Biden for Prez

Originally Posted by bcd

You're an idiot. You never answered my question, is it OK to say you're only going to pick a white male? I never said I hated the person chosen or that they wouldn't be qualified. Although, didn't he say the same thing about his vice president pick, and look at that train wreck. Part of my point is it is demeaning to the person he chooses. Now they have the shadow over them that the only reason they were in the running for the position is because of their race and gender.

There are plenty of white males in the history of the SC. Why would one ask that? Seems, based on your post, you want to pick a racial argument. Its the same tired, racist and inaccurate argument. Is it ok to only give scholarships to white people (affirmative action). Complaints there isnt a "White History" month. White/All lives Matter too. Why not a TV show called "Whitish"? and on and on...
No, you didnt say you hated them. You said
" I bet that judge is going to be excited. I was the best pick in the country, oh wait, I was only the best pick out of 11% of the country... The other 89% was excluded from the selection pool. That's OK, it was all about equality. Those 89% weren't included because we were being equal..."
I take that as demeaning the choice, it will be subpar, lessor, a bad pick due to the fact the choice was limited to only 11% of the pop. Demeaning knowing only its a black female. Biden didnt demean, you did.
Fact, you have zero idea who he will pick, you only know its a black female, thats all.

My wife got a promotion, then she hears the demeaning comments that she just got that promotion because she's a women. That's coming even when when there wasn't a public announcement that they would only promote a women, which isn't true in this example. But my point is my wife already had that demeaning experience. It is demeaning to his pick because he has publicly announced that he will only pick a black female.

As far as who he picks, I will probably not like her. Not because of her gender or race, but because biden will pick someone that agrees with his political beliefs, which I disagree with.

Originally Posted by bcd

You're an idiot. You never answered my question, is it OK to say you're only going to pick a white male?

I don't think that putting the question into historical context makes you an idiot. Your position in this case seems to be that a politician can have intent, but cannot reveal it to the public. I disagree with that position. You asked if a politician can say... "I'm going to pick a white male". Yes, I think if that is the intent then it should be revealed. The real issue is what claiming "I'll pick a white male" means in the context of current society. Diversity is an agenda. What agenda would picking a white male meet? It's the agenda that is the real issue as to whether it's right or wrong.

I get your point about the potential of it being demeaning to the selection to know they were picked for a reason other than qualifications, but IMO it doesn't justify knowing what your political representative stands for. Were you complaining about Trump picking people who fit his political agenda. Isn't that demeaning to the men and woman selected? No matter what the agenda, using agenda rather than qualifications would fit your description of being demeaning.

Originally Posted by 95sn

I bet the judge will be fully and completely qualified.

Ronald Reagan, "i will pick the first woman to the SC". 1980 one month before the election.
Donald Trump, "I will appoint only pro life judges to SC". 2016 one month prior to the election
Joe Biden, I will appoint the 1st black Woman to the SC. 2020 8 months prior to the election
Its always a political pick. Ask the grifter.
He said he would do this before the election. All those on the short list are all Yale/Harvard, top of the class. That means no matter who the choice, they will be plenty qualified. But conservatives feel the need to panic. Feel the need to break out the weak black math. Feel the need to bash prior to even knowing who they need to bash, Just bash because, Brandon picked her. How do you know if the pick will be "lessor"? You dont even know their qualifications? Dont know their views, their past rulings, credentials, nothing. All you know is race and gender and you are bashing. Congrats on the attempted beat down of, of, um, someone you cant even identify. Do you hate because Biden nominated or because you KNOW its a black woman?

From what I have seen those on the short list have not even been a judge for a year.

You mean bash like bring out false claims of rape?

Originally Posted by 95sn

Marxists? Biden is a life long moderate democrat, 50 years of history to confirm this. Unless you have something to back your delusion.

Body of work as president says otherwise. democrats are marxists, so saying he is a moderate democrats just means he was a moderate marxist

Originally Posted by fly135

I don't think that putting the question into historical context makes you an idiot. Your position in this case seems to be that a politician can have intent, but cannot reveal it to the public. I disagree with that position. You asked if a politician can say... "I'm going to pick a white male". Yes, I think if that is the intent then it should be revealed. The real issue is what claiming "I'll pick a white male" means in the context of current society. Diversity is an agenda. What agenda would picking a white male meet? It's the agenda that is the real issue as to whether it's right or wrong.

I get your point about the potential of it being demeaning to the selection to know they were picked for a reason other than qualifications, but IMO it doesn't justify knowing what your political representative stands for. Were you complaining about Trump picking people who fit his political agenda. Isn't that demeaning to the men and woman selected? No matter what the agenda, using agenda rather than qualifications would fit your description of being demeaning.

I don't disagree with the political agenda point. That is why elections have consequences. They should be qualified and support their agenda though I don't agree with biden's agenda at all. Saying you are going only pick from around 6% of the population is not a good ideas unless it happens to work out on merit.

IMO, the way to help with identity issues is to desolve the differences between people and focus on individual attributes

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Body of work as president says otherwise. democrats are marxists, so saying he is a moderate democrats just means he was a moderate marxist

Right because infrastructure, his body of work, is totally a libtard cause. Take your feelings out of it, snowflake.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Right because infrastructure, his body of work, is totally a libtard cause. Take your feelings out of it, snowflake.

we all know you are a title reader. His bills were not infrastructure. Lots of pork give away to prop up and strengthen marxist groups in the US. If it were simply infastructure, it would all have passed.

Inflation, crime, flying illegals in to pad election areas they need, screwing up military operations, getting us into a war with Russia (announced today they are moving troops to eastern Europe), more deaths from covid than under Trump (was a pretty big deal to you democrats during Trumps time), etc. You want to go on or all those successes to you people? The horrible answer is those are successes to you marxists.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

From what I have seen those on the short list have not even been a judge for a year.

