Brett Kavanaugh, great justice or greatest justice?

[Kidlicious]

For starters, there is no evidence that Dr Fords allegations had anything to do with getting revenge for the Clintons.

He didn't claim that they did. He was talking to members of the Senate.

[Kidlicious]

From the right wing Cato institute:

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates

TThe federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of all federal outlays in that year.1 A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.2 Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to native-born Americans.3 The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare to native-born Americans.From the right wing Cato institute:

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates

TThe federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of all federal outlays in that year.1 A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.2 Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to native-born Americans.3 The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare to native-born Americans.From the right wing Cato institute:

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates

TThe federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of all federal outlays in that year.1 A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.2 Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to native-born Americans.3 The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare to native-born Americans.From the right wing Cato institute:

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates

TThe federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of all federal outlays in that year.1 A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.2 Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to native-born Americans.3 The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare to native-born Americans.From the right wing Cato institute:

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates

TThe federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of all federal outlays in that year.1 A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.2 Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to native-born Americans.3 The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare to native-born Americans.From the right wing Cato institute:

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates

TThe federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of all federal outlays in that year.1 A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.2 Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to native-born Americans.3 The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare to native-born Americans.From the right wing Cato institute:

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates

TThe federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of all federal outlays in that year.1 A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.2 Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to native-born Americans.3 The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare to native-born Americans.From the right wing Cato institute:

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates

TThe federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of all federal outlays in that year.1 A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.2 Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to native-born Americans.3 The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare to native-born Americans.

Ah the "right-wing" CATO institute again which is an OPEN BORDERS advocacy group.

[Kidlicious]

My phone is whacked out ... but maybe if Kid reads that over and over again he can realize immigrants use less welfare per capita than natural born Americans.

Even if that were true it doesn't mean that I should have to pay for ANYONE to come to this country legally or illegally and have a baby. Also, it doesn't justify you smearing me with the tern xenophobic.

[Aeson]

He didn't claim that they did. He was talking to members of the Senate.

He said the "whole thing" in regards to the extended hearings based on Dr Ford's allegations. Dr Ford was the most integral part of the "whole thing" he was talking about. But he also doesn't have any evidence that any of the Senators were doing it for revenge for the Clintons either.

[Aeson]

Ah the "right-wing" CATO institute again which is an OPEN BORDERS advocacy group.

The right wing did used to be the economically sound side of politics, and often were more pro-immigration than the left. It's sad to see that xenophobia (such as from you and Trump) has overruled economic sense for such a wide swath of the right wing.

[Kidlicious]

He said the "whole thing" in regards to the extended hearings based on Dr Ford's allegations. Dr Ford was the most integral part of the "whole thing" he was talking about. But he also doesn't have any evidence that any of the Senators were doing it for revenge for the Clintons either.

Now YOU sound like a conspiracy theorist.

[Kidlicious]

The right wing did used to be the economically sound side of politics, and often were more pro-immigration than the left. It's sad to see that xenophobia (such as from you and Trump) has overruled economic sense for such a wide swath of the right wing.

You're crazy if you think open borders is sound economic policy.

[Proteus_MST]

You're crazy if you think open borders is sound economic policy.

Noone wants totally "open borders", not even the Democrats ... stop repeating Trumps lies

[Kidlicious]

Noone wants totally "open borders", not even the Democrats ... stop repeating Trumps lies

CATO wants open borders. A lot of people do. Stop lying.

[Kidlicious]

Ford is still actively asking for money even though she has gotten almost $1m! You idiots!

[Ben Kenobi]

Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans.

Well, sure. You're supposed to have a job when you immigrate into America. If you can't support yourself you shouldn't be going to America.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is about a Supreme Court justice, not about whether he should be in jail.

True. Except he's been a circuit court justice for a decade. These are not new allegations.

Why didn't Christine Ford report them to the Senate Judiciary Committee then? He waited three years before his appointment to the appellate court.

Why didn't the FBI investigation then report anything to do with Christine Ford? I see zero evidence from then as to any allegations wrt impropriety.

We require more of our hires at the local middle school than the Republicans require of a Supreme Court justice.

Absolutely. And by any objective measure Kavanaugh is well-qualified, moreso than Elena Kagan who never served as a lower court justice prior to her nomination.

[Ben Kenobi]

Looks like Ben wont be telling us where Ford advocated smearing Gorsuch with false accusations, he's too busy smearing Ford with false accusations.

It was on her facebook page prior to her scraping it.

Lobbyists are not researchers.

Bull****. Can and are. Many industries do pay for research that gives them the outcomes that they want. We see it with the tobacco industry and we see it with the abortion industry. Christine's research supports the production of the drug because then they go and say that it has a legitimate use, should be covered by insurance, so on and so forth.

and was 'farmed' out for a few years to do research for a drug company.

A drug company that just so happens to produce the most common drug used in abortion pills. And you'd have me believe that Christine doesn't have a vested interest in Kavanaugh's nomination?

She told her husband Kavanaugh's name years ago.

Nobody says 'years ago'. Nor does anyone say which year, which is significant. 2017? 2018? When? We don't know.

In short we have no evidence for anything between Christine and Kavanaugh prior to 2018 with the filing in June. That raises my eyebrows and should raise yours.

I'd love to hear what incentive she had to put her family at risk.

How was her family put at risk? She made a cool million off like a couple months of work. Nice work if you can get it. It's funny how ideology blinds you Berz. You want corruption? There's corruption with a capital C.

NO! I already told you, I've been to many parties I cant remember. If I was under oath and asked if I remember a party on July 1st 1982 I'd say no.

Would you believe this was sufficient to convict someone of sexual assault at this particular party? Or would your lack of testimony simply add to the pile of insufficient evidence.

That doesn't mean I wasn't at a party on that day.

Nor does it mean that there was a party, let alone one Christine attended with Kavanaugh.

I dont care if he drank alcohol

Bull****. You've been smearing Kavanaugh all along for drinking alcohol. Apparently being a libertarian means being prohibitionist. Who knew?

The delay is irrelevant

The delay is very significant. They followed the Bork playbook to the letter. You would think after Bork, and after Thomas that it would be obvious what the Senate Democrats are doing here. How many times does it have to happen before you see the playbook for what it is?

[Ben Kenobi]

Unfortunately Aeson harvested the rare D-beast.

[Berzerker]

It was on her facebook page prior to her scraping it.

And nobody including you captured it? Amazing detective work, boys. What exactly did she say on her FB page?

Bull****. Can and are. Many industries do pay for research that gives them the outcomes that they want. We see it with the tobacco industry and we see it with the abortion industry. Christine's research supports the production of the drug because then they go and say that it has a legitimate use, should be covered by insurance, so on and so forth.

Wait, is it Christine's research or Christine's lobbying? See, you dont even buy into your own argument. Is she being paid from the drug's sales?

A drug company that just so happens to produce the most common drug used in abortion pills. And you'd have me believe that Christine doesn't have a vested interest in Kavanaugh's nomination?

She studied the drug over 6 years ago for its effects on Cushing's Disease, so what? What is her vested interest? Show me the money!

Nobody says 'years ago'. Nor does anyone say which year, which is significant. 2017? 2018? When? We don't know.

In short we have no evidence for anything between Christine and Kavanaugh prior to 2018 with the filing in June. That raises my eyebrows and should raise yours.

here ya go again

Russell Ford, her husband, also told The Washington Post that his wife detailed the alleged assault during a couple’s therapy session in 2012. During therapy, he said his wife talked about a time when she was trapped in a room with two drunken boys, and one of them had pinned her to a bed, molested her and tried to prevent her from screaming.

He said he remembered his wife specifically using Kavanaugh’s name. She said during the session, Russell Ford recalled, she was scared he would one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who...ual-misconduct

How was her family put at risk? She made a cool million off like a couple months of work. Nice work if you can get it. It's funny how ideology blinds you Berz. You want corruption? There's corruption with a capital C.

If you were right its a wonder we dont see hundreds of women accusing Kavanaugh. If someone is threatening to kill you, then you and your family are at risk. As for corruption, I watched Kavanaugh tell lie after lie under oath.

Would you believe this was sufficient to convict someone of sexual assault at this particular party? Or would your lack of testimony simply add to the pile of insufficient evidence.

Why would my poor memory be sufficient to convict someone of sexual assault?

Nor does it mean that there was a party, let alone one Christine attended with Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh's calendar indicates a party did occur and she named 3 of the people at that party

Bull****. You've been smearing Kavanaugh all along for drinking alcohol. Apparently being a libertarian means being prohibitionist. Who knew?

Where did I smear him for drinking alcohol?

The delay is very significant. They followed the Bork playbook to the letter. You would think after Bork, and after Thomas that it would be obvious what the Senate Democrats are doing here. How many times does it have to happen before you see the playbook for what it is?

Wasn't Bork the guy who fired people to protect Nixon from justice? The delay was irrelevant because the GOP still controlled the Senate after the mid-terms. Why do you think it was relevant? Both Thomas and Bork faced a Senate controlled by the Dems, those cases are not analogous to Kavanaugh.