Taro T

People are still forgetting that this cuts across both aisles. It's just w/ the R'sin charge, their bad actors appear to be able to walk away to "spend time w/ their family." The other guy bad actors get to dangle.

Dude, watch this crud plays out. WE have ALL been shafted by our "masters." It was easier here to get on board because the "good guys" were theroretically on 'my side.' But a lot of those protaganists have shown themselves to enemies as well. Like Carlin said "it's a big club and you ain't invited."

Ok, Arrapaio got a pardon. So, you believe Strozk deserves s Purple Heart. Really?

Why would ANYONE call lazy reporters fake news? Clearly, there are lazy reporters. Not fake. Real. Don't know how many of them are lazy. But there absolutely is a subset that includes them.

Well, because without having seen her position yet on Judge Kavanaugh, do expect it is likely she will do some grandstanding. Though if she is truly opposed to Barrett, she might see this choice as her best option to get a judge she can accept.

Not taking that bet.

If McCain isn't available, all it takes is 1 R to vote no & the D's can then block the nomination.

Barrett seems like a good choice on first blush. Need to read more about her.

That may be possible. It doesn't change the fact that Roman Catholics are Christians.

Roman Catholics ARE Christians. Listing them separately is redundant. What an awful thing to go through w/ your wife. You have my condolences. You and your mother will be in my prayers.

And here's to hoping that it's a loser for the Democrats in November, because if it isn't, then we all lose.

That they are.

Uh, is the answer the 2008 Democratic primary contest?

Reading comprehension apparently isn't one of your stronger skill sets. There really is no reason to continue this conversation as your continued attempts to change the conversation to something we weren't discussing will remain unsuccessful.

Unable to walk w/out assistance?

Interesting that you appear to be attempting to lump all of the right into "the far right." Nobody here, that isn't merely treating you like a cat toy, is going to play your game.

Had the quote w/in the post that was being responded to stated that the right had "never" resorted to the type of behavior we are seeing nearly daily from the far left & now being encouraged by politicians on the left, perhaps your comment would have merit. That quote didn't. It simply claimed that was "never done by the left" here during the author's lifetime. Was merely calling out that the author was either very young or was lying. Please show me any posts of mine that claim the right doesn't have a lunatic fringe. You can't because that has never been a claim of mine. Not sure why you're laughing about abortion clinic bombings, but that's your choice.

But, but, ... he walked that statement back. He didn't really mean it; really he didn't. /the usual suspects

Thus the comment placed within parentheses pointing out the Q was directed at the original author of the quote.

Another consequence of Global Warming? Is that why the media would report on it?

It was "never done by the left during your lifetime?" Are you young enough that the anti fur protesters weren't throwing paint at women wearing fur coats during your lifetime? (The Q is directed at original author of the quote.) Granted that was lunatic fringe left, but it still was the left. Apparently the caveats about scale & support were there to mitigate the term "never" but that seems kind of intellectually dishonest. At least to this observer, it does.

As long as there is a Sotomayer, a Ginsburg is basically redundant. (Though Ginsburg defends & provides support for her views much more convincingly than Sotomayer does.)

That would be huge. If Trump were to continue to nominate conservative justices, that would make Roberts the swing vote should the thusfar unnamed conservative be approved.

Wow. The Liberals & Roberts were right on this one. Cool.

Not sure if there is an ongoing investigation into the e-mail & private server or not at this time. Would expect that one thing to fall out of the bias found in the initial investigation/investigators would be a reopening of that investigation by the FBI but this time with investigators that at least claim to be impartial heading into the investigation. As to your statement prior to th 2nd Q. From what has come out so far, really think that Comey was at least partially, if not fully, in the dark as to what McCabe, Strzok, Page and others were doing. Which should, in itself, be grounds for firing him for incompetence. Also, pretty sure that he thought that by "exonerating" Clinton in late October that he was actually doing her a favor by tamping down a potential post-election scandal before it started. Namely, had he waited until after the election to bring up the Weiner e-mails, people would have accused him of having covered up for her. This way, the coronation could proceed as planned and nobody would have been able to complain about the investigation having been hidden as he divulged it pre-election. Your 2nd Q is the $64k one.