Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...
Collapse
X
-
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostIn this situation you go find a more popular candidate. A politicised SCOTUS would be a disgrace to the USA.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostA politicised SCOTUS would be a disgrace to the USA.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostIn this situation you go find a more popular candidate. A politicised SCOTUS would be a disgrace to the USA.
The SCOTUS is already a political instrument. The Constitution of the United States established it along with two other branches of government. Candidates are named by the President and reviewed by the Senate. The justices are seated with the expectation they will measure cases by the yard of the Constitution which established it in the first place. Of course we all hope they will be impartial and that they rule properly. The fact that NINE members are required should tell you that's not expected to always happen, and it doesn't.Last edited by DesertBerean; 09-28-2018, 10:52 AM.Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
-
Originally posted by DesertBerean View PostWow, you're even more idealistic than I am.
The SCOTUS is already a political instrument. The Constitution of the United States established it along with two other branches of government. Candidates are named by the President and reviewed by the Senate. The justices are seated with the expectation they will measure cases by the yard of the Constitution which established it in the first place. Of course we all hope they will be impartial and that they rule properly. The fact that NINE members are required should tell you that's not expected to always happen, and it doesn't.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostActually, I don't think the Constitution gives an actual number required. We have had 6, 7 and 10, and now 9.Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmuddle View PostYou are so completely wrong, at least as this relates to me MM. I absolutely understand how hard it would be to be in Kavanaugh's shoes on this, guilty or innocent, but especially if innocent.
And I'm not 'defending Ford' in the sense you imply here. But I doubt you can tell the difference between being fair to the possibility she believes what she is saying to be true and what you imply here. The reality is it is possible that either of these people could be telling the absolute truth, and it is also possible that BOTH of these people might believe they are telling the absolute truth. And that requires a very different approach than what is being taken here or at the Capitol.
The reality is MM, what you imply here is that the person speaking for a necessary respect for both sides of this issue is a person that simply can't be tolerated. To avoid being castigated by you, one must choose which person they believe to be telling the truth (and that person must be Kavanaugh), and having made that choice, one must decide that the other party (Ford) is lying with the most perverse motives - or at best mentally deficient - and after deciding that, one must 'defend' the party believed to be innocent (Kavanaugh) with all vigor and without mercy.
That is what you mean MM.
And someone like me - a person that sees exactly what you see as it relates to Kavanaugh or to any man potententially falsely accused of sexual harrassment, but who also sees in Dr. Ford a women that most likely was assaulted by someone and believes that someone was Kavanaugh. , is scum.
Therefore I will defend BOTH of them until and unless some actual facts surface that can decide the case. Only - in this forum, with you yahoos carrying on as you are, the only one of the two that NEEDS defending is Ford. Because most of you (at least in your opinions as cast in this thread) can't separate Dr. Ford the person from the Politics and the Circus of what yesterday was. And so many of you on Kavanaugh's side can see only little red demon eyes in anyone not taking the position I outlined above.
Jim
For Ford to press ahead with her claims despite the significant reasonable doubt introduced by the denials of her own named witnesses leaves us with two and only two possibilities:
1) Ford is lying.
2) Ford is irrational.
Tell me, did she come across as irrational during the hearing?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 PostHere's the problem for Ford: every person she named as a witness refuted her accusation. So even if something did happen to her, she has to know that it wasn't Kavanaugh.
For Ford to press ahead with her claims despite the significant reasonable doubt introduced by the denials of her own named witnesses leaves us with two and only two possibilities:
1) Ford is lying.
2) Ford is irrational.
Tell me, did she come across as irrational during the hearing?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThere's always the possibility that she sincerely believed what she was saying, which is what I'm inclined to believe, and somehow, Kavanaugh's name got attached to her story.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 Cow Poke View PostSure it was.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
By the way, Republican fence-sitter Jeff Flake is a yes. Very good news for Kavanaugh. Coons' reaction to this announcement was hilarious.
"Oh [add your own expletive]..."
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 One Bad Pig View PostYou are just as far off base with this "observation" as you are with your personal observations. Some fundamentalist (as opposed to evangelical) Christians may rail angrily on various topics, but Christianity in general? Er, no. Was there a "vein of anger" running through you as a pre-Jesuit?
Nobody said anything about ALL. That is your addition - not mine.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAgain, how sincere can your belief be when every person you named as a witness flatly denies your claims? I would expect a reasonable person to at least say, "It would appear that my memories are not accurate." That's why I say that Ford is either lying, or she's not rational. There's no other reasonable possibility.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 11:42 AM
|
12 responses
77 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 07:55 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 10:24 AM
|
2 responses
40 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Yesterday, 10:51 AM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, Yesterday, 10:22 AM
|
6 responses
57 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Yesterday, 09:45 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, 06-27-2024, 01:08 PM
|
48 responses
284 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Yesterday, 10:57 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 06-27-2024, 09:14 AM
|
195 responses
952 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 05:05 AM
|
Comment