Conservatives and Liberals

[MDlaxfan76]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

[Peter Brown]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Unless you objected to the treatment by Democrats of Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (made-up leftist histrionics and outright lies), you really don’t have standing to decry the ‘treatment of KBJ’ (which was simply asking about her record, as well as could she define a woman - no, and would she expand the court - wouldn’t answer).

You dance around whether Kavanaugh actually did rape someone (“hard to know for sure”), which is truly detestable given the plainly unbalanced accuser (not to mention the others who proved wildly implausible).

[JoeMauer89]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Don't think she was treated unfairly at all. Similar treatment to what Thomas, ACB and Kavanaugh received. Nature of the game today, you are going to get it from all angles when you are nominated to the bench. Not everybody lives in a world where they feel that others can't challenge opinion. And not just saying, do you have anything to contribute? My contribution is what I posted. It doesn't matter if you "think" it is an attack. It's MY contribution. You live in a fantasy world, jeez.

Joe

[cradleandshoot]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

Totally get this and largely agree with you. I think the writer, Colby King, would tell you that Scott's "constituents" have to include other people of color. The article does not demand that he act in lockstep so much as he should have said something about the astonishing treatment of Jackson at the hands of Hawley, Cruz and Graham. It wouldn't have taken much, or many words, from Scott -- and nothing to hurt his reputation or standing among his GOP brethren -- to have obviated the need or desire for this opinion piece.

Sure he could’ve, but as a politician, not black man, he’s thrown his lot in with a certain group and is behaving accordingly. I think folks generally know what time it is with respect to Scott. The piece isn’t necessary. To expect Scott to behave differently at this point is kind of missing the picture of what and who he is. Same guy who got on stage for Trump and a puppet to prove those people aren’t racist. We all get it. We’d be the frog carrying the scorpion across water if we expected any different.

I dunno, I definitely expected better from Scott...it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

But yeah, he's let us know not to expect better...still, it's a bummer.

"it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski."

Now that is uber rich my friend. 95% of your party have nothing in common with Mittens, Collins and Murkowski. Your dead set on driving your parties bus off of moderate cliff and crash and burn into the abyss. There is one positive thing I can say about mittens, he can compose an awesome, heartfelt confession speech. Losing presidential elections in grand style is his forte in life. Maybe composing those concession speeches is what mittens was born to do. I hear rumors that mittens might be the keynote speaker at the Democrat national convention.

So, you thought that the treatment of Jackson was appropriate?

She was asked alot of tough questions. Some were not relevant. She got off way easier than Brett Kavanaugh did. She was not accused of being a serial rapist or a drunken louse. That is the new normal for any nominee, your going to get put through the wringer by the other side.

Again, ok with you?
Because you think Kav was treated worse? Or at least accused of worse? (worse than encouraging and supporting pedophiles and terrorists?!)

Can't expect Scott to stand up for better treatment from the Senate process than that?

Remember Kav was accused by third parties of misconduct and Jackson had no such issues in her background. And, on the merits, is far, far more qualified to be on SCOTUS than Kav.

Coming from less advantage, she's far more accomplished academically and professionally, with a much deeper background in federal law, and a more diverse legal background as well. Much more experience as a judge, and with far less obvious political/ideological determinations in her prior work or decisions.

Is it truly the "new normal" or was that really gross behavior by a handful of a-hole Senators, cheered on by those who think absolutely anything goes now?

And one of these two acted petulantly and angrily and tearfully in response to the pressure whereas the other maintained their composure and handled the pressure in a dignified manner throughout.

And Scott couldn't speak up?
He's in favor of the treatment??

She was asked some pointed questions regarding her judicial and sentencing philosophies. She wasn't mistreated in the least. If you want to graduate to the big leagues you better learn to expect some fastballs would be thrown your way. Her answer to the question about who is a woman... Biden NOMINATED her for that very reason... Because she was a woman. She answered the question in extremely poor fashion. She looked rather stupid with the deer in the headlight look while babbling incoherently that she didn't understand the question. The question was lame, the attempt at answering it was even more lame. You have no need to worry MD. Justice Jackson endured 2 days of living hell. It was almost as bad as the Republicans having water boarded her. She is a supreme court justice now. She probably had an easier time than some of you college boys did when you pledged your fraternities.

[MDlaxfan76]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Unless you objected to the treatment by Democrats of Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (made-up leftist histrionics and outright lies), you really don’t have standing to decry the ‘treatment of KBJ’ (which was simply asking about her record, as well as could she define a woman - no, and would she expand the court - wouldn’t answer).

You dance around whether Kavanaugh actually did rape someone (“hard to know for sure”), which is truly detestable given the plainly unbalanced accuser (not to mention the others who proved wildly implausible).

Thomas I'm quite sure did as he was accused of doing.

Kavanaugh, I doubt did as much as he was accused of doing; no one's recollections were great. But I do bet that he doesn't remember what he did or did not do, given the drinking.

Barett faced only what she'd brought on herself given her writings about religion and the law. I don't think those were actually unfair challenges.

All 3 Trump nominees suffered because of McConnell's refusal to even allow the Garland hearings...and they hypocrisy was at its height in the rushed process with Barrett.

Yeah, the Jackson treatment was inexcusable. Yes, racist.

And she was by far the most qualified nominee of any of those cited...by a wide margin.

[MDlaxfan76]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Don't think she was treated unfairly at all. Similar treatment to what Thomas, ACB and Kavanaugh received. Nature of the game today, you are going to get it from all angles when you are nominated to the bench. Not everybody lives in a world where they feel that others can't challenge opinion. And not just saying, do you have anything to contribute? My contribution is what I posted. It doesn't matter if you "think" it is an attack. It's MY contribution. You live in a fantasy world, jeez.

Joe

okay, so you're totally fine with the treatment of one of the very most qualified nominees ever to be nominated, far more qualified than the past 3 nominees, much less Thomas, 'cause that's just the way it is? "nature of the game"???

Ok...but that, IMO, is exactly what's wrong with our politics these days.

And no, I don't think the questioning was remotely "fair". Much of it was ridiculously stupid, mind numbingly so, and incredibly insulting. Fortunately, she handled it with tremendous grace.

That's MY opinion.

BTW, there were a few Republican Senators who handled the process respectfully, while also challenging her to answer reasonable questions. They did the right thing in that sense, even if they didn't give her the thumbs up vote she deserved and which has been traditional.

[JoeMauer89]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Don't think she was treated unfairly at all. Similar treatment to what Thomas, ACB and Kavanaugh received. Nature of the game today, you are going to get it from all angles when you are nominated to the bench. Not everybody lives in a world where they feel that others can't challenge opinion. And not just saying, do you have anything to contribute? My contribution is what I posted. It doesn't matter if you "think" it is an attack. It's MY contribution. You live in a fantasy world, jeez.

Joe

okay, so you're totally fine with the treatment of one of the very most qualified nominees ever to be nominated, far more qualified than the past 3 nominees, much less Thomas, 'cause that's just the way it is? "nature of the game"???

Ok...but that, IMO, is exactly what's wrong with our politics these days.

And no, I don't think the questioning was remotely "fair". Much of it was ridiculously stupid, mind numbingly so, and incredibly insulting. Fortunately, she handled it with tremendous grace.

That's MY opinion.

BTW, there were a few Republican Senators who handled the process respectfully, while also challenging her to answer reasonable questions. They did the right thing in that sense, even if they didn't give her the thumbs up vote she deserved and which has been traditional.

You have a low threshold for what you find offensive. As Cradle said, it's the Big Leagues. Everything that can be thrown at you will be. It's how you handle that will be remembered what matters mosts. She will be measured based on her work as a judge moving forward. Fair is subjective in nature. What you fail to see is that others saw the same level of "unfair" having taken place during ACB and Kavanaugh's hearings. Making a mountain out of a molehill. As usual...

Joe

[cradleandshoot]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Unless you objected to the treatment by Democrats of Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (made-up leftist histrionics and outright lies), you really don’t have standing to decry the ‘treatment of KBJ’ (which was simply asking about her record, as well as could she define a woman - no, and would she expand the court - wouldn’t answer).

You dance around whether Kavanaugh actually did rape someone (“hard to know for sure”), which is truly detestable given the plainly unbalanced accuser (not to mention the others who proved wildly implausible).

Thomas I'm quite sure did as he was accused of doing.

Kavanaugh, I doubt did as much as he was accused of doing; no one's recollections were great. But I do bet that he doesn't remember what he did or did not do, given the drinking.

Barett faced only what she'd brought on herself given her writings about religion and the law. I don't think those were actually unfair challenges.

All 3 Trump nominees suffered because of McConnell's refusal to even allow the Garland hearings...and they hypocrisy was at its height in the rushed process with Barrett.

Yeah, the Jackson treatment was inexcusable. Yes, racist.

And she was by far the most qualified nominee of any of those cited...by a wide margin.

What a pantload on your part. You see racism and racist motives hiding behind every tree. There are times MD your opinions are becoming more and more pathetic. I have a question for you. If Anita Hill was so taken aback by justice Thomas lewd behavior... WHY DID SHE FOLLOW HIM when he changed jobs? Who would do that MD??? The reality is Anita Hill was a groupie recruited by the democrats to disparage. You will clearly throw common sense under the bus when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. Your analysis that justice Brown is superior in her qualifications to the last 3 justices. She has not heard a single case yet. If your going to prognosticate maybe you should take a little time and see how she performs in her new job. Your giving her accolades as far superior never having spent day one on the job.

[Peter Brown]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Unless you objected to the treatment by Democrats of Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (made-up leftist histrionics and outright lies), you really don’t have standing to decry the ‘treatment of KBJ’ (which was simply asking about her record, as well as could she define a woman - no, and would she expand the court - wouldn’t answer).

You dance around whether Kavanaugh actually did rape someone (“hard to know for sure”), which is truly detestable given the plainly unbalanced accuser (not to mention the others who proved wildly implausible).

Thomas I'm quite sure did as he was accused of doing.

Kavanaugh, I doubt did as much as he was accused of doing; no one's recollections were great. But I do bet that he doesn't remember what he did or did not do, given the drinking.

Barett faced only what she'd brought on herself given her writings about religion and the law. I don't think those were actually unfair challenges.

All 3 Trump nominees suffered because of McConnell's refusal to even allow the Garland hearings...and they hypocrisy was at its height in the rushed process with Barrett.

Yeah, the Jackson treatment was inexcusable. Yes, racist.

And she was by far the most qualified nominee of any of those cited...by a wide margin.

What a pantload on your part. You see racism and racist motives hiding behind every tree. There are times MD your opinions are becoming more and more pathetic. I have a question for you. If Anita Hill was so taken aback by justice Thomas lewd behavior... WHY DID SHE FOLLOW HIM when he changed jobs? Who would do that MD??? The reality is Anita Hill was a groupie recruited by the democrats to disparage. You will clearly throw common sense under the bus when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. Your analysis that justice Brown is superior in her qualifications to the last 3 justices. She has not heard a single case yet. If your going to prognosticate maybe you should take a little time and see how she performs in her new job. Your giving her accolades as far superior never having spent day one on the job.

+1

[cradleandshoot]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Unless you objected to the treatment by Democrats of Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (made-up leftist histrionics and outright lies), you really don’t have standing to decry the ‘treatment of KBJ’ (which was simply asking about her record, as well as could she define a woman - no, and would she expand the court - wouldn’t answer).

You dance around whether Kavanaugh actually did rape someone (“hard to know for sure”), which is truly detestable given the plainly unbalanced accuser (not to mention the others who proved wildly implausible).

Thomas I'm quite sure did as he was accused of doing.

Kavanaugh, I doubt did as much as he was accused of doing; no one's recollections were great. But I do bet that he doesn't remember what he did or did not do, given the drinking.

Barett faced only what she'd brought on herself given her writings about religion and the law. I don't think those were actually unfair challenges.

All 3 Trump nominees suffered because of McConnell's refusal to even allow the Garland hearings...and they hypocrisy was at its height in the rushed process with Barrett.

Yeah, the Jackson treatment was inexcusable. Yes, racist.

And she was by far the most qualified nominee of any of those cited...by a wide margin.

What a pantload on your part. You see racism and racist motives hiding behind every tree. There are times MD your opinions are becoming more and more pathetic. I have a question for you. If Anita Hill was so taken aback by justice Thomas lewd behavior... WHY DID SHE FOLLOW HIM when he changed jobs? Who would do that MD??? The reality is Anita Hill was a groupie recruited by the democrats to disparage. You will clearly throw common sense under the bus when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. Your analysis that justice Brown is superior in her qualifications to the last 3 justices. She has not heard a single case yet. If your going to prognosticate maybe you should take a little time and see how she performs in her new job. Your giving her accolades as far superior never having spent day one on the job.

+1

I am smart enough and I understand logic that tells me an individual creeped out by their boss does not FOLLOW that former boss to his new job. IMO Anita Hill is a sick person who stalked Justice Thomas. MD lax believes her and that is his opinion. I can't wrap my head around how a woman as creeped out as Anita Hill CLAIMED to be by Clarence Thomas then puts her disgust aside and FOLLOWS the man to his new job. It makes perfectly good sense if you disregard common sense and logic.

[cradleandshoot]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Unless you objected to the treatment by Democrats of Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (made-up leftist histrionics and outright lies), you really don’t have standing to decry the ‘treatment of KBJ’ (which was simply asking about her record, as well as could she define a woman - no, and would she expand the court - wouldn’t answer).

You dance around whether Kavanaugh actually did rape someone (“hard to know for sure”), which is truly detestable given the plainly unbalanced accuser (not to mention the others who proved wildly implausible).

Thomas I'm quite sure did as he was accused of doing.

Kavanaugh, I doubt did as much as he was accused of doing; no one's recollections were great. But I do bet that he doesn't remember what he did or did not do, given the drinking.

Barett faced only what she'd brought on herself given her writings about religion and the law. I don't think those were actually unfair challenges.

All 3 Trump nominees suffered because of McConnell's refusal to even allow the Garland hearings...and they hypocrisy was at its height in the rushed process with Barrett.

Yeah, the Jackson treatment was inexcusable. Yes, racist.

And she was by far the most qualified nominee of any of those cited...by a wide margin.

What a pantload on your part. You see racism and racist motives hiding behind every tree. There are times MD your opinions are becoming more and more pathetic. I have a question for you. If Anita Hill was so taken aback by justice Thomas lewd behavior... WHY DID SHE FOLLOW HIM when he changed jobs? Who would do that MD??? The reality is Anita Hill was a groupie recruited by the democrats to disparage. You will clearly throw common sense under the bus when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. Your analysis that justice Brown is superior in her qualifications to the last 3 justices. She has not heard a single case yet. If your going to prognosticate maybe you should take a little time and see how she performs in her new job. Your giving her accolades as far superior never having spent day one on the job.

+1

I am smart enough and I understand logic that tells me an individual creeped out by their boss does not FOLLOW that former boss to his new job. IMO Anita Hill is a sick person who stalked Justice Thomas. MD lax believes her and that is his opinion. I can't wrap my head around how a woman as creeped out as Anita Hill CLAIMED to be by Clarence Thomas then puts her disgust aside and FOLLOWS the man to his new job. It makes perfectly good sense if you disregard common sense and logic.

[MDlaxfan76]

you guys are such a lovely bunch, but thank you for making that clear.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Unless you objected to the treatment by Democrats of Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (made-up leftist histrionics and outright lies), you really don’t have standing to decry the ‘treatment of KBJ’ (which was simply asking about her record, as well as could she define a woman - no, and would she expand the court - wouldn’t answer).

You dance around whether Kavanaugh actually did rape someone (“hard to know for sure”), which is truly detestable given the plainly unbalanced accuser (not to mention the others who proved wildly implausible).

Thomas I'm quite sure did as he was accused of doing.

Kavanaugh, I doubt did as much as he was accused of doing; no one's recollections were great. But I do bet that he doesn't remember what he did or did not do, given the drinking.

Barett faced only what she'd brought on herself given her writings about religion and the law. I don't think those were actually unfair challenges.

All 3 Trump nominees suffered because of McConnell's refusal to even allow the Garland hearings...and they hypocrisy was at its height in the rushed process with Barrett.

Yeah, the Jackson treatment was inexcusable. Yes, racist.

And she was by far the most qualified nominee of any of those cited...by a wide margin.

What a pantload on your part. You see racism and racist motives hiding behind every tree. There are times MD your opinions are becoming more and more pathetic. I have a question for you. If Anita Hill was so taken aback by justice Thomas lewd behavior... WHY DID SHE FOLLOW HIM when he changed jobs? Who would do that MD??? The reality is Anita Hill was a groupie recruited by the democrats to disparage. You will clearly throw common sense under the bus when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. Your analysis that justice Brown is superior in her qualifications to the last 3 justices. She has not heard a single case yet. If your going to prognosticate maybe you should take a little time and see how she performs in her new job. Your giving her accolades as far superior never having spent day one on the job.

+1

I am smart enough and I understand logic that tells me an individual creeped out by their boss does not FOLLOW that former boss to his new job. IMO Anita Hill is a sick person who stalked Justice Thomas. MD lax believes her and that is his opinion. I can't wrap my head around how a woman as creeped out as Anita Hill CLAIMED to be by Clarence Thomas then puts her disgust aside and FOLLOWS the man to his new job. It makes perfectly good sense if you disregard common sense and logic.

My fridge wasn’t getting cool last week now it’s holding a steady cool temperature. What may be the problem?

[cradleandshoot]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Unless you objected to the treatment by Democrats of Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (made-up leftist histrionics and outright lies), you really don’t have standing to decry the ‘treatment of KBJ’ (which was simply asking about her record, as well as could she define a woman - no, and would she expand the court - wouldn’t answer).

You dance around whether Kavanaugh actually did rape someone (“hard to know for sure”), which is truly detestable given the plainly unbalanced accuser (not to mention the others who proved wildly implausible).

Thomas I'm quite sure did as he was accused of doing.

Kavanaugh, I doubt did as much as he was accused of doing; no one's recollections were great. But I do bet that he doesn't remember what he did or did not do, given the drinking.

Barett faced only what she'd brought on herself given her writings about religion and the law. I don't think those were actually unfair challenges.

All 3 Trump nominees suffered because of McConnell's refusal to even allow the Garland hearings...and they hypocrisy was at its height in the rushed process with Barrett.

Yeah, the Jackson treatment was inexcusable. Yes, racist.

And she was by far the most qualified nominee of any of those cited...by a wide margin.

What a pantload on your part. You see racism and racist motives hiding behind every tree. There are times MD your opinions are becoming more and more pathetic. I have a question for you. If Anita Hill was so taken aback by justice Thomas lewd behavior... WHY DID SHE FOLLOW HIM when he changed jobs? Who would do that MD??? The reality is Anita Hill was a groupie recruited by the democrats to disparage. You will clearly throw common sense under the bus when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. Your analysis that justice Brown is superior in her qualifications to the last 3 justices. She has not heard a single case yet. If your going to prognosticate maybe you should take a little time and see how she performs in her new job. Your giving her accolades as far superior never having spent day one on the job.

+1

I am smart enough and I understand logic that tells me an individual creeped out by their boss does not FOLLOW that former boss to his new job. IMO Anita Hill is a sick person who stalked Justice Thomas. MD lax believes her and that is his opinion. I can't wrap my head around how a woman as creeped out as Anita Hill CLAIMED to be by Clarence Thomas then puts her disgust aside and FOLLOWS the man to his new job. It makes perfectly good sense if you disregard common sense and logic.

My fridge wasn’t getting cool last week now it’s holding a steady cool temperature. What may be the problem?

I'm guessing your cheap, tightwad ass finally bought a new refrigerator.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Unless you objected to the treatment by Democrats of Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (made-up leftist histrionics and outright lies), you really don’t have standing to decry the ‘treatment of KBJ’ (which was simply asking about her record, as well as could she define a woman - no, and would she expand the court - wouldn’t answer).

You dance around whether Kavanaugh actually did rape someone (“hard to know for sure”), which is truly detestable given the plainly unbalanced accuser (not to mention the others who proved wildly implausible).

Thomas I'm quite sure did as he was accused of doing.

Kavanaugh, I doubt did as much as he was accused of doing; no one's recollections were great. But I do bet that he doesn't remember what he did or did not do, given the drinking.

Barett faced only what she'd brought on herself given her writings about religion and the law. I don't think those were actually unfair challenges.

All 3 Trump nominees suffered because of McConnell's refusal to even allow the Garland hearings...and they hypocrisy was at its height in the rushed process with Barrett.

Yeah, the Jackson treatment was inexcusable. Yes, racist.

And she was by far the most qualified nominee of any of those cited...by a wide margin.

What a pantload on your part. You see racism and racist motives hiding behind every tree. There are times MD your opinions are becoming more and more pathetic. I have a question for you. If Anita Hill was so taken aback by justice Thomas lewd behavior... WHY DID SHE FOLLOW HIM when he changed jobs? Who would do that MD??? The reality is Anita Hill was a groupie recruited by the democrats to disparage. You will clearly throw common sense under the bus when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. Your analysis that justice Brown is superior in her qualifications to the last 3 justices. She has not heard a single case yet. If your going to prognosticate maybe you should take a little time and see how she performs in her new job. Your giving her accolades as far superior never having spent day one on the job.

+1

I am smart enough and I understand logic that tells me an individual creeped out by their boss does not FOLLOW that former boss to his new job. IMO Anita Hill is a sick person who stalked Justice Thomas. MD lax believes her and that is his opinion. I can't wrap my head around how a woman as creeped out as Anita Hill CLAIMED to be by Clarence Thomas then puts her disgust aside and FOLLOWS the man to his new job. It makes perfectly good sense if you disregard common sense and logic.

My fridge wasn’t getting cool last week now it’s holding a steady cool temperature. What may be the problem?

I'm guessing your cheap, tightwad ass finally bought a new refrigerator.

Just trying to utilize subject matter expertise.

[cradleandshoot]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Unless you objected to the treatment by Democrats of Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (made-up leftist histrionics and outright lies), you really don’t have standing to decry the ‘treatment of KBJ’ (which was simply asking about her record, as well as could she define a woman - no, and would she expand the court - wouldn’t answer).

You dance around whether Kavanaugh actually did rape someone (“hard to know for sure”), which is truly detestable given the plainly unbalanced accuser (not to mention the others who proved wildly implausible).

Thomas I'm quite sure did as he was accused of doing.

Kavanaugh, I doubt did as much as he was accused of doing; no one's recollections were great. But I do bet that he doesn't remember what he did or did not do, given the drinking.

Barett faced only what she'd brought on herself given her writings about religion and the law. I don't think those were actually unfair challenges.

All 3 Trump nominees suffered because of McConnell's refusal to even allow the Garland hearings...and they hypocrisy was at its height in the rushed process with Barrett.

Yeah, the Jackson treatment was inexcusable. Yes, racist.

And she was by far the most qualified nominee of any of those cited...by a wide margin.

What a pantload on your part. You see racism and racist motives hiding behind every tree. There are times MD your opinions are becoming more and more pathetic. I have a question for you. If Anita Hill was so taken aback by justice Thomas lewd behavior... WHY DID SHE FOLLOW HIM when he changed jobs? Who would do that MD??? The reality is Anita Hill was a groupie recruited by the democrats to disparage. You will clearly throw common sense under the bus when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. Your analysis that justice Brown is superior in her qualifications to the last 3 justices. She has not heard a single case yet. If your going to prognosticate maybe you should take a little time and see how she performs in her new job. Your giving her accolades as far superior never having spent day one on the job.

+1

I am smart enough and I understand logic that tells me an individual creeped out by their boss does not FOLLOW that former boss to his new job. IMO Anita Hill is a sick person who stalked Justice Thomas. MD lax believes her and that is his opinion. I can't wrap my head around how a woman as creeped out as Anita Hill CLAIMED to be by Clarence Thomas then puts her disgust aside and FOLLOWS the man to his new job. It makes perfectly good sense if you disregard common sense and logic.

My fridge wasn’t getting cool last week now it’s holding a steady cool temperature. What may be the problem?

I'm guessing your cheap, tightwad ass finally bought a new refrigerator.

Just trying to utilize subject matter expertise.

You need to try harder. You an expert on refrigeration repair?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Unless you objected to the treatment by Democrats of Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (made-up leftist histrionics and outright lies), you really don’t have standing to decry the ‘treatment of KBJ’ (which was simply asking about her record, as well as could she define a woman - no, and would she expand the court - wouldn’t answer).

You dance around whether Kavanaugh actually did rape someone (“hard to know for sure”), which is truly detestable given the plainly unbalanced accuser (not to mention the others who proved wildly implausible).

Thomas I'm quite sure did as he was accused of doing.

Kavanaugh, I doubt did as much as he was accused of doing; no one's recollections were great. But I do bet that he doesn't remember what he did or did not do, given the drinking.

Barett faced only what she'd brought on herself given her writings about religion and the law. I don't think those were actually unfair challenges.

All 3 Trump nominees suffered because of McConnell's refusal to even allow the Garland hearings...and they hypocrisy was at its height in the rushed process with Barrett.

Yeah, the Jackson treatment was inexcusable. Yes, racist.

And she was by far the most qualified nominee of any of those cited...by a wide margin.

What a pantload on your part. You see racism and racist motives hiding behind every tree. There are times MD your opinions are becoming more and more pathetic. I have a question for you. If Anita Hill was so taken aback by justice Thomas lewd behavior... WHY DID SHE FOLLOW HIM when he changed jobs? Who would do that MD??? The reality is Anita Hill was a groupie recruited by the democrats to disparage. You will clearly throw common sense under the bus when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. Your analysis that justice Brown is superior in her qualifications to the last 3 justices. She has not heard a single case yet. If your going to prognosticate maybe you should take a little time and see how she performs in her new job. Your giving her accolades as far superior never having spent day one on the job.

+1

I am smart enough and I understand logic that tells me an individual creeped out by their boss does not FOLLOW that former boss to his new job. IMO Anita Hill is a sick person who stalked Justice Thomas. MD lax believes her and that is his opinion. I can't wrap my head around how a woman as creeped out as Anita Hill CLAIMED to be by Clarence Thomas then puts her disgust aside and FOLLOWS the man to his new job. It makes perfectly good sense if you disregard common sense and logic.

My fridge wasn’t getting cool last week now it’s holding a steady cool temperature. What may be the problem?

I'm guessing your cheap, tightwad ass finally bought a new refrigerator.

Just trying to utilize subject matter expertise.

You need to try harder. You an expert on refrigeration repair?

I was looking for your expertise. My hands only handle paper. Anyway, after two days of not holding a cold temperature, it has been fine for over a week. Spent two days looking at appliances and then the sense of urgency dissipated when the fridge returned to normal. Have two models circled when this one does stop. Was just wondering what you thought it might be. Compressor has been kicking in on a normal cycle it seems. I am certain you know more about refrigerators that I do.

[Peter Brown]

I believe TLD’s message is ‘tradespeople aren’t capable of holding opinions on subjects outside their expertise’.

Makes me think, why would paper shufflers be capable of holding opinions outside their expertise?

[jhu72]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe

Do you have a contribution you'd like to make, Joe?

Did you think the treatment of Jackson was appropriate and deserved by her?

If so, why?
If not, why not?

Come on, contribute to the actual discussion we were having before you dropped in with the insults towards fellow posters.

Unless you objected to the treatment by Democrats of Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (made-up leftist histrionics and outright lies), you really don’t have standing to decry the ‘treatment of KBJ’ (which was simply asking about her record, as well as could she define a woman - no, and would she expand the court - wouldn’t answer).

You dance around whether Kavanaugh actually did rape someone (“hard to know for sure”), which is truly detestable given the plainly unbalanced accuser (not to mention the others who proved wildly implausible).

Thomas I'm quite sure did as he was accused of doing.

Kavanaugh, I doubt did as much as he was accused of doing; no one's recollections were great. But I do bet that he doesn't remember what he did or did not do, given the drinking.

Barett faced only what she'd brought on herself given her writings about religion and the law. I don't think those were actually unfair challenges.

All 3 Trump nominees suffered because of McConnell's refusal to even allow the Garland hearings...and they hypocrisy was at its height in the rushed process with Barrett.

Yeah, the Jackson treatment was inexcusable. Yes, racist.

And she was by far the most qualified nominee of any of those cited...by a wide margin.

What a pantload on your part. You see racism and racist motives hiding behind every tree. There are times MD your opinions are becoming more and more pathetic. I have a question for you. If Anita Hill was so taken aback by justice Thomas lewd behavior... WHY DID SHE FOLLOW HIM when he changed jobs? Who would do that MD??? The reality is Anita Hill was a groupie recruited by the democrats to disparage. You will clearly throw common sense under the bus when it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. Your analysis that justice Brown is superior in her qualifications to the last 3 justices. She has not heard a single case yet. If your going to prognosticate maybe you should take a little time and see how she performs in her new job. Your giving her accolades as far superior never having spent day one on the job.

+1

I am smart enough and I understand logic that tells me an individual creeped out by their boss does not FOLLOW that former boss to his new job. IMO Anita Hill is a sick person who stalked Justice Thomas. MD lax believes her and that is his opinion. I can't wrap my head around how a woman as creeped out as Anita Hill CLAIMED to be by Clarence Thomas then puts her disgust aside and FOLLOWS the man to his new job. It makes perfectly good sense if you disregard common sense and logic.

My fridge wasn’t getting cool last week now it’s holding a steady cool temperature. What may be the problem?

I'm guessing your cheap, tightwad ass finally bought a new refrigerator.

Just trying to utilize subject matter expertise.

You need to try harder. You an expert on refrigeration repair?

I was looking for your expertise. My hands only handle paper. Anyway, after two days of not holding a cold temperature, it has been fine for over a week. Spent two days looking at appliances and then the sense of urgency dissipated when the fridge returned to normal. Have two models circled when this one does stop. Was just wondering what you thought it might be. Compressor has been kicking in on a normal cycle it seems. I am certain you know more about refrigerators that I do.

... might not be the fridge. Could possibly have been a temporary power line problem. Minor powerline problems are much more likely to show up in kitchen appliances these days (things with motors) than as lighting, or TV, or stereo, or radio problems. Just a thought.

[cradleandshoot]

you guys are such a lovely bunch, but thank you for making that clear.

It has just been pointed out to you how odd it is that Ms Hill would follow a man to his new job that creeped her out and made crass sexual innuendos towards her. Your the one who apparently is willing to overlook such odd behavior and then throw justice Thomas under the bus. If trying to point that fact out to you makes us a "lovely bunch" I will take that as a compliment. I notice you made no attempt to explain why you believe Ms Hill so fervently. Her actions are in direct conflict with her accusations. Justice Thomas is a real creep, i think I'll follow him over to his new job. That makes perfectly good sense if you don't think about it.