Kavanaugh Confirmation

They all know, it's just more expedient to play the naive idiot. In other news, Felice and Boudeaux Bryant claim that "get their corn from a jar" means they really like popcorn. After all, you know how crazy those music people and their silly lyrics can be.

Funny to see all of the celebration over a known perjurer being sworn in as a SCJ......MAGA.

Is this still about the yearbook stuff? I don't read every publication so it would be quite easy for me to miss, but have any of his HS classmates come forward claiming those terms meant something different? I know his freshman year college roommate with whom he had a contentious relationship has come forward to refute their meaning, but what about actual HS classmates? I'm just curious.
 
They all know, it's just more expedient to play the naive idiot. In other news, Felice and Boudeaux Bryant claim that "get their corn from a jar" means they really like popcorn. After all, you know how crazy those music people and their silly lyrics can be.

Funny to see all of the celebration over a known perjurer being sworn in as a SCJ......MAGA.
"Known perjurer"? Here's your shot. Show the evidence.
 
I would worry about the sanity of anyone who didn't question Trump.

Wait what ? None of them are there to question anyone but the lawyers presenting their case . Just like you can’t or shouldn’t base your decisions on what other countries do .
 
That was an admission to lack of substance. "We all know he did" is an incorrect answer to "prove it".
I know what they mean and if he put them in his yearbook then he should too. Maybe his school had different word uses than every other one. It's possible I guess

Can I prove it? Of course not. Do I truly believe he lied to get out of an uncomfortable answer? I do
 
He's on record and it is scary in my opinion. I'm not sure you do know what I'm talking about
I'm not sure a LOT of people on both sides fully understand the issues involved with broad data collection. It feels like it's considered a given in a Patriot Act world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
I know what they mean and if he put them in his yearbook then he should too. Maybe his school had different word uses than every other one. It's possible I guess

Can I prove it? Of course not. Do I truly believe he lied to get out of an uncomfortable answer? I do

You know what they meant to people you don't know 34 years ago? You're good.


But that's not evidence. That's personal credulity. And "I truly believe" is a LONG way from "he absolutely lied". You really should be more careful with that. That would make you the liar.
 
it gets to principle - if you have a problem with one you should have a problem with the other if you are sincerely concerned with the issue of bias rather than something else. Team shouldn't matter when it comes to principle.
I am more worried about his interpretation of the Constitution than how he would handle a Democrat. Of course that is just not discussed much in this here locker room

If we're honest every nominee is beholden to their nominating party.
 
Is this still about the yearbook stuff? I don't read every publication so it would be quite easy for me to miss, but have any of his HS classmates come forward claiming those terms meant something different? I know his freshman year college roommate with whom he had a contentious relationship has come forward to refute their meaning, but what about actual HS classmates? I'm just curious.
Not sure. The college roommate claims to have heard him and his friends use the terms. The meaning within the context used in the yearbook should be clear to all, but it can't be proven so lets play dumb. The time for debating this whole thing is over. What's done is done. Some think today was great. Some (including me) think today was a travesty. Let the great divide widen. I'm going to go pop some corn from the jar.
 
You know what they meant to people you don't know 34 years ago? You're good.


But that's not evidence. That's personal credulity. And "I truly believe" is a LONG way from "known perjurer". You really should be more careful with that.
Yes I do since I was alive then and in school. I've spoken with others who agree with the interpretation.

I don't need to be careful with anything.
 
I am more worried about his interpretation of the Constitution than how he would handle a Democrat. Of course that is just not discussed much in this here locker room

If we're honest every nominee is beholden to their nominating party.

Oh yes it’s discussed , and it always comes down to ok what’s your plan , well I don’t have one and don’t know how to fix it . Soooo what’s your plan ?
 
I am more worried about his interpretation of the Constitution than how he would handle a Democrat. Of course that is just not discussed much in this here locker room

If we're honest every nominee is beholden to their nominating party.

So, your logic is literally just that you're concerned because a Democrat wasn't confirmed. Gotcha.
 
I am more worried about his interpretation of the Constitution than how he would handle a Democrat. Of course that is just not discussed much in this here locker room

If we're honest every nominee is beholden to their nominating party.

on the first point - why put up all this "vindictiveness" nonsense if your real beef is his judicial philosophy. that's what drove me most crazy about this process is how many people fundamentally disagreed with his JP but used personal destruction tactics to argue against him instead of arguing JP. Attack the judging; not the person.

Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy, Roberts, Stephens all disappointed the party that nominated them. I'm quite sure there are examples where "left" judges did the same to those that nominated them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
Yes I do since I was alive then and in school. I've spoken with others who agree with the interpretation.

I don't need to be careful with anything.

You knew them? I was alive then as well. I didn't know them.

Did you know that someone in this thread posted a link to a link to a google book that listed "boof" as farting?

You don't know what you think you know and you shouldn't post your suspicions as absolutes. It makes you look ignorant and unthinking. Thus, the recommendation to be more careful with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
So, your logic is literally just that you're concerned because a Democrat wasn't confirmed. Gotcha.
No because I don't buy into team politics. I'm concerned by his statements that are on record. Cruz and Paul shared those concerns for a while
 
No because I don't buy into team politics. I'm concerned by his statements that are on record. Cruz and Paul shared those concerns for a while

but these are judicial philosophy - not vindictiveness or you thinking he lied about boofing.

why not lead with your real problems with the nominee?
 
You know what they meant to people you don't know 34 years ago? You're good.


But that's not evidence. That's personal credulity. And "I truly believe" is a LONG way from "he absolutely lied". You really should be more careful with that. That would make you the liar.
Are you saying there is something wrong with being a liar? Just say 3 Hail Mary's and cut my taxes.
 

VN Store



Back
Top