toshiba 1,858 Posted September 19 Just now, Don't Noonan said: 5 minutes ago, Zow said: Why? Or, in other words, how is that different from what the democrats did with Kavanaugh? Democrats publicly went after Kavanaugh in an attempt to ruin his life. You honestly don't see the difference? I think the idea they wanted to "ruin his life" is a mischaracterization of the motivation. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zow 6,336 Posted September 19 2 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said: Democrats publicly went after Kavanaugh in an attempt to ruin his life. You honestly don't see the difference? While both were technically lawful, I see them as distasteful tactics contrary to the spirit of the rules done solely for partisan gain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fatguyinalittlecoat 8,385 Posted September 19 5 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said: Democrats publicly went after Kavanaugh in an attempt to ruin his life. You honestly don't see the difference? The difference is that Kavanaugh actually got a hearing. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dkp993 3,562 Posted September 19 3 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said: 9 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said: Democrats publicly went after Kavanaugh in an attempt to ruin his life. You honestly don't see the difference? The difference is that Kavanaugh actually got a hearing. Acting like Republicans wouldn’t have done the exact same thing were situations reversed is either laughable and partisan or extremely naïve. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Commish 9,957 Posted September 19 21 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said: Democrats publicly went after Kavanaugh in an attempt to ruin his life. You honestly don't see the difference? I thought it was "doing everything they could to keep him from being confirmed" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whoknew 6,661 Posted September 19 How was Brett Kavanaugh's life ruined? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigbottom 8,237 Posted September 19 53 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said: Yes On what basis did you support McConnell blocking the Garland nomination? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Don't Noonan 4,527 Posted September 19 6 minutes ago, bigbottom said: On what basis did you support McConnell blocking the Garland nomination? For the good of the country. The basis for all of my political beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sideshow Bob 317 Posted September 19 Really, he's no @slipperyslope 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squistion 10,008 Posted September 19 33 minutes ago, whoknew said: How was Brett Kavanaugh's life ruined? By giving him a lifetime appointment to The Supreme Court...oh, wait... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sideshow Bob 317 Posted September 19 13 minutes ago, bigbottom said: You building an ark down there yet? House and family safe? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigbottom 8,237 Posted September 19 7 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said: For the good of the country. The basis for all of my political beliefs. 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigbottom 8,237 Posted September 19 1 minute ago, Sideshow Bob said: You building an ark down there yet? House and family safe? 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
urbanhack 10,293 Posted September 19 1 hour ago, Don't Noonan said: You have to consider the circumstances. Dems doing everything they can to block any nominee. It was shenanigans and disgraceful. 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fatguyinalittlecoat 8,385 Posted September 19 4 minutes ago, urbanhack said: 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? 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dkp993 3,562 Posted September 19 20 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said: For the good of the country. The basis for all of my political beliefs. So partisan belief. Thank you for acknowledging it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whoknew 6,661 Posted September 19 7 minutes ago, bigbottom said: 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. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ditkaless Wonders 15,099 Posted September 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, Zow said: Or if a reputable forensic expert testifies that the evidence demonstrates that law enforcement manipulated the scene to further inculpate the Defendant... 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. Edited September 19 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IvanKaramazov 15,472 Posted September 19 7 minutes ago, timschochet said: Wouldn’t want any of those 3 on the Supreme Court. 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jomar 2,303 Posted September 19 2 hours ago, Don't Noonan said: You have to consider the circumstances. Dems doing everything they can to block any nominee. It was shenanigans and disgraceful. by your own logic, there was nothing disgraceful about it if Democrats believed it was for the good of the country 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dkp993 3,562 Posted September 19 5 minutes ago, 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. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Insomniac 562 Posted September 19 39 minutes ago, whoknew said: 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. 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. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Don't Noonan 4,527 Posted September 19 Just now, jomar said: by your own logic, there was nothing disgraceful about it if Democrats believed it was for the good of the country Understood. But I draw the line when someone is unfairly attacked that ruins their life and family life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henry Ford 57,859 Posted September 19 2 hours ago, whoknew said: How was Brett Kavanaugh's life ruined? For one thing, Matt Damon played him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toshiba 1,858 Posted September 19 50 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said: 1 hour ago, jomar said: by your own logic, there was nothing disgraceful about it if Democrats believed it was for the good of the country Understood. But I draw the line when someone is unfairly attacked that ruins their life and family life. How was his life ruined? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zow 6,336 Posted September 19 2 hours ago, Don't Noonan said: For the good of the country. The basis for all of my political beliefs. What did Garland have in his background that suggested he was unfit to sit as a Supreme Court Justice? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timschochet 24,481 Posted September 19 4 minutes ago, Zow said: What did Garland have in his background that suggested he was unfit to sit as a Supreme Court Justice? He was appointed by Obama. 4 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Commish 9,957 Posted September 19 10 minutes ago, sho nuff said: Well, like most Christian denominations, homosexuality is seen as a sin. Repent and be saved and all. Id guess most homosexuals don’t consider it a sin and thus don’t ask forgiveness. 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sinn Fein 29,572 Posted September 19 11 minutes ago, Henry Ford said: Like most religions, they define homosexuality by activity and not existence. You can be gay and you're fine, but if you start "pushing your friend's penis around" at a party, you're sinning. Ah, but the great thing about the catholic teachings - its never too late to ask for forgiveness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rustycolts 1,374 Posted September 19 32 minutes ago, The Commish said: Wait...the Catholic Church teaches that if you're gay you're going to hell? I don't know about Catholics, but I know Southern Baptist do that is why I no longer am one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Commish 9,957 Posted September 19 5 minutes ago, Zow said: Yes (arguably a person would have to act on it or “covet” in one’s mind). At least this was the case back when I studied my then dogmatic Catholic faith very in depth in the early 2000s. Interesting...thanks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zow 6,336 Posted September 19 28 minutes ago, The Commish said: 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. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zow 6,336 Posted September 19 42 minutes ago, Henry Ford said: Like most religions, they define homosexuality by activity and not existence. You can be gay and you're fine, but if you start "pushing your friend's penis around" at a party, you're sinning. This was not true under the prior pope. He made a decree that it is a sin just to be gay and, as a result, several otherwise great priests and monks within the Benedictine Order had to quit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dickies 8,110 Posted September 19 9 minutes ago, Zow said: 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. Sounds very forgiving Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sho nuff 12,031 Posted September 19 41 minutes ago, The Commish said: 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. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Commish 9,957 Posted September 19 18 minutes ago, Zow said: 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. Did jesus death on ther cross not account for that in the catholic church's view? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Commish 9,957 Posted September 19 8 minutes ago, sho nuff said: 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. If you mean acknowledges that you are a sinner, i'd agree. That's usually part of the prayer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zow 6,336 Posted September 19 42 minutes ago, The Commish said: Did jesus death on ther cross not account for that in the catholic church's view? 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zow 6,336 Posted September 19 53 minutes ago, Dickies said: Sounds very forgiving 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zow 6,336 Posted September 19 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. 😛 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slapdash 14,413 Posted September 20 43 minutes ago, Zow said: 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 flying spaghetti monster will touch us all with his noodly appendage, irrespective of our works. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Commish 9,957 Posted September 20 I had no idea about any of this @Zow Thanks for the lesson I've run across countless people who were "ex-Catholic"....I think I am beginning to see why. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dickies 8,110 Posted September 20 8 minutes ago, The Commish said: I had no idea about any of this @Zow Thanks for the lesson I've run across countless people who were "ex-Catholic"....I think I am beginning to see why. 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 Christian 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawgtrails 459 Posted September 20 He'll isn't really a thing guys Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zoonation 3,888 Posted September 20 14 hours ago, Don't Noonan said: Are you admitting this was the Dems attempt at payback? No. He’s pointing out what hypocrite you are. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zoonation 3,888 Posted September 20 14 hours ago, whoknew said: I'm just joking. I watched the documentary on OJ and the dramatic show on FX or whatever. And based on what was presented there, I would have likely voted not guilty also. Not a great job by Marcia and Chris. Of course, this is WAY off topic. Agreed. But they can sleep comfortably knowing that he wouldn’t have been convicted if they put in the best case ever. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawgtrails 459 Posted September 20 OJ, Catholics, and gayness. Clearly the Kavanaugh thread is the place to be 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hugh Jass 408 Posted September 20 12 hours ago, The Commish said: I had no idea about any of this @Zow Thanks for the lesson I've run across countless people who were "ex-Catholic"....I think I am beginning to see why. FWIW, Pope Francis has spoken much more acceptingly of homosexuals...as things are wont to due in the Church, things evolve/change very slowly. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zow 6,336 Posted September 20 (edited) 14 hours ago, zoonation said: Agreed. But they can sleep comfortably knowing that he wouldn’t have been convicted if they put in the best case ever. 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. 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. Edited September 20 by Zow 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zoonation 3,888 Posted September 20 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Zow said: That 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. Agreed. I don’t think the venue would have ultimately mattered though. Edited September 20 by zoonation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites