You’re not that bird?
Dafuq -___-’
I can’t copy your quote on mobile, but commenting on you bringing up him being family man and daughters. Why is this relevant? Does it make you somehow more qualified than say a lesbian with a wife?
Iceland for example has a lesbian prime minister, and as far as I know her personal life has no bearing on her competence
1 Like
She has a similar posting style. It was a fair assumption.
Many people do not take adults without children seriously. Many - and in all cultures. Same with many Americans, especially Republicans (some Democrats, too).
Having healthy daughters and a healthy marriage is a reliable sign of good character. That BK is accused of being a rapist and a drunk flies in the face of such a family. While there are plenty of dysfunctional families that appear healthy on the surface, it’s still to his credit that they look healthy and happy together in public.
That is fascinating. I don’t know how it’s relevant to Kavanaugh or the US Supreme Court, but it’s undoubtedly fascinating.
This all sounds a bit illegal where I come from.
You can’t discrimate based on ones family status, ones previous work should speak for itself where I come from.
Serious question, in normal jobs, is it legal in the us to factor in marital/family status when hiring ?
We’re talking at cross-purposes. I’m talking about how people behave, you are talking about how government tries to make them behave.
Despite what government may deem legal, many adults do not respect other adults who are childless. Some adult humans don’t really care if that’s the fault of the childless adult or not, but probably not most. The fact remains that in many cultures if you don’t have children there will be many adults who don’t extend their full respect. Nothing government can do about it.
A single gender Supreme Court? But that would mean the end of civilization! 
Just like the ~180 years in which it already happened! 
If every single nominee one party chooses is accused of sex crimes, or any crimes, but it never happens to other nominees, that means either that that party makes terrible choices, or it’s a conspiracy. If one nominee is accused of sex crimes, and the evidence is still unclear, the reasonable thing to do is to keep an open mind.
(Also, if Shia wants to play pot and kettle, what about Merrick?)
Not sure how old you are either! 
It’s sometimes said in Canadian media that Canada should become more European and less American, but if Americans hear that and agree with it, it’s their choice to agree. I recall hearing the same sort of thing from Bernie, and from the Simpsons. In one episode they tried going to Cuba for health care but got mixed up with gangsters. In another they went to Denmark for health care and basically spent the whole episode praising every aspect of the country, but in the end they decided they didn’t want to put with small bathrooms, small washing machines, and lack of sunlight.
Fify.
Are you arguing against the almighty Free Market?! 
@IbisWtf the incitement to armed revolution by that Tea Partier in 2016 matters because the guy was someone people had heard of. But random tweeters we’ve never heard of – who has time for that?
Noli timere, Bigge. People judge you by your name first and foremost. Then they judge you by your wife…
I should have qualified that by saying instead “by all accounts, according to all who know him …”
Also, I completely ignore anyone who knows Kavanaugh and who came forward during the recent Democrat shitstorm. Prior to that time, many people were willing to come forward and give their personal opinion of him and his character. I never heard of anybody, prior to this summer, who publicly stated he was a bad guy. Nobody said he was argumentative, a drunk, an argumentative drunk, a serial rapist, an assaulter of young women, or even that he cheats at baseball. By all accounts that I know of given during the time prior to summer, he is well-loved.
Brett wasn’t addressing the nation about his drinking until recently. Why come forward to deny something before it’s even stated?
Why haven’t Republicans unencoded it? It’s not like they’ve lacked legislative majorities.
I don’t even know where to start. What counts as “many”?
Many people don’t take monks or nuns seriously, but it’s usually not because of their lack of children. In fact, they tend to be taken less seriously if they do have children.
Many people don’t take the current Pope seriously, and he faces opposition in his own country too, yet there he is, still in office.
Many people don’t take Madame English seriously, but they rarely mention her lack of children as a reason. (Hung-hsiu’s lack of children is not sufficient to explain people not taking her seriously either.)
Lizzie I faced serious opposition her whole reign, partly because of her religious position that didn’t quite satisfy either of the two main factions, and partly because she was a woman in a male-dominated profession. She decided to adopt a “virgin queen” persona, so she would be taken more seriously. (There was and still is speculation that she actually did have one or more children. Saying so would have gotten you locked up or worse.)
Seconded. As a bonus, it’s the easiest way to get me to shut up. 
And to whichever Honorable Cow it was who said I would be back, no, moving these posts to IP doesn’t count! 
Relevant to the original topic
[insert picture of Icon’s head turning towards the guy with the turned head]
Hows this related to…reads comment again.
ohhhhhhh, my apologies too for hijacking original thread, please feel free to move it.
current year
worrying about the original topic
Partly a screw up by Obama and Co, and the GOP fighting it…but that is what has just happened in reverse no? Interesting to note that Garland and Kavanaugh voted the same way in 93% of cases they sat on together. Plus , I believe it is the Presidents choice. Thereafter up to the other bodies involved. Are you implying that the GOP is guilty of employing Dem tactics ? Enlighten me .
Garland and Kavanaugh respect each other a great deal. I thought it was political grandstanding though when the Dem-tards criticized Republican handling of Garland. There have been numerous occasions in the last year of presidencies going back decades when both Dems and Repubs have mentioned there is a snowball`s chance in hell that the person will be confirmed. When O-bummer nominated Garland he must have known the chances were slim.
The Dems politicized it unnecessarily while fully recognizing they have done it themselves multiple times (i.e. not conforming in a 4th year of a presidency). To me, that is cheap PT Barnum showmanship to play it virgin white in their outrage (as if they have never done the dirty deed before) and, if anything, they opened Pandora`s stinky box decades earlier with their nasty handling of Bork and Thomas. In other words, they have no reason to cry. They just need to look in the mirror.
Glenn Kessler and Aaron Blake of the Washington Post note that senators of both political parties—such as Mitch McConnell and Pat Leahy—frequently flip-flop on the issue of judicial nominations in presidential election years, alternately invoking the Thurmond Rule and denying its validity, depending on which party controls the Senate and the White House.
I said if you want to play pot & kettle. I don’t really have time. 
Peace to all Aliens. I think you know my point and I accept yours also. Where you go , we all go YYY 
1 Like
I don’t think you want to go to Rigel VII until the war ends (and then only if the non-human-eating side wins), but whatever. 
By then we may all be Robots…Win win 
Don’t count on it
1 Like