Kavanaugh

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 22661
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#51 Post by Bob Juch » Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:18 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:Here is an e-mail (released yesterday) that Kavanaugh received on the subject. It starts, "I have a friend who is a mole on the left."

Remember, his testimony in 2004 is that he never saw any of the stolen information. His testimony this time around was that maybe he got them, but he had no idea at the time they were stolen. --Bob
Well, it looks like he lied. The dems found something! If that is a disqualification for public office, I doubt we'd have anyone qualified to serve in the federal government, which would be alright by me. Which doesn't excuse it, but it shows what a frickin game it is in Washington. This group of corrupt politicians pointing fingers at another group of dirty politicians, all of them getting rich and buying power at our expense. And you have no comment at all as to the content of the email. Warren Buffet anonymously giving 20 million to PP to influence who will be a judge. What do they use that money for, anyway?

Yeah, bob-tel, elect democrats and we'll have a pure as snow utopia and everyone will be whistling zippity doo-dah out their asshole. Right.....

We need a Convention of the States. Limit terms on Congress and on the Supreme Court. Senators chosen by the state legislatures, not by popular vote.
You need to explore the history of why they got rid of Senators being chosen by the state legislatures.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18806
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#52 Post by Bob78164 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:45 am

Bob Juch wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:Here is an e-mail (released yesterday) that Kavanaugh received on the subject. It starts, "I have a friend who is a mole on the left."

Remember, his testimony in 2004 is that he never saw any of the stolen information. His testimony this time around was that maybe he got them, but he had no idea at the time they were stolen. --Bob
Well, it looks like he lied. The dems found something! If that is a disqualification for public office, I doubt we'd have anyone qualified to serve in the federal government, which would be alright by me. Which doesn't excuse it, but it shows what a frickin game it is in Washington. This group of corrupt politicians pointing fingers at another group of dirty politicians, all of them getting rich and buying power at our expense. And you have no comment at all as to the content of the email. Warren Buffet anonymously giving 20 million to PP to influence who will be a judge. What do they use that money for, anyway?

Yeah, bob-tel, elect democrats and we'll have a pure as snow utopia and everyone will be whistling zippity doo-dah out their asshole. Right.....

We need a Convention of the States. Limit terms on Congress and on the Supreme Court. Senators chosen by the state legislatures, not by popular vote.
You need to explore the history of why they got rid of Senators being chosen by the state legislatures.
We’ve had this discussion before. He refuses to understand that it proved much easier to buy a seat from a State Legislator than from a voter.

In addition, given the prevalence of gerrymandered state legislators, that’s a good way to elect Republican Senators in majority-Democratic states.

And then there’s the question of what happens when the two houses of the Legislature (in any state but Nebraska) can’t agree on whom to appoint.

But none of this matters to flock. He doesn’t like democracy. He likes it when minorities can impose their will on the country’s majority because he knows his views are destined to remain in the minority, so this is the only chance he’s got to see them enacted. —Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7407
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Kavanaugh

#53 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:57 pm

Bob Juch wrote: You need to explore the history of why they got rid of Senators being chosen by the state legislatures.
viewtopic.php?p=381124#p381124
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5162
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Kavanaugh

#54 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:24 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Well, it looks like he lied. The dems found something! If that is a disqualification for public office, I doubt we'd have anyone qualified to serve in the federal government, which would be alright by me. Which doesn't excuse it, but it shows what a frickin game it is in Washington. This group of corrupt politicians pointing fingers at another group of dirty politicians, all of them getting rich and buying power at our expense. And you have no comment at all as to the content of the email. Warren Buffet anonymously giving 20 million to PP to influence who will be a judge. What do they use that money for, anyway?

Yeah, bob-tel, elect democrats and we'll have a pure as snow utopia and everyone will be whistling zippity doo-dah out their asshole. Right.....

We need a Convention of the States. Limit terms on Congress and on the Supreme Court. Senators chosen by the state legislatures, not by popular vote.
You need to explore the history of why they got rid of Senators being chosen by the state legislatures.
We’ve had this discussion before. He refuses to understand that it proved much easier to buy a seat from a State Legislator than from a voter.

In addition, given the prevalence of gerrymandered state legislators, that’s a good way to elect Republican Senators in majority-Democratic states.

And then there’s the question of what happens when the two houses of the Legislature (in any state but Nebraska) can’t agree on whom to appoint.

But none of this matters to flock. He doesn’t like democracy. He likes it when minorities can impose their will on the country’s majority because he knows his views are destined to remain in the minority, so this is the only chance he’s got to see them enacted. —Bob
Yes, that's right bob-tel. You give your opinion like it's fact, then you make a cock-eyed reference to me and my motives. Of course, I don't like democracy. I want a monarchy! Trump should be King!
And I love it when minorities can impose their will on the country's majority. That's what I'm all about. I'd even be willing to donate money to it, if I had any idea what it means.

