Kavanaugh ... now what?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, September 21, 2025 18:38
VIEWED: 6831
PAGE 8 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 14, 2018 9:56 PM

Quote:
But hey I just had a great idea! How about, after Kavanaugh, we agree to post without the words Democrat or Republican, man or woman, white or not, gay or straight, or any of the other words that divide us. The only valid description is American.- SIGNY

Would you also ban the words California, Texas, Florida, New York because the only valid description is Americans? America is not united. - SECOND

First of all, anything YOU say on the unity or disunite of America is suspect, because you yourself said that YOU have an interest in the United States being DISUNITED. "The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

Remember? I hate to keep throwing those words in your face, but I think that was more than a random outburst from you: Not only is disunity PERFECT for the wealthy (who really can "do as they please" without fear of pushback from the peons) but you have a pretty clear history of fighting against any sort of unified American identity. In fact, I think that you're anti-American. And you're not alone in that here. Unlike the other anti-Americans on the board, you have a real, practical conflict of interest which affects your bank account. I would place THUGR, GSTRING, and SHTF in the same anti-American category, but they're that way because they've been propagandized.*

But, be that as it may ...

Quote:
It is 50 different governments jammed close together, except for Alaska and Hawaii and, maybe someday, Puerto Rico.

And those 50 to 51 states are in competition with one another. That competition effects the citizens. To make that easier to understand, consider the competition between construction companies for building a petrochemical plant in Texas.

Several companies want to build that plant, but only one will win. Do the engineers say we are all simply engineers and congratulate the lucky engineers at the winning bidder? No. They are bitter that they lost. The more ambitious engineers quit the losers and go work for the winner where the new work is to be found. You see the same dynamic between the states as is seen between construction companies.

The more ambitious citizens switch states, leaving embittered losers behind in places like W Virginia. Does rich Virginia reach out to help poor West Virginia with money? Hell, no! If a hillbilly wants help, move to Virginia. Or beg for help from the Federal government and vote Trump. Maybe he will get you a job in a W Virginia coalmine. Or maybe he won’t. But you can be sure that the legislature of Virginia will not willingly help West Virginia. There is nothing that the Virginia legislature budgeted to send to the next state as charity. ...

Huh.
Have you read the Constitution, ever?
What is the Federal government's role?

Provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

The Founding Fathers realized that there was such a thing as the GENERAL WELFARE, a concept that you seem to have failed on. (Must be your conflict of interest getting in the way.) There are things that a Federal government can do that individual states - literally- can't: Defend the common border, control the movement of goods, money, and people across the border; adjudicate interstate affairs on common resources such as labor, air, water, and biodiversity; create (or at least) govern interstate infrastructure; print currency etc.

Your "california" argument is stupid and misleading. "California" is a valid category because it is a real, recognized government subunit with potentially different aims and needs as (and potentially in conflict with) other real, recognized government subunits. One which the Federal government HAS to recognize and adjudicate as it carries out its duties.

But PEOPLE, SECOND, people are not state governments. Are you telling me that Virginians and West Virginians need different[

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, October 15, 2018 12:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

SIX I think that is the fundamental difference between REAVER and GSTRING versus JO and SHINY: I think REAVER and GSTRING have really drunk the Koolaid.

JO and SHINY ... they probably still believe in fairness, not in just beating down certain subgroups.

OK, so who do we call what? I hate to use the term "libtard" so will "neoliberal" do?

No. I don't think that's right either. Hillary Clinton would be a neoliberal, and although some of the stuff they say sounds like some of the stuff she says, she doesn't actually believe much of it. She didn't even come out for support of gay marriage until 2013 and up to that point spoke up against it, for example. She shills for the votes.

Neoliberals are the corporate liberals out there that are pro globalism and pro war and are hardly distinguishable from neocons. They are using people like RF and college kids because they are easily stirred up and enraged.

I don't like the term libtard either. I think that JSF calls anybody left of center a libtard and that's not productive.

I know they don't like it when I call them SJWs, but there probably is no changing their minds no matter how much evidence is ever presented so I'm not really too worried about that even though it is a misnomer and rather juvinile.

I think that Authoritarian Illiberal Leftist or Cultural Marxist is probably the most appropriate terms.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, October 15, 2018 6:17 AM

It just occurred to me that the acronym for Authoritarian Illiberal Left is AIL as in what AIL's the country.

How disappointed I will be if somebody like Limbaugh or Hannity start throwing that around.

Count me doubly disappointed if they have already used it and this is just another example of how there's nothing new under the sun, or "The Simpons Did It"...

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Monday, October 15, 2018 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
But hey I just had a great idea! How about, after Kavanaugh, we agree to post without the words Democrat or Republican, man or woman, white or not, gay or straight, or any of the other words that divide us. The only valid description is American.- SIGNY

Would you also ban the words California, Texas, Florida, New York because the only valid description is Americans? America is not united. - SECOND
First of all, anything YOU say on the unity or disunite of America is suspect, because you yourself said that YOU have an interest in the United States being DISUNITED. "The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

Remember? I hate to keep throwing those words in your face, but I think that was more than a random outburst from you: Not only is disunity PERFECT for the wealthy (who really can "do as they please" without fear of pushback from the peons) but you have a pretty clear history of fighting against any sort of unified American identity. In fact, I think that you're anti-American. And you're not alone in that here. Unlike the other anti-Americans on the board, you have a real, practical conflict of interest which affects your bank account. I would place THUGR, GSTRING, and SHTF in the same anti-American category, but they're that way because they've been propagandized.*

But, be that as it may ...

