Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Kavanaugh repeating the names, pretending to rack his brain... What a worm.

 

He was asked a question about literally everyone who works there, that's hundreds of people....when trying to think of who is a part of that literally hundreds of people, it probably required "racking his brain". If he was asked specifically about McNally it would have been a different situation, that's why he asked her if she was thinking about a specific person rather than the entire roster of people who have ever worked there.

 

Here we go again... Good grief.

 

Not sure to whom you're replying, but don't go for it. So so many better uses of your neurons, since yours at least seem to be functional and adaptable to sensory input.

 

Kennedy committed perjury. He committed a crime and now you are trying to make excuses for him.

 

Do you not care that Kavanaugh LIED during his confirmation hearing for his lifetime appointment to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals? That this same LIAR is now busy making more false statements during his hearing for a seat on the Supreme Court? I'm putting LIAR and LIED in caps so you can't miss it. Again, do you not care that this person has lied repeatedly before Congress? You call facts propaganda. What's your problem? You can't handle the truth? Is "winning" more important to you than integrity?

 

That is a different debate.

Censorship is a forceful patch and only an educated audience can truly defeat demagogues, conspiracy theorists, false narrating and general BS spewing.

If we are talking about actual fake news in general then I agree that it is bad for any society

But the use of the term 'fake news' should not be taken out of context and interpreted in abstraction like you are disingenuously doing. Trump defined 'fake news' as those media outlets (which constitute 80% of the media) that give him predominantly negative coverage (which is usually accurate reporting IMO) and he labels them as the enemy of the people

First Trump was referring to the outlets themselves and not just some specific inaccurate or false news reported. Second, I have yet to see any significant fake news being pushed by those media outlet. Yes they might not report some positive things about Trump and his admin, but that does not make the news about his short comings false (and Trump himself admitted this). Those media outlets report so many negative news simply cos Trump does so many negative things.

Trump is the only one primarily responsible for his negative actions and those media outlets simply do him no favors and report it. That is the job of the press and they are not the enemy of the people.

Thats some really messed up way of thinking and the idea of genetics correlating with criminality smells of racism.

It is false cos it misrepresents the truth and that you tried to do it by playing with words doesnt make it true. Conservative majority did not vote in favor of gay rights.

He has a legal case thanks to the conservatives who arent ones to shy from expressing their support for discriminating against others.

The problem is every form of gun control is classified as shredding the 2nd while it is not . But gun enthusiast are quick to phrase any gun control into an amendment issue to gather support for their position.

For example, NRA were against raising the minimum age to purchase firearms to 20 when the minimum age to purchase alcohol is 21. The idea that someone who is not allowed to drink alcohol should be trusted with a firearm is ridiculous.

There is nothing essential about gun rights. Most of the best countries to live in the world do not have the free access to guns that you claim to be essential. Even in the US, about 70% of the people do not own guns and are doing just fine.

The lives of innocent kids, and people in general, is worth more than the desire of a few to have free access to guns. To think otherwise is messed up IMO.

 

stop arguing with this moronic cuck. Bobby has to suffer the consequences of what type of person he is in real life, but please don'tencourage him to spam across threads.

 

the idea that a human brain is not developed sufficiently to smoke recreational dope, drink alcohol or own a firearm until they are 21 but should have voting rights at 16 is far more hypocritical. The idea you would stop active members of the military from privately owning firearms even more so.

 

So many senators chose to go along with this lie. Crazy.

 

I have no problem with raising voting age requirements as I feel it requires a level of responsibility that many teenagers cannot appreciate but when you see the ignorance and irresponsibility exhibited by older people then it becomes less an issue of age but education and exposure. But politician never want an enlightened electorate.

I would expect trained military and law enforcement personnel to be more responsible gun owners than the average joe that thinks it is cool to own one, but that does not mean there are no valid arguments against it.

 

It’s not really an issue. Practically speaking, kids that aren’t interested wouldn’t take the time and effort to vote.

More importantly, a vote is hardly going to cause bodily injury to self or others. It’s impossible for you to be directly responsible for injuries with a vote. You can’t said the same for drug, alcohol, or guns.

Thus, they shouldn’t be subjected to the same requirements.

 

Elections have far reaching consequences that go beyond just your immediate vicinity and the effects tend to last longer as well. Your vote can affect the lives of millions and generations to come. The effect may not be as direct but the consequences of the choice is wider and should not be trivialized.

Still like I said, responsible behavior doesn't seem to correlate with age in the US

 

This is legit funny, first you say

Then you say

This is directly advocating for the 2nd amendment to be overturned because you are advocating for the rights of the people to keep and bear arms to be infringed upon by suggesting that adults not be allowed to have that right based on their age. If I was to suggest that the voting age be raised to 21, a move that would REALLY hurt Democrats because children that don't know any better is their bread and butter, would that be viewed as infringing on their civil rights? I think we both know the answer is yes.

This is fundamentally inaccurate. When you take this kind of radical stance, it's hard to continue the conversation because you are effectively disagreeing with the entire system and suggesting it is wrong. It's also hard to believe that you don't wish to take from the people when you suggest that you fundamentally disagree with the bill of rights.

The lives of innocent kids and people in general is not worth more than any civil right. I mean, that belief is pretty much what the country is founded upon. Following your line of logic, if someone went around killing innocent kids and people in general demanding a return of slavery and the end of women's suffrage, you'd suggest that ending those rights is more important? Again, that's just not the mentality that the country was founded upon. Civil rights are worth more than any individual's life. If some people die during one of the least violent periods in the last 100 years, that's no reason to start shredding the bill of rights even if you convince yourself that it might save some people.

On a different note though, you say

It's odd that your mind immediately jumped to race in a conversation where race was not a factor at all. I wonder why that is.....do you have something to tell the group?

Also, if you adequately followed along in conversation, I was clearly talking about the "nurture" side of things by suggesting that people who would kill their children would be unfit to raise children and would likely raise criminals. You just seem to have some kind of predisposition to linking crime to race.....

 

This is typical - raise age requirement becomes second amendment. The 2nd amendment does not specify an age requirement and applying one does not in any way violate it (as there is an existing age requirement). As to what constitute an adult, that is subjective, evidence by the age requirement of 16 for sex but 21 for alcohol.

The more constructive argument would have been, how many people in the affected age bracket of 18-21 are responsible vs irresponsible gun owners, but not for you, it is simply a 2nd amendment issues

There is nothing radical about it.

To be essential is to be absolutely necessary and owning a gun is not absolutely neccesary, as evidenced by the fact that majority of people in the US and the rest of the world dont own one.

Civil rights is the basic right of freedom from discrimination based on certain personal characteristics such as gender, race, or disability.

Owning a gun is civil liberty not a civil right, while slavery on the other hand is a violation of someones civil rights

When you suggest people take themselves out of the gene pool to limit criminals, then you imply there is something wrong with their genes in the first place. There is nothing genetic about being a bad parent or raising criminals.

People should not be forced to have kids they dont want to, but your idea of incentivising abortion is simply seriously messed up.

 

True (for any group) but practically the young as a group has no voice. It’s not an issue. The issue is actually getting them more interested in their future. Instead of excluding them, teach them the value of their vote and get them interested. Those interested would much more likely take the time to know the issues that may affect them. Learning about the issue isn’t going to harm you or anyone. It elevate them to be more responsible for their own future and join the group of informed voters.

This is why we should encourage young people to get more involved in understanding the issues and vote. Excluding them wouldn’t impact the kids that didn’t care enough to vote but would impact the (more responsible) kids that do care and take the time to know the issues and vote.


Is there any positive value for young people to get more involved in drug or alcohol or guns? (I guess maybe guns if you live in a violent society and need protection.)

 

The 2nd Amendment specifically states the right to keep and bear arms, "shall not be infringed". Putting an age requirement is definitely an infringement of this Constitutionally granted right. There is simply no way you can argue otherwise.

 

Literally the first words of the 2nd amendment are “A well regulated militia”.

You leave that phrase out and focus on the later part that better suits a liberal reasoning for the founders (namely Madison) writing this into the Bill of Rights.

Even Kavanaugh himself recognized in his hearing the ability to regulate. The word regulate is in the freaking amendment people. The truth however is that we are taking an 18th century amendment and applying it to the 21st century. Some people from your tribe interpret these three or four sentence to mean they have the right to own a bazooka, and then folks from my tribe sometimes think it means only the national guard can own a Bee-bee gun.

The truth is neither are correct. James Madison would face palming right now if he heard the stupidity invoked today based on a few sentences added in the bill.

All that being said.... I think Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed if he will not recuse himself from court decisions that might involve the president. If he can’t do that he shouldn’t get one single vote from the Senate.

He also lied in his sworn testimony which I’m sure you don’t care about. I’m sure you’re just giddy to get a stacked court who will align the courts rulings to the interpretation of the minority of the country who have extreme views to the right. Heaven forbid we have a court that takes into account the shared values of ALL Americans... not just the ones who think they have the right to personally own nucleur weapons because the last sentence of the 2nd amendment in a vacuum seems to indicate a very liberal right to arms.