Kavanaugh 2.0

16,294 Views | 202 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Osodecentx
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fighting dirty on behalf of the right to kill human life indiscriminately.
MoneyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?


Trying to impeach Kavanaugh or otherwise unseat him is a bad idea, and it won't work. I'm not in favor of it, not because I like Brett Kavanaugh, but because he's seated already, however he was railroaded through by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary

But I had that same question when Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Merrick Garland or consider his nomination. I think you and every other conservative posting on this board underestimate exactly how wrong, undemocratic and partisan that was.

I attended a lunch meeting yesterday of the Federalist society that featured a prominent conservative judge and a conservative legal scholar. The judge, a BYU graduate, decried the treatment of Kavanaugh. How could we go much lower? he asked.

The scholar mentioned what happened with Merrick Garland. He pointed out that Republicans AND Democrats had been engaged in a race to the bottom over judicial appointments for 2 decades--really, ever since David Suter disappointed conservatives. He agreed that the treatment of Kavanaugh was unjust, but he also said the way the Republicans treated Merrick Garland and dissed Obama was terrible--and that he thought the tit for tat over judicial appointments would continue until we hit rock bottom. His question was, whether this is rock bottom. I'm afraid it isn't.

We've been headed to rock bottom for a very long time. When judges became partisan weapons. It's true of both sides. Judges were intended to interpret the constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN not read their rulings into it. Just try finding a right abortion in the constitution, it's not there despite what so many people think. It's a perfect example of judicial overreach and that's why the justices matter so much to both sides. If it were truly the "law of the land" then there would be AN ACTUAL LAW that upheld it. The legislative branch has failed in its mission and that has cause/forced judges to legislate from the bench. It is wrong and was never the intent of our checks and balances system but because it is the case, the executive branch will attempt to stack the courts so that the legislation that comes from the bench will favor their party's platform.
Sic'em
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Fighting dirty on behalf of the right to kill human life indiscriminately.
I support a woman's right to choose, but have long since given up on both abortion and guns as rights that will be left up to women, since their bodies are involved (abortion) or restricted enough to keep nuts from buying weapons of mass destruction (guns). Climate change is my issue. Neither Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is like to help with that, although Gorsuch is probably smart enough that he's cognizant of the science. (His mother was one o the most environmental administrators we've ever had, so there's that.)

What I want is a credible, non-partisan, impartial court. That's not Mitch McConnell's goal. May not be the Democrats' either, although Merrick Garland was a step in the right direction, and Republicans wouldn't even TALK to him. The court we have now has been discredited by McConnell and Kavanaugh.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoneyBear said:

Jinx 2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?


Trying to impeach Kavanaugh or otherwise unseat him is a bad idea, and it won't work. I'm not in favor of it, not because I like Brett Kavanaugh, but because he's seated already, however he was railroaded through by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary

But I had that same question when Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Merrick Garland or consider his nomination. I think you and every other conservative posting on this board underestimate exactly how wrong, undemocratic and partisan that was.

I attended a lunch meeting yesterday of the Federalist society that featured a prominent conservative judge and a conservative legal scholar. The judge, a BYU graduate, decried the treatment of Kavanaugh. How could we go much lower? he asked.

The scholar mentioned what happened with Merrick Garland. He pointed out that Republicans AND Democrats had been engaged in a race to the bottom over judicial appointments for 2 decades--really, ever since David Suter disappointed conservatives. He agreed that the treatment of Kavanaugh was unjust, but he also said the way the Republicans treated Merrick Garland and dissed Obama was terrible--and that he thought the tit for tat over judicial appointments would continue until we hit rock bottom. His question was, whether this is rock bottom. I'm afraid it isn't.

We've been headed to rock bottom for a very long time. When judges became partisan weapons. It's true of both sides. Judges were intended to interpret the constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN not read their rulings into it. Just try finding a right abortion in the constitution, it's not there despite what so many people think. It's a perfect example of judicial overreach and that's why the justices matter so much to both sides. If it were truly the "law of the land" then there would be AN ACTUAL LAW that upheld it. The legislative branch has failed in its mission and that has cause/forced judges to legislate from the bench. It is wrong and was never the intent of our checks and balances system but because it is the case, the executive branch will attempt to stack the courts so that the legislation that comes from the bench will favor their party's platform.
We have the same disagreement about the reading of the constitution as we do about the bible. And even among conservatives, there's textualism versus originalism. A court that includes a mix of perspectives is more likely to be just. McConnell made it clear that balance is not his goal when he refused to talk with Garland.

btw, abortion isn't the only issue the court decides, and not, IMO, even the most important one. Cases addressing needed regulation to address climate change, however that might be, followed by protections of voting rights and free speech, ranks right up there.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

ATL Bear said:

Fighting dirty on behalf of the right to kill human life indiscriminately.
I support a woman's right to choose, but have long since given up on both abortion and guns as rights that will be left up to women, since their bodies are involved (abortion) or restricted enough to keep nuts from buying weapons of mass destruction (guns). Climate change is my issue. Neither Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is like to help with that, although Gorsuch is probably smart enough that he's cognizant of the science. (His mother was one o the most environmental administrators we've ever had, so there's that.)

What I want is a credible, non-partisan, impartial court. That's not Mitch McConnell's goal. May not be the Democrats' either, although Merrick Garland was a step in the right direction, and Republicans wouldn't even TALK to him. The court we have now has been discredited by McConnell and Kavanaugh.
We have been over this time and time and time and time again. McConnell used the JOE BIDEN rule from 1992. You can call him a partisan hack if he revokes the Joe Biden rule next year if an opening occurs. Until then, let it go.

Elections have consequences. - BHO
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GrowlTowel said:

Jinx 2 said:

ATL Bear said:

Fighting dirty on behalf of the right to kill human life indiscriminately.
I support a woman's right to choose, but have long since given up on both abortion and guns as rights that will be left up to women, since their bodies are involved (abortion) or restricted enough to keep nuts from buying weapons of mass destruction (guns). Climate change is my issue. Neither Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is like to help with that, although Gorsuch is probably smart enough that he's cognizant of the science. (His mother was one o the most environmental administrators we've ever had, so there's that.)

What I want is a credible, non-partisan, impartial court. That's not Mitch McConnell's goal. May not be the Democrats' either, although Merrick Garland was a step in the right direction, and Republicans wouldn't even TALK to him. The court we have now has been discredited by McConnell and Kavanaugh.
We have been over this time and time and time and time again. McConnell used the JOE BIDEN rule from 1992. You can call him a partisan hack if he revokes the Joe Biden rule next year if an opening occurs. Until then, let it go.

Elections have consequences. - BHO
More than 10 months (and really, a year befor ethe inauguatin) does not = "the Biden rule" if that even exists.

McConnell and the Senate Republicans publicly humilated a good man, a good judge and a good public servant.
[url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court][/url]
Several Republicans also said that if Hillary won in 2016, they would block her SCOTUS nominees. Those included Richard Burr, John McCain and Ted Cruz.

Elections do have consequences. Americans are paying a high cost for having Trump in the White HOuse already, and that will only get worse as we lose world stature and not only do nothing about climate change, but try to roll back environmental protections.

The further the swing in one direction, the more furiou sand dramatic the backlash. Extremes in either direction are bad for progress.

FormerFlash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I firmly stand behind Jinx in her dedication to fighting climate change. I suggest you start in India or China. They're producing far more carbon emissions than we are with no sign of slowing down. You'll probably have to move to one of those two locations to make change from the inside. Perhaps you can even find an Indian or Chinese message board focused on climate change. You'll likely need to stop spending so much time here in order to focus your efforts there.

While you're living abroad, you may even gain a new appreciation for how fairly women are treated in the US, since you seem so convinced you are disadvantaged daily here.

Godspeed, Jinx.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FormerFlash said:

I firmly stand behind Jinx in her dedication to fighting climate change. I suggest you start in India or China. They're producing far more carbon emissions than we are with no sign of slowing down. You'll probably have to move to one of those two locations to make change from the inside. Perhaps you can even find an Indian or Chinese message board focused on climate change. You'll likely need to stop spending so much time here in order to focus your efforts there.

While you're living abroad, you may even gain a new appreciation for how fairly women are treated in the US, since you seem so convinced you are disadvantaged daily here.

