Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

Old subthreads
comhcinc
.
.
Posts: 10828
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:59 am
Location: from Parts Unknown
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#421

Post by comhcinc » Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:11 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

This was reported many years ago, and the accuser was known to the receiver of the report.

But hey, four bitches either coordinated their lies years in advance, or were so drunk each coincidentally misidentified the perp as BK. Cuz 100 Kegs Choir Boy Brett's memories are perfectly crystal clear.


FFS, when did the reaction to 'believe every woman' become the equally illogical 'believe no women'?
I think we are seeing different information about this. From what I know it more like


1st woman: Did report the possible teenage rape years ago. I actually very much believe that at the very least she believes she is telling the truth.

2nd woman: Decided that dude from that one kegger that took his dick out must be Brett after really think about it for 6 days. She probably believes she is telling the truth too.

3rd woman: Is claim rape trains or something that she heard about but never even witnessed.

4th...letter: it's not even a person. It's an anon letter that speaks of events that again was not even witnessed by the writer of said letter.

So when it comes down to it I pretty much believe the first person, but honestly feel it has no bearing even if it's true. Because there is no pattern. I kinda maybe sorta believe the second person but think it has even less bearing on anything. Pretty much every one of the parties I went to at that age had some for nudity and or sexual hijinks.

The other two have not provided any evidence, not even first-hand experience.

SM1957
.
.
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:01 am
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#422

Post by SM1957 » Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:25 am

If a woman sees a penis being brandished at a party, that is a serious sexual assault which must be investigated even 30 years later.

If a 11 year old girl sees a penis being brandished while she goes to the toilet, I hope she is named and shamed if she reports it, the transphobic bitch.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7143
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#423

Post by MarcusAu » Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:10 am

SM1957 wrote: If a woman sees a penis being brandished at a party, that is a serious sexual assault which must be investigated even 30 years later.

If a 11 year old girl sees a penis being brandished while she goes to the toilet, I hope she is named and shamed if she reports it, the transphobic bitch.
Do you not know the difference between a penis and a girlcock?

SM1957
.
.
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:01 am
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#424

Post by SM1957 » Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:24 am

MarcusAu wrote:
SM1957 wrote: If a woman sees a penis being brandished at a party, that is a serious sexual assault which must be investigated even 30 years later.

If a 11 year old girl sees a penis being brandished while she goes to the toilet, I hope she is named and shamed if she reports it, the transphobic bitch.


Do you not know the difference between a penis and a girlcock?
Not the old 'good cock, bad cock' routine? I've fallen for that trap so many times.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6461
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#425

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM » Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:45 am

Brive1987 wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:43 am
PZ Myers:
The latest accuser speaking up about Kavanaugh has a horrific tale to tell, but the most horrific thing about it is that it seems entirely plausible ..
:bjarte: 🚂
I’ve mentioned that I was ‘rushed’ by a fraternity once upon a time. It was a whole house packed full of these guys, so I can believe it.
Case closed Columbo.
An old classmate of Meyers's has come forward with evidence of this rushing:

https://i.imgur.com/LUmqkRX.jpg

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12497
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#426

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:17 am

comhcinc wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

This was reported many years ago, and the accuser was known to the receiver of the report.

But hey, four bitches either coordinated their lies years in advance, or were so drunk each coincidentally misidentified the perp as BK. Cuz 100 Kegs Choir Boy Brett's memories are perfectly crystal clear.


FFS, when did the reaction to 'believe every woman' become the equally illogical 'believe no women'?
I think we are seeing different information about this.
I think your summations are distorted from missing some facts and oversimplification others

From what I know it more like

1st woman: Did report the possible teenage rape years ago. I actually very much believe that at the very least she believes she is telling the truth.
That incident almost certainly happened. now, did she confuse her two assailants with BK and his BFF, Mark Judge? That is plausible, but would be more plausible if Judge were not also named. We shall see what comes out of her testimony today. BK's blanket denials are not in themselves persuasive, especially when his boozing & sexist callousness during those years -- which he also flatly denies -- are in keeping with the accusation. His bullshit explanation for the "Renate Alumnus" indicates his willingness to lie about anything at any time to protect his career path.

2nd woman: Decided that dude from that one kegger that took his dick out must be Brett after really think about it for 6 days. She probably believes she is telling the truth too.
[....]
Pretty much every one of the parties I went to at that age had some for nudity and or sexual hijinks.
You take this out of context, and also compare it to your own party life. You and your pals are not asking for a lifetime position to one of nine of the nation's highest offices. You've also freely admitted to such behavior, instead of making lame excuses, dissembling & prevaricating, or painting yourself as some pure saintly golden child.

Aside from the severity of the specific incident, there is the matter of a pattern of behavior, and a pattern of blanket denial. BK's rationalizations on this one smell: 'if that happened, it would've been the talk of the campus'. Well, it was at the time, and the act attributed to BK at the time, and also in a recent flurry of alumni emails when BK was nominated and before Ramirez went public with her accusation. But maybe all of BK's Yale's classmates are suffering from mistaken identity, too.

3rd woman: Is claim rape trains or something that she heard about but never even witnessed.
I think this one is a nut job. As Shouting Horse noted, Avenetti is a self-promoter, and jamming one stinker into a group of solid accusations will taint the latter.

4th...letter: it's not even a person. It's an anon letter that speaks of events that again was not even witnessed by the writer of said letter.
Person C writes that they are aware of Person B having received a complaint from Person A. On its own, such an allegation would barely tip the scales. In the context here, it should be taken seriously and investigated.

So when it comes down to it I pretty much believe the first person, but honestly feel it has no bearing even if it's true. Because there is no pattern.
There's no pattern if you trivialize #2 and dismiss out-of-hand #4. (I concur #3 is not persuasive.) A pattern of behavior depicting in the accusations does exist, and it is highly consistent with the pattern of behavior evidenced in BK's yearbook, Judge's memoirs, in recollections of classmates, and in BK's own statements made in years past about his high school and college days. The evidence for excessive drinking, which he only belatedly is partly fessing up to, is overwhelming. That he denied & downplayed it for so long undermines the credibility of his similar denials of any sexual misconduct, ever.

The other major pattern with this dickwad -- other than arrogance, christian smugness, & sense of entitlement -- is one of serial mendacity across the board. Look back a couple of pages for my link to his apparent for instances of perjury before Congress.

This is not a court case, this is not a disciplinary hearing. This is to determine whether BK will receive an honor and a position of immense power. Any lingering doubts as to his moral character or honesty should lead the Senate to take a pass on this particular dude.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10665
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#427

Post by Lsuoma » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:33 am

Brive1987 wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:34 am
Liberal values strike again. Viva democracy.

Irregardless? Not mayoral material...

comhcinc
.
.
Posts: 10828
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:59 am
Location: from Parts Unknown
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#428

Post by comhcinc » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:55 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
There's no pattern if you trivialize #2 and dismiss out-of-hand #4. (I concur #3 is not persuasive.) A pattern of behavior depicting in the accusations does exist, and it is highly consistent with the pattern of behavior evidenced in BK's yearbook, Judge's memoirs, in recollections of classmates, and in BK's own statements made in years past about his high school and college days. The evidence for excessive drinking, which he only belatedly is partly fessing up to, is overwhelming. That he denied & downplayed it for so long undermines the credibility of his similar denials of any sexual misconduct, ever.

The other major pattern with this dickwad -- other than arrogance, christian smugness, & sense of entitlement -- is one of serial mendacity across the board. Look back a couple of pages for my link to his apparent for instances of perjury before Congress.

