I like mine served with a dipping bowl of tar heroin.

To Hell with it, this is annoying: Kavanaugh should withdraw.

It's what Miers did... She decided the standing of her nominator meant more that her career ambitions.

He's not owed the job. He's just a scotus nominee, and not an especially glorious one... There will be others.

Third Named Witness Rejects Kavanaugh’s Accuser’s Allegations

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/third-named-witness-rejects-kavanaughs-accusers-allegations/

Biotech giant Monsanto is being accused of hiring, through third parties, an army of Internet trolls to counter negative comments, while citing positive “ghost-written” pseudo-scientific reports which downplay the potential risks of their products.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-accused-of-hiring-army-of-trolls-to-silence-online-dissent-court-papers/5588396

Committee source says they’ve contacted five people alleged to be at party. 4 deny any knowledge of the party and allegations. 5th person - Dr. Ford - is the only one who has not provided them a statement

https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1043676938487955456

If these Democrats really cared about inappropriate sexual behavior they would vote to unseal all the settlements re: sexual harassment paid for by taxpayer expense on behalf of their lecherous colleagues

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1043672823548530688

> To Hell with it, this is annoying: Kavanaugh
> should withdraw.

Because winning is kryptonite to the GOPe quisling cucks.

To Hell with it, this is annoying: Kavanaugh should withdraw. ~ Crid at September 23, 2018 1:42 AM

No.

It is annoying, but quitting would send the wrong message. This is an unsubstantiated claim which even the named supporting witnesses are denying. If we start letting nominees get railroaded with ambiguous accusations, where does that leave us? The next nominee will go through worse until no one will agree to be nominated.

Nominating justices to the Supreme Court is one of the reasons, if not the main reason, Trump got as many votes as he did.

This is an attempt by the minority party to force terms on the majority party. And it's a damned clumsy attempt. Attempted rape at a party the date and location of which she doesn't remember and the people she named as eyewitnesses deny ever seeing anything remotely like it at any party.

The minority party insists we believe her with no evidence and derail the nomination of a man who has been an exemplary jurist and model citizen in the intervening 36 years.

I've no doubt she suffered a trauma and needs some help for it. I think she's constructed memories around it to try and make some sense of it, but those constructed memories are not accurate.

Both Ford and Hill wanted to derail nominations anonymously - giving the accused no chance to face or rebut the accuser. And Hill was a law professor, no less. That's not how this country works. The presumption of innocence, the benefit of the doubt, falls to the accused here - whether in a court of law, a Congressional hearing, or in public accusations.

It's what Miers did... She decided the standing of her nominator meant more that her career ambitions. ~ Crid at September 23, 2018 1:42 AM

Not quite the same scenario.

Meiers had no chance to win. She was facing a Democrat-controlled Senate which had publicly declared her unqualified. Bush, having only recently won re-election and carrying baggage from the Iraq War, did not have the political chips to play to get her through a hostile committee.

Meiers was also facing bipartisan opposition. Her SMU law degree was not good enough to qualify her for the Supreme Court, populated as it was, and is, by Ivy League Law School alums.

• Ruth Bader-Ginsburg - Columbia University School of Law
• Sonia Sotomajor - Harvard University School of Law
• Elena Kagan - Harvard University School of Law
• Clarence Thomas - Yale University School of Law
• John Roberts - Harvard University School of Law
• Stephen Breyer - Harvard University School of Law
• Samuel Alito - Yale University School of Law
• Neil Gorsuch - Harvard University School of Law
• Antonin Scalia - Harvard University School of Law
• Anthony Kennedy - Harvard University School of Law
• Sandra Day O'Connor - Stanford University School of Law

Italicized justices are no longer on the Supreme Court, but are included to illustrate the make up of the Court at the time of Meiers nomination.

In addition, Meiers came from outside the appellate court system, typically regarded as the breeding ground for future justices.

Miers had little experience in constitutional law and did not have extensive litigation experience. Up to then, she had been more of a law firm manager than a practicing attorney. She did not handle appeals while an attorney and did not understand the complicated constitutional questions asked of her in committee, even when given a chance to redo her answers.

Meiers flameout ensured that more nominees in the future will come entirely from elite law schools. Thanks, Harriet.

I love the three women in the background.

"And here we see the common American klutz, displaying her natural behaviors. And please stay with the tour group."

SO NOW THE LAST NAMED WITNESS HAS CONTRADICTED CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/308264/

So everybody gets a freebie?

"It's a link to a thing. By someone else."

> "It's a link to a thing. By someone else."

LOL

If, over the years, either of you had ever strung three coherent sentences together to describe a principle in your skulls more complicated than a 1st-grader's fearful impulses, I'd be offended.

But it's cool.

"Winning"/"Billionaire"/"Cell phone."

"Kavanaugh should withdraw"

I've got the keto-friendly snacks ready for her testimony. Let's watch!

Big Mac has a good one today:

Ford isn’t merely the avatar of every feminist or Democrat who ever angered conservatives. She’s a person who, as best I can tell, sincerely believes that she was grievously wronged by a man who now proposes to sit in judgment on our most important moral and legal questions. She doesn’t deserve the shameful abuse she has suffered from partisans too blinded by their anger to see the person they’re wronging.

But likewise, Kavanaugh isn’t the doppelganger of every prep-school predator or fraternity rapist. He isn’t a stand-in for every privileged white man who ever got away with something he shouldn’t have; he is not the distilled essence of the patriarchy. He’s an individual, not a stock character, one accused of a very specific act.

(It does not.)

The universe is like Nevada.

The universe is like Nevada. ~ Crid at September 23, 2018 1:17 PM

Mostly empty with a little corner of life?

> I've got the keto-friendly snacks
> ready for her testimony.

There's no such thing. It's blatant falsehoods like these that are turning our political discourse toward the macabre. For shame, Gog.

> quitting would send the
> wrong message

It's the lefties (over-but-badly-edjumicated, especially in the humanities) who think every every world event is an effort at communication. Communication in the Oprah sense.

People said that after 9/11. Those guys were trying to send us a MESSAGE....

From a favorite amateur film review, no longer online:

Despite a certain amount of smarm and hokum, despite the mugging of its palpably ungracious star (Bruce Willis), and despite the distinctly focus-grouped emotional registers it often haunts, The Sixth Sense can be read as a nearly epochal allegory of late twentieth century American culture...

Enter Bruce Willis as (it works better than one might guess) a child psychologist, charged to give Cole, a nervous boy, the talking cure. In a sense, this does the trick, though not quite in the way one might expect. As it works out (and this is not the "big ending"), the dead-scary as they seem-are just, well, venting. And all of Cole's troubles stem from the fact that he has just not been a very good listener. In other words it's the dead, not Cole, who need the talking cure; once they get a chance to tell you how they feel about things, they turn as playful as puppies.

Beside, Kavanaugh's Yale.

I contain multitudes.

Beside, Kavanaugh's Yale. ~ Crid at September 23, 2018 1:47 PM

I'd rather justices were chosen on their legal acumen, but just once I'd like to see a nominee from a state school, a member in good standing of the American middle class. There has to be at least one judge from a state school who's got SCOTUS potential.

Kavanaugh needs to hold the line. I smell a rat.

> September 23, 2018 6:16 AM

It's just so trite... Pre-emptively self-flattering schoolboy taunts. You don't WANT a system of belief: Just like the worst lefties, you want your ego to guide you, as you know it will always be close at hand. This thread covers it nicely.

I doubt you've ever used (or perhaps even read the word "quisling" before seeing it on some pandering Fox (etc.) news site for ninnies, and I doubt in turn that that writer had, either.

"Ooh! A novel insult word! From literature!"

Feebie LIVES!

I smell a rat too, but have doubts that this unremarkable SCOTUS nominee is worth the cost of extermination.

Will the one go any better? What would best demonstrate the pattern?

The next one, I mean.

I Live! She’s now five and semi-self sufficient. I have a half hour (pure bliss) and I wanted to check in on Alkon land. Hi Amy.

He may not be worth it but this is ridiculous. 40 years ago? Not ok.

;-)

Just in case anyone was in the dark about the origins of that word, Vidkun Quisling.

I smell a rat too, but have doubts that this unremarkable SCOTUS nominee is worth the cost of extermination. ~ Crid at September 23, 2018 2:25 PM

An even less-remarkable nominee would still be worth the cost of the fight, because that's what we'll get if we don't do it now, a never-ending stream of less and less remarkable nominees until Judge Judy really is on the Supreme Court.

What Conan said.

Shit is gettin’ Re-al.
https://tinyurl.com/y9qv49bh

Personally I see this more as a fight for the midterms and what the press will spin it, than actually about Kavanaugh. I think this, because the left will hate anyone that gets proposed. They may tweak the stated reason between: racist, sexist, Islamophobe, etc. but it will be the same level of hate.

My thoughts on the press spin and midterms.
A. If he withdrew, or doesn't get voted in. The press would claim he was admitting his guilt, or bipartisan thought he was guilty, and the GOP are all women haters for putting him up. And the midterm slogan will be: See we can win over the woman haters. Any who vote yes will be called woman haters at midterms, those who vote no won't get the Gop voters to come out.

B. If he doesn't withdraw and gets voted in, the press will say: See this proves the GOP hates all women. Any who voted Yes is proving their hatred of women. And will be used against them in the midterms.

C. If she testifies and is bat shit crazy/ obviously lying, the press will try to ignore it and champion her bravery, and be glad he was delayed enough to not be in this year. The best outcome for the GOP.

If she testifies and is even semi credible. Considering the no evidence and all other "witnesses" says she's a liar that's the best she can do. The press will declare her completely credible with, 110% proof positive he's a rapist. Back to A and B.

If she doesn't testify, and just more crazy demands and delays. Supposedly there is a window for the vote. If it is delayed past Thursday, he can't be on the court this session. And we are back at A or B.

Why I no longer work for Corporate America. https://tinyurl.com/ybb9gggs

Excuse excessive posting. Making up for lost time.

Doggos, we're blessed to have them.

https://twitter.com/humorandanimals/status/1041678262257299457

I like second dog, how seems to have a "WTF?" reaction.

> But it's cool.

Your comments about Trump are devoid of anything other than snark and haughtiness. If you actually had something of substance to say about Trump, it would go a long way to making it easier to take your comments about Trump seriously.

I smell a rat too, but have doubts that this unremarkable SCOTUS nominee is worth the cost of extermination. ~ Crid at September 23, 2018 2:25 PM
An even less-remarkable nominee would still be worth the cost of the fight, because that's what we'll get if we don't do it now, a never-ending stream of less and less remarkable nominees until Judge Judy really is on the Supreme Court.

Conan the Grammarian at September 23, 2018 3:18 PM

The democratic party is a never ending font of baseless accusations that will be thrown up against any Supreme Court nominee that has not passed their litmus tests.

The whole purpose of this exercise was to stall a vote, and keep the vulnerable red state democrats from having to vote.

It has kinda backfired on them, because now this woman is probably going to have to testify under oath or not at all.

I am betting, not at all.

Memes are illegal now - Actor James Woods has been locked out of his Twitter account over a tweet he sent out months ago that was found to be in violation of Twitter’s rules.

The tweet was posted July 20 and includes a hoax meme that said it came from Democrats and encouraged men not to vote in the midterm elections. Woods got an email from Twitter on Thursday saying the tweet “has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election.” The email says Woods can use his account again if he deletes the tweet.

https://apnews.com/2909e6d34b1c4d18bfac5cd186a54095

Here's the meme that he tweeted -

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dn0PRG-W0AIsMHr.jpg

You'll never guess.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Hi, Ronan!

Note also thus I think em regarding Farrow's byline partner....

https://mobile.twitter.com/TPCarney/status/1044015791417552896

One of the all-time great spellcheck fuckups. That was supposed to read "note also this item"

Big Mac.

Tiny dogs can be very cruel

https://twitter.com/TheWorldOfFunny/status/1043125444344770561

"If, over the years, either of you had ever strung three coherent sentences together to describe a principle in your skulls more complicated than a 1st-grader's fearful impulses, I'd be offended."

Ooo!

Your offense matters?
Shall we return to discussion about publicly-funded pensions, where you insisted that it wasn't the business of the public where their money was going?

Trump is eating you alive. Personally.

-----

"Ooh! A novel insult word! From literature!"

Just for you: "Pecksniffian."

If only your affectation were real!

Crid beat me to posting the New Yorker article. This one's more serious, as their seems to be at least a couple of people willing to back Ramirez up.

Sugarbun, my affectations are indisputably real.

> where you insisted that it
> wasn't the business of the public
> where their money was going?

Cite.

(Then try the "paying agent" thing again.)

> This one's more serious

Mebbe, mebbe not. Per the Big Mac tweet, there was apparently an instantaneous roar of pro + con tweetage in the moments that followed its publication, a roar unheard on this browser. (That's something I kind of like about Twitter, you know the engines a grinding, even if you can't smell the smoke.)

Well, two hours later, SOMEONE has been reading all that stuff... And this comports with the sense I had when reading the article: There's plenty of little nooks and crannies in which Trumpistas can seek cover.

> If you actually had something
> of substance to say about Trump

Spent much of 2016 writing that stuff, all with well-sourced links. You didn't read it. You won't read anything that doesn't flatter him, lest you be insulted on his behalf. You mentioned his name three times in 41 words. This isn't about policy, it's about youthful hero-worship. "LOL," you say, as if clever.

I am a moderate "Trumpista", Crid, but that doesn't mean I have no sense of smell. Example: if a genuine conservative runs against him in the primary in 2020, I WILL vote for that conservative. Sadly, we only have the possibilities of Jeff Flake(y), John Kasicko or Bob Corksucker running against him -- nasty establishmentarians, all.

"For shame, Gog."

The last time I felt any shame was when I got caught holding an "I Heart My Dog's Head" coffee mug.

https://www.oglaf.com/dark-miasma/

Kronar: 'I feel no shame! Feelings are for girls.'

Sadly, we only have the possibilities of Jeff Flake(y), John Kasicko or Bob Corksucker running against him -- nasty establishmentarians, all. ~ mpetrie98 at September 24, 2018 11:45 AM

IDK. William Weld is toying with a run on the Libertarian ticket. A fiscal conservative and social libertarian might be just what we need. Of course, he'll be 75 then, so that's a consideration.

The bigger issue is the Libertarian Party isn't a serious political party. It's hard for people to take you seriously when your chairman is busy doing interpretive dances in his underwear over in the corner.

...the Libertarian Party isn't a serious political party....

That's been my biggest argument about the Libertarian Party. The good news is that Weld is a serious politician, former US Attorney and governor of Massachusetts - with allies and enemies on both sides of the aisle. His appointment by Bill Clinton as ambassador to Mexico was blocked by Jesse Helms due to Weld's previous moderate stances on social issues like gay rights.

So, you've got a moderate Republican who can appeal to Democrats - well, old school Democrats. The new radicalized Democratic base will probably reject him solely on the "R" that used to be beside his name.

Having been a long-time Northeastern Republican, Weld still has ties to the establishment. Unlike Johnson and past Libertarian candidates, if elected Weld will have enough contacts and friendships with establishment Republicans and Democrats to be able to have allies within the establishment parties.

Still, I'd need to hear his policies and see him in speeches and in some give-and-take before committing to him. See what age has done to him and see if he's still the politician he used to be. I'll certainly give him the once-over in the 2020 election which, I'm sure, will be full of extremist candidates on both sides.

I'm willing to give him the once over Conan. But I also recognize that once you get to the national stage the Libertarian Party is more of a drag than a help. On lower level races it doesn't matter that much. But once you are talking about president and dealing with so many voters who've never heard of you the 'sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll' message more or less wipes you out.

I also find it pretty implausible for a northeastern moderate Republican type to beat Trump. He doesn't have enough pull to take New York and he also might no have enough pull to keep Texas. Voters in general just aren't interested in that right now.

True. He’ll have to hard sell the fiscal conservative point. And practically disown his clown car of a party. His campaign will be a mess.

The bigger issue is the Libertarian Party isn't a serious political party.

an it ever be given the premise is basically 'fuck off and leave me alone'?

How do you garner power without micromanaging their lives?

You are confusing the Libertarian Party a political organization with the philosophy libertarianism. While the two sound similar they aren't really related. The political group's message is primarily 'free sex and drugs'. They are old hippies. They very much want you to leave them alone, but see no reason to leave you alone. Which is why most libertarians don't vote for the Libertarian Party.

There are a lot of great politicians who've been part of the Libertarian Party. But they were mostly there because they couldn't get through the GOP primary. They were who general GOP voters wanted but the GOP primary voters didn't care for them. The party it self didn't really bring much to the table.