Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 7 of 14     «   Prev   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   Next   »
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Reply with quote  #91 
All gay people have two things in common. They're people, and gay. But otherwise they are as diverse as any other group. Apart from the bizarre Yiannopoulos, whose views and actions probably make no sense even to himself, I doubt any of those you list would view the SPLC Ten with anything but contempt and disdain. Bawer has even written en entire book, Stealing Jesus, on the intellectual bankruptcy and moral dishonesty of fundamentalist Christianity, whether labelled Catholic or Protestant.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,987
Reply with quote  #92 
I'm aware of Bawer's positions, as he was a pioneer of the same-sex marriage movement. But his politics have become increasingly right-wing especially since living in Norway, as he's experienced the country's often stifling domination by the cultural Left and mentions this in his articles.
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 398
Reply with quote  #93 
I wasn't able to watch the live television coverage of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh on Wednesday, although I did watch several hours of television news coverage of their testimonies in the evening. The TV news networks always  show the most dramatic segments, which tend to not be objective, and that has to be taken into consideration. Dr. Ford appeared to be credible, and her testimony was fully consistent with her original allegations, which became public a while ago. Judge Kavanaugh's testimony refuting her allegations was also credible. There was no corroboration of Ford's allegations, and no corroboration of Kavanaugh's claim that the incident never happened. And so it's up to each individual to decide for themself what is and isn't truthful. I think that an F.B.I. investigation of Kavanaugh's behavior during high-school is the right thing to do. I'm doubtful that anything new will surface about the actual alleged assault incident, since according to Ford, there were only 3 people in the room. But I'm curious to see what the F.B.I. investigation will show about Kavanaugh's behavior while he was in high-school. 

The 3rd individual present in the room, according to Dr. Ford, was Kavanaugh's prep-school friend Mark Judge. Judge has denied that the incident she described ever occurred. About 10 or 12 years ago, Judge wrote 2 books describing a subculture of binge-drinking and casual sexual hookups that was prevalent in Georgetown Preparatory Academy, the elite Jesuit-run prep-school that he and Kavanaugh attended, and in which he participated. (I imagine that, due to all the publicity, those 2 obscure, long-forgotten books will probably now become bestsellers). Neil Gorsuch, recently appointed by President Trump to the Supreme Court, also attended Georgetown Prep during that time period, and appears not to have had an involvement with that subculture.

The behavior of several individual senators, both Democrats and Republicans, was indeed reprehensible. It was partisan behavior at its worst, although it's also par for the course, and nothing new. Several Democratic senators questions were rude and badgering, and they appeared to be trying to force confirmation of their own agendas rather than any genuine interest in finding out the truth. And I got the distinct impression that several Republican senators didn't care at all about the truth or untruth of the allegations, and were intent upon speeding through the confirmation as fast as possible, so that they can have an ally on the Court. The attempt by certain Democratic senators to delay the confirmation hearing until after the November elections is obviously a deplorable political ploy, but the Republicans did  the same thing a few years ago, when they refused to give any nominee of President Obama any hearing at all, preferring to wait until the following year's presidential election. And so what goes around comes around.

I wasn't impressed by Judge Kavanaugh himself either. He indignantly accused the Democrats of administering a well-funded and orchestrated campaign to destroy himself and his family, which seemed a bit melodramatic. At one point he became tearful and choked-up, when talking about the ordeal that he and his family are going through. But I think that a Supreme Court judge ought to be above partisan politics, and ought to be able to remain stoic and objective. He should have foreseen the rudeness of some of the questioners, and maintained a dignified bearing. Tears and choking-up are appropriate at a funeral eulogy or memorial service, but at the Senate hearing he'd have been better-served by straightforward honest answers (no matter how rudely the questions were put) and keeping a stiff upper lip.

Congressional elections are scheduled for Nov. 6, and the confirmation or nonconfirmation will likely have taken place by then. No matter what happens, there are going to be a significant amount of angry, upset people. The confirmation or nonconfirmation may prove to be a mixed blessing to whichever side is victorious, as traditionally angry, upset people are more likely to head to the polls and vote in larger numbers than are satisfied, contented people.




__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,987
Reply with quote  #94 
To say that the campaign is well-funded isn't inaccurate though, as is the case with most Leftist causes these days.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Reply with quote  #95 
Yeah, while the poverty-stricken Republicans are left scratching around for dimes to fund their noble causes. Such a shame.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,987
Reply with quote  #96 
No, we see enormous amounts of cash being thrown behind Leftist causes and a group like the SPLC with its enormous assets for a supposed not-for-profit group epitomises this.

Also remember that here in Australia, the 1999 referendum was a case in point: big money and celebrity endorsements behind the republican side in the vote and they still failed because we monarchists got the message out ourselves without those resources.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Reply with quote  #97 
The SPLC is indeed a nonprofit, meaning it enjoys tax exemptions. If it is only a 'supposed' nonprofit, as you sneer, then those exemptions should be withdrawn. Shouldn't they? Quick, better get the revenue authorities to investigate. Offers another avenue to bring this malign organisation down, along with those 60 lawsuits which seem to be talked about a lot but somehow never get filed.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,142
Reply with quote  #98 
Windermere,

I don't agree with everything you say, but those are reasonable opinions.

