Cacti

OU has had an extraordinary run of good/great college quarterbacks going back nearly 20 years: Josh Heupel, Nate Hybl, Jason White, Sam Bradford, Landry Jones, Mayfield and now, Murray. That’s not even counting Thompson or Bell, both of whom won 11 games in 2006 and 2013, respectively.

So what happened to Aphelion? His name has been removed from his avatar and replaced with ‘Guest’. Is this what happens when you close your account?

No need for a gun. Just put a MAGA sticker on your door...your house will be passed over.

It’s not a 2:1 ratio. Originally I did a quick search and made the mistake of going with the first headline, without reading the source the article referenced. Why US veterans voted 2-to-1 for Donald Trump The actual ratio is 1.81:1. As you noted the correct ratio doesn’t materially change my argument. My lack of due diligence means I made a mistake, but that’s not the same thing as lying, as I was not intentionally trying to mislead anyone. And what warrants your assumption that I either voted for or support Trump?

You’re certainly not the first poster on this board who has put the label of traitor on anyone who voted for Trump. As a matter of fact, words such as traitor, racist, immoral, fascist, an enemy of democracy, etc. are commonly used to describe all Trump voters. So before expressing gratitude to our veterans this weekend, just remember that they voted for Trump by a 2 to 1 margin. Be careful; given those odds it’s very likely that your appreciation will be directed to a traitor, a racist, a fascist and an enemy of democracy.

I visit this forum frequently but I don’t see very many posters with different views; just the opposite. Between you and the two posters who agree with you (Wildcat09 and Brickhorn), can the three of you together name five or six out of the “PLENTY” of posters who have different political views, yet are worth listening to?

This is a good start but to be proficient at one-liners you need to learn from the examples of other posters. To grab the reader’s attention—and to show you are serious—you should always include some obscenities/vulgarities. Here are some examples:

I think you’re on to something. The first choice one should use to get their point across is a gif—no words at all. But if words are necessary, then for the sake of brevity one should not use more than 280 characters.

If it is truly bullshitting, then he and Trump have much in common.

What kind of day will it be for someone who wishes pain and suffering on others?

mop is who he says he is. If you had any familiarity at all with posters on Hornfans and the subsequent sites, you would know that.

If you think my opinion that work history is more relevant than a few hours of ‘gotcha’ questions is proof that I’m a Republican, then I’d have to say that at some point, logic and you departed ways. Consider this opinion: As bad as Kavanaugh was treated by the Democrats, Garland was treated even worse by the Republicans; after all, he wasn’t even given have a chance to have his work history ignored. So by your logic I’m now a Democrat, right?

That's not the way this works. Even before you know who I voted before, you decided that I'm a Republican. On what basis?

Fair enough. Show your work.

You think I’m a Trumpkin? Show your work.

Wasn't that clear when I said "vast majority"?

In no way should Senate confirmation hearings be considered “a functional and reasonable executive hiring committee”, not when the vast majority of the ‘hiring committee’ have made up their minds well before the so-called job interview.

That’s an understandable characterization of Kavanaugh based on his testimony alone. And if those few hours of testimony were all we had from which to judge him, then it’s only human to conclude that he revealed his true character…you know, first impressions and all. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, we are not limited to his testimony when evaluating his character/personality. If, at his core he is truly overly emotional and a naked partisan, then surely those flaws could be teased from among the hundreds of opinions that he authored, eleven of which were adopted by SCOTUS. Maybe those faults have been discovered in his writings and I’m not aware of them, but the vast majority of arguments against his suitability to serve on SCOTUS have been based on impressions from his hours-long testimony, while totally ignoring his twelve-year history as an appellate judge. And even if you choose not to take his work history into consideration, then at least take into account that Supreme Court Justices—like appellate court justices—don’t work in an environment anything like a Congressional hearing, where their integrity/character is questioned by partisan hacks. In other words, you won’t see the “overly emotional” Kavanaugh again. As for making “naked partisan” decisions…I guess we will have to wait and see.

So are you guys predicting that the seating of Kavanaugh will cause right-leaning folks—you know, the Republicans/Nazis/deplorables—to become violent toward the liberals?

If we are in agreement that the content accurately reflects his view, then what is the disagreement with what I said? That being, “I think that one can certainly get a reading of a judge’s temperament/personality from reading their opinions, especially if those opinions number in the hundreds.”

Of course he proofs…and of course he doesn’t physically write the opinion, but the content of the opinion accurately reflects his view, does it not?

I think that one can certainly get a reading of a judge’s temperament/personality from reading their opinions, especially if those opinions number in the hundreds. I don’t think that you are suggesting that Kavanaugh’s opinions are not his own, are you? .

The underlined part is demonstrably false; that is, if you are willing to consider his twelve-year body of work as an appellate judge as an integral part of his resume (silly, I know). He has written hundreds of opinions for the D.C. Circuit, none of which are “hidden from public view”, and if it’s true that “he’s a GOP political operative” then it shouldn’t be hard to prove that point by citing examples from his numerous, previous opinions.

You seem to think that there is a distinction between lying under oath to Congress and lying to Congress while not under oath. Both are considered perjurious and both have essentially the same penalties. But back to my first question: “From a moral standpoint, is lying under oath about such matters worse than lying while not under oath?” Only one person replied in the affirmative. So if you’re not using the moral argument, then you’re left with the legal argument. And it’s not word games to point out that the statements “one lied under oath” and “one committed perjury” are not synonymous. The former is an opinion, or perhaps charge, not yet proven, while the latter is a conviction in a court or in some other setting covered by law. It may be clear that Kavanaugh lied—just as it was clear that Bill Clinton lied—but Bill was never found guilty of perjury and, therefore, was not removed from office. Kavanaugh won’t be found guilty of perjury either, but that doesn’t mean accusations and innuendo won’t end his SCOTUS ambitions.

From a moral standpoint, is lying under oath about such "inconsequential items" worse than lying while not under oath? And if not using a moral argument, what is it about the former that is so egregious that it should be used as a disqualifier for SCOTUS? And why shouldn’t such a character flaw or otherwise questionable behavior be a disqualifier for the other branches of government?