Didn't want to start a thread but here is the Guliani scene in the Borat movie in case anyone is wanting to see what all the talk is about.
I see a lot of people complaining about ACB never answering any questions during her hearing. I've read that's called "The Ginsburg Rule" and was established by Joe Biden in 1993. Can one of you lefties explain to me how what I've heard is false, that it was really created by the evil republicans, and that I'm a moron and a right wing sheep for believing it?
no problem, I'm encouraged that you now recognize you are being told falsehoods that you should question. first two links are from when this was spun up for kavanaugh. https://apnews.com/article/gay-righ...upreme-court-b970417abe65977bc8031856aa769eda
From the first recording: I didn't watch or listen to much of ACB's hearing, but I do remember at least one exchange where they asked her about a previous writing about "super-precedent," and she answered the question. There were a number of others as well. Do you have examples of questions that she chose not to answer that would not fall under the "Ginsburg Rule?" And I ask because, though I haven't seen any part of RBG's testimony from her own hearing, the interwebz do give me reason to believe that she refused to answer some questions: https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/the-ginsburg-rule
I'm sure you can find RBG's testimony online, in many forms, if you actually were interested. Same with Coney Barrett. I'm not sure why you are feigning sincere interest when you don't even bother to listen to even one of the testimonies. How interested could you really be?
You asked about the Ginsburg rule, I linked 3 things about it. You reply that you haven't listened to either Coney Barrett's or RBG's testimonies, but want examples of the differences in how questions were answered. Lol, [uck fay] off troll. If you haven't even listened to one, you aren't trying and thus there is no way you'll ever fail to be convinced by the constant droning of conservative spin media. The primary sources are at your finger tips. Go to them.
Here is a transcript of Ginsburg's confirmation hearing. Feel free to seek out Coney Barrett's and contrast and compare with not only what is said, but the entire mood. I think you'll be shocked as to how things used to be. https://www.rev.com/blog/transcript...ginsburg-confirmation-hearing-transcript-1993
Well, there seems to be another dead on this attempted October Surprise. I'm shocked. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-tony-bobulinski-joe-biden-unanswered-questions
I listened to/read what you posted. I came back with a follow up question. Who says I need to listen to hours of both testimonies to not be convinced by the constant droning of conservative spin media? I might have accepted whatever you had to say, but you’ve refused to answer my question twice now.
No one says it. That you hadn't even listened to even one and were accepting of one unabashedly partisan take to the point of mocking any disagreement with it while asking, looks like some level of gullibility or at least blind acceptance of that narrative. You wouldn't have accepted anything I had to say- as evidenced by the fact that you seem to be ignoring or twisting what I did say. You weren't looking for an answer, you were looking for an argument. If you were looking for an answer, you might have looked for some sort of summary of each, or listened to at least ONE of the testimonies so as to have any kind of frame of reference. Maybe then you would post something in the form of an opinion, such as: I don't see much difference between the answers and testimonies of these two people." You know, instead of asking a question and then immediately following up with if I have examples of a claim I actually never made here. You say I have refused to answer your question twice now... and yet this exchange exists. An exchange where I have provided links and a transcript. You asked if the Ginsburg rule was established by Joe Biden. I answered with information. The "Ginsburg rule" existed before her hearing over which Biden presided, she just articulated it well so it became associated with her. That's in the links. One of the first things Coney Barrett said was that the Ginsburg rule existed before Ginsburg but that she just articulated it so well it became associated it with her. Coney Barrett said that. This month. Why would I be providing examples of a claim about answering questions that apparently you heard somewhere else? I answered your first question because I saw that you were being fed false information easily proven so. Maybe you should be asking whoever you heard this questions thing from? Surely you didn't hear this all second or third hand and just expect some random person to have examples of an opinion shared elsewhere for you? You asked about the Ginsburg rule and I responded. That doesn't mean I am going to engage in a debate about questions from testimonies you didn't listen to.
Plot twist (or is it status quo). You had to read quite a bit of the aritcle in the Washington Post article to find out that this happened in May and the guy with the bad Beatles haircut is a Bernie Bro. Neither the timing nor his political affiliation is in any of the tweets. Also, some of the Tweets of people pointing this out are being hidden on Twitter as misleading or offensive. Nice.
