Is America ready for a openly gay Supreme Court justice?"

[Ravi]

why...are you the chapter president?

why can't you answer the questions about what is really a homophobe? why do you run away from tough discussions?

do you support a father and daugher marrying? would you support a father who married his daughter and now has kids with her, for a justice position on the united states supreme court?

Answered. I guess you only read what you want to read.

please show me where you answered this:

do you support a father and daugher marrying? would you support a father who married his daughter and now has kids with her, for a justice position on the united states supreme court?

I don't support incest but I do support allowing two people enter into a relationship that allows them the same (non-sexual) benefits as traditionally married couples.

No, I wouldn't support a father that married his daughter and had kids with her for a justice on the supreme court. First, it shows an abuse of power. Second it shows bad judgment (risking idiot children). Third it is illegal and there is no place for a lawbreaker on SCOTUS.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with having a gay person on SCOTUS.

 

[Nik]

You're posting in this thread.

Perhaps you need some critical reasoning skills then. My posts in this thread have mostly been to make fun of conservative hypocrisy. I find it hilarious that they can no longer hide behind a "justification" for their homophobia. Its all front and center now.

the only thing hilarious is you thinking you've shown any hypocrisy and you clinging to liberal parrot talking points and sticking to the tired "homophobia" approach...any rational mind can see the hypocrisy shown is all on the liberal side

Yes, of course. Its quite rational to make gross generalizations about political ideology. Quite rational indeed

 

[Yurt]

Perhaps you need some critical reasoning skills then. My posts in this thread have mostly been to make fun of conservative hypocrisy. I find it hilarious that they can no longer hide behind a "justification" for their homophobia. Its all front and center now.

the only thing hilarious is you thinking you've shown any hypocrisy and you clinging to liberal parrot talking points and sticking to the tired "homophobia" approach...any rational mind can see the hypocrisy shown is all on the liberal side

Yes, of course. Its quite rational to make gross generalizations about political ideology. Quite rational indeed

are you plain stupid or super special stupid....part of the SSS club? i made no generalizations moron

 

[Nik]

the only thing hilarious is you thinking you've shown any hypocrisy and you clinging to liberal parrot talking points and sticking to the tired "homophobia" approach...any rational mind can see the hypocrisy shown is all on the liberal side

Yes, of course. Its quite rational to make gross generalizations about political ideology. Quite rational indeed

are you plain stupid or super special stupid....part of the SSS club? i made no generalizations moron

Did you or did you not say:

any rational mind can see the hypocrisy shown is all on the liberal side

?

Well, you don't need to answer that. You did say it. ALL on the liberal side. Of course its unclear even what that means, but its ok, feel free to generalize about liberals and how its them and only them that are at fault

 

[Yurt]

Yes, of course. Its quite rational to make gross generalizations about political ideology. Quite rational indeed

are you plain stupid or super special stupid....part of the SSS club? i made no generalizations moron

Did you or did you not say:

any rational mind can see the hypocrisy shown is all on the liberal side

?

Well, you don't need to answer that. You did say it. ALL on the liberal side. Of course its unclear even what that means, but its ok, feel free to generalize about liberals and how its them and only them that are at fault

i guess you opened your mouth and proved your stupidity.....that statement is NOT a generalization

next

 

[Amanda]

What makes you think it does?

You're posting in this thread.

Perhaps you need some critical reasoning skills then. My posts in this thread have mostly been to make fun of conservative hypocrisy. I find it hilarious that they can no longer hide behind a "justification" for their homophobia. Its all front and center now.

Of course I do. That's why I'm here.

I certainly wouldn't waste my time trolling around the internet to make fun of people.

I guess we are more different than just ideology.

 

[xotoxi]

I certainly wouldn't waste my time trolling around the internet to make fun of people.

I would. And I do.

 

[Amanda]

I certainly wouldn't waste my time trolling around the internet to make fun of people.

I would. And I do.

I guess we're different too.

 

[Yurt]

I certainly wouldn't waste my time trolling around the internet to make fun of people.

I would. And I do.

I guess we're different too.

when he sees two guys in a canoe fishing with a dog, he automatically thinks of homosexuals....

yes, different

 

[YWN666]

Yeah, I'm fierce. You can catch me at this "game" all the time, being calm and polite. Never calling people names or other unnecessary rudeness. I'm definitely 1 to watch out for.

