*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

https://youtu.be/87imHoBsGQ8?t=23m56s

What are we supposed to be seeing there?

She asks him a question that could be hard to answer and he dithers over the answer, the end.

[Poopadoop]

It shouldn't be hard to answer, that's the point.

If you were in the law business and were talking to one of Trump's lawyers about the Mueller investigation, that should be an easy thing to recall. The fact that Kavanaugh hums and haws suggests he knows the answer, and he knows that SHE knows the answer (which her demeanor suggests she does), and he doesn't want to admit it, but also doesn't want to lie and get caught lying, so goes 'uhm, ah, who's doing what now?'.

The next obvious question is why was he talking to Trump's personal law team about Mueller? He's supposed to be an objective judge applying to the SC, not a political hack. The implication is that Trump counsel approached him and said 'Hey Kavvy Boy, you know how you said a sitting president shouldn't even be investigated? Do you still think that? And if so would you be sympathetic to seeing this Mueller thing quashed if you got to be a SCJ? (hint hint)' And he said 'damn rights' and THEN after this convo gets nominated to the SC, this is not ok.

Never minding the Orange Clown, the K nomination/refusal is potentially huge given his ultra-conservative views, and getting enough R's to vote against him is important. You don't really want this guy being the swing vote when the lower courts are deciding whether or not they want to go full fascist.

[oskar]

What are we supposed to be seeing there?

She asks him a question that could be hard to answer and he dithers over the answer, the end.

It's an extremely specific yes or no question. If I asked you: did you talk about abortion with your mother at Disney Land, your reply wouldn't be: I'm not sure what you mean by "mother." The reason he doesn't answer is because if he answers truthfully it's more bad press for Trump, and if he lies and they have evidence to the contrary, he's lying in front of congress which is kinda bad optics for a supreme court justice.
Kavernauth is there to keep Mueller away from Trump. He's bought and paid for.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Oh OK. I heard her ask, "Did you talk to any lawyers in XXX" and I wasn't sure if she meant the building or the people whom work there, regardless of where the meeting took place.
I guess that would be the easiest thing to clarify if he'd just ask, "What do you mean? Have I had conversations in that building, conversations with those lawyers, or specifically conversations with those lawyers in that building?"

Still... seeing someone dither a bit when confronted with her tone is not unusual, IMO. She's clearly asking a "gotcha" question, but it's not exactly clear what she intends to shout, "gotcha" about after he answers. What if her information is wrong or misleading? What if she's trying to trick him and doesn't actually know whether or not he spoke with them. She says she knows the answer, but she's still asking the question. That'd be enough to make me a bit nervous, even if I knew I hadn't done anything wrong.

Simply talking with lawyers seems like a common thing a judge would do. She seemed to think any conversation was inappropriate, by her tone.

Furthermore, is it bad for a president to vet his nominee before nominating them? Seems like that would be a fundamental step in the process of choosing whom to nominate. Checking to see that their judicial-political views match your own is the whole point of the nomination, right?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't even see the problem with asking, "do you still think it's illegal to investigate a sitting president?" Asking a potential nominee many questions regarding their various stances is his (the President's) responsibility.

I don't buy the "impartial human" assertion. No human is impartial. Good judges strive to be impartial, but they still bring their own sense of what is best to every decision.
Of course, it'd be great to have perfectly impartial judges, but I don't see that as a practical reality.

[Poopadoop]

Still not sure you have all the facts here. The question to K was "did you speak to anyone at X, X & X, the law firm that is Trump's personal lawyer, about Mueller?"

It's not inappropriate for POTUS to himself speak to someone he's considering for the job, or to have the WH counsel and/or WH staff interview that person. Nothing at all wrong with that.

What's inappropriate is to have his PERSONAL lawyer speak to Kavanaugh. K is potentially being hired to work for the USA, not for Trump. Now, why in the great big world would his PERSONAL lawyer talk to K about Mueller? Does that not look a tad suspicious to you?

Now, lets say K never spoke to those guys about Trump and Mueller and she's just trying to trick him. All he had to do was say 'fuck no' to her question and move on. The fact he's trying to dodge the question is suspicious.

[oskar]

Currently it's clowntown at a level where I'm wondering why the GOP isn't calling for impeachment to save themselves. We have reports from "high level officials" coming out that are making credible claims that Trumps own team has been discussing invoking the 25th since practically day1 and that they have to just ignore his literal assassination orders to avoid WW3.

[Poopadoop]

Currently it's clowntown at a level where I'm wondering why the GOP isn't calling for impeachment to save themselves.

2nd amendment?

What's scary is that a full 1/3 of the country thinks he's doing a great job and won't even consider the possibility that they've signed up for Trump University, President edition.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Still not sure you have all the facts here.

Oh, I definitely don't. That's fair criticism.

What's inappropriate is to have his PERSONAL lawyer speak to Kavanaugh. K is potentially being hired to work for the USA, not for Trump. Now, why in the great big world would his PERSONAL lawyer talk to K about Mueller? Does that not look a tad suspicious to you?

OK. I see your point vis-a-vis working for America, not Trump.

As to why they would talk, it could be any reason at all.
Whether or not you and I could imagine a tame scenario is not proof of anything aside from the efficacy of our imaginations.

It looks a tad suspicious, but my standard for being suspicious is pretty low, and that tad isn't really anything but a reflection of my ignorance to the content of the alleged conversation. It doesn't help me that her tone is openly combative and invites other reasons to not answer her directly and off-the-cuff.

Now, lets say K never spoke to those guys about Trump and Mueller and she's just trying to trick him. All he had to do was say 'fuck no' to her question and move on. The fact he's trying to dodge the question is suspicious.

Except that she's made it clear that she's asking a "gotcha" question and he doesn't know what she's trying to get him on.
Is it a yes? a no? She's clearly baiting him into something she wants to pounce on. His dithering could be nothing more than self-preservation against someone whom is clearly not playing nice.

If that was an honest question she'd lead with what she thinks she knows and ask him to affirm or refute that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

2nd amendment?

What's scary is that a full 1/3 of the country thinks he's doing a great job and won't even consider the possibility that they've signed up for Trump University, President edition.

I'd wager a significant portion of that 1/3 is expressing party loyalty more than Trump loyalty and if the Reps at large turned against him, then that 1/3 would be divided.

[BananaStand]

Still not sure you have all the facts here.

Neither do you.

She asked "Did you talk about the Mueller probe with someone at XYZ lawfirm?" Slightly paraphrased.

BK has probably talked to 1000 lawyers about the Mueller probe. Is he supposed to recall each one, and then recall which firm each one was working for at the time? He didn't dodge the question. He said he was "happy to be refreshed". In other words, all Harris had to do was ask "did you talk to Mr. X ?" and then BK could give his answer. Instead, she grandstanded.

is it a coincidence that the most headline making lines of questioning came from the two opposing party senators with presidential aspirations?

Did you see Corey "Spartacus" Booker basically BEG to be martyred? This guy is the fucking Nick Cage of the senate. And for some reason, the liberal media keeps giving him a platform to be a complete douchebag.

[BananaStand]

In other news, I'm looking for a word that can be used as a shortcut for saying the following:

The way for you to achieve maximum utility and meaning for your life, is for you to be set on fire. Not for as punishment, not as revenge, not as a deterrent, not as a public spectacle, not as an example, not as anything other than the barely consequential purpose of expediently helping something larger to catch fire.

I used to have something for this, but I lost it.....

[Poopadoop]

Neither do you.

Glad your here to fill in the blanks as you and/or Fox News see fit.

BK has probably talked to 1000 lawyers about the Mueller probe.

Based on what? He's going around daily talking to different lawyers about Mueller? It's all he or anyone in the legal profession ever talks about? He has 1000 lawyer friends? He's a judge, he's not the Head of the Lawyers Discussions of Mueller Club.

I'm guessing 1000 is a bit high.

But let's say it is a plausibly high number, like more than a couple of dozen. Go on.

Is he supposed to recall each one, and then recall which firm each one was working for at the time?

No, but he should be able to remember the time he met Trump's legal team (seems like a memorable thing) and if they happened to discuss the question of Mueller (which seems a potentially explosive topic given the job he's up for). He's supposed to be like a smart person.

He didn't dodge the question. He said he was "happy to be refreshed".

"He played it very lawyerly" is I think the wording you're looking for here. Gave himself plausible deniability while admitting to nothing.

Now, if it comes out (and I suspect it will) that he did talk to Trump U's law department, he hasn't lied, he simply 'couldn't remember'. Which of course everyone will know is b.s. but will be enough for Pres. "No flippers" to consider as passing the loyalty test.

[Poopadoop]

It looks a tad suspicious, but my standard for being suspicious is pretty low, and that tad isn't really anything but a reflection of my ignorance to the content of the alleged conversation. It doesn't help me that her tone is openly combative and invites other reasons to not answer her directly and off-the-cuff.

I believe it has something to do with the appearance of impropriety being nearly as bad as impropriety itself.

It's the kind of thing that keeps judges from being friends with mobsters, for example. Or having closed-chamber meetings alone with opposite-sex defendants. Yes, it's possible there's an innocent explanation. But that's not what people are going to think. And knowing that, as a judge, is why you don't let yourself get caught talking the president's personal lawyer team.

[BananaStand]

Glad your here to fill in the blanks as you and/or Fox News see fit.

You can watch the actual hearings and see what happened for yourself. There's no spin here.

But let's say it is a plausibly high number, like more than a couple of dozen. Go on.

Do I need to go on? Isn't that enough??

No, but he should be able to remember the time he met Trump's legal team (seems like a memorable thing)

Please get your facts straight. He never "met with Trump's legal team"

Kamala Harris obviously found some piece of paper that shows BK talking to some lawyer about Mueller. She obviously has reason to believe that lawyer works at XYZ law firm. XYZ law firm was founded by Lawyer X. Lawyer X worked for Trump for about five minutes in 2017, and then resigned.

What Ms Harris is implying....is that there still exists some back-channel connection through this lawyer with which Trump currently has no client-relationship. And that Trump may be using that back channel to vet supreme court candidates.

Real foil hat shit.

[Poopadoop]

In other news, I'm looking for a word that can be used as a shortcut for saying the following:

The way for you to achieve maximum utility and meaning for your life, is for you to be set on fire. Not for as punishment, not as revenge, not as a deterrent, not as a public spectacle, not as an example, not as anything other than the barely consequential purpose of expediently helping something larger to catch fire.

I used to have something for this, but I lost it.....

Dunno. Maybe your angry cunt counsellor can help you with that problem.

[Poopadoop]

There's no spin here.

He never "met with Trump's legal team"

No spin, just the facts according to whatever fits your worldview. LoL.

Kamala Harris obviously found some piece of paper that shows BK talking to some lawyer about Mueller. She obviously has reason to believe that lawyer works at XYZ law firm. XYZ law firm was founded by Lawyer X. Lawyer X used to work for Trump and now does not.

What Ms Harris is implying....is that there is some back-channel connection through this lawyer with which Trump allegedly has no client-relationship. And that Trump may be using that back channel to vet supreme court candidates.

So you filled the rest of that in yourself too eh?

So basically whatever facts are missing you just make up as you see fit.

Let's walk that back: You don't know what Harris does or doesn't know or what Kavanaugh did or didn't do. It isn't public knowledge. But the fact you're blathering on about one specific possible scenario that makes it all seem as innocuous as possible doesn't surprise me.

Real foil hat shit.

It certainly passes the test of being mostly made up.

At least you're not saying it's all part of the plan to ensnare Obama.

[Poopadoop]

I'd wager a significant portion of that 1/3 is expressing party loyalty more than Trump loyalty and if the Reps at large turned against him, then that 1/3 would be divided.

Interesting theory. Let's ask the local Trumptard.

banana would you go against Trump if the R party turned against him?

[BananaStand]

So basically whatever facts are missing you just make up as you see fit.

No, I did research.

Mark Kasowitz was Trump's attorney for less than 60 days and their engagement ended over a year ago. Since that time, Trump appointed a whole other Supreme Court Justice.

What about that do you think is made up?

[BananaStand]

banana would you go against Trump if the R party turned against him?

I'm a registered independent. I don't understand your question.

EDIT: Maybe this answers your question.....

Omarosa says she's got a new tape coming out next week. If there is an N-word on it, then I think the Republican nomination in 2020 should be in play.

[BananaStand]

You don't know what Harris does or doesn't know or what Kavanaugh did or didn't do.

It's completely reasonable to assume that she has a credible reason to believe that BK talked to someone at Kasowitz's law firm.

Otherwise her question would be highly unethical and a completely stupid thing to do if you're considering a Presidential run.

[Poopadoop]

No, I did research.

Mark Kasowitz was Trump's attorney for less than 60 days and their engagement ended over a year ago. During that time, Trump appointed a whole other Supreme Court Justice.

What about that do you think is made up?

Haha you sprinkled one "fact" into the rest of your narrative, and it turns out it isn't even close to being correct.

According to a May 23, 2017 article in Forward, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres, and Friedman has been a "go-to source" for Donald Trump for decades.[9] He has represented Donald Trump in his divorce proceedings, bankruptcy cases,[12] Trump University lawsuits,[17] during the 2016 presidential campaign regarding sexual misconduct allegations,[18] and during the Trump presidency in the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[4][19][20][21][22]

In Spring 2017, Kasowitz told associates that he had been personally responsible for the abrupt dismissal of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara on March 11, 2017, having previously warned Trump, "This guy is going to get you".[23]

Kasowitz departed Trump's White House legal team on July 20, 2017.

Sounds like a real darling of a guy too.

Marc E. Kasowitz, President Trump’s longtime attorney representing him in the Russia investigations, reportedly sent angry, threatening and profane emails to a random stranger who criticized him this week, cursing at the man and telling him, “I already know where you live, I’m on you.”

Sorry but you're a shit witness.

[Poopadoop]

I'm a registered independent. I don't understand your question.

The question doesn't depend on you being a Republican, it depends on you being a Trumptard.

[Poopadoop]

It's completely reasonable to assume that she has a credible reason to believe that BK talked to someone at Kasowitz's law firm.

Otherwise her question would be highly unethical and a completely stupid thing to do if you're considering a Presidential run.

Again, specifics.

You don't know EXACTLY what Harris does or doesn't know or what K did or didn't do. You're filling in the blanks with your own/Fox News' best-case-scenario MadLibs.

[Poopadoop]

EDIT: Maybe this answers your question.....

Omarosa says she's got a new tape coming out next week. If there is an N-word on it, then I think the Republican nomination in 2020 should be in play.

Because he's a bad president or because he'll be unelectable? I ask the question because it's already clear he's a racist, whether he's been caught using the N-word on tape or not.

[BananaStand]

You don't know EXACTLY what Harris does or doesn't know or what K did or didn't do. You're filling in the blanks with your own/Fox News' best-case-scenario MadLibs.

I never stated I knew EXACTLY anything.

But OBVIOUSLY she thinks that BK talked to someone connected to Kasowitz about Mueller. That's all I'm inferring. I'm not saying who he talked to, what they talked about, why they talked about it, or what they did about the talk afterward.

Why are you being such a cunt about this?

What inference have I made that you specifically object to? Have I said anything that's not the MOST plausible inference?

Do you realize that the next most plausible inference is that Harris made shit up out of nowhere and discredited an honest man merely for the purpose of generating face-time on television? Is that where you want this talk to go???

What the fuck is wrong with you dude??

[BananaStand]

The question doesn't depend on you being a Republican, it depends on you being a Trumptard.

You keep WISHING that I'm something I'm not.

We've been over this. I don't love Trump. But I fucking HATE the so-called progressive left.

I think it's absolutely great when Trump stumbles and they try to take him down, only to fail and emerge looking more deranged, petty, and unreasonable all the time. That unreasonableness is what got Trump elected in the first place, so the more that backfires, the better in my opinion. I think Trump is what America deserves, not necessarily what's best for America.

We tried to have an election in 2012. The Dems turned it into a knife fight. So the repubs went home and got a gun. I don't blame them.

Trump won, and won fairly. I believe he deserves the chance to do a good job, and the fact that he has to ward off CONSTANT media barrages, and incessant talk of impeachments and 25th amendments invocations is pathetic and detrimental. I blame the left for that, completely.

So no, I won't blindly follow Trump off a cliff if that's what you're asking. I'll support whatever hurts progressive causes the most.

Trump doesn't have the kind of "loyalty" you think he has. If he ran in a primary against Hannity, he'd be destroyed.

Is that who you want to see win in 2020?? You want to see a President Hannity??

The right doesn't have loyalty to Trump. They have an ax to grind with the left. They'll go with whoever lets them grind that ax the hardest.

And you libtards better wake up to the notion that this kind of thinking is out there, and you're not reading it correctly.

[Poopadoop]

I never stated I knew EXACTLY anything.

Oh sorry, when you outline such a detailed scenario as below I assume it means you think you know something about it.

Kamala Harris obviously found some piece of paper that shows BK talking to some lawyer about Mueller. She obviously has reason to believe that lawyer works at XYZ law firm. XYZ law firm was founded by Lawyer X. Lawyer X worked for Trump for about five minutes in 2017, and then resigned.

What Ms Harris is implying....is that there still exists some back-channel connection through this lawyer with which Trump currently has no client-relationship. And that Trump may be using that back channel to vet supreme court candidates.

Why are you being such a cunt about this?

Pointing out the falllibility of your claims isn't being a cunt, sorry. It's taking you to task for having nothing to back up your claim.

What inference have I made that you specifically object to? Have I said anything that's not the MOST plausible inference?

Why infer anything at all. I could infer Kav and Kas spoke for hours about a joint plan to let DJT pardon himself and take the next submarine to Russia. It'd be just as plausible to many people as your argument that there's a completely innocent explanation for why Kavanaugh would talk to someone on Trump's personal legal team about Mueller.

Do you realize that the next most plausible inference is that Harris made shit up out of nowhere and discredited an honest man merely for the purpose of generating face-time on television? Is that where you want this talk to go???

lol, no that's YOUR next most plausible inference. Like,it's either there's a totally innocent explanation where Kavanaugh unwittingly bumped into one of Kas.'s lawyers in the elevator and one of them was holding the NYT article that day about Mueller, and they both said 'interesting case' or some such, and now Harris is trying to make a big deal out of it, OR it's a deliberate attempt on her part to use lies and insinuations to discredit this wonderful person who thinks illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed abortions.

What the fuck is wrong with you dude??

lol.

[Poopadoop]

You keep WISHING that I'm something I'm not.

We've been over this. I don't love Trump. But I fucking HATE the so-called progressive left.

I think it's absolutely great when Trump stumbles and they try to take him down, only to fail and emerge looking more deranged, petty, and unreasonable all the time. That unreasonableness is what got Trump elected in the first place, so the more that backfires, the better in my opinion. I think Trump is what America deserves, not necessarily what's best for America.

We tried to have an election in 2012. The Dems turned it into a knife fight. So the repubs went home and got a gun. I don't blame them.

Trump won, and won fairly. I believe he deserves the chance to do a good job, and the fact that he has to ward off CONSTANT media barrages, and incessant talk of impeachments and 25th amendments invocations is pathetic and detrimental. I blame the left for that, completely.

So no, I won't blindly follow Trump off a cliff if that's what you're asking. I'll support whatever hurts progressive causes the most.

Trump doesn't have the kind of "loyalty" you think he has. If he ran in a primary against Hannity, he'd be destroyed.

Is that who you want to see win in 2020?? You want to see a President Hannity??

The right doesn't have loyalty to Trump. They have an ax to grind with the left. They'll go with whoever lets them grind that ax the hardest.

Wow.

I think you're conflating your own personal issues with the reasons others vote. Not every Trumptard has the same reasons for being a Trumptard.

Some are clearly life-long Republicans who would vote for anyone as long as they can see (R) next to their name on the ballot.

Some, I think, are racists. And Trump's race-baiting appeals to them on that visceral level.

Some, I think, are jingoists who think MAGA and all that, and he's certainly portrayed himself as the most pro patria guy around.

Some, I think, are ignorant farmers and coal miner and other menial job types who think he cares about them cause he goes to their state and praises them when no-one else seems to give a shit.

Some, I think, are angry about this or that, and can generally be further divided into two subgroups:

a) those who hate government because they think it's corrupt and/or interferes with their lives too much; and

b) those who hate the left and anything that is associated with the left, and will vote in the furthest-right person they can out of sheer spite. And it's the b) group you seem to identify with.

And you libtards better wake up to the notion that this kind of thinking is out there, and you're not reading it correctly.

I think actually YOU need to wake up and see that the next generation of Americans is bent on making real effective changes in your government, not by voting in a populist TV con man, but by adopting progressive candidates who are going to bring America finally to a place the rest of the civilized world is already at.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I believe it has something to do with the appearance of impropriety being nearly as bad as impropriety itself.

We both agree that's stupid, illogical reasoning, though, right?

... and that if that is her underlying reason for asking that question in that tone, then she's being childish...

... right?

[BananaStand]

why Kavanaugh would talk to someone on Trump's personal legal team about Mueller.

Source? Who says he talked to someone on "trump's personal legal team". Haven't you been ranting about how wrong it is to make inferences without facts? He talked to someone employed by Kasowitz. Kasowitz's was on "Trump's legal team" with regard to Mueller for less than 60 days. His firm has 266 lawyers on staff. How are you inferring that BK talked to "trump's personal legal team about mueller"?

wonderful person who thinks illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed abortions.

Fake facts again. He doesn't believe anyone should be denied an abortion. He didn't think the government should be required to provide one, paid for, on demand, for a non-citizen. Not quite the same thing.

[Poopadoop]

We both agree that's stupid, illogical reasoning, though, right?

... and that if that is her underlying reason for asking that question in that tone, then she's being childish...

... right?

Why is it stupid and illogical?

If someone puts themselves in an ambiguous situation, where they could either be up to no good or it could be nothing, they're the unwise one, not the person who asks them about it. Even I know not to have a closed-door meeting with a female student in my office. That's not because every time I do, I'm offering them an A for a blowjob, it's because it opens me up to false allegations. And to the outside, objective observer it's difficult to prove my innocence since it would just be my word against someone else's. So, to avoid such a situation arising, I don't allow that to happen.

And of course, it's not fair to assume that because he talked to someone on Trump's personal law team about Mueller that it necessarily was for unethical purposes, but it is fair to ask if they met and if so, what the contents of that meeting were.

[BananaStand]

Some are clearly life-long Republicans who would vote for anyone as long as they can see (R) next to their name on the ballot.

What's wrong with that? That's what primaries are for, right?

Some, I think, are racists. And Trump's race-baiting appeals to them on that visceral level.

Silly, wishful thinking of a demagogue right here.

Some, I think, are jingoists who think MAGA and all that, and he's certainly portrayed himself as the most pro patria guy around.

This is the vast majority, for sure.

Some, I think, are ignorant farmers and coal miner and other menial job types who think he cares about them cause he goes to their state and praises them when no-one else seems to give a shit.

You call then "ignorant menial job types". God you're such a fucking ass hole. You know, you could call them "honest people who do all the hard work and pay all the bills in this country". The irony here is that the Democrats used to be the party of the working class. They used to be the ones standing up for the blue collar worker, fighting back government regulations and oppressions that are detrimental to a free and fair labor market.

Now you call them "ignorant menial job types". And you wonder why they vote for Trump.

These people were all on the left. Now they're not. Do you think that's Trump's fault???????

a) those who hate government because they think it's corrupt and/or interferes with their lives too much; and

Are they wrong??

b) those who hate the left and anything that is associated with the left, and will vote in the furthest-right person they can out of sheer spite. And it's the b) group you seem to identify with.

No no no no no. Don't confuse anti-left with being far-right. The two can be mutually exclusive.

I think actually YOU need to wake up and see that the next generation of Americans is bent on making real effective changes in your government,

I would welcome that....assuming those changes can be paid for. Still waiting to hear how any of that is going to happen.....

but by adopting progressive candidates who are going to bring America finally to a place the rest of the civilized world is already at.

You mean bankruptcy?

[BananaStand]

And of course, it's not fair to assume that because he talked to someone on Trump's personal law team about Mueller that it necessarily was for unethical purposes, but it is fair to ask if they met and if so, what the contents of that meeting were.

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE BOLDED INFORMATION??????????????????????????????????????? ??????

[Poopadoop]

Source? Who says he talked to someone on "trump's personal legal team". Haven't you been ranting about how wrong it is to make inferences without facts? He talked to someone employed by Kasowitz. Kasowitz's was on "Trump's legal team" with regard to Mueller for less than 60 days. His firm has 266 lawyers on staff. How are you inferring that BK talked to "trump's personal legal team about mueller"?

That was the question being posed to Kavanaugh, and one he adeptly dodged. So we'll have to wait and see what the facts are when they come out. Patience.

Fake facts again. He doesn't believe anyone should be denied an abortion. He didn't think the government should be required to provide one, paid for, on demand, for a non-citizen. Not quite the same thing.

Sigh. For someone who claims that the only reason people ever disagree with him is because they don't have the facts, it's becoming increasingly obvious that what you mean is they don't have the alternative facts.

PLEASE try to get at least SOME of your information from an objective source.

“It’s important to emphasize that it was a minor,” Kavanaugh began. “So she’s in an immigration facility in the United States, she’s from another country, she does not speak English. She’s by herself. If she had been an adult, she would have a right to obtain the abortion immediately.”

The argument K made here had nothing to do with money. The argument was she wasn't old enough to make up her own mind. Never mind that the gov't denied her a sponsor for the first 18 weeks of her pregnancy so she wouldn't be able to have an abortion; that didn't seem to faze him much.

[Poopadoop]

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE BOLDED INFORMATION??????????????????????????????????????? ??????

Dude, take a xanax.

I got it from Harris' question, the same place as you.

If you like, we can say 'a lawyer on the firm formerly employed by Trump as his personal attorney'. Feel better now?

[BananaStand]

The argument K made here had nothing to do with money. The argument was she wasn't old enough to make up her own mind.

Ok, I read something else, but whatever. So she wasn't old enough. That's not his opinion. That's not something judges get to decide.

The laws in the state say how old you have to be, and she wasn't old enough. That's a judges job.....follow the law. If you don't like a law, a judge is not the person to talk to about it. That's something you libtards don't seem to understand. You're all anti-fascist, but you also think that one guy in a robe should be able to just give you your way all the time.

[BananaStand]

If you like, we can say 'a lawyer on the firm formerly employed by Trump as his personal attorney'. Feel better now?

STILL FUCKING WRONG

TRY AGAIN

[Poopadoop]

What's wrong with that? That's what primaries are for, right?

Sure, if you say so.

Silly, wishful thinking of a demagogue right here.

Whatever.

This is the vast majority, for sure.

Pride cometh before a fall.

You call then "ignorant menial job types". God you're such a fucking ass hole. You know, you could call them "honest people who do all the hard work and pay all the bills in this country". The irony here is that the Democrats used to be the party of the working class. They used to be the ones standing up for the blue collar worker, fighting back government regulations and oppressions that are detrimental to a free and fair labor market.

Sorry, was your dad a coal miner? Didn't mean to strike a nerve there.

And yeah, if you have no education and do a job that requires zero thinking, that to me makes you ignorant. Doesn't make you a bad person, just not necessarily a sophisticated thinker.

Now you call them "ignorant menial job types". And you wonder why they vote for Trump.

Well I wouldn't call them that or 'deplorables' or anything similar if I was running for office. That would be obviously impolitic.

These people were all on the left. Now they're not. Do you think that's Trump's fault???????

I think he exploited their ignorance brilliantly. And I think Hillary's snobbery cost her. Next time it won't be Hillary, and practically anyone will be more appealing than her.

Are they wrong??

Dunno. Seems there's a real lack of appreciation for what gov't does in your country. Maybe because it is so corrupt. But that doesn't mean you don't need a gov't, you just need one that isn't ruled by big money, where presidents don't hire half of Goldman Sachs to be in their finance department, for example.

Don't confuse anti-left with being far-right. The two can be mutually exclusive.

Fine, but you stated yourself a good part of your motivation is to see the left in pain. And if that means picking someone far-right you don't seem to have a problem with that.

I would welcome that....assuming those changes can be paid for. Still waiting to hear how any of that is going to happen.....

You mean bankruptcy?

Nonsense.

https://www.ariscommunity.com/users/...credit-ratings

See all those countries in green on that map? Those are the ones with the highest credit rating, and all a step above the US I might add. You don't get that by going bankrupt.

[Poopadoop]

Ok, I read something else, but whatever.

Lol "I read some bullshit lies and believed them, but so what? I'll do it again and come on here and scream at anyone who says otherwise."

The laws in the state say how old you have to be, and she wasn't old enough. That's a judges job.....follow the law. If you don't like a law, a judge is not the person to talk to about it. That's something you libtards don't seem to understand. You're all anti-fascist, but you also think that one guy in a robe should be able to just give you your way all the time.

That might be a good argument if the opinion was unanimous. It wasn't. Clearly there was enough ambiguity in the law to make different interpretations possible. That's where a person's judgment and humanity comes in. And when you think a 17 year old girl can't decide for herself she wants an abortion, and the gov't won't provide her with a proxy to help in that decision, it's tough shit for her, then you're a cunt plain and simple.

[Poopadoop]

STILL FUCKING WRONG

TRY AGAIN

lol.

[BananaStand]

if you do a job that requires zero thinking, that to me makes you ignorant.

Psychologists = Ignorant. Got it.

I think he exploited their ignorance brilliantly.

Exploited? So he didn't cut their taxes, increase their wages, and decrease their unemployment??? He just hoodwinked them?

Next time it won't be Hillary, and practically anyone will be more appealing than her.

A Hillary rerun would do better than either Harris, Booker, or Warren. Fact.

Fine, but you stated yourself a good part of your motivation is to see the left in pain. And if that means picking someone far-right you don't seem to have a problem with that.

Then allow me to rephrase. A good part of my motivation is to see ideologically possessed people in pain. Someone far-right would also qualify.

Who are you talking about anyway? Kessler? Spencer? I'd probably vote for a 3rd party. Hannity? Shapiro? I'd probably stick it to the libs.

See all those countries in green on that map? Those are the ones with the highest credit rating, and all a step above the US I might add. You don't get that by going bankrupt.

Find another map, one that shows household debt instead of government debt. Let me know how many of your green countries turn red.

[BananaStand]

Lol "I read some bullshit lies and believed them, but so what? I'll do it again and come on here and scream at anyone who says otherwise."

No, I read actual excerpts from one of BK's opinions. It must have been a different case.

That might be a good argument if the opinion was unanimous.

LOL, you might be right if there was no such thing as an activist judge.

Clearly there was enough ambiguity in the law to make different interpretations possible. That's where a person's judgment and humanity comes in.

NO!!!!!!! That's where CORRUPTION comes in.

Good judges rarely see ambiguity in the law. The law says what it says. If you want the law to say something else, pass a law that say something else.

And when you think a 17 year old girl can't decide for herself she wants an abortion

I doesn't matter what anyone "thinks". What matters is the law. You could make the same argument that says a 17 year old girl can decide for herself to have sex with her math teacher. SHE CAN'T

it's tough shit for her

There are plenty of cheap abortion clinics in Mexico. She's welcome to go there any time she wants.

then you're a cunt plain and simple.

Then I'm a cunt.

[Poopadoop]

Psychologists = Ignorant. Got it.

Nice ad bananum. I'm so in a world of hurt right now lol.

Just because they couldn't help you doesn't mean psychologists aren't clever. One can't hold back the sea with their hands.

Exploited? So he didn't cut their taxes,

wat? you mean that extra few dollars a month is meaningful somehow?

increase their wages, and decrease their unemployment??? He just hoodwinked them?

You don't have to lie to exploit. The fact that coal mines are opening is hardly the sign of a brilliant economist. This isn't 1850.

A Hillary rerun would do better than either Harris, Booker, or Warren. Fact.

"Facts" without evidence. Fact.

Honestly I think a dictionary would really help you.

Then allow me to rephrase. A good part of my motivation is to see ideologically possessed people in pain. Someone far-right would also qualify.

Just curious, do you go on forums where people are predominantly right wing and insult and belittle people there?

Find another map, one that shows household debt instead of government debt. Let me know how many of your green countries turn red.

Here you go.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-04/debt-nations

US ranks seventh.

So tell me, what have you got to lose?

[BananaStand]

Here you go.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-04/debt-nations

US ranks seventh.

Oooohhhh, and look at all the socialist cuckdoms in the top 6. Wonder if that's a coincidence???????

Also, what's the year-over-year trend looking like in the US compared to, for example, Denmark????

Do we need to have a lesson on how to read charts?

[Poopadoop]

No, I read actual excerpts from one of BK's opinions. It must have been a different case.

Fine, don't worry about it.

LOL, you might be right if there was no such thing as an activist judge.


NO!!!!!!! That's where CORRUPTION comes in.

Good judges rarely see ambiguity in the law. The law says what it says. If you want the law to say something else, pass a law that say something else.

Actually, yes. Any view of the Law as purely black-and-white is simply naive. Words themselves are ambiguous. Judges spend lots of their time interpreting the law, and by definition that process is subjective. If it wasn't subjective, you would always have unanimous SC decisions, for example.

I doesn't matter what anyone "thinks". What matters is the law. You could make the same argument that says a 17 year old girl can decide for herself to have sex with her math teacher. SHE CAN'T

No you couldn't actually make such an argument, because the law is clear and unambiguous on that. It's also clear that you're expected to stop at a stop sign. The law was instead ambiguous on this case, which is why there were dissenting opinions.

There are plenty of cheap abortion clinics in Mexico. She's welcome to go there any time she wants.

Funny that option was never offered to her while she was in custody.

Then I'm a cunt.

I think that is at least something that would be unanimously agreed on.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Why is it stupid and illogical?

Because blaming and/or punishing someone for something they didn't do is injustice.

If someone puts themselves in an ambiguous situation, where they could either be up to no good or it could be nothing, they're the unwise one, not the person who asks them about it. Even I know not to have a closed-door meeting with a female student in my office. That's not because every time I do, I'm offering them an A for a blowjob, it's because it opens me up to false allegations. And to the outside, objective observer it's difficult to prove my innocence since it would just be my word against someone else's. So, to avoid such a situation arising, I don't allow that to happen.

C'mon, man.

You were at home alone. It's possible you were watching kiddie-porn on the internets. Therefore, you should be treated like a pedophile.

I work on a college campus as well, and that rule is, of course, in place here. It's the reality that any student can accuse any member of the faculty or staff of assault and that's probably the end of that person's career. That is understandable from the administration's point of view, but still a miscarriage of justice. That staff or faculty member hasn't been found guilty of anything but breaking the company policy, but the result is that they will never work in academia again.

It's perverse and unjust. It's the reality of the college world, but it's no way for adults to treat each other.

And of course, it's not fair to assume that because he talked to someone on Trump's personal law team about Mueller that it necessarily was for unethical purposes, but it is fair to ask if they met and if so, what the contents of that meeting were.

That's my whole point. It's fair to ask, but her tone was not fair or open-minded.
She said she knows the answer.
She wants to trap him in some way.
How is that anything but childish?

[Poopadoop]

Oooohhhh, and look at all the socialist cuckdoms in the top 6. Wonder if that's a coincidence???????

Also, what's the year-over-year trend looking like in the US compared to, for example, Denmark????

Do we need to have a lesson on how to read charts?

Apparently we do. We can start with a lesson on how not to cherry pick your data.

If the US is the least socialist country on that list and has a middling-to-high personal debt ranking, seems to me the issues are likely orthogonal to one another. There's hardly a strong correlation if any between socialism and personal debt.

Also, regarding the year-over-year trend, maybe you didn't hear about the housing crash in 2008 and noticed that there's a clear correlation between the countries hit hardest by that (US and UK) and a reduction in debt between 2007 and 2010.

here's another chart.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...0602_debt1.jpg

Now, before you misintrepret this one too, please note that the US is still in the middle of the group. This to me does not show socialism makes people go bankrupt. Or maybe it's only the lefties in the US who have personal debt I dunno.

[Poopadoop]

Because blaming and/or punishing someone for something they didn't do is injustice.

Who is blaming and punishing. All she did was ask a question. Try not to go full banana on filling in the blanks yourself here.

You were at home alone. It's possible you were watching kiddie-porn on the internets. Therefore, you should be treated like a pedophile.

Poor example, since it's easy to check my computer and see I was really looking at adult porn.

That's my whole point. It's fair to ask, but her tone was not fair or open-minded.
She said she knows the answer.
She wants to trap him in some way.
How is that anything but childish?

Fine, she's a nasty person by not offering him some milk and cookies and smiling sweetly at him.

FFS, it's a confirmation hearing, not a dinner with your grandma.

And I still want to see him answer the question.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Who is blaming and punishing. All she did was ask a question. Try not to go full banana on filling in the blanks yourself here.

What did you call me? Dude. I thought we were cool.


You changed the subject here:

I believe it has something to do with the appearance of impropriety being nearly as bad as impropriety itself.

My response was to that statement, in abstract.

Back onto your original topic, if you don't agree that her tone was pre-loaded with conclusions, then what would you call it?

Poor example, since it's easy to check my computer and see I was really looking at adult porn.

I don't need to check your computer. One of your douchebag neighbors said you were probably a pedo, so you appear to be a pedo.
Case closed.

Your entire point was that appearance of impropriety is close enough.

Fine, she's a nasty person by not offering him some milk and cookies and smiling sweetly at him.

I never said nasty. I said childish. I said combative tone.
I said it's understandable why any adult would clam up when faced with her tone.

I don't understand your hyperbole, here.
Milk and cookies?
That's nothing near my point.

I wonder if I've disrespected you in some way? If so it was unintentional. I apologize.
If not, please don't intentionally mischaracterize my points into paper tigers.

FFS, it's a confirmation hearing, not a dinner with your grandma.

My point exactly. Grandma can be as childish as she likes and we'll all love her just the same.

A representative of the people acting the fool like that is a whole different story.

And I still want to see him answer the question.

Me, too.
There's only a dearth of information at this point.

[Poopadoop]

What did you call me? Dude. I thought we were cool.

lol well thanks for your leniency, i appreciate that it's a bananable offense.

You changed the subject here:

I believe it has something to do with the appearance of impropriety being nearly as bad as impropriety itself.

My response was to that statement, in abstract.

Ok then. I agree with you it's an unfair thing to assume guilt through the appearance of impropriety. But it's something that anyone in a position of responsibility has to take seriously. So when K pretends to be dumb on the issue I don't see that as exculpatory, but rather as suspicious.

Of course it's not correct to automatically assume that if he spoke to one of Trump's lawyer 'former associates' (or whatever banana wants us to call them) it was part of some corrupt plan. But it's also not correct to assume it was completely innocuous. Surely you agree there?

And yea, you can say Harris was behaving badly by your standards of decorum. I certainly don't talk to people that way. But this is a setting where people are naturally confrontational and trying to trip the candidates up. That seems to be their job, judging by the way they act. I don't think this is anything peculiar to Harris.

[MadMojoMonkey]

lol well thanks for your leniency, i appreciate that it's a bananable offense.

Hehe. Not ban-worthy, but you cut me deep.

Ok then. I agree with you it's an unfair thing to assume guilt through the appearance of impropriety. But it's something that anyone in a position of responsibility has to take seriously. So when K pretends to be dumb on the issue I don't see that as exculpatory, but rather as suspicious.

Of course it's not correct to automatically assume that if he spoke to one of Trump's lawyer 'former associates' (or whatever banana wants us to call them) it was part of some corrupt plan. But it's also not correct to assume it was completely innocuous. Surely you agree there?

And yea, you can say Harris was behaving badly by your standards of decorum. I certainly don't talk to people that way. But this is a setting where people are naturally confrontational and trying to trip the candidates up. That seems to be their job, judging by the way they act. I don't think this is anything peculiar to Harris.

All right, sounds like we're on the same page in all this.

[OngBonga]

I might be two pages too late, but I'd just like to point out I don't just blame Muslims for their oppression of women and homosexuals. I also blame the apologists who think we should do our utmost to not offend a religion that oppresses women and homosexuals. Maybe if the majority non-Muslim population of the world all stood together and said "what the fuck is this medieval shit" then humanity might make some progress.

Also, Islam isn't the only religion that belongs in the past. But it's the biggest problem humans face right now.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I might be two pages too late, but I'd just like to point out I don't just blame Muslims for their oppression of women and homosexuals. I also blame the apologists who think we should do our utmost to not offend a religion that oppresses women and homosexuals. Maybe if the majority non-Muslim population of the world all stood together and said "what the fuck is this medieval shit" then humanity might make some progress.

Also, Islam isn't the only religion that belongs in the past. But it's the biggest problem humans face right now.

The real problem is the mentality that lets you state it's all of Islam that oppresses women and not some Islamic people.
The problem is that ability to ignore the vast number of non-apologist Muslims whom are themselves oppressed by other Muslims.
The problem is when people get so self-righteous about what is best for other people that they feel empowered to hurt or oppress other people "for their own good."

It's the same ridiculous, insular nonsense coming from your mouth as it is from any other oppressor.
Your blame of people whom are being oppressed as being the oppressors is absurd.

[OngBonga]

It's institutional discrimination. It's an unavoidable aspect of Islam... it is, by its very nature, oppressive.

I'm not the oppressor. I don't have a hold over anyone, I'm not making anyone believe anything. I'm simply observing that Islam is oppressive, dangerous, and a relic from the past that has not evolved and will probably never evolve because it's so dominated by men, who like being dominant, and the rest of the world let it happen on the basis of "equality", like it's more important to protect their fucking feelings than it is to protect the fundamental rights of humans.

[OngBonga]

If you think Islam is not oppressive to women, if you think it's individuals and that actually the religion of Islam promotes gender equality and sexual freedom, then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

It belongs in the past. Religion in general belongs in the past, but one at a time. Let's start with the most batshit.

You're a scientist, mojo. Science will defeat organsied religion one day, it's inevitable. When that day comes, those who defended the rights of people to believe in fairies over the rights of people to be treated equal regardless of gender or sexual orientation, well those people will look like fools.

[OngBonga]

Your blame of people whom are being oppressed as being the oppressors is absurd.

Your assumption that I blame Muslims, and not Islam, is absurd.

[OngBonga]

On a completely random note, I just got a 'like' on Twitter from Kari from Mythbusters.

My life is complete.

[Poopadoop]

Lol, this is hilarious.

[Jack Sawyer]

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's institutional discrimination. It's an unavoidable aspect of Islam... it is, by its very nature, oppressive.

Still ignoring that the vast majority of this discrimination you speak of is directed by Muslims at other Muslims.
The religion isn't the problem; radical interpretations thereof is the problem.
Just like radical interpretations of Christianity lead some Christians to all sorts of oppressive, murderous shit.
Or radical anything.

The problem isn't an old book. The problem is the mindset that allows someone to believe that they know what's best for someone else, and that they're willing to oppress or otherwise hurt them "for their own good."

Any honest person whom is trying to be good and embracing a religion to guide them on that path is going to be oppressed if you take that from them. Telling them that their path to goodness is, in fact, bad is a hard sell. Good luck with that.

I'm not the oppressor.

You're saying things on a public forum which are directed at a huge swath of humans using blanket statements.
We've discussed this before, and you know full well that your criticisms only apply to some Muslims, yet you continue to choose language which does not make that distinction.
You are choosing to use language that you know does not best express your thoughts, and furthermore that language is hurtful to any good Muslim whom is not an apologist and whom may well themselves be oppressed by other Muslims.

So yes. You are.

I don't have a hold over anyone, I'm not making anyone believe anything.

What does that even matter? You're speaking in a public forum. Your words influence people's thoughts.

No one can make anyone believe anything, but you're saying ignorant things which you do not fully stand by (unless your position has changed to unnuanced bigotry).

I'm simply observing that Islam is oppressive, dangerous, and a relic from the past that has not evolved and will probably never evolve because it's so dominated by men, who like being dominant, and the rest of the world let it happen on the basis of "equality", like it's more important to protect their fucking feelings than it is to protect the fundamental rights of humans.

Which is an exposition of your own ignorance, choices to remain ignorant, and your willingness to say half-baked, hurtful things about people whom you have never met.

I've seen better from you on a consistent basis for years.
You're not a hater. So I don't see why you can say such asinine crap online when you'd surely have more decorum in a face to face conversation with a Muslim.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you think Islam is not oppressive to women, if you think it's individuals and that actually the religion of Islam promotes gender equality and sexual freedom, then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

Where I live has no bearing on the veracity of my arguments.
Plan on bringing anything more to the table than childish name-calling, poopface?

Care to explain why it is that Muslim women have made such great contributions to science and medicine in the past decades?

It belongs in the past. Religion in general belongs in the past, but one at a time. Let's start with the most batshit.

Yet another extremist idea based on the notion that you know what's best for other people, and you're willing to take away something they love to show them how right you are.

How often has that worked to change your own behavior?
Like if some fanatic were to take away your weed "for your own good," would you think, "Hey, this is exactly what I was waiting for. Thank you for bullying me into this!"

You're a scientist, mojo. Science will defeat organsied religion one day, it's inevitable. When that day comes, those who defended the rights of people to believe in fairies over the rights of people to be treated equal regardless of gender or sexual orientation, well those people will look like fools.

Science and religion are not at odds with each other.
There is nothing science can answer that religion is in the business of answering.
They will always coexist is my prediction.

Science tells us a means to understand predictable things about the world. Religion tells us what is good and right and how we should spend our time.
These 2 fields don't even address the same forms of questions.

Is the question's answer measurable? Science has you covered.
Is the question's answer not measurable? You need morality, religion or some other guide. Science has literally nothing to say about unmeasurable phenomena.

[BananaStand]

Care to explain why it is that Muslim women have made such great contributions to science and medicine in the past decades?

Because they managed to get their asses away from Islamic men and moved (or their parents did) to the US or Britain.

[OngBonga]

Still ignoring that the vast majority of this discrimination you speak of is directed by Muslims at other Muslims.

This is completely besides the point. The discrimination is an integral part of Islam, it is social norm amongst their culture, it's not a few individuals.

The religion isn't the problem; radical interpretations thereof is the problem.

Yes, the religion is the problem. Those who are being oppressed dare not challenge their oppressors because they fear Allah.

Just like radical interpretations of Christianity lead some Christians to all sorts of oppressive, murderous shit.

Westboro Baptist Church belongs in the fucking past. That is EXACTLY as offensive as saying Islam does.

The problem isn't an old book.

It is if billions of people insist it's the literal word of God and a moral code for us all to live by.

Any honest person whom is trying to be good and embracing a religion to guide them on that path is going to be oppressed if you take that from them. Telling them that their path to goodness is, in fact, bad is a hard sell. Good luck with that.

I'm hoping science can sell it for me. One day, islam will be like Flat Earth "theory".

You're saying things on a public forum...

And? Anyone who claims to be oppressed by my words is a fucking liar. You do not get oppressed by words, you get oppressed by people abusing their power to keep you under control. Don't you dare start saying that words on an obscure forum are oppressive, it's an insult to those who actually are oppressed.

which are directed at a huge swath of humans using blanket statements.

Your problem with my comments is the number of people it offends. Think about that. If I were talking about scientology, would you be so outraged? What's the difference?

We've discussed this before, and you know full well that your criticisms only apply to some Muslims,

Oh, another problem of your is you refuse to accept that I am attacking Islam, not Muslims. If I say North Korea is a batshit country, I do not think North Koreans are batshit people. Even though somehow them seem happy.

language is hurtful to any good Muslim whom is not an apologist and whom may well themselves be oppressed by other Muslims Islam.

FYP

So yes. You are.

With all due respect, and believe me I have a lot for you, FO. Take a look at what oppression means, then tell me what authority I have. Saying mean things is not oppression. Sharing my opinion is not oppression. Thinking a religion, in fact all religion, belongs in the past is not oppression.

What does that even matter? You're speaking in a public forum. Your words influence people's thoughts.

It matters because oppression is unjust exercise of authority. I have no authority. I am an individual with no influence stating my opinion. That cannot be oppression, and if you want to use law (since discrimination is illegal, you're effectively doing so) to shout me down, then it is YOU who is oppressing ME. You are trying to control my behaviour by abusing power. THAT IS OPPRESSION, NOT SAYING MEAN THINGS.

No one can make anyone believe anything, but you're saying ignorant things which you do not fully stand by (unless your position has changed to unnuanced bigotry).

My position is Islam belongs in the fucking past.

Which is an exposition of your own ignorance, choices to remain ignorant, and your willingness to say half-baked, hurtful things about people whom you have never met.

Again, you think I'm insulting Muslims. I'm not, I'm insulting Islam. If Muslims take offence to that, not my problem. If I say USA is a corrupt country, am I calling you corrupt? Even if you're a proud American?

You're not a hater.

No, I'm not. I don't treat Muslims differently to anyone else I might meet. I don't have any hatred for any indivudual whatsoever. But I do hate things that cause human misery, such as war. And Islam has caused centuries of war, while oppressing its own adherants. So yeah, I hate Islam. But I DO NOT hate Muslims, not unless an individual Muslim gives me reason too.

Plan on bringing anything more to the table than childish name-calling, poopface?

Oh dude don't be so sensetive. "Cloud cuckoo land" is not name-calling, it's a common phrase here that your nan might say if you were living in a world of deluded optimism.

Care to explain why it is that Muslim women have made such great contributions to science and medicine in the past decades?

I guess because they're smart. What's this got to do with the discussion?

Yet another extremist idea based on the notion that you know what's best for other people, and you're willing to take away something they love to show them how right you are.

I know what's best for people? I'm making an assumption that a world without religion would be an infinitely less insecure place than one with multiple religions. I'm making an assumption that an individual who is free of oppression is happier than someone who is oppressed. I might be wrong, maybe religion is needed to stop people being barbaric. I tend towards the idea law and order is enough.

Like if some fanatic were to take away your weed "for your own good," would you think, "Hey, this is exactly what I was waiting for. Thank you for bullying me into this!"

Terrible anaology. Weed isn't oppressing women and homosexuals.

Science and religion are not at odds with each other.

Yes they are. Have you read the Bible? I haven't, not all of it, but I do know the very first line is a lie, proven by sceince.

Science and God are not at odds. Religion is not God.

They will always coexist is my prediction.

Then there will always be oppression and war.

Do you like religion enough to accept these things? I don't.

[MadMojoMonkey]

"discrimination is an integral part of Islam"
Then why are Islamic people fighting against being oppressed by other Islamic people?
I don't think you really appreciate the power of this data.

It can't be that Islam is the oppressor when Islamic oppression is being fought by Islamic people.
That's a contradiction.

You assert that Muslims are not fighting to end the oppression of other Muslims, then expose yourself to some world news before inventing a narrative that suits your ignorance.

Condemning the entirety of Westboro Baptist, and not the oppressive teachings held by some or even all of the members thereof is where you're being bone-headed.

Billions of Muslims say one thing and billions of Muslims say the opposite. (IDK the exact numbers, which do not matter.) You're cherry-picking only one side of that narrative.

Science will never settle religion. It can only settle what the boundaries of religion are as we become better at measuring more things.

Just stop with your "Islam vs. Muslim" talk. If you go attacking Christianity, you bet your ass you're going to offend Christians.

Words have power. Your assertion that you can spout bigotry or other random shit that is both wrong and hurtful - without responsibility to the effects of that speach - is blind to actual human nature. Even a blind idiot about human nature, like me, knows that much.

Your position that religion belongs in the past is a bit blind, but nowhere near as offensive as singling out one religion and saying it belongs in the past. Funny how the one religion you're singling out is the single most popular religion in the world, too.

Again, you choosing to plug your ears about how the words you are choosing will be heard is your problem, not the rest of the world's. You can choose your words in such a way as to not be a total jerk, or you can choose to use language which promotes bigotry.

Shut up, poopface! You're being sensitive!

Smart Islamic women whom are not oppressors, contributing to the greater good of all humans seems to be a pretty stark counterpoint to your thesis.

Yeah... you're making assumptions about what other people need to be good people, and since religion doesn't work for you, you're asserting that it can't work for anyone.

Who cares if weed is an oppressor? You use it to help you be a good person, and plenty of other people say that your use promotes drug wars and violence. They're idiots, but they make the same arguments that you do. Since other people cause problems by the existence of this thing, you cannot have it. No matter that you don't cause problems when you use it.

Yes. I have read the Bible. Cover to cover. I was raised Catholic and I tried very hard to embrace it in my early teens. I could not. I struggled with that for a while and was a staunch athiest. Then I realized that other people actually get a lot of goodness and inspiration from being a member of a church, so I dropped it. To each their own.

Sorry, but no. Science and religion are not at odds with each other, even though many scientists and many religious people will argue beyond the scope of their fields.

[Poopadoop]

Weed makes at least some people paranoid. It is arguably a form of mental oppression just like religion since it affects how some people view the world, and in a negative way.

Mojo stop me before i try to argue that weed is an outdated drug and we should rid our lands of it.

[BananaStand]

First of all. Can we stop calling Islam a religion? It's not. It's a political ideology mixed with mythology. therefore, it is completely incompatible with liberal western society....which is obviously the best society.

I didn't read the whole word salad above, but whichever of you is saying Islam = bad, is correct.

Arguing about whether or not that applies to "all" muslims or just "some" muslims is a distraction. "Some" Nazis refused to kill Jews. It would be ridiculous to say that their ideology couldn't possibly be anti-semetic???? Conversely, "some" catholics shoot up abortion clinics, but it would also be ridiculous to suggest that catholicism endorsed that murder.

So MMM, your "some" vs "all" game-playing fails. Just stop it.

What you have to look at is the frequency of dangerous ideas. Look at the polls that show how many muslims support governments run by Sharia law. Look how many think that bombing civilians is at least sometimes acceptable. Look at how many votes were cast for overt Islamist political candidates.

MMM, can you really look at that data, as a scientist, and still say "Hmmm, these charts don't read 100%. I guess some of them are ok. No reason to judge this religion negatively."

[Poopadoop]

Look how many think that bombing civilians is at least sometimes acceptable.

Are the numbers as high as this? 'Cause that would be scary I agree.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-donald-trump

[BananaStand]

Are the numbers as high as this? 'Cause that would be scary I agree.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-donald-trump

Actually they're double that. And they didn't have to dupe the poll-takers to get results that high.

So then you agree, it's shockingly alarming and a major threat to world stability.

[Poopadoop]

"Shockingly alarming?" you realize you basically said the same word twice here right? Please add a thesaurus to that dictionary you so desperately need.

Where are you getting these numbers, Fox News? I keep telling you they're biased but you keep believing them anyways. Way to stick to your guns, I guess.

Apart from Palestine and Bangladesh, the average muslim seems a lot less tolerant of violence against civilians than the average republican.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/...-extremism-10/


Major difference here is the US has the power to kill 100s of thousands of civilians.

Like I said, USA is a bigger threat to the world than islamic terrorism. Can we agree then this is a major threat to the world?

[BananaStand]

Where are you getting these numbers, Fox News? I keep telling you they're biased but you keep believing them anyways. Way to stick to your guns, I guess.

I'm getting them from Pew. The exact same place you cite later in this post. The difference is......I can read.

Apart from Palestine and Bangladesh, the average muslim seems a lot less tolerant of violence against civilians than the average republican.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/...-extremism-10/

How are you reading that chart and coming to that conclusion?????

Look at Turkey for fuck's sake!! That's supposedly the place where Islam is done so well, and everyone is moderate and reasonable. And yet only 58%.....not even two thirds.....of people are willing to say "Suicide bombings are never justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies"

How are you still saying that Islam is fine????

Major difference here is the US has the power to kill 100s of thousands of civilians.

You're playing a semantic game to create a false equivalency. The poll you cited is garbage ok. Stop talking about it. America is a country. Not a religion. Military force is a perfectly reasonable and sometimes expected action by a world power. Everyone knows we're engaged in military conflict in the middle east. And some people have aggressive opinions about how to execute a war. 30% seems totally reasonable. All this proves is that slightly less than 1/3 of republicans doesn't pay enough attention to the news, or disney movies, to recognize a fictitious (but very authentic sounding) middle eastern city name.

If you want to continue to talk about this poll, then you need to provide an equivalent comparison. Take a poll in Afghanistan asking how many machine-gun owning goat herders support a military bombing of America-town. Let me know what you find out.

[BananaStand]

Also, look at the wording of the poll question you cited..."Defend Islam from it's enemies"

Who is the enemy of Islam? How does a religion have enemies?

States have enemies. Is Islam a state? Does it matter if a billion people happen to think it is?

[BananaStand]

I mean....what the fuck is this????

1 in 6 Egyptians thinks Al Qaeda is totally cool. That's horrifying!!

[BananaStand]

Hey look. 1 in 5 Jordanians and 2 in 5 Lebanese think Hezbollah is terrific.

Nothing to see here.

[BananaStand]

And I know Poop already posted this one, but I think this is the whole story. So it bears repeating.



first of all, everyone who responded to that poll can be considered dangerous. Any reasonable person would say "A religion doesn't need to be defended with bombs!! Certainly not against any civilian threat????". Anybody who is not a murderous psychopath would reject the question as being wholly absurd in the first place.

Second of all, how about the fact that only ONE of those countries could get a "Never" score above 90%.

Look how many countries have "never" scores below 50%!!!!!!

Who in their right mind would say that this is a religion of peace that should be tolerated????????