Should Kavanaugh by required to take polygraph test during the up coming FBI investigation?
Poll
 | 4 votes (33.33%) | ||
| | 9 votes (75%) |
12 members have voted
Quote: VCUSkyhawkNone of these political posts go anywhere. They all boil down to your guy is a POS and you are too if you support him.
The only one who ever makes any headway is maybe Mission, and that is just because he beats us to death with his wall of text. He is the William T Sherman of board posting.
Such a POSitive statement :)
Quote: VCUSkyhawkBecause murder is wrong. Playing word games, calling it a fetus, does not lessen this fact.
Just a background on my stance on abortion. I was pro-choice most of my life. Not really because I believed that it was a good thing to have allowed, but mainly because of my libertarian leaning. I dont like government intrusion into our personal lives. That said, when my wife became pregnant almost 4 years ago, I started really learning about the process of a child growing in the womb. It is astonishing how rapidly they develop. From that point on, you will never conceive me that killing an 8 week on child, who has a heart beat and brain activity is not murder. Going back to my anti government intrusion stance, preventing murder is not intrusion, it is what we expect our government to do, protect the innocent.
I'll make this super short., as it's all I plan to say
When you make it murder, you also have to decide if you can call it anything but murder all the way to conception. You're going to have extreme difficulty getting everyone to agree on reasoning for a particular point to stop on. Is it heartbeat, is it neural, is it reaction to stimulus such as reaction to pain, is it cellular variation. We have to agree. if we can't, we end up at conception with the catholics.
Second possible scenario to consider. You or a family member has a fairly minor fender bender. People are shaken up but no one appears injured, however the lady in the car hit is several weeks pregnant has a miscarriage shortly afterward. Based on a what is not much more than a cluster of cells her lawyer is filing manslaughter charges against you. And suing,
Legal abortion in the first trimester, to me, suggests only that if a women has a right to choose what to do with her body over being forced to give birth, she should do it as early as possible. Pro-choice doesn't force even 1 person to have an abortion if they don't want one. Pro-life is not a choice, it's just do this only.
Quote: RSI say, if women are going to have the right to abort, then the man should be able to, for a lack of better words, exclude himself from the situation and not be forced to pay child support etc.
If she exercised her right to abort why would you pay child aupport?
Quote: darkozIf she exercised her right to abort why would you pay child aupport?
The other way around.....
Quote: RSThe other way around.....
I know. I get it
But it seems conservative men want to have their cake and eat it too (no pun intended)
You are against abortion and womens rights to choose
Okay but now they have their right to choose you want the right to opt out of paying child support
But most conservatives rail against unwed single moms on welfare
So you dont want to support your kid but are upset you have to pay taxes for the govt to help keep your own kid from starving?
BTW - I felt the same way about child support until I had my first kid. Then I wanted nothing but to keep my kid in the money. Beats me why a father would not want to spend time with his kid or help pay for him to exist decently. Hes your flesh and blood.
Didnt the deeply conservative south have shotgun weddings in the old days. Now that was trapping the man
Quote: darkozI know. I get it
But it seems conservative men want to have their cake and eat it too (no pun intended)
How so? If a woman has a right to choose, shouldn't a man?
Quote: darkozYou are against abortion and womens rights to choose
In general, yes.
Quote: darkozOkay but now they have their right to choose you want the right to opt out of paying child support
Correct. If a woman has the right to have nothing to do with the baby, then I should at least have the same right to choose. I'm not saying I would choose to abandon the kid, but right now, that's not a right afforded to men, but it's afforded to women.
Quote: darkozBut most conservatives rail against unwed single moms on welfare
Indeed. I'd say it's almost universally true that it's a bad idea to be an unwed single mother, especially when living in or near poverty.
Quote: darkozSo you dont want to support your kid but are upset you have to pay taxes for the govt to help keep your own kid from starving?
I'm not in this situation. But you probably shouldn't have kids if you can't support them...and isn't that a reason for supporting the right to abortions? If a woman can choose to have an abortion because of the money a kid costs, then a man should have the same right.
