Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_Kevin Graham]

Waterdog: Show me where he lied.

Forum: We did several times

Waterdog: No you didn't.

Forum: Yes we did (numerous examples presented)

Waterdog: Show me specifics. I'm too lazy to go through the entire thread to see where this was shown.

Forum: Then stop damned saying nothing has been presented if you're too lazy to see. It begins with the first post on page one. Sorry if the title of the thread didn't give it away.

[_Some Schmo]

Forum: Then stop damned saying nothing has been presented if you're too lazy to see. It begins with the first post on page one. Sorry if the title of the thread didn't give it away.

LOL

Yeah, it's pretty clear he's a dumb troll.

That's Rapublicans for you: they love to whine the face of victory.

[Alf'Omega]

R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N-S

R-A-P-E

We should have known. It was embedded in the word all along.

[_Chap]

You're playing chess with a Dog, Chap.

Yup. Contrary to the received wisdom, it's pretty damn obvious.

[_Some Schmo]

R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N-S

R-A-P-E

We should have known. It was embedded in the word all along.

Actually, so is P-U-B-I-C, something used as evidence of a rape. And then there's L-I-P-S. And of course, C-R-U-E-L.

If my audience was right wing, I might have a shot at starting a conspiracy theory here.

[_EAllusion]

Bret Kavanaugh celebrated his confirmation by attending a party in his honor on his behalf at Facebook's top lobbyist's house. I had initially thought about that story in terms of how the actual behavior of tech giants completely contradicts the kayfabe narrative of anti-conservative bias. Then it dawned on me, embarrassingly late, how unbelievably inappropriate it is for Kavanaugh to be celebrating his confirmation with the top lobbyist for a company that almost certainly will have cases that potentially could go to the Supreme Court. I chalk it up to numbness.

[_subgenius]

Bret Kavanaugh celebrated his confirmation by attending a party in his honor on his behalf at Facebook's top lobbyist's house. I had initially thought about that story in terms of how the actual behavior of tech giants completely contradicts the kayfabe narrative of anti-conservative bias. Then it dawned on me, embarrassingly late, how unbelievably inappropriate it is for Kavanaugh to be celebrating his confirmation with the top lobbyist for a company that almost certainly will have cases that potentially could go to the Supreme Court. I chalk it up to numbness.

Now we know why RGB refuses to go to any bakery. The only numbness is this "dawned upon you" notion.

[_EAllusion]

Bret Kavanaugh celebrated his confirmation by attending a party in his honor on his behalf at Facebook's top lobbyist's house. I had initially thought about that story in terms of how the actual behavior of tech giants completely contradicts the kayfabe narrative of anti-conservative bias. Then it dawned on me, embarrassingly late, how unbelievably inappropriate it is for Kavanaugh to be celebrating his confirmation with the top lobbyist for a company that almost certainly will have cases that potentially could go to the Supreme Court. I chalk it up to numbness.

Now we know why RGB refuses to go to any bakery. The only numbness is this "dawned upon you" notion.

Care to spell out the argument you are shooting for here? I'm interested to hear how celebrating your confirmation with lobbyists for companies whose cases you likely will make decisions about is the same from a conflict of interest standpoint as interacting with any potential stakeholer in any case which, for a Supreme Court Justice, includes the entire country.

I'm all ears.

[_Kevin Graham]

For those who need to have this "mansplained" to them...

[_honorentheos]

I was being sarcastic. But, I was also alluding to those very real discussions which take place among the left...You act as though I'm pulling this out of my ass. Not to mention a certain leftist country in Asia that has a one child mandatory abortion policy.

You need to learn how sarcasm works.

As for the sexual dreamscape, well, yeah. Look, I am at a place where I personally am frankly onboard with your sexual dreamscape. If I could turn back the clock I'd do my formative years a lot differently. I am not at all afraid of your little dreamscape. None of this changes the point, though. The point remains. You want to change the culture in, say, Utah. For evidence of this all one needs to do is follow John Dehlin's Facebook page. Or check /r/exmormon/ regularly. It's a thing. And you darn well know that.

Again, you need to learn how discussion works. You made a claim about what you believe to be liberal intention, claim it's something you are in favor of, and attribute it to me despite zero comment on my part taking ownership of said claim. You also may want to talk to someone about whatever is going on with this. Just a friendly suggestion.

Our disagreement is over the role the government plays in this process.

Finally.

In my opinion, you fundamentally do not understand the constitution or related concepts like individual liberty. If you think the founders did not believe states should have the right to place limits and impose norms as you say, you're understanding of history is considerably lacking. The founders believed in individual rights, but they also recognized the reality of tribalism. They envisioned lots of mini-democracies in a cooperative union. You believe in a single big government. I do not. The founders did not.

Actually, the ratification of the Constitution was a victory for the Federalists defending a federal government with supremacy over those who argued basically your argument regarding State's rights. The Articles of Confederation were a failure because it tried this idea you imagine to be the vision of the founders. The Bill of Rights was added because individual rights were recognized as a glaring omission and much needed correction. I assume you are familiar with the Federalist Papers which provide great opportunities for reading the founding thoughts in favor of the Constitution against its challengers. You may consider Federalist 45 on the topic -

The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty?