leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 50 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: As for Kavanaugh, I think it was bad. I don't necessarily agree with his judicial views, but presidents get to pick their justices and having an 11th hour woman who had no real evidence of his misconduct was wrong. And I say that as one who has daughters and is firmly on the side of women who, if they feel they have been wronged, should be encouraged to come forward and who should be heard. They just should have some evidence in support. Same thing with this Reid woman and Biden. Garland I thought was ridiculous for the same reason. The president has the right to send up nominees for the court, it's his constitutional responsibility. And they should be considered by the Senate. I am not a big fan of professional politicians and McConnell to me is the slimiest of the current bunch. Because he has already stated he would seat someone this year before the election. Going back to what I would do if I were Obama, or if I had been Trump last fall, I absolutely agree with innocent before proven guilty, a bedrock of our legal foundation. what I am saying is that if I knew I was innocent, and a Congressional committee, using its oversight authority, called my staff as witnesses (or even myself), I would have no problem having myself or them testify. Because I would know I was innocent, and from a more political perspective I know it would look really bad on the opposing party. I believe IG's should be independent, or else they have no real authority. If you haven't caught on yet, I am a big believer on transparency in government. I understand there are some secrets that have to be held based on national security concerns, but the bottom line is everyone in that city works for us and are accountable to us, the citizens. Fascinating, really, to me. Comparing a nomination that died on the vine due to political processes ( legal and acceptable) to branding a man a sexual predator and the lead party on a rape train....wow. What the dems and their voters did to BK is beyond shameful. And to be completely honest, if what happened there is only "bad", then it might as well be mainstream. If you as a conservative leaning independent see it as such, the next liberal nominee should, and unfortunately must be treated in kind. The worse the unsubstantiated rumor or allegation is, the better. When it falls apart, after a man probably a lot like you who loves his daughters as much as you has been gutted on a national stage because of his political views, we can all lament that it was "bad". When a smart and ambitious female works hard and grows up to have an opportunity to sit on the Supreme Court, and some political operative comes out and accuses her of performing oral sex on a child in her care when a babysitter at age 16, we can all think...gee, too bad, buy wtf, shes a lib. 2
SoCal Deek Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Really. Normally the higher you get the better the people are (someone who gets that high usually has to be likable). The fact that I feel that way about Kavanaugh should tell you something. To me the worst part of the hearing wasnt the Ford testimony. It was Kavanaugh’s response and his awful temperament. So if I'm reading you correctly, you didn't like the fact that some lady he doesn't remember from back in high school, got on national television in front of his wife and small children and claimed he 'felt her up' at a party, and in your version of the world he should sit there unemotionally? You and I deal with things much differently. I would be upset if he didn't show any temperament!
oldmanfan Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Fascinating, really, to me. Comparing a nomination that died on the vine due to political processes ( legal and acceptable) to branding a man a sexual predator and the lead party on a rape train....wow. What the dems and their voters did to BK is beyond shameful. And to be completely honest, if what happened there is only "bad", then it might as well be mainstream. If you as a conservative leaning independent see it as such, the next liberal nominee should, and unfortunately must be treated in kind. The worse the unsubstantiated rumor or allegation is, the better. When it falls apart, after a man probably a lot like you who loves his daughters as much as you has been gutted on a national stage because of his political views, we can all lament that it was "bad". When a smart and ambitious female works hard and grows up to have an opportunity to sit on the Supreme Court, and some political operative comes out and accuses her of performing oral sex on a child in her care when a babysitter at age 16, we can all think...gee, too bad, buy wtf, shes a lib. I do not know what you are referring to in the latter part of your post. If that happened to a woman nominee I would agree with your stance but I have no knowledge of that happening? I agree with you on Kavanaugh. We disagree on Garland. To me that was neither legal nor acceptable. Legal is not really a term to be used for that fiasco since there were no laws per se surrounding it. But certainly unacceptable. There was a vacant spot, the president nominates, the senate does advise and consent. The senate did not do its constitutional job because of the slimeball from Ky.
SectionC3 Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 Just now, SoCal Deek said: So if I'm reading you correctly, you didn't like the fact that some lady he doesn't remember from back in high school, got on national television in front of his wife and small children and claimed he 'felt her up' at a party, and in your version of the world he should sit there unemotionally? You and I deal with things much differently. I would be upset if he didn't show any temperament! Yup. Assuming she testified either falsely or mistakenly, I thought his conduct was unbecoming a judge. The proper course would have been to have apologized for the harm in her life and to steadfastly but calmly and assertively state that she identifies the wrong guy. You wanna be a judge? That’s how you’re supposed to act. Not flipping pages like a lunatic, ranting about beer, and making up BS stories about the chauvinistic lies you put in your HS yearbook. And since I believe her, my general view is that the little show he put on was a lousy act.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 2 hours ago, oldmanfan said: I didn't think that was right either. It was worse than anything Trump's been accused of by an order of magnitude. 2 1
SectionC3 Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: It was worse than anything Trump's been accused of by an order of magnitude. Hoax.