Since I know you won't bother to read this far into my post, and have already posted your smarmy response, I'll just link to this essay that explains why I am for returning the power to appoint Senators to the States. I know you won't read it and any points made in this article will never be referenced or even penetrate your closed mind in any future discussion of this issue. I got you, babe.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/tim ... -senators/
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18806
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#55 Post by Bob78164 » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:30 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote: You need to explore the history of why they got rid of Senators being chosen by the state legislatures.
We’ve had this discussion before. He refuses to understand that it proved much easier to buy a seat from a State Legislator than from a voter.

In addition, given the prevalence of gerrymandered state legislators, that’s a good way to elect Republican Senators in majority-Democratic states.

And then there’s the question of what happens when the two houses of the Legislature (in any state but Nebraska) can’t agree on whom to appoint.

But none of this matters to flock. He doesn’t like democracy. He likes it when minorities can impose their will on the country’s majority because he knows his views are destined to remain in the minority, so this is the only chance he’s got to see them enacted. —Bob
Yes, that's right bob-tel. You give your opinion like it's fact, then you make a cock-eyed reference to me and my motives. Of course, I don't like democracy. I want a monarchy! Trump should be King!
And I love it when minorities can impose their will on the country's majority. That's what I'm all about. I'd even be willing to donate money to it, if I had any idea what it means.

Since I know you won't bother to read this far into my post, and have already posted your smarmy response, I'll just link to this essay that explains why I am for returning the power to appoint Senators to the States. I know you won't read it and any points made in this article will never be referenced or even penetrate your closed mind in any future discussion of this issue. I got you, babe.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/tim ... -senators/
I did read it. It’s an article only a third-year law student could write. And not a particularly bright one.

For example, if you believe that having state legislators select Senators will make them more moderate, you’re either smoking crack or not paying attention to what’s happening in state legislatures. —Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7407
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Kavanaugh

#56 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:46 am

I have to admit I am amused by a Californian lecturing others about selecting Senators
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18806
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#57 Post by Bob78164 » Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:52 am

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:I have to admit I am amused by a Californian lecturing others about selecting Senators
What's your problem with a top-two primary system? All a Republican has to do to get to the general election ballot is make it to second place in the primary. That wouldn't be so hard, except (a) Republicans have spent the last two decades poisoning their brand in the state, and (b) they can't seem to find any Republicans who want to run for statewide office (other than Arnold) who are willing to adopt social and fiscal positions shared by wide majorities of Californians. When that changes, so will their general-election fortunes.

The election for Senator here may actually be competitive, and Republicans may even have a chance to make a difference. The race for Governor is a foregone conclusion. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17011
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#58 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:38 am

Bob78164 wrote:
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:I have to admit I am amused by a Californian lecturing others about selecting Senators
What's your problem with a top-two primary system? All a Republican has to do to get to the general election ballot is make it to second place in the primary.
The problem with a "top-two" primary system is that it rewards a party that is informally able to limit itself to fewer candidates in a competitive election. My own State Senate district is a great example. In the primary for the special election (the incumbent resigned to run for Congress), two Democrats split roughly 45% of the vote and four Republicans split the remaining 55%. In this case, the election worked to my advantage, but one party shouldn't be "rewarded" for gaming the system.

The Democrats narrowly avoided having that happen to them in a few competitive California districts this year, partly because some candidates dropped out before the primary.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5162
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Kavanaugh

#59 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:29 am

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:We’ve had this discussion before. He refuses to understand that it proved much easier to buy a seat from a State Legislator than from a voter.

In addition, given the prevalence of gerrymandered state legislators, that’s a good way to elect Republican Senators in majority-Democratic states.

And then there’s the question of what happens when the two houses of the Legislature (in any state but Nebraska) can’t agree on whom to appoint.

But none of this matters to flock. He doesn’t like democracy. He likes it when minorities can impose their will on the country’s majority because he knows his views are destined to remain in the minority, so this is the only chance he’s got to see them enacted. —Bob
Yes, that's right bob-tel. You give your opinion like it's fact, then you make a cock-eyed reference to me and my motives. Of course, I don't like democracy. I want a monarchy! Trump should be King!
And I love it when minorities can impose their will on the country's majority. That's what I'm all about. I'd even be willing to donate money to it, if I had any idea what it means.

Since I know you won't bother to read this far into my post, and have already posted your smarmy response, I'll just link to this essay that explains why I am for returning the power to appoint Senators to the States. I know you won't read it and any points made in this article will never be referenced or even penetrate your closed mind in any future discussion of this issue. I got you, babe.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/tim ... -senators/
I did read it. It’s an article only a third-year law student could write. And not a particularly bright one.

