Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Saturday, October 6. 2018Saturday morning linksThe first people who populated the Americas Book Review: Militant Normals by Kurt Schlichter - How Regular Americans are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracy The West's New Antisemitism Crisis: Why Right Now? Here’s how much Americans trust 38 major news organizations The Problem With #BelieveSurvivors - It’s important to listen to those who come forward—and also to those accused. Scott Adams on Sen. Collins' brilliant speech . "Best speech I've ever seen." Kavanaugh: The Surprise Ending Campus Chaos Has Come to Congress Kavanaugh is the kind of nonpartisan judge we need now Planned Parenthood Threatens Senators Who Vote to Confirm Kavanaugh: ‘We’re Coming for You’ New US nuclear bombs and futuristic stealth aircraft to provide mind-boggling military might Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
QUOTE: In his unprecedented speech following Ford’s testimony, Kavanaugh not only blasted the process but made no pretense when it came to those who had manipulated it—liberal groups, people angry with Donald Trump, people wanting to take revenge for the Clintons. The speech electrified the right. There is no other word for it. Kavanaugh saved his nomination, but at the price of damaging the institution of the Supreme Court. Dale: you should put some ice on that.
That just emphasizes the partisan nature of appointment. In the olden days, appointments were frequently bipartisan affairs. The president would confer with the Senate leadership to find consensus candidates, while the Senate would give deference to reasonable candidates. Consequently, many nominations would sail through with large majorities (e.g. Scalia 99-0). When they didn't confer with the Senate, their nominations were often controversial and contentious. What a story that is. The Republicans would always roll over, for any nominees that a democrat would present. Look up Judg Bork. How ignorant can you get?
B. Hammer: The Republicans would always roll over, for any nominees that a democrat would present.
What? They wouldn't even meet with Merrick Garland, a Democratic nomination, even though he was recommended by many Republicans. B. Hammer: Look up Judg Bork. Bork was considered outside the mainstream, and didn't even think the U.S. Constitution protected a right to privacy. Bork's nomination was followed by Kennedy, who was approved unanimously. The next Republican nomination was Souter, who was approved 90-9. Ignorance is curable.
#1.2.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2018-10-06 10:59
(Reply)
From the governments perspective the only right to privacy is abortion...Borking was all about keeping abortion legal.
#1.2.1.1.1.1
indyjonesouthere
on
2018-10-06 12:23
(Reply)
indyjonesouthere: From the governments perspective the only right to privacy is abortion
The courts have upheld the right to privacy in everything from police searches, to consensual sex by adults, to access to birth control. There are limits to all rights, however.
#1.2.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2018-10-06 12:32
(Reply)
Where is my right to financial privacy or my right to medical privacy?
#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1
indyjonesouthere
on
2018-10-06 12:40
(Reply)
indyjonesouthere: Where is my right to financial privacy ... ?
The fact that the government can demand an accounting of your income isn't due to the courts, but the People, who passed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution authorizing an income tax. In any case, there are legislative protections to protect your financial privacy. indyjonesouthere: or my right to medical privacy? There are also legislative protections concerning your medical history. Perhaps you might expand on your concerns.
#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2018-10-06 12:46
(Reply)
The government demands the private information but is incapable of protecting that information. The IRS administrative state has been show to be corrupt by its last Obama appointee and a recently current aide to democrats outted senators personal information and threatened to out medical information of their children. The administrative state is out of control.
#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
indyjonesouthere
on
2018-10-06 12:59
(Reply)
indyjonesouthere: The government demands the private information but is incapable of protecting that information.
That wasn't your claim. indyjonesouthere: The IRS administrative state has been show to be corrupt by its last Obama appointee Where was privacy breached? Was it legal? If not, why haven't they been prosecuted? indyjonesouthere: and a recently current aide to democrats outted senators personal information and threatened to out medical information of their children. The administrative state is out of control. If you are referring to Jackson Cosko, he was a former Congressional aide, who made an illegal entry into a Congressional office. A staffer caught him, and he was arrested. He wasn't part of the administrative state. He wasn't even employed by the government at the time.
#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2018-10-06 14:54
(Reply)
That is the claim... Have you seen lists of abortion users that have been leaked by or otherwise released to the public by the government? But the administrative state did leak addresses, phone numbers of political rivals and they did discriminate against the tea party demanding contributor lists. How much individual veteran information has been released vs how much individual welfare users information has been accidentally released. There is NO privacy with an administrative state and until they can be severely punished with fines AND firing the individual has no protection from them.
#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
indyjonesouthere
on
2018-10-06 16:35
(Reply)
Again the kiddiez can't or won't get their "facts" straight.
QUOTE: A September 2018 letter from Sheila Jackson Lee (D -TX) identified him as a staffer for her office at that time. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is a member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. ---- Jackson Lee’s office identified Cosko as an intern and said he was fired because of the accusations ---- https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/jackson-cosko/ 😂😂😂
#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2
Zzzzatemypuppies
on
2018-10-06 19:38
(Reply)
indyjonesouthere: That is the claim.
You had said, "From the governments perspective the only right to privacy is abortion". That implies intention. indyjonesouthere: But the administrative state did leak addresses, phone numbers of political rivals .... If you are referring to Jackson Cosko, he was a former Congressional aide, who made an illegal entry into a Congressional office. A staffer caught him, and he was arrested. He wasn't even employed by the government at the time. He was an unpaid political fellow at a different political office. He wasn't part of the administrative state. indyjonesouthere: There is NO privacy with an administrative state and until they can be severely punished with fines AND firing the individual has no protection from them. They can be punished, fired or even charged with a crime.
#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3
Zachriel
on
2018-10-07 11:16
(Reply)
The administrative state employees deserve no more protections than any other worker and should have no union representation as the wages and benefits are paid by taxpayers who have no say in their employment, pay, or benefits. After seeing the Veritas videos these employees should only be able to serve a maximum of 5 years government employment and then kicked to the curb to earn an actually living. The "expert" administrative state is Woodrow Wilsons dream that turned into a nightmare. It needs to be removed...disinfected is not enough.
#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1
indyjonesouthere
on
2018-10-07 14:47
(Reply)
indyjonesouthere: The administrative state employees deserve no more protections than any other worker ...
The civil service system was set up to end the spoils system of doling out government jobs to cronies. indyjonesouthere: and should have no union representation as the wages and benefits are paid by taxpayers who have no say in their employment, pay, or benefits. That is not correct. Citizens vote for representatives who have the power to set pay and conditions of civil service jobs. indyjonesouthere: employees should only be able to serve a maximum of 5 years government employment and then kicked to the curb to earn an actually living. Lacking job security, the government would have trouble acquiring and holding skilled employees. Even the guy who maintains the park has a lot of practical work experience. Perhaps you could point to a state that has a similar process, so we can see how it works.
#1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1
Zachriel
on
2018-10-07 15:23
(Reply)
Garland, Garland, is that all you can come up with? You’re like a broken record. Such intellectual laziness. Nice to know you don’t believe in the Constitution, i.e. advise and consent.
To the political right of Castro, nothing is mainstream for you lefties. Yes Kennedy, how mainstream. He joined the lawlessness, ignoring thousands of years of percent, the will of even a huge majority of Californians, to redefine marriage. Civil unions, wasn’t good enough for the resistance. A judge should rise above the mainstream, adhering to the Constitution and it’s meaning. Resisting the temptation to make law. So Bork was a Constitutionalist much in the way Kavanaugh is. This meant the left had to take him out. He was another scary villain to the, it’s in the Bill of Rights that you can murder your unborn child, crowd. The killing of the unborn, is of utmost importance to the left. Nothing can be allowed to get between a woman and the abortionist. As Ted Kennedy explained, “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.” Ad nauseam. This from a man who, after drunkenly driving his car off a bridge, left a woman to die; drowning in the cold waters of Poucha Pond. While Mary Jo Kopechne lay dying, Teddy is off conspiring with his buddies on how to beat the rap. Justice Ginsberg, we know what a partisan lefty she is, was confirmed 93-3. Even The Wise Latina, who is 6 blocks left of Main Stream St, was confirmed 68-31. I still want to talk to your manager. I think you’re just phoning it in.
