By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

 

Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Yes 53 47.32%
 
No 41 36.61%
 
Trump should pick a new canidate 18 16.07%
 
Total:112
EricHiggin said:
Final-Fan said:

Please don't ask me to watch videos whose titles are lies.  I didn't see any laugh directed at Clinton. 

As for what McConnell said, just because the Republicans take their cues nowadays from extremist bloggers, radio talk show hosts, etc., doesn't mean the Democrats are following suit.  Let me know if someone in Congress proposes that, but until then McConnell—and you—are just stretching "a human being in the USA has this idea" to mean "the Democratic Party plans to do this".  I mean, shit, if they were going to pack the court there wouldn't even be a need to impeach Kavanaugh. 

TYT talking about it and FOX reporting it. They may do either or try both. McConnell smirks in the video which for him is about as close to a laugh as you get.

You literally did not dispute a single thing I said. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
Final-Fan said:
EricHiggin said: 

TYT talking about it and FOX reporting it. They may do either or try both. McConnell smirks in the video which for him is about as close to a laugh as you get.

You literally did not dispute a single thing I said. 

Bold

EricHiggin said:
Final-Fan said:

Please don't ask me to watch videos whose titles are lies.  I didn't see any laugh directed at Clinton. 

As for what McConnell said, just because the Republicans take their cues nowadays from extremist bloggers, radio talk show hosts, etc., doesn't mean the Democrats are following suit.  Let me know if someone in Congress proposes that, but until then McConnell—and you—are just stretching "a human being in the USA has this idea" to mean "the Democratic Party plans to do this".  I mean, shit, if they were going to pack the court there wouldn't even be a need to impeach Kavanaugh. 

TYT talking about it and FOX reporting it. They may do either or try both. McConnell smirks in the video which for him is about as close to a laugh as you get.



EricHiggin said:

Dems/left/media wants to add Supreme Court Justices overall, or to impeach Kav.

This is “Lock Her Up” ... they'll use this rallying cry to whip up their base, then immediately drop it when they're in a position to do something about it. Can you even imagine what it would do to checks & balances if they start impeaching Supreme Court justices? And impeach him for what: unproven, old allegations that were investigated by the FBI and known to the Senate at the time they confirmed him? I can't see it ever happening.



EricHiggin said:
Final-Fan said:

You literally did not dispute a single thing I said. 

Bold

EricHiggin said:

TYT talking about it and FOX reporting it. They may do either or try both. McConnell smirks in the video which for him is about as close to a laugh as you get.

Was the video titled "McConnell smirks at Clinton"? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan said:
EricHiggin said:

Bold

Was the video titled "McConnell smirks at Clinton"? 

What does that have to do with anything? You said I didn't dispute anything, and I said I did, which I did. If you wanted an answer about why the video was titled as it was, ask whoever made it.



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
Final-Fan said:

Was the video titled "McConnell smirks at Clinton"? 

What does that have to do with anything? You said I didn't dispute anything, and I said I did, which I did. If you wanted an answer about why the video was titled as it was, ask whoever made it.

I said that the video's title was a lie in that McConnell didn't laugh.  You said McConnell smirked.  This does not count as "disputing" what I said.  You didn't dispute that the title claimed that McConnell laughed; you didn't dispute that McConnell did not in fact laugh; you didn't dispute that as a result the title was a lie.  You said "smirk[ing] is about as close to a laugh as you get [with McConnell]", which is irrelevant, and also false

At best, you tried to imply—but did not outright state—that it shouldn't count as a lie if everyone knows that the claim is false and the claimant wasn't trying to deceive anyone.  Well, it wasn't obviously false to someone who hadn't seen the clip already (McConnell can and does sometimes laugh, but he didn't in this case); I didn't know it was false and had no reason to assume it was; and I have no reason to think the video's poster wasn't trying to mislead people in order to garner more clicks.  Laughs is even in ALL CAPS. 

If you'd like, I will admit that you thought you were disputing one or more of my claims when in fact your attempt to do so was stillborn, failing to qualify as such due to not actually contradicting what I said (as explained in the first paragraph).  I'm not inside your head so only you can tell if that was the case; therefore, I'll wait for your reply.  Is that what happened? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan said:
EricHiggin said:

What does that have to do with anything? You said I didn't dispute anything, and I said I did, which I did. If you wanted an answer about why the video was titled as it was, ask whoever made it.

I said that the video's title was a lie in that McConnell didn't laugh.  You said McConnell smirked.  This does not count as "disputing" what I said.  You didn't dispute that the title claimed that McConnell laughed; you didn't dispute that McConnell did not in fact laugh; you didn't dispute that as a result the title was a lie.  You said "smirk[ing] is about as close to a laugh as you get [with McConnell]", which is irrelevant, and also false

At best, you tried to imply—but did not outright state—that it shouldn't count as a lie if everyone knows that the claim is false and the claimant wasn't trying to deceive anyone.  Well, it wasn't obviously false to someone who hadn't seen the clip already (McConnell can and does sometimes laugh, but he didn't in this case); I didn't know it was false and had no reason to assume it was; and I have no reason to think the video's poster wasn't trying to mislead people in order to garner more clicks.  Laughs is even in ALL CAPS. 

If you'd like, I will admit that you thought you were disputing one or more of my claims when in fact your attempt to do so was stillborn, failing to qualify as such due to not actually contradicting what I said (as explained in the first paragraph).  I'm not inside your head so only you can tell if that was the case; therefore, I'll wait for your reply.  Is that what happened? 

My initial point made no mention of McConnell laughing or talking about Hillary. That may have been in the video title and was part of the stock clip, but wasn't part of the point.

EricHiggin said: 

And so it begins...

Dems/left/media wants to add Supreme Court Justices overall, or to impeach Kav.

