Quick Question wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Read the first post on page 145 on the Kavanaugh thread. Jeez, dude.
And again, the first post on page 145 is by YOU. Are you trying to tell me that you are Flagpole? Because, if not, then no, page 145 of Kavanaugh thread does not contain any such post by Flagpole.
Care to try again?
If you want his original post, then find it yourself. I'm not doing the work for you. Stop being a lazy idiot.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
So he admits his judgement of the current climate was limited and your first reaction is to try to step on his throat - nice.
The country’s mood has nothing to do with Kav’s confirmation. That had 100% to do with a majority GOP Senate simply wielding the power to confirm him. And that anyone may be out of touch with the current mood does not mean they are wrong. Were german citizens justified in becoming racists simply because that was the mood and the official government position? I’m not calling trumpers Nazis, I am just trying to make a point that just because a candidate wins an election and their party executes his agenda it does not mean any of that is “right” or good for the country.
Trumpers love to say liberals can’t think for themselves but so far I’m seeing that hat on every trumper’s head. I don’t see any trumper questioning anything Trump or the GOP does, despite there clearly being plenty to worry about. I just see blind adoration and defense.
Your boy Flaggy deserves unending derision and mockery- especially after he put in "I will give you the biggest I told you so ever" regarding his Kavanaugh prediction.
I did not say that with regard to Kavanaugh...only Trump. You are adding to your list of wrong statements. I can't even count how many times I've had to correct you with your urban legends you post as true.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Quick Question wrote:
And again, the first post on page 145 is by YOU. Are you trying to tell me that you are Flagpole? Because, if not, then no, page 145 of Kavanaugh thread does not contain any such post by Flagpole.
Care to try again?
If you want his original post, then find it yourself. I'm not doing the work for you. Stop being a lazy idiot.
^ Fake news. It does not exist.
Flagpole wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Your boy Flaggy deserves unending derision and mockery- especially after he put in "I will give you the biggest I told you so ever" regarding his Kavanaugh prediction.
I did not say that with regard to Kavanaugh...only Trump. You are adding to your list of wrong statements. I can't even count how many times I've had to correct you with your urban legends you post as true.
Incorrect! Page 32 of the Kavanaugh thread you wrote "I told you so" after stating that he would not be confirmed. The only words you left out were "the biggest." Same result, a Flagpolian Flop and you own it.
Mueller never
Clownpole forever
“On behalf of our nation, I want to apologize to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure," Trump began. "Those who step forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation, not a campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception. What happened to the Kavanaugh family violates every notion of fairness, decency, and due process. In our country, a man or a woman must always be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty."
Trumpers, are you aware Trump and his people think you are morans, gullible, and believe fake news?
You are? Aren't? Which is it?
Because that's what they say about you. Here is a Trump campaign guy, looking for ways to feed you low IQ types fake news so you think HRC was a criminal, sex traficker and what - sold uranium to russians or something.
Trump. Thinks. You. Are. Idiots.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
“In our country, a man or a woman must always be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty."
Except...that was a job interview, and not a trial.
Whom would you want to hire to be a SCOTUS justice: someone who very clearly showed a partisan bias, who couldn't control his emotions, who was personally vituperative with senators; or someone who demonstrated a calm and (to borrow a phrase) "sober as a judge" demeanor?
si6 wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
“In our country, a man or a woman must always be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty."
Except...that was a job interview, and not a trial.
Whom would you want to hire to be a SCOTUS justice: someone who very clearly showed a partisan bias, who couldn't control his emotions, who was personally vituperative with senators; or someone who demonstrated a calm and (to borrow a phrase) "sober as a judge" demeanor?
Who would you want to govern this country those who relys on facts and the presumption of innocence or those who believe in the preponderance of accusations?
si6 wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
“In our country, a man or a woman must always be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty."
Except...that was a job interview, and not a trial.
Whom would you want to hire to be a SCOTUS justice: someone who very clearly showed a partisan bias, who couldn't control his emotions, who was personally vituperative with senators; or someone who demonstrated a calm and (to borrow a phrase) "sober as a judge" demeanor?
exactly. Forget the sex crimes.
Kav showed his true character, when mocking senators, losing his temper, crying, and lying over and over.
The lesson is that trumpers lie and Republicans are fine with it. That's it.
oh yeah, and any time you can whack a feminist down, do it.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
si6 wrote:
Except...that was a job interview, and not a trial.
Whom would you want to hire to be a SCOTUS justice: someone who very clearly showed a partisan bias, who couldn't control his emotions, who was personally vituperative with senators; or someone who demonstrated a calm and (to borrow a phrase) "sober as a judge" demeanor?
Who would you want to govern this country those who relys on facts and the presumption of innocence or those who believe in the preponderance of accusations?
Igy, kav is exactly the guy who doesn't believe in facts. He lied to the senators over and over. Over little things. That is is character. Repubs are fine with it. I am not. Most dems feel lying to congress is bad. And a DQ for Scotus types.
agip wrote:
si6 wrote:
Except...that was a job interview, and not a trial.
Whom would you want to hire to be a SCOTUS justice: someone who very clearly showed a partisan bias, who couldn't control his emotions, who was personally vituperative with senators; or someone who demonstrated a calm and (to borrow a phrase) "sober as a judge" demeanor?
exactly. Forget the sex crimes.
Kav showed his true character, when mocking senators, losing his temper, crying, and lying over and over.
The lesson is that trumpers lie and Republicans are fine with it. That's it.
oh yeah, and any time you can whack a feminist down, do it.
Trumpers are low-IQ45 knuckle-draggers. Plain. And Simple.
This is brilliant.
Our nation is run by people steered by their racial fears, but the country club republicans still think people are voting for them, not the deplorables.
And people like Igy think the Republican party is somehow a conservative party, when it is little but a racial solidarity party.
agip,
That is not my belief. I have no particular view of Kavanaugh as a judge and would not be happy if he ruled against most things you and I believe in: gay marriage, Roe v. Wade, and pre-existing conditions provision of ACA. On the other hand I am very much against destroying anyone by accusation and innuendo. I was very disappointed with the Republican tax package passed at the end of last year. Personally I will be fine with the House going to the Democrats and agree with other posters that power unbalanced is a negative.
Hope you are well.
Igy
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Who would you want to govern this country those who relys on facts . . .
As a Trump supporter this might not be your best line of argument.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
agip,
That is not my belief. I have no particular view of Kavanaugh as a judge and would not be happy if he ruled against most things you and I believe in: gay marriage, Roe v. Wade, and pre-existing conditions provision of ACA. On the other hand I am very much against destroying anyone by accusation and innuendo. I was very disappointed with the Republican tax package passed at the end of last year. Personally I will be fine with the House going to the Democrats and agree with other posters that power unbalanced is a negative.
Hope you are well.
Igy
...but you are ok with a scotus nominee lying, mocking senators and losing his temper and emotions. Ok.
I hear you on the other things.
agip,
Your lying characterization is not closed end. In my previous career I was accused of something I did not do and reacted the same as Kavanaugh. I suppose most genuine people would react similarly. That said, nothing you stated justifies destroying the man based on allegations not supported by one fact.
Igy
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
si6 wrote:
Except...that was a job interview, and not a trial.
Whom would you want to hire to be a SCOTUS justice: someone who very clearly showed a partisan bias, who couldn't control his emotions, who was personally vituperative with senators; or someone who demonstrated a calm and (to borrow a phrase) "sober as a judge" demeanor?
Who would you want to govern this country those who relys on facts and the presumption of innocence or those who believe in the preponderance of accusations?
I would probably want to go with someone who knew how to use "whom."
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
agip,
Your lying characterization is not closed end. In my previous career I was accused of something I did not do and reacted the same as Kavanaugh. I suppose most genuine people would react similarly. That said, nothing you stated justifies destroying the man based on allegations not supported by one fact.
Igy
Igy,
I'm not talking about the sex crimes. Forget that. It is not provable.
I'm talking about the many, many other things Kav lied about. And he lied freely, easily and carelessly, including how he saw stolen docs when he worked in the WH. Take your pick of sources.
https://www.google.com/search?q=kavanaugh+lies&oq=kavanaugh+lies&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2183j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8p.n. wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Who would you want to govern this country those who relys on facts and the presumption of innocence or those who believe in the preponderance of accusations?
I would probably want to go with someone who knew how to use "whom."
Good job, I will hire you as proofreader. The pay is $15/hour same as an Amazon hire.