Summit Treestands
RGB in hospital
Community
Contributors to this thread:
Coyote 65 08-Nov-18
JTV 08-Nov-18
gadan 08-Nov-18
Spike Bull 08-Nov-18
Kevin Paul 08-Nov-18
Kevin Paul 08-Nov-18
K Cummings 08-Nov-18
JTV 08-Nov-18
HDE 08-Nov-18
K Cummings 08-Nov-18
Annony Mouse 08-Nov-18
sleepyhunter 08-Nov-18
Scrappy 08-Nov-18
JTV 08-Nov-18
Rocky 08-Nov-18
Hunting5555 08-Nov-18
70lbdraw 08-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 08-Nov-18
Hunting5555 08-Nov-18
Solo 08-Nov-18
Hunting5555 08-Nov-18
Solo 08-Nov-18
HDE 08-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 08-Nov-18
JL 08-Nov-18
Solo 08-Nov-18
Rocky 08-Nov-18
pipe 08-Nov-18
JL 08-Nov-18
DL 08-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 08-Nov-18
Thumper 08-Nov-18
Salagi 08-Nov-18
Grey Ghost 08-Nov-18
Rocky 08-Nov-18
Coyote 65 08-Nov-18
petedrummond 08-Nov-18
slade 08-Nov-18
TD 08-Nov-18
JTV 08-Nov-18
HDE 08-Nov-18
AZOnecam 08-Nov-18
slade 09-Nov-18
K Cummings 09-Nov-18
MK111 09-Nov-18
sleepyhunter 09-Nov-18
K Cummings 09-Nov-18
slade 09-Nov-18
K Cummings 09-Nov-18
slade 09-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 09-Nov-18
HDE 09-Nov-18
K Cummings 10-Nov-18
Rocky 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
K Cummings 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
K Cummings 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 10-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 10-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 10-Nov-18
K Cummings 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
K Cummings 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
K Cummings 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
K Cummings 10-Nov-18
K Cummings 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
K Cummings 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
K Cummings 10-Nov-18
slade 10-Nov-18
K Cummings 10-Nov-18
slade 11-Nov-18
slade 11-Nov-18
slade 11-Nov-18
slade 11-Nov-18
K Cummings 11-Nov-18
K Cummings 11-Nov-18
KSflatlander 11-Nov-18
Rocky 11-Nov-18
MK111 11-Nov-18
K Cummings 11-Nov-18
Rocky 11-Nov-18
slade 11-Nov-18
K Cummings 11-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 11-Nov-18
slade 11-Nov-18
slade 11-Nov-18
K Cummings 11-Nov-18
slade 11-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 11-Nov-18
slade 11-Nov-18
Coyote 65 11-Nov-18
K Cummings 12-Nov-18
IdyllwildArcher 12-Nov-18
Brotsky 12-Nov-18
Treeline 12-Nov-18
K Cummings 12-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 12-Nov-18
bad karma 12-Nov-18
Rocky 12-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 12-Nov-18
bad karma 12-Nov-18
Rocky 13-Nov-18
K Cummings 13-Nov-18
slade 13-Nov-18
K Cummings 13-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 13-Nov-18
Rocky 13-Nov-18
Rocky 13-Nov-18
HDE 13-Nov-18
slade 13-Nov-18
slade 13-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 13-Nov-18
slade 13-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 13-Nov-18
K Cummings 13-Nov-18
K Cummings 14-Nov-18
K Cummings 14-Nov-18
slade 14-Nov-18
K Cummings 14-Nov-18
From: Coyote 65
08-Nov-18
Had a fall broke 3 ribs. Hope she recovers, and decides to hang up her robes.

Terry

From: JTV
08-Nov-18
heck, I hope she DOSNT recover ... and that is the truth .... ya got to retire sometime...

From: gadan
08-Nov-18
Hope the best for her recovery but hope she retires. There's really no reason to hang on given the fact that the Senate will be red for 6 years.

08-Nov-18
She is 85 and not in good health. I dont wish her any ill will and do hope she recovers and quits, too. I wonder why she fell over, poor balance, other health issues, fell asleep while walking?!?

Sorry, couldn't resist!

From: Kevin Paul
08-Nov-18
Saw the article this morning. Don't you know the Libs are wishing they'd played nicer with Kavanaugh! Now, they have zero chance of stopping Trump from appointing who he wants. Three justices in one term...oh the warm fuzzies!

One a side note, the whack job lefties are offering up their ribs and other body parts to keep her going......smh

From: Kevin Paul
08-Nov-18
On another side note, she probably fell after passing out when she realized the Prez added several seats to the Senate depth chart! MAGA

From: K Cummings
08-Nov-18
"heck, I hope she DOSNT recover ... and that is the truth .... ya got to retire sometime...

You're sick.

KPC

From: JTV
08-Nov-18
no, just honest ..... Ive had it with all the "cant we just get along" bullcrap ... NO, we cannot just get along.... I call it like I see it .... I dont sugar coat much .. and to hell with PC ... so dont give me all your PC bullcrap KPC, I'm sick of all the niceties when it comes to dealing with these liberals and I aint got time for your "critical thinking" bull .. .....

From: HDE
08-Nov-18
Complications from a fall that broke three ribs, and in a frail condition, could very well medically retire someone.

From: K Cummings
08-Nov-18
I didn’t say anything about getting along.

Anyone who hopes that someone that they don’t agree with politically doesn’t recover from an injury is just plain sick.

Personally, I hope she has a full recovery...and chooses to retire.

KPC

From: Annony Mouse
08-Nov-18
On the bright side, RGB's fall exposes more of the putzeidan cognitive processes from the left. Social media has many offering to donate ribs and other internal organs to help her recover.

From: sleepyhunter
08-Nov-18
I remember my Dad falling when he was 85, it's a sure sign they cannot be by themselves. Three broke ribs could easily turn into a serious problem for her.

From: Scrappy
08-Nov-18
All those lefties that don't believe in the lord are on bended knees in prayer this morning.

From: JTV
08-Nov-18
KPC, I can be a cold hearted bastard at times ... to bad ....

From: Rocky
08-Nov-18
I would not WISH she did not recover from her fall in honesty, but not convincing honest to myself. You know people here as elsewhere make me laugh. Those here who did not think at first report ,well maybe this will end her career are outright liars if you favor the conservative brand. There are many ways that careers can end, as long as in the end it most certainly will end. I know few people who would, in this political climate, fit the bill better than RBG. What we say in public to retain a civil tone in our convictions to a audience, many times is in stark contrast with our darker side in private, alone with our own thoughts. That "maybe" can easily be persuaded into a hopeful " anticipation". Any way you cut it you want her gone, and any way she may go would cut just fine with many people.

The Rock

From: Hunting5555
08-Nov-18
Folks, they will restart her heart and leave her on life support for the next 6 years, even with no brain activity, to keep POTUS from appointing another judge!!!!! And that's the God's honest truth! Soros will gladly pay the hospital bill.

From: 70lbdraw
08-Nov-18
^^^ Good point H555...and most likely accurate.

From: NvaGvUp
08-Nov-18
She currently has brain activity?

How can anyone tell?

From: Hunting5555
08-Nov-18
LOLOL Very true Kyle. Obviously just enough for her motor skills and that appears to be failing as well!!!

From: Solo
08-Nov-18
"RGB"... I've seen this acronym posted a quite a few times here, by more than one member, including Kyle. Since I figure y'all know her name is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which equals RBG instead of RGB.....

....am I missing something here? Is there a joke goin' around that I missed, or are y'all just makin' a boo boo? I'm not making a fuss over spelling or grammar, but it keeps happening, so I was wondering if it's intentional? That's all....

From: Hunting5555
08-Nov-18
I would guess fat fingering or an autocorrect change.

From: Solo
08-Nov-18
That's what I figured initially, but I keep seeing it. No biggie....

From: HDE
08-Nov-18
They must be talking about Ruth Ginger-Burger...

From: NvaGvUp
08-Nov-18
It's actually, Ruth Buzzy, not RBG.

Remember the old SNL skits and the resemblance is amazing.

From: JL
08-Nov-18
Not a fan of Ruthie but I don't wish ill on anyone. She has fallen before and broke some bones. She also survived cancer twice...one being pancreatic cancer. Got to give her props for being tough.

From: Solo
08-Nov-18
LOL Kyle. What was I thinkin'? hehehe

From: Rocky
08-Nov-18
JL, After a quiet night with yourself I believe you will amend your sentiments and your list will be long and varied.

The Rock

From: pipe
08-Nov-18
I wish her recovery... You know she has served her country. I do not agree with her on so many issues but she served. She did give us the Ginsburg rule. She and Scalia were very good friends. She has something going for her as a person and human being. I wish her well and I wish she retires...

From: JL
08-Nov-18
Rock....this is a case where I can disagree with someone and still not wish them ill. Having traveled in some of her footsteps, I have a sympathetic perspective. That said...do I wish she would retire...yup...the sooner the better.

From: DL
08-Nov-18
She needs to take care of herself and retire. I can’t imagine why she doesn’t leave to enjoy what life here she has left.

From: NvaGvUp
08-Nov-18
As I've said here many times, she will only leave the court when the coroner comes to pick up her remains.

From: Thumper
08-Nov-18
I bet she retires, with her failing health and the fact her vote now counts for nothing. No reason for her to stay.

From: Salagi
08-Nov-18
Matthew 5:43-48

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

I do hope she heals quickly. And retires even quicker.

From: Grey Ghost
08-Nov-18
I wish Ruth a full recovery. Politics be damned.

Some of you need a new perspective.

Matt

From: Rocky
08-Nov-18
Matt,

We all need a new perspective and more so a new SC justice. ;-)

The Rock

From: Coyote 65
08-Nov-18

Coyote 65's embedded Photo
Coyote 65's embedded Photo
solo, RGB is red green blue, primary colors. Typo on my part. Terry

From: petedrummond
08-Nov-18
Real classy lady. Epitomizes a justice. May not agree but classy how she did it. More like her.

From: slade
08-Nov-18
""An article from CNS News reports “Given that homosexual advocates are in a full court press to lower the age of consent as low as it can go, and pro-pedophile sitting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s documented advocacy of lowering the age of consent to 12 years old, parents should be horrified…”

""Ginsburg may have “changed” her opinion on this (or pretended to) by the time of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Several liberal websites of course deny that she supports pedophilia, but there’s a PDF file with quotes from some of her earlier writings, which you can see for yourself.""

I oppose everything this vile evil witch stands for and I I will not miss a wink of sleep if the teeth gnasher croaked tomorrow.

From: TD
08-Nov-18
Can she be fired if she uses up all her sick leave and vacation and still doesn't show up for work?

From: JTV
08-Nov-18
As old as she is, I would guess she's accrued quite a bit

From: HDE
08-Nov-18
Life appointment, don't reckon there is a PTO policy.

From: AZOnecam
08-Nov-18
I'd just have to add, as much as I would like to see another conservative take her place, I wish her all the best.

I don't have to agree with her politically, but I'd never wish harm on her. She has done the best she can with her beliefs. And while I might not agree with them, she has remained diligent to her post.

From: slade
09-Nov-18
"She has done the best she can with her beliefs"

So has Gosnell .........

From: K Cummings
09-Nov-18

K Cummings's Link
"An article from CNS News reports “Given that homosexual advocates are in a full court press to lower the age of consent as low as it can go, and pro-pedophile sitting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s documented advocacy of lowering the age of consent to 12 years old, parents should be horrified…” "Ginsburg may have “changed” her opinion on this (or pretended to) by the time of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Several liberal websites of course deny that she supports pedophilia, but there’s a PDF file with quotes from some of her earlier writings, which you can see for yourself."

"I oppose everything this vile evil witch stands for and I I will not miss a wink of sleep if the teeth gnasher croaked tomorrow."

Unfortunately, as is often the case, you’re basing your hatred of someone on things they never said or advocated for.

Yes, there are many reasons to dislike and disagree with RBG’s opinions, but all credibility is lost when it is based on ”fake news”

KPC

From: MK111
09-Nov-18
The records show she is a 2 times survived cancer and she has fallen before with broken ribs.

It is time to retire.

From: sleepyhunter
09-Nov-18
""Personally, I hope she has a full recovery...and chooses to retire. ""

That's fine to feel that way, she still may be stubborn enough to not retire. At 85 yrs she probably would have nothing to occupy her time after being on the Supreme Court. She may stay on the SC till her last day to spite Trump.

From: K Cummings
09-Nov-18
"That's fine to feel that way, she still may be stubborn enough to not retire. At 85 yrs she probably would have nothing to occupy her time after being on the Supreme Court. She may stay on the SC till her last day to spite Trump. "

As is her prerogative, just like every other justice on the court.

If Brett Kavanaugh were to be in a car accident, and the resident liberals on the CF were to say that they hope he never recovers to the point where he could continue his duties, most people here would condemn them for it, and rightfully so.

KPC

From: slade
09-Nov-18

slade's Link
""Knight and York's footnoted documentation on this is as follows: "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," Report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April 1977, p. 102, quoted in "Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Feminist World View," ""

From: K Cummings
09-Nov-18

K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
More important than knowing how to read slade, is understanding what you read.

KPC

From: slade
09-Nov-18
Keep spinning pontificator and using progressive fake-news.

From: NvaGvUp
09-Nov-18
It's disgusting to me to see some here who claim to be pro-life yet who are wishing RBG dead because they disagree with her politics.

Disgusting and shameful!

From: HDE
09-Nov-18
Checks and balances, opposition in all things...

From: K Cummings
10-Nov-18
"It's disgusting to me to see some here who claim to be pro-life yet who are wishing RBG dead because they disagree with her politics."

I agree Kyle, especially when their opinions are based on propaganda and false information gleaned from who knows where.

Ironically, some of the same people that claim to be against "fake news" seem to rely heavily on dubious internet news sites, that are easily debunked, for their "information."

KPC

From: Rocky
10-Nov-18
Kyle,

Would she be the first person in America that someone would wish be dead or in the more appealing terms "retired"? I believe JTV's sentiments and anger would have favored that term but reacting to the antifa types at times your head is independent of your heart. JTV wears his political sentiments on his sleeve and must be taken with a grain of salt. Those who are a blight on this nation and who have committed crimes against the people are wished dead. Correct?

Those who carry a Robe or white collar and commit high crimes against the people they were elected or appointed to protect directly or indirectly are somehow given a pass and revolted upon to stated a opinion? C'MON with the accolades," this fine lady"..yes who would have your grandchild in chains and make no doubt about it through her past opinions of policy and votes. Are we playing the woman card or the emotional "human" card? Nobody WANTS anybody dead but sometimes it is necessary evil that we must face and agree with. IMO nobody wants RBG in her present condition to fit the literal"want dead" scenario, but to hopefully remove, retire or otherwise recover but not to return to the bench is the hope of many ,MOST conservatives. As far as she is concerned this may be a sort of death but ONLY in her fear of who replaces her. Should a seated SC justice hate and despise the POTUS and rule accordingly?

May she live to be a thousand and I mean that but not on the Supreme Court another day.

The RBG situation is unique because it is political and has dramatic ramifications to the welfare of the state, its people its future. Lives weigh in the future balance of her inability and prejudices to rule with her physical and mental impairments. Sleeping while your colleague's are under discussion to rule should immediately disqualify you from the bench. She is holding on politically to prevent a nation from regaining its senses and political balance and in that regard alone she is dangerous to the people. What was it again we do to those who are dangerous to the people? We remove them. Throw her a party with a robo section on cue that will give standing ovations long into the night if need be. Cast a bronze bust of her to be placed at every intersection in America if that is what it will take for the woman in this nation to be happy. Do it all but do it FAST.

The Rock

The Rock

From: slade
10-Nov-18

From: K Cummings
10-Nov-18
No wonder our country is in the condition that it is in.

A certain segment of the population will literally believe anything.

RBG never advocated for the age of consent being 12 years old. What she did advocate for, is that whatever the law happened to be, "sex neutral" language should be used in the wording of the law.

You can agree or disagree with that opinion, but only a complete ignoramus, a liar, or a combination of both would attempt to conflate the two.

KPC

From: slade
10-Nov-18
You shouldn't be so hard on yourself for believing fake news.

From: K Cummings
10-Nov-18

K Cummings's Link
A few sample headlines from slade's most recent source of information:

"“Sandy Hook RIP/donation webpages created BEFORE the massacre"

"SSDI says Adam Lanza died a day before Sandy Hook massacre"

“No one died in Sandy Hook: Testimony from Social Security Death Master File”

"NASA’s ‘Blue Marble’ Earth is a fake"

“Devil images around Justice Scalia at Cibolo Creek Ranch"

“Justice Scalia died from heart attack having sex with prostitute?"

“Joe Biden tells 13-year-old girl he’s horny"

“AG Jeff Sessions knows Joe Biden is a pedophile"

“Are Sandy Hook child victims alive and well?"

“Hillary pedophile-cannibal video is said to have been leaked to Dark Web"

“James Dean faked his death? – died at age 95 in Canada"

“Separated at Birth: Sandy Hook’s Adam Lanza, Parkland’s David Hogg, Jacksonville’s David Katz"

And these appear to be the most believable ones.

Good grief...

KPC

From: slade
10-Nov-18
Keep spinning and lying pontificator, that's all you have.

From: NvaGvUp
10-Nov-18
Can't deny it, can you, slade?

Did you or did you not claim those things?

So just lie, lie, lie. Spin, spin, spin.

Seek help!

Seriously!

10-Nov-18
But he walks with Jesus, so he is allowed to behave this way.

From: NvaGvUp
10-Nov-18
Frank,

What a fall from a guy who was once one of my favorite posters.

Something happened to him of which he is either unaware or refuses to admit to.

10-Nov-18
Kyle,

I guess I never knew the person you speak of. Slade to me has always been quick to personally attack those who do not hold his views.

I hope and pray he can allow for others who think differently than him.

From: NvaGvUp
10-Nov-18
Frank,

Slade to me has always been quick to personally attack those who do not hold his views. "

Yep!

But now all he's capable of is calling people names, generally using language only a pre-teen would use.

From: K Cummings
10-Nov-18
"Can't deny it, can you, slade?"

Of course he can't. He knows what he posted is crap and so does everyone else.

Every time slade gets backed into a corner, or his posts are proven to be utterly bogus, (pretty much a daily occurrence here on the CF) he resorts to the equivalent second grade retorts like "I know you are but what am I" and "I am rubber, you are glue. Anything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!"

Granted, he tries to use larger, more adult words but at the end of the day it's the same stuff we all heard in second grade.

KPC

From: slade
10-Nov-18
Keep spinning my disingenuous lying pontificator along with the rest of the ankle biters.

Feeble one, you have to be a complete moron to think I have ever linked one of those sites...

From: slade
10-Nov-18

slade's Link
From the far right conspiracy site :National Review, according to the Lying Disingenuous Pontificator and his ankle biters.

Slate’s Noah on Graham and Ginsburg: Wrong Again By ED WHELAN September 30, 2005

It appears that Slate’s Timothy Noah simply can’t acknowledge when he’s wrong. As I recently discussed, Noah criticized Sen. Lindsay Graham and, to a lesser extent, Eugene Volokh and me for pointing out that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as an ACLU attorney in the 1970s, had advocated legislative changes that would have reduced the age of consent for statutory rape under federal law from 16 to 12. Volokh and I (Volokh far more thoroughly than I) completely refuted Noah.

Noah is out of ammunition, but hasn’t given up. In his reply yesterday, Noah relies primarily on tendentious distortions of the issue: Did Ginsburg “ever condone pedophilia,” he asks? “Volokh and Whelan insist that in praising S. 1400, §1633, Ginsburg was praising the lowering of the age of consent,” he asserts. On the issue actually in dispute—did Ginsburg advocate legislative changes that would have reduced the age of consent for statutory rape under federal law from 16 to 12?—Noah claims that “it simply isn’t true that Ginsburg was proposing the language [from S. 1400] she cited.… Ginsburg never wrote, or even implied, that all the language be adopted verbatim.” According to Noah’s parsing, she merely proposed language “patterned after” S. 1400.