#1.2.1.1.1.2
B. Hammer
on
2018-10-07 11:27
(Reply)
B. Hammer: Garland, Garland, is that all you can come up with?
Huh? That was in response to your claim that "The Republicans would always roll over, for any nominees that a democrat would present." Clearly, Garland is a counterexample. B. Hammer: Nice to know you don’t believe in the Constitution, i.e. advise and consent. We support the advice and consent clause of the U.S. Constitution. B. Hammer: To the political right of Castro, nothing is mainstream for you lefties. False. For instance, Scalia's nomination was approved 99-0. That certainly included a few Senators on the political left. B. Hammer: He joined the lawlessness, ignoring thousands of years of percent, the will of even a huge majority of Californians, to redefine marriage. If marriage is given government benefits, then you can't prevent gay couples from enjoying those benefits. B. Hammer: Civil unions, wasn’t good enough for the resistance. A possible compromise was to make all government 'couplings' civil unions, and leave marriage to people's own personal traditions. But this wasn't sufficient for the Christian right. They wanted government benefits and imprimatur from marriage, and wanted to preclude those benefits and imprimatur to gay couples. B. Hammer: So Bork was a Constitutionalist much in the way Kavanaugh is. Bork rejected modern civil rights laws and a century of precedent on civil privacy rights.
#1.2.1.1.1.2.1
Zachriel
on
2018-10-07 11:38
(Reply)
Z: Scalia's nomination was approved 98-0. (Goldwater and Garn didn't vote.)
#1.2.1.1.1.2.2
Zachriel
on
2018-10-07 11:56
(Reply)
My 8-year old daughter: Daddy, why did Zachriel refer to "The Devil's Triangle" every 4 minutes for the past couple of days?
Me: Because he didn't want the Supreme Court to be damaged. My 8-year old daughter: I see. On the other hand, what kind of judge would he be if he couldn't see and state the obvious and what kind of man would he be if he wouldn't defend himself from salacious and spurious charges and what kind of world would it be if doing those things damaged an institution of which he is apart?
And is there no reason to doubt the honesty and decency of a group of people who publicly state they believe the source of those charges and disbelieve the accused before any testimony or evidence is presented? Which institution was damaged here? (Kavanaugh asked “If Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?”, but was righteously indignant when asked about allegations of drunk sexual assault.)
mudbug: On the other hand, what kind of judge would he be if he couldn't see and state the obvious and what kind of man would he be if he wouldn't defend himself from salacious and spurious charges and what kind of world would it be if doing those things damaged an institution of which he is apart? He could do that without raging about partisan conspiracy theories. A "very credible witness" made an accusation against Kavanaugh. Every day people are called to account for heinous acts before the courts, and some of those people are certainly innocent. They still have to maintain decorum before the courts, and are sanctioned if they do not. In this case, Kavanaugh was appointed to the highest court in the land. He is expected to set the standard of behavior. mudbug: Which institution was damaged here? The courts. By reveling in conspiracy theories, Kavanaugh makes it likely that anyone who is a Democrat, on the political left, an anti-Trumper, or a Clinton, would think they could not get a fair hearing before him. With a lower court, at least they would have the right to appeal, but there is no appeal to a Supreme Court decision. Kavanaugh may have saved his seat on the Supreme Court, but it's not just about him, but the continuity and credibility of the institution. His higher duty was to the Court. QUOTE: By reveling in conspiracy theories Such as perjury in regard to the meaning of "The Devil's Triangle" and "boofing"?!? Bill Carson: Such as perjury in regard to the meaning of "The Devil's Triangle" and "boofing"?!?
The conspiracy theory refers to the "revenge on behalf of the Clintons", when the problem was due to the testimony of a "very credible witness". You may want to address our actual points.
#1.4.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2018-10-06 11:16
(Reply)
Given the fact that Democrats tried to - unsuccessfully - derail Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court by conspiring to lie about what he did 36 years ago, your "points" are nonexistent. Protip: Save your energy for all of the whining you're going to do when Ginsberg keels over, as you're gonna need it!
#1.4.1.1.1.1
Bill Carson
on
2018-10-06 11:24
(Reply)
Bill Carson: Given the fact that Democrats tried to - unsuccessfully - derail Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court by conspiring to lie about what he did 36 years ago, your "points" are nonexistent.
"Democrats" didn't make the accusation. A "very credible witness" made the accusation. Kavanaugh decided to make a partisan attack. He saved his nomination, but damaged the institution.
#1.4.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2018-10-06 11:28
(Reply)
There's no place like home. A "very credible witness" ... There's no place like home. A "very credible witness" ...
#1.4.1.1.1.1.1.1
Bill Carson
on
2018-10-06 11:42
(Reply)
Congratulations, Shit-head - your line of thought has made it into the Onion:
https://politics.theonion.com/senator-feinstein-wondering-if-now-a-good-time-to-discl-1829555909?utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_source=Twitter&utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF
#1.4.1.1.1.1.1.2
Bill Carson
on
2018-10-06 11:48
(Reply)
Bill Carson: A "very credible witness" ...
That's a direct quote of President Trump.
#1.4.1.1.1.1.1.3
Zachriel
on
2018-10-06 12:34
(Reply)
Congratulations, continually parroting inanities Shit-head - your line of thought has made it into the Onion:
https://politics.theonion.com/senator-feinstein-wondering-if-now-a-good-time-to-discl-1829555909?utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_source=Twitter&utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF
#1.4.1.1.1.1.1.3.1
Bill Carson
on
2018-10-06 12:46
(Reply)
Not sure how The Onion article relates. A "very credible witness" from Kavanaugh's past made an accusation of sexual assault. That is certainly something that should be considered during the nomination process. Are you suggesting it should have been ignored?
#1.4.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1
Zachriel
on
2018-10-06 12:49
(Reply)
QUOTE: Not sure how The Onion article relates. Let me sketch it out in crayon for you: The Onion story relates - resonates - precisely because you and your arguments made in bad faith are absurd.
#1.4.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1
Bill Carson
on
2018-10-06 13:20
(Reply)
QUOTE: His higher duty was to the Court. Wrong again, kiddiez. His higher duty is to the truth. 😂😂😂 QUOTE: (Kavanaugh asked “If Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?”, but was righteously indignant when asked about allegations of drunk sexual assault.) So what? People who are accused of doing things get asked questions about those things. Here's a question (obtained from here) Prosecutor Mitchell asked Kavanaugh: QUOTE: MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described an incident where you were grinding your genitals on her. Have you ever ground or rubbed your genitals against Dr. Ford? KAVANAUGH: No. Here's another set. QUOTE: MITCHELL: So have you submitted to interviews specifically about Dr. Ford’s allegation? KAVANAUGH: Yes. MITCHELL: And what about Deborah Ramirez’s allegation… KAVANAUGH: Yes. MITCHELL: … that you waved your penis in front of her? KAVANAUGH: Yes. MITCHELL: What about Julie Swetnick’s allegation that you repeatedly engaged in drugging and gang-raping, or allowing women to be gang-raped? KAVANAUGH: Yes. Yes, I’ve been interviewed about it. MITCHELL: Were your answers to my questions today consistent with the answers that you gave to the committee in these various interviews? KAVANAUGH: Yes, ma’am. Zero indignation in Kavanaugh's answers in regard to humiliating questions stemming from totally uncorroborated allegations. You are so full of shit. But no matter: Justice Kavanaugh! Bill Carson: People who are accused of doing things get asked questions about those things.
That's right! Now you got it! (Though it's pretty clear they were attempting to embarrass Clinton.) Bill Carson: Zero indignation in Kavanaugh's answers in regard to humiliating questions stemming from totally uncorroborated allegations. That is not correct. In prepared remarks, Kavanaugh blamed Democrats, people on the political left, anti-Trumpers, and the Clintons. This damages the credibility of the courts because he acts like the partisan that he has been, and it is likely anyone belonging to these groups would think they would not get a fair hearing from a Justice Kavanaugh. He climbed to the highest court by clawing his way up, leaving deep marks behind. His higher duty was to the court. Most people would withdraw so he could "clear his name". But let's hope he can rise above his partisan past to become a judicious and wise Supreme Court justice.
#1.4.1.3.1
Zachriel
on
2018-10-06 11:23
(Reply)
Let's hope that you can read the following without moving your lips:
President Trump. Justice Kavanaugh.
#1.4.1.3.1.1
Bill Carson
on
2018-10-06 11:26
(Reply)
Ah, but you kiddiez keep repeating your same contentious remarks that bear little meaning...
Lightweightzzz. 😂😂😂
#1.4.1.3.1.2
Zzzzatemypuppies
on
2018-10-06 11:31
(Reply)
Until you answer the question posed hours ago further down this page, Gasbot, which is what is the philosophical kernel of original, constitutional structuralism, your very use of "the courts" in your demented context is so preposterous that those two words nullify every load of narrative you've spat here today.
In fact, had you written nothing here today, thereby leaving "the courts" as a functional branch of constitutional thought and purpose, even as much as your boss despises it, it would given you some modicum of rhetorical purchase. Some integrity. Some principle. We call that most supreme form of gaslighting - plucking out a few words and using them precisely 180 degrees out of phase with their meaning, reason, and reality - reverse-speak. The Gasbot reverse-speaks. Oh brother. You people really have lost your minds. The “institution” was damaged long ago. When the first Judge decided, we can make our own law.
