Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

That's it. Shoot the messenger.

As I recall, BK did not admit to the serious charges, but did admit to issues with drinking — even underage. And some of his friends said that there was something that occasionally almost went off the rails when he was drinking. I think that would qualify as youthful foolishness, at a minimum.

Well . . . I can't imagine what messenger I shot.

Kavanaugh admitted to liking beer. Lots of guys like beer. (I don't.) Not sure what you mean when his friends said "he went off the rails." I never heard any of that. Do you have an article I could read? Otherwise it's fake news.

Kavanaugh did have a HS friend who succumbed to adult alcohol problems. BK tried to help him. Blousey Ford said he was present at the incident. He remembers nothing. CBF also cited her friend Leland Ingham, ex-wife of pundit Bob Beckel, as a witness. Unfortunately, she also remembered nothing of the alleged incident.

And you really didn't read what I said, because I did not say he was unqualified or that he had done anything since college other than live and act in a very sound and professional manner. And I did not say he would be a bad judge. I did mention that both sides were looking to pigeon-hole any nominee as either for or against certain things — abortion issues being predominant — and that he did not really give cause for either side to think they had him in their pocket. And for that I respect him. We will see how well he actually lives up to the ideal of a constitutional scholar, though if he does, it will not make either side as happy as they might like.

It is the President's prerogative to choose a Justice, none of which ever made everyone happy.

It is clear that there was something amiss in the way opponents waited to spring the charges. But that does not prove anything to be untrue. And there were a variety of eye-witness accounts that suggested problems with both the charges as stated, and with claims of purity in the matter. I give both sides the benefit of the doubt and concluded that he would make a good judge. I just wished that it would have been without a cloud over character. Trump had the opportunity to move on to another nominee that might have a better record.

Here your bias and lack of discernment is on full display. The Senate Democrats broke all the rules, hoping to smear BK in the public. So many lies were exposed in Ford's testimony to completely discredit her witness. The benefit of the doubt was completely wasted on her. Trump was definitely right to stand up for BK, and time has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that "Anita Hill Act 2" was just another disingenuous case of a "Jussie Smollett."

But if they really believed that they had someone who would truly rule to overturn aspects of Roe v Wade, then they had private conversations indicating that he would simply rule in certain ways without reference to rules of precedence or law, or to the constitution. The constitution does not simply lean conservative or liberal. It is not a sword that favors Republicans over Democrats (or the other way around for those looking in from the left). It is a sound framework in which the government has limitations and guidelines within which it must operate. It has less to say about the people who the government "rules." Therefore it should be understood more a limiter on how rules restrict the people and a block against excessive restriction against the people.

You are obviously obsessed with Roe. The SCOTUS judges on a wide range of appeals. But apparently OBW can read minds, and knows that "private conversations" must have occurred, otherwise Trump should nominate another RBG, which would "please both sides." (According to CNN anyway)

But more important is that our calling should not just to be to "speak for the voiceless" by demanding that there be an end to all abortion as we hurl insults at those who disagree, but more importantly that we seek to help those who might otherwise feel compelled to take the route of abortion, whether just to change their mind on that issue, or even to find their hope in Christ. And also to help those who live on under a personal cloud because of past actions.

So those who are pro-life merely "hurl insults" at those who disagree. Sounds like CNN. Didn't they make the snap decision that Nick Sandmann was to blame? Of course, Sandmann was guilty of hurling insults at that Viet Nam Vet Native American drummer. Isn't that what all pro-life people do? They all hurl insults! That's what they do! So says OBW.

I agree that we need to speak for the voiceless. But somehow we need to find a way that is not simply to demonize or criminalize everyone on the other side of the issue.

Someone needs to speak up for conservative, God-fearing men, women, and children! That would be me on this forum, since these same folks are regularly demonized or criminalized here.