Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[josh]

By the way - some turn NINETEEN during their senior year, though Kavanaugh didnt, I guess - by what has been reported

Kavanaugh didnt say HE turned 18.  He said SENIORS did

He said there were parties and the seniors drank.

The percentage who turn 19 is very small and he did not say "a few of the seniors drank."

Got any more hairs you want to try to split, while accidentally slicing your finger?

I havent said Kavanaugh didnt drink

Nor did he.

You are pretty bad at this.

LOL!

It's not about you, Kiid.

You asked for his lies. I gave you lies.

I didn't say you said he drank. I said that HE said the seniors drank. You tried to excuse some of them, but it didn't matter. It's his lies.

And you found ONE to try to defend.

His insistence that he has always respected women is sooooo disproven by his FB page - which he wrote the text of and identified the groups for.

He repeated that lie a whole bunch.

You really need to ask yourself why you are defending this liar.

[REDSTATEWARD]

What is the FBI supposed to investigate?

An extension of the standard background check for nominees to include relevant information recently brought to light.

This is a job interview, not a court of law.

LOL
This is not a job interview no matter how many times Vox says it is.
This is a Constitional procedure to fill a vacancy in a Branch of our Government with specific Constitutional rules to follow. The bottom line is the investigative role in the procedure falls to the Senate.  Certainly not to the FBI unless you are ignorant of the principle of separation of powers.

Then why do you keep touting six previous background checks?

LOL.

Thank you! Thank you! Don’t forget it is all about love! Remember that. Im here all week so please remember to tip your veal and enjoy your servers!

SFX: Wild applause.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/09/25/doh-democrat-joe-biden-explains-irrelevance-of-fbi-investigations-within-scotus-nomination-process/

Good ‘ Ole Joe.

Yeah, just like the “Biden Rule” of 2016.

So why six FBI background checks on Kavanaugh if they’re not worth the shoe leather?

Joe explained it.

Well that makes sense...

It did to Joe.

Yeah... so?

Ask Joe.
Gee, this is fun.

[LarryBnDC]

What is the FBI supposed to investigate?

An extension of the standard background check for nominees to include relevant information recently brought to light.

This is a job interview, not a court of law.

LOL
This is not a job interview no matter how many times Vox says it is.
This is a Constitional procedure to fill a vacancy in a Branch of our Government with specific Constitutional rules to follow. The bottom line is the investigative role in the procedure falls to the Senate.  Certainly not to the FBI unless you are ignorant of the principle of separation of powers.

Then why do you keep touting six previous background checks?

LOL.

Thank you! Thank you! Don’t forget it is all about love! Remember that. Im here all week so please remember to tip your veal and enjoy your servers!

SFX: Wild applause.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/09/25/doh-democrat-joe-biden-explains-irrelevance-of-fbi-investigations-within-scotus-nomination-process/

Good ‘ Ole Joe.

Yeah, just like the “Biden Rule” of 2016.

So why six FBI background checks on Kavanaugh if they’re not worth the shoe leather?

Joe explained it.

Well that makes sense...

It did to Joe.

Yeah... so?

Ask Joe.
Gee, this is fun.

You mean this guy?

“Biden said he thinks an FBI investigation into the allegations should be conducted and urged the committee to learn from the lessons of the Thomas hearings 27 years ago, stressing they should not engage in "character assassination."

"So much has changed about how the public understands the pressure on women. And I've learned a lot, as well too," he said. "She should not have to go through what Anita Hill went through and some of the questions that she got asked and the way the right went after her on national television and questioned her integrity and questioned her, not just her honesty, questioned her behavior."

"That's just not appropriate," he added. "You shouldn't have to be twice put through the same exact thing."

[josh]

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/09/25/look-we-all-know-he-did-it-its-whether-he-pays-a-price/

This.

This.

This.

[josh]

The Party of Stupid^TM continues to prove itself.

This time, Texas:
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/09/25/ken-paxton-texas-law-student-stand-pledge-allegiance-/?utm_campaign=trib-social-buttons&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

It's as if he has never heard of the Supreme Court and its decision in this regard:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/319/624

An Attorney General who ought to turn in his license to practice.

[josh]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-puerto-rico-20180924-story.html

Feuding with a MAYOR defines Trump's position on Puerto Rico, or at least he pretends it does.

[whiskeypriest]

What is the FBI supposed to investigate?

An alleged sexual assault.

Have you not heard?  It’s been kind of in the news a lot lately.

I take his point,  though.   If Red means,  how can one find evidence of an encounter that happened 36  years ago and where no one sought medical treatment or otherwise made any report?   Especially when details seem conflicting.  TbH,  that's why I find the Renate thing more telling, it's on paper and we know the exact source.   Not that Ms Ford should not seek justice,  but it's hard for me to see how it gets beyond the word of a possible drunk and the word of someone who claimed to have one beer.   Truth finding requires more than people just asserting their alcohol levels 36.years ago and not able to remember key details like location.

The larger point though is the FBI is not charged with investigating alleged crimes that do not involve federal laws.  The “ Renate Thing” has been public knowledge for the same period of time and yet never showed up in any of the previous 6 FBI background checks done for Kavanaugh.

They would not be investigating a crime, they would be conducting a back ground check on a SCOTUS nominee, which the FBI does routinely. I realize you are being purposefully obtuse.

There is no crime to investigate.

Well, no, but no crime for.the FBI to investigate. WHICH IS IRRELEVANT SINCE THEY WOULD BE CONDUCTING A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION NOT A CRIMINAL ONE.

