SUPREME COURT: JUSTICE SCALIA DEATH AND SCOTUS CHANGES

[Fry Guy]

Look I have no doubt that you dropping your guard was not in any way intention nor following your "profile", Snowflake. I have no doubt that the demeanor and opinions you show here (your Mockforum face) is not at all a victimised, oppressed, pussy hat wearing harpy, screaming into the void about how MAGA everything is, How the Patriarchy is holding you down, and how men manspread, mansplain, broppriate and manslam. Then you put on your Mockforum face and we see only your Mockforum identity. But I was lucky enough to catch a glimpse of a different identity.

Actually I have not portrayed myself as you have narrated but again it is a great spin and not a concern to me. I do think that this place years ago was poisonous and I was asked to join and have a go at one mod. As were many. I initially came in for the Hell of it. For the lulz if you are into that kind of phrase.  Was I solely responsible for Sinister leaving? Hell no, There were a lot of people taking her skinny arse out. Borndragon and Kid were pretty brutal and even some of her own turned on her. It was fun to be here and see it. I definitely joined in and played a part. Good times. I did also play a part in clique busting but only a part. That was fun too. I was as much mod promoting (Duchess) as I was mod busting (Sinister) and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise wouldn't it? But then you are dishonest.

Why are you dishonest in your modbusting narrative when I am one up and one down in these efforts? Because YOU are a mod. See it does not fit the narrative to say that I promote mods does it? "Fry Guy you promote and support mods" doesn't quite have the victimisation narrative when you are a mod I have disagreements with and mock, does it?

See Snowflake? You are doing it again.

I KNOW you are down with the Social Justice mob. They are a pretty hysterical bunch. I mean that figuratively and literally. This is why I do not take you very seriously. This is why I mock you. I admit, initially, your partisanship and lies were where the interest was for me and I liked your reactions. But seeing that window into your SJW Patriarchy gender identity politics was gold. You were a Snowflake. How could I not see the humour? How could I not keep going back to that?

So yes, I do not need your permission, but I will keep posting as I post because that is how I post and what I enjoy.

HotD is not the person you describe here, she just isn't. She's not a snowflake nor part of any mob, she's not any of the other things you've described her as and she has surely never played the victim or been a partisan liar.

I respect you Duchess. I do. I understand you wanting to stick up for your friend and mod.

That said, she does not lie? Okay then look at the quoted post of hers enclosed in this paragraph. Was what she said about me true? I refuted it rather extensively. Now was what I said true or was what she said true. Both can't be. Was my description of what happened back then correct and have I portrayed it otherwise?

Next is she a snowflake? Well...what are the kind of people who use terms like mansplaining and manspreading? Don't get me wrong, I am not the least bit offended, but who uses it? Where did these terms derive? From what ideological bent?

If you are not sure (and without referring you back to HoTD, who I am sure knows) The Social Justice Warriors are whiny Middle Class (generally) pseudo-intellectuals who view their world in terms of oppression and victimisation. They follow a bastardisation of Marxist theory but instead of the traditional Marxist Owner of the means of production vs the Labourer in a dichotomy of moral/good/valuable/decent vs immoral/evil/non-valuable/indecent, they have a Progressive Stack in which competing claims of "marginalisation" are given varying degrees of worth and inherent morality and the majority and non-marginalised is seen as inherently immoral and indecent. Included in this Paradigm is the concept of Patriarchy and Male Privilege.

The people that follow this dogma are Progressives and derive their worth in collectivist ideological narratives drawing meaning into their lives by being victimised and plotting themselves on the Progressive stack of disadvantage and marginalisation and viewing themselves as both oppressed victims and robust in meeting the world and fighting against the Patriarchy and oppression. It is from this cesspool of resentment and imagined marginalisation and victimisation that terms like Manspreading and mansplaining and manslamming evolved.

That is why as soon as she used the term I grinned and thought "Gotcha" I know that term, I know who uses that term and in the exact context she did. Social Justice Warriors use that term and in that exact sense. Snowflakes use it.

As for her playing the victim - really? Not only was she playing the victim of the mean man mansplaining because he is a mean sexist/misogynist (as is also the fare of Snowflakes) but here too she was spinning a narrative of me holding myself out to be a "mod-buster". I was amongst those supporting you to b a mod and amoung those supporting Sinister to go. So what is the tally? So spinning the narrative to re-imagine me as being a Mod-buster when I am arguing with her a Mod, strikes me as playing the victim a second time.

Now it is not to say that fact that I seem to have caught her out doing these things a couple of times means that she frequently does them or this is her usual form. But I think being able to point to them is evidence enough for me that there is some merit in my accusations.

I accuse her only because what I accuse her of is what I see from her behaviour. She does not wish me to stop pulling her up on this and mocking her and seems to derive pleasure in it. I say no foul.

[sally]

Jesus Christ FryGuy, are you hopped up on coke or something?