Wrong again. As I stated in my previous post, here (from page 76 of her report) is Ginsburg’s specific recommendation regarding 18 U.S.C. § 2032: “Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years’ and substitute the offense as set forth in S. 1400, §1633.” (Italics added.) In the recommendation immediately following, regarding 18 U.S.C. §1153, Ginsburg likewise states: “Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife and substitute the offense as set forth in S. 1400, §1633.” (Again, italics added.) (Ginsburg’s complete report is available at the link at the bottom here, but may take some time to download.) In other words, Ginsburg specifically proposed that the bill language providing for an age of consent of 12 “be adopted verbatim.”

From: NvaGvUp
10-Nov-18
Wanna' even TRY to deal with K Cummings posts noting the very things you wrote, slade?

Well, of course not.

Because he showed us all what a gullible and phony idiot you are.

10-Nov-18
Kyle shoots and scores, game over.

Slade's favorite word is 'pontificator', in case you didn't notice.

From: slade
10-Nov-18

slade's Link
From the far right conspiracy site :National Review, according to the Lying Disingenuous Pontificator and his ankle biters.

Slate’s Noah on Graham and Ginsburg: Wrong Again By ED WHELAN September 30, 2005

It appears that Slate’s Timothy Noah simply can’t acknowledge when he’s wrong. As I recently discussed, Noah criticized Sen. Lindsay Graham and, to a lesser extent, Eugene Volokh and me for pointing out that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as an ACLU attorney in the 1970s, had advocated legislative changes that would have reduced the age of consent for statutory rape under federal law from 16 to 12. Volokh and I (Volokh far more thoroughly than I) completely refuted Noah.

Noah is out of ammunition, but hasn’t given up. In his reply yesterday, Noah relies primarily on tendentious distortions of the issue: Did Ginsburg “ever condone pedophilia,” he asks? “Volokh and Whelan insist that in praising S. 1400, §1633, Ginsburg was praising the lowering of the age of consent,” he asserts. On the issue actually in dispute—did Ginsburg advocate legislative changes that would have reduced the age of consent for statutory rape under federal law from 16 to 12?—Noah claims that “it simply isn’t true that Ginsburg was proposing the language [from S. 1400] she cited.… Ginsburg never wrote, or even implied, that all the language be adopted verbatim.” According to Noah’s parsing, she merely proposed language “patterned after” S. 1400.

Wrong again. As I stated in my previous post, here (from page 76 of her report) is Ginsburg’s specific recommendation regarding 18 U.S.C. § 2032: “Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years’ and substitute the offense as set forth in S. 1400, §1633.” (Italics added.) In the recommendation immediately following, regarding 18 U.S.C. §1153, Ginsburg likewise states: “Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife and substitute the offense as set forth in S. 1400, §1633.” (Again, italics added.) (Ginsburg’s complete report is available at the link at the bottom here, but may take some time to download.) In other words, Ginsburg specifically proposed that the bill language providing for an age of consent of 12 “be adopted verbatim.”

From: K Cummings
10-Nov-18
Kyle:

Apparently some haven’t learned that when they’re in a hole, the first thing they should do is stop digging.

KPC

10-Nov-18
Slade,

As soon as you type 'p', pontificator comes up now doesn't it?

From: slade
10-Nov-18
Feeble one, wanna try and find one link that I have ever posted using the link the disingenuous lying ponticator used "" slade's most recent source of information".."

From: NvaGvUp
10-Nov-18
Off your meds again, slade?

From: slade
10-Nov-18
Just as I thought, zip,zero,nothing..........

10-Nov-18
New name for me, good for you. Thought you might need meds for that compulsive, repetitive behavior.

Nice try, burden of proof is on you, not us. We know Kevin is accurate on stuff like that. No doubt he kept track of them in a Word document just for a special occasion like this when the real liar tries and distracts by calling everyone else names. Time to move on to third grade now Slade. You can do it, we will encourage you when you feel the anxiety of having to grow up.

From: K Cummings
10-Nov-18
Slade:

The last video you posted, the one with RBG on the cover of Time Magazine, references fellowshipoftheminds.com as the source of the information contained within. It is also the same source of the wacky pieces I posted, which is a good indication of the garbage that site deals in. Before you post a video as proof of one of your bogus theories, it might be a good idea to verify it’s source.

Spin that...

KPC

From: slade
10-Nov-18
oh ok. Good grief the video is about as far out there as they get and I thought it was a spoof , but that is all you chose to focus on.

Now explain how the national review site is wacked out, along with CNS news, and the first link form the Eagle Forum.

From: slade
10-Nov-18

slade's Link
CNS article

From: slade
10-Nov-18

slade's Link
From the Eagle Forum

From: slade
10-Nov-18

slade's Link
Conservapedia vs Snoopes

From: K Cummings
10-Nov-18

K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
"Now explain how the national review site is wacked out, along with CNS news, and the first link form the Eagle Forum."

I already did.

" RBG never advocated for the age of consent being 12 years old. What she did advocate for, is that whatever the law happened to be, "sex neutral" language should be used in the wording of the law."

I don't care whether you're on the right or on the left, taking things out of context, for the purpose of advancing a specific agenda, is "fake news" and should be called out as such.

Why don't you try reading RBG's original piece for yourself, instead of relying on what some partisan hack with an agenda wants you to believe about it.

Have you actually read it?

I have.

Go to the attached link and start reading on page 74 of 222, the part titled:

Terminology: Discussion and Recommendations

You will plainly see that RBG was only discussing gender based terminology within a sample statute, not the specific age of consent.

KPC

From: K Cummings
10-Nov-18

K Cummings's Link
Sorry, I forgot the link.

KPC

From: slade
10-Nov-18
Thanks, but I already have the link and as posted above ED WHELAN addressed it.

From: K Cummings
10-Nov-18
Great, try reading it and forming your own opinion, not the one someone else told you to adopt.

KPC

From: slade
10-Nov-18
You mean like you did when you critically thought and used Snopes as your source and doubled down on it, thanks for laugh.

From: K Cummings
10-Nov-18
"You mean like you did when you critically thought and used Snopes as your source and doubled down on it, thanks for laugh. }

Exactly.

I searched the accusation on Snopes, found out where it originated, went to the actual report that RBG co-authored, actually read the pertinent portion for myself, and formed my own opinion on what was, and more importantly what was not said.

We're laughing too slade. Not with you...but at you.

KPC

From: slade
10-Nov-18
Yea sure you did, you could only copy and post links and jpegs from Snopes until I supplied links with links to the original.

And the opinion you formed is wrong, along with the other progressives who you used to back your opinion which you now claim is original thought. What a disingenuous fraud.

From: K Cummings
10-Nov-18

K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
"Yea sure you did, you could only copy and post links and jpegs from Snopes until I supplied links with links to the original. "

The hot link to the original report was IN the Snopes article genius. That's where I found it, read it, and how I formed my own opinion.

Keep digging slade, and we'll all keep laughing.

KPC

From: slade
11-Nov-18
I admit I was wrong about the link , but your original thought based on Snopes, politico and the other progressives are still wrong....

From: slade
11-Nov-18

From: slade
11-Nov-18
Eugene Volokh: Eugene Volokh is an American law professor, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law.

1. Justice Ginsburg is indeed on the record as having endorsed lowering the age of consent to 12. When she was a law professor at Columbia, she, Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, former director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project, and 15 law students put together a report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The report, released in 1977, gave as one of its "Recommendations" (p. 102):

18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years" and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.

The report also said (p. 97) that "Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions" (citing the right-of-privacy cases), and urged that various federal prostitution statutes be "[r]epeal[ed]." This isn't precisely the same as saying that "there's a constitutional right to prostitution," because of the qualifier "arguably," but it's not that far off; the report wasn't merely impartially noting that this is one possible position, but seemingly endorsing it as the sounder position.

2. Was the quote, though, taken out of context? That, I take it, is the heart of Mr. Noah's argument. "Yes, the language Ginsburg quotes with approval puts the age of consent at 12, which does seem awfully young. But she isn't addressing herself to the age issue; she's addressing herself to the gender issue. Is her praise meant to constitute an endorsement of the entire bill? Of course not. Ginsburg makes this explicit in a footnote in which she complains that even this language 'retains use of the masculine pronoun to cover individuals of both sexes,' which at the very least is confusing if it's intended to outlaw statutory (and other) rape by women, too." (Here Mr. Noah is quoting from a 1974 version of this report; he didn't have a copy of Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.)

Yet then-existing federal law set the age of consent at 16. If the Ginsburg report had only intended to make the law sex-neutral, it could have done so without suggesting a new age of consent, or endorsing a proposed federal bill that lowered the age of consent. Yet the Ginsburg report's proposal recommended the replacement of a sex-specific age of consent of 16 with a sex-neutral age of consent of 12. It seems to me quite fair, and not a "smear," to fault the report for suggesting this change.

The report's recommendation tracked the proposal in a then-recent senate bill (S. 1400 § 1633), but the authors were perfectly free to urge their own language, or to urge a mix of the bill language and their own language. In fact, as Mr. Noah himself points out, the Ginsburg report criticized S. 1400's use of "he" to cover both men and women. If the Ginsburg report disagreed with the proposal's lowering of the age of consent to 12, the report could easily have noted that as well, or at least could have noted that it was agnostic about the age of consent, and was recommending only the sex-neutralization aspects of the S. 1400 proposal.

Moreover, the Ginsburg report isn't bashful about expressing itself on some matters besides sex discrimination. For instance, its criticism of prostitution bans isn't limited to objections that the bans discriminate based on sex (either on their face or in their enforcement); the report also argues that prostitution may be substantively constitutionally protected as part of people's sexual autonomy rights (p. 72 of the 1974 version, p. 97 of the 1977 version). The Report likewise faults the Mann Act, which "prohibits the transportation of women and girls for prostitution, debauchery, or any other immoral purpose" (emphasis mine) not just for its sex discrimination, but also because it is "too broad and vague," and an "invasion of privacy" (p. 73 of the 1974 version, p. 98 of the 1977 version).

Mr. Noah suggests that "Ginsburg didn't address the age-of-consent issue because it wasn't relevant to her topic. Say it with me. She wasn't writing about age; she was writing about gender!" Yet the report, though about gender and not about sexual autonomy rights, vagueness, or overbreadth, opined on a possible constitutional right to engage in prostitution, and the vagueness and breadth of the Mann Act. If the report's authors found fault with the Senate bill's proposed age of consent, they could likewise have easily said so. (Mr. Noah is right to point out that the report's authors continued to include the spousal rape exception in their recommendation, though it's probable that they didn't much like that exception. That part of the recommendation, though, maintained then-existing law, so presumably the drafters didn't want to take on a new fight there. The lowering of the age of consent, though, would have dramatically changed existing law, and it's hard to see why they would endorse the change if they didn't actually support the change.)

3. Mr. Noah also asks — based on my own observation that the version of S. 1400 § 1633 that I could find provided an age of 16, not 12 — "Could all this Sturm und Drang be over . . . a typo? A typo that, mysteriously, was transposed from Ginsburg's 1974 paper to the 1977 booklet? That would be too rich."

As it happens, I have just today found another version of S. 1400 § 1633 (excerpted in 13 Crim. Law Reporter 3011, Apr. 4, 1973), which did set the age of consent at twelve. This must be the version to which the Ginsburg report referred. Yet even if it were possible that the Ginsburg report simply had a copying error in it (I surely can't fault Mr. Noah for not having found the version that I couldn't find earlier myself), I don't see how this possibility would make Sen. Graham's and Mr. Whelan's criticism of Justice Ginsburg into a "smear," or even how it would "seriously undermine[ Volokh's original] argument" (Mr. Noah's words).

It seems to me that people are entitled to take others' proposals at face value, at least unless there's an obvious drafting error (to give a hypothetical example, imagine a proposal that mentions an age of consent of "sixteen days" instead of "sixteen years"). If the proposal's author then says "Whoops, I miswrote something," or even "Very sorry, a too-libertarian student added this, and I didn't catch it," we should certainly consider that explanation, and generally accept it. But unless such an explanation is forthcoming from the authors or others who know (and not just guess), it's no "smear" to accurately summarize and criticize others' writing.

4. Finally, I should certainly acknowledge that Sen. Graham was inexact in the tense of his statements that Justice Ginsburg "represents the ACLU," "wants the age of consent to be 12," and "believes there's a constitutional right to prostitution." Obviously, Justice Ginsburg represented the ACLU in the 1970s; she doesn't represent them as a lawyer now. Moreover, we don't know for sure that Justice Ginsburg, even if she endorsed every word in her report, would still recommend today that the age of consent be lowered to 12, or would still say that there's even "arguably" a constitutional right to prostitution. Justice Ginsburg's reputation as a judge in the 1980s and a justice since the 1990s has been of a relatively moderate liberal, not the harder-core liberal that seems to be visible in the pages of the reports. Perhaps she's changed her views (as Mr. Noah suggests), or, again, perhaps she didn't closely review every word that appeared in the initial report. But again it hardly seems like a "smear" to attribute to people their past views, unless they have specifically recanted their views; the more careful and precise usage is to make clear that Justice Ginsburg said she wanted this in the past, not that she wants it today, but the less careful usage is no smear.