What is the price that We the People are paying for the utter hypocrisy, fascistic hate filled, smear campaign brought to us by your fellow travelers from the left? As you have admitted, you aren’t even US citizens, so really, what is your big concern? B. Hammer: The “institution” was damaged long ago. When the first Judge decided, we can make our own law.
Sure. It's all been downhill since 1803. How does telling the truth damage the institution of the Supreme Court? Shouldn't the courts be all about truth? Even when the left is exposed isn't the truth better than their lies?
Anon: How does telling the truth damage the institution of the Supreme Court?
It is possible to defend oneself without being partisan. The fact is that a "very credible witness" made an accusation. And while Democratic partisans may pile on, it's important that he respond to the accusations openly and forthrightly. Most people who respect the process would have withdrawn to "defend their name", but he put his personal ambition before the institution. But what he said was the truth. Even though you don't like the truth it is still the truth. Should he have not reveled that he was targeted by the Democrats for past events? Why not just speak the truth and let the chips fall where they may?
Anon: But what he said was the truth.
No. It's a distortion of the facts. A specific individual from his past made an accusation that many people, including President Trump, considered credible. Pointing to conspiracy theories doesn't increase Kavanaugh's credibility, and actually makes it appear that his partisan opponents will not get a fair hearing before a Kavanaugh court.
#1.6.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2018-10-06 12:37
(Reply)
There was nothing "credible" about Ford's accusations.
But keep beating that dead horse, kiddiez, because y'all have zero credibility here. 😂😂😂
#1.6.1.1.1.1
Zzzzatemypuppies
on
2018-10-06 12:57
(Reply)
Ask Gasbot the following and insist on answers.
1. What is the philosophical kernel of original, constitutional structuralism. 2. That established, how has the right consistently capitulated to the left concerning it? 3. Who pays the Gasbot to gaslight?
#1.6.1.1.1.1.1
Gasbot the Nebulous Partisan Insect.
on
2018-10-06 14:35
(Reply)
QUOTE: Kavanaugh is the kind of nonpartisan judge we need now Haha! This is the guy who blamed Democrats, anti-Trumpers, the Left, and the Clintons for his troubles. Sure, he's non-partisan. Let's hope he can rise above his partisan past to become a judicious and wise Supreme Court justice. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind... for decades to come.
😂😂😂 QUOTE: Haha! This is the guy who blamed Democrats, anti-Trumpers, the Left, and the Clintons for his troubles. Sure, he's non-partisan. Let's hope he can rise above his partisan past to become a judicious and wise Supreme Court justice. Dresden has important thoughts. Dresden also harbors hopes in regard to the RAF and USAAF. Were the accusers partisan and finger pointers partisan?
indyjonesouthere: Were the accusers partisan and finger pointers partisan?
The actual accuser was a "very credible witness", according to President Trump. Senators are partisans, of course. But, per Justice Gorsuch, “There's no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge." And while this may be an unattainable ideal, it is certainly an ideal worth striving for. Kavanaugh made an overtly partisan attack, even penning an editorial in support of his own nomination. He damaged the court in the service of his own ambition. You refuse to answer if the accuser is a partisan being used by other partisans to attack a qualified appointee.
indyjonesouthere: You refuse to answer if the accuser is a partisan being used by other partisans to attack a qualified appointee.
The actual accuser was a "very credible witness", according to President Trump. She apparently discussed the assault with others before Kavanaugh was appointed.
#2.3.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2018-10-06 14:57
(Reply)
The actual accuser said she had witnesses but none of the witnesses witnessed anything...is that credible?
#2.3.1.1.1.1
indyjonesouthere
on
2018-10-06 16:39
(Reply)
Very surprised at Jordan Peterson's response regarding Kavanaugh.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1048320826376740865 More on Peterson
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/10/jordan-peterson-kneecaps-his-defenders.html After, what could be a game changing battle, to just step aside? That makes absolutely no sense. Never heard of Eric Weinstein. He talks about honest people. Where was the honesty form those accusing Kavanaugh? I think the big problem that these so call intellectuals have, is that the Republicans actually fought back. Same problem they have with Trump. And Reagan!
