Ha!
Clinton said she was joining her voice to others who were saying “no to discrimination, no to hate speech and no to Bradley.” She said there was “no place at all” on any court for Bradley’s “dangerous rhetoric.”
I had a couple of thoughts when reading this…
First, there’s no way that Clinton knew anything about Bradley or Kloppenburg – much less cared about either of them – until she needed votes in Wisconsin. This has all of the marks of a deal whereby some state Dems promised to push for her if she would help out on the Supreme Court election. If only Bradley were a man, it would have helped Clinton pimp her “war on women” meme.
Second, Kloppenburg’s big faux claim for months has been that she’s “independent” despite her long-standing ties to Democrats and liberal interests. Having the Democratic presidential front-runner advocate for her drops any pretense of independence. I think it’s fine for judges running for office to have opinions and associations with fellow travelers – nobody is a blank slate and we certainly wouldn’t want to elect anyone who is – but they should be honest about them.
Well, Kloppenburg is for sure more “independent” than Bradley, and much more experienced.
At least Clinton is open about it.
I’d love to know the source of all the dark money that’s being used against Kloppenburg. I bet Bradley knows, and she’ll always be reminded after oral argument.
What happened to Clinton’s PSA:”every woman has right to be believed.” That does not apply to Bradley?
Baldy should be using the “h” word all over this one.
Bradley can’t even pretend to be independent . She’s Walkers own ward , doing his bidding at each stop .
Let’s just put a Scott Waker on the court ( who needs a law degree or even a degree of any sort ?)
kev:
There is no “h” in adultery. Spelling wasn’t your forte, either, eh?
Baldy,
So you don’t call out Kloppenburg for performing marriages not under God’s design and in violation of constitutional amendment voters if WI passed by over 60%?
If you are such a traditional marriage advocate, you should be calling out the hypocrisy of your own candidate.
kev:
No I don’t and never will, nor should anyone else. If you want to get married in a church that is your choice, but not the responsibility of a judge. God, yours or anybody others, has nothing to do with it.
When do you draw the line at making stuff up about others to prove your un-proveable point?? Most folks call it lying. But in your special case I would call it an illness. I have never, ever made any statement that said I was ” such a traditional marriage advocate”. In the church I was brought up in lying is considered a sin. Make sure you take care of that before you end up stoking the fires of hell. Or are you, the teller off all things religious, exempt from sin as long as it serves your own purposes??
Baldy,
Just trying to determine if you are a marriage advocate under God’s design, and what voters of WI voted for 60% plus in a constitutional amendment, the way you attack Bradley.
Anything Bradley allegedly did, which her ex-husband denies, would be done a long time ago and she certainly has corrected any mistake.
Kloppenburg is not correcting and intends to keep up assaulting marriage under God’s design.
So are you criticizing all adultery outside marriage under God’s design, or are you picking and choosing? The liberal Bill Clinton “private matter” standard has been repealed as a liberal commandment?
I miss those liberal meetings on stuff like this.
Kevin, your sounding redundant.
Pat,
It’s tough. Liberals need constant reminding of their first religious commandment: ” It’s a private matter” when it comes to their attempts to slutify poor Rebecca Bradley.
I hate seeing liberals breaking their most important religious commandment on this subject.
I believe Gods commandment of, “Thou shall not commit adultry” is what you follow. Not some strawman commandment.
Pat,
Yes, but forgiveness for past sins is also practiced. Love and forgiveness is also important in Christianity. Come to bible study sometime. You are always invited.
If Bradley was practicing marriage outside God’s design, it would be appropriate to call her out as a Christian today.
Kloppenburg, today, unrepentant, practices and advocates marriage outside God’s design violating sixth commandment, but you fail to call her out under same Christian standard….why?
“Kloppenburg, today, unrepentant, practices and advocates marriage outside God’s design”
Please elaborate how Bradley differs from Kloppenburg on this?
Pat,
Bradley’s alleged mistake is in the past and she has no intent of repeating, or violating that commandment openly.
So if we apply the Christian standard to kloppenburg on this commandment:
Kloppenburg performs gay marriages outside God’s design, in violation of the will of the people of WI’s constitutional amendment, the sixth commandment, and she willfully and purposely will continue that activity.
That sounds unrepentant and wanting to continue to break that commandment.
So on one hand, the liberal religion commandment, “it’s a private matter” does not apply to Bradley. But liberals want to actually apply the sixth commandment to her, when the complete history of liberalism has been priding themselves in completely rejecting the sixth commandment.
Then, no liberal wants to apply the adultery commandment to Kloppenburg, who openly violates it with her actions by conducting gay marriages and political advocacy.
