"How sad that the lives of degenerate drug addicts and queers are valued more than the innocent victims of more prevalent ailments."You know, if Bradley were Donald Trump, her popularity would surge. Maybe the voters are hungry for outrageous tough talk and the flouting of political correctness.
"Either you condone drug use, homosexuality, AIDS-producing sex, adultery and murder and are therefore a bad person, or you didn't know that he supports abortion on demand and socialism, which means you are dumb. Have I offended anyone? Good — some of you really need to wake up."
"But the homosexuals and drug addicts who do essentially kill themselves and others through their own behavior deservedly receive none of my sympathy."
"[W]hy is a student government on a Catholic campus attempting to bring legitimacy to an abnormal sexual preference?"
But Bradley has apologized. She issued a written statement assuring us that the old remarks "have nothing to do with who I am as a person or a jurist." This is, in her view, a "blatant mudslinging campaign to distract the people from the issues."
Her opponent, JoAnne Kloppenburg, rejects the apology and connects the old remarks to who Bradley is now: she's allied herself with Scott Walker and Scott Walker is "against gay rights." (Scott Walker opposed same-sex marriage, even in the era after which Barack Obama evolved into support for it.)
There's only been one poll, and it shows the candidates at 37% (Bradley) and 36% (Kloppenburg). The election is April 5th, the same day as the presidential primary, so I'd been thinking the result will be affected by what's happening in the 2 presidential races. If Hillary has it locked up on the Democratic side, maybe Democrats won't bother to come out. And yet I think there are quite a few people who would want to vote for Bernie Sanders anyway or who'd cross over to the GOP side to vote against Donald Trump. (It's an open primary.) If Trump has clinched or all but clinched the nomination, will Republicans drag themselves to the polls? I'm seeing an advantage for Kloppenburg, quite aside from this new controversy.
Anyway, here's one of Bradley's old writings. I read the whole thing and was struck by the appearance of the old Nancy Reagan slogan, "Just say no":
Posts
103 comments:
I would not want to be judged by what I did in my mid-20s.
Here's the thing about apologizing--refusing to do so is only a virtue if you have nothing to actually apologize for (e.g., you shouldn't apologize for pointing out that the black community has a very high crime rate, or that Hillary Clinton has enabled a sex offender over decades) and certainly there is no virtue in an insincere apology or an "un-pology" (e.g., "I'm sorry you got offended by not understanding me"). Everyone loves a truth teller if they think they are actually telling the truth.
But if you cannot apologize because you can never see anything you do as wrong, or if your "truth telling" is actually peddling more BS (is Michael Moore "telling it like it is"?), or if you're simply intentionally being ruder than necessary just to get a rise out of people (do you need to drop racial epithets when talking about black people when you could have made your point without doing so?), then you're a douche.
I don't know the context of this woman's quotes, but at least the AIDS comments seem to fall into the latter category. It's a much needed truth to point out that you can almost entirely eliminate your chances of getting AIDS by refraining from certain behavior; it's BS to categorize AIDS patients as degenerates. Should she have instead doubled down on those statements from 24 years ago?
"I would not want to be judged by what I did in my mid-20s."
I'm just glad we didn't have social media when I was a teenager. I can't imagine the embarrassing crap I'd be unable to erase.
Why can't we "just say no" to sex?
Because celibacy has worked so well for the Catholic church!!
Is it too late for her to undergo transgender assignment, become a recovering meth and heroin addict and practice murder for hire? With those additional credentials she could become a good Supreme Court Justice.
You know, if Bradley were Donald Trump, her popularity would surge.
That's a bad reading of Trump supporters.
They're against PC, not against victims.
Scott Walker opposed same-sex marriage, even in the era after which Barack Obama evolved into support for it.
I love this.
Like there is a BCE and a CE (BC/AD) for the exact moment it became unacceptable to be opposed to same sex marriage.
BOE, OE
Bradley's statements -- read carefully -- are merely hard-edge political rhetoric. Well within the rules of debate and argument. My problem with comparing them to stuff that Trump has been saying, Professor Althouse, is that many of the Trumpisms really are profoundly false, or illegal, or a combination of the two.
Trump's rhetoric, standing on its own, is out of bounds. Justice Bradley's isn't.
But for anybody who wants to conflate the two, I'll suggest that just maybe -- and I really hate to say this about Justice Bradley -- voters in Wisconsin might in the end reject BOTH Trump and Bradley.
One last thing, Professor Althouse. About polling in Wisconsin and off-cycle elections. Didn't we learn from the Walker recall (and other Wisconsin Supreme Court elections) that polling vastly overstated actual Democrat Anti-Walker turnout? Dems in Wisconsin (like Dems everywhere else) did great when they had Obama at the top of the ticket to pull in 135% of the African-American vote. And not so good in other elections.
Maybe she just wanted to live freely in writing.
All I want to know about this kerfuffle is how it affects Trump's Johnson. Can't we just stick with the important crap?
I can't condone what Bradley wrote as a college student 25 years ago. But I have to judge what the two candidates are exhibiting now. And the effort to politicize this on the part of Kloppenburg, Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, et al., is abhorrent and disturbing. I plan to vote on April 5 to cancel out a Kloppenburg vote.
They will cross over to vote FOR Trump. This is one hugely successful Operation Chaos.
I bet the people that are upset at what she wrote 24 years ago, are the same ones who laugh and say it was okay that Bernie wrote about women fantasizing about gang rape.
If you look back 30 years to before the time the dens evolved in gay marriage they were promoting traditional marriage. And not gay marriage.
There are you tube videos showing Hillary repeating that marriage is one man one woman. And getting booed. Hillary though is allowed to evolve. Why isn't this woman?
Dens and kind seems to have this idea in their heads that they are able to determine the right side of history and how a moral question has evolved based purely on what they think the answer is.
If they are opposed then they are on the right side of history and if they are for they are also on the right side of history.
"Bradley's statements -- read carefully -- are merely hard-edge political rhetoric. Well within the rules of debate and argument."
Calling gay people "degenerate... queers"?!
Madashell wrote:
Why can't we "just say no" to sex?
Because celibacy has worked so well for the Catholic church!!
they didn't say no though.
Hence their getting in trouble (I assume you are talking about the scandal of priests raping boys) .
joe then is it bad advice? If assume we'd tell Everton just say no to child rape. If they don't listen it doesn't make the advice bad
Calling gay people "degenerate... queers"?!
It was in 1992, and she was playing the part of an angry conservative after Clinton's election.
When Kloppenburg was in her mid-20s, in the mid-70s, what was she writing about?
She'll be fine. This is Wisconsin. The olds agree with Bradley and they vote.
"When Kloppenburg was in her mid-20s, in the mid-70s, what was she writing about?"
It shouldn't matter. But doxing Kloppenburg now for what she was writing about when she was a college student should be outside "the rules of debate and argument" now.
Unless we agree to change the rules.
Bradley used "degenerate" in connection with drug addicts. She should probably issue a simple apology and retraction for that. And if we read her correctly, she has.
"Queer" is a funny word. Is it one of those words, like "nigga," that is laughably routine for one sector of the populace to use, but other sectors are forbidden at the peril of losing their livlihoods?
So if you have the correct political orientation, you can establish a tax-exempt public service organization called "Queer Nation," with a ".org" url, a website, and a manifesto!
http://queernationny.org/
But don't you dare use that word if your thinking isn't just right!
"But don't you dare use that word if your thinking isn't just right!"
I can't agree with what is behind that sarcasm.
The question should be: Is it right and fair to try to destroy political candidates by doxing them on their behavior during pre-adulthood, before they began their career?
As MadisonMan wisely observed at the top of this thread — "I would not want to be judged by what I did in my mid-20s."
I would add to that — I do not want to elect a Supreme Court judge who judges 45 year-old people based on what they did in their mid-20s.
Being homosexual is one thing. Marching up Main Street half naked with spiked hair and bodypaints and waving rude placards is something else.
Every movie ever made prior to, say, 2012, depicted cross dressing men as either decadent or silly. It is only very recently that we have learned of the sensitivity and essential decency of cross dressers. In my personal life I have not encountered any cross dressers so I have relied on the movies to shape my opinions of cross dressers. If I have negative opinions about cross dressers, you can blame Hollywood.......Shouldn't we see Bradley as much a victim of Hollywood stereotypes as the AIDS sufferers. If Hollywood had presented a more enlightened view of gays, this poor judge would have never formed such a low opinion of gays.
I absolutely think it's relevant what a middle-aged person wrote in college. Because we all know that by the time they get to college, people have already developed the carefully considered views they carry with them throughout life.
I also think the statue of Cecil Rhodes and the wheat on the Harvard shield should come down because people should be judged by current trends, not by the standards of the times in which they lived.
I don't know, Meade. I'd like to agree with you. I wish I could. But I have to confess in all honesty, that if I was oppo-researching somebody I didn't like, I think I'd leave it to the voters to decide how relevant and how fair it was. If they thought it was unfair, they would be perfectly free to disregard it.
What discomforts me is the overall media presumption that personal moral objection to homosexuality is now a quasi-criminal state of mind, or even a disqualifier for public office.
"I will certainly characterize whomever transferred their infected blood (to a transfusion recipient) a homosexual or drug-addicted degenerate and a murderer." I agree that "degenerate" should not be applied to "queers" in general. But do you disagree that knowingly transferring infected blood is "degenerate"? Is the term itself out of bounds? If not, what standard of behavior qualifies actions as degenerate? What frequency of degenerate actions would justify calling a group degenerate? For example, could sexual conduct in a particular group that leads to a 140-fold increase in the risk of contracting certain serious diseases, compared to a similar group not engaging in that conduct, be considered "degenerate"?
We shouldn't judge her as a person based on her writings that show she is devoid of compassion for the sick and dying. Wtf
My hunch is that she did not have many opportunities to "just say no" in college.
""When Kloppenburg was in her mid-20s, in the mid-70s, what was she writing about?"
I don't know but don't forget the old writings by Bernie Sanders that were read and digested by the political process recently.
Discussed at NRO under the headline "Let’s Not Crucify Bernie Sanders for His Sexual-Fantasies Essay."
In an article entitled “Men-And-Women,” published in an alternative newspaper called the “Vermont Freeman” Sanders shared his thoughts on male and female sexuality in ways that would cause a media firestorm if it had been penned by any current GOP candidate. Even one with as little chance at grabbing his party’s nomination as Sanders currently has. “A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy,” wrote Sanders. “A woman on her knees. A woman tied up. A woman abused.” Sanders didn’t specify as to how he had gained such a deep understanding of the male psyche. In terms of his understanding of female sexual fantasies, Sanders provided similar insight. “A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes about being raped by 3 men simultaneously.”
...and Scott Walker is "against gay rights." (Scott Walker opposed same-sex marriage,...
I know you claim to be tired of the same thing being said again and again, but if you keep repeating the same old lie, don't be surprised at someone responding with the same old truth.
Gays have had the same marriage rights as everyone else since pretty much forever. What they wanted was a change in the definition. If you wish to argue in favor of such a change, at least do so honestly.
Wow. Awesome. Now I want to go to Wisconsin just to vote for her.
Meade was aghast when it was said that Scott Walker should be held responsible for the actions of Super-PACS that were campaigning on his behalf, saying that Walker didn't have anything to do with those groups, yet he holds Kloppenburg to an entirely different standard.
Since he constantly claims he isn't partisan when it comes to politics, his hypocrisy must be based on sexism.
" Is sex any harder to say no to than an addictive drug?"
Well, this question has two answers. It depends on whether someone already is addicted or never took the drug.
When Nancy Reagan coined the slogan "Just Say No" she was talking about the first time.
For someone who has done both, sex is probably harder to say no to. Also, maybe, for someone who has done neither. It may be easier to quit opiate drugs than to quit sex, although both are reputed to be very hard to do, and people can fool themselves about what kind of sex is safe.
Rebecca Bradley shouldn't be blamed for not being a high level philosopher. In fact, common policy towards drugs may have been too harsh. Much too harsh.
So the people who wound up getting getting AIDS (then a short term death sentence in most cases) even though by that time they had fair warning that what they were doing was dangerous, do deserve sympathy, whether they got it through IV drug use, or the incporation of somebody else's bodily fluids. She should not have used the word "degenerate," at least not in a harsh sounding way.
Of course, it is males who have a much harder time quitting sex, and she was female.
I'm just guessing that the NRO guys would have been overjoyed with the prospect of Bernie Sanders getting the nomination. I would have been. And I'd have saved the "rape fantasy" writing until about September.
Exactly what the media is doing with Trump, now.
Rebecca Bradley also had confusion about homosexuality. The Bible does not condemn someone doing that more than hundred times, or more than fifty times, or twenty times, or ten times. It condemns somebody doing that ONCE.
It is not something someone can repent from, and it also something somebody can be cured from. But people persisted in thinking one or the other - that if it is a sin, someone can repent from it, and if it is a medical disorder, it can be cured, and if if it can't be cured, it must be something inborn.
But actually it is just like any other paraphilia, (where there also was this confusion, by the way, and it was thought someone could repent and/or be cured)
No one is born that way, and there is no known cure, although maybe people could think of one. It is the result of a wrong decision usually made around puberty. It is what is called a "developmental disorder" But not something involuntary.
She now says she doesn't think the way she thought, but she doesn't say why. It looks like it is merely social pressure.
Actually, this isn't that bad. It isn't as if Bradley went all Godwin by comparing abortion doctors to the Nazis and then refused to apologize for those comments.
William McGurn writes in the Wall Street Journal today that there are two kinds of political incorrectness - the good kind, and the Trump kind.
The better kind, he writes, challenges what George Orwell called "the smelly little orthodoxies which are now contending for our souls" with reason and a willingness to go where the facts take you.
This kind of political incorrectness, he says, does things like question the science behind global warming (and even more the "remedy!" - SF) or doesn't change the views of what is marriage, or writes about black crime and the challenge of fatherlessness (not quite the truth - it is who someone's friends are - disrepect for other peoplle and outright evil can spread like a contagion - not fatherlessness, that causes crime, plus the absence of law enforcement, not too much of it!)
Trump's kind of political incorrectness, on ths other hand, is just being outrageous (breaking taboos) without sound logic. But if you suppress the first, healthy, kind of political incorrectness, he says, you'll get the second kind.
I would add to that — I do not want to elect a Supreme Court judge who judges 45 year-old people based on what they did in their mid-20s.
Meade nails it.
25 years ago, the cultural standards were different -- some things were better, some things were worse.
Homophobia was widely and generally accepted back then (not saying it was a good thing).
Racist chit-chat was also widely and generally accepted back then (not saying it was a good thing).
If a liberal candidate for any office in 2016, can't think of one solitary current issue to run on, but, instead, tries to reach back 25 years to slime an opponent... well, that's how the left operates.
On the larger issue, though, regardless of one's views on gay marriage or race matters, it is a good thing, in my opinion, to have shifted to a more tolerant, more inclusive society.
Brando said...3/8/16, 9:37 AM
"I would not want to be judged by what I did in my mid-20s."
I'm just glad we didn't have social media when I was a teenager. I can't imagine the embarrassing crap I'd be unable to erase.
Can you even find old Usenet messages, now? I don't know how long Facebook posts will last.
"(Scott Walker opposed same-sex marriage, even in the era after which Barack Obama evolved into support for it.) "
How dare anyone lag behind the constantly evolving prejudices of dear leader?
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
Obama's college work is immaterial. But her earlier writings are KEY. Vital info.
I wonder why the double standard.
It shouldn't matter. But doxing Kloppenburg now for what she was writing about when she was a college student should be outside "the rules of debate and argument" now.
Unless we agree to change the rules.
But the rules have just been changed. Without any agreements. Why stand by no-longer-in-play rules?
It'd be like a basketball team refusing to shoot three's because basketball originally didn't have them.
The question should be: Is it right and fair to try to destroy political candidates by doxing them on their behavior during pre-adulthood, before they began their career?
No, it is not. But if one side is already doing it, they will only stop when it begins to hurt them.
I look at these unwritten rules like the Geneva Conventions. They require both sides to play "right". If one side doesn't, but one side does, then the offending side has no reason, at all, to abide by the rules.
Make their transgressions hurt.
We shouldn't judge her as a person based on her writings that show she is devoid of compassion for the sick and dying. Wtf
If a long-time heroin addict is dying due to using heroin...how much compassion is warranted?
MadasHell:
Cute dog.
I was in college back the and this would have been pretty harsh even by 1992 standards. That said, stuff you did or believed in college or your approach to debate shouldn't be dredged up a generation later. It speaks poorly of anyone who would make an issue of this. We have a hard enough time attracting qualified, willing people to run for elected office as it is.
