[talaniman]

You would still need 2/3rds of the senate to vote for impeachment and how likely is that? What's the hurry to seat the frat boy anyway? Oh that's right, the next congress may not have the same majority.

[jlisenbe]

Typical angry white man rage

Yeah. You know how all those angry white men are. They're all the same, you know. And we don't believe in racial stereotyping around here.

[talaniman]

I don't put you in that category JL, but I'm debating between holier than thou, and a bible thumper. Kind of hard when you go all reasonable and show empathy. 8D

Enjoy this

[excon]

Hello:

I was happy when I heard the FBI was gonna investigate.. I DIDN'T think the FBI was in anybody's pocket. Guess what?

Look.. Even if Kavanaugh withdraws or loses Trumps support, we're gonna get a dupe sans baggage.. The ONLY reason Trump picked Kavanaugh is because he doesn't believe a sitting president can be indicted.. I don't care about beer.. I care that he LIES about beer. I don't even care that he tried to get laid, even if clumsily.. I care that he LIED about trying to get laid.. Truth is, I'd be FINE with a justice who interprets the Constitution as written, cause I find it to be a very liberal document..

But, I care that he's gonna FORCE this orange lawbreaking abomination on us for the next two years..

IMPEACH..... IMPEACH..... IMPEACH..

excon

[jlisenbe]

I don't care about beer.. I care that he LIES about beer. I don't even care that he tried to get laid, even if clumsily.. I care that he LIED about trying to get laid.. Truth is, I'd be FINE with a justice who interprets the Constitution as written, cause I find it to be a very liberal document..

How do you know he lied about beer? He said he drank beer, he said he liked beer, he said he drank to excess. So how would you KNOW he lied?

How do you KNOW he lied about the alleged assault? Because Dr. Ford says otherwise? It's your kind of thinking that the republicans are counting on.

As to the Constitution, where did the liberal justices find rights to abortion or gay marriage in the Constitution? No, a true constitutionalist would be a nightmare to liberals since they would no longer be able to legislate from the bench.

[talaniman]

How do you know he lied about beer? He said he drank beer, he said he liked beer, he said he drank to excess. So how would you KNOW he lied?

He may not be lying, just doesn't remember doing things in his drunken stupor. Wouldn't be the first time that has happened, as any drunk can attest. I have seen and experienced this happened as to NOT believe what a drunk says, especially a young one. You have worked with drunks and addicts for 10 years JL, and I am sure you have the same position.

He lied about being nicknamed BART, even though he signed a letter to his BUDS using that name.

How do you KNOW he lied about the alleged assault? Because Dr. Ford says otherwise? It's your kind of thinking that the republicans are counting on.

It's plain STUPID that repubs take the word of an admitted hard drinking kid over a traumatized victim when we haven't heard from the other guy she names who has written books about drunken bad behavior when he was a kid and young adult, and BK's best bud.

As to the Constitution, where did the liberal justices find rights to abortion or gay marriage in the Constitution? No, a true constitutionalist would be a nightmare to liberals since they would no longer be able to legislate from the bench.

Where does it say churches can make abortion and gay rights illegal? Where does it say that churches can define the definition of marriage for everybody? Where does it say the states cannot make abortions legal, and redefine marriage for their populations sees fit?

Where does it say you can force your religious views on all men or women, or gays or any other citizen? I think the opposite is true to all those questions. You are free to state your opinions, but following your lead is voluntary. So is the right for your head to explode over somebody's right to pursuit their own happiness.

I think that's in the constitution somewhere, or is it the declaration of independence? Can't remember, as the coffee is still brewing, and I don't drink beer. To lazy to look it up or give you a link, so can you do it for me?

[jlisenbe]

It's plain STUPID that repubs take the word of an admitted hard drinking kid over a traumatized victim when we haven't heard from the other guy she names who has written books about drunken bad behavior when he was a kid and young adult, and BK's best bud

No, being stupid would be to take the accuser's words at face value when the vast weight of evidence speaks against her.

Where does it say the states cannot make abortions legal, and redefine marriage for their populations sees fit?

You do realize that what you are describing was the situation as it existed BEFORE your beloved, law-writing liberal justices changed the law? If you are saying we should go back to that, then I'm with you.