Godspeed, Jinx.

And Godspeed as you go to church next Sunday brimming with self-righteousness and patriotic fervor for the Dear Leader. Make Amurica Hate Again.
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FormerFlash said:

I firmly stand behind Jinx in her dedication to fighting climate change. I suggest you start in India or China. They're producing far more carbon emissions than we are with no sign of slowing down. You'll probably have to move to one of those two locations to make change from the inside. Perhaps you can even find an Indian or Chinese message board focused on climate change. You'll likely need to stop spending so much time here in order to focus your efforts there.

While you're living abroad, you may even gain a new appreciation for how fairly women are treated in the US, since you seem so convinced you are disadvantaged daily here.

Godspeed, Jinx.



10 thumbs up if I could
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't care. Not Hillary (or any other Dem). Good times.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

FormerFlash said:

I firmly stand behind Jinx in her dedication to fighting climate change. I suggest you start in India or China. They're producing far more carbon emissions than we are with no sign of slowing down. You'll probably have to move to one of those two locations to make change from the inside. Perhaps you can even find an Indian or Chinese message board focused on climate change. You'll likely need to stop spending so much time here in order to focus your efforts there.

While you're living abroad, you may even gain a new appreciation for how fairly women are treated in the US, since you seem so convinced you are disadvantaged daily here.

Godspeed, Jinx.



10 thumbs up if I could
Trust me, you can.
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?


I had that same question--how the hell can these people claim to support democracy?-when Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Merrick Garland or consider his nomination. I think you and every other conservative posting on this board underestimate exactly how wrong, undemocratic and partisan that was, and that it's viewed by most Democrats as undermining both the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the nomination process.

Gorsuch is illegitimate because he's occupying a stolen seat, although he's certainly qualified to sit on SCOTUS; Kavanaugh because he's a jerk and doesn't belong there for reasons of character--not so much because he was a mean drunk in high school and college, but because of that tantrum. If a female nominee had thrown such a tantrum during what amounts to a very high-profile job interview, she's have been dismissed as too emotional to sit on a Court that's supposed to dispense impartial justice. Kavanaugh was viewed as rightly defending himself by Trump/hard-right-wingers. The double standard working overtime.

But trying to impeach Kavanaugh or otherwise unseat him is a bad idea, IMO, and it won't work. I'm not in favor of it, not because I like Brett Kavanaugh, but because he's seated already, however he was railroaded through by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who clearly weren't interested in investigating Kavanaugh's past, nor a concern of Trump and his supporters.

Trump--and following his lead, most people posting here-- have painted Blasey Ford (who had no compelling reason whatsoever to come forward other than her personal sense that Kavanaugh shouldn't sit on SCOTUS), Debbie Ramirez and others, as liars, dupes and tool of some calculated "leftist" campaign to smear the otherwise sterling character of Brett Kavanaugh.

But here's the thing: since these allegation arose at the time of the "Me, too" movement (which I realize those of you posting on this thread scorn either because you think women lie or because you don't think sexual harassment rises to the level of disqualifying anyone for office), Democrats felt that they had to respond, even at the great political cost that resulted. Kirstin Gillebrand had insisted Al Franken resign from HIS seat over lesser allegations. Lots of women were watching to see what would happen. Everybody remembered Clarence Thomas, and it's since become clear to everyone but hard-core "party-faithful-inerrancy" Republicans that Anita Hill's allegations were true and Clarence Thomas didn't belong on SCOTUS. He certainly lacks the intellectual heft of most of his colleagues, with the exception of Alito.

And it wasn't lost on anyone that the older, white, male Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't want to do any meaningful investigation. The FBI investigation they finally grudgingly consented to was superficial and incomplete and omitted key figures like Mark Judge (who probably doesn't remember much about high school, anyway, thanks to his lifelong alcoholism). And they--strategically rightly and morally wrongly--trashed the character allegations against Kavanaugh and the woman/woman who brought them.

I attended a lunch meeting yesterday of the Federalist society that featured a prominent conservative judge and a conservative legal scholar. The judge, a BYU graduate, decried the treatment of Kavanaugh. How could we go much lower? he asked.