You DO tend to imply that other people are stupid for not understanding you when it is you who misunderstands or won't admit to something.

Do I? Do you have any proof of that?

Here is one example and there were a number of others where you did the same thing.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-13.html#post1199398

Sometimes I wonder if you don't actually understand what I've written or you're just going out of your way to be obtuse.

Perhaps I will use your tactic and just call you disingenuous and then run away.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-14.html#post1199652

I don't know why I ever bother with you, I realized you were intellectually disingenuous a long time ago. I'll try not to make the same mistake in the future.

 

[Amanda]

You DO tend to imply that other people are stupid for not understanding you when it is you who misunderstands or won't admit to something.

Do I? Do you have any proof of that?

Here is one example and there were a number of others where you did the same thing.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-13.html#post1199398

Sometimes I wonder if you don't actually understand what I've written or you're just going out of your way to be obtuse.

Perhaps I will use your tactic and just call you disingenuous and then run away.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-14.html#post1199652

I don't know why I ever bother with you, I realized you were intellectually disingenuous a long time ago. I'll try not to make the same mistake in the future.

Seems like you either have a thin skin, or you have a victim complex.

In the first example there' sno implication that you're stupid. For all I know I hadn't expressed myself clearly enough and that would have no bearing on you whatsoever. I think it's more likely tho hat you pretend not to understand what others say because it's inconvenient. That's not stupid, just not very productive.

In the second example, that's not an accusation of being stupid either. I do think you're intellectually disingenuous but that's not the same as stupid.

So... nice try but I don't think you proved anything.

 

[KittenKoder]

You DO tend to imply that other people are stupid for not understanding you when it is you who misunderstands or won't admit to something.

Do I? Do you have any proof of that?

Here is one example and there were a number of others where you did the same thing.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-13.html#post1199398

Sometimes I wonder if you don't actually understand what I've written or you're just going out of your way to be obtuse.

Perhaps I will use your tactic and just call you disingenuous and then run away.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-14.html#post1199652

I don't know why I ever bother with you, I realized you were intellectually disingenuous a long time ago. I'll try not to make the same mistake in the future.

She watches too much cartoons when posting ...

 

[Yurt]

Do I? Do you have any proof of that?

Here is one example and there were a number of others where you did the same thing.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-13.html#post1199398

Sometimes I wonder if you don't actually understand what I've written or you're just going out of your way to be obtuse.

Perhaps I will use your tactic and just call you disingenuous and then run away.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-14.html#post1199652

I don't know why I ever bother with you, I realized you were intellectually disingenuous a long time ago. I'll try not to make the same mistake in the future.

She watches too much cartoons when posting ...

oh look, the one line insult wonder strikes again....

 

[KittenKoder]

Here is one example and there were a number of others where you did the same thing.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-13.html#post1199398

Sometimes I wonder if you don't actually understand what I've written or you're just going out of your way to be obtuse.

Perhaps I will use your tactic and just call you disingenuous and then run away.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-14.html#post1199652

I don't know why I ever bother with you, I realized you were intellectually disingenuous a long time ago. I'll try not to make the same mistake in the future.

She watches too much cartoons when posting ...

oh look, the one line insult wonder strikes again....

Oh look ... a parrot posts a non-parroted post for once!

 

[Amanda]

Do I? Do you have any proof of that?

Here is one example and there were a number of others where you did the same thing.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-13.html#post1199398

Sometimes I wonder if you don't actually understand what I've written or you're just going out of your way to be obtuse.

Perhaps I will use your tactic and just call you disingenuous and then run away.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-14.html#post1199652

I don't know why I ever bother with you, I realized you were intellectually disingenuous a long time ago. I'll try not to make the same mistake in the future.

She watches too much cartoons when posting ...

Is that what they're calling Fox News, CNN and MSNBC these days?

 

[Barb]

Gender and sexual orientation matter more than judicial philosophy and experience, at least according to the CBS "Early Show" on May 14.

The morning news program focused its discussion of only two of the potential Supreme Court nominees - two openly gay women.

Co-anchor Julie Chen announced the story saying, "Washington is all a buzz over the two openly gay women under consideration." Senior White House correspondent Bill Plante's story followed, which he began by asking "Is America ready for a gay Supreme Court justice?"