You mean bash like bring out false claims of rape?

No, it isnt what you have seen. It is only what you have been told by your "Fair and Balanced" single source.
The short list
Brown Jackson is since 2013 Fed Appeals Court Judge.
Kruger, CA Supreme Court Judge since 2015
Childs, is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, serving in that role since 2010
Ifill,is an American lawyer. She is a law professor and president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.[1] She is the Legal Defense Fund's seventh president since Thurgood Marshall founded the organization in 1940. Ifill is also a nationally recognized expert on voting rights and judicial selection.[2] In 2021, Time named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world on its annual Time 100 list.
Abrams Gardner, is a U.S. District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Prior to being appointed to the bench, she was an Assistant United States Attorney, Since 2014.

FYI, Trumps pick Barrett has less experience than all of them.
I mean BASH, like I just did to you.
Thanks for playing.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

we all know you are a title reader. His bills were not infrastructure. Lots of pork give away to prop up and strengthen marxist groups in the US. If it were simply infastructure, it would all have passed.

Inflation, crime, flying illegals in to pad election areas they need, screwing up military operations, getting us into a war with Russia (announced today they are moving troops to eastern Europe), more deaths from covid than under Trump (was a pretty big deal to you democrats during Trumps time), etc. You want to go on or all those successes to you people? The horrible answer is those are successes to you marxists.

Talk to all the republicans claiming credit for the influx of cash they have to build/repair/improve their infrastructure in their areas. Every single one voted NO, happy to take credit tho.
Name all the marxist groups getting propped up and strengthened. What? nothing?
Blah, Blah, Blah, Fastest growing economy in over 40 years, GDP 6.9% growth. Guess its just the Biden Bump. Check unemployment #'s, lowest since 1969.
Funny, i didnt even use conspiracy theories like you. Marxist fool.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I don't disagree with the political agenda point. That is why elections have consequences. They should be qualified and support their agenda though I don't agree with biden's agenda at all. Saying you are going only pick from around 6% of the population is not a good ideas unless it happens to work out on merit.

Thats a tired racist argument. Trump picked from a minority, 3 times, dont recall your horror.
Why dont you say specifically why the candidate, you dont know, is under qualified. You cant. Fool.

Biden is going to either cling to his leftist base, and pick a person of color, and female so he is not slammed by the extreme left side of his socialist platform. Or he is trying to make people believe he has shed his 40 year racist, bigoted opinions and turned a new leaf. His true colors show in his 40 years of racial statements and hate.

His VP said, he was a racist on live tv, during the debates. but lets be honest. money and power are all that matters, so Kammy is just fine working for a bigot, as long as she gets her power and fame. She would sell her soul to the devil, if it gave her more power and money. Thats what she has done, and he hates her! Biden always has, because she is a women and black. and you can see it!

As for a black or brown or whatever, As long as the person is truly qualified, to hold that seat in the SC, their race, color etc should not be "the reason" for an appointment. ITs when you say, "I'm appointing a black women, that is the racist component" Not I am appointing people who have qualified skills. Stupid as it may be, Biden is an idiot and just should appoint people who have the skills. Making it a point of color, makes the appointed, appointed because of their color and shadows their possible qualifications. Sad

So if you ever owned an engineering firm, and hire a black person, who is not an engineer or qualified to do the level of work needed for the position, but tell them they got the job because they are black, and you need a black person or white person etc etc so the socialist dont riot outside your business and try to burn it down, You might be a racist! But if you hire the person, because they truly have the abilities, you really dont need to broadcast their appointment or position based on them being X color. So stupid, I cant even believe we live in a time where we are discussing this ****!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OG1FHJtwCY

Of course you are going to pick people that meet your political agenda. Race and gender aren't political agenda. Would he be considering Candace Owens if she was a judge? She's a black female.

Originally Posted by bcd

Of course you are going to pick people that meet your political agenda. Race and gender aren't political agenda. Would he be considering Candace Owens if she was a judge? She's a black female.

Diversity in gender and race is a political agenda. WRT picking Owens, picking a black woman is not the same as picking any black woman at random.

For some reason both you and Doug seem to believe that picking someone based on race and gender means that you are excluding qualifications. I don't understand why both of you are trying to make that point, other than a frail attempt to frame the argument as something it's not. Portraying the opposing argument as excluding qualifications is a strawman.

Maybe you're trying to say that there is a limit on how many agenda items you can consider when selecting a candidate. I.E. if you pick gender and race then you've hit your limit of two, and can't consider professional qualifications or conservative/liberal ideology? Is that your line of thinking?

Originally Posted by dougr

As for a black or brown or whatever, As long as the person is truly qualified, to hold that seat in the SC, their race, color etc should not be "the reason" for an appointment. ITs when you say, "I'm appointing a black women, that is the racist component" Not I am appointing people who have qualified skills. Stupid as it may be, Biden is an idiot and just should appoint people who have the skills. Making it a point of color, makes the appointed, appointed because of their color and shadows their possible qualifications. Sad

So if you ever owned an engineering firm, and hire a black person, who is not an engineer or qualified to do the level of work needed for the position, but tell them they got the job because they are black, and you need a black person or white person etc etc so the socialist dont riot outside your business and try to burn it down, You might be a racist! But if you hire the person, because they truly have the abilities, you really dont need to broadcast their appointment or position based on them being X color. So stupid, I cant even believe we live in a time where we are discussing this ****!

Out of the 113 SCOTUS judges in history, all but 6 have been white men. You’re acting like the logic of picking a white man hasn’t been the standard for all of American history. Why is it considered racist to want diversity in the highest court of the land?

Originally Posted by fly135

Diversity in gender and race is a political agenda. WRT picking Owens, picking a black woman is not the same as picking any black woman at random.