This is not a court case, this is not a disciplinary hearing. This is to determine whether BK will receive an honor and a position of immense power. Any lingering doubts as to his moral character or honesty should lead the Senate to take a pass on this particular dude.
You make good points horse. I think we are closer on this that it may seem.

Maybe the biggest difference is to me this doesn't matter to me. I think Burger King here is about what we are going to expect at this point and if he isn't confirmed the next jerk off won't be any better. It's all just a farce at this point.

Sulman
.
.
Posts: 1998
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#429

Post by Sulman » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:59 am



"Or am Imissing something?" The meaning of 'audit', dear.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10391
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#430

Post by free thoughtpolice » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:02 am

Interesting that the despite the anti Goldy bias in the canadaland article, the author still opposes deplatforming Goldy.
http://www.canadalandshow.com/guide-to- ... ith-goldy/
Meanwhile, progressives and like-minded organizations should also be careful in how they deal with Goldy’s doomed candidacy.

Those calling on Tory or Keesmaat to boycott events in which she is included are, in effect, requesting that those who can most effectively and directly counter Goldy’s narrative while defining what Toronto stands for — tolerance, inclusivity, diversity — forgo that prime opportunity. Closing one’s ears to ignorance does not silence it, and rhetoric like hers, when left unchallenged, is what offers permission for people to act on their prejudice and paranoia. (Of course, to directly challenge her in such a substantive way would require her invitation to such events — which, as of now, no one seems inclined to offer.)

Goldy cannot defend her positions as ably or coherently as her critics fear — there’s a reason she keeps to friendly, sympathetic media and appearances. On the debate stage, she’d have no control over questions, direction, or format. Rather than cede to demands they boycott, her opponents should welcome the opportunity to firmly, unequivocally denounce her beliefs and discredit her candidacy.

And it’s crucial that her opponents not preemptively call for her exclusion from any event. Doing so will not only fuel the victim narrative on which she thrives, but will imply a weight of influence she does not carry.

There’s as much a threat in over-reacting to a political agitator as there is in not responding forcefully enough. Goldy isn’t as adept or clever as detractors seem to believe, and the illusion of the contrary has long worked to her advantage. Progressives would do well to take a breath, step back, and simply allow others to offer her rope.
I think the article did a pretty good job of demonstrating, using Goldy's own words and actions how she has been flirting with the extremists on the right. A lot of facts and a good collection of the goofy things Goldy has been peddling.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#431

Post by Kirbmarc » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:27 am

free thoughtpolice wrote: Interesting that the despite the anti Goldy bias in the canadaland article, the author still opposes deplatforming Goldy.
http://www.canadalandshow.com/guide-to- ... ith-goldy/
Meanwhile, progressives and like-minded organizations should also be careful in how they deal with Goldy’s doomed candidacy.

Those calling on Tory or Keesmaat to boycott events in which she is included are, in effect, requesting that those who can most effectively and directly counter Goldy’s narrative while defining what Toronto stands for — tolerance, inclusivity, diversity — forgo that prime opportunity. Closing one’s ears to ignorance does not silence it, and rhetoric like hers, when left unchallenged, is what offers permission for people to act on their prejudice and paranoia. (Of course, to directly challenge her in such a substantive way would require her invitation to such events — which, as of now, no one seems inclined to offer.)

Goldy cannot defend her positions as ably or coherently as her critics fear — there’s a reason she keeps to friendly, sympathetic media and appearances. On the debate stage, she’d have no control over questions, direction, or format. Rather than cede to demands they boycott, her opponents should welcome the opportunity to firmly, unequivocally denounce her beliefs and discredit her candidacy.

And it’s crucial that her opponents not preemptively call for her exclusion from any event. Doing so will not only fuel the victim narrative on which she thrives, but will imply a weight of influence she does not carry.

There’s as much a threat in over-reacting to a political agitator as there is in not responding forcefully enough. Goldy isn’t as adept or clever as detractors seem to believe, and the illusion of the contrary has long worked to her advantage. Progressives would do well to take a breath, step back, and simply allow others to offer her rope.
I think the article did a pretty good job of demonstrating, using Goldy's own words and actions how she has been flirting with the extremists on the right. A lot of facts and a good collection of the goofy things Goldy has been peddling.
Watch out, people have been called arrogant libtard for far less.

I agree that Goldy would crumble if confronted by a competent interviewer who's not giving her softball questions. That's why she and other alt-righters actually love the deplatforming SocJus


MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7143
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#433

Post by MarcusAu » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:49 am

This meme has been noted...and even updated...
New Church Ladies.jpg
(43.92 KiB) Downloaded 196 times


https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Church-Lad ... 0692847219

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12497
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#434

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:18 am

comhcinc wrote: You make good points horse. I think we are closer on this that it may seem.

Maybe the biggest difference is to me this doesn't matter to me. I think Burger King here is about what we are going to expect at this point and if he isn't confirmed the next jerk off won't be any better. It's all just a farce at this point.
I can't make you care about the SC. Now that Kennedy's gone, I have respect for not a one of them. And though I consider Roe a very good ruling, weakening or rescinding it wouldn't be the end of the world, or even change the status quo much.

However...

Idk whether you've encountered prep school products much, but they are generally arrogant, self-entitled massive pricks, who play by their own set of rules, take whatever they want, and believe they deserve it all by virtue of the silver spoon in their mouth. Everything I see about BK indicates he is all that, plus a serial liar, plus one of those holier-than-thou christians who are all the more zealous and insufferable for having been heavy 'sinners' before Amazing Grace.

So anytime one of these motherfuckers gets taken down a notch or two, is denied some power or privilege they think they deserve, or are finally held accountable for their rapine & plundering, I consider it a good day.

comhcinc
.
.
Posts: 10828
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:59 am
Location: from Parts Unknown
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#435

Post by comhcinc » Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:56 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: So anytime one of these motherfuckers gets taken down a notch or two, is denied some power or privilege they think they deserve, or are finally held accountable for their rapine & plundering, I consider it a good day.

https://img.maximummedia.ie/joe_ie/eyJk ... 24x425.jpg

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6339
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#436

Post by Really? » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:06 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:17 am
comhcinc wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

This was reported many years ago, and the accuser was known to the receiver of the report.

But hey, four bitches either coordinated their lies years in advance, or were so drunk each coincidentally misidentified the perp as BK. Cuz 100 Kegs Choir Boy Brett's memories are perfectly crystal clear.


FFS, when did the reaction to 'believe every woman' become the equally illogical 'believe no women'?
I think we are seeing different information about this.
I think your summations are distorted from missing some facts and oversimplification others

From what I know it more like

1st woman: Did report the possible teenage rape years ago. I actually very much believe that at the very least she believes she is telling the truth.
That incident almost certainly happened. now, did she confuse her two assailants with BK and his BFF, Mark Judge? That is plausible, but would be more plausible if Judge were not also named. We shall see what comes out of her testimony today. BK's blanket denials are not in themselves persuasive, especially when his boozing & sexist callousness during those years -- which he also flatly denies -- are in keeping with the accusation. His bullshit explanation for the "Renate Alumnus" indicates his willingness to lie about anything at any time to protect his career path.
Please provide evidence that his explanation of the "renate" thing is "bullshit."

Please provide evidence for Kavanaugh's "boozing and sexist callousness during those years," particularly as this is your evidence against him.

Which piece of evidence presented by Ford makes you believe her account?

It seems like you expect a man to prove he didn't rape a woman 36 years ago. What proof would you accept in order to believe he is innocent?
2nd woman: Decided that dude from that one kegger that took his dick out must be Brett after really think about it for 6 days. She probably believes she is telling the truth too.
[....]
Pretty much every one of the parties I went to at that age had some for nudity and or sexual hijinks.
You take this out of context, and also compare it to your own party life. You and your pals are not asking for a lifetime position to one of nine of the nation's highest offices. You've also freely admitted to such behavior, instead of making lame excuses, dissembling & prevaricating, or painting yourself as some pure saintly golden child.

Aside from the severity of the specific incident, there is the matter of a pattern of behavior, and a pattern of blanket denial. BK's rationalizations on this one smell: 'if that happened, it would've been the talk of the campus'. Well, it was at the time, and the act attributed to BK at the time, and also in a recent flurry of alumni emails when BK was nominated and before Ramirez went public with her accusation. But maybe all of BK's Yale's classmates are suffering from mistaken identity, too.[/quote]

Recovered memories.
This is not a court case, this is not a disciplinary hearing. This is to determine whether BK will receive an honor and a position of immense power. Any lingering doubts as to his moral character or honesty should lead the Senate to take a pass on this particular dude.
So we believe in "innocent until proven guilty..."

Sometimes.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#437

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:11 pm

Matt is correct, and it's all political chess at this point anyway. People whining about how unfair this is to Kavanaugh were strangely silent on Garland. Odd, that. It's almost like it's tribalism, not ethics, huh?

But yeah, fuck prep school products. They managed to be entitled and ignorant long before it became the norm.

screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2365
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#438

Post by screwtape » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:16 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:11 pm
Keating wrote: This is exactly what I expect to happen these days:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-27/s ... d/10310950
Seals are bastards. Scumbags. They are eating all the salmon that are endangering the local Southern resident Orcas need to survive and thereby threatening their survival. As a moderate, I don't think we should kill all of the seals and sea lions that are threatening our ecological heritage. Just trim the population down by 50% or so.
Talking about local waters, N/A to all areas. :icon-ugeek:
I'll join that club.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6339
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#439

Post by Really? » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:20 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Matt is correct, and it's all political chess at this point anyway. People whining about how unfair this is to Kavanaugh were strangely silent on Garland. Odd, that. It's almost like it's tribalism, not ethics, huh?

But yeah, fuck prep school products. They managed to be entitled and ignorant long before it became the norm.
Garland wasn't accused of participating in serial gang rapes. Of course the Republicans are slimeballs. The silly thing is that some of us are pretending that either party is something other than a dumpster fire.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#440

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:29 pm

Nobody is pretending anything, to the best of my knowledge. At least not here, although some people seem to be posturing a bit. It simply becomes a matter of which side's policies you generally support. Then you adopt the necessary cynicism and jump in. I've become fairly involved in politics IRL, and you have to be a pragmatist.

We have evangelicals supporting and excusing a notable philanderer, gambler and general bad boy. We have democrats posturing cynically over a woman many don't really believe. It is whatever works at this point. The Democrats were late to this party, but they're catching up. It is disengenous to state that you're only against this thing once the other side starts to use it.

It will only stop working when enough people realize how toxic that it is. Judging by Twitter, it will only be after something that shakes the core of civilization itself. Plague or atomic war would be a good guess.

comhcinc
.
.
Posts: 10828
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:59 am
Location: from Parts Unknown
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#441

Post by comhcinc » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:36 pm

Can it be an atomic plague?

Guest_b8931fdb

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#442

Post by Guest_b8931fdb » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:37 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:11 pm
Matt is correct, and it's all political chess at this point anyway. People whining about how unfair this is to Kavanaugh were strangely silent on Garland. Odd, that. It's almost like it's tribalism, not ethics, huh?

But yeah, fuck prep school products. They managed to be entitled and ignorant long before it became the norm.
It's really not either/or. It's okay to be bothered by both and many people are (Jonathan Turley for one). It's also okay to recognize the delays in Garland were constitutional while Feinstein's abuse of process in Kavanaugh and the smears laid against him were unethical to a different degree.

It's also reasonable to wonder what the train of Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh means to future Senate confirmation hearings. We already have the farce that all of these assclowns hide behind the conceit that they can't remark on their thoughts regarding any case that might appear before them.

If your experience is that everything is tribal, and none of it ethical, you may wish to follow different people.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#443

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:39 pm

screwtape wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:
Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:11 pm
Keating wrote: This is exactly what I expect to happen these days:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-27/s ... d/10310950
Seals are bastards. Scumbags. They are eating all the salmon that are endangering the local Southern resident Orcas need to survive and thereby threatening their survival. As a moderate, I don't think we should kill all of the seals and sea lions that are threatening our ecological heritage. Just trim the population down by 50% or so.
Talking about local waters, N/A to all areas. :icon-ugeek:
I'll join that club.
I see what you did there. You wacky Canadians.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#444

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:47 pm

Guest_b8931fdb wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:11 pm
Matt is correct, and it's all political chess at this point anyway. People whining about how unfair this is to Kavanaugh were strangely silent on Garland. Odd, that. It's almost like it's tribalism, not ethics, huh?

But yeah, fuck prep school products. They managed to be entitled and ignorant long before it became the norm.
It's really not either/or. It's okay to be bothered by both and many people are (Jonathan Turley for one). It's also okay to recognize the delays in Garland were constitutional while Feinstein's abuse of process in Kavanaugh and the smears laid against him were unethical to a different degree.

It's also reasonable to wonder what the train of Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh means to future Senate confirmation hearings. We already have the farce that all of these assclowns hide behind the conceit that they can't remark on their thoughts regarding any case that might appear before them.

If your experience is that everything is tribal, and none of it ethical, you may wish to follow different people.
My experiences are ethical, but politics is not. One is not the other. Politics has become war, and wars are fought with what works. If one side fails to use dirty tricks, they lose. The Democrats have found this out after many painful beatings.

I'd like you to explain the difference, ethically, between Garland hearing and Kavanaug's. Oops, Garland didn't get a hearing. But you know what I mean. Abuse of process seems to me is what happened to Garland. Now using the process is unethical? Are you saying Fienstein is acting unconstitutionally?

And if you look at Thomas, he was guilty as hell. Bork you might make a case for. Maybe.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#445

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:57 pm

Also, is it really wrong to want a SCOTUS judge of a higher calibre than Kavanaugh? He was a prep school party boy. There's better choices out there, no matter your political affiliations.

Guest_b8931fdb

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#446

Post by Guest_b8931fdb » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:02 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:57 pm
Also, is it really wrong to want a SCOTUS judge of a higher calibre than Kavanaugh? He was a prep school party boy. There's better choices out there, no matter your political affiliations.
It would be great!

I am for a SCOTUS nominee who fits one or more of

+ doesn't come from Yale or Harvard
+ was a defense attorney
+ was an MD or STEM major

However the President gets to pick, so tarring and feathering people once they have been nominated because they were prep school assholes or because you dislike their probable sinking of some favorite court rulings seems out of bounds.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12497
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#447

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:03 pm

Fuck man, BK is one shady character:

* Joins a country club with a $92K initiation fee while on a $150K salary, can't explain how he pulled it off
* Runs up $200K in debt, can't explain what for
* Pays off said debt all at once, can't explain how
* Apologizes for losing apeshit after losing a gambling game on a boys trip (c. 2000), but has no recollection of it.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -finances/

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12497
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#448

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:11 pm

* buys a $2.5M with $91K in total savings


CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#450

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:17 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Fuck man, BK is one shady character:

* Joins a country club with a $92K initiation fee while on a $150K salary, can't explain how he pulled it off
* Runs up $200K in debt, can't explain what for
* Pays off said debt all at once, can't explain how
* Apologizes for losing apeshit after losing a gambling game on a boys trip (c. 2000), but has no recollection of it.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -finances/
Yeah, and there's more. There are better choices. This guy was chosen to be a Trump lapdog.

