On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:46:36 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

BTW, when the term for SCOTUS was set at "life," the average
life was 36 years.

Huh? Do you think they were saying the president would be dead one
year into office? (minimum age 35)
The rich white men who they thought would run the government lived as
long as we do.

Hamilton died at 49 ... but he was shot by Aaron Burr
Washington died at 67
Franklin died at 84
John Jay was 84
James Madison was 86
John Adams was 91

Your 36 number, as suspect as it is, referred to the average guy
working in a hazardous job with no access to health care and an
insecure supply of food and clean water.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:58:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/28/2018 9:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would
approve a mass murderer for that seat.

Well, Kavanaugh is only a sniveling frat-boy anti-Democrat,
attemped rapist, without judicial temperament, not a mass
murderer. A fine addition to compliment Thomas on the court.
Just think of it: an avowed partisan drunk crybaby on SCOTUS!
Regretable that such an lying ****sack should be so elevated,
but to be expected with the state of the Republican party.
Chief Justice Roberts is sorely disappointed.
BTW, when the term for SCOTUS was set at "life," the average
life was 36 years. Its obvious that should be examined.



I suppose that if Kavanaugh were a sniveling frat-boy, anti-Republican,
attemped rapist, without judicial temperament his nomination would
have been supported unanimously by Democrats.

That's all this is all about. Period.

The Dems are still trying to block his confirmation vote
as I type.

This, like most things in American politics is all about abortion and
guns. The same people who have their hair on fire about Kavanaugh felt
the same way last week (including Harry) but it was all about Roe.
I imagine if you could get them to stop talking about Roe for a second
they would say they think Kavanaugh would be soft on gun control.

I am agnostic on abortion since I think the government should stay out
of it either way. If I did want the government to be involved in any
way, it would be to make abortion a covered service under medicaid
along with any birth control services available today.
Both of those are huge money savers.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 11:27:54 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/28/18 9:42 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 9:18 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:


It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or
conclusions regarding this whole mess.

The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay
hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining
control in Congress.

It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course
and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their
delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel
and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left.Â* If
the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior
to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it.

I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford.Â* She comes across as a
troubled woman possibly with issues that are not
related to the Kavanaugh issue.Â* Just a guess but she seems very
insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry,
a university professor who should be very comfortable in public
appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes.Â* Somethings just
don't add up.Â* I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that
the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS,
at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape
occurred, wouldÂ* be an experience that would cause a life-long
trauma in a woman.Â* My wife said no way.

That's all I can go by as a male.

I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter
to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own
when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she
communicate privately with friends or associates who
encouraged her to contact Feinstein.Â*Â* I can't remember if
that question was asked of her.Â* I know it's cynical but Ford
is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for
progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump.

I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and
Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible.Â* Call it a tie.Â*Â* The
tie
breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible
evidence that backed up their stories.Â* In that case Kavanaugh won
hands
down.

He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the
sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for
future debates.



Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either
former
or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be
seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him.



My post started with:Â* "It's amazing to me how two sides can have
totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess."

Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based
simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup
to it.



My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs
would
approve a mass murderer for that seat.


Now he's a "mass murderer"?Â*Â* Wow.


I didn't say Kavanaugh was a mass murdered. I said the Repubs would
approve one if one were nominated. Kavanaugh simply is a liar, a drunk,
and an attacker of women.


Too bad there is no evidence of any of that but it never stopped
democrats.
I do find it funny that the same people who will leap to the defense
of a known thug like Trayvonn Martin or Michael Brown are so quick to
demonize a federal judge, simply because Trump tried to elevate him.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:47:06 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:46:36 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

BTW, when the term for SCOTUS was set at "life," the average
life was 36 years.

Huh? Do you think they were saying the president would be dead one
year into office? (minimum age 35)
The rich white men who they thought would run the government lived as
long as we do.

Hamilton died at 49 ... but he was shot by Aaron Burr
Washington died at 67
Franklin died at 84
John Jay was 84
James Madison was 86
John Adams was 91

Your 36 number, as suspect as it is, referred to the average guy
working in a hazardous job with no access to health care and an
insecure supply of food and clean water.

In other words, 'twas bull****.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:46:36 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

BTW, when the term for SCOTUS was set at "life," the average
life was 36 years.

Huh? Do you think they were saying the president would be dead one
year into office? (minimum age 35)
The rich white men who they thought would run the government lived as
long as we do.


I gave you average life expectancy at birth. Figure in
infant mortality.
The average years of life for Washington's appointments to
SCOTUS was 66.9 years. Average term served was 7.9 years.
You can compare that to recent times.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/28/18 12:45 PM, wrote:
On 28 Sep 2018 13:18:11 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:


It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or
conclusions regarding this whole mess.

The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay
hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining
control in Congress.

It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course
and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their
delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel
and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left. If
the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior
to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it.

I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford. She comes across as a
troubled woman possibly with issues that are not
related to the Kavanaugh issue. Just a guess but she seems very
insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry,
a university professor who should be very comfortable in public
appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes. Somethings just
don't add up. I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that
the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS,
at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape
occurred, would be an experience that would cause a life-long
trauma in a woman. My wife said no way.

That's all I can go by as a male.

I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter
to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own
when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she
communicate privately with friends or associates who
encouraged her to contact Feinstein. I can't remember if
that question was asked of her. I know it's cynical but Ford
is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for
progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump.

I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and
Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible. Call it a tie. The tie
breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible
evidence that backed up their stories. In that case Kavanaugh won hands
down.

He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the
sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for
future debates.



Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former
or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be
seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him.



My post started with: "It's amazing to me how two sides can have
totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess."

Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based
simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it.



My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would
approve a mass murderer for that seat.

Holy hyperbole Batman.
Now you are equating a sitting federal judge with a mass murderer.



No, I am not. What I am saying is that there probably is no disqualifier
for the Repubs on the judiciary committee. BTW, did Kavan-ugh get his
beer during the hearing?


I heard you and Don drank all the available beer.

Kalif Swill guzzles.....

"I heard you and Don drank all the available beer."


If that's the case y'all must be cheap supplying the bar.
I'd be hard pressed to finish off a six pack.....even your sissy beer.Â*

On 9/28/18 3:31 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:46:36 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

BTW, when the term for SCOTUS was set at "life," the average
life was 36 years.

Huh? Do you think they were saying the president would be dead one
year into office? (minimum age 35)
The rich white men who they thought would run the government lived as
long as we do.


I gave you average life expectancy at birth. Figure in
infant mortality.
The average years of life for Washington's appointments to
SCOTUS was 66.9 years. Average term served was 7.9 years.
You can compare that to recent times.


How dare you question anything Trump says, does, appoints...don't you
want to get along in this right-wing pig pen?

Come on, Trump, who hired a felon lawyer, a felon campaign chair, a
felon foreign policy adviser, a felon deputy campaign manager, a felon
National Security advisor, a two-times alleged wife beater Staff
Secretary, and the most corrupt EPA boss ever, assures us Brett
Kavanaugh is spectacular. Accept!

True North wrote:
Kalif Swill guzzles.....

"I heard you and Don drank all the available beer."


If that's the case y'all must be cheap supplying the bar.
I'd be hard pressed to finish off a six pack.....even your sissy beer.Â*


Hell I would have a hard time finishing off a six-pack in a couple months.