Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson:Most Qualified and Experienced USSC Nominee in modern HISTORY

[noonereal]

What "definition" are you talking about, and how does it "fit perfectly" in your mind?

I'm well aware of what AA is, and what it is NOT. I suggest you look up the Presidential E.O's beginning with JFK and expanded most by Nixon) that created and defined Affirmative Action in word and deed.


OK....so let's talk specifics.

Let's talk "best qualified".
Were Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas, who rank as BY FAR the least-qualified and least experienced candidates to be elevated to the Supreme Court....also Affirmative Action" appointments in your mind?

Let's talk "discrimination".

• Was it "discrimination" when Trump immediately (within 24 hours) announced his intent to choose a conservative woman from a list provided to him by the Federalist Society....to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg?
• Was it "discrimination" when Ronald Reagan declared, in advance (i.e. during the 1980 presidential campaign) his intention to pick a female (Sandra Day O'Connor) to the Court.
• If you believe so (to the above), please explain the opposition to Brown-Jackson's nomination by GOPers today.

Let's talk about what "meritocracy" really means to some people.

• The Constitution does not list gender, race, religion, attendance/graduation from law school, nor even citizenship status as requirements to become a USSC Justice. Never has.
• And yet, for the first 200 years of this country, EVER single USSC Justice was white and male.
• In that same 200 years, only 6 Catholics and 5 Jews (all male, of course) were selected to serve on the Court.
• Since 1981, there have been 5 females elevated to the Court (2 white, 1 brown, 2 Jewish).
• And yet, despite the FACT that at no point in our history has it EVER been illegal for a non-white, non-male, non-protestant American to serve on the USSC....."somehow" those in power in this country determined that the most qualified choice was a white male in EVERY occasion until 1967....and male until 1981.

So question #1 for you is this: Do you honestly believe that "MERIT" has EVER truly been a relevant criteria in determining which Americans are chosen to become USSC Justices? Or, is the TRUTH that the single-greatest "merit" was (then as now) the "merit" of being white and male in the eyes of other white males empowered to extend such opportunities?

The simple FACT is that, throughout our history, the USSC has mirrored American society has a whole, in that it has LITERALLY been a real-time experiment in AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for WHITE MEN.

Let's talk HISTORY and Hypocrisy.

• The entire history of the USSC shows that there have been 115 Justices appointed, thus far. Jackson stands be become the 116th. Of those, 110 have been men. And, of those 110 men, 108 have been WHITE men.
• Not ONCE in the entire post-Civil Rights era of the Court, has there been ANY talk about "qualifications" or "discrimination", etc.....when the nominee has been white and male. That "debate" ONLY arises when the nominee is a non-white, non-male and non-conservative American.

• So, here is question #2 for you: Do you honestly believe it coincidental that the ONLY time we ever talk about "qualifications", "discrimination", etc.....is when (and ONLY when) a particular candidate is black, brown and/or female?

Why? Please explain.

• Reagan announced (DURING THE 1980 CAMPAIGN) his intent to select a female with his very first opportunity to fill a seat on SCOTUS.
• Bush '41 announced in advance, his intent to select a "minority" to succeed the late, great Thurgood Marshall.
• Trump announcced, in advance, his intent to select a female replacement for RBG.

I've been an educated voter throughout all of the above nominations, and NOT ONCE did I see or hear about ANY concerns about "discrimination" from GOPers when those hardcore conservatives were nominated.

Can you explain that for me?

"...makes" what, exactly? And who is "he"?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Please clarify.


Yes, really. What in the world does 7% have to do with anything we are discussing?

No need to respond if it intended as an aside. I'm just trying to follow your arguments and that one made no sense to me.

You need to drop the excessive verbiage and logical fallacies.

Best of luck

 

[ultmd]

You just make crap up, don't you?

Only if you consider posting FACTS to be "making crap up", I suppose.

Again, if you could articulate a cogent defense, you'd have done so by now.

But I get it. You're goal is to express your dissent and displeasure with a nominee who ranks (literally) at the very top of the pyramid in terms of EVERY possible measure of experience and/or qualification imaginable. And you can't just own up to your real sentiments, because (like most of your ilk)....you don't have the "stones" for that kind of honest dialogue, I suppose.

So the best you could come up with was the ignorant drivel you've offered up in this thread.

I get it. I really do.

 

[ultmd]

You need to drop the excessive verbiage and logical fallacies.

...is that what you call "FACTS that I cannot rebut"?

This is a debate board, and yet you run from "excessive verbiage"? That's funny.

The truth is what it is. Facts are what they are. They do not require your acceptance, much less your engagement in a discussion of their merits (or lack thereof). Your inability to respond substantively to the facts I've laid out (i.e. that "excessive verbiage" stuff).....is the "ballgame", here.

Best of luck

And to you, as well.

 

[noonereal]

...is that what you call "FACTS that I cannot rebut"?

This is a debate board, and yet you run from "excessive verbiage"? That's funny.

The truth is what it is. Facts are what they are. They do not require your acceptance, much less your engagement in a discussion of their merits (or lack thereof). Your inability to respond substantively to the facts I've laid out (i.e. that "excessive verbiage" stuff).....is the "ballgame", here.

And to you, as well.

Yet another fallacy laced post. You are consistent.

 

[Bullseye]

Only if you consider posting FACTS to be "making crap up", I suppose.

Again, if you could articulate a cogent defense, you'd have done so by now.

But I get it. You're goal is to express your dissent and displeasure with a nominee who ranks (literally) at the very top of the pyramid in terms of EVERY possible measure of experience and/or qualification imaginable. And you can't just own up to your real sentiments, because (like most of your ilk)....you don't have the "stones" for that kind of honest dialogue, I suppose.

So the best you could come up with was the ignorant drivel you've offered up in this thread.

I get it. I really do.

Fact is your arguments are based on LW mantras, fairy tales, and lies. You wouldn't accept any real fact or data I could provide. She's your perfect little LW wind-up doll ready to spew LW tripe in place of jurisprudence.

 

[ultmd]

Yet another fallacy laced post. You are consistent.

....still PROJECTING and DEFLECTING because you can't address the FACTS laid out in this thread, huh?

It's not too late for you, though. The opportunity remains for you to do something more than dissemble on this thread, my friend. You can actually DEBATE substnatively, on this message board dedicated to POLITICAL DEBATE.

What are the odds of seeing you do that, huh?

I'm guessing ZERO. People like you don't debate because that requires too much READING and WRITING.

You are nothing, if not entirely predictable.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

...the predictable act of projection from an ignorant person.

^^ You’ve done nothing but lie, purport opinion as fact and project, from your opening post.

There are a few Supreme Court Justices in history who have been EQUALLY qualified, but NONE in history who have been MORE qualified than Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In particular, KBJ is, BY FAR, already MORE experience and qualified than ANY of the current USSC Justices. And it's not even a close contest.

Judge Brown Jackson literally ticks off EVERY box used to measure USSC Justice candidates.

Of note is the already well-known FACT that Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett are the LEAST experienced and LEAST qualified members of the current court. And, in fact, they are also the LEAST qualified members of the current Court. No shock, there, of course.

^^ Deliberately misrepresented graph created for use in a 3/22/22 WaPo opinion piece.

The original headline with graph;

How can it be "completely arbitrary", when it's the criteria used to assess EVERY potential nominee for the highest court in the land?

LIE. There is no criteria for SCOTUS nominees.

Frequently Asked Questions

www.supremecourt.gov

Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2 | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

constitution.congress.gov

I merely posted a chart itemizing the most common/traditional screening criteria for potential federal/SCOTUS judges.

LIE. You posted a newly created, entirely subjective, comparative graph.

So again: All of the criteria listed in that chart are the criteria raised by REPUBLICANS over the last 40 years in public comments about potential Democratic nominees to the Court.

A highly dubious, and partisan, claim. Where’s your proof?

It's notable that neither you, nor any other critic of the OP can present ANY examples of "qualifications" that have been omitted.

“Qualifications” like in your bogus, intentionally misrepresented, graph?

Again, the Constitution does not specify any prerequisite qualifications for SCOTUS nominees.

 

[ultmd]

Fact is your arguments are based on LW mantras, fairy tales, and lies.

....says the Trump acolyte who's upset that his empty-headed RW talking points, fairy tales and lies can't pass muster outside of the low-infor social media sites where he comes from.

You wouldn't accept any real fact or data I could provide.

Try me.

Or, perhaps more likely, is it just that you can't produce any "facts or data" which back up the fact-free FEELINGS and OPINIONS you've been trying to pass off as "facts" in this thread?

She's your perfect little LW wind-up doll ready to spew LW tripe in place of jurisprudence.

....is this a hissy fit, here?

I think your emotions are getting the best of you again.

At least now your TRUE sentiments are obvious to all. And NONE of them have anything to do with "qualifications"....or "experience"......or "discrimination"....or anything else of substance. it's all about your personal feelings of social/cultural grievance.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[noonereal]

....still PROJECTING and DEFLECTING because you can't address the FACTS laid out in this thread, huh?

It's not too late for you, though. The opportunity remains for you to do something more than dissemble on this thread, my friend. You can actually DEBATE substnatively, on this message board dedicated to POLITICAL DEBATE.

What are the odds of seeing you do that, huh?

I'm guessing ZERO. People like you don't debate because that requires too much READING and WRITING.

You are nothing, if not entirely predictable.

The cute smiles you use typify the maturity of your posts. The incessant fallacies fall right in line.

If your posts ever mature. Let me know

All the best

 

[Bullseye]

....says the Trump acolyte who's upset that his empty-headed RW talking points, fairy tales and lies can't pass muster outside of the low-infor social media sites where he comes from.

I'm nowhere near a "Trump acolyte" he was my next to last choice for President.

Try me.

I have. Many times with a spectacular lack of success.

Or, perhaps more likely, is it just that you can't produce any "facts or data" which back up the fact-free FEELINGS and OPINIONS you've been trying to pass off as "facts" in this thread?


....is this a hissy fit, here?

I think your emotions are getting the best of you again.

At least now your TRUE sentiments are obvious to all. And NONE of them have anything to do with "qualifications"....or "experience"......or "discrimination"....or anything else of substance. it's all about your personal feelings of social/cultural grievance.

Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for sharing your verbal diarrhea.

 

[ultmd]

^^ You’ve done nothing but lie, purport opinion as fact and project, from your opening post.

...sorry, but you can't LIE, and then accuse me of lying. That's called PROJECCTION.

Of course, everything I've posted accurate. And so far, nothing you've posted can even be verified.

^^ Deliberately misrepresented graph created for use in a 3/22/22 WaPo opinion piece.

..you're trying too hard, and drawing dumb conclusions, as a result.

But at least you've given up on your moronic LIE about the existence of an "authoritative source for proper acronyms".

That said, I am fully aware of source of the graphic posted in the OP. I'm the one who posted it. I didn't claim to be the creator of it. I simply posted it and noted that, by any/all measurable standard, "...KBJ is, BY FAR, already MORE experience and qualified than ANY of the current USSC Justices. And it's not even a close contest."

Nothing is misrepresented. The graph is posted exactly as it was originally published. I didn't post the opinion piece, because the content of that piece was irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

Your problem here is that YOU backed yourself into a rhetorical corner by LYING (first with that moronic "proper acronym" bullsh@t....and then by insisting that there are ANY measurable criteria used to evaluate or defend ANY nominee to the USSC over the last few decades). When challenged, REPEATEDLY, to present even ONE example of such....you have REPEATEDLY weaselled away.

And that's because....there are none. And you know it. And that's the bottom line for you in this thread.

Period.

Everything else from you is just empty-headed noise, I'm afraid.

The original headline with graph;
View attachment 67382872

You're either being silly, or are just obtuse.

The title of the column (which I didn't post) has nothing to do with the OP (which I did post). The dialogue in the OP is MY observation of Judge Brown-Jackson, based upon the content of that graphic.

As I said at the time, Judge Brown Jackson literally ticks off EVERY box used to measure USSC Justice candidates over the last few decades. Re-read post #1 and post #43, for starters. I've made my point clear, over and over. Don't be so lazy. READ a little.

The above FACT (i.e. KBJ remains unrefuted, because there is no credible refutation of it. And the DEFLECTION, PROJECTION and DISSEMBLING we get from you and your ilk EVERY time you are challenged about it.....proves that point.

LIE. There is no criteria for SCOTUS nominees.

You're very late with this comment. I emphasized this in post #75. There is no STATUTARY criteria for a USSC Justice.

But in the modern era, there have arisen a series of informal criteria by which USSC nominees have been measured. And, as I have noted repeatedly, those include EVERYTHING on that graphic.

You have been challenged, repeatedly, by me and others, to present ANY other standards used to highlight, or in defense of, the candidacy of ANY other nominee in modern times.....and you have all FAILED.

And that's because.....everything stated in the OP, and subsequent remarks, is completely bullet proof.

You can hate it, if that makes you feel better. But you cannot refute it. Not one word of it.

You posted a newly created, entirely subjective, comparative graph.

Stupid comment. (I'm sensing a pattern, here).

I posted a graphic chart that is 100% FACTUAL. And I noted that that graphic effectively lists EVERY SINGLE criteria cited in the candidacy of EVERY SINGLE nominee to the USSC over the "last few decades".

EVERY SINGLE criteria listed on that graphic meets ONE OBJECTIVE standard: i.e. being a criteria cited in the public defense of EVERY SINGLE USSC nominee over the last few decades.

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "subjective"?

Or, perhaps you're just lashing out because your feelings have been bruised by this discourse?

A highly dubious, and partisan, claim. Where’s your proof?

.....he says, after REPEATEDLY ducking and dodging requests for "proof" of his moronic LIES in this thread.

I don't post things I can't back up.

And you don't get to make any demands until you answer the challenges I've presented to you in this thread. When you do (and we both know you never will).....you are allowed to ask for some "proof" from me.

Are we clear on this?

 

[ultmd]

The cute smiles you use typify the maturity of your posts.

Someone's feelings are involved, I see.

You seem to be under the delusion that your feelings matter to me, my friend.

I care only about what you can prove or subjectively defend in debate. And, you (like others of your ilk) seem intent upon fulfilling every common stereotype about people like you.

If your posts ever mature. Let me know

.....still DEFLECTING in order to avoid addressing the simple questions and basic challenges I've presented to you, I see.

Trust me, it does not go unnoticed.

Never fear, my pseudo-intellectual friend. When/if ever you are able to articulate an cogent, intelligent, SUBSTANTIVE defense of your political views, I'll let you know.

All the best

And to you, as well.

 

[ultmd]

I'm nowhere near a "Trump acolyte" he was my next to last choice for President.

.....and yet, you voted for him, right?

Trump voter, but not Trump acolyte, huh?

Leave it to a Trump voters to twist themselves into rhetorical knots...and then whine about the way they are perceived by decent people

Trump acolytes are nothing, if not transparent.

I have. Many times with a spectacular lack of success.

No, you have not. And we both know that.

I have, quite literally, lost count of the number of times I've asked you to present some (or any) of what you call "qualifications" for modern USSC nominees that are omitted by the list posted in the OP.

Just admit it. You can't come up with any "facts" or "data" in support of your claims in this thread, because you were just talking out of your hind-parts when you made that claim, right?

In short, you were LYING....got caught....and your fragile conservative-ideologue's ego demands that you avoid accountability for it.

Thanks for sharing your verbal diarrhea.

...and thank you for helping me illustrate the lack of intellectual heft that is the hallmark of rightwing "thought", these days.

 

[Bullseye]

l.....and yet, you voted for him, right?

Yep.

Trump voter, but not Trump acolyte, huh?

Buy a dictionary and look up both words.

Leave it to a Trump voters to twist themselves into rhetorical knots...and then whine about the way they are perceived by decent people

And which "knot" do you claim I've tied myself up in?

Trump acolytes are nothing, if not transparent.

Again look up "acolyte"

No, you have not. And we both know that.

You know nothing - you spout the effluvia your masters feed you.

I have, quite literally, lost count of the number of times I've asked you to present some (or any) of what you call "qualifications" for modern USSC nominees that are omitted by the list posted in the OP.

Until Biden that list was not constrained to "black" and "woman (whatever that is)"

Just admit it. You can't come up with any "facts" or "data" in support of your claims in this thread, because you were just talking out of your hind-parts when you made that claim, right?

The nomination process and qualifications are all the facts I ned. A contrived matrix means nothing. The only two criteria, which were left of are "black" and "female".

fa
In short, you were LYING....got caught....and your fragile conservative-ideologue's ego demands that you avoid accountability for it.

In short:

...and thank you for helping me illustrate the lack of intellectual heft that is the hallmark of rightwing "thought", these days.

Your every post demonstrates you suffer from that affliction. And delusions of adequacy as well.

 

[ultmd]

Yep.

Trump Acolyte.

Buy a dictionary and look up both words.

Learn to read.

You know nothing - you spout the effluvia your masters feed you.

...says the Trump acolyte.

Says EVERY Trump acolyte.

Oh, the IRONY!

Until Biden that list was not constrained to "black" and "woman (whatever that is)"

Ah, yes....two things you hate: Black people and Women.

Got it.

Only in the grievance-filled brains of Trump acolytes like you are traits of actual MERIT or EXPERIENCE....analogous to immutable traits like RACE and GENDER.

Thanks for the clarity. But, honestly, I think most people around here already understand that about you, @Bullseye. It's tends to be a part of the mentality of people like you.

Lemme guess....you're sympathetic (if not supportive) of at least one of the following: (1) Proud Boys, (2) Oath Keepers, (3) QAnon, (4) Identity Evropa, (5) some other white-grievance, misogynist group.

Amirite???

The nomination process and qualifications are all the facts I ned. A contrived matrix means nothing.

You're weaseling again, my friend.

Your task remains unaccepted. Your claim is that there are other "qualifications" that have been applied to other members of the court that is not a part of the list in the OP.

Clearly, you can't come up with any.

So you lose.

The only two criteria, which were left of are "black" and "female".

Let's try this. I'll bring the hay down to the horse.

• Professional Experience
• Personal Experience
• Academic Achievement
• Race
• Gender

3 of those are objectively measurable criteria, while 2 are immutable traits.

Can you tell me which is which?

In short:

In short:

Your every post demonstrates you suffer from that affliction. And delusions of adequacy as well.

More irony, here.

And yet, you are so clearly afraid to answer my questions, for some "odd" reason.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Of course, everything I've posted accurate. And so far, nothing you've posted can even be verified.

Really pathetic and stupid lie.

I cited the Constitution, SCOTUS’ home page, and your own fake “checklist”. All with links.

You lost from the very beginning of this thread, with your first lying post, claiming a comparative list created for a recent WaPo opinion was a “checklist”.

All you’ve accomplished from that point on is to pile on more bull shit.

 

[noonereal]

Someone's feelings are involved, I see.

You seem to be under the delusion that your feelings matter to me, my friend.

I care only about what you can prove or subjectively defend in debate. And, you (like others of your ilk) seem intent upon fulfilling every common stereotype about people like you.

.....still DEFLECTING in order to avoid addressing the simple questions and basic challenges I've presented to you, I see.

Trust me, it does not go unnoticed.

Never fear, my pseudo-intellectual friend. When/if ever you are able to articulate an cogent, intelligent, SUBSTANTIVE defense of your political views, I'll let you know.

And to you, as well.

Feel better now?

Like I said, if your posts ever mature, you may query me for edification. Untill then, your posts are dedicated to me.

You have yet to reply without using a fallacy and posts like yours always need to have last word to try to maintain a certain "self illusion."

So go ahead, get in one last fallacy as I walk on.

Peace

 

[ultmd]

Really pathetic and stupid lie.

Ah, yes....the documented liar does what all liars do: He projects. I call you out for lying...and you PROJECT. Typical story.

But the unfortunate reality for you is that the OP, buttressed by the subsequent links and arguments, is a "lie" that is factual, truthful and documented....and a "lie" that you've proven you cannot rebut.

In other words, it's the truth. And you know it.

Judge Brown Jackson is, by almost any objective measure, the most qualified and experienced person nominated to sit on the USSC in modern history. The FACT that you RUN when challenged (repeatedly) to present ANY other objective criteria or "qualification" by which one might suggest otherwise......has literally helped to validate the OP (and illustrate the shallowness/dishonesty fo your point of view).

Now, apparently, that reality bothers you. I get that. I can see that. But that is your problem, not mine.

I cited the Constitution, SCOTUS’ home page, and your own fake “checklist”. All with links.

You repeated arguments I'd already made in this thread, and now you're trying to claim them as your own.

That's pathetic.

I'm the guy who stated (in post #75) that there are no statutory criteria for a USSC Justice. You REPEATED that argument in a much later post.

I'm the one who stated that the list in the OP consists of the criteria used to judge nominees in the modern era. And when challenged (repeatedly) to present ANY examples of additional criteria by which ANY recent nominee has been judged....you have DEFLECTED or just gone silent about it.

On the other hand, you are the guy who simple-mindedly asserted that any list comparing the respective professional and personal resumés of Justices on the Court was....."diminishing" those with weaker resumes (i.e Thomas and Barrett). Thankfully, you've distanced yourself from that embarrassing point of view.

So I'm perfectly willing to be entertained by more of your antics and semantics, but let's get "our" facts straight, at least.

You lost from the very beginning of this thread, with your first lying post,

...I'm being called a liar....by a confirmed, acknowledged LIAR.

That's like being called "ugly" by a Bullfrog.

But let's evaluate the veracity of your allegation, above, a bit further, shall we?....

claiming a comparative list created for a recent WaPo opinion was a “checklist”.

...Oops!

You just lied again, my friend.

Please re-read the OP and highlight for everyone where I there is a "checklist". Heck, please highlight where I even used the word "checklist".

What I ACTUALLY said in the OP is:

There are a few Supreme Court Justices in history who have been EQUALLY qualified, but NONE in history who have been MORE qualified than Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. In particular, KBJ is, BY FAR, already MORE experience and qualified than ANY of the current USSC Justices. And it's not even a close contest. Judge Brown Jackson literally ticks off EVERY box used to measure USSC Justice candidates. Of note is the already well-known FACT that Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett are the LEAST experienced and LEAST qualified members of the current court. And, in fact, they are also the LEAST qualified members of the current Court. No shock, there, of course.

So, why would you continue to LIE about this "checklist" narrative, my friend?

I've never claimed there is a "checklist" of any kind. I said then, and have repeatedly said, that every modern USSC nominee has been promoted or defended on the basis of some, or all, of the criteria listed on the chart posted in the OP. Every. Single. Nominee. In. Modern. Times. I (not you) stated that there are no statutory qualifications for a USSC Justice, but that over the last few decades, EVERY nominee to the Court has be assessed on the basis of the criteria listed in that chart.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

You are the guy who LITERALLY invented that moronic "checklist" argument. You pulled that nonsense directly from your hindparts, I'm sure.

So again, what you are doing is what liars do when they realize they've lost an argument.

You don't have to like the OP, but you can't refute it (without LYING about it).

And that's the bottom line.

I really don't care about your feelings.

All you’ve accomplished from that point on is to pile on more bull shit.

Thank you, again, for your opinion. In this case that " bull shit" has been FACTS that you cannot rebut. And we both understand that, I think.

But what YOU have accomplished in this thread is to lay waste to your reputation on this board.

 

[ultmd]

Feel better now?

Like I said, if your posts ever mature, you may query me for edification. Untill then, your posts are dedicated to me.

.....yawn....

Still DEFLECTING.

You are afraid of my simple questions/challenges, obviously. That much is clear.

If you could come up with even ONE example of a legitimate "qualification" by which modern candidates are measured for a seat on the USSC....that is not already listed in the chart in the OP.....you'd do it.

You won't, because you can't. And you know it. And, clearly, that really bothers you, doesn't it?

Well, that's not my problem. The challenge is still there for you. You can't run from it. I won't allow it.

You can only continue DEFLECTING. And I'll be happy to continue mocking your for the intellectual or ethical weakness your pathetic aversion displays.

You have yet to reply without using a fallacy and posts like yours always need to have last word to try to maintain a certain "self illusion.

Funny! So the guy with the Strawman Fallacies (who doesn't know what that is)....says I'm "using fallacies", huh?

I suggest you look it up in a sentence before using again.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for you to answer my challenge.

So go ahead, get in one last fallacy as I walk on.

Is that what you do after an ass-kicking? You just walk away, huh?

....and....umm...again, "Fallacy" is a real word, with an actual definition, my friend.

Peace

Have a blessed day.

Just know that, if you come back, I will still be insisting that you come up with something more than just your own fact-free, moronic feelings and Strawman fallacies as rebuttal to the FACTS in OP, ok?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Ah, ….

Damn, man, are you incapable of being succinct?

Seriously, more words doesn’t equate with superior response.

 

[ultmd]

Damn, man, are you incapable of being succinct?

Seriously, more words doesn’t equate with superior response.

.....we both know you can't rebut any of it, anyway.

Just more Deflection from you.

One of the signs of the pseudo/anti-intellectual Right....is a general disdain for READING anything that does not re-affirm their existing biases and "feelings". And, of course, DEFLECTION, PROJECTION, etc.

If you had the facts on your side, you'd have no problem with length, depth or breadth.

You don't, however. And you know it.