[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

That is information YOU have. I have never heard about her expressing interest in men in the early years and it is irrelevant. I know several women who used to like men, but now they are gay.

The information was posted in this thread, and is publicly available. I did not claim it was evidence of her sexual orientation, just that it was the information we knew about her. Yet thought you replied in depth to my whole post, you still did not answer the question. Therefore from this point forth I shall assume that you assume she's gay because of superficial reasons and not logical thought process. Should you desire to correct this impression I'll be happy to re-evaluate based on the evidence.

Here we go again with this.

*SIGH*

The demanding tone never gets anywhere with me, especially when it is coupled with the argument that I'm "blaming everyone else."

Demand: "DO THIS"
Advice: "If you want X, do Y"
Blaming everyone else: "I could tell you but I won't because you're being childish."

You have noted no such thing. I have continued to use them. Your comments will never stop that. The thing is that I use them when I wish. I was never using them to "punctuate" many of my comments in the first place. You saw one main post with them and translated that to punctuating my statements.

I did indeed note it. I don't expect to change your behavior, it was simply a recommendation.

In addition, I believe that I also stated that I had issues with her lack of experience. So don't try to say that this is all about a Black candidate over a white one. Again, this is why I can't have mature discussion with people on here because they always reduce it to this simplified explanation which is beyond ignorant.

I suggest you reread. I did not suggest it was "all about a black candidate over a white one." But you failed to provide any reason why the black female candidate on the 'shortlist' would have been a better choice. For example: She was Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court and thus would have much greater experience. That is how you have a 'mature discussion.'

No, that is not unfortunate. That is reality. And I think it is ridiculous for you or anyone else to act as though that is problematic.

Reality and unfortunate are not contradictory by any means. I think it is problematic. It means that the Court is always about politics and not about qualifications. For example, Chief Justice Roberts. I don't like his views, but he is highly qualified to lead the court. Therefore I didn't oppose his nomination.

I always rise about the people you say I "mock." While they act like they are in the sandbox, I keep it moving when I see that they can't have a legitimate conversation without acting juvenile. Although people on here don't like to recognize it, the fact is that in the past, when someone has responded to me in a reasonable manner, I respond in kind. For instance when YOU originally asked why I opposed it, because you seemed to be asking in a genuinely interested and mature way, I responded. When the stupid insults start, that's when I don't provide further explanations.

Mock, degrade, whatever word you prefer. Quite frankly you stopped providing "further explanations" after you first, so I'm not truly surprised.

And for the record, my credibility is not in your hands or the hands of anyone else on here. Your opinion about my thoughts and feelings on this or any other matter are of no concern to me.

Your credibility is always in the hands of those you speak to. Certainly this does not affect your credibility or respect outside of this arena, it is a relatively contained environment. However, at least for here, you've lost a lot of credibility quickly. Perhaps you don't care, perhaps you do, that doesn't change the unfortunate reality.

And this is a problem when they otherwise criticize someone when that person "guesses." That is called being hypocritical.

No, it's called trying to figure out what you are basing your argument on when you refuse to provide it. It's also closer to a straw man fallacy than hypocrisy.

I thought I stated one good reason. But what is stopping you from doing your own research?

That she was black and female? I'm uncertain how that is a 'good reason.' For example, I think she is qualified but her extensive judicial record would make her a hard sell in an incredibly partisan confirmation hearing.

So whenever you're ready to have a real discussion, let us know.