[Fry Guy]

No Sally. Never tried it. You have though, haven't you mate? Tell us all about it. I will no judge.

[sally]

It gives you energy. Although it's never given me enough to give a shit about another forum member that I'd write them a fucking novel telling them about themselves. Could you at least make this shit funny and entertaining for the rest of us? Nobody gives a shit to read this nonsense except for you, HotD and maybe Duchess. If you don't make it entertainig for the rest of the forum then it just plain old sucks ass.

[HairOfTheDog]

Mitch McConnell is one smart strategic mofo and good at getting what he wants by any means necessary.  



McConnell's gotten away with blatantly seedy bullshit for so long now that he seems fully emboldened and drunk on power, to me.
 
Yesterday, McConnell got two standing ovations from Republican senators and Administration officials for 'plowing through' a Supreme Court Justice who had nearly the lowest public favorable rating of any SC nominee prior to the sexual assault allegations, and whom more Americans opposed than approved at the time of his confirmation.

At the same time, President Trump used Kavanaugh's for-show second swearing-in ceremony as a political rally, during which he attempted to energize his base by characterizing protesters as a 'mob' (the latest right wing talking point).  Trump also "apologized to Brett and his family on behalf of all Americans".

[HairOfTheDog]

Anyway, I think it's a real long shot that the Democrats will take the Senate this year, but I hope it happens.

When attempting to justify obstructing the process regarding Obama's Supreme Court Justice pick, McConnell claimed it was tradition dating back to the 1880s not to consider Justice nominations in election years. That was a lie.

While Justices rarely choose to leave the court in presidential election years, Supreme Court seats have been vacated during such times. And, several Supreme Court Justices have been nominated and/or confirmed in presidential election years. It's documented history.

Later, McConnell invoked the "Biden Rule". That too was bullshit. Thirty years ago Biden made a speech on the floor about how attempting to confirm a Justice as a Presidential race was nearing its conclusion might not be practical. There was never a rule. And even if the imaginary Biden Rule was real, Obama nominated Merrick Garland with 11 months left in his term and a full eight months before election day, so it wouldn't have applied.

Yesterday, when asked if he would refuse to confirm a Trump-nominated Supreme Court Justice in 2020 if the opportunity arose...................McConnell, predictably, did not reference the 'long-standing tradition' or the 'Biden Rule' bullshit at all. Instead, he said refusing to consider nominations in election years only applies when the Senate majority party isn't the President's party (even though it's been done several times in our history).

Revisionist history, straight-up lies, and changing the Constitutional rules as he goes along. Man, I'd love to see McConnell lose the Senate majority this year.

[HairOfTheDog]

Could you at least make this shit funny and entertaining for the rest of us? Nobody gives a shit to read this nonsense except for you, HotD and maybe Duchess. If you don't make it entertainig for the rest of the forum then it just plain old sucks ass.

I don't read those rambling rants real time unless I'm really bored already.  But, I do try to read all of the topical thread posts at some point.

[HairOfTheDog]

HotD is not the person you describe here, she just isn't. She's not a snowflake nor part of any mob, she's not any of the other things you've described her as and she has surely never played the victim or been a partisan liar.

I just read the last rant o'bullshit.   

FryGuy has routinely demonstrated a preference for idiotic conspiracy theory and fantasy over reality; it seems to serve his purposes better.  

That shortcoming presents itself across most topics, not only his weird obsession with me.

He says he enjoys going off like that and it seems to me like he desperately needs a target and an outlet to air his disgruntled grievances.   

Anyway, I really do find it funny that he thinks his personal rants reflect negatively on anyone but him, though the content itself is boring. 

So, aside from when he takes serious discussion/debate into the Twilight Zone by arguing against confirmed fact with batshit bullshit, I'm not gonna bother correcting the record and won't interrupt his joyful freedom of expression when the subject is me.

[Maggot]

I think Fienstien really screwed the pooch on this. She could have brought out Ford 7 weeks ago. Instead knowingly with no substantial evidence she in a last ditch effort tried to snatch the nomination out. It did not work although she did weaponize the base and create more violence and hatred from the left. 

All the smear campaign did was belittle the woman's movement, energize the right and quite possibly lose the mid term. Not to mention destroying what was left of Fords credibility.

The womans movement is great and it did put Nassar away after diddling 300 Olympiad hopefuls. Even though they did report the findings the hope of getting a gold medal was more powerful. Much like a starlet lettin Weinstien use his power to get sex. Why didn't they report him? Because the end product would be worth it. I believe 98% of men are respectful of women but thats my belief. Hopefully more women stand up and voice their outrage louder in the future.  
  

[Duchess]

You didn't hear Dr. Ford explain why Senator Feinstein didn't say anything in July? The transcript is available online.

In regards to the other stuff, your news sources are lacking if that's truly your impression.

