Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What Democratic malfeasance was Mitch McConnell responding to when he denied Merrick Garland a hearing?

nice try.

I am abiding by the NO whataboutism rule.

Posted
1 minute ago, kevwun said:

That was Obama's fault for having the audacity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court.

. . . who was recommended by Orrin Hatch as being a "sail right through confirmation" candidate.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Amobie said:

When the right makes that argument to the left, it's not persuasive.

When the left makes that argument to the right, it's not persuasive.

---

At the same time.. you want to know why the right doesn't believe the accusations, that is why..  It didn't matter who Trump was going to nominate, they expected the left to attack him and do ANYTHING to stop his confirmation.

The real craziness is probably going to start when Barrett gets nominated for RGB's seat.

I think it will be Thomas' seat, if the GOP keeps control of the Senate.

Thomas has said that he doesn't want to stay on the Court for life - that he'd like to have some time to travel and such with his wife.  He has also said he'd like his replacement to be nominated by a GOP President (or something like that).  He's 70.  It's not unreasonable to believe the GOP could lose in 2020.

Does he retire in 2020 or gamble to go to 2028?  I'll guess 2020.  In spite of the Biden Rule.  😁

Posted
12 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

nah that wasn't tahoe. that was clear lake.

but tahoe did state that he was cool using firehoses and attack dogs on protesters. 

You guys are so full of shit.

Posted
1 minute ago, MixtyMotions said:

I think it will be Thomas' seat, if the GOP keeps control of the Senate.

Thomas has said that he doesn't want to stay on the Court for life - that he'd like to have some time to travel and such with his wife.  He has also said he'd like his replacement to be nominated by a GOP President (or something like that).  He's 70.  It's not unreasonable to believe the GOP could lose in 2020.

Does he retire in 2020 or gamble to go to 2028?  I'll guess 2020.  In spite of the Biden Rule.  😁

I look forward to a smooth sailing confirmation.

Posted
Just now, MixtyMotions said:

You guys are so full of shit.

Man, literally everyone who was around then remembers you being cool with spraying civil rights protesters with fire hoses. Who do you think you're kidding?

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

So I take it you, too, are simply going to ignore that the left didn't take that "do ANYTHING" approach to Gorsuch's nomination? Why is it that Gorsuch didn't face what Kavanaugh faced.

Neil Gorsuch literally went to the same high school that Brett Kavanaugh attended and graduated only two years after him. If there were some sort of conspiratorial Democratic effort to attack any Trump nominee they could have used basically the same people to attack Gorsuch for made-up high school behavior that they used for Kavanaugh. If they had all these Georgetown Prep people just waiting for a Trump nominee then they could have pulled them out then.

The conspiracy theory makes zero sense whatsoever.

Gorsuch replaced Scalia.  Kavanaugh nominated to replace swing vote.  Some announced they would block him prior to any accusations of sexual assault.  Pretty easy answer to your question if you’re looking. 

Of course this has nothing to do with whether he assaulted Ford or not. Pretty much nothing discussed on this topic has any bearing on whether he actually assaulted her because there are so few facts to discuss.  But why dems would have extreme motivation to block him is about as obvious as it gets.  

Edited by Guest
Posted
3 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

You guys are so full of shit.

I believe what you said was that using fire hoses and attack dogs is preferable to significant property damage.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Aphelion said:

Gorsuch replaced Scalia.  Kavanaugh nominated to replace swing vote.  Some announced they would block him prior to any accusations of sexual assault.  Pretty easy answer to your question if you’re looking. 

Of course this has nothing to do with whether he assaulted Ford or not. Pretty much nothing discussed on this topic has any bearing on whether he actually assaulted her because there are so little facts to discuss.  But why dems would have extreme motivation to block him is about as obvious as it gets.  

I am addressing the claim that a political party has people lined up and waiting, willing to falsely accuse nominees of various crimes, and that they will use them in all cases. That is what MM and others have claimed and that is what I'm refuting. I have already explicitly explained why the Democrats may oppose Kanavaugh more than Gorsuch due to whom was and is being replaced. You are making a point that I have already covered.