Guest_b8931fdb

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#451

Post by Guest_b8931fdb » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:18 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:47 pm
My experiences are ethical, but politics is not. One is not the other. Politics has become war, and wars are fought with what works. If one side fails to use dirty tricks, they lose. The Democrats have found this out after many painful beatings.

I'd like you to explain the difference, ethically, between Garland hearing and Kavanaug's. Oops, Garland didn't get a hearing. But you know what I mean. Abuse of process seems to me is what happened to Garland. Now using the process is unethical? Are you saying Fienstein is acting unconstitutionally?

And if you look at Thomas, he was guilty as hell. Bork you might make a case for. Maybe.
[/quote]

This about Garland's delay is from a professor of law at the University of San Diego School of Law and a former judicial clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia so take it fwiw, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ee/482733/

Why the Senate Doesn't Have to Act on Merrick Garland's Nomination
The Constitution doesn’t require the chamber to hold hearings or a vote.

Regarding Feinstein,

+ she had the claim for two months and there was a process to turn them over
+ she says she held the claim out of deference to Ford wanting confidentiality
+ at the last minute she leaks the claim doxing Ford
+ now she demands an FBI investigation to delay the process

None of this was part of the due process of the hearing.

Here's is how a person whose job this was says she should've handled it.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/gregg-nu ... -kavanaugh
How the Democrats Could Have Handled the Allegations Against Kavanaugh

It’s almost like they would rather delay and disrupt the process for political reasons.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court hearing opened as a two-ring circus: On the dais Senate Democrats repeatedly interrupted and attempted to derail the proceedings; in the audience, a succession of protests did much the same. Senator Ben Sasse drew notice, and nods, when he declared in his opening statement that “confirmation hearings haven’t worked for 31 years in America.”

Confirmation hearings, however, constitute a small part of the badly battered confirmation process. Much of the Senate's “advice and consent” function occurs quietly, behind closed doors, and away from the cameras. As a former chief nominations counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, I had the privilege to play a role in this process and to see the best and the worst of our judicial confirmation system. Among the most effective part of the process is the Senate’s review of a nominee’s character and fitness—the so-called “background investigation process.”

When Senator Dianne Feinstein received very serious allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, she could have—and should have—handled those concerns through the committee’s normal protocols. This process, which applies not just to Supreme Court nominees but to hundreds of judicial and Justice Department appointments, is specifically designed to protect the interests of both accusers and nominees. The process is both confidential and bipartisan. Its goal is to pursue the truth, not political advantage. That Senator Feinstein inexplicably chose not to handle the serious allegation Dr. Christine Blasey Ford made against Judge Kavanaugh according to these procedures has had terrible consequences for all the individuals involved and has done lasting damage to the Senate and the Supreme Court as institutions.

The political debate around the Kavanaugh confirmation has generated a great deal of confusion about the respective roles of the Senate and the FBI in investigating the background of judicial nominees. Here’s how it really works. For every judicial nominee and every nominee for a politically appointed position in the Justice Department, the FBI conducts a “background investigation.” The FBI does not evaluate the nominee’s fitness for service or make a recommendation on his or her suitability for confirmation. It gathers non-public facts, conducts interviews, and compiles a file on the nominee. That file is transmitted to the White House and later the Senate, after a nomination is officially made.

In the Senate, the FBI file is kept locked in a safe. It can be accessed only by a handful of staffers, all of whom have top-secret security clearances and all of whom agree to treat the files as though they contained state secrets. On top of that, witnesses who submit information to the FBI have the option of doing so completely anonymously, so even the cleared Senate staffers do not know who furnished the information.

Although the vast majority of nominees have exemplary background files, evidence of potential concern arises with some regularity. When the FBI interviews dozens of former associates and neighbors covering a nominee’s entire lifetime, it is not uncommon that one of those associates has something unflattering to say. Sometimes, the unflattering information crosses the line and becomes potential evidence that, if true, would disqualify a nominee from a lifetime appointment to the bench. Examples of potentially disqualifying evidence include sexual harassment, physical and sexual violence, racial prejudice, substance abuse, and pervasive dishonesty.

If either the Republican or the Democrat staffer reviewing an FBI file find anything of concern, the committee conducts additional investigation. Sometimes, especially if it finds gaps in the file, it might ask the FBI to conduct additional interviews. More often, the committee’s investigators will conduct interviews themselves. (Lying to the committee investigators, like lying to the FBI or lying under oath, is a crime punishable by prison time.) Once the staff has completed its work, it reports the results to senators who may decide to conduct interviews themselves. Ultimately, on the basis of this investigation, the senators decide whether or not a nomination should move forward.

In my time on the committee, this process worked very well. We took any evidence of character and fitness issues very seriously. We investigated any such evidence to the best of our ability. We respected confidentiality. Nothing ever leaked. I had total trust that my Democrat counterpart would never weaponize allegations against a nominee they otherwise opposed and I hope they trusted that I would never bury allegations against a nomination I otherwise supported. The senators took this responsibility, and our findings, seriously. On occasion, nominations did not move forward as a result of our work.

Today Senate Democrats say that the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh require an FBI “investigation,” even though, had they followed standard procedure, the FBI likely would have conducted interviews two months ago. Senate Democrats claim we need the FBI to get to the bottom of these allegations, even though this is not the role of the FBI. The FBI does not assess the character and fitness of nominees, the Senate does. Senate Democrats fret about the possible damage done to Dr. Ford’s reputation in a public, political process (and rightly express concerns about the threats that those in public controversies inevitably receive), even though they had at their disposal a confidential bipartisan process to avoid all of this.

It is a deep shame that Senate Democrats chose to treat these allegations as another tool in their attempts to delay and disrupt Kavanaugh’s confirmation, another ring in the circus of their creation. It didn’t have to be this way. It should never happen again.
Was that constitutional? I am not a lawyer and this isn't a legal trial, but it was a gross abuse of process and of the people, and some think there are grounds to censure or even expel her for that. I can't find the link I saw a few days ago, but here is one piece: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/ ... d-censure/ from a lawyer caling for her censure.

I just don't know how one fits something that breaks Senate rules enough to be censured or expelled for with the Constitution, I think that is just skew, but she did violate tons of norms to get here.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10577
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#452

Post by Kirbmarc » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:20 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Nobody is pretending anything, to the best of my knowledge. At least not here, although some people seem to be posturing a bit. It simply becomes a matter of which side's policies you generally support. Then you adopt the necessary cynicism and jump in. I've become fairly involved in politics IRL, and you have to be a pragmatist.

We have evangelicals supporting and excusing a notable philanderer, gambler and general bad boy. We have democrats posturing cynically over a woman many don't really believe. It is whatever works at this point. The Democrats were late to this party, but they're catching up. It is disengenous to state that you're only against this thing once the other side starts to use it.