Personally, I didn't see anything that wrong with Kavanaugh's anger and indignation, but I can see some might have honest qualms about that. I don't count the media-Democrats amongst such people. They are utter hypocrites who having smeared a man as an evil gang rapist clutch their pearls when he gets annoyed at that. As Ben Shapiro put it, Kavanaugh didn't treat the Democratic committee members with the respect they deserve, because that's none. Look at the depths to which the media-Democrats have gone:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/usa-today-amends-article-saying-kavanaugh-shouldnt-coach-basketball/

And let's not forget, most of the same people would be saying his lack of anger showed guilt if Kavanaugh had stayed completely calm. In the end, I don't think his anger, even if it would have been better if he hadn't displayed it (which I don't admit), has much reflection on his temperament as a judge. His judicial record shows that. And, anyway, judges aren't robots. As some have noted, just try calling the judge an evil rapist next time you are in court, and see what happens.

I'm actually quite impressed by the behaviour of Republicans in this debacle. From the committee members to columnists to even a lot of average Joe commentators. With a few exceptions, they have generally conducted themselves with restraint and common sense and decency. Even Trump, whilst predictably making some silly comments, was far better than one might have expected. In comparison, every level of the left, whether serving or ex-congressmen, the media, celebrities, or just average folks (I'm not counting even Twitter trolls, on either side) has acted appallingly. It's a shame the Republicans are tied to Trump, as otherwise they'd have the basis for presenting themselves as the party of justice and decency after the last few weeks.

I think the drinking is the only area where an honest case can be made Kavanaugh wasn't entirely candid. Not that I think that this case is necessarily correct. I don't think there is evidence Kavanaugh lied to the committee though, as some are alleging. But he may (or may not) have put the best spin on things. I can understand why he might he do it. The media-Democrats wished to jump from the fact he sometimes liked a drink and to go to parties - like many high school students and even more college ones - to him being a rapist or not being able to remember the incident, just as they wish to go from Judge being an alcoholic and ex-debauchee to the same conclusions. Ironically, this is something like a mirror image of what sometimes used to happen to women who alleged they were raped after having alcohol or going out. Unless there is clear evidence Kavanaugh lied under oath, I don't see how it can be in the slightest bit relevant. Indeed, as David French has noted, as the media-Democrats seem to have turned to this stuff, and Da Vinci Code readings of his yearbook, it rather implies they have given up on the original claims.

I don't really find the Garland comparison apt. Garland wasn't smeared as a rapist and someone who shouldn't even couch his daughters' basketball. Similarly, some left-liberals have used the far leas heated confirmation of Gorsuch to try to argue the Democrats weren't out to get Kavanaugh. But apart from reasons to think stopping a replacement ot Kennedy would be more important to them than stopping one for Scalia, Kavanaugh got scorched earth treatment from the beginning of the process. Indeed, even before he was named, the Democrats made it clear this was war.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,987
Reply with quote  #99 
The Investigative Project on Terrorism exposed the SPLC's links to Islamists and Soros-funded group in compiling the "anti-Muslim" smear list:
https://www.investigativeproject.org/7492/ipt-exclusive-pr-firm-tied-to-cair-linked-to


Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,142
Reply with quote  #100 
I don't think it is that outlandish to consider that fundraising has a large role in the increasing inanity at the SPLC:

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/09/10/southern-poverty-law-center-essentially-a-fraud/

 

Quote:

To sum up recent events: The SPLC has been crazily denouncing highly respected writers who are Muslim, black, and female for being anti-Muslim, anti-black, and misogynist. All of these contrived charges are in the service of the SPLC’s core mission, which is to separate progressives from their dollars.

Founded in 1971, the Alabama-based SPLC, dubbed “essentially a fraud” by Ken Silverstein in a blog post for Harper’s back in 2010, discovered some time ago that it could line its coffers by positioning itself as a scourge of racists. Silverstein reported that in 1987, after the SPLC sued the United Klans of America, which had almost no assets to begin with, over the lynching murder of Michael Donald, the son of Beulah Mae Donald, the grieving mother realized $52,000 from the court case — but the SPLC used the matter in fundraising appeals (including one that exploited a photograph of Donald’s corpse) that raked in some $9 million in donations. Today the SPLC typically hauls in (as it did in 2015) $50 million. In its 2016 annual report it listed its net endowment assets at an eye-popping $319 million. It’s now quaint to recall that, when Silverstein called the SPLC the wealthiest civil-rights group in America, it had a mere $120 million in assets. That was in 2000. President Richard Cohen and co-founder–cum–chief trial counsel Morris Dees each raked in well over $350,000 in compen­sation in 2015.