Where did I mention Hillary or the laughter?

EricHiggin said:
Final-Fan said:

Please don't ask me to watch videos whose titles are lies.  I didn't see any laugh directed at Clinton. 

As for what McConnell said, just because the Republicans take their cues nowadays from extremist bloggers, radio talk show hosts, etc., doesn't mean the Democrats are following suit.  Let me know if someone in Congress proposes that, but until then McConnell—and you—are just stretching "a human being in the USA has this idea" to mean "the Democratic Party plans to do this".  I mean, shit, if they were going to pack the court there wouldn't even be a need to impeach Kavanaugh. 

TYT talking about it and FOX reporting it. They may do either or try both. McConnell smirks in the video which for him is about as close to a laugh as you get.

Assuming I meant McConnell couldn't laugh would be exactly that, an assumption. Why don't you assume McConnell is laughing on the inside? Just because he isn't showing it audibly doesn't mean he isn't busting a gut internally. Maybe the video poster thinks they can read him better than you can?



EricHiggin said:
Final-Fan said:

I said that the video's title was a lie in that McConnell didn't laugh.  You said McConnell smirked.  This does not count as "disputing" what I said.  You didn't dispute that the title claimed that McConnell laughed; you didn't dispute that McConnell did not in fact laugh; you didn't dispute that as a result the title was a lie.  You said "smirk[ing] is about as close to a laugh as you get [with McConnell]", which is irrelevant, and also false

At best, you tried to imply—but did not outright state—that it shouldn't count as a lie if everyone knows that the claim is false and the claimant wasn't trying to deceive anyone.  Well, it wasn't obviously false to someone who hadn't seen the clip already (McConnell can and does sometimes laugh, but he didn't in this case); I didn't know it was false and had no reason to assume it was; and I have no reason to think the video's poster wasn't trying to mislead people in order to garner more clicks.  Laughs is even in ALL CAPS. 

If you'd like, I will admit that you thought you were disputing one or more of my claims when in fact your attempt to do so was stillborn, failing to qualify as such due to not actually contradicting what I said (as explained in the first paragraph).  I'm not inside your head so only you can tell if that was the case; therefore, I'll wait for your reply.  Is that what happened? 

My initial point made no mention of McConnell laughing or talking about Hillary. That may have been in the video title and was part of the stock clip, but wasn't part of the point.

EricHiggin said: 

And so it begins...

Dems/left/media wants to add Supreme Court Justices overall, or to impeach Kav.

Where did I mention Hillary or the laughter?

EricHiggin said:

TYT talking about it and FOX reporting it. They may do either or try both. McConnell smirks in the video which for him is about as close to a laugh as you get.

Assuming I meant McConnell couldn't laugh would be exactly that, an assumption. Why don't you assume McConnell is laughing on the inside? Just because he isn't showing it audibly doesn't mean he isn't busting a gut internally. Maybe the video poster thinks they can read him better than you can?

"Why don't you assume McConnell is laughing on the inside?"

Thank you for exposing yourself so clearly as a troll.  I had been actually leaning towards the belief that you were sincerely blinded by your own bias, but there is no way in hell that this is a good faith argument. 

"Assuming I meant McConnell couldn't laugh would be exactly that, an assumption."  Well, perhaps that explains why I didn't assume I was right about why you thought you had disputed my claims but only came up with a potential idea and asked you if it was right—if it wasn't, I was hoping you'd volunteer what the correct explanation was. 

"Where did I mention Hillary or the laughter?"  You can hardly blame me for the fact that you chose to go down this road and ignored the much larger part of my post addressing what you wrote in that post. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan said:
EricHiggin said:

My initial point made no mention of McConnell laughing or talking about Hillary. That may have been in the video title and was part of the stock clip, but wasn't part of the point.

EricHiggin said: 

And so it begins...

Dems/left/media wants to add Supreme Court Justices overall, or to impeach Kav.

Where did I mention Hillary or the laughter?

Assuming I meant McConnell couldn't laugh would be exactly that, an assumption. Why don't you assume McConnell is laughing on the inside? Just because he isn't showing it audibly doesn't mean he isn't busting a gut internally. Maybe the video poster thinks they can read him better than you can?

"Why don't you assume McConnell is laughing on the inside?"

Thank you for exposing yourself so clearly as a troll.  I had been actually leaning towards the belief that you were sincerely blinded by your own bias, but there is no way in hell that this is a good faith argument. 

"Assuming I meant McConnell couldn't laugh would be exactly that, an assumption."  Well, perhaps that explains why I didn't assume I was right about why you thought you had disputed my claims but only came up with a potential idea and asked you if it was right—if it wasn't, I was hoping you'd volunteer what the correct explanation was. 

"Where did I mention Hillary or the laughter?"  You can hardly blame me for the fact that you chose to go down this road and ignored the much larger part of my post addressing what you wrote in that post. 

It's not my fault you focused on the title of the clip and the portion that I wasn't talking about, and not the point's I made about the portion within the short clip.



Jokes aside, this entire ordeal was a national embarrassment. You have a claim with no evidence at all to even suggest the possibility of it happening. You have a Judge that all accounts regard as absolutely qualified being called a gang rapist and a repeat offender. You have a political party assume and promote his guilt strictly based on politics and now you have leftist calling to add seats to the supreme Court because they can't win at the ballot box so they have to change the rules to suit them.

I always knew the Obama years would damage the country in a tangible way. Never did I thought his administration and the brainwashing done to children who grew up during his tenure would mean that when they eventually lost their political fight that they would turn into essentially Jihadist. This isn't about sharing and debating ideas, these people are stuck in the perspective that this is a battle between Good and Evil and they will fight their battles by any means necessary. It's as close to group hysteria as you can get.