JoeWeber

Have you considered branching out to writing soap operas? You'd be great, for sure.

Well, we have clarifying news from the Russian General staff: it was all just a feint and we never intended to sack Kyiv or Kharkiv, so there! Also, the battles are going quite nicely with Russian forces now having destroyed "180 out of 148 S-300 and Buk M1 air defense systems” and “300 out of 117 radars.” Could be time to wrap things up and go get some medals.

Exactly. You really aren't saying it, just putting it out there. If someone else wants to get all confused and repeat it as if it were fact that's on them not you. You were just sayin', and in perfect innocence, too.

Of course you'd say that. Why not? You know, just sayin'.

Sure, maybe, I guess so, but is it concerning?

It won't be taken seriously if it's not. The really great thing is that now actual cops, not some cheesy doctor will be in on the fun. Three volunteer officers, which is dumb because for sure you could sell the slots for real coin, all with loaded weapons so no one gets gypped or leaves consumed by doubt will all fire at the candidates heart from 15 feet away. You know, close enough to see the party boys chest stop heaving. Big fun, for sure.

Absolutely, and in By God South Carolina you'll soon be able to exercise your second amendment rights by shooting prisoners. Who knows, maybe they'll make a sport out of it and issue tags.

Things will never improve until it becomes a crime to be a victim.

Because, and I'd rather choke on a chicken bone than admit it, Skydekker is right: we are a banana republic.

If my old man had a laptop he'd have smacked me down the right path with it.

Thanks. To my way of thinking that it was written in an "unusually strong" way when one of three judges was in disagreement is meaningless and speaks more to animus than the law. But that's just me.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your argument in this specific instance, would you say that Judge Jackson has exhibited a pattern of not following the law as you understand it or was this a one off as far as you know? Going further, and regardless if two other Judges disagreed with her decision, can you see any daylight between the decision and the written statute? I think it's also worth remembering, and I probably don't remember correctly, but one judge agreed with her making the score 2 to 2. It wasn't particularly egregious if that's so.

Keep telling yourself that. Of course, I'll wager you won't teach your children that valuable life's lesson.

Not only was it wrong to do, it further delegitimized the Court in the public eye. Plainly, at this point, even the most committed ostriches see that the current bench is a political institution; worse, on the day Gorsuch was sworn in the Court became a farce borne of a farce. With Garland on the bench the swing vote would have been Roberts. Most Americans would have settled in with that, I'm sure. It was humorous to hear the concern during the hearings from Republicans fearful of a delegitimized expanded court. A shrunken Court wasn't a trouble if it screwed the sitting President and led to a hard right Court, however.

So you took your ball and went home. Atta way to accept your solemn adult responsibility.

You're a clever lad. Surely you know that your particular use of "actually" connotes a different meaning. So let's play it out: for whom did you vote and why?

Now in all fairness President Obama, and by extension the Democratic Party, were snaked by McConnell refusing to allow a hearing on Garland and then fast tracking Barrett. Gorsuch sits in a stolen seat. He deserved to be skewered. But he wasn't. Really he came off as a thin skinned baby. Screw him. And then, son-of-a-bitch, if they didn't nominate an actual thin skinned baby in Kavanaugh. Barrett, unless you are republican caliber giddy to make a mockery of stare decisis is a freakin' cultist nutter. Maybe you are thrilled to have a justice who believes her husband has the final word (a possible reasonable balance to team Thomas/Ginni) but it makes me uncomfortable. No matter, you currently hold court.

Indeed. Of course when you have two votes to one life's a crunchy pickle.

He might if he were a bit more surly.

The New York Post. Was the National Inquirer not interested?

Any felony gets the job done.

Were they collaborating to suppress the story?

I guess you didn't enjoy the Republican bloviating today, especially Blackburn, during Jacksons confirmation hearing. Pathetic, racist, moronic, bullshit grandstanding. Yes, them's be your peeps.

Do you seriously believe that Joe Biden was taking a cut, you know getting his "beak wet", like any mobster? The other thing that is seriously odd is the gleefulness you project at the prospect of one of Biden's two remaining children, three others having died tragically, being prosecuted and jailed before any charges have been filed. Maybe I'm just not in sync but if I did that I'd expect my friends to feel quite embarrassed on my behalf.

Ahh, are we feeling all put upon by smart people again?