News that has anything to do with the South or with race has proven to be a bonanza for the SPLC; after the events in Charlottesville last summer, the SPLC swiftly took action to capitalize. It placed a digital picture of Heather Heyer, the young Charlottesville resi­dent who was killed when a white supremacist drove into a crowd, on its “Wall of Tolerance” and blasted out press releases about it. What is the Wall of Tolerance? It’s a gimmick to make donors feel important, neon-style virtue-signaling in the pixels that light up a giant video screen that continuously scrolls the names of 500,000 people who have taken a pledge to be tolerant. After Charlottesville, Apple CEO Tim Cook pledged $1 million to the group and put an SPLC donation button in the company’s iTunes store. JPMorgan Chase promised $500,000.

The SPLC’s publicity machine turns such events into gold, creating the impression that we’re forever a week away from a neo-Nazi takeover or a rebirth of the KKK. As both the Nazis and the white-bedsheet fans have done the SPLC the disservice of fading into tiny remnants of themselves, the SPLC is forced to find new monsters, designating the likes of Rand Paul, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Ben Carson as extremists.

Some on the left are well aware of what the SPLC is up to. As Alexander Cockburn put it in The Nation, Dees is “king of the hate business.” Karl Zinsmeister of Philanthropy Roundtable notes that the SPLC’s “two largest expenses are propaganda operations: creating its annual lists of ‘haters’ and ‘extremists,’ and running a big effort that pushes ‘tolerance education’ through more than 400,000 public-school teachers.” In 2015 the SPLC said it had spent $10 million on direct fundraising, which is a lot more than it has ever spent on outside legal services. The group has never spent more than 31 percent of its donations on programs, Zinsmeister pointed out, and at times has spent as little as 18 percent.

 

This is not a particularly new process. Large organisations tend to become as much about replicating and expanding their own operations as the cause they were set up for.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,987
Reply with quote  #101 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
This is not a particularly new process. Large organisations tend to become as much about replicating and expanding their own operations as the cause they were set up for.


This would be true with many charities and "humanitarian" organisations, and depending on what their aim is in any case. We know what the SPLC really is about, the advancement of a radical Leftist agenda and making its own officials very rich. They've built their own headquarters mockingly known as "Poverty Palace" in downtown Montgomery, Alabama. They've stockpiled financial assets in offshore funds that dwarf other similar NFPs, and pay their executives very handsomely.

The SPLC hypes up an imaginary "white supremacist" threat and smears conservatives towards that end. We know the neo-Nazi and white nationalist scene is marginal and has no friends or connection to the political mainstream. By contrast, the radical Left and Islamist movements do have connections to the mainstream, are very well-funded and are not just tolerated but even indulged by establishment liberals. While Leftists and Islamists are capable of violence, the bigger threat comes from their allegedly non-violent activities to subvert society.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,142
Reply with quote  #102 
It's early days, but this is very interesting:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fords-ex-boyfriends-sworn-statement-disputes-multiple-claims-she-made-under-oath

Coming on the heels of the, rather predictable, collapse of the Swetnik allegation, it doesn't look good for the media-Democrats, especially as they are busy with farcical stuff about yearbooks, beers, and ice cubes. If Ford's allegation collapses too, there needs to scorched earth, legally, politically, and culturally. I doubt it would happen, but the political careers of a number of senate Democrats should end immediately, and numerous journalists should be fired or at least severely and publicly reprimanded. But let's see what happened.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,987
Reply with quote  #103 
Read on if you want to see the utter vileness of the CAIR network:

https://www.investigativeproject.org/7643/cair-proves-irony-is-not-dead
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 398
Reply with quote  #104 
I think that Judge Kavanaugh needs at least 50 senators' votes in order to attain confirmation. As nearly as I can ascertain, 48 senators have stated that they'll vote in his favor. Five senators remain undecided. Three are Republicans (Flake, Collins, Murkowski) and two are Democrats (Heitkamp, Manchin). I imagine that these 5 senators are probably awaiting the outcome of the F.B.I. investigation before deciding how to vote.  And so Kavanaugh needs for at least two of them to vote in his favor. In the event of a 50-50 tie, the Vice-President will cast the tie-breaking vote, and he'll surely vote for confirmation. 

It's unfortunate about how excessively partisan this whole issue has become, pitting the Republicans and Democrats against each other in the Senate, when the real focus ought to be on Kavanaugh himself, his qualifications and fitness for the position. 

__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Reply with quote  #105 
Your arithmetic is correct, and so alas is your last paragraph. The two undecided Democrat senators are incidentally both up for reelection in 'red' states, so even their decisions seem likely to be based on perceived political advantage, rather then sober assessment of the testimony. Speaking of sober, Kavanaugh has come under attack from an unexpected direction. I tend to agree with what the church council says; Kavanaugh may yet be confirmed, but his credibility has already been irretrievably tarnished, and if he were to join the SC that would be to the detriment of its own credibility. Which is kind of important.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.