America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 6 months ago by Sunoverbeach. 38 replies replies.
SCOTUS candidate
tailgater Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,031
Ok. She checks all the boxes:
She's black.
She's a she.

Fine. But this circus they do in Congress has been a bit revealing.

Is it just coincidence that Biden nominated a judge that's shown to be lenient towards pedophiles? (OK, just child porn. But it shows a trend). We're talking safety net?

And how fitting that she can't (won't) provide a definition of "woman".
Seriously. Said she's "not a biologist"!!!
Because you have to have a degree in biology to define a word we learned in 1st grade.

And it's ironic.
Because 50% of her qualification is based on her being a woman.


The democrats are an embarrassment to the USA.

Whistlebritches Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 21,733
tailgater wrote:
Ok. She checks all the boxes:
She's black.
She's a she.

Fine. But this circus they do in Congress has been a bit revealing.

Is it just coincidence that Biden nominated a judge that's shown to be lenient towards pedophiles? (OK, just child porn. But it shows a trend). We're talking safety net?

And how fitting that she can't (won't) provide a definition of "woman".
Seriously. Said she's "not a biologist"!!!
Because you have to have a degree in biology to define a word we learned in 1st grade.

And it's ironic.
Because 50% of her qualification is based on her being a woman.


The democrats are an embarrassment to the USA.




I'll second that
RayR Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 6,223
I'll third it.

I said she would be awful just because of the fact that Biden nominated her.

And since she can't (won't) provide a definition of "woman" with the lame excuse that she's not a biologist proves it.

frankj1 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,416
what do you think the real question was though?
Clearly, on it's own, it wasn't meant to help determine her qualifications for the job.

She couldn't do what I would do when asked something so obviously leading. That would be to find out what the questioner really was getting at, so I would always answer with, "why do you ask?".

So, why did he ask?

We all know why.
Whistlebritches Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 21,733
frankj1 wrote:
what do you think the real question was though?
Clearly, on it's own, it wasn't meant to help determine her qualifications for the job.

She couldn't do what I would do when asked something so obviously leading. That would be to find out what the questioner really was getting at, so I would always answer with, "why do you ask?".

So, why did he ask?

We all know why.


I don't know Frank with all this gender BS going on I think its a legitimate question.In my opinion and mine only you should leave this world with the same equipment you arrived with.


Pretty simple answer really............ two X chromosomes = woman, an X and a Y chromosome = man
Sunoverbeach Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 12,572
I’m trying to get away from trashing women, to be honest. I think I’ve done enough of that in my career.
- BB
frankj1 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,416
Whistlebritches wrote:
I don't know Frank with all this gender BS going on I think its a legitimate question.In my opinion and mine only you should leave this world with the same equipment you arrived with.


Pretty simple answer really............ two X chromosomes = woman, an X and a Y chromosome = man

I'm so happy I don't have to be a person for whom it's not so clear.
Never understood why they get so hated.
Mike3316 Online
#8 Posted:
Joined: 02-05-2022
Posts: 306
Hey - even the 5 yr old in Kindergarden Cop knew the answer ...... "boys have a pe n is - girls have a vagina." Seems like the basic biology we learned in 5th grade health class.

As for her child porn answer - it was the most rediculous legal reasoning I've ever heard (and I've been an attorney for 20 yrs). She actually said that since the federal sentencing guidlines for possession of child porn were created before the internet and becuase it is now EASIER to possess large quantities of child porn - the sentence should be LOWER?!?!?! So I guess by the same rationale - since its easier to commit embezzlement today because of the internet then it was when the Ponzi laws were written - then Bernie Madoff shouldn't have gotten 150 yrs in prison. I pray to G-d that there are at least 2 Democrats that are facing enough of a challenge in November (and that the Republicans can get their sheeet together) to keep this moron off the SCOTUS!
RayR Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 6,223
Let me take a wild guess...she's one of those "living constitution" advocates, where you legislate from the beach with legal weasel talk and make chit up as to what is legal and constitutional at the moment.
Dg west deptford Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,834
If the constitution is living don't we need a biologist to read it?

What would she have said if she did have a background in biology ?

A woman has 2 x chromosomes? That would be majorly hurtful to Lia Thomas. Where are they going with that argument?

Poor cross dressers getting picked on by biology truthers.

They should cancel biology. It's just mean spirited.
frankj1 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,416
all those who now believe in science say "Hey!"
HockeyDad Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,940
frankj1 wrote:
all those who now believe in science say "Hey!"


So we gotta check with Fauci?
Sunoverbeach Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 12,572
I bet ‘The Walking Dead’ gets really low ratings out in Montana, just because all they need to do is look out their f*ck*ng window, am I right?
- BB
frankj1 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,416
HockeyDad wrote:
So we gotta check with Fauci?

I was thinking Bill Nye.

it struck me that seeing references to science for some subjects is similar to no atheists in a fox hole.
bgz Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
So you guys don't like black chicks then?

Also, I would say it's unlikely to find an atheist in a fox hole... I'm sure given enough fox holes, one would surely exist.
Krazeehorse Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,855
They have licorice Peeps? Not just pink and yellow?
RayR Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 6,223
bgz wrote:
So you guys don't like black chicks then?

Also, I would say it's unlikely to find an atheist in a fox hole... I'm sure given enough fox holes, one would surely exist.


We already know Biden is a racist and a virtue-signaling dirtbag that will do anything to appeal to his evil left base.
If that means picking black chicks, gheys or trans folk for the only reason they are black chicks, gheys or trans folk and nothing else, he'll do it.
In his bizarro version of affirmative action, his excuse is that he needs his administration and courts to "look like America".

tailgater Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,031
frankj1 wrote:
what do you think the real question was though?
Clearly, on it's own, it wasn't meant to help determine her qualifications for the job.

She couldn't do what I would do when asked something so obviously leading. That would be to find out what the questioner really was getting at, so I would always answer with, "why do you ask?".

So, why did he ask?

We all know why.



To answer your question "why did he ask?"
Because she refused to answer the relevant questions that led up to that point.

Listen to the exchange.

She's unqualified, and it's now obvious how she got the nomination.






bgz Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
RayR wrote:
We already know Biden is a racist and a virtue-signaling dirtbag that will do anything to appeal to his evil left base.
If that means picking black chicks, gheys or trans folk for the only reason they are black chicks, gheys or trans folk and nothing else, he'll do it.
In his bizarro version of affirmative action, his excuse is that he needs his administration and courts to "look like America".



You have an aspd.
RayR Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 6,223
bgz wrote:
You have an aspd.


You have to stop saying nice things, people are going to start thinking you're sweet on me.
Dg west deptford Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,834
Krazeehorse wrote:
They have licorice Peeps? Not just pink and yellow?


That's gold
rfenst Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,992
I liked that she refused to answer the question.
And, anyone who thinks female = woman is an idiot.
rfenst Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,992
bgz wrote:
You have an aspd.

Great Dx!

"Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is a mental health condition. People with ASPD may not understand how to behave toward others. Their behavior is often disrespectful, manipulative or reckless. Management of ASPD can include medication or psychotherapy."

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9657-antisocial-personality-disorder#:~:text=Antisocial%20personality%20disorder%20(ASPD)%20is,can%20include%20medication%20or%20psychotherapy.
tailgater Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,031
rfenst wrote:
I liked that she refused to answer the question.
And, anyone who thinks female = woman is an idiot.


Are you a biologist? Herfing



But let me be the first to say it.
A woman is a female adult.

Exceptions, biological or otherwise, don't change this.


I don't want this to mean more than what I'm saying.
I wouldn't force anyone to live as somebody they feel they aren't.


If I said "Mankind has opposable thumbs", many would recognize this as a contributing factor to our place on the food chain. Knowing that some are born without this feature doesn't change the facts.

We need men and women to survive. You know this.
Fighting because I used the wrong pronoun is counterproductive. Forcing teenage girls to compete against teenage (born) males is not how we improve acceptance.
And not answering questions that are relevant in America 2022 is not how the system is supposed to work.


She's an intelligent woman. She provided outstanding answers to many of the questions. But it felt like she was hesitant on certain subjects. Not because she couldn't answer, but perhaps because she shouldn't.
Fitting the narrative has trumped the facts.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be above the narrative. But she is apparently not.






Mike3316 Online
#25 Posted:
Joined: 02-05-2022
Posts: 306
RayR wrote:
Let me take a wild guess...she's one of those "living constitution" advocates, where you legislate from the beach with legal weasel talk and make chit up as to what is legal and constitutional at the moment.

You got it. As I said - for me, her rationalization for her offensively low sentencing of child porn cases would be enough for me to vote against her if I were a senator.
JGKAMIN Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 05-08-2011
Posts: 892
Mike3316 wrote:
You got it. As I said - for me, her rationalization for her offensively low sentencing of child porn cases would be enough for me to vote against her if I were a senator.

+1
Krazeehorse Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,855
Sounds like she admitted that gender was biological and not a persuasion.
Dg west deptford Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,834
^right?!
That's what I was saying.

Where's that defense lead? A biologists answer wouldn't be much more than a human with XX chromosomes.

How does that biological definition help her evade ?

Cervix haver?

Chest feeder?

Ovary bearer?

Now if she said what's a gurl? That's a different biological answer.

"I'm no vet but I know what a dog is & this one's a bitch
RayR Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 6,223
I think this is everything anyone needs to know about this affair.

She Can’t Define “Woman” - Biden’s Supreme Court Pick

https://youtu.be/MFUhdjYjEVM
Krazeehorse Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,855
And none of this will matter (as far as her confirmation is concerned). None on the left will break ranks. Mark it down.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 12,572
If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.
- Mark Twain
Mike3316 Online
#32 Posted:
Joined: 02-05-2022
Posts: 306
Krazeehorse wrote:
And none of this will matter (as far as her confirmation is concerned). None on the left will break ranks. Mark it down.

You're probably right - but I'm praying there are at least 2 vulnerable Dems this November that might not be able to afford to vote for her.
JGKAMIN Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 05-08-2011
Posts: 892
Forget the candidate, the scumbags out there wishing ill will on a current sitting SC Justice is disgusting.
RayR Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 6,223
JGKAMIN wrote:
Forget the candidate, the scumbags out there wishing ill will on a current sitting SC Justice is disgusting.


Of course, he's an impediment to destroying what's left of the constitution
Wishing illness and death on their opponents is traditionally a leftist thing.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 12,572
Don’t go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
- Mark Twain
Stogie1020 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 3,513
I am wondering how the left reconciles the stated plan to nominate a "Woman" to the SCOTUS, but then the abject refusal to define what a woman is as a result of the vetting hearings. I mean, Ron Jeremy could have shown up for the confirmation hearings as long as he said he identified as a woman, right?
RayR Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 6,223
Stogie1020 wrote:
I am wondering how the left reconciles the stated plan to nominate a "Woman" to the SCOTUS, but then the abject refusal to define what a woman is as a result of the vetting hearings. I mean, Ron Jeremy could have shown up for the confirmation hearings as long as he said he identified as a woman, right?


The left doesn't need to reconcile anything they say. There is no truth they say, so anyone can be anything they want at any particular time according to the gospel of Woke.


"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
- Autobiographical dictation, 10 July 1908. Published in Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume 3
Sunoverbeach Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 12,572
Name the greatest of all inventors. Accident.
- MT
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)