Where does it say churches can make abortion and gay rights illegal? Where does it say that churches can define the definition of marriage for everybody?

No one is suggesting we put the church in charge, but neither does it say, however, that Christians must be silent and not engage in public debate. Besides, gay marriage is not a gay rights issue. It is about the necessarily selective and exclusive definition of marriage regarding what an individual state should legally recognize. It's why we don't allow a man to marry a dog, or three women to marry one man, or a man to marry a ten year old girl, or a woman to marry a tree. Marriage is an exclusively defined institution for a variety of good reasons.

BTW, have you noticed the evidence coming out that weighs AGAINST the credibility of your accusers?

[talaniman]

It's plain STUPID that repubs take the word of an admitted hard drinking kid over a traumatized victim when we haven't heard from the other guy she names who has written books about drunken bad behavior when he was a kid and young adult, and BK's best bud

No, being stupid would be to take the accuser's words at face value when the vast weight of evidence speaks against her.

How interesting given you take the accused at face value, but Dr. Ford has stated she WANTS an FBI investigation, and KG, well he never said he did, he left it to the committee, and if not for Flake making his vote contingent on that investigation we wouldn't have one and Grassley said it wasn't needed. BK has played to the repubs and dissed the dems throughout his hearing culminating in his outrageous left conspiracy theories. I took them both at their word and called for an investigation through the whole thing though I opposed the frat boy, moreso after the hearings, I readily admit, but for me it's almost always TRUST, BUT VERIFY! How many times do I have to say that? I also think repubs are rigging the investigation, and that too may be VERIFIED. No I don't trust the PROVEN lying, cheating, dufus at all, and he calls the shots. I ain't STUPID.

Where does it say the states cannot make abortions legal, and redefine marriage for their populations sees fit?

You do realize that what you are describing was the situation as it existed BEFORE your beloved, law-writing liberal justices changed the law? If you are saying we should go back to that, then I'm with you.

And what law did they change? Abolishing slavery? Reafirming that woman can vote, black people can go to any school, woman can decide how to treat their own bodies? Please specify what you mean? I got time, and a listening ear.

Where does it say churches can make abortion and gay rights illegal? Where does it say that churches can define the definition of marriage for everybody?

Earth to Tal. No one is suggesting we put the church in charge, but neither does it say, however, that Christians must be silent and not engage in public debate. Besides, gay marriage is not a gay rights issue. It is about the necessarily selective and exclusive definition of marriage regarding what an individual state should legally recognize. It's why we don't allow a man to marry a dog, or three women to marry one man, or a man to marry a ten year old girl, or a woman to marry a tree. Marriage is an exclusively defined institution for a variety of good reasons.

BTW, have you noticed the evidence coming out that weighs AGAINST the credibility of your accusers?

It still is an exclusively defined institution...between two humans, as legislated in a growing number of states. Yeah you have a right as a citizen to engage in public debate, and states can legislate rules and laws according to their population, and states have done just that, legally and lawfully.

I won't comment on your claim of evidence against accusers since its only Wednesday, and going for my second cup of brew and breakfast. Wish you could join me.

[tomder55]

Merrick Garland and Kavanaugh agreed 93% of the time in their court decisions. My question is what is going to happen when classmates of journalist expose their drinking ,partying and debauchery during their high school and college years ?

[jlisenbe]

And what law did they change? Abolishing slavery? Reafirming that woman can vote, black people can go to any school, woman can decide how to treat their own bodies? Please specify what you mean? I got time, and a listening ear.

1. The Supreme Court did not abolish slavery, it affirmed it in the Dred Scott decision. A Constitutional amendment abolished slavery, which is how is should operate. Same thing is true of giving women the right to vote. Constitutional amendment, not a court decision, so you should get your facts straight.
2. While it is true that the SCOTUS decision in the Brown case did spell the beginning of the end for segragated schools, it had to overturn a previous SCOTUS decision to do it.
3. Women cannot choose how to treat their own bodies. A woman, in nearly every state, cannot freely engage in prostitution with her body. She cannot sell her body organs. She is not free to kill her body in suicide. She cannot put certain drugs into her body. Interestingly, the only real area of debate with a woman's body is her freedom to have her completely innocent, defenseless, unborn baby killed while still in her body. I'm thrilled beyond belief that I am not supporting that point of view.
4. The laws I am referring to that the Court changed was in the case of abortion and gay marriage, but you could also throw prayer in schools or removing the ten commandments into that box, practices which had existed for nearly two centuries but were suddenly and amazingly found to be unconstitutional by the Court when they plainly were not.

