// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    There's always the possibility is that JimL's a conservative pretending to be a liberal in order to make them look bad. He's doing a bang-up job of that.
    I dunno...it's not like they really need the help....
    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
      I dunno...it's not like they really need the help....
      Now THAT made me laugh!
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • And more...

        The Architect of the Latest Kavanaugh Smear Just Gave a Self-Damning Radio Interview

        Pretty well confirms that she went into this with confirmation bias trying her best to make the supposed facts fit her narrative.

        There is no substantiated evidence of any sexual misbehavior by Brett Kavanaugh at any point in his entire life. Several shaky claims have been made along these lines, but all of them are badly undercut by available evidence. None of them is more likely than not to be true.

        Yet in a casual radio interview this morning, New York Times reporter Robin Pogrebin, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale, gave an unintentionally revealing report about her approach to the story. Following Christine Blasey Ford’s hard-to-believe testimony, which was undercut by all witnesses she placed at the party in question, including a lifelong friend of hers, and following Deborah Ramirez’s hard-to-believe story, which she herself admitted being uncertain about, Pogrebin obviously became subjected to confirmation bias. She had a narrative in mind and she pushed and pulled her writing to fit it.

        Pogrebin is at the center of a discussion of gross journalistic malpractice after publishing a story Saturday night with colleague Kate Kelly that failed to mention that a woman who, according to a man named Max Stier, had Kavanaugh’s penis pressed into her hand at a campus party by multiple friends of his has said she recalls no such incident. That woman has also declined to talk about the matter with reporters or officials. Why even publish Stier’s claim, which was discounted by Washington Post reporters who heard about it a year ago, that he witnessed such an incident during a Yale party in the 1980s? Because of the narrative, Pogrebin says. “We decided to go with it because obviously it is of a piece with a kind of behavior,” she said on WMAL. Pure confirmation bias.

        Though the woman at the center of the story wants no part of it, Kelly and Pogrebin published her name anyway (in their book, albeit not in the Times). “You’re kind of directing attention at a victim and she’s gonna be besieged,” Pogrebin said on the radio show, in explaining why the Times piece left the name out. “Even if people can ultimately find her name, it’s not necessarily important to make it easier for them to do so.” Oh, so publishing her name in a book does not constitute making it too easy for people to find this private citizen? It’s a separate but serious scandal. This woman has been made a public figure in a national story without her consent. Even if she were the victim of sexual misconduct, the Times would ordinarily take steps to protect her identity. Yet she has made no claim along these lines, and Pogrebin and Kelly outed her anyway. Is there no respect for a woman’s privacy? Is every woman in America to think of herself as potential collateral damage should she ever cross paths with any Republican whom Times reporters later tried to take down?

        In her WMAL interview this morning, Pogrebin repeatedly refers to the woman as a “victim.” This word choice is instructive about Pogrebin’s thought process. Calling her a victim would be begging the question if the woman claimed this status for herself. She would then be only an alleged victim. But she isn’t even that. She has made no claim to be a victim, yet Pogrebin describes her as one anyway. This is a case of a reporter overriding her reporting with her opinion. Pogrebin then impugns the woman by saying she was so drunk that her memory can’t be trusted. She also says that “everyone” at the party was massively drunk and that their memories are therefore unreliable.

        Does she hear herself talking? If this is true, it means Max Stier was also drunk and his memories also can’t be trusted. (Someone should ask Pogrebin whether she was present at this party about which she knows so much.) By what journalistic standard does a reporter discount what is said by the person with the most direct and relevant experience of a matter — the woman in question at the Yale party — in favor of a drunken bystander? If both the woman and Stier were drunk, why is his memory more credible than hers? If something like this had actually happened to her, wouldn’t she be more likely than anyone else to remember it? Maybe Stier is remembering a different party. Maybe he’s remembering a different guy. Maybe he made it up.
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          There's always the possibility is that JimL's a conservative pretending to be a liberal in order to make them look bad. He's doing a bang-up job of that.
          So many of his posts read like parody that I've often wondered that myself.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            So many of his posts read like parody that I've often wondered that myself.
            But could he be consistent in that for THIS LONG?!?!?!
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              So many of his posts read like parody that I've often wondered that myself.
              Have you ever seen Steven Crowder's Devil's Advocate? His liberal host Skyler Turden is scary!

              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Comment


              • If your blindness regarding Trumps criminal behavior wasn't so sad, it'd be funny. If this were Obama in Trumps stead, doing all the things Trump is doing, you would all be screaming lock him up, lock him up. What a sad lot!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  If your blindness regarding Trumps criminal behavior wasn't so sad, it'd be funny. If this were Obama in Trumps stead, doing all the things Trump is doing, you would all be screaming lock him up, lock him up. What a sad lot!
                  Right back at you. You have a definite moral blind spot when it comes to your political favourites, too. America hasn't had a really, truly admirable President since... ...not in my lifetime. Carter comes close, but too ineffective for mine. Can't think of many major politicians of any stripe, anywhere, who I truly respect. Maybe The Dragon King of Bhutan.

                  So you're asking the wrong question: politics isn't about being morally 'pure', about doing the right thing, about playing by the rules, it's about getting things you want done, done. That's what the left has taught us. No-one who supports Trump particularly cares about Trump's character flaws or moral failings. They care about him doing the stuff they want done.

                  He's only 'worst President ever' to you because he's doing stuff that you don't agree with politically. If he was using his acerbic wit on Republicans, appointing liberals to the courts, opening up immigration, and so on, you'd be calling for an abolition on terms limits and slobbering over his every word.
                  ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    And more...

                    The Architect of the Latest Kavanaugh Smear Just Gave a Self-Damning Radio Interview



                    Pretty well confirms that she went into this with confirmation bias trying her best to make the supposed facts fit her narrative.

                    There is no substantiated evidence of any sexual misbehavior by Brett Kavanaugh at any point in his entire life. Several shaky claims have been made along these lines, but all of them are badly undercut by available evidence. None of them is more likely than not to be true.

                    Yet in a casual radio interview this morning, New York Times reporter Robin Pogrebin, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale, gave an unintentionally revealing report about her approach to the story. Following Christine Blasey Ford’s hard-to-believe testimony, which was undercut by all witnesses she placed at the party in question, including a lifelong friend of hers, and following Deborah Ramirez’s hard-to-believe story, which she herself admitted being uncertain about, Pogrebin obviously became subjected to confirmation bias. She had a narrative in mind and she pushed and pulled her writing to fit it.

                    Pogrebin is at the center of a discussion of gross journalistic malpractice after publishing a story Saturday night with colleague Kate Kelly that failed to mention that a woman who, according to a man named Max Stier, had Kavanaugh’s penis pressed into her hand at a campus party by multiple friends of his has said she recalls no such incident. That woman has also declined to talk about the matter with reporters or officials. Why even publish Stier’s claim, which was discounted by Washington Post reporters who heard about it a year ago, that he witnessed such an incident during a Yale party in the 1980s? Because of the narrative, Pogrebin says. “We decided to go with it because obviously it is of a piece with a kind of behavior,” she said on WMAL. Pure confirmation bias.

                    Though the woman at the center of the story wants no part of it, Kelly and Pogrebin published her name anyway (in their book, albeit not in the Times). “You’re kind of directing attention at a victim and she’s gonna be besieged,” Pogrebin said on the radio show, in explaining why the Times piece left the name out. “Even if people can ultimately find her name, it’s not necessarily important to make it easier for them to do so.” Oh, so publishing her name in a book does not constitute making it too easy for people to find this private citizen? It’s a separate but serious scandal. This woman has been made a public figure in a national story without her consent. Even if she were the victim of sexual misconduct, the Times would ordinarily take steps to protect her identity. Yet she has made no claim along these lines, and Pogrebin and Kelly outed her anyway. Is there no respect for a woman’s privacy? Is every woman in America to think of herself as potential collateral damage should she ever cross paths with any Republican whom Times reporters later tried to take down?

                    In her WMAL interview this morning, Pogrebin repeatedly refers to the woman as a “victim.” This word choice is instructive about Pogrebin’s thought process. Calling her a victim would be begging the question if the woman claimed this status for herself. She would then be only an alleged victim. But she isn’t even that. She has made no claim to be a victim, yet Pogrebin describes her as one anyway. This is a case of a reporter overriding her reporting with her opinion. Pogrebin then impugns the woman by saying she was so drunk that her memory can’t be trusted. She also says that “everyone” at the party was massively drunk and that their memories are therefore unreliable.

                    Does she hear herself talking? If this is true, it means Max Stier was also drunk and his memories also can’t be trusted. (Someone should ask Pogrebin whether she was present at this party about which she knows so much.) By what journalistic standard does a reporter discount what is said by the person with the most direct and relevant experience of a matter — the woman in question at the Yale party — in favor of a drunken bystander? If both the woman and Stier were drunk, why is his memory more credible than hers? If something like this had actually happened to her, wouldn’t she be more likely than anyone else to remember it? Maybe Stier is remembering a different party. Maybe he’s remembering a different guy. Maybe he made it up.
                    Well... Now the lady IS a victim -- of Pogrebin.
                    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                    Beige Nationalist.

                    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                      Right back at you. You have a definite moral blind spot when it comes to your political favourites, too. America hasn't had a really, truly admirable President since... ...not in my lifetime. Carter comes close, but too ineffective for mine. Can't think of many major politicians of any stripe, anywhere, who I truly respect. Maybe The Dragon King of Bhutan.

                      So you're asking the wrong question: politics isn't about being morally 'pure', about doing the right thing, about playing by the rules, it's about getting things you want done, done. That's what the left has taught us. No-one who supports Trump particularly cares about Trump's character flaws or moral failings. They care about him doing the stuff they want done.

                      He's only 'worst President ever' to you because he's doing stuff that you don't agree with politically. If he was using his acerbic wit on Republicans, appointing liberals to the courts, opening up immigration, and so on, you'd be calling for an abolition on terms limits and slobbering over his every word.
                      Nope, you're way off the mark Max. We liberal, progressive, democrats and independents don't like him as president for those reasons you cited as that is always the case, but there is far more to it than that and deep down I think you all know that, you're either blind to what is going on right in front of your faces or you just can't admit it to yourselves. This man is a narcisistic sociopath, a blatant liar, a thief, and a wannabe dictator who is undermining democracy here and around the world, and in my opinion a treasonous embarrassment to the U.S. If you have failed to recognise that by now, then you are either living in the conservative bubble where they only feed you lies as well, or you are psychologically impaired, i.e. in some way blind to facts.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Nope, you're way off the mark Max. We liberal, progressive, democrats and independents don't like him as president for those reasons you cited as that is always the case, but there is far more to it than that and deep down I think you all know that, you're either blind to what is going on right in front of your faces or you just can't admit it to yourselves. This man is a narcisistic sociopath, a blatant liar, a thief, and a wannabe dictator who is undermining democracy here and around the world, and in my opinion a treasonous embarrassment to the U.S. If you have failed to recognise that by now, then you are either living in the conservative bubble where they only feed you lies as well, or you are psychologically impaired, i.e. in some way blind to facts.
                        And yet, you can’t prove any of your charges as true. I think you believe your blind accusations, without a bit of evidence, because it gives you justification to believe your nonsense.
                        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Nope, you're way off the mark Max. We liberal, progressive, democrats and independents don't like him as president for those reasons you cited as that is always the case, but there is far more to it than that and deep down I think you all know that, you're either blind to what is going on right in front of your faces or you just can't admit it to yourselves. This man is a narcisistic sociopath, a blatant liar, a thief, and a wannabe dictator who is undermining democracy here and around the world, and in my opinion a treasonous embarrassment to the U.S. If you have failed to recognise that by now, then you are either living in the conservative bubble where they only feed you lies as well, or you are psychologically impaired, i.e. in some way blind to facts.
                          Sounds just like Hillary to me.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                            And yet, you can’t prove any of your charges as true. I think you believe your blind accusations, without a bit of evidence, because it gives you justification to believe your nonsense.
                            The boy is a slave to his hatred.
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Now THAT made me laugh!
                              Glad I could help brother!
                              "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                              "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Sounds just like Hillary to me.
                                and most of the Democrat front runners in the presidential race.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, Today, 07:16 PM
                                0 responses
                                4 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Whateverman, Today, 12:47 PM
                                7 responses
                                24 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, Today, 10:00 AM
                                33 responses
                                238 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by seanD, 10-18-2020, 05:25 PM
                                2 responses
                                63 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by Whateverman, 10-18-2020, 01:23 PM
                                8 responses
                                86 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Whateverman  
                                Working...
                                X