QUOTE: After, what could be a game changing battle, to just step aside? That makes absolutely no sense. Makes no sense whatsoever. Given what has transpired, how could any sane person acting in good faith do as Peterson suggests? Another day, another reason to scratch one's head. Bill Carson: Makes no sense whatsoever.
That's a common symptom of people in the echochamber: They don't understand how or why someone could hold a contrary position. Can't hear the echo chamber over the sound of 50-48!!!!!!!
#3.2.2.1.1
Bill Carson
on
2018-10-06 16:53
(Reply)
A bipartisan vote no less.
😂😂😂
#3.2.2.1.1.1
Zzzzatemypuppies
on
2018-10-06 19:50
(Reply)
Very disappointing. Peterson seemed like one of the rational ones.
Scott Adams chimes in regarding Jordan Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A96sWshmlrA Relieved to hear that Adams sees the "capitulation to those who shamelessly lied after beating those who shamelessly lied, for the good of the country" plan set forth by Peterson as ill-advised.
What a friggin' sham. Hasn't been this much claptrap flying around since the old commie F.D.R. tried to pack the court.
Then there's the "wise Latina". And, of course, the skeleton that can't even hold her head up. Ah yes, the fable of a judicious and wise Supreme Court justice. Nine persons who labor under the delusion that they have every right to legislate from the bench and find meanings in words that don't exist in the Constitution. Campus chaos comes to Congress....Finally Congress may address the university campus by ending all government financed student loans. That should help students and faculty refocus their attention.
Re first people- still think there's much to learn. Been a lot of rumblings about even earlier peoples -potential tools and manipulated bones. Multiple possible sites N and S America (including DNA in some south american populations). I think it's just a matter of time before someone finds a tooth or something. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-evidence-human-activity-north-america-130000-years-ago-180963046/ I understand native americans have a lot of neanderthal. Wouldn't it be interesting if neanderthal were here or someone else - as is now argued about the people of oceana (it may be that instead of denisovan dna they have a yet to be found; except in dna, ancestor). https://www.sciencealert.com/pacific-islanders-appear-to-be-carrying-the-dna-of-an-unknown-human-species Also some oral history of the americas claim earlier peoples. I have long wondered if Western stories of elves, trolls and giants are the ancient residual memory of the time when different hominins lived and mixed.
o crud. Is there no escape from that Zachriel thing? This used to be an excellent site and has descended into a virtual orgy of idiocy.
And did I see above "As you have admitted, you aren’t even US citizens, so really, what is your big concern?" Give us an answer, please, Zachriel, WTF are you doing here? What is your big concern? No??? Then STFU or FOAD! Angel of Memory LOLOLOL Charley Hua Chu: Zachriel, WTF are you doing here? What is your big concern?
We are "inquiring, skeptical". Our concern is truth, particularly demonstrable facts. For instance, if someone claims the Earth is fixed, it's not enough to simply counter that the Earth moves, but rather, we would post on how we know the Earth moves. We engage in longer discussions because others apparently find them of value. Meanwhile, there is comment threading on the blog, so it's easy to ignore threads you find uninteresting. Not a single of those loads of treacle are even remotely true, Gasbot. They're narrative. Advertising. Dishonest marketing.
Who pays you? The Left committed suicide, and everyone knows it. The whole country is now aware that this attack on Kavanaugh was Fake and orchestrated by the Democrats, the leftist media, and un-credible accusers with nothing to back up their wild allegations. There's a huge red wave coming in November against the slimeballs. And while they could have had a moderate in Kavanaugh on the Court, in terms of them trying to literally destroy his life I wouldn't hold out any hope for him being a centrist now.
Jim: And while they could have had a moderate in Kavanaugh on the Court, in terms of them trying to literally destroy his life I wouldn't hold out any hope for him being a centrist now.
There's your judicial temperament, right there. "You sowed the wind for decades to come." Brett Kavanaugh Can't even get the quote right.
How does losing feel, kiddiez? 😂😂😂 Cheers, mofos!
Now tap the keg. Time to celebrate. 😂😂😂 "There's your judicial temperament, right there."
------------------------------------------ That's all thanks to you and your friends, Zoros. How does it feel to spend $250 million on screwing up the confirmation process and getting nothing for it? Except the deep anger of the American people. Planned Parenthood wants to kill unborn babies, and a Supreme Court Justice candidate, too.
Right Sam.
What's wrong with aborting a baby in the 150th trimester? |
Tracked: Oct 07, 09:57
Tracked: Oct 07, 10:38
Tracked: Oct 07, 11:06