The scholar mentioned what happened with Merrick Garland. He pointed out that Republicans AND Democrats had been engaged in a race to the bottom over judicial appointments for 2 decades--really, ever since David Suter disappointed conservatives. He agreed that the treatment of Kavanaugh was unjust, but he also said the way the Republicans treated Merrick Garland and dissed Obama was terrible--and that he thought the tit for tat over judicial appointments would continue until we hit rock bottom. His question was, whether this is rock bottom. I'm afraid it isn't. He didn't think it was, either.


Interesting argument about Gorsuch and the "stolen seat." You're saying the seat belonged to Garland by right before the Senate acted? That's the only way it could have been "stolen."

And the judicial nomination process has been a race to the bottom - at least as far as Republican nominees go - ever since an unprecedented smear campaign was launched against Robert Bork.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

Don't care. Not Hillary (or any other Dem). Good times.
I know. All you good Christians are really eager to say f--k you, as often and as loud as you can, to anyone who doesn't fall in line behind your narrow, pointy version of Christianity and its vision for the country's future marching along behind Trump's church-o-god preacher hair and his mean agenda.

Whatever respect I had for the sincere faith of evangelicals and what I'd assumed was at least a serious pretense (as in, you didn't want to, but felt your faith required it) of serving a God of love who preaches a gospel of "Love your enemy" is totally gone.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't give a flip about "world stature". Europe is committing cultural suicide and will be irrelevant given current demographic trends. Let's not join them in the ash heap of history.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't claim to be a good Christian or an evangelical. So, yeah, f you.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

I don't claim to be a good Christian or an evangelical. So, yeah, f you.
That's reassuring.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Glad to help.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JXL said:

Jinx 2 said:

Doc Holliday said:

How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?


I had that same question--how the hell can these people claim to support democracy?-when Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Merrick Garland or consider his nomination. I think you and every other conservative posting on this board underestimate exactly how wrong, undemocratic and partisan that was, and that it's viewed by most Democrats as undermining both the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the nomination process.

Gorsuch is illegitimate because he's occupying a stolen seat, although he's certainly qualified to sit on SCOTUS; Kavanaugh because he's a jerk and doesn't belong there for reasons of character--not so much because he was a mean drunk in high school and college, but because of that tantrum. If a female nominee had thrown such a tantrum during what amounts to a very high-profile job interview, she's have been dismissed as too emotional to sit on a Court that's supposed to dispense impartial justice. Kavanaugh was viewed as rightly defending himself by Trump/hard-right-wingers. The double standard working overtime.

But trying to impeach Kavanaugh or otherwise unseat him is a bad idea, IMO, and it won't work. I'm not in favor of it, not because I like Brett Kavanaugh, but because he's seated already, however he was railroaded through by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who clearly weren't interested in investigating Kavanaugh's past, nor a concern of Trump and his supporters.

Trump--and following his lead, most people posting here-- have painted Blasey Ford (who had no compelling reason whatsoever to come forward other than her personal sense that Kavanaugh shouldn't sit on SCOTUS), Debbie Ramirez and others, as liars, dupes and tool of some calculated "leftist" campaign to smear the otherwise sterling character of Brett Kavanaugh.

But here's the thing: since these allegation arose at the time of the "Me, too" movement (which I realize those of you posting on this thread scorn either because you think women lie or because you don't think sexual harassment rises to the level of disqualifying anyone for office), Democrats felt that they had to respond, even at the great political cost that resulted. Kirstin Gillebrand had insisted Al Franken resign from HIS seat over lesser allegations. Lots of women were watching to see what would happen. Everybody remembered Clarence Thomas, and it's since become clear to everyone but hard-core "party-faithful-inerrancy" Republicans that Anita Hill's allegations were true and Clarence Thomas didn't belong on SCOTUS. He certainly lacks the intellectual heft of most of his colleagues, with the exception of Alito.

And it wasn't lost on anyone that the older, white, male Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't want to do any meaningful investigation. The FBI investigation they finally grudgingly consented to was superficial and incomplete and omitted key figures like Mark Judge (who probably doesn't remember much about high school, anyway, thanks to his lifelong alcoholism). And they--strategically rightly and morally wrongly--trashed the character allegations against Kavanaugh and the woman/woman who brought them.

I attended a lunch meeting yesterday of the Federalist society that featured a prominent conservative judge and a conservative legal scholar. The judge, a BYU graduate, decried the treatment of Kavanaugh. How could we go much lower? he asked.

The scholar mentioned what happened with Merrick Garland. He pointed out that Republicans AND Democrats had been engaged in a race to the bottom over judicial appointments for 2 decades--really, ever since David Suter disappointed conservatives. He agreed that the treatment of Kavanaugh was unjust, but he also said the way the Republicans treated Merrick Garland and dissed Obama was terrible--and that he thought the tit for tat over judicial appointments would continue until we hit rock bottom. His question was, whether this is rock bottom. I'm afraid it isn't. He didn't think it was, either.


Interesting argument about Gorsuch and the "stolen seat." You're saying the seat belonged to Garland by right before the Senate acted? That's the only way it could have been "stolen."

And the judicial nomination process has been a race to the bottom - at least as far as Republican nominees go - ever since an unprecedented smear campaign was launched against Robert Bork.
Obama was smart. Garland would have been MUCH harder for a Senate working properly, honorably and in a bipartisan manner to oppose.

MUCH harder than Gorsuch, clearly a hard right appointee.

So McConnell's only strategy was to shut him out completely. And he did it. He's selling us out to Trump and Putin. His wife is selling us out to China. And you folks are complicit, thanks to the Trump inerrancy doctrine.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

Glad to help.
FTW, here's a guy who really needs your prayers.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I welcome any and all intercessory prayers. Thanks for your Christ-like concern. Oh, I forgot...
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

I welcome any and all intercessory prayers. Thanks for your Christ-like concern. Oh, I forgot...
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
What Christians?
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks so much for sharing. Linda is my all time favorite singer. If I could only listen to the works of one contemporary artist for the rest of my life, she'd be the one.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
Only the hypocrites.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

Thanks so much for sharing. Linda is my all time favorite singer. If I could only listen to the works of one contemporary artist for the rest of my life, she'd be the one.
OK, there's one thing we agree on.

But Linda's a liberal. Dated Jerry Brown, hardly a conservative, seriously. Not a Trumpet. Disgusted by guys like him. And...she's female, smart, talented and independent. These deficits don't matter to you?
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:



Nepotism.

....
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malbec said:

Jinx 2 said:



Nepotism.

....

Bobby Kennedy was actually smart. Would anyone want Eric or Don Jr. (or even Jared, who looks like an adroid) as attorney general?

That was also a different time.

Clinton hired his wife to fix healthcare. Bad idea. Set us back 20 years.

Obama did NOT hire his family members. THAT's today.

Trump is insecure, and he also isn't paying attention.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

curtpenn said:

Thanks so much for sharing. Linda is my all time favorite singer. If I could only listen to the works of one contemporary artist for the rest of my life, she'd be the one.
OK, there's one thing we agree on.

But Linda's a liberal. Dated Jerry Brown, hardly a conservative, seriously. Not a Trumpet. Disgusted by guys like him. And...she's female, smart, talented and independent. These deficits don't matter to you?
Nope. Bought all of her albums in the '70s-'80s (as well as Emmy Lou Harris') and then CDs of most of them, as well. Everything from country rock to big band standards plus pop, new wave, and Canciones (reminds me of growing up in San Antonio). Saw her in concert at SMU's McFarlin Auditorium in the late '70s. Breaks my heart Parkinson's has stilled her voice. FWIW, I'm very partial to smart, talented, and independent women such as my mother, my wife, and our daughter.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
Only the hypocrites.
Not so. You have great sympathy for progressive hypocrites, and also great bitterness at honest conservatives, Jinx.

And we are all of us hypocrites at one time or another. Sort of why Jesus warned Peter that he would deny him three times, before it happened.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
Only the hypocrites.
Not so. You have great sympathy for progressive hypocrites, and also great bitterness at honest conservatives, Jinx.

And we are all of us hypocrites at one time or another. Sort of why Jesus warned Peter that he would deny him three times, before it happened.
Usually, I ignore you because I don't think you're rational. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying.

