Kavenaugh Hearing Travesty. Dems Obstruct throughout - Page 164 - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

ReplayRandall · 10-07-2018, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

That doesn't surprise me.

Your above quote is actually more interesting than the endless long drivel you cut and pasted earlier......

FantasticDan · 10-07-2018, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Your above quote is actually more interesting than the endless long drivel you cut and pasted earlier......

Reading is hard. Understanding is harder.

zico20 · 10-07-2018, 12:54 PM

Hey Dan, how about this one. Ford knew Kavanaugh during their high school days and when he turned down her sexual advances because she was so damn ugly she held a grudge all these years waiting to pay him back. That is why she is so messed up, she could not have what she craved.

Show Me the Wire · 10-07-2018, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

Proof, provided by FanDan, that reading is difficult and understanding is harder. These tweeters are having a difficult time understanding which basic fact needed to be corroborated by the accuser's named witnesses.

Where is the corroboration for the opportunity for Kavanaugh to assault Ford? Without an opportunity to act, the act cannot occur.

letswastemoney · 10-07-2018, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

fast4522 · 10-07-2018, 01:16 PM

Gee thanks for posting those links, I will treat them just like I do Vigirs links.

Burls · 10-07-2018, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Research has shown that between 10 to 40 % of sexual assault claims prove to be false accusations. Women are human and they can lie too.[/U]

Quit making stuff up to suit your biased opinions, Greyfox.
Are you trying to emulate your hero Doofus Drumph?

The following studies support these findings:

A multi-site study of eight U.S. communities including 2,059 cases of sexual assault found
a 7.1 percent rate of false reports (Lonsway, Archambault, & Lisak, 2009).
A study of 136 sexual assault cases in Boston from 1998-2007 found
a 5.9 percent rate of false reports (Lisak et al., 2010).
Using qualitative and quantitative analysis, researchers studied 812 reports of sexual assault from 2000-2003 and found
a 2.1 percent rate of false reports (Heenan & Murray 2006).

VigorsTheGrey · 10-07-2018, 01:42 PM

https://mediadc.brightspotcdn.com/di...-995028148.jpg

“I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping
While my guitar gently weeps
I look at the floor and I see it needs sweeping
Still my guitar gently weeps.
I don't know why nobody told you
How to unfold your love
I don't know how someone controlled you
They bought and sold you.
I look at the world and I notice it's turning
While my guitar gently weeps
With every mistake we must surely be learning
Still my guitar gently weeps.
I don't know how you were diverted
You were perverted too
I don't know how you were inverted
No one alerted you.
I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping
While my guitar gently weeps
Look at you all
Still my guitar gently weeps.”

Songwriters: George Harrison / John Lennon / Paul McCartney
While My Guitar Gently Weeps lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, The Bicycle Music Company

woodtoo · 10-07-2018, 01:52 PM

Funny you post that song. Joe Dan Gorman has a new video out this weekend
"While my liberal gently weeps....
@ Intellectual Froglegs
I have yet to watch.

boxcar · 10-07-2018, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burls

Some of us have to work for a living, Boxcar.
But I do have time for a couple of quick comments.
First, am I supposed to be impressed by your overconfident dismissals of one side on an issue that I know intelligent and knowledgeable people continue to disagree about? Drop the pontificating Grandpa act. it's tired.

Second, after your definitive pronouncement on what people do and do not have a moral right to do, you attempt to slyly change the subject by insisting that under the Law of the Land, the Senate does have the legal right to "advise or consent" on judicial nominees OR NOT.
Two points here:
1) Surely you are aware that
In response to Republican promises to refuse to consider any Supreme Court nominee this year, 356 law professors and legal scholars have written a letter to the Senate leadership of both parties urging them “to fulfill your constitutional duty to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a prompt and fair hearing and a timely vote.”
The professors, including some of the top constitutional experts in the country, such as Charles Ogletree, Kenji Yoshino, and Laurence Tribe, counter arguments made by Republican senators that the Senate has no obligation to consider the president’s nominee in an election year. The professors declare that,
“This preemptive abdication of duty is contrary to the process the framers envisioned in Article II, and threatens to diminish the integrity of our democratic institutions and the functioning of our constitutional government.

Your interpretation of the relevant single sentence in the US Constitution, considered in complete isolation from its surrounding context - which violates one of the most basic canons for the proper interpretation of legal texts - is questionable at best. So spare me Chuck Grassley's biased interpretation of it, backed up with your carefully chosen links to popular magazines citing 'scholars' from the Cato Institute.
Further, the fact that there are no provisions in the Constitution for addressing malfeasance at the level of the entire Senate doesn't automatically make whatever the Senate chooses to do legal and acceptable.

2) Even if I grant, for the sake of argument that there are no legal prohibitions against the Senate acting in the way it has of late, under McConnell's leadership, this would not undermine my original point that the Repugs in the Senate have engaged in immoral tactics at least as much as the Dim's have. As a result, both sides have forfeited any entitlement to cast moral censure on the other. This was my point all along. Your attempt to mischaracterize my point as a legal claim does not change that.

So put your copy of the US Constitution back into the bib pocket on your overalls and quit pretending to be a Constitutional scholar - you clearly are not. And while you are at it, quit trying to be the fountain of moral wisdom that we all look to. You're not very convincing at that either.

Why don't you enlighten us, Mr. Wanna-be constitutional scholar on what all that context says of which you boast that surrounds my one sentence and how all that context mandates senate action on presidential court nominees.

This clause is referred under USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 2. this provision of the U.S. Constitution reads as:

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments”.

There is not one thing in this clause that mandates Senate action! What the clause actually does, however, is mandate the authority to act with the Senate on certain presidential appointments. Big difference! (In fact, note carefully the verb vest. You may want to get yourself up to speed on its definition before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.)

Since the Senate is not required to exercise its constitutional authority, the constitution implicitly gives the Senate the discretion to act or not act -- to exercise its authority or not exercise it.

Indulge me in another one of my brilliant analogies: The Constitution also vests the Congress (both houses thereof) with the authority/power to make laws. But nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that Congress must make laws. (But if you know of such a place that does require Congress to exercise its authority, then Shirely that place must also mandate how often congress must make laws, or how many laws in a given time period Congress must enact, etc.) Likewise, there is no imperative in the Constitution that requires the Senate to exercise its authority to "advise and consent" on any presidential appointment. The Senate can act or not act at its own discretion.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the Constitution only mandates action to one branch of the government under specific circumstances. The Constitution actually requires the President to either sign or veto congressional legislation within 10 days. And if the President fails to act either way within this time frame, the legislation automatically becomes law.

As far your "original point" goes, the limited context (since you're suddenly so fond of context) of your disparaging remarks about the Republicans specifically had to do with their refusal to give Garland a hearing. So, no, you do not get to move the goal posts by now trying to broaden that context. What you're trying to do is equivocate. You're attempting to distance yourself from the very limited context of your original remarks. How dishonest of you!

But hey...life is good in spite of you sounding like an annoying, loud empty barrel. God has given us all another day of life, and I for one am still basking in God's glorious answer to many saints' prayers that He reveal himself to be righteous and just by turning the hearts of the majority of senators to confirm Kavanangh, and reverse the evil endeavors of the Party of Evil. Praise the Lord!

By the same token, I can understand how this might not be such a good day for you personally. But to show you that I really am a compassionate kinda guy, I have a found a worldly-wise 12-step recovery program for people like yourself who have been chronically suffering from an acute case of blahs, blahs, blahs since the last presidential election, and now made even worse by yesterday's turn of events. Here it is:

12 Self-Care Tips If You're Struggling To Deal With Everything Today

Experts share what you can do for your mental health amid news that Brett Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/self-...b028e1fe3d30ec

And I would really urge you to pay special attention to Step 12. Get the help you obviously need so desperately.

woodtoo · 10-07-2018, 02:07 PM

These symptoms also relate directly to DTS. #12 is very important but #6 should be followed daily when possible.

Greyfox · 10-07-2018, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burls

Quit making stuff up to suit your biased opinions, Greyfox.
Are you trying to emulate your hero Doofus Drumph?

The following studies support these findings:

A multi-site study of eight U.S. communities including 2,059 cases of sexual assault found

8 communities in a population of 325 million? Wow.

I'd hire you in my orchard as a well trained cherry picker.

FantasticDan · 10-07-2018, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zico20

Hey Dan, how about this one. Ford knew Kavanaugh during their high school days and when he turned down her sexual advances because she was so damn ugly she held a grudge all these years waiting to pay him back. That is why she is so messed up, she could not have what she craved.

Did you really just write that? SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP

elysiantraveller · 10-07-2018, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

Did you really just write that? SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP

There have been some really... really... odd posts around here lately.

The Iron Front meme in the political meme thread post was another head-scratcher... assuming people post memes reflecting their bias.

I don't, memes are memes, but most do.

horses4courses · 10-07-2018, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

Did you really just write that? SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP

Probably much too late to do any good.