Thanks. The fact you had to yell does not change your irrational opinion.

Were it irrational you could explain why the FBI does not conduct a background investigation into a SCOTUS nominee. Ignoring of course your prior comment about the 6 FBI background investigations already conducted into Kavanaugb.  Perhaps using the Anita Hill incident as an example. But you cannot.

[LarryBnDC]

What is the FBI supposed to investigate?

An alleged sexual assault.

Have you not heard?  It’s been kind of in the news a lot lately.

I take his point,  though.   If Red means,  how can one find evidence of an encounter that happened 36  years ago and where no one sought medical treatment or otherwise made any report?   Especially when details seem conflicting.  TbH,  that's why I find the Renate thing more telling, it's on paper and we know the exact source.   Not that Ms Ford should not seek justice,  but it's hard for me to see how it gets beyond the word of a possible drunk and the word of someone who claimed to have one beer.   Truth finding requires more than people just asserting their alcohol levels 36.years ago and not able to remember key details like location.

The larger point though is the FBI is not charged with investigating alleged crimes that do not involve federal laws.  The “ Renate Thing” has been public knowledge for the same period of time and yet never showed up in any of the previous 6 FBI background checks done for Kavanaugh.

They would not be investigating a crime, they would be conducting a back ground check on a SCOTUS nominee, which the FBI does routinely. I realize you are being purposefully obtuse.

There is no crime to investigate.

Well, no, but no crime for.the FBI to investigate. WHICH IS IRRELEVANT SINCE THEY WOULD BE CONDUCTING A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION NOT A CRIMINAL ONE.

Thanks. The fact you had to yell does not change your irrational opinion.

Were it irrational you could explain why the FBI does not conduct a background investigation into a SCOTUS nominee. Ignoring of course your prior comment about the 6 FBI background investigations already conducted into Kavanaugb.  Perhaps using the Anita Hill incident as an example. But you cannot.

He says back in ‘91 Joe Biden said an FBI investigation was irrelevant for SCOTUS nomination. That’s the GOP talking point of the day...

[josh]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kavanaugh-drinking-20180925-story.html

I don't know that this contradicts Kavanaugh's actual words during his carefully crafted interview, but it paints a very different image of his college years, as well as highlighting some of his high school comments that were intended to lead people to think he was a hard partier during those years,as well.

Was he lying all through high school and college about who he was? Was he lying at those speeches he has given? Or is he lying now about who he was?

And on what basis do you decide?

[LarryBnDC]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kavanaugh-drinking-20180925-story.html

I don't know that this contradicts Kavanaugh's actual words during his carefully crafted interview, but it paints a very different image of his college years, as well as highlighting some of his high school comments that were intended to lead people to think he was a hard partier during those years,as well.

Was he lying all through high school and college about who he was? Was he lying at those speeches he has given? Or is he lying now about who he was?

And on what basis do you decide?

“We’re you lying then or are you lying now?”

 Is a question every smart witness wants to avoid because no matter how you answer you admit to being a liar.

 

[josh]

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/drug-prices-climb-despite-trump-promise-investigation-finds-n913011?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

Speaking of liars.

President Trump fails on another of his promises.

[josh]

https://www.valleynewslive.com/content/misc/Congressman-Cramer-on-Kavanaugh-and-more-494193681.html

Rep Kramer (R-ND) thinks that even if Kavanaugh did it, he should still be approved for the Supreme Court.

Some real winners in that party, I'll tell you.

[josh]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/25/fbi-kavanaugh-allegations-220621

Why Kavanaugh should want the FBI investigation, by a former vetter for the Senate.

[Hamilton Samuels]

What is the FBI supposed to investigate?

An alleged sexual assault.

Have you not heard?  It’s been kind of in the news a lot lately.

I take his point,  though.   If Red means,  how can one find evidence of an encounter that happened 36  years ago and where no one sought medical treatment or otherwise made any report?   Especially when details seem conflicting.  TbH,  that's why I find the Renate thing more telling, it's on paper and we know the exact source.   Not that Ms Ford should not seek justice,  but it's hard for me to see how it gets beyond the word of a possible drunk and the word of someone who claimed to have one beer.   Truth finding requires more than people just asserting their alcohol levels 36.years ago and not able to remember key details like location.

The larger point though is the FBI is not charged with investigating alleged crimes that do not involve federal laws.  The “ Renate Thing” has been public knowledge for the same period of time and yet never showed up in any of the previous 6 FBI background checks done for Kavanaugh.

They would not be investigating a crime, they would be conducting a back ground check on a SCOTUS nominee, which the FBI does routinely. I realize you are being purposefully obtuse.

There is no crime to investigate.

Well, no, but no crime for.the FBI to investigate. WHICH IS IRRELEVANT SINCE THEY WOULD BE CONDUCTING A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION NOT A CRIMINAL ONE.

Thanks. The fact you had to yell does not change your irrational opinion.

Were it irrational you could explain why the FBI does not conduct a background investigation into a SCOTUS nominee. Ignoring of course your prior comment about the 6 FBI background investigations already conducted into Kavanaugb.  Perhaps using the Anita Hill incident as an example. But you cannot.

He says back in ‘91 Joe Biden said an FBI investigation was irrelevant for SCOTUS nomination. That’s the GOP talking point of the day...

Demonstrating that while Biden evolved as a man, the Grand Old Pussygrabber Party gas not.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Black pulls wallet out while held at gunpoint by cop; NOT SHOT!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-florida-man-accused-throwing-200933749.html