No I am not aware of the context. Context does not excuse sexism.B.A. Bearacus said:
You're well aware of the context: stuffing this nominee through is a sham. Btw, I think Merrick Garland has a nice voice.
Why? Since when was religious belief a disqualifier? Should a Muslim or Jewish candidate not be deemed qualified by a Christian senator? Isn't she intelligent, honest, experienced, and educated enough? Now they have to pass your right religion test? I would never put a candidate up to that standard, and never have.bearister said:
As Bill Maher might say, "I tease the good Judge." It is more uplifting than discussing the serious as a heat attack downside of a Right Wing Catholic wielding the power she is going to have.
The sham is McConnell basically saying "heads I win, tails you lose." It's wrong to push a nomination in an election year . . . unless my party is in charge, in which case it's A-OK! If Garland had actually gotten a vote there would be much less complaining about Barrett.calbear93 said:
What was a sham was the turtle of a man not putting Garland's nomination up for a vote. And the left was rightfully angry about that stunt, because that was BS. What is also BS is the same people who complained about that stunt by Mr. Turtle now saying this process is a sham. Which is it? Did Obama try to push through a sham nomination and McConnell rightfully put a stop to Obama's overreach or was McConnell wrong to not put Obama's nomination up for a vote? Can't have it both ways.
Garland should have gotten a vote and should have been judged based on his qualification (which he had aplenty). So should Barrett. But don't say it is wrong to put a candidate up for a vote in an election year now when there was so much outrage on Garland. At least be honest and say, we are spiteful and to hell with principle.sycasey said:The sham is McConnell basically saying "heads I win, tails you lose." It's wrong to push a nomination in an election year . . . unless my party is in charge, in which case it's A-OK! If Garland had actually gotten a vote there would be much less complaining about Barrett.calbear93 said:
What was a sham was the turtle of a man not putting Garland's nomination up for a vote. And the left was rightfully angry about that stunt, because that was BS. What is also BS is the same people who complained about that stunt by Mr. Turtle now saying this process is a sham. Which is it? Did Obama try to push through a sham nomination and McConnell rightfully put a stop to Obama's overreach or was McConnell wrong to not put Obama's nomination up for a vote? Can't have it both ways.
B.A. Bearacus said:
Bearister, after graduating from Cal, could you have been in a long term relationship (over one year) with a lady who had ACB's voice or would that have been a dealbreaker?
Agreed, McConnell should just admit that he is spiteful and lacking principle.calbear93 said:Garland should have gotten a vote and should have been judged based on his qualification (which he had aplenty). So should Barrett. But don't say it is wrong to put a candidate up for a vote in an election year now when there was so much outrage on Garland. At least be honest and say, we are spiteful and to hell with principle.sycasey said:The sham is McConnell basically saying "heads I win, tails you lose." It's wrong to push a nomination in an election year . . . unless my party is in charge, in which case it's A-OK! If Garland had actually gotten a vote there would be much less complaining about Barrett.calbear93 said:
What was a sham was the turtle of a man not putting Garland's nomination up for a vote. And the left was rightfully angry about that stunt, because that was BS. What is also BS is the same people who complained about that stunt by Mr. Turtle now saying this process is a sham. Which is it? Did Obama try to push through a sham nomination and McConnell rightfully put a stop to Obama's overreach or was McConnell wrong to not put Obama's nomination up for a vote? Can't have it both ways.
Now she's a Nazi? OK, you seem very sane indeed.bearister said:B.A. Bearacus said:
Bearister, after graduating from Cal, could you have been in a long term relationship (over one year) with a lady who had ACB's voice or would that have been a dealbreaker?
Deal breaker:
Non deal breaker:
He is. And it is being proven that the liberal senators are no better than Mr. Turtle whom I despise.sycasey said:Agreed, McConnell should just admit that he is spiteful and lacking principle.calbear93 said:Garland should have gotten a vote and should have been judged based on his qualification (which he had aplenty). So should Barrett. But don't say it is wrong to put a candidate up for a vote in an election year now when there was so much outrage on Garland. At least be honest and say, we are spiteful and to hell with principle.sycasey said:The sham is McConnell basically saying "heads I win, tails you lose." It's wrong to push a nomination in an election year . . . unless my party is in charge, in which case it's A-OK! If Garland had actually gotten a vote there would be much less complaining about Barrett.calbear93 said:
What was a sham was the turtle of a man not putting Garland's nomination up for a vote. And the left was rightfully angry about that stunt, because that was BS. What is also BS is the same people who complained about that stunt by Mr. Turtle now saying this process is a sham. Which is it? Did Obama try to push through a sham nomination and McConnell rightfully put a stop to Obama's overreach or was McConnell wrong to not put Obama's nomination up for a vote? Can't have it both ways.
Sorry, going with my boy Hammurabi on this one.calbear93 said:No I am not aware of the context. Context does not excuse sexism.B.A. Bearacus said:
You're well aware of the context: stuffing this nominee through is a sham. Btw, I think Merrick Garland has a nice voice.
And the nomination or putting her up for a vote in an election year is not a sham. It is the constitutional duty.
What was a sham was the turtle of a man not putting Garland's nomination up for a vote. And the left was rightfully angry about that stunt, because that was BS. What is also BS is the same people who complained about that stunt by Mr. Turtle now saying this process is a sham. Which is it? Did Obama try to push through a sham nomination and McConnell rightfully put a stop to Obama's overreach or was McConnell wrong to not put Obama's nomination up for a vote? Can't have it both ways.
No, he should not have that much power. He should not have any power.B.A. Bearacus said:calbear93 said:No I am not aware of the context. Context does not excuse sexism.B.A. Bearacus said:
You're well aware of the context: stuffing this nominee through is a sham. Btw, I think Merrick Garland has a nice voice.
And the nomination or putting her up for a vote in an election year is not a sham. It is the constitutional duty.
What was a sham was the turtle of a man not putting Garland's nomination up for a vote. And the left was rightfully angry about that stunt, because that was BS. What is also BS is the same people who complained about that stunt by Mr. Turtle now saying this process is a sham. Which is it? Did Obama try to push through a sham nomination and McConnell rightfully put a stop to Obama's overreach or was McConnell wrong to not put Obama's nomination up for a vote? Can't have it both ways.
Also, Jared Kushner has a terrible voice, should not have this much power, and is not a real man.
Bearister -- like Domino's, you delivered. Thanks for the solid chuckle.bearister said:Deal breaker:B.A. Bearacus said:
Bearister, after graduating from Cal, could you have been in a long term relationship (over one year) with a lady who had ACB's voice or would that have been a dealbreaker?
Non deal breaker:
bearister said:B.A. Bearacus said:
Bearister, after graduating from Cal, could you have been in a long term relationship (over one year) with a lady who had ACB's voice or would that have been a dealbreaker?
Deal breaker:
Non deal breaker:
No not really...Sorry that he/she is back.AunBear89 said:
Nice to see calbear93 is back.
No offense, been when was the last time you had your eyes checked? Linda Carter, in her prime, could seal any deal.82gradDLSdad said:bearister said:B.A. Bearacus said:
Bearister, after graduating from Cal, could you have been in a long term relationship (over one year) with a lady who had ACB's voice or would that have been a dealbreaker?
Deal breaker:
Non deal breaker:
Linda Carter has never broken any deals for me.
Unless there is some hidden skeleton, the Dems are gonna not go after her, but instead talk about the unfairness of the nomination process, what happened to Garland, and that the GOP is packing the court. Rinse and repeat. They need the female vote. The need the mom vote (dad is voting for the guys). They need to win this election, They are not going after a mom, no less a mom with 2 black kids.bearister said:
" Context does not excuse sexism."
I bet you were overcome with empathy when Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was victimized by sexism when she accused the "I like Beer" Justice of sexual assault. You know, the guy Senator Harris made cry during the Confirmation Hearing.
*He cried for the same reason Dan White cried during his confession. Guilty as f@uck and felt sorry for himself.
How was she victimized by sexism? She may have been a victim of sexual assault just like Reade may have been a victim of sexual assault? Or did you think the left dismissing the claim made by Reade represented sexism? Was that your thinking?bearister said:
" Context does not excuse sexism."
I bet you were overcome with empathy when Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was victimized by sexism when she accused the "I like Beer" Justice of sexual assault. You know, the guy Senator Harris made cry during the Confirmation Hearing.
*He cried for the same reason Dan White cried during his confession. Guilty as f@uck and felt sorry for himself.
wifeisafurd said:No offense, been when was the last time you had your eyes checked? Linda Carter, in her prime, could seal any deal.82gradDLSdad said:bearister said:B.A. Bearacus said:
Bearister, after graduating from Cal, could you have been in a long term relationship (over one year) with a lady who had ACB's voice or would that have been a dealbreaker?
Deal breaker:
Non deal breaker:
Linda Carter has never broken any deals for me.