For example, if you believe that having state legislators select Senators will make them more moderate, you’re either smoking crack or not paying attention to what’s happening in state legislatures. —Bob

1. Don't talk about the points, impugn the author.
2. Make a blanket statement based on your biased opinion, and include a swipe at me.
3. Next time the subject is brought up, ignore the fact that counter-arguments even exist.

Typical above average lawyer stuff.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7407
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Kavanaugh

#60 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:55 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:I have to admit I am amused by a Californian lecturing others about selecting Senators
What's your problem with a top-two primary system? . --Bob
The results
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 22661
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#61 Post by Bob Juch » Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:59 pm

How did they find 65 women to say Kavanaugh is a nice guy so quickly? Did they know about the allegation a long time ago? :roll:
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7407
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Kavanaugh

#62 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:50 pm

Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
jarnon
Posts: 4975
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Merion, Pa.

Re: Kavanaugh

#63 Post by jarnon » Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:42 pm

Kavanaugh won't be defeated on his character or intellect, both of which are excellent (in contrast to the guy who nominated him). Unless more Senators oppose him on the issues, he'll be confirmed.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17011
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#64 Post by silverscreenselect » Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:59 pm

Virginia Hume is the daughter of Britt Hume from Fox News.

Men (or high school boys) who do this sort of thing generally don't only do it one time. I'll be interested in seeing who, if anyone, else comes forward in the next few days.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17011
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#65 Post by silverscreenselect » Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:19 pm

Here's an article written by Kavanaugh's wingman on that date:

https://dailycaller.com/2011/01/27/geor ... tholicism/
only a person in denial still claims that something did not go terribly wrong in the Church after the 1960s, and that more often than not that thing was homosexual priests molesting teenage boys. My own take is that it had less to do with homosexuality than with the feverish libertinism of the 60s.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 22661
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#66 Post by Bob Juch » Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:50 pm

How come there are only 65 women who claim he didn't assault them?
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 9752
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: Kavanaugh

#67 Post by Estonut » Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:42 am

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 [color=#FF0000]@ 4:59 pm[/color], Bob Juch wrote:How did they find 65 women to say Kavanaugh is a nice guy so quickly?
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 [color=#FF0000]@ 7:50 pm[/color], Bob Juch wrote:How come there are only 65 women who claim he didn't assault them?
Schizo much?
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 22661
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#68 Post by Bob Juch » Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:20 am

Estonut wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 [color=#FF0000]@ 4:59 pm[/color], Bob Juch wrote:How did they find 65 women to say Kavanaugh is a nice guy so quickly?
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 [color=#FF0000]@ 7:50 pm[/color], Bob Juch wrote:How come there are only 65 women who claim he didn't assault them?
Schizo much?
The second is a joke, idiot.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Kavanaugh

#69 Post by BackInTex » Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:22 am

Bob Juch wrote:
How come there are only 65 women who claim he didn't assault them?
Most of them are overseas and don't even speak the language.

BTW, how come not a single woman has come forward claiming you haven't assaulted them?
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

Spock
Posts: 2811
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:01 pm

Re: Kavanaugh

#70 Post by Spock » Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:17 pm

SSS>>>Men (or high school boys) who do this sort of thing generally don't only do it one time. <<<

This assertion is based on what exactly? Your expertise in longitudinal studies of "High School Horseplay" (For lack of a better term) participants?

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 9752
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: Kavanaugh

#71 Post by Estonut » Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:05 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
Estonut wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 [color=#FF0000]@ 4:59 pm[/color], Bob Juch wrote:How did they find 65 women to say Kavanaugh is a nice guy so quickly?
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 [color=#FF0000]@ 7:50 pm[/color], Bob Juch wrote:How come there are only 65 women who claim he didn't assault them?
Schizo much?
The second is a joke, idiot.
1) So was the first.
2) So was my response.
3) You should keep your jokes to the unintentional ones, as they are much funnier...
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 22661
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#72 Post by Bob Juch » Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:04 pm

I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 10611
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#73 Post by Beebs52 » Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:07 pm

Bob Juch wrote:His accuser has come forward:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... 6cc64cc68d
I call bullshit. Realize my womanist card will be pulled.
Oh please.

User avatar
Billy Bored Thornton
Merry Man
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:35 am
Location: Out in left field

Re: Kavanaugh

#74 Post by Billy Bored Thornton » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:26 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:His accuser has come forward:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... 6cc64cc68d
I call bullshit. Realize my womanist card will be pulled.

No one's gonna pull my womanizer card.


Peaches.
What the f$%$ck are you looking at?

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 10611
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#75 Post by Beebs52 » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:31 pm

Billy Bored Thornton wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:His accuser has come forward:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... 6cc64cc68d
I call bullshit. Realize my womanist card will be pulled.

No one's gonna pull my womanizer card.

Yours might be in your cargo short pocket stuck on some gum.
Peaches.
Oh please.

Post Reply