Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[JimL]

I don't know about you, but I watched the testimony of both Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh and if anyones testimony was untrustworthy it was Kavanaugh's. But, regardless of any of that, Kavanaugh performance at the hearing showed himself to be unfit to serve as a SC Justice anyway. The court is about uncovering truth and Kavanaugh is now, under oath, a proven liar himself.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't know about you, but I watched the testimony of both Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh and if anyones testimony was untrustworthy it was Kavanaugh's. But, regardless of any of that, Kavanaugh performance at the hearing showed himself to be unfit to serve as a SC Justice anyway. The court is about uncovering truth and Kavanaugh is now, under oath, a proven liar himself.

here

[seer]

More liberal tolerance



https://www.thecollegefix.com/campus...display-video/

[One Bad Pig]

My comment about the Capitol/Washington Monument inauguration pictures is not opinion. There is no possibility of reasoned debate. That is optics and the science of perspective, and the crowd conditions in both are nearly identical. It is simple fact. And it is simple ignorance and/or bias that is at work with MM's (or anyone, you, rogue, sparko doesn't matter) continued claim the use of those pictures represents some sort of conspiracy to post inaccurate pictures of the event.

So there is no irony in my post. MM has demonstrated objectively and factually that when it comes to these issues, he is capable of rejecting irrefutable fact and reason in favor of a delusion that he would prefer to believe.



Jim

What does that have to do with this, Jim? Why are you expending energy attacking MM instead of focusing on the debate at hand? Can we please give that a rest?

[oxmixmudd]

What does that have to do with this, Jim? Why are you expending energy attacking MM instead of focusing on the debate at hand? Can we please give that a rest?

The post above to you is my response to your generalization that all parties are equally subjective and biased.

So what does that have to do with this? MM has shown facts can not persuade him on the most fundamental and objective level. AFAIK, no-one else here has demonstrated that deep a level of capacity to reject the evidence in favor of a delusion (though most of those debating me in that thread took far longer to get what was going on that I would have expected, which I attribute to varying degrees of bias). Nevertheless - we are not all equally subjective and biased.


Jim

[One Bad Pig]

The post you responded to was my response to MM's sarcastic dismissal of my post and accusation my post is handwaving, which is not true.

I don't care what you were responding to. You two, MM included, are being a massive distraction with your squabbling.

The second post is my response to your generalization that all parties are equally subjective and biased, which also is not true.

Jim

Jim, try reading my post again, this time for understanding.

[JimL]

here

I'll tell you what's wrong with it without even reading it. There was no unbiased FBI investigation into the matter so it was naught but a "he said she said" inquery. Atty. Mitchell is obviously partisan, a registered republican picked by a republican Congress with no input from democrats. It was a sham!

[Zymologist]

I'll tell you what's wrong with it without even reading it. There was no unbiased FBI investigation into the matter so it was naught but a "he said she said" inquery. Atty. Mitchell is obviously partisan, a registered republican picked by a republican Congress with no input from democrats. It was a sham!

Well, at least you're frank about it.

[JonathanL]

I'll tell you what's wrong with it without even reading it. There was no unbiased FBI investigation into the matter so it was naught but a "he said she said" inquery. Atty. Mitchell is obviously partisan, a registered republican picked by a republican Congress with no input from democrats. It was a sham!

I'm completely ignorant about what an FBI investigation entails, so this question is purely inquisitive, but how exactly is an FBI investigation different from a "he said she said" inquiry?

[lilpixieofterror]

I'll tell you what's wrong with it without even reading it. There was no unbiased FBI investigation into the matter so it was naught but a "he said she said" inquery. Atty. Mitchell is obviously partisan, a registered republican picked by a republican Congress with no input from democrats. It was a sham!

[Cow Poke]

I'm completely ignorant about what an FBI investigation entails, so this question is purely inquisitive, but how exactly is an FBI investigation different from a "he said she said" inquiry?

It's not. The FBI will submit forms FD-302, which document to whom they spoke, date, time, place - and what they said. Besides, it won't matter a hill of beans, because the Dems have already decided "no way, Jose". THAT's the real sham.

[JonathanL]

Well, at least you're frank about it.

What's Frank got to do with any of this? Doesn't he get enough flak as it is?

[seer]

Doesn't he get enough flak as it is?

NO!

[Sparko]

More About the Second Door

An important part of any investigation involves timelines.

and...

https://www.rt.com/usa/440198-kavana...ter-testimony/

[Cow Poke]

You are not in a position to pontificate;

Says Tweb's Pontificator in Chief.