibility are a welcome breath of fresh air in this whole debacle and she definitely earned my respect. Other senators should take note.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR3WajO-WwI

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:44 am
by jacksonM
Tyler wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:35 am
No matter where you fall on the spectrum of Kavanaugh opinions, you owe it to yourself to take the time to listen to Susan Collins' full speech where she outlines all of the reasons she is voting for his confirmation. Her tone, reasoning, and genuine sense of professional responsibility are a welcome breath of fresh air in this whole debacle and she definitely earned my respect. Other senators should take note.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR3WajO-WwI
+1

Excellent speech but I don't think any other senators took note, except maybe Manchin.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:01 am
by jacksonM
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:18 am
Maddy wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:03 am
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:48 am
She's not asking anyone to believe her wholeheartedly without evidence. She's just asking that her testimony be given as evidence to his character.

If he did what she claims, I think she has every right to come forward whenever she pleases.
Nobody's questioning her right to come forward. Nor has anyone denied her the opportunity to have her evidence considered. (Lordy, how much more attention could she have garnered?)

What you are actually contending, it seems to me, is that she had a right to be believed. Nobody has that right, no matter what's being alleged and no matter when the allegation is made.

Here, the timing of the revelation, the complete absence of corroboration, and the flat-out refuting of her testimony by multiple witnesses (including those she identified) bears strongly on her credibility and raises the unmistakable inference of an ulterior, political, motive. The suggestion that she is entitled, despite all that, to be believed (presumably because she is a woman and because the allegation resonates of "cultural oppression") is just nutty.
Exactly. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty' ?
Also the admissibility of hearsay evidence. As I understand it that was what all the 22 or so people the Dems had lined up for the FBI to interview were ready to provide. Not only was it a stalling tactic but they wanted the final report to be sprinkled with "I heard somebody say this or that". They didn't get what they wanted but at least they have their talking point about how the investigation was constrained, even though according to a former FBI investigator I saw on TV, that is what they always do.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:08 am
by Cortopassi
Please read at least parts of this article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

My question to everyone is:

Do his almost certainly untruthful descriptions of some of his calendar entries constitute:

1) Lying under oath
2) You believe his descriptions or
3) He shouldn't have ever been subjected to this hearing in the first place and gets a pass because he was trying to save face?

Or something else?

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:20 am
by WiseOne
Tyler wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:35 am
No matter where you fall on the spectrum of Kavanaugh opinions, you owe it to yourself to take the time to listen to Susan Collins' full speech where she outlines all of the reasons she is voting for his confirmation. Her tone, reasoning, and genuine sense of professional responsibility are a welcome breath of fresh air in this whole debacle and she definitely earned my respect. Other senators should take note.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR3WajO-WwI
Thank you Tyler!

Not only did my respect for Susan Collins just go up several notches, but it's pretty clear that her position has been badly misrepresented by the media. Did you catch the crazy stuff being printed now about how states should ignore Supreme Court decisions once Kavanaugh is seated on it?

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:24 am
by moda0306
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:18 am
Maddy wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:03 am
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:48 am
She's not asking anyone to believe her wholeheartedly without evidence. She's just asking that her testimony be given as evidence to his character.

If he did what she claims, I think she has every right to come forward whenever she pleases.
Nobody's questioning her right to come forward. Nor has anyone denied her the opportunity to have her evidence considered. (Lordy, how much more attention could she have garnered?)

What you are actually contending, it seems to me, is that she had a right to be believed. Nobody has that right, no matter what's being alleged and no matter when the allegation is made.

Here, the timing of the revelation, the complete absence of corroboration, and the flat-out refuting of her testimony by multiple witnesses (including those she identified) bears strongly on her credibility and raises the unmistakable inference of an ulterior, political, motive. The suggestion that she is entitled, despite all that, to be believed (presumably because she is a woman and because the allegation resonates of "cultural oppression") is just nutty.
Exactly. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty' ?
This isn't a jury trial to throw a man in a cage for the rest of his life.

If that were the case I could understand all the flatulating melodrama.

This is a process (that has been neutered into mostly a faux show anyway) to put a man in one of the most powerful positions in the world. For life. When another person could easily be chosen.

Let's lose the f'kin melodrama.

Those of us who are concerned more with Kavanaugh's terrible position on executive privilege and the 4th Amendment have more clout on that argument than those who decided to care about it for a couple weeks in a very unique case.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:38 am
by Xan
Senator Collins addressed that point. Moda, the video is well worth watching. You can crank it up to 2x speed. Really most of the speech isn't about the allegations but about judicial philosophy. It's interesting.

Edit: here's the full transcript:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/p ... naugh.html
Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.

Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles—about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness—do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them.

In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.

The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.

Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:22 am
by moda0306
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:41 am
moda0306 wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:24 am
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:18 am

Exactly. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty' ?
This isn't a jury trial to throw a man in a cage for the rest of his life.

If that were the case I could understand all the flatulating melodrama.