I don't disrespect honest conservatives. I just haven't met many. And certainly none on this site.
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

Jinx 2 said:

curtpenn said:

Thanks so much for sharing. Linda is my all time favorite singer. If I could only listen to the works of one contemporary artist for the rest of my life, she'd be the one.
OK, there's one thing we agree on.

But Linda's a liberal. Dated Jerry Brown, hardly a conservative, seriously. Not a Trumpet. Disgusted by guys like him. And...she's female, smart, talented and independent. These deficits don't matter to you?
Nope. Bought all of her albums in the '70s-'80s (as well as Emmy Lou Harris') and then CDs of most of them, as well. Everything from country rock to big band standards plus pop, new wave, and Canciones (reminds me of growing up in San Antonio). Saw her in concert at SMU's McFarlin Auditorium in the late '70s. Breaks my heart Parkinson's has stilled her voice. FWIW, I'm very partial to smart, talented, and independent women such as my mother, my wife, and our daughter.
Did they vote for Trump?

Do they buy into a political and religious ideology where women are second-class citizens who probably shouldn't have the vote because they're too emotional + pregnancy + menopause, and crass, crude and nasty behavior is acceptable as long as Trump did it?
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
Only the hypocrites.
Not so. You have great sympathy for progressive hypocrites, and also great bitterness at honest conservatives, Jinx.

And we are all of us hypocrites at one time or another. Sort of why Jesus warned Peter that he would deny him three times, before it happened.
Usually, I ignore you because I don't think you're rational. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying.

I don't disrespect honest conservatives. I just haven't met many. And certainly none on this site.


What's dishonest about me?

I hate Socialist democrats. They're treasonous! I'll tell you how I feel about anything in an honest manner! Just ask me
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx 2 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
Only the hypocrites.
Not so. You have great sympathy for progressive hypocrites, and also great bitterness at honest conservatives, Jinx.

And we are all of us hypocrites at one time or another. Sort of why Jesus warned Peter that he would deny him three times, before it happened.
Usually, I ignore you because I don't think you're rational. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying.

I don't disrespect honest conservatives. I just haven't met many. And certainly none on this site.
Jinx, with all respect you see everything here through a filter of bigotry. That happens with certain people of course. Florda does that on the conservative side, as does Golem. And of course, cinque cannot say one good word about anyone who does not share his politics.

Stepping aside from various opinions on Donald Trump, consider that more than sixty-two million good, decent Americans voted for him. And they still support him. If you can only believe that those people are mindless haters who are bad people, you are making the same mistake as those people who think that anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton must be a mad, immoral person.

Surely you see where that leads?

It's not about what I think of you, or you of me. It's about greater things.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jinx 2 said:

curtpenn said:

Jinx 2 said:

curtpenn said:

Thanks so much for sharing. Linda is my all time favorite singer. If I could only listen to the works of one contemporary artist for the rest of my life, she'd be the one.
OK, there's one thing we agree on.

But Linda's a liberal. Dated Jerry Brown, hardly a conservative, seriously. Not a Trumpet. Disgusted by guys like him. And...she's female, smart, talented and independent. These deficits don't matter to you?
Nope. Bought all of her albums in the '70s-'80s (as well as Emmy Lou Harris') and then CDs of most of them, as well. Everything from country rock to big band standards plus pop, new wave, and Canciones (reminds me of growing up in San Antonio). Saw her in concert at SMU's McFarlin Auditorium in the late '70s. Breaks my heart Parkinson's has stilled her voice. FWIW, I'm very partial to smart, talented, and independent women such as my mother, my wife, and our daughter.
Did they vote for Trump?

Do they buy into a political and religious ideology where women are second-class citizens who probably shouldn't have the vote because they're too emotional + pregnancy + menopause, and crass, crude and nasty behavior is acceptable as long as Trump did it?
Why, yes my wife and mother voted for Trump just as I did recognizing the clear existential threat to our republic posed by the fascists on the left as represented by Hillary. Don't think our daughter voted as she was not that interested in politics and was pretty occupied with her first child turning one near the election. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp that one needn't care for some of the President's failings and yet approve of most of his platform. This isn't really that complicated.

Since you seem to be ok with slaughtering about a thousand baby girls every day in the US, why do you get so worked up about Trump?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.