SCOTUS

[MDlaxfan76]

cradle, are you using two screen names these days?
I'm guessing the other one is Bandito.
Kristalmighty, what's happened to you?

This particular rant does indeed look just like our resident wild-eyed troll.
Strange. I didn't figure C&S for being this off the hook.
Occasionally angry and out of control with the insults, but this race train is off the tracks in a total, ugly pile-up.

But you could be right that he's previously saved this race stuff for the other screen name and just got lost in this discussion.

Unfortunately, the other explanation of two such angry posters is more likely the case...there are quite a few folks out there with is this kind of uncontrolled anger.

MD, the discussion regarding the credibility of Anita Hills testimony does revolve around a nagging little fact. Ms Hill did follow Judge Thomas when he changed jobs. It may not prove anything but.... is this something that a person who is creeped out by someone do? IMO it creates a reasonable doubt. There does seem to be an interesting coincidence that when a Republican POTUS nominates someone to the SCOTUS the Democrats always can find the skeletons in the closet to drag out.

Hey, no sweat if you want to discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute, it was the level of virulent, ugly name calling you were expressing that needed to be addressed. All the racial stuff was way off-base, IMO. Just as it was when Thomas played that ugly card.

I don't agree that Dems are the exclusive seekers of skeletons in closets. I'm pretty darn sure that my party is quite willing (and pretty much always has been) to point to any skeletons they find in any nominees to any office or judgeship.

This comes with the turf of being a nominee or political office seeker. Got serious skeletons, don't submit yourself to scrutiny.
And if you're appointing folks, look in their closet before announcing them!

BTW, I don't think Dems have less nor R's have less such skeletons in their closets. Pretty evenly distributed as far as history appears to tell us.

SCOTUS is a much smaller sample set, so hard to draw any particular conclusions about that, other than maybe that R's for the past 40 years or so have been more focused in their judicial appointments on political ideology than on other vetting. This has been an out in the open strategy objective of the GOP, for better or worse. Dems have been somewhat less focused on ideology though certainly not oblivious.

What we're seeing in the McConnell-Trump era goes way, way beyond prior periods in which the GOP controlled judicial appointments, the actual dismissal of prior experience as even of interest. I don't include that of the SCOTUS appointments as both have been qualified jurists. But the Merrick Garland debacle, that grossly naked power play by McConnell, puts a stain on the Court's natural composition.

Again, this stuff can be discussed and debated without name calling or race-baiting.

Hey, no sweat if you want to discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute, it was the level of virulent, ugly name calling you were expressing that needed to be addressed. All the racial stuff was way off-base, IMO. Just as it was when Thomas played that ugly card

Your making your point without an understanding of the context via the links I posted. Let us now respectfully discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute. I thought I had made my point clear, but you did not address it. Here is my take on this dispute. Ms Hill made her accusations against Justice Thomas. Why in the world does she then follow this degenerate creep when he moves to another job? That is it in a nutshell MD. If it makes sense to you I am more than willing to read your explanation as to why she would do so. I don't think a rational person follows a degenerate creep to his new job. That is just my own humble opinion.

If you had read the links I tied the accusations against Judge Thomas to even worse allegations against Lt. Governor Fairfax of Virginia who has kept his job in the face of "credible" accusations of rape. I will point out that all the usual suspects here, including you MD did not even find the time to consider the irony or pay any attention to what I was saying. You are all college educated successful business people. I would expect you are smart enough to understand where I was going. Nope, didn't happen, old cradle went on a racist rampage. Educate me here MD. Why does Lt. Governor Fairfax still have a job? Educate me even more. Why is it that no one on this forum seems to care about it?

whining again about "education" cradle?
Why do you think it matters whether you went to college or not in these discussions?

I don't have any issue with you wanting to debate with others the merits of Hill vs Thomas situation, nor you wanting to bring up the VA Lt. Gov case.

No issue at all. I'm not particularly interested in that debate...been there done that.

But yeah, the 'racist rampage' was way, way out of bounds.

Nice lecture. You still never answered my questions. Try again my friend. Even a lifelong republican should understand them.

cradle,
I wasn't the person who said they believed Hill and doubted Thomas; I didn't enter into that discussion, just asked that you back off on all the racial hyperbole.

But ok, I'll play.

I did watch some of the Thomas hearings, including the Hill testimony. (and have since watched more) I confess that I, too, was concerned at the time about this being a left-wing attack on Thomas, and I was glad, even proud, that a GOP President had put up for nomination a qualified black jurist.

On the other hand, I found Hill's testimony disturbing. She did not come across as ditsy, addled, nor as politically motivated. Nope, she appeared to be telling the truth. Yes, it was troubling that she stuck with him as long as she did, but I knew via my wife that the environment for smart women competing to move up the ladder frequently required holding one's nose at the stupid and often inane behavior of the men in their environment, including in particular the men in the hierarchy ahead of them. So, I found it beyond plausible that she suffered through it for awhile.

As we've learned more about these issues in the years since, my view of the likelihood that Hill was indeed speaking the truth, and Thomas was not, has only grown.

On Fairfax, I don't live in VA and have paid far less attention to the facts of that situation. From the little I've read (many months ago) it disturbs me and I certainly wouldn't give him a pass because he's a Dem!

I don't want to assume out of the gate that all accusations by women are necessarily true, but I want them all to be taken seriously, regardless of political affiliation of any of the players.

But no, I don't think that putting Thomas and Fairfax into the same discussion just because both are black is appropriate. Both are men accused of bad behavior. Race is irrelevant to that question.

I will also confess that I find it nearly hilarious, though also truly sad and gross, that Trump supporters are nearly gleeful to point out that Dem men act badly, even more gleeful if it's a black man. Yet can't seem to face that Trump is a self-admitted assaulter of women, accused by 15+ women of assault or rape. "she's not his type", "she's too ugly"...

That may not include you, cradle. Hope not.

[cradleandshoot]

cradle, are you using two screen names these days?
I'm guessing the other one is Bandito.
Kristalmighty, what's happened to you?

This particular rant does indeed look just like our resident wild-eyed troll.
Strange. I didn't figure C&S for being this off the hook.
Occasionally angry and out of control with the insults, but this race train is off the tracks in a total, ugly pile-up.

But you could be right that he's previously saved this race stuff for the other screen name and just got lost in this discussion.

Unfortunately, the other explanation of two such angry posters is more likely the case...there are quite a few folks out there with is this kind of uncontrolled anger.

MD, the discussion regarding the credibility of Anita Hills testimony does revolve around a nagging little fact. Ms Hill did follow Judge Thomas when he changed jobs. It may not prove anything but.... is this something that a person who is creeped out by someone do? IMO it creates a reasonable doubt. There does seem to be an interesting coincidence that when a Republican POTUS nominates someone to the SCOTUS the Democrats always can find the skeletons in the closet to drag out.

Hey, no sweat if you want to discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute, it was the level of virulent, ugly name calling you were expressing that needed to be addressed. All the racial stuff was way off-base, IMO. Just as it was when Thomas played that ugly card.

I don't agree that Dems are the exclusive seekers of skeletons in closets. I'm pretty darn sure that my party is quite willing (and pretty much always has been) to point to any skeletons they find in any nominees to any office or judgeship.

This comes with the turf of being a nominee or political office seeker. Got serious skeletons, don't submit yourself to scrutiny.
And if you're appointing folks, look in their closet before announcing them!

BTW, I don't think Dems have less nor R's have less such skeletons in their closets. Pretty evenly distributed as far as history appears to tell us.

SCOTUS is a much smaller sample set, so hard to draw any particular conclusions about that, other than maybe that R's for the past 40 years or so have been more focused in their judicial appointments on political ideology than on other vetting. This has been an out in the open strategy objective of the GOP, for better or worse. Dems have been somewhat less focused on ideology though certainly not oblivious.

What we're seeing in the McConnell-Trump era goes way, way beyond prior periods in which the GOP controlled judicial appointments, the actual dismissal of prior experience as even of interest. I don't include that of the SCOTUS appointments as both have been qualified jurists. But the Merrick Garland debacle, that grossly naked power play by McConnell, puts a stain on the Court's natural composition.

Again, this stuff can be discussed and debated without name calling or race-baiting.

Hey, no sweat if you want to discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute, it was the level of virulent, ugly name calling you were expressing that needed to be addressed. All the racial stuff was way off-base, IMO. Just as it was when Thomas played that ugly card

Your making your point without an understanding of the context via the links I posted. Let us now respectfully discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute. I thought I had made my point clear, but you did not address it. Here is my take on this dispute. Ms Hill made her accusations against Justice Thomas. Why in the world does she then follow this degenerate creep when he moves to another job? That is it in a nutshell MD. If it makes sense to you I am more than willing to read your explanation as to why she would do so. I don't think a rational person follows a degenerate creep to his new job. That is just my own humble opinion.

If you had read the links I tied the accusations against Judge Thomas to even worse allegations against Lt. Governor Fairfax of Virginia who has kept his job in the face of "credible" accusations of rape. I will point out that all the usual suspects here, including you MD did not even find the time to consider the irony or pay any attention to what I was saying. You are all college educated successful business people. I would expect you are smart enough to understand where I was going. Nope, didn't happen, old cradle went on a racist rampage. Educate me here MD. Why does Lt. Governor Fairfax still have a job? Educate me even more. Why is it that no one on this forum seems to care about it?

whining again about "education" cradle?
Why do you think it matters whether you went to college or not in these discussions?

I don't have any issue with you wanting to debate with others the merits of Hill vs Thomas situation, nor you wanting to bring up the VA Lt. Gov case.

No issue at all. I'm not particularly interested in that debate...been there done that.

But yeah, the 'racist rampage' was way, way out of bounds.

Nice lecture. You still never answered my questions. Try again my friend. Even a lifelong republican should understand them.

cradle,
I wasn't the person who said they believed Hill and doubted Thomas; I didn't enter into that discussion, just asked that you back off on all the racial hyperbole.

But ok, I'll play.

I did watch some of the Thomas hearings, including the Hill testimony. (and have since watched more) I confess that I, too, was concerned at the time about this being a left-wing attack on Thomas, and I was glad, even proud, that a GOP President had put up for nomination a qualified black jurist.

On the other hand, I found Hill's testimony disturbing. She did not come across as ditsy, addled, nor as politically motivated. Nope, she appeared to be telling the truth. Yes, it was troubling that she stuck with him as long as she did, but I knew via my wife that the environment for smart women competing to move up the ladder frequently required holding one's nose at the stupid and often inane behavior of the men in their environment, including in particular the men in the hierarchy ahead of them. So, I found it beyond plausible that she suffered through it for awhile.

As we've learned more about these issues in the years since, my view of the likelihood that Hill was indeed speaking the truth, and Thomas was not, has only grown.

On Fairfax, I don't live in VA and have paid far less attention to the facts of that situation. From the little I've read (many months ago) it disturbs me and I certainly wouldn't give him a pass because he's a Dem!

I don't want to assume out of the gate that all accusations by women are necessarily true, but I want them all to be taken seriously, regardless of political affiliation of any of the players.

But no, I don't think that putting Thomas and Fairfax into the same discussion just because both are black is appropriate. Both are men accused of bad behavior. Race is irrelevant to that question.

I will also confess that I find it nearly hilarious, though also truly sad and gross, that Trump supporters are nearly gleeful to point out that Dem men act badly, even more gleeful if it's a black man. Yet can't seem to face that Trump is a self-admitted assaulter of women, accused by 15+ women of assault or rape. "she's not his type", "she's too ugly"...

That may not include you, cradle. Hope not.

Thank you for your response and answering my questions. I was not making a racist rant. I was thinking out loud that in the mindset of many of our D friends here that they were putting forth a double standard. I understand why they question the character of CT. It gets into that dicey he said/she said scenario. Who you believe then depends on where you stand politically
When I brought Mr Fairfax into the mix I was curious if any of our D friends here would have an opinion to share.
It turns out that they did not. It was as simple as that. When I said " why do you hate black people so much" I was making a sarcastic reference to the same thing said quite often when a white person criticizes a black person. How many times on this forum back in the day that anyone who was critical if BHO was inherantly a racist. I dont believe anybody regardless of skin color or who they are is immune from being criticized when they have done wrong or acted poorly. Some folks here could not make the connection. In that regard my comments should have been phrased better.

[MDlaxfan76]

Well this "modern day liberal" believes the very strong evidence that Thomas was a serial harrasser of women in the workplace who then lied through his teeth about it, and still does. So, yeah, if he thinks I'm the problem, I'm good with that.

Why do you hate black people so much? I guess lily white liberal men are just as hateful as those white racists that marched in Charlottesville. You part of that high tech lynching as well CU? Hypocrisy runs rampant in the world of you candy ass liberal old white guys doesn't it? You should be ashamed and embarrassed by your new age progressive hate filled FLP dogma. Judge other least not you be judged yourself... who made a candy ass liberal old white guy qualified to judge any black man/women. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800 Does this also disgust you CU? What say you about these allegations of rape? Or does your hypocrisy overlook this stuff if it is someone from your own party?

You know if we pick this apart, the only guy really, really focused on race here is C&S. CU77 simply takes issue with the fact that this one guy is invested with life tenure for one of only nine seats on the Supreme Court in the face of pretty convincing evidence that he was a serial harasser of women in the workplace while they were his subordinates. CU77 states it simply, without reference to race or any other characteristic. C&S then goes off on a characteristic bizarro rant that drips of misunderstanding and frustration. Weirder and weirder.

cradle, this was the exchange in which, IMO, you went off the deep end.
Glad to see you're back in calmer waters now.
Peace brother.

[cradleandshoot]

Well this "modern day liberal" believes the very strong evidence that Thomas was a serial harrasser of women in the workplace who then lied through his teeth about it, and still does. So, yeah, if he thinks I'm the problem, I'm good with that.

Why do you hate black people so much? I guess lily white liberal men are just as hateful as those white racists that marched in Charlottesville. You part of that high tech lynching as well CU? Hypocrisy runs rampant in the world of you candy ass liberal old white guys doesn't it? You should be ashamed and embarrassed by your new age progressive hate filled FLP dogma. Judge other least not you be judged yourself... who made a candy ass liberal old white guy qualified to judge any black man/women. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800 Does this also disgust you CU? What say you about these allegations of rape? Or does your hypocrisy overlook this stuff if it is someone from your own party?

You know if we pick this apart, the only guy really, really focused on race here is C&S. CU77 simply takes issue with the fact that this one guy is invested with life tenure for one of only nine seats on the Supreme Court in the face of pretty convincing evidence that he was a serial harasser of women in the workplace while they were his subordinates. CU77 states it simply, without reference to race or any other characteristic. C&S then goes off on a characteristic bizarro rant that drips of misunderstanding and frustration. Weirder and weirder.

cradle, this was the exchange in which, IMO, you went off the deep end.
Glad to see you're back in calmer waters now.
Peace brother.

I understand it. I was trying to make a point and I went a bridge too far. I do believe that being angry and full of hate is not exclusive to white supremacists. Often times I try to proof read what I am saying. I understand what my short comings are when some thoughts go through my head. in this instance, I failed miserably. I apologize for my insensitivity in trying to express myself. Peace to you to MD and to every one on this forum.

[MDlaxfan76]

Well this "modern day liberal" believes the very strong evidence that Thomas was a serial harrasser of women in the workplace who then lied through his teeth about it, and still does. So, yeah, if he thinks I'm the problem, I'm good with that.

Why do you hate black people so much? I guess lily white liberal men are just as hateful as those white racists that marched in Charlottesville. You part of that high tech lynching as well CU? Hypocrisy runs rampant in the world of you candy ass liberal old white guys doesn't it? You should be ashamed and embarrassed by your new age progressive hate filled FLP dogma. Judge other least not you be judged yourself... who made a candy ass liberal old white guy qualified to judge any black man/women. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800 Does this also disgust you CU? What say you about these allegations of rape? Or does your hypocrisy overlook this stuff if it is someone from your own party?

You know if we pick this apart, the only guy really, really focused on race here is C&S. CU77 simply takes issue with the fact that this one guy is invested with life tenure for one of only nine seats on the Supreme Court in the face of pretty convincing evidence that he was a serial harasser of women in the workplace while they were his subordinates. CU77 states it simply, without reference to race or any other characteristic. C&S then goes off on a characteristic bizarro rant that drips of misunderstanding and frustration. Weirder and weirder.

cradle, this was the exchange in which, IMO, you went off the deep end.
Glad to see you're back in calmer waters now.
Peace brother.

I understand it. I was trying to make a point and I went a bridge too far. I do believe that being angry and full of hate is not exclusive to white supremacists. Often times I try to proof read what I am saying. I understand what my short comings are when some thoughts go through my head. in this instance, I failed miserably. I apologize for my insensitivity in trying to express myself. Peace to you to MD and to every one on this forum.

No worries, glad you found a more peaceful perspective.
Quite agree that white supremacists are not the sole haters in the world.

[cradleandshoot]

Well this "modern day liberal" believes the very strong evidence that Thomas was a serial harrasser of women in the workplace who then lied through his teeth about it, and still does. So, yeah, if he thinks I'm the problem, I'm good with that.

Why do you hate black people so much? I guess lily white liberal men are just as hateful as those white racists that marched in Charlottesville. You part of that high tech lynching as well CU? Hypocrisy runs rampant in the world of you candy ass liberal old white guys doesn't it? You should be ashamed and embarrassed by your new age progressive hate filled FLP dogma. Judge other least not you be judged yourself... who made a candy ass liberal old white guy qualified to judge any black man/women. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800 Does this also disgust you CU? What say you about these allegations of rape? Or does your hypocrisy overlook this stuff if it is someone from your own party?

You know if we pick this apart, the only guy really, really focused on race here is C&S. CU77 simply takes issue with the fact that this one guy is invested with life tenure for one of only nine seats on the Supreme Court in the face of pretty convincing evidence that he was a serial harasser of women in the workplace while they were his subordinates. CU77 states it simply, without reference to race or any other characteristic. C&S then goes off on a characteristic bizarro rant that drips of misunderstanding and frustration. Weirder and weirder.

cradle, this was the exchange in which, IMO, you went off the deep end.
Glad to see you're back in calmer waters now.
Peace brother.

I understand it. I was trying to make a point and I went a bridge too far. I do believe that being angry and full of hate is not exclusive to white supremacists. Often times I try to proof read what I am saying. I understand what my short comings are when some thoughts go through my head. in this instance, I failed miserably. I apologize for my insensitivity in trying to express myself. Peace to you to MD and to every one on this forum.

No worries, glad you found a more peaceful perspective.
Quite agree that white supremacists are not the sole haters in the world.

It bothered me to read what I wrote and realize that that was not how I meant it to come out. When some folks accused me of going on a racist rant inside I became even more defensive about it. I should know better than to compose anything when I am caught up in the emotion of the moment. I had an English teacher that use to always encourage us to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable. I also had a Drill Sergeant who had a philosophy of F anybody that disagrees with you if you think your right. The inner conflict in me continues to this day. You really can not teach an old dog new tricks.

[MDlaxfan76]

Well this "modern day liberal" believes the very strong evidence that Thomas was a serial harrasser of women in the workplace who then lied through his teeth about it, and still does. So, yeah, if he thinks I'm the problem, I'm good with that.

Why do you hate black people so much? I guess lily white liberal men are just as hateful as those white racists that marched in Charlottesville. You part of that high tech lynching as well CU? Hypocrisy runs rampant in the world of you candy ass liberal old white guys doesn't it? You should be ashamed and embarrassed by your new age progressive hate filled FLP dogma. Judge other least not you be judged yourself... who made a candy ass liberal old white guy qualified to judge any black man/women. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800 Does this also disgust you CU? What say you about these allegations of rape? Or does your hypocrisy overlook this stuff if it is someone from your own party?

You know if we pick this apart, the only guy really, really focused on race here is C&S. CU77 simply takes issue with the fact that this one guy is invested with life tenure for one of only nine seats on the Supreme Court in the face of pretty convincing evidence that he was a serial harasser of women in the workplace while they were his subordinates. CU77 states it simply, without reference to race or any other characteristic. C&S then goes off on a characteristic bizarro rant that drips of misunderstanding and frustration. Weirder and weirder.

cradle, this was the exchange in which, IMO, you went off the deep end.
Glad to see you're back in calmer waters now.
Peace brother.

I understand it. I was trying to make a point and I went a bridge too far. I do believe that being angry and full of hate is not exclusive to white supremacists. Often times I try to proof read what I am saying. I understand what my short comings are when some thoughts go through my head. in this instance, I failed miserably. I apologize for my insensitivity in trying to express myself. Peace to you to MD and to every one on this forum.

No worries, glad you found a more peaceful perspective.
Quite agree that white supremacists are not the sole haters in the world.

It bothered me to read what I wrote and realize that that was not how I meant it to come out. When some folks accused me of going on a racist rant inside I became even more defensive about it. I should know better than to compose anything when I am caught up in the emotion of the moment. I had an English teacher that use to always encourage us to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable. I also had a Drill Sergeant who had a philosophy of F anybody that disagrees with you if you think your right. The inner conflict in me continues to this day. You really can not teach an old dog new tricks.

Sounds like the English teacher was wise about how to act in civil society, drill sergeant perhaps more relevant on the battlefield. Maybe that's what the 'old dog' needs to remember. This really isn't a battlefield.

Gotta ask though, what would have sarge have said/done if you said F-you to him when you disagreed with an order, or how about you said it to yourself and you just disobeyed that command? I'm guessing some serious KP duty would have been getting off way easy!

[cradleandshoot]

Well this "modern day liberal" believes the very strong evidence that Thomas was a serial harrasser of women in the workplace who then lied through his teeth about it, and still does. So, yeah, if he thinks I'm the problem, I'm good with that.

Why do you hate black people so much? I guess lily white liberal men are just as hateful as those white racists that marched in Charlottesville. You part of that high tech lynching as well CU? Hypocrisy runs rampant in the world of you candy ass liberal old white guys doesn't it? You should be ashamed and embarrassed by your new age progressive hate filled FLP dogma. Judge other least not you be judged yourself... who made a candy ass liberal old white guy qualified to judge any black man/women. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800 Does this also disgust you CU? What say you about these allegations of rape? Or does your hypocrisy overlook this stuff if it is someone from your own party?

You know if we pick this apart, the only guy really, really focused on race here is C&S. CU77 simply takes issue with the fact that this one guy is invested with life tenure for one of only nine seats on the Supreme Court in the face of pretty convincing evidence that he was a serial harasser of women in the workplace while they were his subordinates. CU77 states it simply, without reference to race or any other characteristic. C&S then goes off on a characteristic bizarro rant that drips of misunderstanding and frustration. Weirder and weirder.

cradle, this was the exchange in which, IMO, you went off the deep end.
Glad to see you're back in calmer waters now.
Peace brother.

I understand it. I was trying to make a point and I went a bridge too far. I do believe that being angry and full of hate is not exclusive to white supremacists. Often times I try to proof read what I am saying. I understand what my short comings are when some thoughts go through my head. in this instance, I failed miserably. I apologize for my insensitivity in trying to express myself. Peace to you to MD and to every one on this forum.

No worries, glad you found a more peaceful perspective.
Quite agree that white supremacists are not the sole haters in the world.

It bothered me to read what I wrote and realize that that was not how I meant it to come out. When some folks accused me of going on a racist rant inside I became even more defensive about it. I should know better than to compose anything when I am caught up in the emotion of the moment. I had an English teacher that use to always encourage us to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable. I also had a Drill Sergeant who had a philosophy of F anybody that disagrees with you if you think your right. The inner conflict in me continues to this day. You really can not teach an old dog new tricks.

Sounds like the English teacher was wise about how to act in civil society, drill sergeant perhaps more relevant on the battlefield. Maybe that's what the 'old dog' needs to remember. This really isn't a battlefield.

Gotta ask though, what would have sarge have said/done if you said F-you to him when you disagreed with an order, or how about you said it to yourself and you just disobeyed that command? I'm guessing some serious KP duty would have been getting off way easy!

Gotta ask though, what would have sarge have said/done if you said F-you to him when you disagreed with an order, or how about you said it to yourself and you just disobeyed that command? I'm guessing some serious KP duty would have been getting off way easy!

There were more than a few times that I really wanted to express my true feelings to my platoon sergeant. Insubordination would not have gotten me or anyone else KP. There would have been an article 15 and the favorite method of discipline in my unit was a 30 day stay in what was called a correctional custody facility. The average GI called it " Charlies Chicken Farm" their specialty was attitude adjustments. Disobeying any order was unthinkable and never an option. We were all trained to follow orders. We may not have liked it and grumbled under our breaths but we always followed our lawful orders without hesitation. I have found that being married has a similar effect. I learned from day one, no matter what I believed otherwise, who is in charge and to follow orders that may sound like suggestions.

[MDlaxfan76]

Well this "modern day liberal" believes the very strong evidence that Thomas was a serial harrasser of women in the workplace who then lied through his teeth about it, and still does. So, yeah, if he thinks I'm the problem, I'm good with that.

Why do you hate black people so much? I guess lily white liberal men are just as hateful as those white racists that marched in Charlottesville. You part of that high tech lynching as well CU? Hypocrisy runs rampant in the world of you candy ass liberal old white guys doesn't it? You should be ashamed and embarrassed by your new age progressive hate filled FLP dogma. Judge other least not you be judged yourself... who made a candy ass liberal old white guy qualified to judge any black man/women. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800 Does this also disgust you CU? What say you about these allegations of rape? Or does your hypocrisy overlook this stuff if it is someone from your own party?

You know if we pick this apart, the only guy really, really focused on race here is C&S. CU77 simply takes issue with the fact that this one guy is invested with life tenure for one of only nine seats on the Supreme Court in the face of pretty convincing evidence that he was a serial harasser of women in the workplace while they were his subordinates. CU77 states it simply, without reference to race or any other characteristic. C&S then goes off on a characteristic bizarro rant that drips of misunderstanding and frustration. Weirder and weirder.

cradle, this was the exchange in which, IMO, you went off the deep end.
Glad to see you're back in calmer waters now.
Peace brother.

I understand it. I was trying to make a point and I went a bridge too far. I do believe that being angry and full of hate is not exclusive to white supremacists. Often times I try to proof read what I am saying. I understand what my short comings are when some thoughts go through my head. in this instance, I failed miserably. I apologize for my insensitivity in trying to express myself. Peace to you to MD and to every one on this forum.

No worries, glad you found a more peaceful perspective.
Quite agree that white supremacists are not the sole haters in the world.

It bothered me to read what I wrote and realize that that was not how I meant it to come out. When some folks accused me of going on a racist rant inside I became even more defensive about it. I should know better than to compose anything when I am caught up in the emotion of the moment. I had an English teacher that use to always encourage us to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable. I also had a Drill Sergeant who had a philosophy of F anybody that disagrees with you if you think your right. The inner conflict in me continues to this day. You really can not teach an old dog new tricks.

Sounds like the English teacher was wise about how to act in civil society, drill sergeant perhaps more relevant on the battlefield. Maybe that's what the 'old dog' needs to remember. This really isn't a battlefield.

Gotta ask though, what would have sarge have said/done if you said F-you to him when you disagreed with an order, or how about you said it to yourself and you just disobeyed that command? I'm guessing some serious KP duty would have been getting off way easy!

Gotta ask though, what would have sarge have said/done if you said F-you to him when you disagreed with an order, or how about you said it to yourself and you just disobeyed that command? I'm guessing some serious KP duty would have been getting off way easy!

There were more than a few times that I really wanted to express my true feelings to my platoon sergeant. Insubordination would not have gotten me or anyone else KP. There would have been an article 15 and the favorite method of discipline in my unit was a 30 day stay in what was called a correctional custody facility. The average GI called it " Charlies Chicken Farm" their specialty was attitude adjustments. Disobeying any order was unthinkable and never an option. We were all trained to follow orders. We may not have liked it and grumbled under our breaths but we always followed our lawful orders without hesitation. I have found that being married has a similar effect. I learned from day one, no matter what I believed otherwise, who is in charge and to follow orders that may sound like suggestions.

Yup, KP would have been getting off way easy if you'd said F-you to your sarge, regardless of his "philosophy".
Reality is quite different.
And 30 days in the 'dog house' at home could well be the analogous punishment!

[cradleandshoot]

Well this "modern day liberal" believes the very strong evidence that Thomas was a serial harrasser of women in the workplace who then lied through his teeth about it, and still does. So, yeah, if he thinks I'm the problem, I'm good with that.

Why do you hate black people so much? I guess lily white liberal men are just as hateful as those white racists that marched in Charlottesville. You part of that high tech lynching as well CU? Hypocrisy runs rampant in the world of you candy ass liberal old white guys doesn't it? You should be ashamed and embarrassed by your new age progressive hate filled FLP dogma. Judge other least not you be judged yourself... who made a candy ass liberal old white guy qualified to judge any black man/women. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800 Does this also disgust you CU? What say you about these allegations of rape? Or does your hypocrisy overlook this stuff if it is someone from your own party?

You know if we pick this apart, the only guy really, really focused on race here is C&S. CU77 simply takes issue with the fact that this one guy is invested with life tenure for one of only nine seats on the Supreme Court in the face of pretty convincing evidence that he was a serial harasser of women in the workplace while they were his subordinates. CU77 states it simply, without reference to race or any other characteristic. C&S then goes off on a characteristic bizarro rant that drips of misunderstanding and frustration. Weirder and weirder.

cradle, this was the exchange in which, IMO, you went off the deep end.
Glad to see you're back in calmer waters now.
Peace brother.

I understand it. I was trying to make a point and I went a bridge too far. I do believe that being angry and full of hate is not exclusive to white supremacists. Often times I try to proof read what I am saying. I understand what my short comings are when some thoughts go through my head. in this instance, I failed miserably. I apologize for my insensitivity in trying to express myself. Peace to you to MD and to every one on this forum.

No worries, glad you found a more peaceful perspective.
Quite agree that white supremacists are not the sole haters in the world.

It bothered me to read what I wrote and realize that that was not how I meant it to come out. When some folks accused me of going on a racist rant inside I became even more defensive about it. I should know better than to compose anything when I am caught up in the emotion of the moment. I had an English teacher that use to always encourage us to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable. I also had a Drill Sergeant who had a philosophy of F anybody that disagrees with you if you think your right. The inner conflict in me continues to this day. You really can not teach an old dog new tricks.

Sounds like the English teacher was wise about how to act in civil society, drill sergeant perhaps more relevant on the battlefield. Maybe that's what the 'old dog' needs to remember. This really isn't a battlefield.

Gotta ask though, what would have sarge have said/done if you said F-you to him when you disagreed with an order, or how about you said it to yourself and you just disobeyed that command? I'm guessing some serious KP duty would have been getting off way easy!

Gotta ask though, what would have sarge have said/done if you said F-you to him when you disagreed with an order, or how about you said it to yourself and you just disobeyed that command? I'm guessing some serious KP duty would have been getting off way easy!

There were more than a few times that I really wanted to express my true feelings to my platoon sergeant. Insubordination would not have gotten me or anyone else KP. There would have been an article 15 and the favorite method of discipline in my unit was a 30 day stay in what was called a correctional custody facility. The average GI called it " Charlies Chicken Farm" their specialty was attitude adjustments. Disobeying any order was unthinkable and never an option. We were all trained to follow orders. We may not have liked it and grumbled under our breaths but we always followed our lawful orders without hesitation. I have found that being married has a similar effect. I learned from day one, no matter what I believed otherwise, who is in charge and to follow orders that may sound like suggestions.

Yup, KP would have been getting off way easy if you'd said F-you to your sarge, regardless of his "philosophy".
Reality is quite different.
And 30 days in the 'dog house' at home could well be the analogous punishment!

My platoon sergeant was old school US Army hardass. He was Hungarian and lost members of his family when the Soviets invaded his country. His mission in life was to kill communists wherever and whenever he could. He was not shy to express his desire to do so. He was not the type of person you gave any chit. That was not out of fear, it was out of an immense amount of respect all of his soldiers had for him. He did around 6 tours of duty in Vietnam until they sent him back to the states. I would no sooner drop an F bomb on him than I would my own mom. I am done hijacking the thread.

[jhu72]

SCOTUS is taking up Trump tax subpoena cases. No decision until June. I am surprised and disappointed, thought they would refuse the cases as lower courts all came to the same decision, all agreed Trump's arguments were baloney. SCOTUS has effectively delayed the Donald's fate. Not clear that was their intent as some will likely believe. More likely they are taking the cases to make an unquestionable ruling, given the divided nature of the country. Still expect Orange Duce to lose.

[Trinity]

At the Boof Kavanaugh Court? Favors are owed.

[RedFromMI]

At the Boof Kavanaugh Court? Favors are owed.

But such an easy case to show their "independence." Also, not sure a ruling in Trump's favor is all that helpful (unless he is hiding something huge) as it gives fodder to the other side for the election.

[Trinity]

People cop to the misdemeanor to hide the felony, is my experience.

[MDlaxfan76]

At the Boof Kavanaugh Court? Favors are owed.

But such an easy case to show their "independence." Also, not sure a ruling in Trump's favor is all that helpful (unless he is hiding something huge) as it gives fodder to the other side for the election.

Hopefully that will be Roberts' view, but this really should be 9-0 vote.
It's not that close a call.

However, I predict 5-4.

[seacoaster]

Here is Amy Howe's overview of the Trump financial documents cases (there are three of them, two consolidated for argument, I think, but not necessarily overlapping in particulars):

"This afternoon the Supreme Court announced that it would wade into the fray over access to President Donald Trump’s financial records. The justices agreed to review three separate lower-court decisions that ruled against the president: Two of those decisions upheld subpoenas that would force the president’s accounting firm and lenders to turn over financial records that they have in their possession, while a third ordered the president’s accounting firm to provide prosecutors in New York City with his financial records, including his tax returns.

The subpoena to Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, came from the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, while the subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One, two of Trump’s lenders, came from the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees. The committees said that they wanted the records as part of their work, but Trump argued that the subpoenas do not serve a “legitimate legislative purpose,” as the Supreme Court’s cases require.

The subpoena from Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance also went to Mazars. As Steve Vladeck has previously reported for this blog, Vance is seeking several years’ worth of Trump’s tax returns as part of a state grand-jury investigation. After the lower courts rejected his efforts to quash the subpoena, Trump went to the Supreme Court, arguing that the subpoena violates the president’s absolute immunity from state criminal proceedings while he is in office.

In a brief unsigned order this afternoon, the justices announced that they would take up all three cases and hear oral argument in the court’s March argument session. The justices consolidated two of the cases, involving the congressional subpoenas, for one hour of argument. They also took the somewhat unusual step of granting review in the Deutsche Bank case without receiving a formal petition for review. Instead, the justices treated Trump’s request to put the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit decision on hold, filed last week, as a petition for review, and they stayed the lower-court decision indefinitely."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/just ... documents/

Here is the SCOTUSBlog collection on the Vance cases:

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/c ... p-v-vance/

Here is the SCOTUSBlog collection on the House case:

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/c ... e-bank-ag/

I haven't looked into this, but I wonder if there is a difference between a State AG or municipal DA demanding documents from a sitting President, the House, through its Oversight Committee, acting pursuant to its oversight powers in our federal system, asking for documents? I would guess that there probably is. Clinton v. Jones and Nixon v. US may provide some answers.

[Kinduv]

my e1 key and 0h keys are busted, a1s0 my peri0d key, s0 i use 1s, 0s, and ,s

10ng isand 1ax ru1es!!!!!

[seacoaster]

The Chief’s report on the judiciary:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo ... report.pdf

The first few pages are worth the trouble.

[DMac]

Two observations:
1. Based on the time of your post, you left your SNL like family gathering as soon as possible.
2. This is huge, while its upside has great potential for good, its downside is very dark and dangerous. Got no answers on how to fix it but it needs some fixing.

In our age, when social media can
instantly spread rumor and false information
on a grand scale, the public’s need to understand our government, and the protections it
provides, is ever more vital.

[seacoaster]

Better buckle up for 2020:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... -the-court