Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Jun 06, 2020 2:08 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113420 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2136, 2137, 2138 ... 2836  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Mr Mike wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Mr Mike wrote:
Ted. wrote:
A political right to choose the highest judicial officers i the land?

What an indescribably f**ked up system. Give us strength from this stupidity.

Elections have consequences, I’m sure someone said that earlier.
He paid for that remark it seems.
I get Ted’s view, for Kiwis judges have historically had a very limited and disciplined role (highlighted and questioned by CJ Elias recently). Add to that the different expectations about how lawyers are expected to emote in advocacy and elected judiciary at lower levels and the system is very different here.


I remember the phrase 'judicial activism' a lot in the 90s. A quick search found this article on the tensions between Clark and Ellis: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=10117146

Some of these NZ judges are so laughingly grand and pompous it takes the breath away. I think it's a function of the small economy, so there's not a landed or industrial class over the top of them. They prance around like courtiers in a Medici court. Although Ellis married Hugh Fletcher, which is about the closest to it, which made her even more insufferable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Ted. wrote:
Mr Mike wrote:
Ted. wrote:
A political right to choose the highest judicial officers i the land?

What an indescribably f**ked up system. Give us strength from this stupidity.

Elections have consequences, I’m sure someone said that earlier.


Not for a judge appointed for life, nor necessarily the appointees.


Elias has been our Chief Justice since 1999. When are we kicking her to the long grass?


Last edited by Seneca of the Night on Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10024
Location: Texas
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Mr Mike wrote:
Ted. wrote:
A political right to choose the highest judicial officers i the land?

What an indescribably f**ked up system. Give us strength from this stupidity.

Elections have consequences, I’m sure someone said that earlier.


Not for a judge appointed for life, nor necessarily the appointees.


Ellis has been our Chief Justice since 1999. When are we kicking her to the long grass?

She has less than six months left.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Mr Mike wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Mr Mike wrote:
Ted. wrote:
A political right to choose the highest judicial officers i the land?

What an indescribably f**ked up system. Give us strength from this stupidity.

Elections have consequences, I’m sure someone said that earlier.


Not for a judge appointed for life, nor necessarily the appointees.


Ellis has been our Chief Justice since 1999. When are we kicking her to the long grass?

She has less than six months left.


What's the process for that? Do they get 20 years?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10024
Location: Texas
Mandatory retirement at 70 IIRC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
Mr Mike wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Mr Mike wrote:
Ted. wrote:
A political right to choose the highest judicial officers i the land?

What an indescribably f**ked up system. Give us strength from this stupidity.

Elections have consequences, I’m sure someone said that earlier.


Not for a judge appointed for life, nor necessarily the appointees.

It did for Kennedy, he felt able to retire.

Trivia point, Kennedy and Gorsuch are the first time that a former clerk has joined his or her Justice on the court. Kavanaugh is another former clerk of Kennedy.


Have any previous presidents had the power to appoint SC judges for life or is it just Trump?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:18 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17118
zzzz wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Quote:
What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview.
#

Of all the hot takes floating around about Kav, this is one of the most excruciatingly stupid.

It's clearly not a f*ckin job interview. It's the excercise of of one of the most important political rights that comes with winning a general election. Actually, its probably the most important political consequence of a US election. Millions of people held their noses and voted for Trump purely so the GOP could make this appointment. Equally, millions of people have completely lost their shit about the fact the GOP will make this appointment.

And we get called hysterical :uhoh:

I understand that it's a political right, although it doesn't automatically come with winning an election of course

However, once the nomination has been made, the senate process looks into the fitness of the nominee for the position, which is effectively a glorified job interview.


No it f*ckin isn't.

It's the point at which political control of the Executive and the Legislature has to align. It does now. It likely will not in a few months. Derailment of Kav is intended to fundamentally restrict the GOP by moving the appointment process into a different political enviroment.

The question facing the senate is: against what standard of proof should that be allowed to happen?

Absolute nonsense.

It may have been an unedifying spectacle, but the whole process was to assess his suitability for the job.

Dr Ford felt that she had good reason to believe that he wasn't suitable for the job, and frankly, I think it helps no one to have an attempted rapist on the bench of the Supreme Court. Apart from other rapists, of course.

Kavanaugh may have suffered damage to his reputation and this is regrettable, but as it's only a job interview, he won't be going to prison for attempted rape, either.

