The rule is stupid -- and misapplied here as she was talking about Sessions-the-appointee and not Sessions-the-Senator -- but I don't find the free speech yada yada interesting. It seems to me the invocation of the rule was premeditated and the intent of doing so was to increase the polarization of the nomination. Obviously no Democrat (except maybe one from W. Virginia) would vote for him after the insult paid to Warren, but they probably wouldn't have anyway. By making it a petty partisan fight, McConnell made it harder for any Republican Senator to break ranks. After all, 2 of them broke ranks on the DeVos vote. Before this fight, one might be able to argue that he couldn't approve of Sessions in good conscience. After the fight, the Republican voters are all paying attention, and they're mad that Democrats are complaining again, and they all really hate Warren anyway, and they'll be pissed if their own Senator were to betray the party and side with the fake Native American of all people. So party discipline is maintained and every Republican is sure to vote for the nomination.
There's all sorts of rules like that already. Many people lose their jobs when they run their mouths too much and it creates a hostile work environment.....and it's not suppression of free speech. Kids get suspended from school if they say the wrong things in violation of the rules. Those kinds of rules are not suppression of free speech. If you wish to belong to certain organizations, you have to abide by their rules and there's nothing wrong with that.
It's this kind of claim that shows you have no interest in the truth. You just say any old **** to fill the silence, like Trump. It's very hard to justify even reading your posts.
I don't. Thanks to Clutch, it's like members on my ignore list have ceased to exist, and the quality of my experience down here has improved a great deal. I've expanded my ignore list dramatically the last few months, and I am thinking of adding more names to it. There are a few people here who are either trolling, are uneducated to an alarming degree, or simply not very bright that I'm currently trying to stay "engaged" with, hoping that they'll change, or at least become bearable to converse with. Reasonable conservatives in D&D are becoming as rare as whooping cranes. So are some of the most interesting moderates. It's fun to have a discussion with them, or would be if more were around. This forum used to be pretty interesting and even enjoyable. Now? More than half the time it's like sitting in the waiting room at the dentist, knowing you have a root canal to look forward to. Not fun. Not fun at all.
Again, feel free to think that he was just too stupid to know that a Republican controlled Senate would NEVER approve a liberal justice to the SCOTUS right at the end of his time in office. I think he's a smarter person than that, and if you don't like that, feel free to ignore anyone who disagrees with you like Deckard. He prefers to live in an echo chamber because he can't stand to have his views questioned, worried that he wouldn't be able to intelligently defend them. I applaud him for realizing his shortcomings and acting accordingly. Perhaps you should do the same, if you don't want to hear the obvious truth.
No, you don't count as disagreement. Your posts are like gore pics on the internet. My mind doesn't need them. I am going to ignore you indeed. So long.
I'm all for those here on the fringes of the left to create echo chambers by ignoring anyone who questions their beliefs.....it creates amazing comedy when they end up shocked to find that the real world looks nothing like their echo chamber had them believing.....such as the last election. Plus, it's a great way to cull the herd from those who aren't intelligent enough to hear opposing views and have debate and discussion about it. That way everyone is happy, they get their circle jerk and everyone else gets more intelligent conversation.
I feel bad ignoring people, and I can't read what Bobby responded, if he did, but I have one thing to tell Bobby: You don't represent anything. You just say "no" all the time. Or, you represent "no" and animosity/violence toward groups of people. Seriously, consider your avatar. Three ultra-violent fictional white dudes, two of whom are criminals while the other is imaginary even in fiction. Why do you represent yourself through ultra-violent criminals? If you want to act like you represent some alternative view, you have to represent something.
I don't have anyone on my ignore list. I feel it's necessary to be aware of the amount of stupidity that goes on in the world. No matter how moronic and ridiculous people's viewpoints are, they matter, because they can vote. This election has shown me that it's futile to expect sound logical reasoning from everyone, and that's something you just have to live with.
Sounds reasonable to me! But I'm not sure Bobby even has a viewpoint. For starters, he is negative on both Obama and Trump. Who does he support? What does he support? I don't think you can find an answer. The thing I remember most is when he said it is worth killing 10 innocent people to kill one terrorist. Do I need extra reminders of this viewpoint? No, I've grasped it. I teach about 100 college students a semester. Probably about half of them side with Trump. It is my job to hear them, see them, respect them the same as everyone else. I am well aware of the diversity of viewpoints. But I don't come here for an extra helping of "moronic and ridiculous" viewpoints.
Yea, this mystery plaque (no accompanying documentation, no one seems to know anything about him getting such an award) has already been discussed. The NAACP opposed Session each time he has been up for a public office, including the the AG position he was confirmed for.