For some reason both you and Doug seem to believe that picking someone based on race and gender means that you are excluding qualifications. I don't understand why both of you are trying to make that point, other than a frail attempt to frame the argument as something it's not. Portraying the opposing argument as excluding qualifications is a strawman.

Maybe you're trying to say that there is a limit on how many agenda items you can consider when selecting a candidate. I.E. if you pick gender and race then you've hit your limit of two, and can't consider professional qualifications or conservative/liberal ideology? Is that your line of thinking?

Tomorrow I will announce to my sales team That I will be adding another rep! A qualified, african american little person. Must be a little person and black. Its time! Shouljdj have been done a long time ago.

Now if any of my team knows anyone who fits this description, please let me know.

Fly, is that ok? Does that sound ok? Just checking, kinda sounds discriminatory to me, but you are say AOK! just checking

Originally Posted by 95sn

Out of the 113 SCOTUS judges in history, all but 6 have been white men. You’re acting like the logic of picking a white man hasn’t been the standard for all of American history. Why is it considered racist to want diversity in the highest court of the land?

ITs not, i think a black women or man or Brown of blue, etc is great. I think SCOTUS needs a little person. I am hiring a new rep., starting tomorrow and I put out an email telling my team and if they had a candidate who was an african american little person. (did not say midget, little person) to give me their info.
Because thats what we are hiring, obviously, must be a sales rep, to be qualified, but has to be little person. black, identifies as a female.

I got it now, thanks. all clear captain, I understand there is absolutely nothing wrong with it!

Oh, should I tell my team, dont bother with anyone who does not fit that description. I know you may have someone who is not a little person, who fits 2/3 of the description, but its critical they MUST BE A LITTLE PERSON, or should i just let them send whatever, and then tell the candidate they cannot get the position.

"I am sorry, but unfortunately, you are not a little person, and do not identify as a female, although you are female by nature, but identify as a man, and are too tall! WE good? Just checking with you fly, and 95sn, need your help on this one, dont want sound like a bigot or racists pig. Thanks for the help

Originally Posted by dougr

Fly, is that ok? Does that sound ok? Just checking, kinda sounds discriminatory to me, but you are say AOK! just checking

You don't need my permission to say stupid stuff. You've been doing fine up to this point without it.

Originally Posted by dougr

Oh, should I tell my team, dont bother with anyone who does not fit that description. I know you may have someone who is not a little person, who fits 2/3 of the description, but its critical they MUST BE A LITTLE PERSON, or should i just let them send whatever, and then tell the candidate they cannot get the position.

"I am sorry, but unfortunately, you are not a little person, and do not identify as a female, although you are female by nature, but identify as a man, and are too tall! WE good? Just checking with you fly, and 95sn, need your help on this one, dont want sound like a bigot or racists pig. Thanks for the help

Im confident you are the littlest person

Originally Posted by 95sn

Thats a tired racist argument. Trump picked from a minority, 3 times, dont recall your horror.
Why dont you say specifically why the candidate, you dont know, is under qualified. You cant. Fool.

Didn't Trump pick a black female for a high end Judge post and the democrats including Schumer voted against her?

I did not say anyone was unqualified. I think saying you are only going to pick from 6% of the population and even less of a percent of population of judges is not really the thing to do. If he finds one that is a top end jurist, then so be it. I think it is a mistake for any president to say they are going to pick X color or gender. It limits you from picking the absolute best person.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Didn't Trump pick a black female for a high end Judge post and the democrats including Schumer voted against her?

I did not say anyone was unqualified. I think saying you are only going to pick from 6% of the population and even less of a percent of population of judges is not really the thing to do. If he finds one that is a top end jurist, then so be it. I think it is a mistake for any president to say they are going to pick X color or gender. It limits you from picking the absolute best person.

Thats the point. You cant say someone is unqualified, there is no pick yet.
The other day you tried to say his potential pick is under/less qualified. Of course, all have more experience than trumps lady pick and i dont recall you explaining how her qualifications were a little light. Was she the best? Was Kavanaugh the best possible choice? Youre clueless. Everyone on the short list is MORE than qualified. All Yale/Harvard/Princton law school. You are not qualified to shine their shoes.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Didn't Trump pick a black female for a high end Judge post and the democrats including Schumer voted against her?

I did not say anyone was unqualified. I think saying you are only going to pick from 6% of the population and even less of a percent of population of judges is not really the thing to do. If he finds one that is a top end jurist, then so be it. I think it is a mistake for any president to say they are going to pick X color or gender. It limits you from picking the absolute best person.

Regan did it. He committed to selecting the first female supreme court justice as part of his 1980 campaign and followed through with OConor in 1981.

There are many qualified judges out there and there isn't a ranking system. He has just narrowed the field to a black woman. His case is there never has been one out of the hundreds of justices in US History. Now, if the person is unqualified, I hope issues are raised.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Thats the point. You cant say someone is unqualified, there is no pick yet.
The other day you tried to say his potential pick is under/less qualified. Of course, all have more experience than trumps lady pick and i dont recall you explaining how her qualifications were a little light. Was she the best? Was Kavanaugh the best possible choice? Youre clueless. Everyone on the short list is MORE than qualified. All Yale/Harvard/Princton law school. You are not qualified to shine their shoes.

I said no such thing. I said it is not a good idea to automatically limit a choice to only 6% of the population and more than likely even less percentage of qualified judges. Only thing I have seen on qualifications is of potential people on a short list, they have very limited experience to date. Maybe there are others, but that is all I know.

Originally Posted by skiboarder

Regan did it. He committed to selecting the first female supreme court justice as part of his 1980 campaign and followed through with OConor in 1981.

There are many qualified judges out there and there isn't a ranking system. He has just narrowed the field to a black woman. His case is there never has been one out of the hundreds of justices in US History. Now, if the person is unqualified, I hope issues are raised.

I agree in general. Reagan was also a life long democrat so maybe he did not shed all that race and gender baiting for votes persona.

Of the people I have read about (and it is very limited on what I have read about it), the people on the short list have very limited experience. I would expect them to be challenged appropriately and not have some partisan shills come out and say they were raped by them at a party when they were teens in a place they don't remember.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I said no such thing. I said it is not a good idea to automatically limit a choice to only 6% of the population and more than likely even less percentage of qualified judges. Only thing I have seen on qualifications is of potential people on a short list, they have very limited experience to date. Maybe there are others, but that is all I know.

limited experience? What is that? What is reasonable experience?
On the short list, all have more experience than Justice Barrett. Im feeling like, you dont know anything at all. Just what you have been told to say. Like a parrot.

Originally Posted by 95sn

limited experience? What is that? What is reasonable experience?
On the short list, all have more experience than Justice Barrett. Im feeling like, you dont know anything at all. Just what you have been told to say. Like a parrot.

Give us your short list. Seems like you speak like you know all. Give us the list there gaspumper. Lay it out.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I agree in general. Reagan was also a life long democrat so maybe he did not shed all that race and gender baiting for votes persona.

Of the people I have read about (and it is very limited on what I have read about it), the people on the short list have very limited experience. I would expect them to be challenged appropriately and not have some partisan shills come out and say they were raped by them at a party when they were teens in a place they don't remember.

Holy Crap! Now not even Regan isn't even republican enough for you.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Give us your short list. Seems like you speak like you know all. Give us the list there gaspumper. Lay it out.

I did that 3 days ago. When I corrected you. Did you already forget?
Not to mention, been in every newspaper across the country. Did FOX forget?


01-28-2022 2:31 PM
95sn
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier View Post
From what I have seen those on the short list have not even been a judge for a year.

You mean bash like bring out false claims of rape?
No, it isnt what you have seen. It is only what you have been told by your "Fair and Balanced" single source.
The short list
Brown Jackson is since 2013 Fed Appeals Court Judge.
Kruger, CA Supreme Court Judge since 2015
Childs, is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, serving in that role since 2010
Ifill,is an American lawyer. She is a law professor and president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.[1] She is the Legal Defense Fund's seventh president since Thurgood Marshall founded the organization in 1940. Ifill is also a nationally recognized expert on voting rights and judicial selection.[2] In 2021, Time named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world on its annual Time 100 list.
Abrams Gardner, is a U.S. District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Prior to being appointed to the bench, she was an Assistant United States Attorney, Since 2014.

FYI, Trumps pick Barrett has less experience than all of them.
I mean BASH, like I just did to you.
Thanks for playing.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Im confident you are the littlest person

No sorry, sorry your team and the players on it are the little people. Why not just skip the "we are nominating a black women" and just nominate the person you want! BTW, the black women, who gets into the position will always know they may have been seated just because they are black and female.

just like if I hired a little person on the bases of them being little. Why not grow up pick the person on the merit not their color. and if its a black women, great! They would have earned it based on their dedication and merit, not on the color of their skin, BUT TOO LATE everyone now knows they were nominated for being black. Kinda sad, as it strips the hard work and effort they achieved

Originally Posted by skiboarder

Regan did it. He committed to selecting the first female supreme court justice as part of his 1980 campaign and followed through with OConor in 1981.

There are many qualified judges out there and there isn't a ranking system. He has just narrowed the field to a black woman. His case is there never has been one out of the hundreds of justices in US History. Now, if the person is unqualified, I hope issues are raised.

Regan was wrong if he announced his decision, prior to any vetting, based on gender. Why is this so hard to understand

Originally Posted by dougr

Regan was wrong if he announced his decision, prior to any vetting, based on gender. Why is this so hard to understand

No sorry, sorry your team and the players on it are the little people. Why not just skip the "we are nominating a black women" and just nominate the person you want! BTW, the black women, who gets into the position will always know they may have been seated just because they are black and female.

just like if I hired a little person on the bases of them being little. Why not grow up pick the person on the merit not their color. and if its a black women, great! They would have earned it based on their dedication and merit, not on the color of their skin, BUT TOO LATE everyone now knows they were nominated for being black. Kinda sad, as it strips the hard work and effort they achieved

Racism, its easy to see.

Originally Posted by 95sn

I did that 3 days ago. When I corrected you. Did you already forget?
Not to mention, been in every newspaper across the country. Did FOX forget?


01-28-2022 2:31 PM
95sn
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier View Post
From what I have seen those on the short list have not even been a judge for a year.

You mean bash like bring out false claims of rape?
No, it isnt what you have seen. It is only what you have been told by your "Fair and Balanced" single source.
The short list
Brown Jackson is since 2013 Fed Appeals Court Judge.
Kruger, CA Supreme Court Judge since 2015
Childs, is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, serving in that role since 2010
Ifill,is an American lawyer. She is a law professor and president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.[1] She is the Legal Defense Fund's seventh president since Thurgood Marshall founded the organization in 1940. Ifill is also a nationally recognized expert on voting rights and judicial selection.[2] In 2021, Time named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world on its annual Time 100 list.
Abrams Gardner, is a U.S. District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Prior to being appointed to the bench, she was an Assistant United States Attorney, Since 2014.

FYI, Trumps pick Barrett has less experience than all of them.
I mean BASH, like I just did to you.
Thanks for playing.

There is no playing because I DID NOT BASH ANY PERSON. If they are on the list and have qualifications then they should be nominated and let the people in congress vet if they are radicals. If they are radicals, then they should not be voted in. I even said, that I had only heard the ones were not and admitted that I know I don't know who all of them that could be qualified. Just love how you are completely wrong for over 4 years and want to try and argue that I have said something that I did not say so you can feel you are right about something. Amazing.

Originally Posted by skiboarder

Holy Crap! Now not even Regan isn't even republican enough for you.

I love Reagan. However he was indeed a life long democrat and made some life long democrat thinking mistakes like amnesty. Pandering to gender for a nomination. He simply could have just nominated her instead of pandering. When you pander to race or gender, all you are doing is cheapening their accomplishments. It makes it look like you could have had someone better, but we need to settle for this instead. I don't care if it is a Republican or one of you demorats.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

There is no playing because I DID NOT BASH ANY PERSON. If they are on the list and have qualifications then they should be nominated and let the people in congress vet if they are radicals. If they are radicals, then they should not be voted in. I even said, that I had only heard the ones were not and admitted that I know I don't know who all of them that could be qualified. Just love how you are completely wrong for over 4 years and want to try and argue that I have said something that I did not say so you can feel you are right about something. Amazing.

You didnt bash? How about flat out lying about their qualifications? "Not even been a judge for a year" That WAS you right. Your choice of media lied to you, you believed it and i had to correct you, again. I provided the top 5 with a couple qualifications. Was that enough for you??? Nope, you have to continue with your far right racism. Maybe do 5 minutes of research before forming an opinion. You dont even know what qualifications are needed, FYI, dont even need to be a judge.
Im sure Harvard, Princton and Yale are just full of "Radicals". Kavanaugh would know.
When was i wrong? Better be specific.

Originally Posted by 95sn

You didnt bash? How about flat out lying about their qualifications? "Not even been a judge for a year" That WAS you right. Your choice of media lied to you, you believed it and i had to correct you, again. I provided the top 5 with a couple qualifications. Was that enough for you??? Nope, you have to continue with your far right racism. Maybe do 5 minutes of research before forming an opinion. You dont even know what qualifications are needed, FYI, dont even need to be a judge.
Im sure Harvard, Princton and Yale are just full of "Radicals". Kavanaugh would know.
When was i wrong? Better be specific.

Show me the lie. I said of the ones I saw, they did not seem to have much time in and I said I am sure I have not seen everyone. Not a lie dumba$$. We have proven for over 4 years that you don't know what a lie is vs simple information that you don't agree with.

Racism? Triggered little snowflake gaspumper you are.

I did not form an opinion on any of the people. It is a consistent idea to quick calling out race and sex before hiring someone one. You simply should not do it. Then again, you little marxists love to demean people. It seems to be your thing.

Originally Posted by 95sn

You didnt bash? How about flat out lying about their qualifications? "Not even been a judge for a year" That WAS you right. Your choice of media lied to you, you believed it and i had to correct you, again. I provided the top 5 with a couple qualifications. Was that enough for you??? Nope, you have to continue with your far right racism. Maybe do 5 minutes of research before forming an opinion. You dont even know what qualifications are needed, FYI, dont even need to be a judge.
Im sure Harvard, Princton and Yale are just full of "Radicals". Kavanaugh would know.
When was i wrong? Better be specific.

Yes. Those institutions are full or radicals and Kavanaugh does know because one of them accused him of rape and could not even say when, where or how. Sounds a lot like a radical attack to me. So you nailed it.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Show me the lie. I said of the ones I saw, they did not seem to have much time in and I said I am sure I have not seen everyone. Not a lie dumba$$. We have proven for over 4 years that you don't know what a lie is vs simple information that you don't agree with.

Racism? Triggered little snowflake gaspumper you are.

I did not form an opinion on any of the people. It is a consistent idea to quick calling out race and sex before hiring someone one. You simply should not do it. Then again, you little marxists love to demean people. It seems to be your thing.

3rd time. Last time.
(DeltaHoosier) Join Date: Mar 2018 01-28-2022, 11:34 AM Reply Quick Reply

From what I have seen those on the short list have not even been a judge for a year.

You mean bash like bring out false claims of rape?

Questioning ones qualifications especially when you are wrong in your assumption is bashing and racist. You made your opinion crystal clear to all.
Do you know about the Roony rule in NFL? Do you know why they have it, why its a big deal? Because the NFL is racist and theyre trying to fix it.
Lemme know if i missed anything or got it wrong in the last 4-5 years. So far nothing

Just another poster child of Biden’s criminal justice reform package he supported during his run for election and currently supports. Shoot an officer with previous weapons violation convictions , walk out on bond.


https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-teen-...king-free-bond


Add in 2 more dead officers killed by a gunman in Virginia and we have 33 officers shot in the line of duty last 20 days. Biden’s policies at work

https://www.whsv.com/2022/02/01/repo...ollege-campus/

Had Ted Cruz left for cancun yet?

Originally Posted by ralph

Had Ted Cruz left for cancun yet?

Ralph are you our of quarantine?

Originally Posted by dougr

Ralph are you our of quarantine?

Never been in quarantine?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I love Reagan. However he was indeed a life long democrat and made some life long democrat thinking mistakes like amnesty. Pandering to gender for a nomination. He simply could have just nominated her instead of pandering. When you pander to race or gender, all you are doing is cheapening their accomplishments. It makes it look like you could have had someone better, but we need to settle for this instead. I don't care if it is a Republican or one of you demorats.

You know what else cheapens your accomplishments... If you are picked for a political agenda, just like how every judge is picked.

Only complaining about cheapening when your political agenda is threatened also cheapens your argument. Notice how the narrative went from "elections have consequences" to "your reasons cheapen accomplishments" when the tables turned. Most people are too stupid to notice. So don't feel bad if you missed it.

Originally Posted by 95sn

3rd time. Last time.
(DeltaHoosier) Join Date: Mar 2018 01-28-2022, 11:34 AM Reply Quick Reply

From what I have seen those on the short list have not even been a judge for a year.

You mean bash like bring out false claims of rape?

Questioning ones qualifications especially when you are wrong in your assumption is bashing and racist. You made your opinion crystal clear to all.
Do you know about the Roony rule in NFL? Do you know why they have it, why its a big deal? Because the NFL is racist and theyre trying to fix it.
Lemme know if i missed anything or got it wrong in the last 4-5 years. So far nothing

It is becoming even more clear that you do not understand the words of the language you are arguing in. If the people I had seen only had a year of experience is an observation in fact. Nor is it a statement that there could not be others. It is not attached to a race nor is it bashing. You really need sober up and try to understand the language.

Originally Posted by fly135

You know what else cheapens your accomplishments... If you are picked for a political agenda, just like how every judge is picked.

Only complaining about cheapening when your political agenda is threatened also cheapens your argument. Notice how the narrative went from "elections have consequences" to "your reasons cheapen accomplishments" when the tables turned. Most people are too stupid to notice. So don't feel bad if you missed it.

I disagree. If a judge is unaware they tend to have a conservative or liberal interpretation of the law, then they are completely unqualified to hold any high office as a jurist. They would be so unaware of who they are it would just not be conceivable. It does not even approach the discussion of simply being a gender or a color.

The "reasons" you are trying to merge are not even the same. Elections do have consequences because the people who are allowed to put people forward and those who are allowed to vote have the power so the election of those people have what? CONSEQUENCES. that is no way the same as saying I am not going to look for the most qualified person with my bias. I am only going to pick you based on what you look like. That cheapens the individuals merit.

looks like your boy biden is moving closer to war:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/pe...02/id/1055135/

US Moving 3,000 Troops in Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

It is becoming even more clear that you do not understand the words of the language you are arguing in. If the people I had seen only had a year of experience is an observation in fact. Nor is it a statement that there could not be others. It is not attached to a race nor is it bashing. You really need sober up and try to understand the language.

There isnt a pick yet. You have not seen who it is yet felt compelled to bash either a black woman, or all black women. Who is the supposed pick without experience? What list are you working off? FOX list? You cant even name them. Biden said he would pick a black woman, your single and only response was to bash. All the potentials have been in most newspapers for days, so WE know who they are, all have more than adequate experience. The only observation is racist.

Originally Posted by 95sn

There isnt a pick yet. You have not seen who it is yet felt compelled to bash either a black woman, or all black women. Who is the supposed pick without experience? What list are you working off? FOX list? You cant even name them. Biden said he would pick a black woman, your single and only response was to bash. All the potentials have been in most newspapers for days, so WE know who they are, all have more than adequate experience. The only observation is racist.

You clearly do not understand English.

I have not bashed a single person except for biden and other presidents who use race and gender as a metric for choosing anyone for any job.

No I can not name them because I don't care other than the stupid color and gender metric. Can not make this any more clear you moron.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

looks like your boy biden is moving closer to war:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/pe...02/id/1055135/

US Moving 3,000 Troops in Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Newsmax, lol.
Are you upset he is challenging trumps buttbuddy putin? Are you thinking Biden is going to war with Russia? Best of luck with that. They are supporting Ukraine against an authoritarian strongman living in the past.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You clearly do not understand English.

I have not bashed a single person except for biden and other presidents who use race and gender as a metric for choosing anyone for any job.

No I can not name them because I don't care other than the stupid color and gender metric. Can not make this any more clear you moron.

Who doesnt have a year of experience? Did I dream you said that about a SC pick that has not been picked? You dont care enough to even know who is on the short list, but care enough to bash whoever it might be? Just a racist in general? Black= bad? Woman= bad. Those are the only knowns. Thats the only point, moron.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Who doesnt have a year of experience? Did I dream you said that about a SC pick that has not been picked? You dont care enough to even know who is on the short list, but care enough to bash whoever it might be? Just a racist in general? Black= bad? Woman= bad. Those are the only knowns. Thats the only point, moron.

You certainly make a lot of stuff in your drug addled brain. Just because I casually heard of a person in that presentation, they said the person had a year of experience. Don't care about the persons name only if it were true, that should not be especially if it were only a race based appointment. Does not need a name, it is a situation. I also said there could be other people and that I did not know. You are such a dip$hit, it is beyond compare.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Newsmax, lol.
Are you upset he is challenging trumps buttbuddy putin? Are you thinking Biden is going to war with Russia? Best of luck with that. They are supporting Ukraine against an authoritarian strongman living in the past.

Still working that lie of Russia and Trump huh?

You tell us if your buddy biden is going to war. you don't usually move troops to Eastern Europe for the fun of it. you seem to forget, Trump was the first president to give Ukraine defensive weapons.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Newsmax, lol.
Are you upset he is challenging trumps buttbuddy putin? Are you thinking Biden is going to war with Russia? Best of luck with that. They are supporting Ukraine against an authoritarian strongman living in the past.

Is it not true that they are moving there?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You certainly make a lot of stuff in your drug addled brain. Just because I casually heard of a person in that presentation, they said the person had a year of experience. Don't care about the persons name only if it were true, that should not be especially if it were only a race based appointment. Does not need a name, it is a situation. I also said there could be other people and that I did not know. You are such a dip$hit, it is beyond compare.

Again, i didnt make anything up, i quoted you.
Maybe you should shut up when all you know is from casually listening to conspiracy theorists on am radio. You cant even recall who it was? and it wasnt true. then why the need to bash and undermine the president? Nothing you say or hear is accurate.
FYI, the candidate will be more than qualified.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Again, i didnt make anything up, i quoted you.
Maybe you should shut up when all you know is from casually listening to conspiracy theorists on am radio. You cant even recall who it was? and it wasnt true. then why the need to bash and undermine the president? Nothing you say or hear is accurate.
FYI, the candidate will be more than qualified.

bash and undermine the president. Are you really that fing unaware of your body of work, that your gaspumping a$$ actually put that into print?

How can you say the candidate will be more than qualified when you just went on a screed telling everyone I don't know who it is?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Is it not true that they are moving there?

Germany, Poland and Romania are not in Russia nor Ukraine. Putin has 100,000+ troops sitting in tanks on the Ukraine border. You think Biden is sending 3000 americans into that?
What point are you making? Explain yourself Lucy.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

bash and undermine the president. Are you really that fing unaware of your body of work, that your gaspumping a$$ actually put that into print?

How can you say the candidate will be more than qualified when you just went on a screed telling everyone I don't know who it is?

Because Biden is a moderate, has been forever. I guarantee he will pick a qualified candidate with impressive and extensive experience.
See the difference in expectations?

Originally Posted by 95sn

Germany, Poland and Romania are not in Russia nor Ukraine. Putin has 100,000+ troops sitting in tanks on the Ukraine border. You think Biden is sending 3000 americans into that?
What point are you making? Explain yourself Lucy.

You tell me. He is your president. Why is he moving troops into eastern Europe. And, yes. he would put 3000 troops into that. It does not take many to do ground ops to support airstrikes and they only need to be close enough to get there in rapid deployment or support the logistics to get the assets in theater.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Still working that lie of Russia and Trump huh?

You tell us if your buddy biden is going to war. you don't usually move troops to Eastern Europe for the fun of it. you seem to forget, Trump was the first president to give Ukraine defensive weapons.

Right, he blackmailed them on that deal. Give me the dirt on Biden and I send the weapons. Like virtually everything trump, he F'ed it up.
100,000+ Vs. 3000? Bad odds right there.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You tell me. He is your president. Why is he moving troops into eastern Europe. And, yes. he would put 3000 troops into that. It does not take many to do ground ops to support airstrikes and they only need to be close enough to get there in rapid deployment or support the logistics to get the assets in theater.

ok. Im saying he wont send the 3000 into war with Russia.
What are you saying?

Originally Posted by 95sn

Because Biden is a moderate, has been forever. I guarantee he will pick a qualified candidate with impressive and extensive experience.
See the difference in expectations?

Yes. You like marxist ideology and I don't. Biden has been a moderate only at his least radical phase. He as a president as been extremely left wing and since he has only been president once, I have to assume his body of work as president is that of a far left wing ideologue. While he has to select someone with some qualifications, color and gender should not be one. If they are qualified and happen to be those other things then so be it. I still believe the person they select will be left wing in which case I will not like it and that is my prerogative.

Originally Posted by 95sn

ok. Im saying he wont send the 3000 into war with Russia.
What are you saying?

I am saying he will use those 3000 as the brains on the ground to facilitate air strikes. They will use the Ukrainians as the ground labor and use our guys as the ones who coordinate air assets.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Right, he blackmailed them on that deal. Give me the dirt on Biden and I send the weapons. Like virtually everything trump, he F'ed it up.
100,000+ Vs. 3000? Bad odds right there.

Unlike the fire the guy investigating my son or you don't get the aid we promised? that kind of blackmail?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

looks like your boy biden is moving closer to war:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/pe...02/id/1055135/

US Moving 3,000 Troops in Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Seems that Biden is everyone's boy on this issue. I haven't seen hardly anyone with an opinion on deescalating this situation. It certainly makes sense from a Russian perspective to want to stop the spread of NATO around it's borders. We say that we have no intention of bringing Ukraine into NATO, but we won't make that concession as a promise.

This whole situation is stupid. It's unfortunate that we can't come together as Americans and stop shooting ourselves in the foot. If this gets much worse I can imagine all those 401Ks taking a huge hit.

Originally Posted by fly135

Seems that Biden is everyone's boy on this issue. I haven't seen hardly anyone with an opinion on deescalating this situation. It certainly makes sense from a Russian perspective to want to stop the spread of NATO around it's borders. We say that we have no intention of bringing Ukraine into NATO, but we won't make that concession as a promise.

This whole situation is stupid. It's unfortunate that we can't come together as Americans and stop shooting ourselves in the foot. If this gets much worse I can imagine all those 401Ks taking a huge hit.

I have no dog in that fight. I can sit back like you guys did with Bush and Trump and bash and bash and bash. Trump tends to hold your position on it. Unfortunately, Trump apparently made the mistake of mean tweets and fought against the swamp.

Just so we are clear on the idiocy and hypocrisy of the left ….. Covid is so serious and dangerous in California restrictions, mandates , and a state of emergency are in place . Daily speeches of how dangerous covid is and all the fear of yet another stealth variant.


But don’t worry , it’s not that big of an emergency. They can still hold the Super Bowl in the largest urban area with the most cases and highest risk , While people fly in from all over the world. them They can entertained while residents are forced to remain under tyranny . Follow the science right?????



Guess it’s not about the science after all…….imagine that

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Yes. You like marxist ideology and I don't. Biden has been a moderate only at his least radical phase. He as a president as been extremely left wing and since he has only been president once, I have to assume his body of work as president is that of a far left wing ideologue. While he has to select someone with some qualifications, color and gender should not be one. If they are qualified and happen to be those other things then so be it. I still believe the person they select will be left wing in which case I will not like it and that is my prerogative.

Biden’s been a failure on foreign policy his entire political career with a quarter century of backing awful ideology regarding foreign affairs.

Originally Posted by xstarrider

Just so we are clear on the idiocy and hypocrisy of the left ….. Covid is so serious and dangerous in California restrictions, mandates , and a state of emergency are in place . Daily speeches of how dangerous covid is and all the fear of yet another stealth variant.


But don’t worry , it’s not that big of an emergency. They can still hold the Super Bowl in the largest urban area with the most cases and highest risk , While people fly in from all over the world. them They can entertained while residents are forced to remain under tyranny . Follow the science right?????



Guess it’s not about the science after all…….imagine that

See all the pictures our Newsome with no mask on at the game. We all know omicron spreads to and by the vaxxed and unvaxxed alike. If he took as serious as he wants us to, he would at least have something to stand on. He has nothing at this point (like he ever has).

I believe another blue state congressman has been caught in Florida vacationing. I believe Sawell from kalifornia. Must be something about Florida huh?

And in other breaking news. Latest research shows LOCKDOWNS HAD ALMOST ZERO EFFECT ON REDUCING COVID

https://www.foxnews.com/us/lockdowns...ut-of-hand.amp

https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/health...t-covid-deaths



GEE WHO ALL SAID THIS??????? Once again proving the damage done to America by these democratic tyrants and their mouthpiece Farci far outweighs any benefit they claimed would be a result. Remember when actual practicing epidemiologists told everyone Farci and the government were lying and full of ****? Remember when they said the effects lockdowns would be worse than the virus running it’s course. Remember when we said the solution can’t have worse results than the problem ? Remember when Farci and his partner went to the Dems and demanded anyone who spoke against them be silenced and that Farci was in fact science?


ONCE AGAIN THE DATA DESTROYING THE BULL**** NARRATIVE !! How many passes do these domestic terrorists in charge get? When will these political activists be held accountable for completely lying to America and implementing policies that have destroyed American lives for a political agenda targeted to win the White House ?




What’s next Ivermectin is actually working great at reducing the effects for someone that has contracted covid …….nooooooooooo

Originally Posted by xstarrider

And in other breaking news. Latest research shows LOCKDOWNS HAD ALMOST ZERO EFFECT ON REDUCING COVID

NZ used lockdowns and has a total death total to date of 53 or 11 per million. Compare that to the USA, 900k or 2,700 per million. So yeah, that research might be a bit flawed.

Originally Posted by ralph

NZ used lockdowns and has a total death total to date of 53 or 11 per million. Compare that to the USA, 900k or 2,700 per million. So yeah, that research might be a bit flawed.

Using NZ as a staple to compare to America is downright laughable, it’s comical you even attempt to make a serious argument about it, but since you want to talk numbers.



I am sure you followed the most recent multiple studies that have exposed the scam of cooking the covid death numbers and bringing to light the actual true deaths “due to covid” as a majority have proven to be reduced as high as 70% in some areas . 890,000 at only 60 % ( being generous ) That’s actually only 356,000 covid induced deaths. A far cry from the made up fear induced death virus it’s portrayed as.

Just one of the dozens of studies showing the fake numbers pushed by our fantastic covid leaders. I am sure these medical elitists that claim to be “the science” had no idea this was going on. I am sure all the medical experts with the greatest minds counting the data at the cdc had no reasonable intention of defrauding Americans about the true statistics of covid. RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...cs-incidental/


The only thing flawed is you thinking what’s transpiring in an irrelevant, secluded, island country that contributes nothing to the world is a benchmark for world health research.

Originally Posted by ralph

NZ used lockdowns and has a total death total to date of 53 or 11 per million. Compare that to the USA, 900k or 2,700 per million. So yeah, that research might be a bit flawed.

NZ has very little to no international travel. We have insane amounts of people coming into our country by the hour. Not to include 2mil illegal imagrants, with a 20% plus positivity rate, allowed to run free in our cities and states, not mandated to vaccinate etc etc.

So we can twist the narrative, just like the left. But everyone who dies, in this country, who tested positive for covid, died from covid. So if you got shot, and bled out, with covid, you died of covid. Only in the last few months, due to Bidens high dealth rate, has the left started pushing to say, "dying with covid, is not dying from covid"

There is not trust in the data, as the science has been manipulated from political gain. Like all things, its just a matter of time before the truth comes out. Always does.

What is the comparison they are using in the study to find that it only reduced deaths by .2%? We were locked down so how do you estimate death tolls if we weren't?

Originally Posted by psudy

What is the comparison they are using in the study to find that it only reduced deaths by .2%? We were locked down so how do you estimate death tolls if we weren't?

I believe they have a pdf of the results in one of the articles.

Lockdowns are not going to stop people from dying of COVID, it is only going to delay them getting it. Delay only changes the rate of death of those effected not the overall number. Only thing that changes it is if you are like NZ where you can literally force your entire population into isolation for 2 years and then get the vaccines to the majority will it reduce total deaths.

Originally Posted by xstarrider

I am sure you followed the most recent multiple studies that have exposed the scam of cooking the covid death numbers and bringing to light the actual true deaths “due to covid” as a majority have proven to be reduced as high as 70% in some areas . 890,000 at only 60 % ( being generous ) That’s actually only 356,000 covid induced deaths. A far cry from the made up fear induced death virus it’s portrayed as.

Cool story bro, how do you explain All Cause Mortality is up 900k on projections?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I believe they have a pdf of the results in one of the articles.

Lockdowns are not going to stop people from dying of COVID, it is only going to delay them getting it. Delay only changes the rate of death of those effected not the overall number. Only thing that changes it is if you are like NZ where you can literally force your entire population into isolation for 2 years and then get the vaccines to the majority will it reduce total deaths.

Yes exactly, delaying infection allows you time to wait for vaccines and therapeutics to be developed and allows you to add capacity to the medical system for the peaks.

I am healthy, vaccinated and take reasonable precautions. We've done all we cans to save the dummies.

Their opinions won't change. Just the facts they use to support them will... So much effort to remain dumb--it boggles me sometimes.