If he had defended himself in a measured and composed way, if he had declared himself open to an FBI investigation, if he hadn't directly contradicted his own hand-drawn calendar, then I would venture to suggest that his reputation would probably not have suffered quite as much as it has.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40542
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Yo! Anti-Trumpers! Check this out it goes a little something like this:

Image


Is that the bit when he was foaming at the mouth about what goes around comes around?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
Kiwias wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Yo! Anti-Trumpers! Check this out it goes a little something like this:

Image


Is that the bit when he was foaming at the mouth about what goes around comes around?


It might be how he pronounces 'Gulag'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8388
Santa wrote:

Have any previous presidents had the power to appoint SC judges for life or is it just Trump?


Two schools of thought, the first that only Trump could and would wield such power, and then there's reality


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4836
In other news - Melania Trump is the most bullied person in the world, or at least in the top 10...

:roll:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45818267


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
BokJock wrote:
In other news - Melania Trump is the most bullied person in the world, or at least in the top 10...

:roll:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45818267


And you're bulling her right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4836
Seneca of the Night wrote:
BokJock wrote:
In other news - Melania Trump is the most bullied person in the world, or at least in the top 10...

:roll:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45818267


And you're bulling her right now.


Melania is a bored member?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1457
Location: Saint Paul
zzzz wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Quote:
What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview.
#

Of all the hot takes floating around about Kav, this is one of the most excruciatingly stupid.

It's clearly not a f*ckin job interview. It's the excercise of of one of the most important political rights that comes with winning a general election. Actually, its probably the most important political consequence of a US election. Millions of people held their noses and voted for Trump purely so the GOP could make this appointment. Equally, millions of people have completely lost their shit about the fact the GOP will make this appointment.

And we get called hysterical :uhoh:

I understand that it's a political right, although it doesn't automatically come with winning an election of course

However, once the nomination has been made, the senate process looks into the fitness of the nominee for the position, which is effectively a glorified job interview.


No it f*ckin isn't.

It's the point at which political control of the Executive and the Legislature has to align. It does now. It likely will not in a few months. Derailment of Kav is intended to fundamentally restrict the GOP by moving the appointment process into a different political enviroment.

The question facing the senate is: against what standard of proof should that be allowed to happen?


It is as if a precedent had already been established. Let's call it the Merrick rule.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
puku wrote:
zzzz wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Quote:
What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview.
#

Of all the hot takes floating around about Kav, this is one of the most excruciatingly stupid.

It's clearly not a f*ckin job interview. It's the excercise of of one of the most important political rights that comes with winning a general election. Actually, its probably the most important political consequence of a US election. Millions of people held their noses and voted for Trump purely so the GOP could make this appointment. Equally, millions of people have completely lost their shit about the fact the GOP will make this appointment.

And we get called hysterical :uhoh:

I understand that it's a political right, although it doesn't automatically come with winning an election of course

However, once the nomination has been made, the senate process looks into the fitness of the nominee for the position, which is effectively a glorified job interview.


No it f*ckin isn't.

It's the point at which political control of the Executive and the Legislature has to align. It does now. It likely will not in a few months. Derailment of Kav is intended to fundamentally restrict the GOP by moving the appointment process into a different political enviroment.

The question facing the senate is: against what standard of proof should that be allowed to happen?


It is as if a precedent had already been established. Let's call it the Merrick rule.


The Merrick Rule involves saving an uncorroborated rape allegation until late in the confirmation process in order to force the appointment in a new political environment?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1457
Location: Saint Paul
Santa wrote:
puku wrote:
zzzz wrote:

No it f*ckin isn't.

It's the point at which political control of the Executive and the Legislature has to align. It does now. It likely will not in a few months. Derailment of Kav is intended to fundamentally restrict the GOP by moving the appointment process into a different political enviroment.

The question facing the senate is: against what standard of proof should that be allowed to happen?


It is as if a precedent had already been established. Let's call it the Merrick rule.


The Merrick Rule involves saving an uncorroborated rape allegation until late in the confirmation process in order to force the appointment in a new political environment?


You seem confused. You are making a statement not asking a question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
puku wrote:
Santa wrote:
puku wrote:
zzzz wrote:

No it f*ckin isn't.

It's the point at which political control of the Executive and the Legislature has to align. It does now. It likely will not in a few months. Derailment of Kav is intended to fundamentally restrict the GOP by moving the appointment process into a different political enviroment.

The question facing the senate is: against what standard of proof should that be allowed to happen?


