Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We all agree the cartoon, while not directly critical of the child, was in bad taste and does not reflect the views of most people.

And for anyone wondering about the kids at Senate hearings, it's relatively frequent. My neighbor was told to bring his family to his hearing - cute wholesome family would make him look good, blah blah blah...

Personally, I tend to be OK with using children to paint a positive image, and never OK with using children to paint a negative image.

I find this nominee and his supporters offensive.
But this is a distraction. Move on.

It’s not a distraction. It’s a repulsive cartoon.

So kids are open targets in your world!
In the big scheme of things, a repulsive cartoon is not very important

Agreed. A meaningless distraction from the real questions about Kavanaugh’s suitability.

Yup. A drama queen diversion.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

So kids are open targets in your world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So kids are open targets in your world?

Are you reading the same thread I am? Because it doesn't seem like you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/far-left-cartoonist-accused-of-targeting-kavanaughs-10-year-old-daughter-in-vicious-cartoon

Cartonnist targeting Kavanaugh's 10-year old.

This needs to stop. Take a vote and move on.

She' not being targeted, there is NOTHING negative about the child in that cartoon

You’ve been brainwashed. Children should be off limits.

Children should be off limits, which includes being misleading about how children are depicted in cartoons. The child was not targeted and you are attempting to exploit the child to generate outrage. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I think about this.... when his girls get a little older and google information about themselves, this will certainly be returned in the search results.
It is horrible.

The child IS being targeted. She is being used by the cartoonist putting words in her mouth that suggest she believes those awful things are true about her own father. I don't know how anyone could attempt to justify that hideous behavior. Imagine how she'll feel the day she sees that. It won't be as far off as when she's old enough to find it on her own. How long will it be before it is shown to her by a classmate taunting her with it? It will be used in a second way to target her.

So Brett should have never publicly talked about her prayers. He introduced the topic and the cartoonist ran worth it. Both of them were wrong.

I cannot believe you said this. I cannot believe that you are rationalizing what this person did because of Kavanaugh’s testimony.
I just am astounded daily at the thought process of a liberal.

Consider your own thought process:

Exploiting a child to generate sympathy in a public hearing == good;
Exploiting a child in a cartoon == bad;
Exploiting a child to generate anger on DCUM == good.

Your rules are complicated. Liberals can be forgiven for being confused.

I don't know how you can make it sound different but equal to "exploit" your child by sharing something sweet and endearing that they said to show how false accusations have affected your family and to "exploit a child" by putting horrible and vile words in her mouth to entertain people who hate her father.

And no, I will not forgive liberals for not understanding the difference. It's shameful, unsurprising and unforgivable.

They were both using the daughter for their own gain. Sad you can’t see that. And very telling.

It's like when you say "something bad happened, but the victim asked for it." Like, "That guy should not have raped her, but on the other hand, she did make herself vulnerable by kissing him while drunk and half naked."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So Brett should have never publicly talked about her prayers. He introduced the topic and the cartoonist ran worth it. Both of them were wrong.

I cannot believe you said this. I cannot believe that you are rationalizing what this person did because of

Kavanaugh’s testimony.
I just am astounded daily at the thought process of a liberal.

DP. Curious interpretation of "wrong".

He had to make sure he got as many key words in as possible along the lines of: catholic, Jesuit, little flower church (aka) little house on the prairie, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/far-left-cartoonist-accused-of-targeting-kavanaughs-10-year-old-daughter-in-vicious-cartoon

Cartonnist targeting Kavanaugh's 10-year old.

This needs to stop. Take a vote and move on.

She' not being targeted, there is NOTHING negative about the child in that cartoon

You’ve been brainwashed. Children should be off limits.

Children should be off limits, which includes being misleading about how children are depicted in cartoons. The child was not targeted and you are attempting to exploit the child to generate outrage. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I think about this.... when his girls get a little older and google information about themselves, this will certainly be returned in the search results.
It is horrible.

The child IS being targeted. She is being used by the cartoonist putting words in her mouth that suggest she believes those awful things are true about her own father. I don't know how anyone could attempt to justify that hideous behavior. Imagine how she'll feel the day she sees that. It won't be as far off as when she's old enough to find it on her own. How long will it be before it is shown to her by a classmate taunting her with it? It will be used in a second way to target her.

So Brett should have never publicly talked about her prayers. He introduced the topic and the cartoonist ran worth it. Both of them were wrong.

I cannot believe you said this. I cannot believe that you are rationalizing what this person did because of Kavanaugh’s testimony.
I just am astounded daily at the thought process of a liberal.

Consider your own thought process:

Exploiting a child to generate sympathy in a public hearing == good;
Exploiting a child in a cartoon == bad;
Exploiting a child to generate anger on DCUM == good.

Your rules are complicated. Liberals can be forgiven for being confused.

I don't know how you can make it sound different but equal to "exploit" your child by sharing something sweet and endearing that they said to show how false accusations have affected your family and to "exploit a child" by putting horrible and vile words in her mouth to entertain people who hate her father.

And no, I will not forgive liberals for not understanding the difference. It's shameful, unsurprising and unforgivable.

They were both using the daughter for their own gain. Sad you can’t see that. And very telling.

It's like when you say "something bad happened, but the victim asked for it." Like, "That guy should not have raped her, but on the other hand, she did make herself vulnerable by kissing him while drunk and half naked."

In that analogy, the cartoonist would be attacking Brett. Not the girl. He’s the one who said it.

But in reality, both Brett and the cartoonist exploited the girl. Just like PP continues to do. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Bret kavanaugh is fffffinished.

[Anonymous]

Awww Republicans can't stop talking about a cartoon because they can't handle the proof of BK's perjury

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ouch. Stunning visual of the GOP and justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, Chelsea Clinton never let embarrassment stop her. The Damon depiction could have been far, far worse. They pulled punches.

Agree. SNL skit could have been worse. It was actually very mild. Even I could have come up with better lines that would have been a more accurate characterization.

I thought they kind of went easy on him, but they were great with senators. It was very funny all in all though. But I thought Matt Damon could have been even more OTT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bret kavanaugh is fffffinished.

lol!!!

[Anonymous]

So in related news, Urban Dictionary is killing it:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kavanaugh

And 800k new voters just registered last week:
https://www.axios.com/record-800000-people-national-voter-registration-day-280d1643-9e36-4ab0-9bb2-3d903cde07ae.html

Woot woot!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2018/09/30/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-unloads-brett-kavanaugh-gop/1477678002/

From Matt Damon to Kanye West, SNL's season premiere was full of moments to keep fans talking.

We are relieved to report that Colin Jost and Michael Che got their groove back in time for the season premiere of "Saturday Night Live." The first five minutes of "Weekend Update" – dedicated to controversial Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh – was funnier than all of their bits from the Emmys combined.

"Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford appeared Thursday in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and it was a classic case of 'She said, he yelled,' " Jost said in opening, adding, "Based on his testimony, I guess Kavanaugh thought the hearing was about whether he thought he was cool in high school."

After playing a clip of Kavanaugh professing his love of beer, he added, "I gotta say, you're not really helping yourself in a drunken assault case when you talk about how much you like drinking and how strong you were at the time."

As for Kavanaugh using calendars from 1982 as an alibi, Jost argued, "They don't prove you're innocent. It proves you're a hoarder."

He added, "Pretty much the only ones who kept their composure the whole time were the woman being questioned and the woman Republicans had to hire to talk to the woman being questioned. Now on an optics level, I get why Republicans did that. But if you're not the right person to ask questions at a Senate hearing, maybe you're not the right person to be a senator."

Che chimed in, "I just wanna remind everyone that all this yelling and crying happened at the dude's job interview! I mean, typically, when you're asked about a sexual assault and your drinking problem at a job interview, you don't get the damn job!"

While Che conceded that he didn't know for a fact whether Kavanaugh committed sexual assault or had a drinking problem, he added, "He might. You probably shouldn't be on the Supreme Court if you might. You shouldn't be on 'People's Court' if you might!"

Che also noted that the hearing and the surrounding coverage had taught him "a lot about what goes on at white prep schools. I never thought I'd say this but I'm sending my kids to a black school where it's safe."

He also asked: "Why does it have to be him? You can't just pick another dude from your Illuminati lizard meetings? Are Republicans so pro-life that you don't even have a Plan B for this?"

Wow. They KILLED it. I’m going to have to watch the recording.

“But if you're not the right person to ask questions at a Senate hearing, maybe you're not the right person to be a senator."”

Omfg. So funny/true.

Weekend edition NAILED IT!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So in related news, Urban Dictionary is killing it:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kavanaugh

And 800k new voters just registered last week:
https://www.axios.com/record-800000-people-national-voter-registration-day-280d1643-9e36-4ab0-9bb2-3d903cde07ae.html

Woot woot!

This one is “old” now but still funny:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devils%20Triangle