Bay Area Guy said...3/8/16, 11:05 AM
25 years ago...Racist chit-chat was also widely and generally accepted back then
No, it wasn't. You have to go back more than 50 years for that, and, outside of the deep south, before the end of World War II.
The New York Daily News went all Godwin on Sunday's front page about Donald Trump.
Kloppenburg recently stated that Abraham Lincoln owned slaves.
This won't affect anything. It's all about turnout.
Kloppenburg recently stated that Abraham Lincoln owned slaves.
You're kidding...right?
Dear God, does Wisconsin really need an imbecile on their Supreme Court?
Debate was more robust and open back then. That 1992 election was interesting and it was the first presidential election most college kids could vote in. Ross Perot resonated with a lot of people on campus back then, HW Bush was well respected but seemed a bit out of touch and Bill Clinton was a charismatic center left guy whose personal life was amusing to us, especially Gennifer Flowers statement that Clinton "ate pussy like a champ."
mccullough said...3/8/16, 11:25 AM
stuff you did or believed in college or your approach to debate shouldn't be dredged up a generation later....We have a hard enough time attracting qualified, willing people to run for elected office as it is.
Otherwise the only people you'll have running for office will be people like
Tracy Flick, if she guessed right as to where things were going.
Is Inga back to posting as madisonfella?
What will Amanda think about this treason?
damikesc said...3/8/16, 11:30 AM
Dear God, does Wisconsin really need an imbecile on their Supreme Court?
I think that should be historical ignoramus.
But I wonder if she read that somewhere.
"Is Inga back to posting as madisonfella?"
Birkel, I'm going to ask you nicely just once — please don't get that crap started again.
Correction:
* and it also something somebody can NOT be cured from, any more than they can be cured of pedophilia.
I'm pretty sure most commenters here agree with Bradley.
Birkel, you seem obsessed by this person Inga you keep calling me. Now you think MadsionFella is this Inga too? Get a life Birkel and get this Inga out of your mind.
An idea Bernard Sanders had in his mid-20s:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/us/politics/in-long-political-career-bernie-sanders-relies-on-son-as-a-constant-witness.html
Those ideas on home schooling and home birth later became more popular. Some of his other ideas have yet to catch on.
In December 1969, he published in The Freeman “Cancer, Disease and Society,” an article based on the work of the Austrian psychologist Wilhelm Reich, exploring whether sexual repression and the stifling of children contributed to cancer.
The “manner in which you bring up your daughter with regard to sexual attitudes may very well determine whether or not she will develop breast cancer, among other things,” he wrote. He added that it was important for boys to rebel in school because if they bottled up their emotions, “30 years later, a doctor tells him that he has cancer.”
Effort at nice noted.
As recently as 1988, Bernie Sanders thought cancer had psychosomatic aspects.
The wife of Sanders' son Levi, Raine Riggs, "is a neuropsychologist whose studies have included the psychiatric syndromes connected to cancer diagnoses. (Levi himself works as an advocate for people seeking Social Security benefits.)"
Bay Area Guy said...
25 years ago, the cultural standards were different -- some things were better, some things were worse.
Racist chit-chat was also widely and generally accepted back then (not saying it was a good thing).
Maybe 50 years ago, not 25. Unless you're referring to new racism: disagreeing with the left-most loudmouth in the room.
I understand the sockpuppet issue cuts a bit close to home for some folks.
So Bradley still was an adolescent at 21?
When did she become a judge?
The AIDS crisis in the late 80s and early 90s was overblown. The activists wielding their junk science kept telling everyone that it was just as easy to contract HIV from inprotected vaginal sex and oral sex as anal sex. They advocated using condoms for blow jobs. It was ridiculous
Althouse: "If Hillary has it locked up on the Democratic side, maybe Democrats won't bother to come out. And yet I think there are quite a few people who would want to vote for Bernie Sanders anyway or who'd cross over to the GOP side to vote against Donald Trump. (It's an open primary.)"
Trump has done much better in open than in closed primaries. It is not improbable that Democrats are crossing over to nominate Trump. Despite his supporters delusions of his invincibility, polls still show that Hillary or Bernie will clean his clock in the general election. Democrats can't be unaware of that.
Maybe these Democrats are crossing over because they support Trump. Self identified Democrats are now at about 30%, as opposed to 37% four years ago. Where did they go?
Doesn't Ann know that the creator of the universe made his views on the subject known to a bunch of backwards Hebrews 5000 years ago? I think we have it on good authority that the creator of the universe really doesn't like it when men stick their penises in other men's anuses. I'm not sure he likes it when they stick them in women's anuses, too, but he really doesn't like them to do it to men's anuses.
Please this should be a major plus for a republican voter in Wisconsin.
This person should easily win the election now.
Bonus points if they can find something she said about queers last week.
Titus, please don't use that slur on this blog. Thanks.
I don't know... calling somebody a Republican isn't that bad.
" the effort to politicize this on the part of Kloppenburg, Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, et al., is abhorrent and disturbing"
Politicians will use whatever works. Perhaps a better question is, why does the Journal-Sentinel carry Kloppenburg's water? It's not just that they reported it, or even that the story appears to be lightly-edited content direct from Kloppenburg's campaign, but it's the above-the-fold, front-page lead story in today's printed newspaper.
And now with a followup "Bradley compared abortion to the Holocaust in student column" story.
Have they no shame?
The AIDS crisis in the late 80s and early 90s was overblown. The activists wielding their junk science kept telling everyone that it was just as easy to contract HIV from inprotected vaginal sex and oral sex as anal sex. They advocated using condoms for blow jobs. It was ridiculous
They wanted the ridiculously overdone spending on it, so they had to try and convince straight people that vaginal sex is as risky as anal sex. They never could explain why lesbians seemed to be such low risks for it, though.
Of course, my high school years were during the worst of this, so, yeah, good times. The same idiots who thought tons of random, anonymous sex in gay bath houses was a civil rights issue then tried to pretend that all sex was equally risky.
So Bradley still was an adolescent at 21?
When did she become a judge?
You haven't changed your opinion or behavior since 21?
Peter:
Asked and answered.
And now with a followup "Bradley compared abortion to the Holocaust in student column" story.
Both are somewhat popular legalized slaughtering of people viewed as being less than human.
"Calling gay people "degenerate... queers"?!
SHe technically called drug addicts degenerates. But that brings up a followup. Is it ok to call drug addicts degenerates?
Althouse said...
Calling gay people "degenerate... queers"?!
"How sad that the lives of degenerate drug addicts and queers are valued more than the innocent victims of more prevalent ailments."
Not so sure she used "degenerate" before "drug addicts" to also modify, after the conjunction, "queers".
Nor why Althouse tolerates the pejorative "degenerate" applied to drug addict.
Some are, some aren't, same with the gays.
I am trying to imagine what behaviors one could avoid changing over 30 years. Gaits change. Muscles change. Eyesight changes. Education and experience change.
I cannot think of a single thing that 21 year old adult me did that has not changed in both mundane and profound ways.
Kittle predictably explores JS and Wan Wisconsin Now's past reactions to doxing:
Mainstream media, left-wing practice politics of hypocrisy in Rebecca Bradley story
Holding a judicial election on primary day? That seems calculated to disenfranchise independent voters who, of course, have no party to stick up for them.
What?? Kloppers is back again? Don't these people ever go away? Every Dem in Wisconsin is infected with Proxmire syndrome. If I run enough times statewide, eventually they'll elect me. Kloppers for Senate!
I'm from Jersey and read your blog while glancing over the Wisconsin stuff, but Kloppenber is still at it?
Laurence, what do the letters LGBTQ stand for, on the University of Wisconsin's LGBT Campus Center "Mentor Program" page?
https://lgbt.wisc.edu/mentor.htm
Yeah, it is sort of a rhetorical question. (Although a rhetorical question does not make one "Q.")
The Washington Post devoted considerable attention to the subject:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2014/05/23/civilities-what-does-the-acronym-lgbtq-stand-for/
This is worth the read as a reminder of the politicization of her past run..and the hilarious disclosure at the beginning of the article:
Enraged by Walker, activists put Kloppenburg’s Supreme Court campaign on their shoulders
Bradley rejects the fantasy and pro-choice discrimination promoted by the State-established pro-choice cult. She will be destroyed by the liberal orthodoxy as an example to others who do not share their faith.
Can I still use the word query?
Qwerty?
Rebecca Bradley has most likely not changed her views. She has simply learned how to lie very well. That makes her the perfect politician.
Bradley only recently has been appointed as judge, and lacks a lot of written opinions to look at.
Given the paucity of information on this judge who has never been elected as judge, 8t makes sense to read everything she has written.
Maybe she was foolish to publish polarized op eds while an adult college student, but she willingly chose to permanently enshrine her ideas in print. Never a wise idea when one wants to run for office later.
Maybe she should have said no to her editor.
So, never write anything in case you want to do something later.
That'll be helpful.
And I wonder where this obsession over things done in college has been in regards to our President's actual collegiate record.
It should be really relevant, no?
Nasty writing as a college kid? When I was at my small, Southern-Baptist affiliated college, the editor of the student newspaper asked me to review the then-infamous movie, Caligula. A bowlderized R-rated version was being shown in local theaters.
My conclusion was that the movie was so horrible, despite the presence of Peter O'Toole, it would doubtless be improvable only by the re-addition of gratuitous x-rated sex. The editor loved my review, and ran it, to much laughter from faculty and students. I think my complaint letter to the editor, that the Library closed for football games, wasn't nearly as good.
My son, following in my footsteps as a writer, won a competition to write grunge (horrifically unflattering stories about fellow Cadets) at Texas A&M. His mother actually asked me if I thought he was mentally disturbed when she found a copy and read it. My reassurances to her, I fear, fell on deaf ears.
I look forward to my son's future confirmation hearings, for whatever reason, when I shall leak his grunge writings for maximum hilarious effect. As a Dad, I consider doing so both a duty and an honor.
damikesc said...
Kloppenburg recently stated that Abraham Lincoln owned slaves.
You're kidding...right?
Not Kidding. West Allis Youth Commission Feb 10, 2016. She was asked who was the most influential President.
"Any president that you might name would highlight how internally complex every person is. President Lincoln had slaves and yet he led this country in emancipating black people from slavery. We had George Washington who created this country, but also had slaves."
Unsurprisingly, the Milwaukee Journal did find in worthy of publishing.
Youtube Link
Like other State and the Federal Supreme Court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is a political entity.
Perhaps more so because Judges are elected rather than appointed, but at least there is a 10 year term and it is not for life.
Anyone pretending otherwise is just being disingenuous.
So Kloppenburg was unaware of the Missouri Compromise and the fact that Illinois is north of the southern border of Missouri? And also unaware that Lincoln was poor? And that Lincoln was against slavery in public life long before running for office?
Political toadies sure are ignorant wretches.
damikesc said...
And I wonder where this obsession over things done in college has been in regards to our President's actual collegiate record.
It should be really relevant, no?
As much as I opposed Barack Obama and every Democrat up and down the ballot, I never put much stock in getting his collegiate records.
But Donald Trump did! Trump wanted those records! And at the time, an Obama-apologist journalist asked Trump's office if they could review Trump's college records. The answer from the Trump spokesman back at that time was a derisive "Mr. Trump is not running for president."
Trump on video, four years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1OkGxUpaI
Jesus Christ Chuck, give it a rest.
I think at least one person might cross over to vote for Trump.
Yes, Kloppenberg asserted that Lincoln owned slaves. That puts into question just how competent she is as a judge. After all, judges are supposed to use precedent in making a decision and if she is just-off-the-top-of-her-head this ignorant, I am afraid of any judgement she would make, especially as a Wisconsin Supreme.
And no, Lincoln was not poor. He may have been born to poor parents but by the time he was elected President he had become very well-to-do are a lawyer for the railroad.
Just out of curiosity, is it permissible to use the term degenerate today, and if so to whom can we apply the term? Discuss among your selves. Ann has already forbidden the use of the term to characterize people of the Q in the LGBTQ formulation.
Just out of curiosity, is it permissible to use the term degenerate today, and if so to whom can we apply the term? Discuss among your selves. Ann has already forbidden the use of the term to characterize people of the Q in the LGBTQ formulation.
"Activists" doused a Libertarian with urine for the thought crime of saying there are only two genders.
So, I wonder who the "degenerate" there is in the eyes of Progs.
Meade said...
I plan to vote on April 5 to cancel out a Kloppenburg vote.
Oh yeah? I wasn't going to vote at all, but now I'm going to, just to cancel out your cancellation. Take that!
Post a Comment