Quote: darkozBTW - I felt the same way about child support until I had my first kid. Then I wanted nothing but to keep my kid in the money. Beats me why a father would not want to spend time with his kid or help pay for him to exist decently. Hes your flesh and blood.
Didnt the deeply conservative south have shotgun weddings in the old days. Now that was trapping the man
I don't have any kids, but I agree nonetheless. I'm not talking about "me", but people's rights in general.
Quote: RSHow so? If a woman has a right to choose, shouldn't a man?
In general, yes.
Correct. If a woman has the right to have nothing to do with the baby, then I should at least have the same right to choose. I'm not saying I would choose to abandon the kid, but right now, that's not a right afforded to men, but it's afforded to women.
Indeed. I'd say it's almost universally true that it's a bad idea to be an unwed single mother, especially when living in or near poverty.
I'm not in this situation. But you probably shouldn't have kids if you can't support them...and isn't that a reason for supporting the right to abortions? If a woman can choose to have an abortion because of the money a kid costs, then a man should have the same right.
I don't have any kids, but I agree nonetheless. I'm not talking about "me", but people's rights in general.
Correct me if im wrong (I know you will) but traditionally its a conservative view that the state should force "deadbeat dads" to financially take care of their kids thru forced child support to avoid welfare moms from draining the system
So are conservatives concerned over fathers not manning up and financially taking a part in their childs lives which in turn floods the welfare dole
Or concerned with their right to choose (which in your stated case is a right to choose not to pay for your kids welfare)
The only real right to choose based on those two dichotomies is to not have sex. (Seems thats no longer a listed conservative choice (today even unprotected sex with porn stars is encouraged)
Quote: darkoz(Seems thats no longer a listed conservative choice (today even unprotected sex with porn stars is encouraged)
Ask most (Bill) Clinton or Trump voters if they would rather their preferred candidate not have the sordid past both brought to the table, and I would think most of them would wish that they had been more conservative in their sexual lives. It is hard to find "perfect" candidates; those two are particularly imperfect.
...and we knew that, of course...
Quote: RSHow so? If a woman has a right to choose, shouldn't a man?
In general, yes.
Correct. If a woman has the right to have nothing to do with the baby, then I should at least have the same right to choose. I'm not saying I would choose to abandon the kid, but right now, that's not a right afforded to men, but it's afforded to women.
Indeed. I'd say it's almost universally true that it's a bad idea to be an unwed single mother, especially when living in or near poverty.
I'm not in this situation. But you probably shouldn't have kids if you can't support them...and isn't that a reason for supporting the right to abortions? If a woman can choose to have an abortion because of the money a kid costs, then a man should have the same right.
I don't have any kids, but I agree nonetheless. I'm not talking about "me", but people's rights in general.
Let me add that your fight for male rights would probably be seen as more noble if you voiced a disgust with how the system gives Parenting rights more to mothers
I.E. why are custody battles 99% of the time favorable to the mother. Why cant a dad be as good as a mother to raising their child. Why does a man have to practically provide degrading evidence of malfeasance on the part of the mother in order to gain custody
And if you get your childs custody why is it rare the mother isnt forced to pay the man child support (its rare because generally if you cant prove the mom is a degenerate drug addict/prostitute then they retain custody and what drug addict is going to responsibly pay child support
That should be your equality argument imo
Quote: darkozCorrect me if im wrong (I know you will) but traditionally its a conservative view that the state should force "deadbeat dads" to financially take care of their kids thru forced child support to avoid welfare moms from draining the system
So are conservatives concerned over fathers not manning up and financially taking a part in their childs lives which in turn floods the welfare dole
Or concerned with their right to choose (which in your stated case is a right to choose not to pay for your kids welfare)
The only real right to choose based on those two dichotomies is to not have sex. (Seems thats no longer a listed conservative choice (today even unprotected sex with porn stars is encouraged)
I'm not sure, it probably is a traditional conservative view. It's not my view and I certainly don't support every conservative view. But I'd say a stronger conservative view is for people not to have children until they are financially stable. I think forcing men to pay child support to keep "welfare moms" from draining the system is an "easy fix" to a bigger problem (welfare).