It thus seems to me that Sen. Graham and Mr. Whelan are more sinned against than sinning here. They accurately reported or quoted the views expressed in the report that Justice Ginsburg cowrote. The accounts are indeed in context, given that the report was suggesting a change in the law, and that the report felt free to opine not just on sex discrimination but also on some substantive matters. Maybe there was an error in the report, maybe Justice Ginsburg didn't fully check everything the report contained, or maybe her views are different now. But it seems to me unsound to characterize Sen. Graham's statement as a "smear" or Mr. Whelan's accurate quotes from the Ginsburg report as "ridiculously distorted."

11-Nov-18
Working overtime I see spin Meister.

Lol.

From: slade
11-Nov-18
Still ankle biting I see appeaser.....:)

From: K Cummings
11-Nov-18

K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
"Working overtime I see spin Meister."

Unfortunately, it would appear that he punched out just a little too soon.

Had he kept working just a little longer, he might have realized that Volokh, in his own blog dated September 30, 2005, pretty much concluded that he was "indeed likely mistaken."

Oops...

KPC

From: K Cummings
11-Nov-18

K Cummings's Link
Link to Volokh's blog, dated September 30, 2005, titled:

It Looks Like Justice Ginsburg Likely Was the Victim of a Drafting Error After All; and it looks like I erroneously failed to recognize just how likely this was to be an error.

KPC

From: KSflatlander
11-Nov-18
Yeah it’s time to stop digging. There’s nothing wrong with manning up (not a gender neutral word) and admitting your wrong. There’s everything wrong with having irrefutable evidence in front of you and still claiming to be right. You don’t like RBG fine, but don’t base it on fake news.

11-Nov-18
KS,

You are now an official pontificating, ankle biting appeaser. Welcome to the club, name granted by a wannabe third grader.

Slade, the reason I started the 'Predictions' thread was to flush out the folks like you who cannot think for themselves. The ones who can not read competing views, discern a pattern and make a close call. Some like you have no idea so they either say what their far right base espouses, or because of the anxiety of having to make their own call just retreat to Mom's basement, aka, their residence where in their comfort zone they alternate between video game jockey and key board tough guy.

From: Rocky
11-Nov-18
Frank,

" the reason I started the 'Predictions' thread was to flush out the folks like you who cannot think for themselves". What purpose would it serve and ulterior motive of this flushing out of those " who cannot think for themselves"? Where would one acquire these skills and then determine, once revealed to ones self, those believed afflicted? Who would wield the power to categorize these inferior and dangerous people ala McCarthyism to " lend a helping hand"?

Welcome to the club?.....I would leave that one right where it sits and leave fast. I've learned a few things in my life comrade. Maybe just a "few" but those few I know well enough to raise a eyebrow. Example: Matt/GG and myself are for the most part oil and water. There are occasions where we rattle the sword, draw the sword but refrain, sometimes inches away from using it for its intended purpose. A respect slowly builds that you are assured if you should engage, you may be nicked, but the ultimate comfort is to realize you are at heated odds at times with someone who leaves you a way out. That is slaying your opponent, rounding out your argument, replete with a compliment and a bandage for the future fight or possibly a not so colorful agreement with you opponent. ;-0

I believe you may have unwittingly fallen into the same exact trap that you have devised. This vaguely connected but consistent agreement pertaining to certain individuals appears on the surface to be a "unity of thought reunion". The CF has rehashed this many times before. I imagine I can then agree with your assessment of " those who cannot think for themselves" may be true indeed.

Whadda ya think?

The Rock

From: MK111
11-Nov-18
Want to start a list of who really cares?

11-Nov-18
Rock,

I think you vascillate back and forth from Pluto to Rocky, still not sure why.

The CF was dominated by voices on the extreme right that went unchallenged for too long. It became ridiculous, sophmoric actually, when others chimed in like mindless trolls.

I think we both want conservative idealogy to be respected and taken seriously. Serious thought requires reflection and a willingness to hear and engage the other side without always being reduced to name calling and meme posting, IMHO Rock.

That is why I confront falsehoods, propaganda etc from the right. I hope folks from the left reading the CF observe there are men who believe in God, markets, guns, hunting who are normal and rational and treat woman as required.

Hope that helps? Rock, you talk of your respect growing via interacting here, like with GG. That is great. For me, personal contact is necessary for a respectful friendship and bond to cement. This is just about conversation and the vetting of a difference of opinions. That type of engagement for me at least requires honest and consistent behavior. The lack of either causes my irritation and sharp edge to show. I offer no apology for that.

From: K Cummings
11-Nov-18
"That is why I confront falsehoods, propaganda etc from the right. I hope folks from the left reading the CF observe there are men who believe in God, markets, guns, hunting who are normal and rational and treat woman as required."

"This is just about conversation and the vetting of a difference of opinions. That type of engagement for me at least requires honest and consistent behavior. The lack of either causes my irritation and sharp edge to show. I offer no apology for that."

That has been my MO here for the better part of two decades, much to the dismay and disdain of a number of folks here... whether they be on the right, left, and in the middle. Right wing propaganda and fake news is no better in my book that left wing propaganda and fake news.

Little irritates me more than someone who does nothing but regurgitate some partisan talking point, or loony conspiracy theory, on either side, without a modicum of thought regarding it's accuracy or plausibility.

KPC

From: Rocky
11-Nov-18
Frank,

Looking for an answer is all. Prefer to defer if you may. That is the option of those who can and those who some believe can't think for themselves. Maybe you should inquire about the planets and constellations yourself because it is not all that bad listening at times to the thoughts and opinions of earthlings. ;-)

The Rock

From: slade
11-Nov-18
I saw it and the original before it, was linked to my national review piece, but that would take away the fun of having you twist in your panties and post pics of doc's , creatively use the italics and beat your chest like a little banty rooster , along with your ankle biter..

Ah, but it did say what I say it did, two attorneys explained it.....No matter what you critical pontificated it to be.

Because one now says it may, might, could, possibly be, is likely a drafting error does not change the fact of what it says..... Next

From: K Cummings
11-Nov-18
The only one twisting in their panties is you slade. I’ll give you credit, you can put the very best contortionists to shame.

While highly unlikely, let’s assume you actually did see Volokh’s retraction.

The fact that you would still run with his original “erroneous” contention, just because it appeared to support your preconceived narrative, tells us all we need to know about your motives.

Keep digging slade, keep digging. After all, eventually you’ll arrive somewhere.

KPC

11-Nov-18
Rock,

I love listening to the opinions of others, if original. Not the regurgitation of some talking head, as Kevin pointed out.

