Oct 6, 2018, 2:06 AM
@surreality Yeah you don't want any part of that, all they're doing is feeding the well known troll.
RL Anger
-
This guy says it well.
-
Stupid onions.
-
@sunny I'm sorry. I know these are tough times for people with bad memories. I didn't mean to trigger anything.
-
Oh no, you're fine. I like onions, they're awesome. It was a good video.
-
Stupid onions.
I’m not cooking, YOU’RE cooking!
I agree with the twitterer: It wasn’t about Kavanaugh, he used Kavanaugh as a jumping off point to the real problem.
-
I'm not wanting to start a fight, and as sad as it is, I think this is a hopeful good thing. But if you look back 2 years ago, on page 96 through around 112 or so, in this very same thread, we had a big argument about believing survivors due to someone posting a thing about someone being harassed pervasively in gaming. I think its noticeable even here that people are more willing to believe survivors now, and I take some comfort in that.
some fucking idiot who people only like because he's good at taking credit for the work of everyone under him, just like every other fucking L&L headwiz.
-
@apos Hoo boy, I remember the exact conversation you're talking about. That was a nasty fight.
-
You ought to be angry at being so gosh darn gullible.
... says the token from the party that put forward such stellar candidates as Harriet Miers (withdrawn), Robert Bork (rejected), Harrold Carswell (rejected), and Clement Haynsworth (rejected) in the past 50 years.
Summary:
Miers: Horridly unqualified. Had the good grace to bow out.
Bork: Opposed by the ACLU (like Kavanaugh). Alleged extremist.
Carswell: Alleged racist. Considered "mediocre."
Haynsworth: Allegedly had financial interests in cases he presided over. "Too moderate."The Republican Party has the worst recruitment team when it comes to finding qualified candidates.
Kavanaugh is far more qualified than either Breyer and Thomas, and probably several others who actually sit on the bench.
Of course Kavanaugh's qualifications were never an issue. It's all about left/right politics.
And as you well know, I think Justice Thomas makes great rulings. So much for qualifications.We've talked about this 'empathy' issue before, in regard to judges and other things.
I think the comments made in this thread are quite revealing of the dangers of empathy.
It leads to gullibity.
The show we've been watching here ain't 'The Handmaid's Tale', it's 'The Crucible'.I found Ford's testimony to be unconvincing, devoid of facts, and clearly refuted by her own witnesses.
I'd make a lengthy list here or in the politics forum, but I suspect it's moot.Anyway say hello to Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh.
Trump is wrong. Winning never gets tiring. -
@tyche So, who did you sexually assault? Or watch get sexually assaulted and then slut-shamed them afterwards?
-
@tyche He lied under oath and perjured himself. That alone, should be disqualification.
-
I like to remind myself, when tempted to engage, that trolling has been adopted as a core Republican value.
-
Just seeing how often the reply-@ is flying here, and in what context... holy shit, thank you, 'block' function.
Oh fucking well.
-
@surreality Yeah you don't want any part of that, all they're doing is feeding the well known troll.
-
Kavanaugh has a pitiful litigation record. His testimony at his hearing prior to his diatribe on partisanship reveals this. And Thomas vastly expanded the power of agencies in his decision in Chevron.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, even as a conservative. You really ought to consider sitting the fuck down and not challenging me of all people on constitutional jurisprudence.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
You really ought to consider sitting the fuck down and not challenging me of all people on constitutional jurisprudence.
Are there other topics, besides economics or constitutional law, that you want to invoke argumentum ad verecundiam on?
-
@ganymede Silly Gany, don't you know you're not allowed to know more than someone with a penis?
We just don't have the equipment to understand complicated things like just really liking beer, or working out with your bros, let alone the super-dong-required rocket science territories of law or politics.
-
You really ought to consider sitting the fuck down and not challenging me of all people on constitutional jurisprudence.
Are there other topics, besides economics or constitutional law, that you want to invoke argumentum ad verecundiam on?
How do you think you sound here, @Tyche? Seriously. I'm curious how you think anyone ever, anywhere, besides yourself, would react to reading these last few posts of yours? What on earth are you trying to accomplish?
-
We've talked about this 'empathy' issue before, in regard to judges and other things.
I think the comments made in this thread are quite revealing of the dangers of empathy.I think a little more empathy might have led to different decisions in Korematsu v. United States, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Buck v. Bell, or Plessy v. Ferguson. And Bowers v. Hardwicke might not seem all that old to you, but quite a few voters have been born after it, and it seems pretty alien to them to have so little empathy that it was once established law.
-
Alright, fun's fun, but can we please take this to the Politics thread?
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
@thenomain said in RL Anger:
Alright, fun's fun, but can we please take this to the Politics thread?
Everyone knows the personal is political, but for those without privilege, the political frequently becomes personal. There's a valid reason for anger.