It still is an exclusively defined institution...between two humans, as legislated in a growing number of states.

It has nothing to do with state legislation. That is what you said you were for, and I agreed with you. SCOTUS imposed marriage between two men on EVERY state, thus denying states the option to "legislate rules and laws according to their population..." So it took away that right from states that you seem to favor, and in so doing diminished the exclusivity of marriage. If we decide two men can get married, then why not three men? Why not two women and one man? Why not two male cousins, or three male cousins, or a male and female cousin? After all, they should all have equal protection under the law, shouldn't they? So they have opened a Pandora's box with that brainless decision.

[tomder55]

The laws I am referring to that the Court changed was in the case of abortion and gay marriage,

You see you are not digging deeper into the hidden meanings . You are not divining the meanings of the penumbras, formed by emanations in the guaranteed rights.

[jlisenbe]

You see you are not digging deeper into the hidden meanings . You are not divining the meanings of the penumbras, formed by emanations in the guaranteed rights.

Now THAT'S funny! Yes indeed. One must have great wisdom says our great master, the Mighty Liberal! You nailed it, Tomder.

[talaniman]

Merrick Garland and Kavanaugh agreed 93% of the time in their court decisions. My question is what is going to happen when classmates of journalist expose their drinking ,partying and debauchery during their high school and college years ?

They will avail themselves of the same process we all have won't they? Lets be very clear though, we are not talking about drinking, partying (Underage or NOT) or CONSENTUAL debauchery here are we. The allegation is sexual ASSAULT.

[jlisenbe]

The allegation is sexual ASSAULT.

Yes, and the evidence is overwhelming. It is:

1. Someone has a credible accusation. That person is?????

Sometimes I think, and I realize this is not fair, but I still think that if there is any justice in this world, this same farce will happen to Tal, all in the spirit of what goes around, comes around. But like I said, I know that is foolishness. Still, the astonishing injustice of this affair, and the plainly political and hypocritical response of the democrats, is all just nauseating.

I won't comment on your claim of evidence against accusers since its only Wednesday, and going for my second cup of brew and breakfast. Wish you could join me.

That would be fun. I have a feeling that we would find a lot to agree on, but it might come after the neighbors have to call the cops on us! Sadly, I am limited to only one cup of coffee. Acid reflux. Bummer.

[talaniman]

Now THAT'S funny! Yes indeed. One must have great wisdom says our great master, the Mighty Liberal! You nailed it, Tomder.

He quoted YOU, so he must be addressing YOU!

1. The Supreme Court did not abolish slavery, it affirmed it in the Dred Scott decision. A Constitutional amendment abolished slavery, which is how is should operate. Same thing is true of giving women the right to vote. Constitutional amendment, not a court decision, so you should get your facts straight.

I never said it did, I ask you to specify your meaning. Thanks for YOUR clarification, glad you know the nuance of law, and the history of the process. More on that later.

2. While it is true that the SCOTUS decision in the Brown case did spell the beginning of the end for segragated schools, it had to overturn a previous SCOTUS decision to do it.

Another way to CHANGE the law, in addition to a constitutional amendment.

3. Women cannot choose how to treat their own bodies. A woman, in nearly every state, cannot freely engage in prostitution with her body. She cannot sell her body organs. She is not free to kill her body in suicide. She cannot put certain drugs into her body. Interestingly, the only real area of debate with a woman's body is her freedom to have her completely innocent, defenseless, unborn baby killed while still in her body. I'm thrilled beyond belief that I am not supporting that point of view.

Does that include the safe and legal abortion procedures woman have at the gynecologist, paid for by insurance, which poorer people don't have? I'm not for abortions either, but it's a personal choice a woman should make.

4. The laws I am referring to that the Court changed was in the case of abortion and gay marriage, but you could also throw prayer in schools or removing the ten commandments into that box, practices which had existed for nearly two centuries but were suddenly and amazingly found to be unconstitutional by the Court when they plainly were not.