It will only stop working when enough people realize how toxic that it is. Judging by Twitter, it will only be after something that shakes the core of civilization itself. Plague or atomic war would be a good guess.
https://youtu.be/15YgdrhrCM8

Guest_b8931fdb

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#453

Post by Guest_b8931fdb » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:20 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:03 pm
Fuck man, BK is one shady character:

* Joins a country club with a $92K initiation fee while on a $150K salary, can't explain how he pulled it off
* Runs up $200K in debt, can't explain what for
* Pays off said debt all at once, can't explain how
* Apologizes for losing apeshit after losing a gambling game on a boys trip (c. 2000), but has no recollection of it.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -finances/
I agree, that's what they should have been hounding him on and calling for an FBI investigation of.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#454

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:21 pm

Guest_b8931fdb wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:57 pm
Also, is it really wrong to want a SCOTUS judge of a higher calibre than Kavanaugh? He was a prep school party boy. There's better choices out there, no matter your political affiliations.
It would be great!

I am for a SCOTUS nominee who fits one or more of

+ doesn't come from Yale or Harvard
+ was a defense attorney
+ was an MD or STEM major

However the President gets to pick, so tarring and feathering people once they have been nominated because they were prep school assholes or because you dislike their probable sinking of some favorite court rulings seems out of bounds.
Why? It is a job that is supposed to represent the very best judges in the USA. If the choice is sucky, knock them down and make the prez do a better job. That's one of the jobs of the Senate.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#455

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:27 pm

Guest_b8931fdb wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:47 pm
My experiences are ethical, but politics is not. One is not the other. Politics has become war, and wars are fought with what works. If one side fails to use dirty tricks, they lose. The Democrats have found this out after many painful beatings.

I'd like you to explain the difference, ethically, between Garland hearing and Kavanaug's. Oops, Garland didn't get a hearing. But you know what I mean. Abuse of process seems to me is what happened to Garland. Now using the process is unethical? Are you saying Fienstein is acting unconstitutionally?

And if you look at Thomas, he was guilty as hell. Bork you might make a case for. Maybe.
This about Garland's delay is from a professor of law at the University of San Diego School of Law and a former judicial clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia so take it fwiw, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ee/482733/

Why the Senate Doesn't Have to Act on Merrick Garland's Nomination
The Constitution doesn’t require the chamber to hold hearings or a vote.

Regarding Feinstein,

+ she had the claim for two months and there was a process to turn them over
+ she says she held the claim out of deference to Ford wanting confidentiality
+ at the last minute she leaks the claim doxing Ford
+ now she demands an FBI investigation to delay the process

None of this was part of the due process of the hearing.

Here's is how a person whose job this was says she should've handled it.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/gregg-nu ... -kavanaugh
How the Democrats Could Have Handled the Allegations Against Kavanaugh

It’s almost like they would rather delay and disrupt the process for political reasons.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court hearing opened as a two-ring circus: On the dais Senate Democrats repeatedly interrupted and attempted to derail the proceedings; in the audience, a succession of protests did much the same. Senator Ben Sasse drew notice, and nods, when he declared in his opening statement that “confirmation hearings haven’t worked for 31 years in America.”

Confirmation hearings, however, constitute a small part of the badly battered confirmation process. Much of the Senate's “advice and consent” function occurs quietly, behind closed doors, and away from the cameras. As a former chief nominations counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, I had the privilege to play a role in this process and to see the best and the worst of our judicial confirmation system. Among the most effective part of the process is the Senate’s review of a nominee’s character and fitness—the so-called “background investigation process.”

When Senator Dianne Feinstein received very serious allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, she could have—and should have—handled those concerns through the committee’s normal protocols. This process, which applies not just to Supreme Court nominees but to hundreds of judicial and Justice Department appointments, is specifically designed to protect the interests of both accusers and nominees. The process is both confidential and bipartisan. Its goal is to pursue the truth, not political advantage. That Senator Feinstein inexplicably chose not to handle the serious allegation Dr. Christine Blasey Ford made against Judge Kavanaugh according to these procedures has had terrible consequences for all the individuals involved and has done lasting damage to the Senate and the Supreme Court as institutions.

The political debate around the Kavanaugh confirmation has generated a great deal of confusion about the respective roles of the Senate and the FBI in investigating the background of judicial nominees. Here’s how it really works. For every judicial nominee and every nominee for a politically appointed position in the Justice Department, the FBI conducts a “background investigation.” The FBI does not evaluate the nominee’s fitness for service or make a recommendation on his or her suitability for confirmation. It gathers non-public facts, conducts interviews, and compiles a file on the nominee. That file is transmitted to the White House and later the Senate, after a nomination is officially made.

In the Senate, the FBI file is kept locked in a safe. It can be accessed only by a handful of staffers, all of whom have top-secret security clearances and all of whom agree to treat the files as though they contained state secrets. On top of that, witnesses who submit information to the FBI have the option of doing so completely anonymously, so even the cleared Senate staffers do not know who furnished the information.

Although the vast majority of nominees have exemplary background files, evidence of potential concern arises with some regularity. When the FBI interviews dozens of former associates and neighbors covering a nominee’s entire lifetime, it is not uncommon that one of those associates has something unflattering to say. Sometimes, the unflattering information crosses the line and becomes potential evidence that, if true, would disqualify a nominee from a lifetime appointment to the bench. Examples of potentially disqualifying evidence include sexual harassment, physical and sexual violence, racial prejudice, substance abuse, and pervasive dishonesty.

If either the Republican or the Democrat staffer reviewing an FBI file find anything of concern, the committee conducts additional investigation. Sometimes, especially if it finds gaps in the file, it might ask the FBI to conduct additional interviews. More often, the committee’s investigators will conduct interviews themselves. (Lying to the committee investigators, like lying to the FBI or lying under oath, is a crime punishable by prison time.) Once the staff has completed its work, it reports the results to senators who may decide to conduct interviews themselves. Ultimately, on the basis of this investigation, the senators decide whether or not a nomination should move forward.

In my time on the committee, this process worked very well. We took any evidence of character and fitness issues very seriously. We investigated any such evidence to the best of our ability. We respected confidentiality. Nothing ever leaked. I had total trust that my Democrat counterpart would never weaponize allegations against a nominee they otherwise opposed and I hope they trusted that I would never bury allegations against a nomination I otherwise supported. The senators took this responsibility, and our findings, seriously. On occasion, nominations did not move forward as a result of our work.

Today Senate Democrats say that the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh require an FBI “investigation,” even though, had they followed standard procedure, the FBI likely would have conducted interviews two months ago. Senate Democrats claim we need the FBI to get to the bottom of these allegations, even though this is not the role of the FBI. The FBI does not assess the character and fitness of nominees, the Senate does. Senate Democrats fret about the possible damage done to Dr. Ford’s reputation in a public, political process (and rightly express concerns about the threats that those in public controversies inevitably receive), even though they had at their disposal a confidential bipartisan process to avoid all of this.

It is a deep shame that Senate Democrats chose to treat these allegations as another tool in their attempts to delay and disrupt Kavanaugh’s confirmation, another ring in the circus of their creation. It didn’t have to be this way. It should never happen again.
Was that constitutional? I am not a lawyer and this isn't a legal trial, but it was a gross abuse of process and of the people, and some think there are grounds to censure or even expel her for that. I can't find the link I saw a few days ago, but here is one piece: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/ ... d-censure/ from a lawyer caling for her censure.

