Let's have a conversation

[Dirk the Daring]

You are wrong. First off, Brown-Jackson was more qualified than the people Trump put on the court. But what Biden did see was that there had never been a black woman appointed to a court that had only saw white men as qualified to determine laws. This is a bit of historic amnesia that the right aways exemplifies in these kinds of discussions.

Speaking of amnesia, Biden himself was partially responsible for the fact that no black woman had been appointed to the Supreme Court.

The following month, when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement, Brown was on Bush’s shortlist to replace her. She would have been the first Black woman ever nominated to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. But Biden appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” to warn that if Bush nominated Brown, she would face a filibuster. “I can assure you that would be a very, very, very difficult fight and she probably would be filibustered,” Biden said. Asked by moderator John Roberts “Wasn’t she just confirmed?,” Biden replied that the Supreme Court is a “totally different ballgame” because “a circuit court judge is bound by stare decisis. They don’t get to make new law.”

What Biden threatened was unprecedented. There has never been a successful filibuster of a nominee for associate justice in the history of the republic. Biden wanted to make a Black woman the first in history to have her nomination killed by filibuster. Bush eventually nominated Samuel A. Alito Jr.

 

[BackAgain]

Because it's against someone they hated...duh.

“Duh” should be the only word appearing on the epitaph on your tombstone, someday.

Why would anyone hate someone for merely engaging in discussion and debate?

And since when is that hate a ground for gleeful commentary about the murder of any human being?

Were you born yesterday?

Add that to the already very lengthy list of your stupid questions.

Because guess what, there are plenty of not-thinking, ignorant people on all sides.

So what? That doesn’t include a concomitant right to murder a man. Nor does it justify the gleeful commentary about his murder.

 

[IM2]

Speaking of amnesia, Biden himself was partially responsible for the fact that no black woman had been appointed to the Supreme Court.

The following month, when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement, Brown was on Bush’s shortlist to replace her. She would have been the first Black woman ever nominated to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. But Biden appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” to warn that if Bush nominated Brown, she would face a filibuster. “I can assure you that would be a very, very, very difficult fight and she probably would be filibustered,” Biden said. Asked by moderator John Roberts “Wasn’t she just confirmed?,” Biden replied that the Supreme Court is a “totally different ballgame” because “a circuit court judge is bound by stare decisis. They don’t get to make new law.”

What Biden threatened was unprecedented. There has never been a successful filibuster of a nominee for associate justice in the history of the republic. Biden wanted to make a Black woman the first in history to have her nomination killed by filibuster. Bush eventually nominated Samuel A. Alito Jr.

I am very aware of what Biden is responsible for. He opposed a right-wing black woman to be on the court to put another black face on white supremacy as they did with Clarence Thomas.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Kinda like colleges preaching their own ideologies to young people, yes?

No, exactly that. Religion vs. secular education.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Condemning violence AFTER the violence has occurred is the easy part.

You can't condemn violence beforehand unless you're a time traveler. Are you a time traveler?

 

[IM2]

Condemning violence AFTER the violence has occurred is the easy part.

You guys are responsible for decades of violence. So let's stop thinking the world has to stop because one of your perpetrators of influencing violence got killed.

You guys show your violence by blaming the left with no evidence and then advocating for violence based on your feelings instead of facts. Then you try making an asshole who influenced people into violence into this non-violent hero, which he was not. So then, if you want to truly have a conversation, it starts with the truth, and right now, the right doesn't want the truth. The right wants to play the victim.

Again.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No, exactly that. Religion vs. secular education.

Right, their ideologies.

If "secular education" was just that and all there was to it, you might have a point. But so much of secular education these days consists of a lot of liberal ideas that simply defy logic. The transgender issue for one.

 

[AntonToo]

So what? That doesn’t include a concomitant right to murder a man. Nor does it justify the gleeful commentary about his murder.

So your comments about it being somehow representative of the left, but not right are BS.

Duh.

