Amy Coney Barrett- what in the actual F?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can all say nasty things but none of you have adopted kids of your own.

I have two internationally adopted children and my husband and I are both attorneys so I have a lot of thoughts on this subject. Adopted children need so much time and attention to deal with the loss, grieving, and trauma. This is not a one time thing, this is at every developmental stage and especially in the teen years dealing with self identity. I can’t phantom any large family being able to do this well. My grandmother had 7 kids and my father and his siblings love to trade stories of how little attention they got as a joke. With adopted kids that would not be funny. Putting that first issue aside, I just feel terrible for what her adopted children are going to read as they get older. ACB clearly needs a lot more adoption education training on how to talk about her children but more importantly how NOT to talk about them.

Except that, I’m quite sure she and her husband have had many conversations with their children about how they would like to be portrayed in the media. Obviously, she is not going to say anything about them that they wouldn’t approve of first. But sure, continue making absurd assumptions about her, all because you don’t want her confirmed.

The irony here is that her kids are going to read horrible threads like this one if they do any googling. I hope you a$$holes know that YOU are the ones putting out horrible and untrue things about the Barretts - not them. So congratulations. Nicely done.

Yep. I’m SURE that a 10 year old and a 13 year old have the foresight and the courage to tell their Mom not to say anything that could adversely impact them in a decade or two. /S

I don’t want her confirmed.
That’s completely separate from my anger at the way she’s presenting her too-young-to-fight-back Black children to the world.

Lol: And there’s no irony in using profanity in a thread that you expect the kids to read?

If they do read it, I hope they see a community of strangers who genuinely want the best for them, and I hope their view is that this is much ado about nothing. I also hope that my concerns about the difficulties that many Black kids adopted by white families face turn out to be irrelevant for them. I wish all of them well as a family — even as I express my concerns re: the very public hubris of Ms Barrett.

You are a true piece of work. Smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous. “A community of strangers who genuinely want the best for them”?? No, honey. That’s not what you want, nor what they will see when they read this thread - and they will. They will see a group of painfully hostile people, saying and assuming the very worst about their mother. They will read your atrocious comments and question their place in this family - something that they never had to question before because they knew they were loved and valued. One thing you said was correct: this is indeed, much ado about absolutely nothing. Only a liberal with a clear axe to grind would take the words of a loving mom and turn them into something hurtful. You should truly be ashamed of yourselves, though I’m quite certain “shame” isn’t within your capacity.

And we’re sure a frontal lobe and a human heart don’t beat within you, either.

Nor you, sweetie. What have you ever done for humanity other than spout liberal talking points that someone else came up with on social media? Poser.

Oink oink misogynist pig alert.

DP. Please do point out the “misogyny” in the above statement. We’ll wait.

There’s only one of you. We think. But using a gendered diminutive is misogyny.

Only one of who? People who disagree with you?? If you actually believe that, your echo chamber is narrower and more airtight than previously suspected. I’m not the “sweetie” poster, but sarcastically using that term is far more palatable than the insults liberals love to sling.

The minute I see a post with “sweetie”, “hun” or similar, I know I’m dealing with a cocky idiot, regardless of political affiliation. Or a
‘Bless your heart”. All of you should just be quiet and let grown ups talk.
-DP

Here’s the thing. When cocky idiots post, they deserve a response in kind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:23:30, all of those descriptions tell me a little something about each of her children. Each one has a personal anecdote of some kind. It is absolutely astounding that you are creating a problem where there isn’t one. ACB is living her life to the fullest and with every pathetic post, you’re making clear that you are not.

Presented with no commentary!

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that ACB doesn't recuse herself tells me all I need to know about her. She wants the job for herself and has no consideration for what is best for the entire country. Kind of like Bretty. Any person with a conscience male or female would not this accept this appointment at this time.

Oh, spare us. If Democrats were in the same situation, they would absolutely seize this opportunity to nominate a justice. It’s called politics and one party is not somehow more virtuous than the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats fear ACB because as she states, her job is not to make laws, her job is to interpret them. So scary for the party that doesn’t sell anything the American people want.

+1,000,000
Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But I also feel that most people with 7 children are weird, and don't want them to represent me. It was common in the past, but not so much after birth control became available. Having 7 children is an extreme choice. You might be "full quiver," anti birth control, I don't know. Especially when both parents are lawyers. So imagine you have 2 hours after work to spend with your kids before their bedtimes. Divide that time by 7. Kids want their parents when they are young. In absence of parent, siblings are conscripted into the role.

Angelina Jolie is a liberal woman with a lot of kids, including adopted. She is probably a nutter. I assume ego/narcissism/savior complex. She is really rich too, OK, and I also imagine she can choose her own projects and spends months on end with those kids if she wants to. But I am only guessing at this.

Angelina isn’t a liberal. Common misconception.

Of course she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats fear ACB because as she states, her job is not to make laws, her job is to interpret them. So scary for the party that doesn’t sell anything the American people want.

+1,000,000
Bingo.

You're too stupid to realize that their interpretation of the law does become the law.

[Anonymous]

So ironic that liberals pay all this lip service to feminism and working mothers, yet Republicans are the first to nominate a working mother with seven kids of school age. And Republicans will be the first to elect a female president.

And all the while, liberals will year these women down for their sheer audacity of NOT being liberals. What hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats fear ACB because as she states, her job is not to make laws, her job is to interpret them. So scary for the party that doesn’t sell anything the American people want.

Her "interpretation" is likely to gut existing laws (e.g. ACA).

When people make statements like yours, I assume they are either trying to obfuscate something or they are really ignorant. Which one is it in your case? I'm going to be generous and assume the former...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats fear ACB because as she states, her job is not to make laws, her job is to interpret them. So scary for the party that doesn’t sell anything the American people want.

+1,000,000
Bingo.

You're too stupid to realize that their interpretation of the law does become the law.

Speaking of stupid ^^^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So ironic that liberals pay all this lip service to feminism and working mothers, yet Republicans are the first to nominate a working mother with seven kids of school age. And Republicans will be the first to elect a female president.

And all the while, liberals will year these women down for their sheer audacity of NOT being liberals. What hypocrisy.

The irony is that Republicans (can't call you all conservatives, since you all seem to have no political philosophy beyond "What Trump said" anymore) can't tell the difference between tokenism and meaningful policy change that helps working families.

Also, the first woman Speaker of the House (and still the woman to have held the most senior political position in the US ever) was a Democrat. There's a very high chance that the first woman to be VP in the US will be a Democrat come January.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So ironic that liberals pay all this lip service to feminism and working mothers, yet Republicans are the first to nominate a working mother with seven kids of school age. And Republicans will be the first to elect a female president.

And all the while, liberals will year these women down for their sheer audacity of NOT being liberals. What hypocrisy.

The irony is that Republicans (can't call you all conservatives, since you all seem to have no political philosophy beyond "What Trump said" anymore) can't tell the difference between tokenism and meaningful policy change that helps working families.

Also, the first woman Speaker of the House (and still the woman to have held the most senior political position in the US ever) was a Democrat. There's a very high chance that the first woman to be VP in the US will be a Democrat come January.

Not to mention Democrats (and a majority of Americans) did vote for a woman for president in 2016 PPP is a complete idiot!! We love women who stand up for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that ACB doesn't recuse herself tells me all I need to know about her. She wants the job for herself and has no consideration for what is best for the entire country. Kind of like Bretty. Any person with a conscience male or female would not this accept this appointment at this time.

Oh, spare us. If Democrats were in the same situation, they would absolutely seize this opportunity to nominate a justice. It’s called politics and one party is not somehow more virtuous than the other.

We were. His name was Merrick Garland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that ACB doesn't recuse herself tells me all I need to know about her. She wants the job for herself and has no consideration for what is best for the entire country. Kind of like Bretty. Any person with a conscience male or female would not this accept this appointment at this time.

Oh, spare us. If Democrats were in the same situation, they would absolutely seize this opportunity to nominate a justice. It’s called politics and one party is not somehow more virtuous than the other.

We were. His name was Merrick Garland.

Thanks for reminding them, since Somehow they completely forgot about this.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

^^ that is ACB on the conveyer belt, to be clear.