[Maggot]

Yup, and I'm sticking to my gut feelings on this. It looked, felt, and smelled like obstruction to me and quite a few other people. Not that i give a shit about them but to me it was not a very professional or honest attempt on Mrs. Feinstiens part. And on retrospect the entire Democrat mob.

[Duchess]

Democrat mob.

That's the republican's new phrase of the day.  

[Maggot]

Yeah I thought it fit well in the sentence. 

[HairOfTheDog]

I found Ford credible, but don't agree with people who insist that every woman has to be believed. Personally, I didn't find Avenatti's client credible when I saw her interviewed. She might be telling the truth, but I don't believe her at this juncture.

I just don't automatically disbelieve women, regardless of how long it takes them to come forward. And, I do believe in due process, which is why I wish the supplemental background investigation into the Kavanaugh allegations would have been more thorough.

We don't know who leaked Dr. Ford's letter and breached her anonymity. But, I do think the Democrats seized the opportunity to bolster their existing objections to Kavanaugh once it was out. That's politics.

Personally, I doubt Feinstein's office did the leaking, and the journalist who first published the info says it wasn't Feinstein. But, if it was Feinstein or her staff, it will likely come out. Feinstein deserves due process in the face of such allegations, like anybody else. Hopefully, we'll get a confirmation one way or the other.

Anyway, as stated many times, my objection to Kavanaugh is based on misrepresentations, inconsistencies, demeanor, and partisan bias under oath -- not on uncorroborated sexual assault/misconduct allegations.

It seems a lot of women share those concerns, particularly considering Kavanaugh's conflicting statements pertaining to birth control, abortion rights, etc.

[HairOfTheDog]

The womans movement is great and it did put Nassar away after diddling 300 Olympiad hopefuls. Even though they did report the findings the hope of getting a gold medal was more powerful. Much like a starlet lettin Weinstien use his power to get sex. Why didn't they report him? Because the end product would be worth it. I believe 98% of men are respectful of women but thats my belief. Hopefully more women stand up and voice their outrage louder in the future.  
  

You're approaching a new low here Mags.

Nassar's young victims did not choose to let the molestation continue because they wanted to win medals.

Dozens of Nassar's victims were mentally mature enough to know that they felt violated and that he was not "medically checking them" as he claimed.  

They reported it to the adults in charge at the Olympic and University committees immediately, or to their parents who reported it.  It's all on record, dating back years and years.

However, those adults either didn't care enough to investigate thoroughly or looked the other way because THEY put winning above all else.  

The girls and their parents kept being assured of Nassar's innovative "medical techniques", when all he was really doing is molesting young girls in droves.  That's why many of those adults in charge were fired and/or prosecuted for their complicity.

Nassar is a confessed and convicted serial sexual predator.  Suggesting that he's a victim of  MeToo or 'the great womans movement' is ignorant, asinine, and says a whole lot about how you (and others who would make such a claim) regard women and confirmed victims of sexual assault.

It's the kind of misogynistic bullshit from the far right which is costing the Republicans women voters.

[Maggot]

I have heard some women say they hope this does not set a precedence against men. They think of their sons and husbands and what would happen if they were accused with no evidence or corroboration  there have been a few instances of some women that do these things out of vindictiveness and are concerned about the process. Not just the law but the opinions of the local busy bodies. It's a black mark on the Dems in my opinion no matter how hard they try and spin it. 


As far as Nassar is concerned I blame the parents not the kids, it is they that saw the gold medal moreso than the kids. I blame them for seeing the gold.

[HairOfTheDog]

You're spinning more than the Tea Cups at Disneyland today Mags.

[Maggot]

You're spinning more than the Tea Cups at Disneyland today Mags.

I understand the mindset, believe me I do. But that's OK everybody has an opinion. Right or wrong in your mind.

[HairOfTheDog]

You're spinning more than the Tea Cups at Disneyland today Mags.

I understand the mindset, believe me I do. But that's OK everybody has an opinion. Right or wrong in your mind.

No, you really don't understand.  

Attempting to equate Nassar to an innocent man railroaded by false allegations is the worst kind of spin. That's a fact, not a mindset or opinion.

Actually, now that I think about it, I guess there is one other possibility -- namely that you believe men have the right and entitlement to molest and sexually assault minors and women.  

I'd rather believe you're spinning in attempt to score cheap political points.

[Maggot]

Nassar is a confessed and convicted serial sexual predator.  Suggesting that he's a victim of  MeToo or 'the great womans movement' is ignorant, asinine, and says a whole lot about how you (and others who would make such a claim) regard women and confirmed victims of sexual assault.


  I can understand why you get under peoples skin. i never said he was a victim and the Metoo movement was just beginning during that time and it was involved in his takedown. This is what the left does it groups all men into a pile of gropers and sexual deviants Miss Impartiality. Would you feel better if I just posted a popcorn smiley or something Oh might one. OK here ya go honeybunch..........