Is “adultery” a private matter or not? I find liberals want adultery to be a public matter only to slutify conservative women, or when it’s a matter of “gay pride”. In the latter case, the violation of sixth commandment is met with awards and accolades by liberal sphere.
Why doesn’t Rebecca get same courage award from liberals?
That’s what I would like to know.
kev:
You are futilely trying to defend an adulterer.
Personally I don’t care if she had an affair with a chair (as our Lt. Governor has suggested), but then Bradley shouldn’t be touted as the choice of religious fanatics. For you to prefer Bradley over Kloppenburg because she may marry folks without your blessing is puzzling. Once again, kevin shows how selective religion can be.
PS: It makes no difference if her ex says it didn’t happen. She admitted (sworn testimony) it in court. If you feel that admittance isn’t true why don’t you file a complaint claiming she committed perjury ? And why would you vote for a potential felon ? And if she was found guilty following your exhaustive testimony as an expert witness she would be dis-barred. I sent you the statute numbers earlier to save you the time.
“Kloppenburg performs gay marriages outside God’s design”
And Bradley in says that she would perform gay marriages. She has overseen adoption of children for gay individuals.
kev:
“she has no intent of repeating, or violating that commandment openly”.
How do you know that? Have you asked her? Are you monitoring her for future moral failings? How will you guarantee she doesn’t?
But the key to your statement is the word “openly”. So you are OK if she commits adultery in private? She is fine as a SC justice as long as kevin doesn’t know about her fooling around? Or do the commandments only apply to public sins, and anything done in private is OK ?? If that is the case why are you worried about gay marriage?
Baldy said,
“You are futilely trying to defend an adulterer.”
If she did it, and has amended her life to not do it again, received forgiveness, is she still and “adulterer”?
What I am calling out is: Liberals who extol the virtue of every sexual proclivity outside of marriage, and the weirder it gets, claims its “brave” and “courageous” to partake in, but liberals are using this instance with Bradley to demean and trash her.
That is my problem.
Why isn’t Bradley getting a courageous woman of the year award from liberals over this incident 12 years ago?
Is it because the activity wasn’t weird enough, and outside the norm enough, for the liberal sphere?
When does the adulterous “private matter” become stuff of “courage” and “celebration” in the liberal immorality? I’m not completely clear on this point.
Did you notice how Kevin always answers questions with non-answers.
kev:
“is she still and(sic) “adulterer”?”. Yes.
The rest of your comment is yet another case of you building a false strawman to argue with. I never said anything even remotely similar to what you say, so in effect you are arguing with yourself over a non-point.
The conflict is easy to see; you support an admitted adulterer because she claims to be a “conservative” and is supported by the far right religious zealots like yourself. Yet she has zero experience, has a track record of poor behavior, and is a published homophobe.
PS: You have more than one problem. And you are not completely clear on a lot of things.
Baldy, Pat,
That’s difference between you and me.
I’ll practice forgiveness for someone who has shown reform for any mistake that is not willfully repeated today. You guys want to demean and destroy.
I still want to know why liberals aren’t pinning an award on Bradley! Liberals award every adultery outside marriage as brave and courageous, especially the weird stuff.
Why are you guys demeaning and trashing in this case?
Pat:
As normal, kev has to make up a lie to prove his point. “Liberals award every adultery outside marriage as brave and courageous, especially the weird stuff”.
kev:
So it is OK if someone has an affair with someone they didn’t know was married? Or if the perp momentarily forgot that they, themselves, were married? Your use of the word “willfully” once again shows your double standard?
“I’ll practice forgiveness for someone who has shown reform for any mistake that is not willfully repeated today. You guys want to demean and destroy.”
Sure, I’d be willing to forgive Charles Manson if he’d shown reform for his mistakes and is not willfully repeating them today. But I still wouldn’t vote for him.
Pat,
2 points.
Are you saying Rebecca Bradley is Charles Manson?
Charles Manson does not strike me as reformed.
Baldy,
I’m saying if Rebecca Bradley was gay, liberals would be celebrating her “bold” and “courageous” adulterous choice.
That’s the double standard I’m disgusted by in the liberal media.
Kevin,
Point 1: No I didn’t say Bradley is Manson.
Point 2: I didn’t say Manson was reformed. But then again, I don’t know what’s truly in his heart. But, if he’d shown reform for his mistakes and is not willfully repeating them today, I still wouldn’t vote for him.
Pat,
The problem is: Your example is not analogous. Felons are not eligible to run for office. So it is a moot point because he would never be on a ballot.
Admit it. If Bradley were gay, liberals would be pinning an award on her as “brave” and “courageous” and be suppressing any criticism of any alleged adultery as hateful.
Which sexual behaviors are open to award and celebration in liberal lexicon and which are open to ridicule and scorn?
Is there a list somewhere?
“Admit it. If Bradley were gay, liberals would be pinning an award on her as “brave” and “courageous” and be suppressing any criticism of any alleged adultery as hateful.
Which sexual behaviors are open to award and celebration in liberal lexicon and which are open to ridicule and scorn?
Is there a list somewhere?”
I’ll answer your questions if you directly answer the questions I asked you about abortion.
kev:
If Bradley were gay she wouldn’t be your choice for SC, correct? So you comparison isn’t valid.
So you are OK with a adulterer on the SC, but not with a judge that would perform a marriage of two gays?
There is your double standard.
Bradley said she would marry gay couples.
Pat,
Source?
Baldy,
There is a difference between making a mistake and not repesting it, vs. openly advocating ongoing adulterous behavior.
The first shows correction, the latter shows embrace of the behavior.
“She said that she has presided over adoptions by gay couples, attended a 2013 fundraiser of two gay-rights groups and donated to a camp for children with HIV/AIDS. She said she has become far more “empathetic” over the years thanks to her own life experiences. Her campaign said she that while she has never performed a gay marriage, she would if asked.”
“Bradley said in the interview to explain her change in attitudes toward homosexuality and people with AIDS. “I know a lot of people have gone through an evolution and a great change in thinking on issues that relates to homosexuality and gay marriage. It’s just something that happens over time as people educate themselves and interact with people who have different experiences.”
Today, Bradley said she “would be delighted” to preside over the wedding ceremony of a gay couple.”
Pat,
There is a difference between showing mercy and being “empathetic” for the consequences of bad choices (sometimes by others), vs. advocating or endorsing the activity. I applaud her for her mercy and charity.
Why don’t liberals?
When it comes to the presiding over gay wedding ceremony, the Journal Sentinel says otherwise in many articles.
Her position on AIDS does not mean she will preside over a gay wedding, which violates the constitutional will of 60%+ of the voters in WI.
Where is source, “would be delighted” [to perfomr a gay marriage if someone asked] from? Somehow, I bet that is out of context.
Rationalization is the second strongest human drive.
Pat,
Found your quote in JS. The campaign said that, not Bradley herself. I’m not inclined to believe a campaign flack.
Not rationalization. Showing mercy, without endorsing or advocating carnal behavior that has severe consequences, sometimes to the innocent.
Feel like answering any of the question I put to you about abortion yet?
“There is a difference between showing mercy and being “empathetic” for the consequences of bad choices (sometimes by others), vs. advocating or endorsing the activity. I applaud her for her mercy and charity.”
Please provide your source from where she states her exact intent.
Pat:
kevin has a pathological need to be “right”, even if he loses all credibility trying to prove it. You and I may have provided authentic, certifiable facts, but they hold no power over kevins need to be right.
Let’s keep up the good fight, provide him with facts and logic, and sooner or later he will either see the light or his head will explode.
Baldy: Kevin will never “see the light”, and his head will definately explode. Kevin needs to be right. That’s why he refuses to answer questions that he can’t rationalize.
I meant to say that his head will definitely not explode.
Pat,
My interpretation of her intent. I didn’t know I was required to scan Bradley’s brain, or get inside her head to determine her intent.
I miss those liberal meetings. Duly noted.
Baldy,
Walk before you run. You accused me of “dishonesty” and could not come up with one statement to back up your claim. You rehashed the DNR issue and when we got down to honest dictionary definitions of “permit” and “mandate”, you folded.
It’s a good thing I’m entertained by that, some might take that kind of scurrilous personally.
Well Kevin, I was able to support what I say. You are only to go by what you think.
Pat:
You are most likely correct, but wouldn’t it be fun to see the mess it would make, all those conflicting arguments crawling around, looking for yet another load of Made Up Stuff to feed on?
kev:
You have access to the WPDES files to prove you are right but refuse to provide them for all to see.
As far as the entire discussion regarding your dishonest characterization of your alleged mistreatment by the DNR, I didn’t fold. But I did provide definitions from Webster, a language from the WPDES process code, and a logical explanation of the process. You, however, provided nothing to back up your claim other than to continue to shift focus away from the issue. There is no need to continue the discussion as there is no way to settle it to your satisfaction unless you provide the files and minutes from all the meetings where the alleged threats occurred. Ball is in your court, kev. But don’t continue the BS, provide some proof.
PS: Mandate and Permit do not mean the same thing in the context of a WPDES permit. If you can find that connection in the code please provide it for all to see.
And put me down for a first edition copy of “kevin’s Dictionary of Made up Definitions”, subtitled “How to twist meanings so you never have to answer a question”..
Baldy,
Minutes and files from all the meetings?
That’s over 1000 pages of DNR /government generated nonsense.
You expect me to post all that here?
I see a desperate regulator unwilling to face the reality of the pain his over zealous regulatory enforcement causes to poor people when it comes to water affordability.
kev;
So, once again you decline the opportunity to prove you are right.
You last statement is an absolute lie and you (and every other reader) knows it. What you see is a situation where you made unfounded claims that can’t be proven, and no real opportunity to do even a minor amount of damage control. Sooo, as they say, if it isn’t in writing, it never happened.
“over zealous regulatory enforcement causes to poor people”. So you are opposed to fair and equal enforcement of our laws? And you believe there should be a fiscal threshold for enforcement? Where in statute is that practice codified? Are there different thresholds for different violations? I thought you were all for following the law?
So you are opposed to fair and equal enforcement of our laws?
I’m opposed to regulation that defies cost/benefit analysis.
And you believe there should be a fiscal threshold for enforcement?
Absolutely. If you demand water be cleaned to impossible standards with no discernable difference in the environment from 10 years ago in overall water quality, but make water compleely unaffordable…ABSOLUTELY!
Where in statute is that practice codified?
Phosphorus standard ratcheting is a good place to begin the discussion.
Are there different thresholds for different violations?
Phosphorus has wide standard differences between MMSD, Kewaskum, Slinger, appleton, etc.
I thought you were all for following the law?
Nort when law is twisted by bureaucrats in a ridiculous matter under non-legislative rule promulgation.
kev:
No, you said that (see above) claiming that enforcement was only done against poor folks.
A C/B analysis (known in the trade as a CEA/EA) was done for the project. Why don’t you provide that and prove your argument?
No, you said there should be (see above).
That’s right, P limits are set based on the receiving waters. What MMSD and Kewauskum have different receiving waters. Or don’t you remember where your pipe goes? Your consultant told you that.
The CWA is a federal law passed during the Nixon administration (you can look it up). So Kewaskum is above the law?
Baldy,
When Beureaucrats allow MMSD to dump pure poop with impunity and crank Kewaskum’s phosphurus, as 1 example, from 1 part per billion, to .1 part, (when village was running about .3) or 10 times more stringent, when the river dumps into the Lake where MMSD can dump with impunity…makes no sense to clean to impossible, expensive, water standards when it mixes with water where MMSD has no standards.
I call that unconscionable to water affordability to poor people, but regulators and liberals don’t understand tha concept.
When Beureaucrats (sic) allow MMSD to dump pure poop (LIE) with impunity (LIE) and crank Kewaskum’s phosphurus, as 1 example, from 1 part per billion, to .1 part, (when village was running about .3) or 10 times more stringent, when the river dumps into the Lake where MMSD can dump with impunity(LIE)…makes no sense to clean to impossible, expensive, water standards when it mixes with water where MMSD has no standards (LIE).
I call that unconscionable to water affordability to poor people, but regulators and liberals don’t understand tha concept.
Once again you make the claim that the WPDES is selecting for poor folks in Kewaskum. That also is a lie.
Did you look at the CEA/EA yet.
And maybe while you are at it find out for yourself the conditions under which Milwaukee can discharge. You could actually learn something of value.
Baldy,
I can’t discuss it, if you deny simple reality.
If you can’t admit MMSD is the biggest polluter in WI, that is a simple reality problem for you.
kev:
I don’t know if MMSD is the biggest “polluter” in the state, nor do you. First you have define the type of “pollution”, and what you mean by biggest. Per capita, MGD, SS, BOD, N, COD, P, industrial, point vs non-point, combined vs separated, pre-treatment or not, etc. Are they meeting their permit limits 90% of the time, 75%, 25%. On a per capita basis they are probably not the biggest. If you look at SS they are far from the biggest. So you need to make the call, which parameter do you want to examine?
And for those who want some reality, the permit limits are different for MMSD than they are for Kewaskum based on the receiving waters. Fact.
Did you look at the CEA/EA yet?
Baldy,
That 10% they miss they dump billions and billions of gallons of pollution!
DNR got done crucifying several private business in last few years for dumping a few hundred gallons or a few thousand gallons by accident.
MMSD is the biggest polluter in WI.
Name 1 bigger.
Do surrounding sewer plants get grace and forgiveness from DNR to miss 10% of the time?
The answer would be: Heck no!
kev;
Those comments are strictly your amateur opinion. Nothing is based on fact, or can you prove any of it.
And obviously you have never read your own permit to make such foolish comments.
And DNR isn’t going after even the big polluters. Don’t you read the paper?
Have you read the CEA/EA yet? Until then you really shouldn’t say anything else on the matter .
Here’s a pollution fact for you:
If the ‘real-life’ Kevin is one-tenth as self-righteously pig-headed as his online persona, he has almost certainly eaten several pounds of his employees’ sputum by now.