What's new
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)

Would your answer to # 2 be any different if BK was a liberal judge appointed by Barrack Obama?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 7.0%

  • No

    Votes: 212 93.0%
  • Total voters
    228
KCitons said:
Also, I can relate to this. At my previous position I was responsible for background checks. These ranged in positions from CEO to part time cashier. I felt that Loss Prevention Agents should be held to a higher standard. I was shot down because we needed to be consistent in our hiring practices. Everyone was pass/fail based on predefined criteria. 

Everyone should be expected to tell the truth when under oath. Everyone should be expected to tell the truth all the time. Somehow we moved away from this over time. 
Click to expand...
The truth no longer has normative meaning in America in the Donald Trump era.  Winning is all that matters.  

 
zoonation said:
The truth no longer has normative meaning in America in the Donald Trump era.  Winning is all that matters.  
Click to expand...
Maybe you're only 18 years old. (I don't know). But truth eluded Bill Clinton decades ago. Not that Trump is any better, he's just not the first. 

 
KCitons said:
Maybe you're only 18 years old. (I don't know). But truth eluded Bill Clinton decades ago. Not that Trump is any better, he's just not the first. 
Click to expand...
Bill Clinton lied.  about a few things. 

Trump never tells the truth.  He doesn’t even know what it means. 

 
zoonation said:
Bill Clinton lied.  about a few things. 

Trump never tells the truth.  He doesn’t even know what it means. 
Click to expand...
And he was disbarred for lying, correct? Do we want a disbarred SC Justice?

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Can I get some more context for question #3?  Is the assumption that if the liar got voted down, a different liberal judge would take his place?  Or is there a possibility that vacancy might end up getting filled by a conservative judge?
Click to expand...
That’d really be a factor for you??

 
adonis said:
Not an HR person, but if a person is lying to me today to avoid questions into his past, even from 36 years ago, especially about heavy drinking and sexual assault, and I had other qualified candidates to choose from, I'd look elsewhere.

If I was certain he committed a crime while trying to get the job I was offering, I'd certainly not hire him.

Judge Kavanaugh clearly knows the definitions of devils triangle and "boof" isn't what he said they were.  He lied.  Under oath.  

So tell me...why is it not disqualifying for a guy to commit a crime while pursuing a job?  Because clearly that's what Kavanaugh did.
Click to expand...
Clearly?   You got your goggles on?   Drunk lefty goggles?    Perhaps.

 
Ignoramus said:
Is Bill Clinton or Donald Trump a nominee for Supreme Court Justice?
Click to expand...
Nope. But it shows a progression of behavior by our public officials. Which is why I said I expect every one of them to lie. Fool me once.......

 
KCitons said:
You don't expect it from the POTUS? (be it Clinton or Trump)
Click to expand...
I am sure he does. The thing with the president though, is if he is a giant POS we can vote him/her out of office during next election. No such luck with a supreme court justice

 
dawgtrails said:
I am sure he does. The thing with the president though, is if he is a giant POS we can vote him/her out of office during next election. No such luck with a supreme court justice
Click to expand...
So if we change the hiring process, then it's okay for a SC justice to lie? The discussion was about integrity and honesty. Our public officials represent a sample of the general population. I wouldn't expect there to be enough people of high character willing to fill those positions. Again, it's just playing the odds. 

 
The fact that he came across as a partisan hack with an ax to grind against the left seems to bother people a lot less than the fact he screamed like a lunatic for an hour. 

Once he’s confirmed (which I fully expect) he will sit on that court withit even the pretense of political ambiguity. 

 
Righetti said:
The fact that he came across as a partisan hack with an ax to grind against the left seems to bother people a lot less than the fact he screamed like a lunatic for an hour. 

Once he’s confirmed (which I fully expect) he will sit on that court withit even the pretense of political ambiguity. 
Click to expand...
This was the worst thing for me. 

 
KCitons said:
Everyone should be expected to tell the truth when under oath. Everyone should be expected to tell the truth all the time. Somehow we moved away from this over time. 
Click to expand...


KCitons said:
Nope. But it shows a progression of behavior by our public officials. Which is why I said I expect every one of them to lie. Fool me once.......
Click to expand...
You yourself have accepted it. I don't.

 
dawgtrails said:
What exactly are you hoping for with the repeal of the 17th?
Click to expand...
- Each state has an equal number of seats at the table of federal lawmaking when you include lobbyists.  Right now, the states that can afford the most effective lobbyists rule.    

- More voter interest in state elections.

- Legislatively elected senators would work to allow states more room to act on behalf of the people.

 
I hated the Gorsuch nomination because he is an ultra-conservative strict constructionist.  He's a really smart guy with a squeaky clean background.  Fair enough conservatives, you win.

I hate the Kavanaugh appointment because he lacks judicial temperament, integrity, and truthfulness, was allegedly a bit rapey thirty years ago, and was a drunken frat boy bro - In that order.  He has no business being on the bench, let alone the SCOTUS.  It is a purely political appointment, and Trump and most Senate Republicans care little about whether he is qualified to fill this vacancy.   

 
Mookie said:
I hated the Gorsuch nomination because he is an ultra-conservative strict constructionist.  He's a really smart guy with a squeaky clean background.  Fair enough conservatives, you win.

I hate the Kavanaugh appointment because he lacks judicial temperament, integrity, and truthfulness, was allegedly a bit rapey thirty years ago, and was a drunken frat boy bro - In that order.  He has no business being on the bench, let alone the SCOTUS.  It is a purely political appointment, and Trump and most Senate Republicans care little about whether he is qualified to fill this vacancy.   
Click to expand...
It's basically doing a smash and grab on the seat with Kavanaugh.  They know the clock is ticking, they are just trying to give America one more gut punch before the elections.  I worry about the implications years down the road.  Because this is setting the standard now.  This is the new low.  This is the way it's always going to be moving forward.  

 
Thank god we have that staunch Democrat Joe Manchin in WV. Man without him this proven liar might be on the Supreme Court for life.

Anybody with a D behind their name. Makes me sick.

 
But- as much as I dislike Manchin, he needs to win and continue to caucus with the Democrats. There are several issues in which he is on the right side, and the numbers count. 

 
timschochet said:
But- as much as I dislike Manchin, he needs to win and continue to caucus with the Democrats. There are several issues in which he is on the right side, and the numbers count. 
Click to expand...
Hi Tim good to see you. 

He voted with the GOP 60% of the time or so. He is not on the right side enough. You know the occasional bipartisan vote on a good idea I'd have no problem  with. If it's good policy it's good policy. But to often it's not and a lot of his no votes only seem to happen when the Democrats were going to lose anyway.

 
butcher boy said:
- Each state has an equal number of seats at the table of federal lawmaking when you include lobbyists.  Right now, the states that can afford the most effective lobbyists rule.    

- More voter interest in state elections.

- Legislatively elected senators would work to allow states more room to act on behalf of the people.
Click to expand...
You do know the reason for the 17th was the rampant corruption involved in how Senators were being appointed right?

 
NCCommish said:
You do know the reason for the 17th was the rampant corruption involved in how Senators were being appointed right?
Click to expand...
Since you haven’t been around you may not be familiar with butcher boys work - he’s a troll.  Please put him on ignore or don’t reply to him.  Thanks and good to see you in here.

 
butcher boy said:
- Each state has an equal number of seats at the table of federal lawmaking when you include lobbyists.  Right now, the states that can afford the most effective lobbyists rule.    

- Legislatively elected senators would work to allow states more room to act on behalf of the people.
Click to expand...
Why would repealing the 17th Ammendment change how lobbyists work or change how elected Senators worked/voted?

 
NCCommish said:
Thank god we have that staunch Democrat Joe Manchin in WV. Man without him this proven liar might be on the Supreme Court for life.

Anybody with a D behind their name. Makes me sick.
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about this very argument for a couple weeks now and wondered when you'd be back.  Midterms are going to give us a much better idea of who's on the right track between you and TF on this topic.

 
The Commish said:
I've been thinking about this very argument for a couple weeks now and wondered when you'd be back.  Midterms are going to give us a much better idea of who's on the right track between you and TF on this topic.
Click to expand...
Well to be clear I expect corporate politicians to win many seats. In a lot of places they will be the only choice other than a trumpbot. It will take getting noncorrupted democrats in seats from city council to Congress and them showing the difference to really see a wave of change. I'm in this for the long game not just a cycle. It took decades to make the mess it won't be cleaned up in 2 years or 4.

 
NCCommish said:
Well to be clear I expect corporate politicians to win many seats. In a lot of places they will be the only choice other than a trumpbot. It will take getting noncorrupted democrats in seats from city council to Congress and them showing the difference to really see a wave of change. I'm in this for the long game not just a cycle. It took decades to make the mess it won't be cleaned up in 2 years or 4.
Click to expand...
Agreed...I should have been clearer.  I don't think midterms will fix anything.  I do think they will begin to show us if things are changing for the better, but I also understand it doesn't mean everything will be fixed.  For instance, I REALLY wish someone would have run against Bill Nelson in the Florida primary.  There is NOTHING of value that this guy adds anymore.  He's simply fat that needs to be trimmed to help invoke that change you are talking about.

 
The Commish said:
Agreed...I should have been clearer.  I don't think midterms will fix anything.  I do think they will begin to show us if things are changing for the better, but I also understand it doesn't mean everything will be fixed.  For instance, I REALLY wish someone would have run against Bill Nelson in the Florida primary.  There is NOTHING of value that this guy adds anymore.  He's simply fat that needs to be trimmed to help invoke that change you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Yeah it was weird and disappointing that no credible challenge was mounted but you can't win them all.

 
While the midterms aren't a fix per se they are a necessary first step.  They must be a building block. A foundation for a buiding of a politics that really cares about policies to lift people up. People I support are gonna win some unlikely victories. They are going to lose as well. But losing one election isn't the end. You have to get the ideas out there. You have to compete.  And when the alternative wins and goes on to screw people over you go back again. And you keep going at it until the better idea wins. You can lose battles and still win the war.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Just spitballin’ here but another way we might’ve kept Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court would have been by electing Hillary.
Click to expand...
Maybe she should have campaigned in blue states instead of taking them for granted and planning to win with "moderate " Republicans. Maybe her team shouldn't have pushed the candidate she said she could beat in a landslide.  Lastly maybe the Democrats shouldn't have cheated the guy that could've beaten Trump while instead running their least popular candidate ever.  Just spitballin' here.

 
NCCommish said:
Maybe she should have campaigned in blue states instead of taking them for granted and planning to win with "moderate " Republicans. Maybe her team shouldn't have pushed the candidate she said she could beat in a landslide.  Lastly maybe the Democrats shouldn't have cheated the guy that could've beaten Trump while instead running their least popular candidate ever.  Just spitballin' here.
Click to expand...
OK, but also electing Hillary would have worked.

 
"Gee...I dont know...what are YOUR biggest weaknesses!?!"

How to nail a job interview 2018

(Stolen from interwebs)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sabertooth
FBI being asked to circle back on Brett Kavanaugh by Senator Whitehouse
2 3 4
Replies
157
Views
4K
shadrap
shadrap
E
  • Poll
Liberals of the PSF - tell us a little about yourselves
2 3
Replies
107
Views
2K
Zow
Zow
GordonGekko
How The Activist MSM Is Burying Alleged SCOTUS Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (5/12/22 6:22 PST)
Replies
47
Views
2K
Boston
Boston

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top