Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Horn Dog said:

Packing the court or impeaching justices is temporarily if the other side can just come back and do it to you.  The dems need to just take the gloves off and use the “conservative “ courts to make lasting change.

Don’t care about gerrymandering?  Ok, gerrymander the shit out of everything and don’t be subtle.  Make the court rule it unconstitutional.

Don't want to take up reasonable gun restrictions?  Ok, make it legal to enter any government building including the Sup. Court with any gun you want.  Oh now they want restrictions.

Don’t care about emoluments or bribery of public officials?  Ok, pass a law to make it legal then abuse the shit out of it.  Oh, now it’s unconstitutional.

Don’t care about voter suppression?  Ok, pass laws to supress the shit out of old white people. Oh, now it’s unconstitutional.

 

I know you're joking but regarding the last point, if we have a minimum age for voting we sure as hell need a maximum age as well

Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Ageism is the last form of discrimination that is socially acceptable.

Bigotry against age-gap relationships is another.

Posted
1 minute ago, RayDog said:

Bigotry against age-gap relationships is another.

How about mormons?  They are kinda like Nazis.  Blonde hair and all.  Can we( the enlightened royal we) discriminate against them?

Posted
3 minutes ago, RayDog said:

Bigotry against age-gap relationships is another.

I know that you have previously expressed an affinity for the young asians that look like underdeveloped teens, but that is not exactly the type of ageism that I am talking about.  

Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I know that you have previously expressed an affinity for the young asians that look like underdeveloped teens, but that is not exactly the type of ageism that I am talking about.  

Thank you for proving my point.  Bigotry against age-gap relationships is a separate issue as I stated before.

My last three girlfriends were 22, 22, and 19 for the record and are fully developed physically.

 

Posted
35 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Once our political parties stop acting like their nominations are a joke so will I. 

Voting for Willie ain't no joke in some parts.

Posted
47 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

About at least three different things by my count, and I’ve barely followed the hearings. Anyone got a current count on different things he’s lied under oath about?

What are they?  Serious question. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Damn this Kavanaugh guy straight up lied under oath. 

I actually logged on to make sure I wasn't imagining this.  He fucking did, didn't he?  More than once.  And he's going to get confirmed!

Posted
3 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Busy today and didn’t get to follow. What did he lie about?

- memogate

- detention of combatants

- Judge Pickering

 

 

(Honestly, I think those 3 are distinct, but I haven't chased all the crumbs.)

  • Like 1
Posted

It's also clear that he doesn't give a whit about precedent and will vote to overturn Roe.

A vote to confirm Kavanaugh is a vote to overturn Roe.

Collins and Murkowski should think about that.

It only takes two to kill this nomination.

Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

It's also clear that he doesn't give a whit about precedent and will vote to overturn Roe.

A vote to confirm Kavanaugh is a vote to overturn Roe.

Collins and Murkowski should think about that.

It only takes two to kill this nomination.

I thought the argument was that the R's would never actually overturn RvW because it's too valuable as a political carrot for votes/base. It's actually worth more as the bogeyman than as an ideological win, right?

Posted
Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I thought the argument was that the R's would never actually overturn RvW because it's too valuable as a political carrot for votes/base. It's actually worth more as the bogeyman than as an ideological win, right?

That's one argument. I don't buy it. Why risk it? If Roe is overturned, women will die in states that outlaw abortion.

Posted
4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's also clear that he doesn't give a whit about precedent and will vote to overturn Roe.

A vote to confirm Kavanaugh is a vote to overturn Roe.

Collins and Murkowski should think about that.

It only takes two to kill this nomination.

So we want to be like Ireland or Brazil that are ruled by Catholic majorities? Seriously fucking protestants? What are you good for if you don't protest to exercise your right to birth control? You have the  RIGHT to wear French ticklers on the end of  your "John Thomas"! Stand up against this dipshittery or you will rue the day nearly as much as your depressed wife.

 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Let’s say Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed, what is the play for the Republicans for the midterms?

“We are under attack by the obstructionist democrats and the Deep State!  All hands on deck!”

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Let’s say Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed, what is the play for the Republicans for the midterms?