 

[BackAgain]

So your comments about it being somehow representative of the left, but not right are BS.

Duh.

It is obviously far more representative of the left than it is of the right.

Only ability or a retard would deny that. You have both bases covered.

Do’oh.

 

[jc456]

that one was mine. just about same.

it looked identical to it. LOL

 

[jc456]

So your comments about it being somehow representative of the left, but not right are BS.

Duh.

why do demofks call conservatives rrrrrrrrrrrrrracist when you know it isn't so?

In fact, no one is rrrrrracist.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

But so much of secular education these days consists of a lot of liberal ideas that simply defy logic.

Your opinion. You're more than welcome to have one. Powerful people using their influence to abolish institutions of learning due their particular ideologies, traditional norms and 'activism', is authoritarianism, IE, fascism.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

You can't condemn violence beforehand unless you're a time traveler. Are you a time traveler?

You serious Clark?

 

[AntonToo]

It is obviously far more representative of the left than it is of the right.

far more...based on what?

And how does a small minority of the left represent all of it in general, but a small minority on the right doesn't?

It either does, or it doesn't.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

You guys are responsible for decades of violence. So let's stop thinking the world has to stop because one of your perpetrators of influencing violence got killed.

You guys show your violence by blaming the left with no evidence and then advocating for violence based on your feelings instead of facts. Then you try making an asshole who influenced people into violence into this non-violent hero, which he was not. So then, if you want to truly have a conversation, it starts with the truth, and right now, the right doesn't want the truth. The right wants to play the victim.

Again.

You are the last lady on the earth that should be lecturing ANYONE for their lack of comprehending the truth.
Show me some examples please of Charlie 'advocating for violence?' H3ll, you claim that Charlie was NOT a 'non-violent hero,' so better yet, some me an example of Charlie EVER being violent?
Your entire schtick on this message board is perpetual victimhood at the hand of the white man, so it's laughable to see you now accusing the right of following YOUR playbook.

Again.

 

[BackAgain]

far more...based on what?

Based n the incredible numbers of left wing scumbags (even just those here at USMB) who were happy to use the assassination of Charlie Kirk to say it was justified because (they falsely claim) he was a fascist and so forth.

And it was far more than just those scumbags at USMB.

Which I have no doubt you already know. So that makes it curious that you’d quibble over it so much.

 

[SweetSue92]

Careful, so that we don't fall into the same traps they did. They refused to converse with us, now the right are refusing to converse with them?

Here's an idea. Seek out the moderates, because believe it or not, there are. Don't broad-brush the left for its extremist wing. We had enough of them doing that to us.

No.

First, we take the culture back and make them KNOW we have.

Then--and ONLY then--do we hear from the moderates.

 

[gipper]

Your hatered of the left generally is what stands out here, since most of the left pretty clearly condemned the murder.

This includes all, or just about all of prominent Democrats, so it seems that you see what you want to see.

He’s dumb. So what can you expect?

Many on the right blame leftists for Kirk’s murder without knowing the full details. They love condemning and hating the left, but they aren’t smart enough to understand they are falling right into a trap set for them by the elite.

 

[Leo123]

I've watched several videos of Kirk's "conversations" over the last few days.

They are the standard "I'm 100% right, you're 100% wrong" crap coming from both him and the liberal.

That's a debate, not a conversation. Nothing constructive is created in debates like that. No common ground or new ideas come from that. Kirk was just another hardcore partisan ideologue. Both ends have plenty of them.

Kirk always welcomed conversation but those who stepped up the the Mic were always intent on debate and playing 'gotcha' with Charlie. They actually served to show our colleges are teaching Marxist ideals. Those who stepped up to the Mic had no intention of conversing they were intent on accusing Kirk of all kinds of fake shit because of their indoctrination into Marxist, Democrat, leftist hatred.

 

[buttercup]

they are falling right into a trap set for them by the elite.

That's what I've been saying for the last few days. It has mostly fallen upon deaf ears, but it still needs to be stated.