That's why I read several hours a day, and form my own opinions based on credible information. I don't defer, at least not too often.

Sincere thanks for the dialogue!

From: NvaGvUp
11-Nov-18
Is it just me, or do others here have concerns about slade's mental health?

From: slade
11-Nov-18
Keep spinning what "is" is....

I 'm still waiting for you to dig up the article where RBG sets the record straight.......

From: slade
11-Nov-18
The bitter narcissistic feeble one who goes after others source of income talking about mental health, now that's funny. But hey, thanks for the free rent..

You are such a bitter revengeful fool you wanted to believe I actually posted or agreed with the wack'o sites KPC listed " Did you or did you not claim those things?" ""Wanna' even TRY to deal with K Cummings posts noting the very things you wrote, slade?"

From: K Cummings
11-Nov-18
"Is it just me, or do others here have concerns about slade's mental health?

Health, no. Capacity, yes.

KPC

From: slade
11-Nov-18
And yet here you are again going down rabbitt holes after you claimed upteen times it won't happen again.

From: NvaGvUp
11-Nov-18
K Cummings,

Diminished capacity at the minimum.

I fear it's beyond that.

From: slade
11-Nov-18
Bitter feeble one, you had better get on the Pontificators and Appeasers PM gossip club, you would fit in well.

From: Coyote 65
11-Nov-18
What ever happened to thread owner tools, for those times when a thread derails.

Terry

From: K Cummings
12-Nov-18
"And yet here you are again going down rabbitt[sic] holes after you claimed upteen[sic] times it won't happen again."

While I understand your desire to shift the focus away from your unsupportable statements, I find it rather ironic that your attempt to do so is again...unsupportable.

In keeping with my overall desire to expose hypocrisy, lies, conspiracy theories, and fake news, I have never made such a claim, not even once...let alone "upteen" times.

On the contrary, as long as I participate here, I will always attempt to point those things out, whenever I see them.

KPC

12-Nov-18
So, is she still in the hospital? ;)

From: Brotsky
12-Nov-18
I think she's in Florida counting ballots.

From: Treeline
12-Nov-18
Or maybe Arizona...

12-Nov-18
Ask Spike, he will know;)

From: K Cummings
12-Nov-18
I read on fellowshipoftheminds.com that RBG is out of the hospital, and she is currently running a child prostitution ring out of a DC pizza joint.

KPC

12-Nov-18
I thought it was Starbucks?

From: NvaGvUp
12-Nov-18
Kevin,

I'm sure slade already knows that.

LOL

From: bad karma
12-Nov-18
Wasn't the fellow ship of the minds also known as "the minnow"?

From: Rocky
12-Nov-18
Don't tell me. Another group chime in pile on. I had believed the playing field was leveled for everyone and their opinions to agree or disagree. Once again the dragon of popularity rears its ugly head after feasting, simply for a childish circle of laughs directed at others. There is a PM function that people can opt to use in lieu of grandstanding against someone in public but insecurity requires a large tent.

Not good.

The Rock

The Rock

12-Nov-18
Rock.

You may have a valid point, but have you ever taken exception to Slade's vicious name calling? If not, please reconsider your definition of a level playing field.

I bet all others involved here will agree we welcome all participation that at least attempts to be respectful, most of the time at least.

Thanks.

From: NvaGvUp
12-Nov-18
The Minnow. along with The Captain and Mary Ann!

From: bad karma
12-Nov-18
Disagreeing is one thing. Doubling down on citing discredited sources and fake news is quite another.

From: Rocky
13-Nov-18
The news outlets are littered with fake news and discredited sources and many times at first view by the subject in question, "before retraction", can be believed referencing a newsworthy source. ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox news have wantonly positioned themselves to retract. Now granted Frankie D. & Fred's Worldwide News should raise a eyebrow I agree, and may give reason to pause. Should someone spread a untruth, a misprint or wayward questionable story that was reported to be true under the belief and or hope, they should not be the target of comedic ire for the purpose to belittle and embarrass, providing not being caught red-handed with the printing press in his basement. The former was the sole intent IMO but I could be mistaken. I myself as have others I will not mention, have been dressed down for various unconventional methods and content penned here on the CF. I myself for my somewhat lavish, incoherent embellishment and use of the English language when I am mentally cruising at 30,000 ft. Rare air, where the attacks stem from the inability of others to understand ink placed in a other than elementary order such as See Spot run. Coincidentally those who attack quickly gain confirmation and posts from their like minded counterparts as if to validate the original contention and to add. All the laughter of the assembled mob as if reacting to Tarzan's beconing call in the hoary belief because they did not "understand". They don't "understand" but strangely they laugh and chide.

The former ramblings of fill and text aside I would advise: We should all refrain from belittling a member, other than the obvious trolls who relish that degradation, who then returns fire of its own. The stage is then set for a future blowout altercation tied to a personal vengeance of the past. Who benefits? The audience and the pop corn vendors.

The Rock

From: K Cummings
13-Nov-18
"Disagreeing is one thing. Doubling down on citing discredited sources and fake news is quite another.

At the end of the day, this is what these things usually boil down to.

When a person continually chooses to cite questionable "news" sources, they should probably expect legitimate pushback in terms of the validity of the opinions contained within. Then, when a person chooses to respond to that pushback with personal attacks, name calling, etc., they should probably expect what usually comes next.

Hornets don't very often attack unprovoked however if you kick a hornets nest, it's not the hornet's fault if you get stung.

KPC

From: slade
13-Nov-18
""When a person continually chooses to site questionable "news" sources""

Such a disingenuous worm , keep spreading your lies pontificator.

13-Nov-18
Rock,

See last post, your theory is toast. ;)

We understand just fine. I work with gobs of intellectuals, they will tell you so. I do not hear them ever pontificate with the high octane caliber of your poetry.

But then again, I have never smoked the whacky or been around a toakers convention in full throttle. It appears I have not missed much;)

From: K Cummings
13-Nov-18
I rest my case.

KPC

From: NvaGvUp
13-Nov-18
RBG is not back on the job yet. She's missed another day at SCOTUS.

From: Rocky
13-Nov-18
Frank,

I imagine "understanding" in a convoluted way could be confused with "overestimating". Therein may very well be my problem. Thinking in overtime does not pay time and a half, the dividends much higher. One thing is becoming ominously clear. Either you have purposely avoided the "bud" or the "bud" has purposely avoided you. Whichever, one or both of you have wasted a telling experience.