Signym, you pointed your finger in exactly the right direction. You did it with great precision and few words, but you don't understand what you are pointing at. I will be voting for the Democratic party, but the GOP will give me what the Democrats never would, some things I do NOT need and yet I will not turn down:

1) The GOP is committed to another tax cut for the wealthy. If I was the Democrat that Republican propagandists dream of, I would turn down that tax cut, since Democrats want a tax increase. Taking my unfair tax cut is "hypocritical" for a Democrat, according to most Republican voters. My "conflict" is that I can only get this cut from Trump and a GOP majority in Congress.

2) The GOP is committed to increasing CO2 releases. If I was the Democrat that Republicans dream of, I would close down my natural gas fields because burning gas makes CO2. I'd also get out of the cattle business because cows make methane, a green house gas. But I won't do either. I will keep selling to Republican voters. If they want to burn down the planet with climate change because they are who they are, I will sell them the gas. If they want to plug up their arteries with fat, I will sell them the meat. I have tried to stop real life Republican voters from self-destructing, and it can't be done. But if they want to be stupid, I keep taking their money. (After though: I feel like a Burger King owner in a world half full of 600 pound Republicans. As a Democrat, the non-hypocritical action would be to close my Burger King, but these 600 pound Trump voters will simply go to McDonald's across the street. Then why should I shut down? I can't teach them to learn self-control and to cut back on calories, but I am hurting my employees.)

3) The GOP is committed to less government interference with business. If the GOP wants to reduce the rules on my businesses, I will follow the new rules despite being a Democrat. If the GOP wants a repeat of the stock market crash of 2008, I will buy shares cheaply after the crash. I've got the cash to do it. I recommend the movie The Big Short for an explanation of how Republicans crashed the economy. I do not want the GOP to crash it again, but if they do then I, a Democrat, will make money.
www.vox.com/culture/2018/9/14/17856048/movies-financial-crisis-streami
ng-lehman-brothers-versailles-big-short-inside-job

Signym, I saw this today. Can't write more. Got to go to work selling green house gasses

THG

Wednesday, January 2, 2019 4:10 AM

You didn't think this was over did you? I didn't, I didn't think this was over.

T

THG

Wednesday, January 2, 2019 4:12 AM

Jan 1, 2019, 03:42pm

Council Reviewing The Kavanaugh Ethics Complaints Punts Back To Chief Justice Roberts

When we last checked in with Brett Kavanaugh back in October, he was performing his judicial duties as a lifetime Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, even though Chief Justice Roberts had referred 15 ethics complaints against him for review by the Chief Judge of the 10th Circuit in Colorado. No one knew what would happen next.

On December 18, we found out. While much of the country was preoccupied with the government budget shutdown, the 10th Circuit Judicial Council quietly issued its non-verdict in the matter, announcing:

that the original roster of 15 complaints had swollen to 83 complaints;

that the ethics complaints against Kavanaugh were “serious”; but that the 10th Circuit Judicial Council had no jurisdiction to rule on them;

the complainants had a brief period to request a review.

In effect, they said, back to you, Chief Justice Roberts: it’s your problem, not ours.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2019/01/01/council-reviewing
-the-kavanaugh-ethics-complaints-punts-back-to-chief-justice-roberts/#66694dc5aafe

Can you say OH SHIT. I can, I can say OH SHIT.
T

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, January 2, 2019 6:16 AM

Nah. Most of these complaints were about how he responded to a personal attack on his character that was made national news for three weeks while his life was under a microscope.

He didn't make it partisan. The Democrats made it partisan.

I love how they sit back now and pretend that isn't exactly what happened.

Nothing is going to happen here either.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, January 2, 2019 6:28 AM

Gotta laugh about how "serious" the author of that article believes the complaints are since he uses the word seven times in the article and every time there are quotation marks around it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THG

Wednesday, January 2, 2019 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Nah. Most of these complaints were about how he responded to a personal attack on his character that was made national news for three weeks while his life was under a microscope.

The complaints fell into three main categories. Some relate to complicated matters of fact involving Kavanaugh’s actions many years ago, which might be difficult to verify or resolve.

Other complaints concern Kavanaugh’s behavior as a Judge on the Court of Appeals by favoring certain parties or interests, on which opinions may differ.

The third and most obviously problematic category of the complaints concerns Kavanaugh’s behavior during the nomination proceedings in September 2018. The Judicial Council summarized:

Justice Kavanaugh made inappropriate partisan statements that demonstrate bias and a lack of judicial temperament; and treated members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with disrespect.

T

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, January 3, 2019 3:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Nah. Most of these complaints were about how he responded to a personal attack on his character that was made national news for three weeks while his life was under a microscope.

He didn't make it partisan. The Democrats made it partisan.

I love how they sit back now and pretend that isn't exactly what happened.

Nothing is going to happen here either.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Justices can be like troubleshooters in the realm of Justice and Law. They can dispassionately identify the problems or causes which need rectifying. He was able to identify these hyperventilating Democraps in Senate who were the problem and cause.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE