Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee

[spliff(TONE)]

Well, you finally got one right. You've called me defensive numerous times and were wrong every time.
Until your also predictable response that I was being defensive here.
When it comes to my core beliefs, I will most certainly defend them.

If you want to be both defensive and in denial about said defensiveness, go for it.

lol @ clearly outlining what you found funny

I literally quoted and bolded what I thought was funny.

"Karen is a pejorative term for someone perceived as entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is appropriate or necessary."

no idea why I'd not particularly enjoy that reference

I'm well aware of what a Karen is.

[OceanSpray]

What changed in those specific instances is the the GOP didn't push Scalia through in 30 days right before an election while blocking a Democratic governor's nomination 8 months before an election because "it was too close to the election".


The politics on the SC is certainly divided right now, and pushing through a nominee so close to the election increased that division. Like I said, the time for compromise was then, not now.

And what happened with Brett. Was that also bi-partisan or was one particular side vehemently against it and tried to push him as a rapist? It's bad timing for the Democrats... but everything was done by the books. Trump can nominate, he did, and Senate can approve, which they did. Doesn't really matter what people think. It's allowed, end of story.

[spliff(TONE)]

Just because something is allowed, doesn't mean that people shouldn't be discussing it. I mean ****, by those standards, I guess we shouldn't even acknowledge the fact that capital punishment for homosexuality remains legal in numerous countries.

[SiteWolf]

If you want to be both defensive and in denial about said defensiveness, go for it.



I literally quoted and bolded what I thought was funny.



I'm well aware of what a Karen is.

dude, I really don't care if you think I was defensive other times and I told you why I was this time.
And yes, you quoted valade inferring my simply saying 'oh please, really' proved Christians are Karens.
And good, you're aware of the definition...yet still somehow surprised being referred to as one would catch my attention.

I really don't get you. In one thread you're defending something I posted, in another you're acting like I'm another version of dbroncrighty to you, whom you're as in tune with as I am dbronclefty.

[valade16]

And what happened with Brett. Was that also bi-partisan or was one particular side vehemently against it and tried to push him as a rapist? It's bad timing for the Democrats... but everything was done by the books. Trump can nominate, he did, and Senate can approve, which they did. Doesn't really matter what people think. It's allowed, end of story.

What happened with Kavannaugh was sensationalist and overboard.

And I agree with the bolded, and when Democrats expand the Supreme Court it will be the same thing.

[spliff(TONE)]

dude, I really don't care if you think I was defensive other times and I told you why I was this time.
And yes, you quoted valade inferring my simply saying 'oh please, really' proved Christians are Karens.
And good, you're aware of the definition...yet still somehow surprised being referred to as one would catch my attention.

I really don't get you. In one thread you're defending something I posted, in another you're acting like I'm another version of dbroncrighty to you, whom you're as in tune with as I am dbronclefty.

Surprised? I clearly said your response was completely predictable.

As for your final paragraph, what's so odd about us agreeing on some things and disagreeing on other things? That's pretty common between any two people.

Also, I absolutely have not treated you like you're another version of dbroncismo (hint: I actually respect you).

[dbroncos78087]

Well, you finally got one right. You've called me defensive numerous times and were wrong every time.
Until your also predictable response that I was being defensive here.
When it comes to my core beliefs, I will most certainly defend them.
lol @ clearly outlining what you found funny

"Karen is a pejorative term for someone perceived as entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is appropriate or necessary."

no idea why I'd not particularly enjoy that reference

Karen is as Karen does. Just look at any attempts that folks like myself make to remove religion from government and how it gets attacked as anti-Christian. Even though we would make the same efforts to keep Sharia Law from becoming the law of the land. We just happen to have a very small amount of people who would impose such law on the United States. Meanwhile as, I believe you but possibly someone else, has been said. We have a super majority of people in this country who are some variant of Christianity and thus they've felt no compunction about imposing Judeo-Christian values into the legal system. I oppose that effort as vigorously as possible.

[nastynice]

As for your final paragraph, what's so odd about us agreeing on some things and disagreeing on other things? That's pretty common between any two people.

It's not the agreeing and disagreeing, it's the Jekyll and Hyde thing..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[spliff(TONE)]

It's not the agreeing and disagreeing, it's the Jekyll and Hyde thing..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I'm not here to make friends with people or be a part of anyone's "team". It really shouldn't be difficult to comprehend that I'll both agree and disagree with the same posters depending on the topic at hand.

[dbroncos78087]

I'm not here to make friends with people or be a part of anyone's "team". It really shouldn't be difficult to comprehend that I'll both agree and disagree with the same posters depending on the topic at hand.

Yea I’m not sure the source of confusion. We have disagreed quite strongly on some issues and agreed just as strongly on others. You’re not a clone of me, so it doesn’t surprise me.

[dbroncsinmo]

I'm not here to make friends with people or be a part of anyone's "team". It really shouldn't be difficult to comprehend that I'll both agree and disagree with the same posters depending on the topic at hand.

I don't think anyone knows why you're here. You went from admitting that you're "on this forum to troll because the rest of PSD is dead" to being on here not to make friends.

At least you're realistic.

[SiteWolf]

Karen is as Karen does. Just look at any attempts that folks like myself make to remove religion from government and how it gets attacked as anti-Christian. Even though we would make the same efforts to keep Sharia Law from becoming the law of the land. We just happen to have a very small amount of people who would impose such law on the United States. Meanwhile as, I believe you but possibly someone else, has been said. We have a super majority of people in this country who are some variant of Christianity and thus they've felt no compunction about imposing Judeo-Christian values into the legal system. I oppose that effort as vigorously as possible.

Nice twisting of what I said. I said NOTHING about imposing religious values into the legal system.
What I DID say was that, since 70% (20 years ago was more like 90%) of Americans identify as Christian, it was only natural that their beliefs would impact how they did their jobs. That's not the same thing as deliberately imposing.

Tho let me get this straight. You've been opposed to Republicans doing things like now pushing Barrett's confirmation through, but would have no problem packing the court if the Democrats had the majority. Yet when the majority of the American people are religious you think laws should, what, go against their values? And that's without my even being sure what, beyond abortion, would be the values you think have been imposed on you.

Or is that what you think is a lack of common sense and logical thinking skills from a Christian talking.

[SiteWolf]

And btw dbroncslefty, YOU far better fit the description of a Karen than most every poster here, so there's that....

[Crovash]

And what happened with Brett. Was that also bi-partisan or was one particular side vehemently against it and tried to push him as a rapist? It's bad timing for the Democrats... but everything was done by the books. Trump can nominate, he did, and Senate can approve, which they did. Doesn't really matter what people think. It's allowed, end of story.

Seems to be the dominant republican mantra right now.

[Crovash]

We have a super majority of people in this country who are some variant of Christianity and thus they've felt no compunction about imposing Judeo-Christian values into the legal system. I oppose that effort as vigorously as possible.

I would amend that to their imposing only the so-called “christian values” that benefit them (more often than not economically).

They — on both sides — have ignored pretty much the rest of what Jesus taught.