Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Brett Kavanaugh (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Captain Cranks
- Start date
bigbottom
Footballguy
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Sideshow Bob
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Sideshow Bob
Footballguy
You building an ark down there yet? House and family safe?
bigbottom
Footballguy
So it was simply about keeping a Democratic nominee off the bench, and not about nominations within so many months of the election. That's a refreshingly honest, if not hyper-partisan, explanation, but it least it allows you to fully support replacing RBG in 2020 without coming off like a total hypocrite.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Last day or so have been fine, but now I'm at work staring out the window as we get dumped on. I may end up stranded here.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Let's find a more common comparison with candidates that didn't have any controversy around their past history. How did the Dems handle the Gorsuch nomination vs. how did the Repubs handle Garland?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I don’t want to take Don’t Noonan’s side but this isn’t a good comparison because Dems didn’t control the Senate.
dkp993
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
The problem with this - it seems to me - is Noonan is using pretty short term thinking. It doesn't take into account that - at some point - its likely that the Dems will control the Senate with a GOP WH. And as much as I'd like to think that the Dems would rise above this nonsense and return the Senate to respectability - that's obviously quite unlikely.
I guess my point is that I think Noonan is wrong even when evaluating the world from his point of view. The long term damage from having the Senate behave this way outweighs the relatively limited benefit of having Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
My memory of Dr. Lee's testimony was that law enforcement did not follow proper and established procedures in some instances and that the failure to do so would cast some doubt on the reliability of some collected evidence and that it would have theoretically also allowed for affirmative tampering with other evidence. I do not recall him going so far as to state that law enforcement did tamper with evidence to inculpate, just that their failures allowed that possibility to exist and also that their failures also allowed for inadvertence to creep into the interpretations of the implications of the evidence. perhaps my memory is now faded, failing, and inaccurate. At the time I watched most of the testimony, but it has been a quarter of a century and I have not viewed the testimony since I first saw it.
What do you think, has my memory been clouded, drifting over the years to the point of a present misconception? Certainly it is possible.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Agreed. In the vanishingly unlikely event that a Democratic president nominated Hillary Clinton to the supreme court (which would make no sense regardless given her age), I would be jumping and down with fury over the prospect of somebody so dishonest sitting on the court.timschochet said:
jomar
Footballguy
by your own logic, there was nothing disgraceful about it if Democrats believed it was for the good of the country
dkp993
Footballguy
Exactly! And that’s my point about the Kavanaugh hearings. It’s politics (valid sexual assault complaint or which I’m not litigating here) and the Republicans would have done the exact same thing.Don't Noonan said:I have no problem with Democrats being upset with what McConnell did. I would have been upset too if the tables were turned.
Insomniac
Footballguy
Seems to me the horse is out of the barn for Supreme Court nominations being non-political. Unless you have a Senate majority the nomination isn't going thru.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Understood. But I draw the line when someone is unfairly attacked that ruins their life and family life.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
toshiba
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
What did Garland have in his background that suggested he was unfit to sit as a Supreme Court Justice?
timschochet
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I don't want to completely derail this thread from ignoring the obvious Kavanaugh traits that disqualify him from being a SC justice. This is for another thread. I'll just point out that "most" Christian denominations understand that Jesus' death on the cross was for all sin for those accept him as their Savior. Whether they ask forgiveness of a particular sin isn't all that important. Apparently, that's not the case in the Catholic Church? Good to know. I don't think I'd have a shot at being Catholic...way too many rules for me to remember.sho nuff said:
rustycolts
Footballguy
I don't know about Catholics, but I know Southern Baptist do that is why I no longer am one.The Commish said:
The Commish
Footballguy
Interesting...thanksZow said:
Zow
Footballguy
In the Catholic church if one dies with a mortal sin on his soul he is going to Hell regardless of his faith or otherwise good works.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Well...Id disagree there too...as most do say you must actually repent as part of taking Christ as your savior. Catholics just go through the whole official confession thing.
The Commish
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
If you mean acknowledges that you are a sinner, i'd agree. That's usually part of the prayer
Zow
Footballguy
Jesus opened the gates of heaven. We just still can't get there if we die with a mortal sin on the soul. Hence the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick or whatever it's called. In short, it made hormonal 7th grade Woz run to priests for confession a bunch because I thought about the hot chicks in my class pretty much constantly.
Zow
Footballguy
I recall this very strict Irish priest in 8th staring me down when I questioned the harshness of this particular dogma. I believe my initial response was something like, "Father, that can't be right..."
Unfortunately it took me ten or so more years to realize how dumb that dogma really is.
Zow
Footballguy
To derail this thread further, while the more popular differences between Christian faiths and the Catholic faiths are things like whether Mary had original sin and transubstantiation versus consubstantiation, the ease of getting to Heaven with faith alone versus the difficulty whereby one has to have been baptized, have faith, perform good acts, and not have a mortal sin on one's soul really is, to me at least, the biggest dogmatic difference.
This is why you may hear even the strictest of Christian faiths referred to as Catholic-lite or why why Christianity is a cop-out for people who just can't handle being perfect all the time.
This is why you may hear even the strictest of Christian faiths referred to as Catholic-lite or why why Christianity is a cop-out for people who just can't handle being perfect all the time.
The flying spaghetti monster will touch us all with his noodly appendage, irrespective of our works.To derail this thread further, while the more popular differences between Christian faiths and the Catholic faiths are things like whether Mary had original sin and transubstantiation versus consubstantiation, the ease of getting to Heaven with faith alone versus the difficulty whereby one has to have been baptized, have faith, perform good acts, and not have a mortal sin on one's soul really is, to me at least, the biggest dogmatic difference.
This is why you may hear even the strictest of Christian faiths referred to as Catholic-lite or why why Christianity is a cop-out for people who just can't handle being perfect all the time.
The Commish
Footballguy
Dickies
Footballguy
I am ex-Catholic but don’t remember things being as strict as Woz is talking about. I’m an atheist now, but my family is still super Catholic. My aunt was a nun, and my uncle is a Jesuit. Both are very progressive and seem way less rigid in their beliefs than people I know who define themselves simply as ChristianI had no idea about any of this @Zow Thanks for the lessonI've run across countless people who were "ex-Catholic"....I think I am beginning to see why.
dawgtrails
Footballguy
He'll isn't really a thing guys
zoonation
Footballguy
Agreed. But they can sleep comfortably knowing that he wouldn’t have been convicted if they put in the best case ever.whoknew said:
That jury was never going to convict O.J. Because the trial, in the jury’s eyes, was way bigger than a double homicide. It was about Los Angeles.
dawgtrails
Footballguy
OJ, Catholics, and gayness. Clearly the Kavanaugh thread is the place to be
H Jass
Footballguy
FWIW, Pope Francis has spoken much more acceptingly of homosexuals...as things are wont to due in the Church, things evolve/change very slowly.The Commish said:I had no idea about any of this @Zow Thanks for the lesson
Zow
Footballguy
The prosecutor made an early blunder which resulted being tried in the specific venue that it was which resulted in the jury pool that they got.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
I don't doubt any of this as my experience was unique in that I got far more in depth in terms of learning the nuances of the Catholic dogmas. I attended Catholic school from pre-school through college and I paid attention. Because I paid attention I had a priest pull me out of class in 6th through 8th grade to do some independent study where we really looked at the strict dogmas and got into mortal sins and getting into heaven.* In high school I studied apologetics, found it fascinating, and got into the works of St. Thomas and C.S. Lewis in my spare time. In college, I studied the Old Testament with the Benedictine priest tasked with translating from Hebrew to English the then most recent version of the bible.Dickies said:
In contrast, at least in my experience, most other Catholics didn't get that in depth. Heck, I remember going to church once with my mom, who is a Catholic school teacher, and afterwards raising an issue that I found interesting in the priest's homily. Instead of engaging, I mom sort of stared at me blankly and then commented about how some other kid in church was wearing the same kind of khakis as me or something. And, honestly, I got it. Most of the Catholics I knew went to church to feel good because it's a clear rule. There were many good people there, the priests didn't beat us much over the head with dogma during the homilies, and the concepts of the Eucharist and Reconciliation aren't that difficult to grasp. So, it's pretty easy to understand why or how many Catholics go through it without any uneasiness or feeling that the religion is too strict.
But, to anybody who looks in to the catechisms and the particular dogmas, I don't know how one could come away without describing them as almost impossibly too strict.
*He was the only one of the three priests at my parish as the time to not later wind up on the list of child abusers.
Zow
Footballguy
McBokonon
Footballguy
Prager/PragerU lost their appeal on this dumb lawsuit today.
So, the argument was that YouTube should be held to the same standard as the government with regards to the First Amendment. The far right-wing media ecosystem is really, really weird.
Similar threads
