Not true. I believe in the presumption of innocence. Kavanaugh has yet to be convicted, so I do not condemn him; Cosby has so I have condemned him.
Rubbish. If you’re going to try to insult me you really ought to check that it’s correct. Instead you muff it and reveal yourself as a stupid liar. Hereis the thread. It was the eggs that were overdone and I paid the insult tip and reported how I regretted having to leave it.
In short: you are stupid, you are ignorant, you are a fuckwit, and you are a liar, and this is indeed a bite.
Yanno, this clarification doesn’t make it better. You stiffed a waitress over the quality of the food, end of story. That’s a lousy thing to do. If you want to defend that choice, know that you’re just defending being a jerk to someone.
Read your own post: “The eggs were a long time in coming and when they came had almost no sauce and one was over cooked. And there was no discernible lemon in the Hollandaise… So I found the lowest value coin I had - 5c - and left that as a tip.”
And then re-read my post: “…and then you have the gall to talk about the need for more civility (after you stiffed a [female] minimum wage worker on a tip because the chef’s Hollandaise sauce had “no discernible lemon.”)”
And nice to know that you waited until Cosby was convicted before you felt condemned to think bad things of him. That actually makes me think you’ve even more of a maladjusted dick, which is quite a feat. Funny how so many of your issues revolve around women, eh?
First off, the “tip minimum wage” is a major screwing over of service workers and a wonderful (to management) way for management to avoid their fiscal obligations to employees. Second, it’s not the waitress’s job to cook the meal; that’s the cook’s job. The cook isn’t working for tips. Tip the waitress commensurate to how she performed her job, and leave a comment for the management about the cook’s bad job performance. Stiffing the waitress on a tip because the cook did his job wrong is like berating the cook for the waitress not laying out silverware.
A job he will hold for life, barring impeachment or voluntary retirement, that he cannot be fired from without a literal act of Comgress, in which he will hold sway over the interpretation of laws affecting hundreds of millions of people and adjudicating issues like a contested election. If there is any question about his fitness to sit on the bench—and aside from the accusation he has given plenty of reason to find his judgment, conduct, and attitude unsuitable—the Senate should pass and demand a better nominee. And despite all the histrionics about how these accusations are “ruining a man’s life”, if the worst thing that happens to him is that he doesn’t get seated on the court, join the rest of America. On the other hand, a shit judge making terrible decisions can literally ruin lives.
As for the “insult tip”, aside from the petulant rudeness and unwillingness to consider why it doesn’t send the intended message, and is also an example of the kind of gutless passive-aggressiveness that makes people groan at the thought of English tourists, it’s not actually a thing that anybody but the poster in question does, even though he pretends to have been taight the custom. Cheap people leave miserly tips, or people who feel the service (not the food) was exceptionally bad might leave no tip and a note on the bill, but leaving a nickel and not giving the manager a chance to make good on the food quality problem is not an “insult”; it’s just shitty, cowardly behavior.
I don’t know why I bother, but there is NOT “zero,” evidence.
You may find the existing evidence unpersuasive, but that’s not “zero.”
Unless you think that a reader should understand that when you say, “Zero evidence,” you really mean “zero persuasive evidence as far as my own personal opinion goes?”
It’s a fucking job interview for an important position. If you acted like Kavanaugh did in his hearing, even if the person giving the job interview said they were fucking your mother, you’re not getting that job. Even leaving aside the whole “accused of sexual assault” thing, which you shouldn’t.
eg [INDENT]When it comes to more ordinary jobs, we readily recognize that applicants may be disqualifed for a variety of possible shortcomings, even if the evidence of their existence falls far short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Imagine that you are hiring a babysitter for your children. A candidate applies who has excellent relevant skills, and good recommendations from recent previous employers. But evidence suggests that there is a 20% chance she may have been guilty of child abuse years ago. Few would blame you for rejecting her application on that basis, especially if there were other available applicants with comparable skills, but no such potential taint. Whether evidence of past criminal or unethical activity is disqualifying may vary greatly, depending on the nature of the job, and the nature of the moral lapse. A moral taint that is disqualifying for a childcare worker may not be disqualifying for an accountant, and vice versa. But, at least in a great many situations, a substantial likelihood that the applicant has a history of wrongdoing can be considered disqualifying.[/INDENT]
Amplifying this point, it’s not unusual for the Senate to pass over nominees of either party. It’s not unusual for a person to raise his public platform, only to witness the skeletons tumbling out of the closet. What generally happens under these circumstances is that the nominee’s name is withdrawn.
Both Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan had nominees shot down. Douglass Ginsberg withdrew his candidacy after it emerged that he had smoked pot a couple of times ~15+ years earlier.
In crude political terms, the Republican administration has a wide bench to choose from if they want to overturn Roe. And they can finish the process during the lame duck session, albeit with some difficulty if they care about democratic norms.
Czarcasm - Fair enough, but Volokh reliably provides solid legal analysis, albeit with a conservative bent. So I hope to link to it more. They are no longer behind a WAPO paywall.
You got one right, Counselor, but you were Ninja’ed way back in #34. Oh, that’s right. You’re so sensitive you have to set me to Ignore.
And being a different question, it has a different answer. Do you know the answer?
I’d like to hear from all the Kavanaugh sympathizers. Listening to him “defend” himself I was astonished to imagine such an ape could be a judge. What do the right-wingers think? What would you say if this were a Democratic nominee?
I’d say he came across as an unhinged nut. At the very least, I’d say he lacks the temperament, imo, to be one of most influential people in the world.
Not to mention … how can someone who loudly declares the Democrats are conspiring to ruin his life possibly be considered impartial in decisions with a political bent?