Page 18 of 26 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526 LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 381

Thread: Is everyone ready and excited to have a second (knowed) rapist on the supreme court of the US?

  1. #256
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    The Flow
    Oratio
    30,198

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    I've recently been educated that it's not "equality" but "equity" that's the goal.
    Yup, the progressive movement has shifted from being progressive to being regressive.
    I can delete you, one click and you're overwritten.

 

  • #257
    Religipster Enkhidu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Dayton
    Oratio
    7,101

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    I've recently been educated that it's not "equality" but "equity" that's the goal. By a grievance studies researcher, even. Actually, nice enough person, and will discuss things -- to a point. Refreshingly not as 'REEE' as most.
    I'm fascinated by the goalpost shifting inherent in that kind of stance.

  • #258
    Religipster Enkhidu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Dayton
    Oratio
    7,101

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by kirinke View Post
    The old paradigm should have gone out with phrenology. Men are not inherently better or worse than women. Different yes, better or worse? No.
    Recognizing that men and women are different - and then allowing for differences in specific treatment between the sexes in order to accommodate those differences - is a looming issue that I think we'll end up leaving to the next generation.

  • #259
    self admitted prolifer kirinke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    To the left of reality. Behind reason. Right next to the backside of beyond.
    Oratio
    7,644

    Ignore User
    Accommodation is one thing. Discrimination and using it as an excuse is something else again.
    Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

    I is before E except after C, then it's chaos man, mass chaos! Letters coming together into words, but then you go English and they put U's in places that just shouldn't go there... AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

    My sanity left town along time ago and didn't leave a forwarding address. It's not missed.

  • #260
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully View Post
    A great victory for the common American man, who has approximately 0.01 % chance to become accused of being a rapist, and a 0.01 % chance of losing a prestigious job chance as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (~267,000 S $ a year) to merely be a United States Circuit Judge of the Appeal Courts (merely ~220,600 $ a year).
    One has to imagine the horror he would have to live through if he hadn't been appointed and some other equally qualified conservative judge would have gotten that position!
    1%, .1% or .01%. There is no number where it is okay to treat the accused as if he were guilty without evidence backing up the accusation.

  • #261
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMaxperson View Post
    1%, .1% or .01%. There is no number where it is okay to treat the accused as if he were guilty without evidence backing up the accusation.
    We were not talking about putting someone in prison. We don't even have to determine "guilt". We have only to determine if the candidate should be considered suited for the job, which is often more a political determination than anything else.

    We were talking about someone not getting a higher prestigious and influential position that most people have no chance of obtaining.
    I mean, what was Obama's candidate being refused for? For being an alleged serial murder? No, he was not given a chance to become judge because he was a democrat. That's not even an accusation of a crime! How was he stopped from getting his position? By a fillibuster? There wasn't even an FBI investigation on whether he might be a democrat!
    If you can refuse someone the position on the Supreme Court on such irrelevant grounds, why would a credible but non-provable accusation of rape not be enough reason to pick a different candidate?

  • #262
    consequences 3catcircus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Province
    New Jersey
    Oratio
    4,167

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully View Post
    We were not talking about putting someone in prison. We don't even have to determine "guilt". We have only to determine if the candidate should be considered suited for the job, which is often more a political determination than anything else.

    We were talking about someone not getting a higher prestigious and influential position that most people have no chance of obtaining.
    I mean, what was Obama's candidate being refused for? For being an alleged serial murder? No, he was not given a chance to become judge because he was a democrat. That's not even an accusation of a crime! How was he stopped from getting his position? By a fillibuster? There wasn't even an FBI investigation on whether he might be a democrat!
    If you can refuse someone the position on the Supreme Court on such irrelevant grounds, why would a credible but non-provable accusation of rape not be enough reason to pick a different candidate?
    You missed the part where the Obama administration had Sotomayor and Kagan confirmed to the SCOTUS. You also missed the part where Merrick Garland *didn't* have his name drug through the mud in an attempt to prevent his appointment.

    The fact that Ariel Dumas tweeted that she was glad that they ruined Kavanaugh's life tells you all you need to know about radical leftist thinking. They don't care one iota about whether or not the guy is qualified or deserves consideration. They don't care if Kavanaugh's accusers were even credible (they were not - with Ford being a known Dem operative, Swetnick a known grifter who'd been sued for false claims, and Ramirez's credibility being such that the NYT refused to run her story.) All they care about is a slavish pavlovian adherence to radical leftist dogma. And what do you do with such rabid dogs besides put them down. Christ, these people probably couldn't even articulate what they are protesting against or why.

    Hint - just because a non-white male claims some type of grievance doesn't mean you should give the claim any more creedence. People don't automagically become believable just because they identify as being part of the "grievance class."
    Last edited by 3catcircus; October 8th, 2018 at 10:43 AM.

  • #263
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully View Post
    We were not talking about putting someone in prison. We don't even have to determine "guilt". We have only to determine if the candidate should be considered suited for the job, which is often more a political determination than anything else.
    No. We're talking about treating someone as if they are guilty and should be sent to prison over something with zero evidence. The whole "we don't have to determine guilt" is BS. They HAVE determined guilt, or perhaps you haven't been paying attention to what the left has been saying about "putting a rapist on the bench".

    This is also not like a normal job interview, where there are thousands or tens of thousands of people that nobody knows about for me to pick a new candidate from. If I'm hiring a hamburger cook and I there's a chance he's a rapist, I can just go to my next private application and pick someone else. The Supreme Court involves a very few, very public figures. There are at least million crazy people each on the extreme left and extreme right of the political spectrum in a country the size of America. If we show them that a completely unsubstantiated accusation can keep someone off of the court, you will see crazy people from the opposing faction make unsubstantiated accusations for no other reason than to keep the other side from succeeding with their nominee. We saw with this nomination when crazy left Swetnik came out with her false accusation, and two crazy right men came out and claimed to be the one to assault Ford.

