Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

moniss

(8,232 posts)
42. I will repeat
Tue Jun 28, 2022, 10:31 AM
Jun 2022

what I said before. They do not care about getting it wrong or purposely altering facts to fit their desired conclusion. They do not have a sense of shame and they do not care about being hypocritical in their arguments. Trying to argue these things with them on those terms is futile. Pointing these things out for ourselves and perhaps other voters is of course a good thing. Sociopaths can be highly functioning, seemingly successful people and carry out their sick actions all while seeming to remain calm as can be. Inside though these people are always twisted in rage that anybody questions their actions as they go about with their plans to "get people" and "to show them". I've had the misfortune to observe this behavior first hand several times over the years by well educated people in corporations and by blue/brown collar workers. It is bad enough when you have one in a group of people. When you get more than one it becomes a pit of snakes. In this case you combine that behavior by one or more (likely Thomas and Rapey Brett, possibly Alito) , combine it with some who are religious zealots (Amy the Cultist at the least) and the group being lead by a weakling like Roberts and this is the result.

Thomas had issues long before Anita Hill but he never got over the fact that she told the world what he really was and remember the most recent lashing out at Hill by low class Ginny proves that they still seethe over her supposed "betrayal" of "Coke Can Clarence". Rapey Brett and his obvious issues with women clearly have been long standing. His problems with alcohol may well have begun as a way for him to cope and then turned into a young man who, according to testimony, regularly was extremely drunk and seeming to force himself on women. Remember that there were other women besides Dr. Ford who wanted to testify but Grassley refused to allow it.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Unable to reply for fear of being ejected. lindysalsagal Jun 2022 #1
I don't understand that. It's a question about applying the ruling. Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #2
Unable to reply for fear of being ejected. lindysalsagal Jun 2022 #3
I'm with you and I'm Jewish. mucifer Jun 2022 #11
Ejected from what? A fighter jet that's about to crash? Not sure what you mean. Hope you are ok emulatorloo Jun 2022 #30
Poster has 3 hides. Mosby Jun 2022 #40
Yeah I have been there. Four bad hides, one wacky jury away from a ban . Thanks for the heads up. emulatorloo Jun 2022 #45
A heads up, you could get a hide for a post like this. So probably better just to lay low for emulatorloo Jun 2022 #46
May I respectfully suggest... Mister Ed Jun 2022 #31
You just did reply to the post. Albeit in a cryptic way. Politicub Jun 2022 #38
IANAL, but intrepidity Jun 2022 #4
"on the 50 yard line in the middle of the game." Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #5
As I posted elsewhere intrepidity Jun 2022 #8
Oh, but that's one of those parts of the Bible they don't have to follow. Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #9
This message was self-deleted by its author Mosby Jun 2022 #41
The junta set the precedent that "tradition" overrides separation of church and state. John1956PA Jun 2022 #6
But there was no tradition till this guy started it, right? So is it that anyone can do something Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #7
Thank you, too. The junta used this case as a bulldozer to overrule a 1970s case. John1956PA Jun 2022 #14
That is feckin' terrifying. Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #16
An honest lower would be at a loss applying this case to a similar claim brought to it. John1956PA Jun 2022 #21
So I guess we will be seeing more of these eroding the fundamental basis for our country. Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #23
You are welcome, and thank you for your cordial replies. John1956PA Jun 2022 #25
To you too. Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #29
I would love to see any ruling like this ... Novara Jun 2022 #10
I would love to know this. Lawyers? Anyone know? Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #12
One of the first things I learned in law school is that the 'facts' Tomconroy Jun 2022 #15
So this is not unusual? Interesting. I never knew. But then what does Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #17
There is a 'free exercise clause' as well as a 'non-establishment' Tomconroy Jun 2022 #13
Tell me about this. Are you saying they are justifying his act on the basis of these two? Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #18
This really isn't my issue and I haven't read the opinion, Tomconroy Jun 2022 #19
THANK YOU, ALL! This is a bit clearer to me now. I appreciate all the replies. Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #20
I think I can add some context FBaggins Jun 2022 #22
Bluster, and, it seems from the answers above that this is one part of a whole that will Scrivener7 Jun 2022 #26
I don't know... but I doubt that they need to FBaggins Jun 2022 #28
Thanks, that's helpful. nt sl8 Jun 2022 #27
One of the areas of the case I found interesting Sympthsical Jun 2022 #37
+1, uponit7771 Jun 2022 #44
+1, uponit7771 Jun 2022 #43
When the facts of a case change or are wrong, it can be appealed. Baitball Blogger Jun 2022 #24
That could be intentional FBaggins Jun 2022 #32
Does this coach thinks God cares who wins the football game? Emile Jun 2022 #33
Would such a prayer occur before the game? nt FBaggins Jun 2022 #34
I have a question. Haven't footballers been praying leftyladyfrommo Jun 2022 #35
There is nothing preventing players from praying. When I was a HS Coach, I stood JCMach1 Jun 2022 #39
Trying to picture Jesus in a football helmet, wnylib Jun 2022 #36
I will repeat moniss Jun 2022 #42
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Help me understand this G...»Reply #42