Quote: darkozLet me add that your fight for male rights would probably be seen as more noble if you voiced a disgust with how the system gives Parenting rights more to mothers
I.E. why are custody battles 99% of the time favorable to the mother. Why cant a dad be as good as a mother to raising their child. Why does a man have to practically provide degrading evidence of malfeasance on the part of the mother in order to gain custody
And if you get your childs custody why is it rare the mother isnt forced to pay the man child support (its rare because generally if you cant prove the mom is a degenerate drug addict/prostitute then they retain custody and what drug addict is going to responsibly pay child support
That should be your equality argument imo
That's one side to it (where you want custody of the child) and the other side is when you don't want anything to do with the child. But it doesn't really make sense to talk about getting custody of your kid when the discussion was on abortion, now does it? I may as well talk about how it's unfair that men have to pay more for a gym membership or getting into nightclubs.
Quote: RSI'm not sure, it probably is a traditional conservative view. It's not my view and I certainly don't support every conservative view. But I'd say a stronger conservative view is for people not to have children until they are financially stable. I think forcing men to pay child support to keep "welfare moms" from draining the system is an "easy fix" to a bigger problem (welfare).
I think thats a human view. People should be financially stable before having children IN AN IDEAL WORLD
Unfortunately the world is not ideal
Some men are never financially stable
Some families are stable financially only to have jobs lost or economies swing into recessions
Some financially stable families discover how expensive children can be (its surprisingly expensive)
Illnesses can affect financial stability. Addictions as well.
Rich dads have been known to not acknowledge their own children (especially those from mistresses)
Abstinence which is basically what you are promoting until financially responsible is not an option for most horny men (or women both are guilty here)
It just seems disingenuous to complain women are at fault for having kids AND men are being victimized thru having to pay child support
So thats the world we live in
Quote: RSHCorrect. If a woman has the right to have nothing to do with the baby, then I should at least have the same right to choose.
Offer to have a bowling ball surgically implanted in your abdomen for 9 months and that squares things up.. HEY, you don't even have to eat right and can still drink beer all day if you want, Advantage you.
I figure if a man is willing to do that at least once in his life he earns 1 right to choose. OR 50 percent vote
Quote: darkozI think thats a human view. People should be financially stable before having children IN AN IDEAL WORLD
Unfortunately the world is not ideal
It is proven that having kids without being married is about the fastest road to poverty. The media portrays some professional woman who "wants a kid but does not need a man" as a sort of typical single mom. Can't get further from reality.
Reality is the woman figures she "doesn't need the man, just 12% of his income." In some places, even more. She will still be struggling financially. If she has a daughter, said daughter is far more likely to let herself get pregnant and repeat the cycle. A son is far more likely to end up in the can. In one of her books, Ann Coulter cited studies showing that when you adjust for single parents, the Black/White incarceration rate vanishes.
In an ideal world woman would not let themselves get pregnant without a husband. But the popular culture has glorified single motherhood to perhaps the point of no return.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is proven that having kids without being married is about the fastest road to poverty. The media portrays some professional woman who "wants a kid but does not need a man" as a sort of typical single mom. Can't get further from reality.
Reality is the woman figures she "doesn't need the man, just 12% of his income." In some places, even more. She will still be struggling financially. If she has a daughter, said daughter is far more likely to let herself get pregnant and repeat the cycle. A son is far more likely to end up in the can. In one of her books, Ann Coulter cited studies showing that when you adjust for single parents, the Black/White incarceration rate vanishes.
In an ideal world woman would not let themselves get pregnant without a husband. But the popular culture has glorified single motherhood to perhaps the point of no return.
Quoting Anne Coulter?
Might as well quote David Duke to make your point lol
Quote: darkozQuoting Anne Coulter?
Might as well quote David Duke to make your point lol
What does Ann Coulter have to do with David Duke? Can you prove Coulter wrong on FACTS? Or do you just not like strong women?
Quote: RonCDo Democrats have any interest in finding out who leaked the letter?
No.
What does it matter?
Does it change the veracity of the letter?
Dems: concerned with truth
Repubs: concernes with who leaked the truth
Smh
Quote: SOOPOOI understand why you understand. But the American people(should?) want their Supreme Court Justices to not lie to accomplish some objective, even if the objective is laudable. If he could not say, "Yes, I drank a lot in college. Obviously not enough to affect my grades. I worked hard and partied hard. AS I got older like many of my generation I started drinking far less. I still enjoy a beer now and then. My drinking in High School and College should have no bearing on my present worthiness to be a Supreme Court Justice." Re the yearbook..... "There are remarks in it that reference things of a sexual nature. Like many kids, those remarks were more braggadocio than reality. I actually didn't even have sex until College. And, no, I'm not going into that any further."
Had he answered what could at least be perceived as truthful, he would have convinced (ZERO) some Democrats to vote for him? Of course not.
Would've convinced THIS democrat. But he didn't do that.
He could've admitted to being involved in the William Pryor nomination. He could've admitted to being aware of warrantless wiretapping. He could've admitted to receiving stolen Democratic docs. He could've told the truth about what Devils Triangle was (his answer to this was laughable and Senators didn't press him on it). He could've admitted to being involved with the PIckering nomination. He could've admitted that he in fact was Bart O'Kavanaugh in Mark Judge's memoir instead of saying, "you'll have to ask him". He could've admitted to having connections to Yale, that his grandfather attended for undregrad, instead of saying he had no connections. He could've told the truth about Beach Week Ralph Club. He could've told the truth about what boofing meant. He could've been straight up about the drinking age in Maryland instead of using misleading answers to give the impression that it was legal for him to drink, when it wasn't. He could've told the truth about his social circles. He could've told the truth about the gatherings that he attended, when he said he never attended a gathering like the one described by Ford, while his stupid calendar CLEARLY shows that he in fact did attend gatherings like the one Ford described.
These lies or misleading statements, whatever you want to call them, on top of the fact that he outed himself as a partisan political operative, were disqualifying for the position. Some want to celebrate a man like this getting on to the SCOTUS. It's a sad day in America when we don't demand honesty and integrity from our Supreme Court justices.
Quote: darkozNo.
What does it matter?
Does it change the veracity of the letter?
Dems: concerned with truth
The truth? part of the "truth" is how a confidential letter that Dr. Ford wrote became public.
Quote: darkozRepubs: concernes with who leaked the truth
I guess Dr. Ford doesn't matter, as a human being, nearly as much as Democrats would want you to believe. If she did, there would be strong apologies and promises to get to the bottom of the leak from the Democrats.
Quote: darkozSmh
Right back at you...the Democrats were only concerned with sinking the nomination. They did not have the votes. They knew the charges were nearly impossible to prove in a he said/she said situation and I am fairly certain that they had a good idea that it would end up that way before they brought it out. They wanted the President or the nominee to fold.
Quote: RonCThe truth? part of the "truth" is how a confidential letter that Dr. Ford wrote became public.
I guess Dr. Ford doesn't matter, as a human being, nearly as much as Democrats would want you to believe. If she did, there would be strong apologies and promises to get to the bottom of the leak from the Democrats.
Right back at you...the Democrats were only concerned with sinking the nomination. They did not have the votes. They knew the charges were nearly impossible to prove in a he said/she said situation and I am fairly certain that they had a good idea that it would end up that way before they brought it out. They wanted the President or the nominee to fold.
Well double smh back at you. Nah nah nahnah nah
:))))
Quote: RonCThe truth? part of the "truth" is how a confidential letter that Dr. Ford wrote became public.
I guess Dr. Ford doesn't matter, as a human being, nearly as much as Democrats would want you to believe. If she did, there would be strong apologies and promises to get to the bottom of the leak from the Democrats.
Right back at you...the Democrats were only concerned with sinking the nomination. They did not have the votes. They knew the charges were nearly impossible to prove in a he said/she said situation and I am fairly certain that they had a good idea that it would end up that way before they brought it out. They wanted the President or the nominee to fold.
I fully support an investigation to who leaked the letter. I find it interesting that Republicans, within hours of the letter being made public, had their own letter signed by 65 women, ready to go. Fully support an investigation. I just hope its scope isn't limited so we can actually get to the truth.
Quote: SteverinosI fully support an investigation to who leaked the letter. I find it interesting that Republicans, within hours of the letter being made public, had their own letter signed by 65 women, ready to go. Fully support an investigation. I just hope its scope isn't limited so we can actually get to the truth.
I'm fine with that. I don't have a problem with more transparency and the results of getting there.
Quote: darkozWell double smh back at you. Nah nah nahnah nah
:))))
Just don't get CTE from shaking your head too hard!
Quote: RonCI'm fine with that. I don't have a problem with more transparency and the results of getting there.
Yup. Let's see the FBI report too.
Quote: SteverinosYup. Let's see the FBI report too.
I don't think those types of files are released as a general practice since it is a background check and not a criminal investigation. I believe that is what was said during the process. However, if you are okay with releasing ALL background checks on ALL public officials, I am okay with that!
Now THAT would be an interesting thing...
Quote: RonCI don't think those types of files are released as a general practice since it is a background check and not a criminal investigation. I believe that is what was said during the process. However, if you are okay with releasing ALL background checks on ALL public officials, I am okay with that!
Now THAT would be an interesting thing...
I know they aren't typically released and I understand why. However, this divided the country. There's room for an exception.
Quote: RonCJust don't get CTE from shaking your head too hard!
My neck hurts already
forget or let up on the Kavanaugh
thing. Sure they will, as a soon as
the next bright shiny news story
comes along, he'll be yesterday's
news. Clarence Thomas will be
the next to retire, he's tired and
wants a few years to relax. Then
all this will start up again.
Quote: SteverinosWould've convinced THIS democrat. But he didn't do that.
He could've admitted to being involved in the William Pryor nomination. He could've admitted to being aware of warrantless wiretapping. He could've admitted to receiving stolen Democratic docs. He could've told the truth about what Devils Triangle was (his answer to this was laughable and Senators didn't press him on it). He could've admitted to being involved with the PIckering nomination. He could've admitted that he in fact was Bart O'Kavanaugh in Mark Judge's memoir instead of saying, "you'll have to ask him". He could've admitted to having connections to Yale, that his grandfather attended for undregrad, instead of saying he had no connections. He could've told the truth about Beach Week Ralph Club. He could've told the truth about what boofing meant. He could've been straight up about the drinking age in Maryland instead of using misleading answers to give the impression that it was legal for him to drink, when it wasn't. He could've told the truth about his social circles. He could've told the truth about the gatherings that he attended, when he said he never attended a gathering like the one described by Ford, while his stupid calendar CLEARLY shows that he in fact did attend gatherings like the one Ford described.
These lies or misleading statements, whatever you want to call them, on top of the fact that he outed himself as a partisan political operative, were disqualifying for the position. Some want to celebrate a man like this getting on to the SCOTUS. It's a sad day in America when we don't demand honesty and integrity from our Supreme Court justices.
So well said I'm quoting it. Lisa Murkowski said much the same. And she was right, too. He's not worthy of the seat he now occupies.
Quote: RonCKavanaugh has hired four women as clerks, keeping a promise he made during the confirmation process.
In his first day on the job, Kavanaugh hires as many black law clerks as Ruth Bader Ginsburg has in her entire tenure
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/brett-kavanaugh-black-women-law-clerks-ginsburg/
Quote: FleaswatterIn his first day on the job, Kavanaugh hires as many black law clerks as Ruth Bader Ginsburg has in her entire tenure
That can't be correct, hiring women and
blacks. The Left proved he's a sexist
racist pig. Blame all this on greedy Harry
Reid, who got the votes needed down
from 60 to where it is now. Even in 2012
they were 100% convinced She was winning
in 2016, they had it all planned, the fix was
in. Harry was told this would bite the Dems
hard on the ass, but he laughed it off.
Who's laughing now, Harry.
Child molester hires children?
Quote: rxwineIS sexual assaulter hires women
So that's his plan. He coached girls
sports for years, yet none of them
came forward. They sung his praises,
in fact. How is that possible.
The Lefts plan: Fabricate the lie, then
actually believe the lie you fabricated.
once a rape-o always a rape-o. If he raped in high school the chances of him not doing it again are impossibly small.
The rape didn't happen. It was a lie. The entire fabrication was a ploy to delay.
YOUR PRESIDENT saw through it though, and He made sure 51 others saw it as well.
A lie is a lie. One does not get to say this woman is not a liar because I don't like the most qualified candidate for a job. 49 dopey people did that.
hundreds of dopey people smoked cigarettes and held up shameful signs in the streets of DC encouraging this ignorant behavior, while being paid to do it and throw an occasional temper tantrum.
Uh-oh!
Quote: AZDuffman
Same poll said only 41% wanted him confirmed.
Quote: Maverick17The rape didn't happen. It was a lie. The entire fabrication was a ploy to delay. .
He was never accused of rape, it was
groping thru her clothes. Something
me and every guy did in HS, how else
were you getting to 2nd base. She sure
as hell wasn't going to invite you.
Quote: rxwineYou support the most lying president ever. you obviously respect liars.
Clinton, Obama, Trump, which liar got
the most done is all I care about. What
world do you live in where politicians
don't lie daily. Mark Twain said it 125
years ago, what's changed.
Quote: AZDuffman
Of couse they are pissed. And this is the Washington Examiner? So the real number is in excess of double, so over 56% of independents detest it.
And I can tell you why. The victim was being trampled on by the democratic party. If there is no evidence a crime happened, one does not get to make facts out of whatever a liar has to say.
If I was a liberal I could get into how this atrocity made me "physically ill," left me feeling "like I was being raped all over again." and how "I couldn't even drag myself out of bed for weeks," among a plethora of other liberal chicken little anecdotes.
I am Brett Kavanaugh, and to a lesser extent I know exactly how he felt. I am thankful that my attacker chose to attempt to destroy my name in a day and time with very little internet, no social media, and an American people who believed in innocence until proven guilty.
I can just imagine how this horrible c-word of a woman's attack against me would still haunt me in 2036 if her lies were told in 2018 vs in 2001. My name would be ruined to any potential employer, a potential friend, a potential date, a potential wife, potential in-laws, etc, and etc.
If only one newspaper had picked up on the story (and the story she told, and where I was in life in 2001, there would have been multiple news outlets) my innocence would not matter to this day.
Can you imagine being an HR director in 2018, finding an incredibly qualified job candidate, and before you offer him the job you do a quick google of his name and see that he was accused of awful things in 2001. No where would you read that the claims she made were refuted, and that she was the attacker, and he was the victim, because that is not newsworthy. The HR director may or may not even ask me about this event, but even if they did, in 2018, isn't it just easier to offer the job to the second best candidate, because "you can never be sure."
There are millions more people like me, and if these liars are allowed to continue, just imagine where the true victims will be 15-20 years from now.
I do NOT believe all women.
Quote: Maverick17Quote: AZDuffman
Of couse they are pissed. And this is the Washington Examiner? So the real number is in excess of double, so over 56% of independents detest it.
Might want to try reading the article.
Quote: EvenBobHe was never accused of rape, it was
groping thru her clothes. Something
me and every guy did in HS, how else
were you getting to 2nd base. She sure
as hell wasn't going to invite you.
If you groped women through their clothes and they were not okay with it, in 2018 you raped her.
I have had my share (and probably a little bit of another's share) of vagina, boob, and butt. I never went into a room with friend and felt up a girl who was not into me. I can't recall a time where I WAS in a room alone with a girl, where she did NOT feel ME up, if we were making out, etc.
Quote: Maverick17I do NOT believe all women.
I don't believe anybody without
verification. About anything. It's
a good attitude to have. It's why
I'm an atheist. There's a god?
Prove it.
Quote: Maverick17If you groped women through their clothes and they were not okay with it, in 2018 you raped her.
I have had my share (and probably a little bit of another's share) of vagina, boob, and butt. I never went into a room with friend and felt up a girl who was not into me. I can't recall a time where I WAS in a room alone with a girl, where she did NOT feel ME up, if we were making out, etc.
Has anyone else considered that she was into him but he was not into her? Would explain her following his career so close.