This is a process (that has been neutered into mostly a faux show anyway) to put a man in one of the most powerful positions in the world. For life. When another person could easily be chosen.

Let's lose the f'kin melodrama.

Those of us who are concerned more with Kavanaugh's terrible position on executive privilege and the 4th Amendment have more clout on that argument than those who decided to care about it for a couple weeks in a very unique case.
So you're saying that since this isn't an actual jury trial, innocence until proven guilty doesn't apply?! Sorry, the job or its tenure is irrelevant. And, you think your position on that is more valid because of your concerns on the 4th amendment? Sorry, irrelevant again.

edit: While typing this, Xan posted the above quote from Sen. Collins, which I had not yet heard/read, and apparently she agrees with me.
Some level of evidence is probably appropriate for a Supreme Court Nomination. I wouldn't presume to know exactly what. But a few things I do know...

- Kavanaugh is terrible on the 4th Amendment.

- How the powerful treat the masses visavis the 4th amendment and executive power is millions (well, probably more) of times of more importance than how they treat one of their own (another powerful government careerist) in a job interview.

- The knuckle-dragging pro-Trump wing of "the right" is showing again what cucks to power they are... not that this is a surprise... their "anti-establishment" bonafides were pretty much nonexistent anyway. This just serves as a reminder.

This should barely be a part of the national conversation. I agree with the somewhat corny speech by Ben Sasse... This should be about drilling into the principles at stake. Those that are pretending to care about due process as it pertains to a job interview when you hear nary a peep from them on the topic otherwise unless it's their jingo-clown-fascist president being investigated are obviously just cucks to right-leaning power, not principled civil-libertarians.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:15 pm
by moda0306
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:49 am
You do realize that phrases like 'knuckle dragging' that you have repeated in quite a few posts in this thread, and other phrases like it, is one of the reasons Trump is in the WH in the first place?
That's funny you would admit to a whole section of the country being so immature as to elect such a clown because some people called them names.

Many types of people get called names.

Only one group has chosen to earn their nickname by electing a stroked-out jingo-clown to head the most powerful killing machine in the history of the world as a backlash. Not just that, but defend him at every turn, no matter what ridiculous thing he does. When feminazis elect Rosie O'Donnel or Kathy Griffin to President I'll unleash a similar barrage of insults towards them.

BTW I give derogatory names to a lot of types of people. Some of my friends are knuckle-dragging trumpists. Some are feminazis. Some are establishment-left or establishment-right power-cucks who will defend anyone with the right letter behind their names. Some (usually the kindest/best ones) don't care for politics and don't like to aggressively defend slimeballs of any sort so I don't have nasty nicknames for them. Few are bitter quasi-anarchists like myself who distrust-dislike anyone who thinks they're important/powerful, but I'm working on them. ;)

As a side-car to good logic/arguments and sound facts, I find solid ad-hominem banter to actually contribute to a half-derailed conversation... not be a detriment to it. When moral outrage is being tossed around like a football over job interview norms for a powerful and anti-freedom judge, I'll feel free to use similar moralist language towards things that are actually important... such as the voting patterns of the 25% of this country who seem to only care about the civil liberties of massively powerful conservatives.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:12 pm
by Mountaineer
moda0306 wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:15 pm
MangoMan wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:49 am
You do realize that phrases like 'knuckle dragging' that you have repeated in quite a few posts in this thread, and other phrases like it, is one of the reasons Trump is in the WH in the first place?
That's funny you would admit to a whole section of the country being so immature as to elect such a clown because some people called them names.

Many types of people get called names.

Only one group has chosen to earn their nickname by electing a stroked-out jingo-clown to head the most powerful killing machine in the history of the world as a backlash. Not just that, but defend him at every turn, no matter what ridiculous thing he does. When feminazis elect Rosie O'Donnel or Kathy Griffin to President I'll unleash a similar barrage of insults towards them.

BTW I give derogatory names to a lot of types of people. Some of my friends are knuckle-dragging trumpists. Some are feminazis. Some are establishment-left or establishment-right power-cucks who will defend anyone with the right letter behind their names. Some (usually the kindest/best ones) don't care for politics and don't like to aggressively defend slimeballs of any sort so I don't have nasty nicknames for them. Few are bitter quasi-anarchists like myself who distrust-dislike anyone who thinks they're important/powerful, but I'm working on them. ;)

As a side-car to good logic/arguments and sound facts, I find solid ad-hominem banter to actually contribute to a half-derailed conversation... not be a detriment to it. When moral outrage is being tossed around like a football over job interview norms for a powerful and anti-freedom judge, I'll feel free to use similar moralist language towards things that are actually important... such as the voting patterns of the 25% of this country who seem to only care about the civil liberties of massively powerful conservatives.
Moda you Dorkmeister ;) , YMMV, but my experience is that labeling rarely, if ever, achieves the results intended by the labeler. Usually plain polite English works better.

Re: Kavanaugh

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:46 pm
by Cortopassi
Voting right now....