It is as if a precedent had already been established. Let's call it the Merrick rule.


The Merrick Rule involves saving an uncorroborated rape allegation until late in the confirmation process in order to force the appointment in a new political environment?


You seem confused. You are making a statement not asking a question.


No I'm trying to work out what it involves. Can you expand?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1457
Location: Saint Paul
Santa wrote:
puku wrote:
Santa wrote:
puku wrote:
zzzz wrote:

No it f*ckin isn't.

It's the point at which political control of the Executive and the Legislature has to align. It does now. It likely will not in a few months. Derailment of Kav is intended to fundamentally restrict the GOP by moving the appointment process into a different political enviroment.

The question facing the senate is: against what standard of proof should that be allowed to happen?


It is as if a precedent had already been established. Let's call it the Merrick rule.


The Merrick Rule involves saving an uncorroborated rape allegation until late in the confirmation process in order to force the appointment in a new political environment?




You seem confused. You are making a statement not asking a question.


No I'm trying to work out what it involves. Can you expand?


You think you asked a question? Fück me.

And, you are not trying to work out what it involves. You seem to have made up your mind. Here's a question for you, why add the language "uncorroborated rape allegation" do you have a particular event in mind?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
You're struggling. Let me help.

The Merrick Rule involves shifting the appointment process from any political environment to a different one for any reason at all.

Is that an accurate formulation of your rule?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
That's got to be it because it's the only formulation that covers the different situations where:

A. a misaligned (with the president) legislature uses its granted powers to shift the appointment process

And B. The subordinate power in an otherwise aligned (with the president) legislature uses an uncorroborated rape allegation to shift the appointment process.

Those seems like equivalent situations that can reasonably be covered by a single very witty rule. :thumbup:


Last edited by Santa on Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1457
Location: Saint Paul
Santa wrote:
You're struggling. Let me help.

The Merrick Rule involves shifting the appointment process from any political environment to a different one for any reason at all.

Is that an accurate formulation of your rule?


Avoiding my question by asking your own. Interesting approach.

To answer your question. No


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
puku wrote:
Santa wrote:
You're struggling. Let me help.

The Merrick Rule involves shifting the appointment process from any political environment to a different one for any reason at all.

Is that an accurate formulation of your rule?


Avoiding my question by asking your own. Interesting approach.

To answer your question. No


Please formulate it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1457
Location: Saint Paul
Santa wrote:
That's got to be it because it's the only formulation that covers the different situations where:

A. a misaligned (with the president) legislature uses its granted powers to shift the appointment process

And B. The subordinate power in an otherwise aligned (with the president) legislature uses an uncorroborated rape allegation to shift the appointment process.

Those seems like equivalent situations. :thumbup:


There you go again with that statement. Who alleged they were raped?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
puku wrote:
Santa wrote:
That's got to be it because it's the only formulation that covers the different situations where:

A. a misaligned (with the president) legislature uses its granted powers to shift the appointment process

And B. The subordinate power in an otherwise aligned (with the president) legislature uses an uncorroborated rape allegation to shift the appointment process.

Those seems like equivalent situations. :thumbup:


There you go again with that statement. Who alleged they were raped?


Ah. That's all you've got. :lol:

Ok. Insert the word 'attempted'. I'm sure that will change everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Santa wrote:
That's got to be it because it's the only formulation that covers the different situations where:

A. a misaligned (with the president) legislature uses its granted powers to shift the appointment process

And B. The subordinate power in an otherwise aligned (with the president) legislature uses an uncorroborated rape allegation to shift the appointment process.

Those seems like equivalent situations that can reasonably be covered by a single very witty rule. :thumbup:


Never let it be said the merrick rule lacks breadth. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
puku wrote:
Santa wrote:
That's got to be it because it's the only formulation that covers the different situations where:

A. a misaligned (with the president) legislature uses its granted powers to shift the appointment process

And B. The subordinate power in an otherwise aligned (with the president) legislature uses an uncorroborated rape allegation to shift the appointment process.

Those seems like equivalent situations. :thumbup:


There you go again with that statement. Who alleged they were raped?


Rinkals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5576
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
Santa wrote:
That's got to be it because it's the only formulation that covers the different situations where:

A. My guys fudge your guys - good

And B. Your guys try fudge my guys - bad

Those seems like equivalent situations that can reasonably be covered by a single very witty rule. :thumbup:


fxd!

The conservative version of a democracy, now known as a hypocracy :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
houtkabouter wrote:
Santa wrote:
That's got to be it because it's the only formulation that covers the different situations where:

A. My guys fudge your guys - good

And B. Your guys try fudge my guys - bad

Those seems like equivalent situations that can reasonably be covered by a single very witty rule. :thumbup:


fxd!

The conservative version of a democracy, now known as a hypocracy :D


No. There are clear differences between the two and if you can't see that then there is a mine in northern Montana with your name on it and a train ticket cattle class to get there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4101
puku wrote:
zzzz wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Quote:
What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview.
#

Of all the hot takes floating around about Kav, this is one of the most excruciatingly stupid.

It's clearly not a f*ckin job interview. It's the excercise of of one of the most important political rights that comes with winning a general election. Actually, its probably the most important political consequence of a US election. Millions of people held their noses and voted for Trump purely so the GOP could make this appointment. Equally, millions of people have completely lost their shit about the fact the GOP will make this appointment.

And we get called hysterical :uhoh:

I understand that it's a political right, although it doesn't automatically come with winning an election of course

However, once the nomination has been made, the senate process looks into the fitness of the nominee for the position, which is effectively a glorified job interview.


No it f*ckin isn't.

It's the point at which political control of the Executive and the Legislature has to align. It does now. It likely will not in a few months. Derailment of Kav is intended to fundamentally restrict the GOP by moving the appointment process into a different political enviroment.

The question facing the senate is: against what standard of proof should that be allowed to happen?


It is as if a precedent had already been established. Let's call it the Merrick rule.


It's called the Biden rule.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5488
Location: By the mighty beard of Adam Jones
This been done?

https://news.sky.com/story/trumps-stunned-silence-as-kanye-rants-in-white-house-11523779


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
Womack wrote:


:lol: :lol: :lol:

For the first time in his life, Trump realizes what it's like to be in a room with someone more batshit insane than you are... and finally realizes why everyone else always makes the same facial expression when he starts talking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:30 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17118
Seneca of the Night wrote:
puku wrote:
Santa wrote:
That's got to be it because it's the only formulation that covers the different situations where:

A. a misaligned (with the president) legislature uses its granted powers to shift the appointment process

And B. The subordinate power in an otherwise aligned (with the president) legislature uses an uncorroborated rape allegation to shift the appointment process.

Those seems like equivalent situations. :thumbup:


There you go again with that statement. Who alleged they were raped?


Rinkals.

You seem to be completely shameless in concocting wild inaccuracies in order to manufacture your point.

I have accused nobody of rape. I have made a point of specifying that it was attempted rape that Kavanaugh is accused of.

What you might be referring to is this:
Rinkals wrote:
just because a rape victim didn't report the incident, doesn't mean it didn't happen


But that was a generic statement replying to Fangle's question and I made no reference to Kavanaugh in that post.

Un-fucking-believable.

No, scratch that:- entirely true to form.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5497
Location: The void
Seneca of the Night wrote:
puku wrote:

Who alleged they were raped?


Rinkals.


:shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4237
Rinkals wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
puku wrote:
Santa wrote:
That's got to be it because it's the only formulation that covers the different situations where:

A. a misaligned (with the president) legislature uses its granted powers to shift the appointment process

And B. The subordinate power in an otherwise aligned (with the president) legislature uses an uncorroborated rape allegation to shift the appointment process.

Those seems like equivalent situations. :thumbup:


There you go again with that statement. Who alleged they were raped?


Rinkals.

You seem to be completely shameless in concocting wild inaccuracies in order to manufacture your point.

I have accused nobody of rape. I have made a point of specifying that it was attempted rape that Kavanaugh is accused of.

What you might be referring to is this:
Rinkals wrote:
just because a rape victim didn't report the incident, doesn't mean it didn't happen


But that was a generic statement replying to Fangle's question and I made no reference to Kavanaugh in that post.

Un-fucking-believable.

No, scratch that:- entirely true to form.

:uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
This is important. President Trump EXPLOSIVE Speech CHANGES the Music Industry FOREVER.

Music Modernization Act Signing Ceremony. With Kid Rock, Michael Love and other musicians standing beside, President Trump Signs the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1km0W8y9jU

He's got a good crowd of top musicians there in the White House too for this. :thumbup:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/musi ... ct-736185/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Rinkals wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
puku wrote:
Santa wrote:
That's got to be it because it's the only formulation that covers the different situations where:

A. a misaligned (with the president) legislature uses its granted powers to shift the appointment process

And B. The subordinate power in an otherwise aligned (with the president) legislature uses an uncorroborated rape allegation to shift the appointment process.

Those seems like equivalent situations. :thumbup:


There you go again with that statement. Who alleged they were raped?


Rinkals.

You seem to be completely shameless in concocting wild inaccuracies in order to manufacture your point.

I have accused nobody of rape. I have made a point of specifying that it was attempted rape that Kavanaugh is accused of.

What you might be referring to is this:
Rinkals wrote:
just because a rape victim didn't report the incident, doesn't mean it didn't happen


But that was a generic statement replying to Fangle's question and I made no reference to Kavanaugh in that post.

Un-fucking-believable.

No, scratch that:- entirely true to form.


Okay, fair point, it wasn't rape rape.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:40 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17118
Seriously, Seneca, I don't mind you calling me a moron and I don't mind you belittling the points I make.

What I object to is having something I haven't said presented as an instance of my idiocy.

As you can see, there are already two Saffers who have seized on the suggestion that I have falsely accused Kavanaugh of rape and they will not be the last. This will probably enter the lexicon of my supposed stupidity which will be dragged up and used to counter any point I try to make both here and on the Saffer threads.

If I say something stupid, then of course I should be ridiculed for it; what I object to is having something that I have not said held up and presented as evidence of that stupidity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
Rinkals wrote:
Seriously, Seneca, I don't mind you calling me a moron and I don't mind you belittling the points I make.

What I object to is having something I haven't said presented as an instance of my idiocy.

As you can see, there are already two Saffers who have seized on the suggestion that I have falsely accused Kavanaugh of rape and they will not be the last. This will probably enter the lexicon of my supposed stupidity which will be dragged up and used to counter any point I try to make both here and on the Saffer threads.

If I say something stupid, then of course I should be ridiculed for it; what I object to is having something that I have not said held up and presented as evidence of that stupidity.


I did not know you were capable of such passion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Rinkals wrote:
Seriously, Seneca, I don't mind you calling me a moron and I don't mind you belittling the points I make.

What I object to is having something I haven't said presented as an instance of my idiocy.

As you can see, there are already two Saffers who have seized on the suggestion that I have falsely accused Kavanaugh of rape and they will not be the last. This will probably enter the lexicon of my supposed stupidity which will be dragged up and used to counter any point I try to make both here and on the Saffer threads.

If I say something stupid, then of course I should be ridiculed for it; what I object to is having something that I have not said held up and presented as evidence of that stupidity.


You do realise I was just pulling your leg right? I was playing fast and loose with your fast and loose interpretation of Kavanaugh's crimes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17581
Seneca of the Night wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Ted. wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Quote:
What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview.
#

Of all the hot takes floating around about Kav, this is one of the most excruciatingly stupid.

It's clearly not a f*ckin job interview. It's the excercise of of one of the most important political rights that comes with winning a general election. Actually, its probably the most important political consequence of a US election. Millions of people held their noses and voted for Trump purely so the GOP could make this appointment. Equally, millions of people have completely lost their shit about the fact the GOP will make this appointment.


A political right to choose the highest judicial officers i the land?

What an indescribably f**ked up system. Give us strength from this stupidity.

No one should be at all concerned by the appointment of a judge. They should only need to be concerned that the system is uncorrectable and free from political interference and the office free of politicisation.


Well, take it up with the "Living Constitution" mob. I for one welcome you to the dark side of judicial restraint.


This is such an important point. This means so much to the Dems as they 'activated' the court. Having done so, and profited it from it for decades, they are about to lose it, and this is sending them mental.


I realise that you’re on a multi-day troll binge but care to explain how the Dems have ‘profited’ from an ‘activated’ court?

Unless you meant ‘social liberals’ for ‘Dems’ and by ‘profited’ you meant a court that ruled ahead of Congress on:
- gay marriage
- civil rights for uppity blacks
- woman’s rights of control over their reproductive rights


Oh, and not forgetting.. the granting of much needed rights for Kochs and Soros to influence elections legally


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113420 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2136, 2137, 2138 ... 2836  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bimboman, camroc1, frankster, happyhooker, henry, inactionman, Keith, Kimber, Leinster in London, message #2527204, Red Revolution, Rinkals, Sandstorm, sockwithaticket, sonic_attack and 83 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group