oldmanfan Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: It was worse than anything Trump's been accused of by an order of magnitude. 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: It was worse than anything Trump's been accused of by an order of magnitude. Wrong. Again you think you are the expert theorist around here but every single tale of your is biased. 2 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 Just now, oldmanfan said: Wrong. Again you think you are the expert theorist around here but every single tale of your is biased. You're upset because Trump fired four IGs he was legally allowed to fire. Obama didn't fire four IGs, he made ALL IGs irrelevant with a re-interpretation of the law, rendering any oversight impossible. This was done by the man who claimed to be "the most transparent president ever". This wasn't done for any other reason than to hide his corruption. How can you be upset by Trump and not outraged over this? I'll tell you how... you're full of it. And it shows. 3
SectionC3 Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: You're upset because Trump fired four IGs he was legally allowed to fire. Obama didn't fire four IGs, he made ALL IGs irrelevant with a re-interpretation of the law, rendering any oversight impossible. This was done by the man who claimed to be "the most transparent president ever". This wasn't done for any other reason than to hide his corruption. How can you be upset by Trump and not outraged over this? I'll tell you how... you're full of it. And it shows. Hoax. He’s reasonable. You’re on the washed up psycho list.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 I mean, it's not like anyone died -- right? Oh. Wait... With no IG at state (at all) to do anything about it. "BUT ORANGE MAN BAD!" Get the ***** out'a here with that weak ass shite. 2 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 1 minute ago, oldmanfan said: I do not know what you are referring to in the latter part of your post. If that happened to a woman nominee I would agree with your stance but I have no knowledge of that happening? I agree with you on Kavanaugh. We disagree on Garland. To me that was neither legal nor acceptable. Legal is not really a term to be used for that fiasco since there were no laws per se surrounding it. But certainly unacceptable. There was a vacant spot, the president nominates, the senate does advise and consent. The senate did not do its constitutional job because of the slimeball from Ky. What I mean is pretty simple. If labeling a man a predator, a deviant and the lead engineer of a rape train only raises to the level of "bad" politics in your mind, then it should be a tactic used by all. If the vast majority of the public sees it as such, then there is no reason not to have an endless media freak show on every nominee. When the next female candidate is nominated, something "bad" should be expected. You mentioned your daughter, I indicated i have one, also have two sons. It's not just that I would hate to see any of them treated as BK was by Pelosi, Harris, Schumer, Biden, et al--to see their lives destroyed, reputations in ruins, having to explain to their own children "No honey, no I never participated in a gang rape, that's just what people say when they disagree with you politically". It's that I would hate to see it happen to Sotamayer, Ginzburg and everyone else. I have a pretty basic rule. If they will do it to XXX, they'll do it to me. Or you. Or one of your daughters. It transcends bad.
oldmanfan Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: You're upset because Trump fired four IGs he was legally allowed to fire. Obama didn't fire four IGs, he made ALL IGs irrelevant with a re-interpretation of the law, rendering any oversight impossible. This was done by the man who claimed to be "the most transparent president ever". This wasn't done for any other reason than to hide his corruption. How can you be upset by Trump and not outraged over this? I'll tell you how... you're full of it. And it shows. I just said above it was wrong. The difference to me is Trump does it because he wants to be a dictator. You disagree fine. But I’m full of it? You don’t like my posts because you’ve found a niche here where you can spout your Deep State talking points, and when you have someone that recognizes your biases for what they are and how they cloud your outlook you have a hissy fit. Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said: What I mean is pretty simple. If labeling a man a predator, a deviant and the lead engineer of a rape train only raises to the level of "bad" politics in your mind, then it should be a tactic used by all. If the vast majority of the public sees it as such, then there is no reason not to have an endless media freak show on every nominee. When the next female candidate is nominated, something "bad" should be expected. You mentioned your daughter, I indicated i have one, also have two sons. It's not just that I would hate to see any of them treated as BK was by Pelosi, Harris, Schumer, Biden, et al--to see their lives destroyed, reputations in ruins, having to explain to their own children "No honey, no I never participated in a gang rape, that's just what people say when they disagree with you politically". It's that I would hate to see it happen to Sotamayer, Ginzburg and everyone else. I have a pretty basic rule. If they will do it to XXX, they'll do it to me. Or you. Or one of your daughters. It transcends bad. I get your point. 1 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 Just now, oldmanfan said: I just said above it was wrong. The difference to me is Trump does it because he wants to be a dictator. You think Obama removed the teeth from all the IG's because he wanted to be held accountable???!?! Do you even think before you type? Just now, oldmanfan said: But I’m full of it? You're completely full of it. And a hypocrite. And real uninformed. You keep proving it. 2 1
SectionC3 Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: What I mean is pretty simple. If labeling a man a predator, a deviant and the lead engineer of a rape train only raises to the level of "bad" politics in your mind, then it should be a tactic used by all. If the vast majority of the public sees it as such, then there is no reason not to have an endless media freak show on every nominee. When the next female candidate is nominated, something "bad" should be expected. You mentioned your daughter, I indicated i have one, also have two sons. It's not just that I would hate to see any of them treated as BK was by Pelosi, Harris, Schumer, Biden, et al--to see their lives destroyed, reputations in ruins, having to explain to their own children "No honey, no I never participated in a gang rape, that's just what people say when they disagree with you politically". It's that I would hate to see it happen to Sotamayer, Ginzburg and everyone else. I have a pretty basic rule. If they will do it to XXX, they'll do it to me. Or you. Or one of your daughters. It transcends bad. I agree with you to the extent you contend that it was too late to spike Kavanaugh on that issue, and that it sucked to do it to him on national TV in front of his family. It was dirty politics bereft of concern for, among other things, even the victim. But I don’t feel terribly badly for him because I believe her. He’s a d-bag, and while the proverbial statute ran on what he did, I’m not crying any tears for him.