    I mean, what was Obama's candidate being refused for?
    No good reason at all. The Republicans were assholes for doing what they did to Garland. Two wrongs don't make a right, though.

    If you can refuse someone the position on the Supreme Court on such irrelevant grounds, why would a credible but non-provable accusation of rape not be enough reason to pick a different candidate?
    It's unfortunate, but there's no built in way to hold the Republicans accountable.

    As for whether the accusation of rape against Kavanaugh was credible. She herself was a credible witness, but memory degrades quickly, even for people in traumatic experiences. The Innocence Project has had 300 innocent people freed. Of those 300, 210 were sent to prison by eye witnesses who swore with absolute certainty that the innocent person was the one who committed the crime. That includes at least one woman who was raped being absolutely sure that the innocent man was the one who raped her.

    A study was done that included those 300, plus more, dealing with memory and trials. It determined that memory immediately after the crime was reliable, but even a year or two later during a trial it was frequently altered and unreliable. As such, they said witness testimony should not be allowed that long after the crime. A memory 35 years later is even worse, as we saw with Ford who could not remember tons of details about that night.

    So yes, while she herself was credible in her testimony regarding being assaulted, treating the accusation against Kavanaugh as credible isn't something a reasonable person should do. Especially at the risk of the entire Supreme Court nomination process.
    Last edited by MrMaxperson; October 8th, 2018 at 01:02 PM.

  • #264
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,409

    Ignore User
    A teacher was asking on Twitter who is going to take one for the team and assassinate Kavanaugh. Not going to link to articles because they are doxxing her and that isn't OK either.

    Edit: Here is an article which does not dox the person.
    Last edited by Mistwell; October 8th, 2018 at 06:01 PM.
    I like hats.

  • #265
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,176

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully View Post
    We were not talking about putting someone in prison. We don't even have to determine "guilt". We have only to determine if the candidate should be considered suited for the job, which is often more a political determination than anything else.

    We were talking about someone not getting a higher prestigious and influential position that most people have no chance of obtaining.
    I mean, what was Obama's candidate being refused for? For being an alleged serial murder? No, he was not given a chance to become judge because he was a democrat. That's not even an accusation of a crime! How was he stopped from getting his position? By a fillibuster? There wasn't even an FBI investigation on whether he might be a democrat!
    If you can refuse someone the position on the Supreme Court on such irrelevant grounds, why would a credible but non-provable accusation of rape not be enough reason to pick a different candidate?
    You're right, it's political. If the Democrats had voted Kavanaugh down, that would be that. Any reason is valid with politics. However, when you pull up Garland, Garland was never given the 'job interview' at all -- the politics were to not fill the position and didn't involve Garland a bit. The Kavanaugh thing, though, was that he made it through the process, but before there was a vote, there was an orchestrated character assassination to try to derail the process with extra-procedural claims. This wasn't a case of the usual politics, like Garland or even a similar thing with Thomas (who's allegations were made during the confirmation process, not after), but a new and extremely personal effort to win the game of politics. This goes above and beyond.

    If your question is whether or not a reason is good enough to not vote for Kavanaugh, the answer is that it's politics, any reason is good enough. If, however, you want to justify the 11th hour allegations and character assassination as just politics, we have a difference of opinion in what's acceptable under the banner of politics. If the Dems had managed to block the appointment of Kavanaugh, more power to them, but they failed to do that within the normal process and so tried this, and that's dirty pool. That the usual idiots on both sides are lapping it up is really just the fucking icing on this shit sandwich.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #266
    Friendly Coffee Kzach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Province
    Melbourne
    Oratio
    9,732

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMaxperson View Post
    No. We're talking about treating someone as if they are guilty and should be sent to prison over something with zero evidence.
    No. Only fuckwits like you are talking about it as if that's a real thing because otherwise, you have to own up to your own bullshit and privilege.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Wickett View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I'm mostly with Spoony.

  • #267
    Quote Originally Posted by Kzach View Post
    No. Only fuckwits like you are talking about it as if that's a real thing because otherwise, you have to own up to your own bullshit and privilege.
    You're a fucking fascist. That video is not evidence of Kavanaugh's guilt. It sucks that women feel they have to do those things, and we need to make changes so that they don't have to do those things, but one of those changes is not becoming a fascist state by assuming guilt based on nothing more than an accusation.

  • #268
    Friendly Coffee Kzach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Province
    Melbourne
    Oratio
    9,732

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMaxperson View Post
    ...but one of those changes is not becoming a fascist state by assuming guilt based on nothing more than an accusation.
    You really are retarded. I hope you get the healthcare services you need despite the fact that you vote against that sort of thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Wickett View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I'm mostly with Spoony.

  • #269
    Quote Originally Posted by Kzach View Post
    You really are retarded. I hope you get the healthcare services you need despite the fact that you vote against that sort of thing.

  • #270
    pug cat! the Jester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    In the snow
    Oratio
    8,254

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMaxperson View Post
    1%, .1% or .01%. There is no number where it is okay to treat the accused as if he were guilty without evidence backing up the accusation.
    If you were running a business, and you were interviewing someone for a job, and multiple people came out and accused him of stealing from previous employers and yet had not taken him to court over it, are you saying you'd ignore that when deciding whether to hire him?

    You, and many others on the right, keep trying to pretend that the same standards should apply to a job interview as in a trial. The two are entirely different.
    Spoiler Alert!

  • Page 18 of 26 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •