Should Mexifornia or the party come first?

https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/02/feinstein-vote-schumer-disaster/

Bet she doesn't get very far. People will indeed BOLO.

Why should Christine Blasey Ford be considered influential, Time Magazine? There is no reason to believe a single word she said and she failed in her objective to prevent Kavanaugh's appointment.

The only thing she's influencing is her own bank account with speaking engagements, interviews and book deals.

You can somewhat say the same about Kavanaugh. Has he been the swing vote on some terribly important issue I missed? Wrote a compelling judgment lately? I'll admit he is far more influential and accomplished than Ford, but even so his biggest current claim to fame is being smeared and still getting appointed to the supreme court.

Carter Lord has an informative letter to the editor in the WSJ today.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cheats-sats-and-what-colleges-should-be-11555440593

"They need people to graduate in the bottom quarter of their class too, people who struggle and just barely make it, people who rise up and stretch themselves and get better and more productive and bring a wonderful balance to the world. Otherwise, how are the brainiacs going to know what its like to work with and get along with everyday folks?"

I.e. it is important to let less qualified people into college so that the skilled people can see them failing and learn from their failure. I'll add in that getting the sucker's money off of them doesn't hurt too. Quite the nauseating view of college admissions.

Many are upset to learn there's going to be some sort of civic or FM-radio-giveaway design competition for the reconstruction of the Notre Dame spire. In particular, Iowahawk's sarcasm has been brutal.

But there are already some enchanting proposals.

> his biggest current claim to
> fame is being smeared and
> still getting appointed to
> the supreme court.

A seat on the Supreme Court of the United States is his "claim to fame"?

His "biggest current" one?

Yewguyz ever been to the Century City mall?

Really upscale and invigorating.

The end of Western Civ.

https://twitter.com/LibraryJournal/status/1118232615847329802

Iowahawk is particularly unkind.

You can somewhat say the same about Kavanaugh. Has he been the swing vote on some terribly important issue I missed? Wrote a compelling judgment lately? I'll admit he is far more influential and accomplished than Ford, but even so his biggest current claim to fame is being smeared and still getting appointed to the supreme court.

That may be the dumbest thing I'm likely to read for the rest of the year.

Holding one of nine seats in the most powerful court in the most powerful nation in the world does not make you "influential."

O-o-o-o-okay...

Then there is the fact that he prevailed over the dems and their mentally imbalanced hitwoman, Christine Blasey Ford. Which, you could argue, makes him influential in the respect that his life was not derailed over an evidence-free accusation. Which I would certainly call a step in the right direction. This would run counter to the sanctimonious sermonizing of the Democrats that we must believe accusers who come forward with allegations of sexual assault or rape, even twenty years after the fact and without evidence.

I consider Kavanaugh's appointment to be a resounding smackdown of that idiotic and dangerous notion. In effect, it says, "No, we do not have to uncritically accept accusations without evidence that emerge decades after the supposed event. No, we do not have to believe every accuser. No, they do not have the right to be believed. Like every other accuser, they have the burden of proof."

Considering the number of people who have been removed from positions of power due to accusations without evidence, including Franken himself, I would call Kavanaugh's appointment, despite the allegations, to be quite important.

You could argue that it isn't something he did on his own, but so what? He was still at the center of the debate. Even if he was merely the rope used in the tug-of-war between the Republicans and the Democrats, he is still influential. Even if it was unwitting.

"A seat on the Supreme Court of the United States is his "claim to fame"?

His "biggest current" one?"

Did RBG make this list Crid? While I may not like her I'd say she is more influential than Kavanaugh. I can accept Time's choice of Pelosi and Trump and even AOC for influential politicians. I'm afraid Kavanaugh is a weak pick for that category.

On Ford I can actually see more of an argument for her inclusion than him at this point. He is filed under politicians while she is filed under icons. For better and for worse Ford has made herself an icon. Though I will admit it is odd to see her filed along side Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, and Michelle Obama. It's a bit of a grab bag of a category.

Crid, you are welcome to present any accolades I'm missing about Kavanaugh. I get you are complaining mostly because you don't like me. But by all means provide something real to contradict me.

What I said to Crid I also say to you Patrick. Yes being a member of the supreme court is very influential. But if that alone is enough why aren't the other justices on the list? Does that influence go stale? Is Clarence Thomas insignificant? Has Alito faded into obscurity?

I expect Kavanaugh to be very influential. Gorsuch even more so. But that is in the future when they have ruled on actual cases.

"Yewguyz ever been to the Century City mall?"

No, I'm not suicidal.

Ben:

What I said to Crid I also say to you Patrick. Yes being a member of the supreme court is very influential. But if that alone is enough why aren't the other justices on the list? Does that influence go stale? Is Clarence Thomas insignificant? Has Alito faded into obscurity?

Your capacity to completely miss the point never ceases to astound me. I just told you why, but because you'd rather die than concede a point, you simply pretend not to see it.

He is influential because -- unlike most of the powerful men who were brought down by completely unsupported allegations -- his life was not derailed by this. And he got his appointment in spite of the accusations against him.

And by his appointment alone, even though he obviously did not secure his spot on the Supreme Court unaided, he is influential in that he sent a resounding message to the Left and their Holy Commandment: Thou shalt regard all unsupported accusations of sexual misconduct as unimpeachable fact, even if presented decades after the supposed incident took place.

With his appointment, he and his supporters sent a clear message: "No, we are not going to accept accusations sans proof as sufficient cause to deny someone their appointment. No, you cannot keep perfectly quiet about a supposed sexual assault on you, come forward decades later and expect that someone should be denied their appointment or removed from their position over your conveniently-timed accusation."

Today, I think that's a vitally important act of resistance against the Far Left's insistence that all accusers must be believed and those they accuse must have their lives ruined, even if they don't have a shred of evidence to support them.

For this alone, Kavanaugh deserves to be remembered as influential. And I suspect he will be. In twenty years from now, people will be looking at this and scratching their heads, wondering "Did they really think that someone should be denied their appointment to the Supreme Court because some nutcase accused him of something without a shred of evidence, and even her own handpicked witnesses testified against her?

Again, I realize he was more a pawn in this game between the right and left rather than the shaker-and-mover. On the other hand, he could have chosen to refuse the appointment and walk away, and none of this drama would have occurred.

Do you get it now, Ben, or do I need to spell it out a third time?

We just disagree Patrick. That is just how it is.

The Body of Missing Runner Jerika Binks May Have Been Found in a Utah Ravine

Ben: We just disagree Patrick. That is just how it is.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

> you are welcome to present any
> accolades I'm missing

For starters, he's an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

This is not a wacky neighbor on a sitcom who wants to do action films, or a manufacturer of rubber feet for keyboards who dreams of designing motherboards.

The role of a Justice is not to inspire or collect "accolades." Quite the opposite, actually, which is why it's a lifetime gig.

He won't even complete his first term in 2019... But you want ACHIEVEMENTS! Big, noisy ones with lots of color and hullabaloo! Maybe you want him to agree with people more. Or agree with people less.

I mean, it's really hard to imagine what you want, and you certainly aren't being specific. But as Potter Stewart so famously said, you'll know it when you see it, right? Who even CARES about specifics??!?!?

…Because the Supreme Court isn't the place for reflective, steady personalities! This isn't about jurisprudence, this is about DYNAMISM! We need justices who take big actions and have big consequences! INDETERMINATE ones! Go Go Go!!!





By the way, BennyBunny, I saw this this morning and thought of you... In a very centralized kinda way!

"Has he been the swing vote on some terribly important issue I missed? "

Give him time. He's only been in the office for about six months. Most of the cases that were accepted for the 2018-19 session were already in deliberations when Kavanaugh joined the court, and he's had to recuse himself from these because he wasn't there to hear the cases argued. His presence will no doubt be felt in the session that starts this fall.

Then why wasn't Roberts on the list Crid? Kavenaugh is hardly the only justice on the Supreme Court. But he was the only one influential enough to make Time's list.

I agree with you Cousin Dave. That is why I said I expect him to be influential. He hasn't had time to exert his influence

Patrick there is no whoosh. Nothing went over my head. You see this as a turning point. You expect his nomination fight to mark a change. I don't. He isn't the first one to fight this kind of fight. He isn't the first one to win. He isn't even the first one on the Supreme Court. You are far more optimistic than I am. To me this was just one more fight that may be personally significant to Kavenaugh but in the larger picture doesn't mean much on it's own. The politicians that tried to Bork Kavenaugh are still in congress. They experienced no pain from their actions. As you note Ford is making money off of this whole thing. It catapulted a nobody like her and got her fame and fortune. She experienced no pain from her actions. Instead she has been rewarded.

Why wouldn't others do the exact same thing?

Only time will tell if your optimism is warranted or my pessimism.

And kudos Crid for actually presenting an argument instead of only personal insults.

Your reply is non-responsive... As was the "Don't make me do my homework" retreat, You're like a child throwing mashed potatoes across the Thanksgiving table... Interested more than anything else in watching the angry responses of the adults who are actually trying to converse. You don't care about the Supreme Court any more than the kid cares about potatoes.

You'll never guess to whom that metaphor was first addressed on this blog.

Furthermore, complaining to strangers that mundane, pandering media like Time magazine aren't tracking your idiot fascinations with a laser beam is totally a SJW move.

It's almost like you think all the world's disagreement with you is *centralized*.

And we are back to the usual Crid. Insults without substance and completely unable to support his assertions or factually contradict others. Troll on you crazy diamond. Troll on.

Bennybun, you're not SAYING anything. There's no facts or persuasion... You're making things up and being childish when challenged. What exactly do you want? Are there other sectors of your life —family, work, socializing— where this goes well for you?

Okay then! You're very concerned about Time magazine, and a seat on the Supreme Court doesn't impress you. Did we miss anything?

Patrick, if you are right and I am wrong, if this actually is a turning point, I couldn't be happier. I would be delighted for history to prove me wrong. I'm just not as optimistic as your are.

Crid, it is a simple question. If being on the Supreme Court alone is good enough to be listed as one of the 25 most influential leaders of 2019 why didn't Clarence Thomas make the list?

Do you think Time hates black people? Or do you have to be the last person appointed? I'm actually fine if you wanted to argue 25 is a lot of people to pick. Time adds a lot of filler to their lists. There are lots of options.

I wrote why I saw Kavenaugh as a stretch. Patrick ably defended his views. That we continue to disagree is fine. People have different opinions. You on the other hand responded with a point that had already been factually refuted and have failed to come up with a counter argument and piles of insults and non-sequiturs. But that is you Crid. If we took away your twitter and your insults is there anything left? So troll on. After all, do you have another option?

> I'm actually fine if you
> wanted to argue

We all want very badly to bicker about the editorial judgment in this desiccated husk of a once-popular, if never much-respected, publication.

Across my not-young lifetime, Time was known for being lurid and banal rather than insightful and enriching. If you were waiting for a dentist, you could kill ten minutes and maybe score a factoid, or drain your fascination with a celebrity. It was always famously weak in matters of zeitgeist and moral evaluation.

And then, thirty years ago and earlier, even the moderately bright staffers moved on to something better, because the writing was on the wall. Nowadays it's a clumsy pamphlet. Anyone know what price it fetched last time it traded hands? The people who work there today are probably mostly low-SAT interns whose grandparents are tickled pink to think of their little muffin-progeny working at one of the great brands of publishing… In 1964, the year Grammaw lost her virginity to that guy who was killed in 'Nam. In a barfight. The employee payroll probably matches that of your local Burger King (and the writers presumably envy the uniforms provided to their beef-flipping counterparts).

A critique of those nimrods? Could it matter any less?

Tell you what, next week you can contextually deconstruct the famous Worst Dressed list from the 1968 Oscars.™

We'll be enthused in 'arguing' over that, too. Can't wait.

Thank you for stepping back from the trolling.

Defend SOMETHING that you say. ANY of it. Start a trend.

What are you talking about Crid? I defended my points. Your last message wasn't related to anything I wrote. I have little to respond to it. I do recognize it was free from pointless personal attacks so I thanked you for stepping back from the trolling.

BenBun, you seriously believe people want to 'argue' with your thoughts about Time magazine?

Why is the default response of ninnies that they're too clever to be understood in their own time, i.e., "wasn't related to anything I wrote," as if Darth and Coney having been fighting about Time's Man of the Year for the last four months.

Also, I meant to say that the guy who took your Grammy's virginity died in a barfight in Viet Nam, not that she surrendered it to him their.

I regret the ambiguity.

Also, that Blackwell guy was just a snotty little priss! Right?

HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT NOBODY CARED ABOUT THAT SHIT ANYMORE

There. Sorry!

And you are full on troll again Crid. Far as I can tell your whole complaint is that I expressed an opinion. And perhaps that you said really stupid stuff and can't back it up. Well Crid you will just have to live with the fact that you don't control this blog. You don't have the ability to ban me. I understand you feel this is a tragedy. My continued existence appears to hurt your feelings. Grow up and get over it. You are more than old enough.

> your whole complaint is that
> I expressed an opinion.

No, it's that your opinion was composed by —and affirmative of— an incomplete and inappropriate appraisal of our culture, our planet, and ultimately of our entire cosmos.

> you don't control this blog.

Never wanted to. Amy and her boyfriend handle all that stuff.

> You don't have the
> ability to ban me.

Never wanted to. You remind me how right I am about things.

> My continued existence appears
> to hurt your feelings.

Your breezy and frequent misconduct offends, certainly.

Seriously... There are few stations from which one is better poised to affect the flow of human events than a fresh seat on the Scotus.

"No, it's that your opinion was composed by —and affirmative of— an incomplete and inappropriate appraisal of our culture, our planet, and ultimately of our entire cosmos."

And yet you cannot refute my point. Though at least you finally tried this time.

"Seriously... There are few stations from which one is better poised to affect the flow of human events than a fresh seat on the Scotus."

So only the last guy counts? Sucks to be Gorsuch.

If you don't like being called a troll maybe stop trolling.

> yet you cannot refute
> my point

If your point is that you take Time magazine terribly seriously, perhaps no one should argue, as the rest of us are and should be unaffected. But there's no harm to your position in saying so, right? You're not insisting that the rest of us regard Time's choices as consequential or even meaningful, are you? Because I just don't see it.

> So only the last guy counts?

If I'da meant that I'da said it. I'd have said 'Only the most recently appointed Justice to the United States Supreme Court can affect the flow of human events.'

It sometimes seems you're not considering what people write with good faith, but you can call me a troll anytime you want.

Your first point is a lie. While in no way inspired my writing isn't hard to understand.

For your second point, then why didn't Gorsuch get on the list? He is also a 'fresh seat on the Scotus'.

An addendum, why do you care so much about this Crid? I made a simple point responding to Patrick's post. But you've been repeating the same failed point over and over for days now. Why is this so important to you? Why is it so important to you that being on the SCOTUS gets Kavenaugh on this list?

> Your first point is a lie.

Well, if you're saying you DON'T take Time magazine seriously, why are you asking me (or anyone else)…

> then why didn't Gorsuch

…to interrogate the consequences of its rhetoric?

Patrick used to be like this in matters of gay sex. (And probably still is… He's not changed much in the last fifteen years.) He just couldn't believe that the rest of the world wasn't fascinated with his deepest emotions.

You and he should each light a candle, put on some natural fabrics, sip some distilled water, and stare deeply into your bathroom mirrors for a few hours, until you take the point— Nobody cares about your deepest feelings. And nobody cares about Time Magazine's editorial implications.

Why would we?

No Crid. Despite your desperation I don't take Time that seriously. I just found Patrick's point mildly interesting and presented a different point of view. I've continued this with you mostly out of curiosity. You are very invested in this for some reason. Most likely due to personal distaste with me. As for the actual topic at hand, you've repeatedly said that getting on the supreme court is enough to get on this list in your opinion. And I've repeatedly asked, why none of the other justices. After all of this you still fail to come up with a response. Instead you troll on about Patrick's sex life and other completely unrelated matters.

Do your homework Crid and learn to stop trolling.

> I don't take Time that seriously

No? Oh!… Okay

• I can accept Time's choice

• Then why wasn't Roberts on the list

• why didn't Clarence Thomas make the list?

• Do you think Time hates black people?

• why didn't Gorsuch get on the list?

Nevermind.

You said something stupid Crid. You claimed that just by getting on the SCOTUS this was enough. So I ask you (not Time) if that is good enough where are the rest of the SCOTUS? A question you still can't seem to answer no matter how simple it is. It isn't Time I've been taking seriously, it is you.

> You claimed that just by getting
> on the SCOTUS this was enough.

Yewsed:

> his biggest current claim to
> fame is being smeared and
> still getting appointed to
> the supreme court.