“We are under attack by the obstructionist democrats and the Deep State!  All hands on deck!”

He'll be confirmed. None of this show matters. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Let’s say Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed, what is the play for the Republicans for the midterms?

“We are under attack by the obstructionist democrats and the Deep State!  All hands on deck!”

Only Republicans can keep him from getting confirmed.

Posted
1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

He'll be confirmed. None of this show matters. 

It matters to build some political capital or the Booker's and Harris's of the world.

Posted
Just now, FondrenRoad said:

He'll be confirmed. None of this show matters. 

Yeah, yeah but it’s always good to contingency plan.

These Kavanaugh hearing are a dumpster fire and may have some influence on public opinion.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

- memogate

- detention of combatants

- Judge Pickering

 

 

(Honestly, I think those 3 are distinct, but I haven't chased all the crumbs.)

From what I can glean, those are going to need beefing up before they form a basis for criminal prosecution or even impeachment/conviction by a Democrat congress, or pressure from other justices to resign for the sake of the integrity of the court.  They clearly aren't going to affect the confirmation without serious beefing up, or even then.

Posted
54 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

You wouldn't be able to overcome your message boards posts.

At the current rate of change in political discourse, the only problem those would present is that I'm not a big enough asshole online.

Not having a legal degree would seem to be a bigger issue.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Let’s say Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed, what is the play for the Republicans for the midterms?

“We are under attack by the obstructionist democrats and the Deep State!  All hands on deck!”

I think he will get confirmed, but if he doesn't, I don't think he'll be the top issue in the midterms.

And if he's not confirmed, we'll see an even more unhinged Trump, which will help the Democrats.  You know he's probably seething in rage at Booker.

Posted
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

It's also clear that he doesn't give a whit about precedent and will vote to overturn Roe.

A vote to confirm Kavanaugh is a vote to overturn Roe.

Collins and Murkowski should think about that.

It only takes two to kill this nomination.

You assume all Dems will vote against but you could see the senators from West Virginia, Indiana and south dokota vote to confirm like they did for Goursich.

Posted
9 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Can we go back to the old days where the Senators can beat each other with canes?

Come on. We have come a long ways since those simpler times. Give them all hand grenades to hurl at each other.

  • Like 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

So fucking dramatic, how can you live your life this way? lol

Is it your position that if abortion is banned in certain regions of the the US, women won't return to aborting the fetuses themselves? 

Posted
19 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

So fucking dramatic, how can you live your life this way? lol

Are you seriously going to argue that women won't resort to unsafe abortions in states that outlaw legal and safe medical procedures?

Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

Are you seriously going to argue that women won't resort to unsafe abortions in states that outlaw legal and safe medical procedures?

Are you seriously going to argue that outlawing abortion wouldnt lead to a decrease in deaths? Sure some extremely small percentage of women might permanently damage their vaginas or worse, but the amount of childrens who's lives will be saved will dwarf that number in comparison. 

Posted
Just now, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

Are you seriously going to argue that outlawing abortion wouldnt lead to a decrease in deaths? Sure some extremely small percentage of women might permanently damage their vaginas or worse, but the amount of childrens who's lives will be saved will dwarf that number in comparison. 

You can't die if you aren't born.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's not up to anyone but the person carrying the unborn child.

Sure, they have direct control over the child's life, but that doesn't mean it is not murder. Anyone can murder someone, but being able to do something doesn't mean you aren't taking the life of a child. 

Posted
25 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

So fucking dramatic, how can you live your life this way? lol

You are a member of the Alex Jones QAnon party. Our President who you cheer on is a fucking birther. LOL.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

Taking a child's life is never the answer

That wasn't the question. You called a poster out because he said this would result in dead women. Care to explain why that's a ridiculous position? 

Posted
Just now, Foosters said:

That wasn't the question. You called a poster out because he said this would result in dead women. Care to explain why that's a ridiculous position? 

I should clarify my point. He is bemoaning the death of murderers when there will be innumerable lives of children saved. His point was both shortsighted and morally bankrupt. 

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1


×
×
  • Create New...