Chef Jim Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: My neighbor's dog has walked down here and the owners are calling for it and it won't come, lol. Cute dog, just wants to hang out I guess. I think it saw me cutting grass and came over. Or needed something to relieve himself on. 1
oldmanfan Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: You think Obama removed the teeth from all the IG's because he wanted to be held accountable???!?! Do you even think before you type? No I do not think Obama wanted to be a dictator. Yes I think Trump does and the evidence of that to me is irrefutable. On the topic of thinking, it is apparent you do not and only continually either parrot you deep state material or insult those who dare to call you out on it. I think about things and have opinions you may not agree with. You do not think about things and reflexively try to fit everything into your preconceived agenda. 2 1
SectionC3 Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You think Obama removed the teeth from all the IG's because he wanted to be held accountable???!?! Do you even think before you type? You're completely full of it. And a hypocrite. And real uninformed. You keep proving it. Fake news. This is why you’re on the washed up psycho list. A couple of people arrived and disrupted your hoaxy deep state echo chamber and you don’t like it. Too bad.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: I agree with you to the extent you contend that it was too late to spike Kavanaugh on that issue, and that it sucked to do it to him on national TV in front of his family. It was dirty politics bereft of concern for, among other things, even the victim. But I don’t feel terribly badly for him because I believe her. He’s a d-bag, and while the proverbial statute ran on what he did, I’m not crying any tears for him. I don't care if you believe Ballsy Ford or not, it's irrelevant. Some will believe, others will not. The point was originally about "tribalism" and divisiveness. You do however make my point that if this is the new political landscape, then it is what it is. Borque got Borqued, Thomas got Pepsi canned, Kavanaugh is the rape train guy, and so on. We might as well keep playing. Brett Kavanaugh is another American hero. They tried to assassinate him and destroy his family and he told the dems, Ballsy Ford and everyone else to #@!! a $#@@. Most people don't have that depth of character, but he did. There's a trend here. Oh...you never answered my question on name calling and lost arguments. Maybe you forgot?
Deranged Rhino Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: No I do not think Obama wanted to be a dictator. Yes I think Trump does and the evidence of that to me is irrefutable And yet it was Obama, not Trump who: * Gutted the entire IG system, rewrote the law to hide his own crimes * Used the IRS to target his political enemies * Abused the surveillance tools to spy on Congress, the media, and the public without warrant or cause * Actively tried to subvert the 2016 election because he disagreed with the people's choice... * Doubled the size of the secret courts * Used drones to assassinate American citizens (in foreign lands) without consideration to their due process or civil rights So, yeah, you're full of it. And you keep proving it. 10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: On the topic of thinking, it is apparent you do not and only continually either parrot you deep state material or insult those who dare to call you out on it. You have to have a basic understanding of the facts before you can call me out on anything. You've yet to do it. All you've done is excuse the biggest abuses of power in this country's history while pointing at Trump and screaming "MY FEELZ!" Edited May 21, 2020 by Deranged Rhino I could keep adding to the list 5
SectionC3 Posted May 21, 2020 Posted May 21, 2020 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I don't care if you believe Ballsy Ford or not, it's irrelevant. Some will believe, others will not. The point was originally about "tribalism" and divisiveness. You do however make my point that if this is the new political landscape, then it is what it is. Borque got Borqued, Thomas got Pepsi canned, Kavanaugh is the rape train guy, and so on. We might as well keep playing. Brett Kavanaugh is another American hero. They tried to assassinate him and destroy his family and he told the dems, Ballsy Ford and everyone else to #@!! a $#@@. Most people don't have that depth of character, but he did. There's a trend here. Oh...you never answered my question on name calling and lost arguments. Maybe you forgot? “Ballsy Ford?” Not cool, and also not funny. And no, I don’t recall either your question or its context. FYI - Clarence Thomas was a Coke can. That had a ***** hair on it. Allegedly. And Bork was spiked for professional reasons.
Recommended Posts