I just don't know how one fits something that breaks Senate rules enough to be censured or expelled for with the Constitution, I think that is just skew, but she did violate tons of norms to get here.
[/quote]
Seems like ideological justifications to me. Garland's delay was unprecedented, and people warned the Republicans two would play that game. Now it's boohoo, our poor boy treated so shamefully, woe, woe. It's sorta funny.

If Fienstein had Bern out of bounds, they would have torpedoed this already. They have a clear majority. They could do it. So I'm thinking no, just more partisan games.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12497
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#456

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:27 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Yeah, and there's more. There are better choices. This guy was chosen to be a Trump lapdog.
Common sense would dictate the GOPs drop this cunt like a hot, ebola-laded potato. There must be a reason they are so determined to confirm him, instead of a dozen other reliably far-right candidates. Has to be cuz BK is a shill, bought & paid for.

And fuck man, just look at that rage when an entitled narcissist doesn't get what he wants!
A preppie scorned.png
(167.14 KiB) Downloaded 121 times

Here's a clip from BK's testimony:


CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#457

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:31 pm

Just to be clear, I'm not a partisan myself. I have supported Republicans many times, much to the chagrin of some of my friends. I tend to be law-and-order in many respects, and the Democrats have been a bit dismal on that front. I side with very reasonable folks on the whole, but the idea that fairness is an aspects of politics right now is either disengenous or incredibly naive. Don't make me summon Attwater's ghost.

Guest_b8931fdb

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#458

Post by Guest_b8931fdb » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:35 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:27 pm
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Yeah, and there's more. There are better choices. This guy was chosen to be a Trump lapdog.
Common sense would dictate the GOPs drop this cunt like a hot, ebola-laded potato. There must be a reason they are so determined to confirm him, instead of a dozen other reliably far-right candidates. Has to be cuz BK is a shill, bought & paid for.
I thought the Occam's Razor explanation was that after the Blue Wave midterm there is no way Trump will get a non-moderate Kennedy replacement in.

Kavanaugh looked good and by replacing Kennedy would be able to permanently shift the court to the right, so they have to stick with him and get him in before the election. After the election his nomination will be garlanded until he withdraws and then a moderate will have to be nominated.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16699
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#459

Post by Brive1987 » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:36 pm

Lsuoma wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:34 am
Liberal values strike again. Viva democracy.

Irregardless? Not mayoral material...
The bar for public office has no floor.

http://i.imgur.com/JmVqahc.jpg

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10391
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#460

Post by free thoughtpolice » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:43 pm

Guest_b8931fdb wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:11 pm
Matt is correct, and it's all political chess at this point anyway. People whining about how unfair this is to Kavanaugh were strangely silent on Garland. Odd, that. It's almost like it's tribalism, not ethics, huh?

But yeah, fuck prep school products. They managed to be entitled and ignorant long before it became the norm.
It's really not either/or. It's okay to be bothered by both and many people are (Jonathan Turley for one). It's also okay to recognize the delays in Garland were constitutional while Feinstein's abuse of process in Kavanaugh and the smears laid against him were unethical to a different degree.

It's also reasonable to wonder what the train of Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh means to future Senate confirmation hearings. We already have the farce that all of these assclowns hide behind the conceit that they can't remark on their thoughts regarding any case that might appear before them.

If your experience is that everything is tribal, and none of it ethical, you may wish to follow different people.
Didn't you say you were a dem? You seem to basically repeat repub talking points about how all the dirty fighting in US politics started when the dems were so mean to poor Robert Bork. Have you ever heard of Richard Nixon or Lee Atwater? The dirty tricks campaign, the enemies list, and Nixon ordering his underlings to break the law to help him win the election? How convicted criminal and seasoned dirty trickster Paul Manafort started in to the GOP at this time? Also Roger Stone and how he and Manafort invented a combination one stop campaigning and lobbying firm that has probably done the most to further the buying of the US government?
Also how Nixon promised Bork a supreme court seat about the time he got Bork to fire Archibald Cox after his more ethical predecessors refused? Don't think that wasn't one good reason among several others to pass over Bork for the SC?
As to the point that you say that the ass fucking the GOP gave to Garland was "constitutional" . They changed the generally followed rule that the choice of a SC judge that a selection would be deferred if a vacancy happened immediately before an election and extended it to more than a year. Constitutional? :lol: It may not have broken the constitution but it is clearly a dirty trick.
Also, please demonstrate how Feinstein did something unconstitutional. Sounds like crap to me.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16699
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#461

Post by Brive1987 » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:45 pm

Kirbmarc wrote:
I agree that Goldy would crumble if confronted by a competent interviewer who's not giving her softball questions. That's why she and other alt-righters actually love the deplatforming SocJus
Goldy has a standing debate challenge out there. I’m surprised no-one has taken the alleged low hanging fruit. But a debate on demographic change and mass migration is not likely to happen. Better to go the old ad hominem.

Her “crumbling” sounds like the wet dream of a frustrated libtard. Which I’m sure, is not how you intended it.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16699
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#462

Post by Brive1987 » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:50 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote: I think the article did a pretty good job of demonstrating, using Goldy's own words and actions how she has been flirting with the extremists on the right.
A cut and paste hatchet job done with clear intent. Yes. It was excellent work.

What it didn’t do was explain her actual position and demonstrate how her arguments had changed over time. Because they haven’t. And that would wreak the narrative.

Flirting? Give me a break. Come back when she has gone full penetration.

Guest_b8931fdb

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#463

Post by Guest_b8931fdb » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:59 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:43 pm
Guest_b8931fdb wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:11 pm
Matt is correct, and it's all political chess at this point anyway. People whining about how unfair this is to Kavanaugh were strangely silent on Garland. Odd, that. It's almost like it's tribalism, not ethics, huh?

But yeah, fuck prep school products. They managed to be entitled and ignorant long before it became the norm.
It's really not either/or. It's okay to be bothered by both and many people are (Jonathan Turley for one). It's also okay to recognize the delays in Garland were constitutional while Feinstein's abuse of process in Kavanaugh and the smears laid against him were unethical to a different degree.

It's also reasonable to wonder what the train of Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh means to future Senate confirmation hearings. We already have the farce that all of these assclowns hide behind the conceit that they can't remark on their thoughts regarding any case that might appear before them.

If your experience is that everything is tribal, and none of it ethical, you may wish to follow different people.
Didn't you say you were a dem? You seem to basically repeat repub talking points about how all the dirty fighting in US politics started when the dems were so mean to poor Robert Bork. Have you ever heard of Richard Nixon or Lee Atwater? The dirty tricks campaign, the enemies list, and Nixon ordering his underlings to break the law to help him win the election? How convicted criminal and seasoned dirty trickster Paul Manafort started in to the GOP at this time? Also Roger Stone and how he and Manafort invented a combination one stop campaigning and lobbying firm that has probably done the most to further the buying of the US government?
Also how Nixon promised Bork a supreme court seat about the time he got Bork to fire Archibald Cox after his more ethical predecessors refused? Don't think that wasn't one good reason among several others to pass over Bork for the SC?
As to the point that you say that the ass fucking the GOP gave to Garland was "constitutional" . They changed the generally followed rule that the choice of a SC judge that a selection would be deferred if a vacancy happened immediately before an election and extended it to more than a year. Constitutional? :lol: It may not have broken the constitution but it is clearly a dirty trick.
Also, please demonstrate how Feinstein did something unconstitutional. Sounds like crap to me.
Bork was treated so badly, in a manner analogous to asking what ralph means in a high school yearbook we passed a fucking law about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Pri ... ection_Act
Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988

An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to preserve personal privacy with respect to the rental, purchase, or delivery of video tapes or similar audio visual materials

Enacted by the 100th United States Congress

Effective November 5, 1988

Introduced in the Senate as S. 2361 by Patrick Leahy D-Vermont on May 10, 1988

Committee consideration by United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Passed the Senate on October 14, 1988 (voice vote)
Passed the House on October 19, 1988 (voice vote)
Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 5, 1988

The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) was a bill passed by the United States Congress in 1988 as Pub.L. 100–618 and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. It was created to prevent what it refers to as "wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale records [or similar audio visual materials, to cover items such as video games and the future DVD format]." Congress passed the VPPA after Robert Bork's video rental history was published during his Supreme Court nomination. It makes any "video tape service provider" that discloses rental information outside the ordinary course of business liable for up to $2500 in actual damages.
If you consider a law introduced by Democrat Patrick Leahy and passed on voice vote a Republican talking point, then have at it. I consider it to be the culture, ethics, and politics that Democrats USED to stand for, and I still do.

I am also glad to see you live up to your name "free thought police" and insist that if a person has voted Dem all his life, supports social and fiscally liberal politics outside of modern SJW politics, but thinks that due process is important and privacy is important then they must be Republican.

Dude, you complained I compared you to Creationists and Rational Wiki, now you somehow think it's important to label me a Republican, so be sure to throw in that you sound just like a member of the Horde and an SJW cunt as well.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10391
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#464

Post by free thoughtpolice » Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:08 pm

guest wrote:
I am also glad to see you live up to your name "free thought police" and insist that if a person has voted Dem all his life, supports social and fiscally liberal politics outside of modern SJW politics, but thinks that due process is important and privacy is important then they must be Republican.

Dude, you complained I compared you to Creationists and Rational Wiki, now you somehow think it's important to label me a Republican, so be sure to throw in that you sound just like a member of the Horde and an SJW cunt as well.
I didn't label you a republican. I just pointed out that you seem to be drinking the horseshit koolaid they dish out. If and when you get a nym try Strawguest becaused you have completely misrepresented what I said. Try remedial reading so you get it right before you start throwing around names like member of the Horde and SJW cunt you halfwit cocksucker.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1306
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#465

Post by jugheadnaut » Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:25 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Fuck man, BK is one shady character:

* Joins a country club with a $92K initiation fee while on a $150K salary, can't explain how he pulled it off
* Runs up $200K in debt, can't explain what for
* Pays off said debt all at once, can't explain how
* Apologizes for losing apeshit after losing a gambling game on a boys trip (c. 2000), but has no recollection of it.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -finances/
What exactly is shady about receiving family financial assistance, which he acknowledged during his confirmation hearing when questioned on the subject? What kind of shady person with an Ivy League Law degree eschews a career earning mid six figure salaries in private practice to instead go almost entirely with lower paid public sector work? Or are you implying, sans evidence, that he has a secret benefactor illegally omitted from his financial disclosure forms, which would be an impeachable offense? But I guess in your world, being a preppy makes you fair game in the Scientology sense, so no evidence is necessary.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1306
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#466

Post by jugheadnaut » Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:12 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Guest_b8931fdb wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:57 pm
Also, is it really wrong to want a SCOTUS judge of a higher calibre than Kavanaugh? He was a prep school party boy. There's better choices out there, no matter your political affiliations.
...

However the President gets to pick, so tarring and feathering people once they have been nominated because they were prep school assholes or because you dislike their probable sinking of some favorite court rulings seems out of bounds.
Why? It is a job that is supposed to represent the very best judges in the USA. If the choice is sucky, knock them down and make the prez do a better job. That's one of the jobs of the Senate.
No one on either side believes the President is supposed to nominate the best available judge. It's a combination of age, sufficient qualifications, clean background, proven judicial temperament, a judicial philosophy the nominating President agrees with, and sometimes gender/race/ethnicity or other political factors thrown in.

No one in their right mind would think Sonia Sotomayor ranked in the top 100 available judges in 2009. But she was clearly well qualified and was deservedly confirmed without issue. Arguably, the only nomination in the last 30 years where truly the most qualified person was nominated was John Roberts.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12497
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#467

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:17 pm

jugheadnaut wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Fuck man, BK is one shady character:

* Joins a country club with a $92K initiation fee while on a $150K salary, can't explain how he pulled it off
* Runs up $200K in debt, can't explain what for
* Pays off said debt all at once, can't explain how
* Apologizes for losing apeshit after losing a gambling game on a boys trip (c. 2000), but has no recollection of it.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -finances/
What exactly is shady about receiving family financial assistance, which he acknowledged during his confirmation hearing when questioned on the subject? What kind of shady person with an Ivy League Law degree eschews a career earning mid six figure salaries in private practice to instead go almost entirely with lower paid public sector work? Or are you implying, sans evidence, that he has a secret benefactor illegally omitted from his financial disclosure forms, which would be an impeachable offense? But I guess in your world, being a preppy makes you fair game in the Scientology sense, so no evidence is necessary.
The gifts from family he reported don't add up.

In my world, and based on my first-hand experience, being a preppie almost invariably means being an entitled cunt who believes in different sets of rules for them, the nobility, and the rest of us, the peasantry.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12497
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#468

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:24 pm

jugheadnaut wrote: No one on either side believes the President is supposed to nominate the best available judge. It's a combination of age, sufficient qualifications, clean background, proven judicial temperament, a judicial philosophy the nominating President agrees with, and sometimes gender/race/ethnicity or other political factors thrown in.

No one in their right mind would think Sonia Sotomayor ranked in the top 100 available judges in 2009. But she was clearly well qualified and was deservedly confirmed without issue. Arguably, the only nomination in the last 30 years where truly the most qualified person was nominated was John Roberts.
Granted, the selection criteria are not limited to being among the 'top 100'. But there must also be some definable lower-end cut-off for character. And a lifelong binge drinker who admits to not remembering his booze-fueled outbursts, who can't or won't provide straightforward answers to simple questions, who hides behind lame, see-through lies about his past indiscretions, and who clearly perjured himself before Congress at least four times, doesn't make that cut.

The GOPs should dump this turd and move on.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1306
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#469

Post by jugheadnaut » Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:44 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: The gifts from family he reported don't add up.
He didn't report any figures on family financial assistance, which is excluded from mandatory disclosure, he just acknowledged that it existed. So unless you happen to have personal knowledge of his parents or in-laws financial standing, there's nothing not to add up.
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: In my world, and based on my first-hand experience, being a preppie almost invariably means being an entitled cunt who believes in different sets of rules for them, the nobility, and the rest of us, the peasantry.
You're certainly entitled to your silly prejudices, and I'm glad you're up front with it.


dogen
.
.
Posts: 2579
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 1:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#471

Post by dogen » Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:13 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Fuck man, BK is one shady character:

* Joins a country club with a $92K initiation fee while on a $150K salary, can't explain how he pulled it off
* Runs up $200K in debt, can't explain what for
* Pays off said debt all at once, can't explain how
* Apologizes for losing apeshit after losing a gambling game on a boys trip (c. 2000), but has no recollection of it.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -finances/
Yeah, and there's more. There are better choices. This guy was chosen to be a Trump lapdog.
Even more specifically than that, he was chosen based on his far-outside-mainstream views on whether a sitting president can be indicted. There are plenty of other Republican judges that would be equally good at pushing the conservative agenda (repeal RvW, etc); but Kavanaugh is the one Trump wants judging him when the Muller case goes up before the SCOTUS.
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Fuck man, BK is one shady character:

* Joins a country club with a $92K initiation fee while on a $150K salary, can't explain how he pulled it off
* Runs up $200K in debt, can't explain what for
* Pays off said debt all at once, can't explain how
* Apologizes for losing apeshit after losing a gambling game on a boys trip (c. 2000), but has no recollection of it.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -finances/
Yeah, and there's more. There are better choices. This guy was chosen to be a Trump lapdog.
Even more specifically than that, he was chosen based on his far-outside-mainstream views on whether a sitting president can be indicted. There are plenty of other Republican judges that would be equally good at pushing the conservative agenda (repeal RvW, etc); but Kavanaugh is the one Trump wants judging him when the Muller case goes up before the SCOTUS.

dogen
.
.
Posts: 2579
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 1:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#472

Post by dogen » Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:14 pm

Wow, double post in one post. :hankey:

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1306
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#473

Post by jugheadnaut » Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:22 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Granted, the selection criteria are not limited to being among the 'top 100'. But there must also be some definable lower-end cut-off for character. And a lifelong binge drinker who admits to not remembering his booze-fueled outbursts, who can't or won't provide straightforward answers to simple questions, who hides behind lame, see-through lies about his past indiscretions, and who clearly perjured himself before Congress at least four times, doesn't make that cut.
He stated in his testimony today that while he acknowledges occasionally drinking to excess, he has never had any sort of black-out. I'm not sure what you mean by "won't provide straightforward answers to simple questions", but the confirmation process is always a frustrating tap dance. If by 'indiscretions', you're referring to the yearbook stuff, I found his answers on the subject today completely credible, and the Senator questioning him on the matter looked foolish.
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: The GOPs should dump this turd and move on.
Nope, unless two of Flake, Murkowsky, and Collins turn tail, which seems unlikely at this point, he'll be confirmed on Tuesday. I strongly suspect there'll be at least one more smear attempt coming out before then, but unless there's the equivalent of video evidence it will be justly ignored by the GOP. And then the Dems get to pay the price. Kavanaugh will be a guaranteed hard conservative vote on the court for the rest of his life, which admittedly he may have been anyway. And whatever enthusiasm gap for the midterm elections that existed previously is now gone. Many Republicans would roll naked over broken glass to vote in the midterms.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6339
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#474

Post by Really? » Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:27 pm

Guest_b8931fdb wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:37 pm
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:11 pm
Matt is correct, and it's all political chess at this point anyway. People whining about how unfair this is to Kavanaugh were strangely silent on Garland. Odd, that. It's almost like it's tribalism, not ethics, huh?

But yeah, fuck prep school products. They managed to be entitled and ignorant long before it became the norm.
It's really not either/or. It's okay to be bothered by both and many people are (Jonathan Turley for one). It's also okay to recognize the delays in Garland were constitutional while Feinstein's abuse of process in Kavanaugh and the smears laid against him were unethical to a different degree.

It's also reasonable to wonder what the train of Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh means to future Senate confirmation hearings. We already have the farce that all of these assclowns hide behind the conceit that they can't remark on their thoughts regarding any case that might appear before them.

If your experience is that everything is tribal, and none of it ethical, you may wish to follow different people.
I have no idea who will be nominated after Kavanaugh is turned down, but I am quite sure that he or she will also be guilty of unprovable sexual assault 35 years ago.

And the one after that...

And the one after that...

Until the Democrats come to power and nominate a working abortion doctor or something.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6339
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#475

Post by Really? » Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:29 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Fuck man, BK is one shady character:

* Joins a country club with a $92K initiation fee while on a $150K salary, can't explain how he pulled it off
* Runs up $200K in debt, can't explain what for
* Pays off said debt all at once, can't explain how
* Apologizes for losing apeshit after losing a gambling game on a boys trip (c. 2000), but has no recollection of it.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -finances/
I agree. He is shady.

The Clintons went from broke to hundreds of millions of dollars in a decade of serving the public.

How much money does Pelosi have after a lifetime of public service? They all do it.

John D
.
.
Posts: 4607
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#476

Post by John D » Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:32 pm

Lindsey Graham gives one of the best speeches in recent history.... BAM!

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6339
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#477

Post by Really? » Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:33 pm

Brive1987 wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:36 pm
Lsuoma wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:34 am
Liberal values strike again. Viva democracy.

Irregardless? Not mayoral material...
The bar for public office has no floor.

http://i.imgur.com/JmVqahc.jpg
With all respect, The Body (The Mind) took his responsibility very seriously. It is also fair to say that Schwarzenegger took his job very seriously. While neither were conventional candidates, both were in the tradition of the citizen politicians. They had real careers, gave it up for public service, then ceded power.

John D
.
.
Posts: 4607
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#478

Post by John D » Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:34 pm


Really?
.
.
Posts: 6339
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#479

Post by Really? » Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:38 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:24 pm
jugheadnaut wrote: No one on either side believes the President is supposed to nominate the best available judge. It's a combination of age, sufficient qualifications, clean background, proven judicial temperament, a judicial philosophy the nominating President agrees with, and sometimes gender/race/ethnicity or other political factors thrown in.

No one in their right mind would think Sonia Sotomayor ranked in the top 100 available judges in 2009. But she was clearly well qualified and was deservedly confirmed without issue. Arguably, the only nomination in the last 30 years where truly the most qualified person was nominated was John Roberts.
Granted, the selection criteria are not limited to being among the 'top 100'. But there must also be some definable lower-end cut-off for character. And a lifelong binge drinker who admits to not remembering his booze-fueled outbursts, who can't or won't provide straightforward answers to simple questions, who hides behind lame, see-through lies about his past indiscretions, and who clearly perjured himself before Congress at least four times, doesn't make that cut.

The GOPs should dump this turd and move on.
Evidence he is a lifelong binge drinker?

Evidence he doesn't remember booze fueled outbursts? (He said the exact opposite numerous times.)

And you're doing that thing where a guy doesn't remember the change in drinking age laws from almost forty years ago and you say OMG he perjured himself!!!

Shall we get Booker under oath and ask him about his well-established history of sexual assault of women?

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12497
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

#480

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:40 pm

jugheadnaut wrote: I found his answers on the subject today completely credible
Then you must find Blasey-Ford's testimony not credible. Why?
jugheadnaut wrote: He stated in his testimony today that while he acknowledges occasionally drinking to excess, he has never had any sort of black-out.
Only after dissembling for weeks, with things like 'oh some of the 18 year old boys drank'.
If he had blackouts, he wouldn't remember them now, would he?
And in fact, he has inadvertently admitted to not remembering his drunken misbehaving on several occasions.

If he when hit by evidence reluctantly admits his previous blanket denials about drinking were false, why should anyone believe his blanket denials about sexual abuse?

I'm not sure what you mean by "won't provide straightforward answers to simple questions", but the confirmation process is always a frustrating tap dance. If by 'indiscretions', you're referring to the yearbook stuff, I found his answers on the subject today completely credible, and the Senator questioning him on the matter looked foolish.
Well there's the bullshit Renate Alumnus lie, but what I was referring to was things like:
- did you know you were reading stolen emails during your Ken Starr ratfucking days?
- were you involved in moving this judge's confirmation along?
- Did you conduct the interview of said nominee?
- is it your opinion that Roe v. Wade is settled law?

He oozes mendacity.

Locked