Justice David Souter announced his resignation from the Court on May 1 giving President Barack Obama his first opportunity to nominate one of the nine Supreme Court justices. The balance of the Court is not expected to change with the departure of the liberal justice.

Plante's story included Brian Moulton, Senior Legal Counsel to Human Rights Campaign, and Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor of Slate. Moulton said the country was ready and it would be a "tremendous and historic thing." Lithwick complained that the current makeup of the Court doesn't represent enough minority groups.

This segment ignored opposition to the nominees based on their judicial philosophy and actual qualifications and Plante even claimed "Republican leaders aren't opposed." He quoted Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who said "I don't think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified."

"The Early Show" did briefly mention the background of these two nominees. Pamela Karlan is a Stanford Law professor who clerked for a Supreme Court justice and Kathleen Sullivan a former Dean of Stanford Law School and a constitutional scholar. But aside from those statements, the entire CBS segment focused on identity politics and what minority group would be represented on the Court.

ABC and NBC morning shows on May 14 both did a better job of covering potential nominees. "Good Morning America" had a short segment with George Stephanopoulos who named the top three potential nominees and discussed three others with a picture and brief comment about each and their roles in the judiciary.

NBC's "Today" even found a critical voice to include. White House correspondent Pete Williams said, "The President says he wants someone with empathy. Already the Senate's Republican leaders are balking at that."

NBC quoted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who said, "I thought empathy implied you were already on somebody's side before you heard the case."


'The Early Show' Focus: 'Is America Ready for a Gay Supreme Court Justice?' | NewsBusters.org

"NBC quoted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who said, 'I thought empathy implied you were already on somebody's side before you heard the case.'"

Geezum crowe! No wonder they're so dysfunctional! It is possible to consider and appreciate another's feelings and disagree with the solution they propose.

As for the question of an "Openly" gay supreme, I have to ask, as opposed to what? A closeted gay supreme? When is America going to grow up? Seriously, people.

 

[Yurt]

She watches too much cartoons when posting ...

oh look, the one line insult wonder strikes again....

Oh look ... a parrot posts a non-parroted post for once!

(yawn)

 

[Yukon]

There is only one legitimate church and that is the Roman Catholic Church which is based in Rome and is led by our Pope who is in direct contact with our Lord Jesus.

 

[YWN666]

Do I? Do you have any proof of that?

Here is one example and there were a number of others where you did the same thing.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-13.html#post1199398

Sometimes I wonder if you don't actually understand what I've written or you're just going out of your way to be obtuse.

Perhaps I will use your tactic and just call you disingenuous and then run away.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-14.html#post1199652

I don't know why I ever bother with you, I realized you were intellectually disingenuous a long time ago. I'll try not to make the same mistake in the future.

Seems like you either have a thin skin, or you have a victim complex.

In the first example there' sno implication that you're stupid. For all I know I hadn't expressed myself clearly enough and that would have no bearing on you whatsoever. I think it's more likely tho hat you pretend not to understand what others say because it's inconvenient. That's not stupid, just not very productive.

In the second example, that's not an accusation of being stupid either. I do think you're intellectually disingenuous but that's not the same as stupid.

So... nice try but I don't think you proved anything.

You just did it again. Thanks for proving my point, dipshit.

 

[Amanda]

Here is one example and there were a number of others where you did the same thing.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-13.html#post1199398

Sometimes I wonder if you don't actually understand what I've written or you're just going out of your way to be obtuse.

Perhaps I will use your tactic and just call you disingenuous and then run away.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...t-in-the-only-true-church-14.html#post1199652

I don't know why I ever bother with you, I realized you were intellectually disingenuous a long time ago. I'll try not to make the same mistake in the future.

Seems like you either have a thin skin, or you have a victim complex.

In the first example there' sno implication that you're stupid. For all I know I hadn't expressed myself clearly enough and that would have no bearing on you whatsoever. I think it's more likely tho hat you pretend not to understand what others say because it's inconvenient. That's not stupid, just not very productive.

In the second example, that's not an accusation of being stupid either. I do think you're intellectually disingenuous but that's not the same as stupid.

So... nice try but I don't think you proved anything.

You just did it again. Thanks for proving my point, dipshit.

You did too. And let's add to being intellectually disingenuous being a name caller when you don't have a strong argument.