This was my question before, what law was changed to allow abortion and gay rights? Point being it was through lawful process of the[FONT=Tahoma,Calibri,Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif][COLOR=#001000] law.[/COLOR][/FONT]

It has nothing to do with state legislation. That is what you said you were for, and I agreed with you. SCOTUS imposed marriage between two men on EVERY state, thus denying states the option to "legislate rules and laws according to their population..." So it took away that right from states that you seem to favor, and in so doing diminished the exclusivity of marriage. If we decide two men can get married, then why not three men? Why not two women and one man? Why not two male cousins, or three male cousins, or a male and female cousin? After all, they should all have equal protection under the law, shouldn't they? So they have opened a Pandora's box with that brainless decision.

Don't be silly, it's limited to two humans, and maybe those that want it expanded will follow that process, but that's another debate but I reject your what if and why stop there arguments since the law as is precludes them. While states have a sovereignty, our system gives federal government the higher sovereignty. One could argue that abolishing slavery was the Pandora's box, noting the violence and discriminations that went on for years and still does in some places and some ways.

Neither us is perfect or always correct, that's why we work on it. You think your conservative judges will take you back to the way it was with abortion and guy rights? Why would they not bring back slavery too? Judges can't make or enforce laws, but I bet the lawyers are lining up waiting for BK.

[talaniman]

Yes, and the evidence is overwhelming. It is:

1. Someone has a credible accusation. That person is?????

Sometimes I think, and I realize this is not fair, but I still think that if there is any justice in this world, this same farce will happen to Tal, all in the spirit of what goes around, comes around. But like I said, I know that is foolishness. Still, the astonishing injustice of this affair, and the plainly political and hypocritical response of the democrats, is all just nauseating.



That would be fun. I have a feeling that we would find a lot to agree on, but it might come after the neighbors have to call the cops on us! Sadly, I am limited to only one cup of coffee. Acid reflux. Bummer.

I don't comment on evidence until a fair investigation has been done and where we differ is an allegation is probable cause to investigate. I have to leave it at that and hope like you justice will be served, and long suffering victims get closure. Being helpless and powerless is not a good place for any human to be. I don't feel like throwing rocks back at you at THIS time, and sorry about that acid reflux... been there done that.

I seldom talk politics over coffee and food. 8D and it's not worth violence over it either. You would't hit a guy with glasses would you?

[jlisenbe]

You would't hit a guy with glasses would you?

Ha! I wear them too, so we would both be safe.

You said you are not for abortions. Why are you not for them?

[jlisenbe]

Well, Kavanaugh is done. Come to find out he threw ice at someone 35 years ago in a tavern. Wow. And he didn't go to jail for that? A major failure of justice for sure.

[tomder55]

The decision of a Supreme Court nomination should never weigh this heavily on the lives of Americans. The founders would be appalled at the tremendous centralization of power and decision making that occurs in SCOTUS. The remedy is amendments that limit SCOTUS terms;and granting both to Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of 3/5 of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

Most likely this will not happen through the traditional amendment proposals via Congress route . It will require an Article 5 convention. And while we are at it there should be an amendment that allows state legislatures to propose amendments if proposed by 2/3 of the legislatures .(We can add in term limits for Congress too.)

[talaniman]

Ha! I wear them too, so we would both be safe.

You said you are not for abortions. Why are you not for them?

I'm a guy and a responsible one, but would never tell a female what she should do about being pregnant... and marriage is NOT an option. There are some very safe responsible options for responsible females to avoid pregnancy and making an early decision is one of them. Females of means will have that option and always have and no one is the wiser, not even husbands and boyfriends. One of my strong peeves against BK was his handling of a teen immigrant who was pregnant from rape, that he tried to block though she had permission and her own means. You may of heard of it.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproducti...-abortion-case

As a guy and citizen you should not make THAT lifechanging choice unless you are committed to the care and raising of that child to the age of adulthood (18), with or without the woman. I am against late term abortions though, which I define as past the 1st trimester. Right or wrong. I also believe any parent that doesn't educate their kids from a young age (Before public school, and age appropriately) in how to handle these things should be locked away for abuse.

Well, Kavanaugh is done. Come to find out he threw ice at someone 35 years ago in a tavern. Wow. And he didn't go to jail for that? A major failure of justice for sure.

Did you forget the sarcasm font?