N
Nepperhan
Guest
Instead of worrying about vapid comparisons, can we deal with the facts stated? That way we can move the discussion forward.Mother Jones is worse.
Instead of worrying about vapid comparisons, can we deal with the facts stated? That way we can move the discussion forward.Mother Jones is worse.
Then Nepperhan appealed to Mother Jones reporting on ex-members (here) . . .Breitbart likes to highlight any person it can find to make a foolish statement – if the person is a leftist. . . . .
Of course EVERY group, at least religious group gets criticized by “former members”. The question is, is it true? Who said that (so you can actually respond)? WHY did they say that? Can their gripes be substantiated?"[Barrett’s] a member of People of Praise, a charismatic covenant community in South Bend, Indiana, that has been criticized by former members . . . .
Nepperhan (here) . . .Mother Jones is worse
Good grief.. . . can we deal with the facts stated? That way we can move the discussion forward.
First of all, this thread is NOT about “Trump”.As folks here said of Trump’s infidelities: “That’s all in the past.”
What smears? There was one person making ignorant comments. Folksare trying to gin that up to be Democratic smears as to the nominee and her children? It just ain’t so.The facts stated are the leftist smears against a woman and mom - Amy Coney Barrett. The Democrats are bullying girls and women again.
Bold mine.There was one person making ignorant comments.
My comment were as to the rhetorical consistency of some posters and only mentioned Trump indirectly. I was not bringing anyone in.There was no persons in the White House making ignorant comments yet you saw fit
to drag Trump in here again
So you’re extrapolating this as to a (sinister) habit of leftists? That sounds paranoid to me.I explained the modus operendi of the leftists on these things (a trial ballooon from someone that gets read enough to matter. Then guage public reaction. Then proceed accordingly taking political expediency largely into account).
The “sinister” is YOUR addition.So you’re extrapolating this as to a (sinister) habit of leftists?
No religious tests, that’s the Constitution.No. Feinstein commented on the judge’s writings which is appropriate, not on the judge’s religion. Can’t you tell the difference?
If you read the remarks you could see that they did not focus on Catholicism. You’re just wrong here. Checking a nominee’s impartiality is not bigotry.
You’re building a house on sand.
‘The dogma lives loudly within you’: Revisiting Barrett’s confirmation hearing. - The New York Times.‘The dogma lives loudly within you’: Revisiting Barrett’s confirmation hearing.