Furthermore, your explanation doesn't hold any water anyway. Do you somehow believe that the more liberal and progressive Democrats wouldn't have loved to have replaced Scalia with a centrist or liberal Justice? Currently the GOP is hoping that Ginsburg leaves the Court during the next two years so they can replace her with a Justice more in line with their ideology. So why do you think that "flipping" a seat on the Supreme Court wouldn't appeal just as strongly to the Democrats?

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

You're getting close.

No, turns out I pretty much nailed it.

http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthread.php/94491-Race-Riots

How should a police department handle race riots?

When I was a teen there were a number of race riots. I remember Birmingham, Newark, Detroit and Watts (Los Angeles). Then there was the Rodney King riot in the early Nineties. The one that received the most police criticism was Birmingham. The police broke it up with fire hoses and Gernam Shepherds. In the others there were billions of dollars in damages. I think fire hoses and dogs is better than billions in damages.

When I watched anti-war demonstrations at UT in the early Seventies I noted five types of people. (This is my amateur obsevation. I'm sure experts have better analysis.) There were the organizers, the true followers, the sympathizers, the curiosity seekers and the thugs. The thugs were usually not students and had no interest in the cause but they wanted to use the situation to steal or tear $#@! up. In a crowd of 50,000 there were only a few organizers, probably a thousand or so real follers, another few thousand sympathizers, tens of thousands of curiosity seekers and a handful of thugs.

The police had a problem. Most of the curiosity seekers had a kind of arbiter role. If the police were two aggressive with the situation the crowd turned against them. But the crowd also didn't support a bunch of sixteen year old thugs tearing $#@! up for fun. The organizers wanted to get the crowd riled up, and if the riled up crowd provided cover for the thugs, and they caused damage the organizers declared victory even though they, and their supporters might not try to tear stuff up themselves.

I never saw a race riot and I'm not sure that even if I did I could understand the dynamic as well as I could a demonstration at UT that got out of hand. It's my understanding that gangs used the Rodney King situation to steal and attack businesses they didn't like.

I don't know how the police should handle this thing in London but I think allowing rioters to destroy billions of dollars of property is a mistake.

  • Like 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What did you actually say?

I'll answer if you give me an honest answer to the issue first.

What method(s) would you use to defend a property from an attack which would cost billions?  (You know that the attackers will cause billions of dollars of damage if you don't forcibly stop them.)  For example you need to defend an embassy from an assault by thousands, and failure to stop the attack costs billions. 

Your answer can't depend on dissuading the attackers.  It has to be effective in stopping a determined assault.  OR you can choose not to try to stop them or use a method which will probably fail.  Tell me what you'd do.

Posted
36 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

SIAP.....

 

They need to ask if they think the assault happened by someone other than Kavanaugh. I've heard a lot rhetoric that they believe her but she's just confused as to who did it.

Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

So turning out fire hoses and dogs on a racially oppressed minority is preferable to monetary inconvenience for white people.

Yep, that's about as American as it gets.

Fire hoses and dogs is terrible.

describing the wholesale destruction of individuals property as "monetary inconvenience for white people" is fucking lame.

Posted
Just now, MixtyMotions said:

I'll answer if you give me an honest answer to the issue first.

What method(s) would you use to defend a property from an attack which would cost billions?  (You know that the attackers will cause billions of dollars of damage if you don't forcibly stop them.)  For example you need to defend an embassy from an assault by thousands, and failure to stop the attack costs billions. 

Your answer can't depend on dissuading the attackers.  It has to be effective in stopping a determined assault.  OR you can choose not to try to stop them or use a method which will probably fail.  Tell me what you'd do.

I'd let the insurance companies deal with property damage. 

 

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, sachick said:

They need to ask if they think the assault happened by someone other than Kavanaugh. I've heard a lot rhetoric that they believe her but she's just confused as to who did it.

I couldn't respond to that poll question as "definitely" in either direction and I quite honestly think there's a problem with anyone who can.

Edited by Huckleberry
forgot to quote
Posted
39 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

SIAP.....