Think it possible the weakness resides in the reader of the text, deflecting the deficiency on the text itself? I believe your "intellectuals" have yonder to travel but would enjoy the rendezvous none the less, wherever the hell that may be. ;-) I can arrange a speaking engagement for your class and your "intellectuals" can engage me. " High" comedy for your students. ;-)

YOUR one of the good guys Frank I know that, but you can't reach down for something above you. ;-)

The Rock

From: Rocky
13-Nov-18
Matt, You think this is a joke. Stop playing around and send that Star Ship to pick me up and bring me home. This place is not all its cracked up to be.

out..... The Rock

From: HDE
13-Nov-18
"RBG is not back on the job yet."

Apparently she is telecommuting, aka, working from home.

From: slade
13-Nov-18
Talk about hypocrites, it is obvious why you think it is ok for Google, Facebook etc to censor what they deemed fake news, you do the same here, you pompous bloviating fools only believe in free speech/thought when it suits your needs or objective, your newest ploy is ""Fake News "' like progressives used in order to control others. You have my sympathy, living with an inferior complex so deeply embedded in ones psychic it compels one to believe it's there duty to control others thoughts or speech.

Just like you had a problem with "Thread Owner Tools, Pat named it thread owner tool for a reason, it was the OP's thread not your thread to derail it.

What I say or call you cowards on this thread is no different than I would say to your face,I get to the point, unlike thy spineless weasels who use implied statements and negative connotations and somehow that makes you a better than.

From: slade
13-Nov-18
RGB's paper written while working for the ACLU was written in the late 70's and it sat there uncorrected for over a decade (I remember Rush talking about this in the 80's) until Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum (what you refer to as a far right conspiracy nut job site) came across it when vetting RBG. For some reason the GOP did not use any of the background research and RBG was confirmed by a vast majority of booth parties. I have read that Hatch and other appeasers who led from behind agreed beforehand to confirm her, maybe because she was women of sixty and they thought she would do less damage than a 45 yr old, who's really knows.

We move forward to 2005 when Sen. Lindsey Graham mentioned the age of consent, out came progressives making all kinds of claims like she was only speaking about gender, but they are unable to say why 16-18 was removed and replaced by 12 if they were only talking about gender.

Others such as Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post wrote "But even if Ginsburg took that position, it doesn't tell you all that much -- which is no doubt why she got just one question about the report during her confirmation hearings. She hadn't made getting rid of Mother's Day her life's work. And in any event, she had a much more recent body of work -- her dozen years as an appeals court judge -- that belied any notion that she was a raging lefty." the good old that was then, this is now and "what difference does it matter".

No where do the progressives or pontificating banty capon's deny the rest of her far left musing's , yet one must believe that a lawyer of her intelligence and attention to detail let that "12" slide and they now use weak arguments such as might,could, probably, likely as concrete evidence in this one circumstance in a 230 page paper RBG did not mean what was written .

You can imply all you want with your snide derogatory connotations , I am not buying it..........and no you will not censor me.

From: NvaGvUp
13-Nov-18
You won't admit to your demented state, nor back away from your sophomoric posts until the nice young men in their clean white coats show up to haul you off to the Funny Farm, will you, slade?

And not even then.

From: slade
13-Nov-18
The bitter feeble one, giving free rent 24/7.

From: NvaGvUp
13-Nov-18
There you go again!

13-Nov-18
Rock,

Thanks, and I know you are one of the good guys also, sincerely.

It was my choice. I wanted to make something of myself, and life has been tough enough with my senses intact. It's as simple as that.

Regarding reaching down, Slade's attacks on people serve to stifle their voices just like he is accusing others of doing to him. Think about it.

I hate bullies, an awful lot. I have been on a Mission from God, but it has little to do with music other than tuning up a few blowhards through the years;)

From: K Cummings
13-Nov-18
”Talk about hypocrites, it is obvious why you think it is ok for Google, Facebook etc to censor what they deemed fake news, you do the same here, you pompous bloviating fools only believe in free speech/thought when it suits your needs or objective, your newest ploy is ""Fake News "' like progressives used in order to control others. You have my sympathy, living with an inferior complex so deeply embedded in ones psychic it compels one to believe it's there duty to control others thoughts or speech.”

Just so I’m sure I have this straight, the guy who thinks he should have the ability to block and remove other posters is accusing the guy who adamantly disagrees with that concept of wanting to censor others? Is that Correct?

Talk about living in an alternate reality.

Never once have I suggested that you don’t have the right to post whatever you want, from whatever nutty website it originated.

By all means, knock yourself out. Just don’t expect it to go unchallenged.

KPC

From: K Cummings
14-Nov-18
"We move forward to 2005 when Sen. Lindsey Graham mentioned the age of consent, out came progressives making all kinds of claims like she was only speaking about gender, but they are unable to say if they were only talking about gender. "

Was it actually "removed and replaced?"

(From Volokh's blog...see link)

"As it happens, I have just today found another version of S. 1400 § 1633 (excerpted in 13 Crim. Law Reporter 3011, Apr. 4, 1973), which did set the age of consent at twelve. This must be the version to which the Ginsburg report referred.

KPC

From: K Cummings
14-Nov-18
"What I say or call you cowards on this thread is no different than I would say to your face ,I get to the point, unlike thy spineless weasels who use implied statements and negative connotations and somehow that makes you a better than.

On a side note, I find it rather interesting that someone who would accuse others of being "cowards" and "spineless weasels" would be so sensitive when it comes to people legitimately challenging their opinions, theories and sources.

Quite frankly, in my opinion this why is everybody always picking on me stuff is getting tired.

I literally could not care less what people call me, say about what I post, what meme they create, or what disgusting, vile garbage they PM to me. Furthermore, I have never blocked a person from posting on a thread I started, removed something someone else posted, or attempted to have a person removed from this site...ever.

I've always believed that the true "cowards" and "spineless weasels" are the ones who seek to censor others or complain incessantly when others challenge their opinions.

On the contrary, I've always believed that if a person has the courage of their convictions, they have the confidence to say what they believe is right, even (or especially) when other people may not agree or approve.

But hey, that's just me. I'm sure others will disagree...and that's OK too.

KPC

From: slade
14-Nov-18
"As it happens, I have just today found another version of S. 1400 § 1633 (excerpted in 13 Crim. Law Reporter 3011, Apr. 4, 1973), which did set the age of consent at twelve. This must be the version to which the Ginsburg report referred.

Link please to the version please..

From: K Cummings
14-Nov-18

K Cummings's Link
Here is a link to the blog entry (September 21, 2005) where Volokh mentions finding the other version.

If you want to spend the time researching the archives you are welcome to it. I've done more than enough research on this subject to conclude, at least to my satisfaction, that the claim that RBG wanted to lower the age of consent to 12 is simply not true.

Apparently, even the lawyer that you previously referred to as proof that the accusation that RBG had indeed wanted to decrease the age of consent to 12 is accurate (Eugene Volokh: Gary T. Schwartz Distingquished Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law) has recanted that assertion also.

KPC

  • Sitka Gear