 

So D's and R's both based their opinion based on party and not any testimony. That show how political it is, Independents are surprisingly close to even in thoughts. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Fire hoses and dogs is terrible.

describing the wholesale destruction of individuals property as "monetary inconvenience for white people" is fucking lame.

But that's what it is. Unless, of course, you're dumb enough not to have insurance.

Posted

Kind of funny that the options are that it definitely did or didn't happen, probably did or didn't happen, or not sure. If you answer probably one way or the other instead of definitely that direction then that means you're not sure, doesn't it?

Posted
1 minute ago, MixtyMotions said:

No, you were getting close.  You said "significan't", not "billions".   Don't act like they're the same.  You need to accept the credit I gave you.

Come on, man. I recalled that off the top of my head after 7 years. I think I get an A+ and significant versus billions is an insignificant difference. See what I did there?

  • Like 4
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I am addressing the claim that a political party has people lined up and waiting, willing to falsely accuse nominees of various crimes, and that they will use them in all cases. That is what MM and others have claimed and that is what I'm refuting. I have already explicitly explained why the Democrats may oppose Kanavaugh more than Gorsuch due to whom was and is being replaced. You are making a point that I have already covered.

Furthermore, your explanation doesn't hold any water anyway. Do you somehow believe that the more liberal and progressive Democrats wouldn't have loved to have replaced Scalia with a centrist or liberal Justice? Currently the GOP is hoping that Ginsburg leaves the Court during the next two years so they can replace her with a Justice more in line with their ideology. So why do you think that "flipping" a seat on the Supreme Court wouldn't appeal just as strongly to the Democrats?

 

There would be motivation to replace a conservative with a liberal, but swapping a conservative for a swing or liberal vote is a much larger cause for concern than losing a liberal/conservative swap and consequently having a conservative replace a conservative.   

Edited by Guest
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just think about how we will all look back on this Kavanaugh period and remember it as “the good times”

Let's get it going. This country needs it. Let's hash it out. 

Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

But that's what it is. Unless, of course, you're dumb enough not to have insurance.

I guess I just will go ahead and assume you have never dealt with an insurance claim.

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

No, you were getting close.  You said "significan't", not "billions".   Don't act like they're the same.  You need to accept the credit I gave you.

We've established what you are.  Now you're just haggling over price. 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

lmao he defended the use of attack dogs in Birmingham.  Motherfucker is a straight up segregationist.  

Yea now you understand the kind of people we are talking to here.

Edited by hobbes2702
Posted
Just now, Aphelion said:

There would be motivation to replace a liberal with a conservative, but swapping a conservative for a swing or liberal vote is a much larger cause for concern than losing a liberal/conservative swap and consequently having a conservative replace a conservative.   

And none of that addresses the point of the conversation, which was the claim that a political party has a line of false accusers lined up to take on any opposing party nominee. You are the one who is bringing in the idea that ferocity of opposition to the nominee would determine whether or not they use those tactics. The claim under discussion is specifically that they will use those tactics for any nominee by the opposing party.

Posted
Just now, Fozzz said:

lmao he defended the use of attack dogs in Birmingham.  Motherfucker is a straight up segregationist.  

I did not.  There is the core question of whether the attackers would have caused billions in damages had they not been stopped.  I don't know the answer to that and I'll guess they probably would not have. 

 

I said exactly what I said.  I stand behind what I said.  You get billions in damages or police dogs and fire hoses.  It's a hypothetical.  Choose.  I did not defend Birmingham unless the facts fit my hypothetical.

Posted
5 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

No, you were getting close.  You said "significan't", not "billions".   Don't act like they're the same.  You need to accept the credit I gave you.

Holy shit.  That's Ted Cruz level mealy-mouthed behavior.  

Seriously, do better than that.

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, MixtyMotions said:

I did not.  There is the core question of whether the attackers would have caused billions in damages had they not been stopped.  I don't know the answer to that and I'll guess they probably would not have. 

 

I said exactly what I said.  I stand behind what I said.  You get billions in damages or police dogs and fire hoses.  It's a hypothetical.  Choose.  I did not defend Birmingham unless the facts fit my hypothetical.

I’ll take the damages and insurance thanks. You’re a piece of shit as per usual. New board, same Tahoe.

  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...