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 Zymologist View Post
    Ok, but you yourself seem to be generalizing about some other people too (“and others,” etc.). I guess I’m not sure who all you’re including in these apparent blanket condemnations, since, as far as I can tell, most of the Christians posting in here seem to be trying to be fair-minded.
    I don't really see that in general Zymologist. But (and others) is not a generalization but simply are recognition that MM is not the only one grouping people into classes they then feel free to express hostility/hatred towards.

    And be clear - it is not just one way. There are plenty posting that express the same hostility/hatred towards Republicans or Christians. The tendency to treat people according to some class or group characteristic is not limited to any one ideology.

    The trick is that we fool ourselves. "I HATE abortion" a person may say (not you cow poke, that is just fresh in my mind and the example below is from long before I knew you). How easy is it to go from "I HATE abortion" to "I HATE abortionists". I've been at the abortion protest where the Christians direct their hatred of the evil of abortion against the people themselves. Against young girls embarrassed, hurting, doing what they think they have to to survive. No compassion for their circumstance. No attempt to help them before and after. Just condemnation and hate.


    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-28-2018, 10:13 PM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

    Comment


    • I heard it said today that the republicans have taken the wrong approach. The approach from the beginning should have been simply this:

      Should an uncorroborated accusation, even from a credible accuser, be sufficient grounds to stop someone from being confirmed?

      They should continue to hammer that and stick with it. Force the democrats to answer the question. It also them to sympathize with Ford, since her credibility would not be an issue. They could be on her side as they looked for evidence and asked for anything that could corroborate her allegations. And even then, they should hammer home that question to democrats. Every time the democrats say anything the republicans should respond with "Should an uncorroborated accusation, even from a credible accuser, be sufficient grounds to stop someone from being confirmed?"

      If the democrats don't say anything, put words in their mouth that by voting no on Kavenaugh, they believe that uncorroborated allegations are sufficient.
      If the democrats say "no" then point out over and over that there is no evidence and they should confirm.
      If the democrats say "yes" then no other supreme court justice will ever pass confirmation.

      By the way, does anyone here believe that an uncorroborated accusation lacking any evidence should be sufficient to stop someone from being confirmed?

      Comment


      • Just a note. I'm not going to discuss any further an issue I raise with MM in third person with others. I know how difficult it is for a bunch of people to be discussing some point I've made that way. So MM - I apologize for letting the points I raise directly to you about issues I see to become side conversations about you. That was wrong of me.


        Jim
        He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

        "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

        Comment


        • So here's a legitimate question.

          People accuse Democrat requests for more investigation or testimony or whatever as a stalling tactic, to make it go past the election. From my understanding, the presumptive reason for Republicans to want so badly to hold it before the election was that it could influence the critical swing votes to vote in favor of Kavanaugh, because to do otherwise might lose them voters. But he's lost some popularity so not only does that reason seem to be gone, voting in favor of him might actually hurt a Senator's chances for re-election.

          So... why is it so imperative to have this done before the election? How does it actually help the Democrats or hurt Republicans at this point? There's the question of "what if the Republicans lose the Senate?" but in that case they have months of a lame duck congress to get someone to the Court (Kavanaugh or someone else). Granted, that'd probably be a loss of face given what they did with Merrick Garland, but if you've lost the Senate in a year where the election map favors you this much, you've already lost face so might as well just do it on your way out.

          So I'm confused as to why it being before or after the election is that big of a deal. Unless some of the Republicans are thinking they won't be able to get Kavanaugh through, so they might as well bite the bullet now and have the vote fail to give them extra time to work on the next nominee. I know that sounds downright conspiratorial, but I can't help wondering about it.
          Last edited by Terraceth; 09-29-2018, 12:50 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            We're going to have to disagree. Quite honestly, I don't think she's "all there". She's a grown woman with a PhD, yet she presents as a scared little girl. Even when she was being sworn in, her attorney had to motion to her how to do it. I think she's been coached and pushed, and I believe she became convinced she's "doing the right thing".
            I find the issues that make me doubt her claims are:

            1. How no appeals to the evidence is made and all questions concerning her story is chalked up to ‘you’re not emphatic’ as though we need to throw evidence based determination of guilt out the window and just go with our feelings. I thought these were the same people that attack Republicans on rejecting scientific evidence.
            2. How nobody named remembers this party. Her best friend doesn’t remember her nearly being raped. No record exist of this party going on either.
            3. How she can’t remember details, like the date of the party, where it happened, how many people were at this party, how many men were involved, etc.
            4. It seems everyone cares if Judge Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker, but don’t seem to care if she was. I mean, it took her years to apparently remember what happened and who did it, so how drunk was she and everyone else that they didn’t recall these events happening?

            There’s just several problems that come up that gives serious doubts to if this and the allegations are true. This isn’t getting into the timing of these accusations, the political motives of the accusers, their lawyers, the Democrats that found them, and the scientific problems with repressed memory therapy. Based on the evidence, the FBI and the local police likely would close the case due to lack of evidence.
            "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
              It's also possible, most probable really, that Dr. Ford not only believes, but that she, just like she testified to, is 100% certain that it was Kavanaugh and his friend M. Judge. You guys are, as usual, in denial. She knows who Kavanaugh and Judge are. And if Kavanaugh is innocent then he would have been clamoring for an FBI investigation from the get go, not evading one. Part of his testimony was that "I called for a hearing as soon as this accusation came out." And he wanted the reps to take that as proof of his innocence. What it was actually evidence of was that he didn't want an FBI investigation and a quick hearing would get around that. I'll bet he had you all fooled with that one, eh? Mistaken identity indeed! Sheesh, the stuff you guys will conjure up in order to hold to your beliefs.
              So where did it happen? When did it happen? How come nobody remembers it happening? What would an FBI investigation reveal that already hasn’t been revealed, other than a stalling tactic to try to retake the senate that is?
              "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 rogue06 View Post
                Okay, at this point I can only call you deliberately and willfully stupid and/or dishonest. Feinstein asked the FBI to get involved when she forwarded Ford letter to them. The FBI declined. So it isn't Kavanaugh that is avoiding the FBI it is the FBI that didn't want to be a part of this. Moreover, if the Democrats were actually interested in an FBI investigation for any other reason than a delaying action stunt they wouldn't have held onto Ford's letter until the last minute. They would have released it during his appearance before the Senate.
                A Democratic senator tried to get Brett Kavanaugh to commit to an FBI investigation. He would not. He was embarrassingly evasive.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                  So here's a legitimate question.

                  People accuse Democrat requests for more investigation or testimony or whatever as a stalling tactic, to make it go past the election. From my understanding, the presumptive reason for Republicans to want so badly to hold it before the election was that it could influence the critical swing votes to vote in favor of Kavanaugh, because to do otherwise might lose them voters. But he's lost some popularity so not only does that reason seem to be gone, voting in favor of him might actually hurt a Senator's chances for re-election.

                  So... why is it so imperative to have this done before the election? How does it actually help the Democrats or hurt Republicans at this point? There's the question of "what if the Republicans lose the Senate?" but in that case they have months of a lame duck congress to get someone to the Court (Kavanaugh or someone else). Granted, that'd probably be a loss of face given what they did with Merrick Garland, but if you've lost the Senate in a year where the election map favors you this much, you've already lost face so might as well just do it on your way out.

                  So I'm confused as to why it being before or after the election is that big of a deal. Unless some of the Republicans are thinking they won't be able to get Kavanaugh through, so they might as well bite the bullet now and have the vote fail to give them extra time to work on the next nominee. I know that sounds downright conspiratorial, but I can't help wondering about it.
                  I agree that it's far from clear which side 'wins' by holding the seat open through the election.

                  Current polling is suggesting Republicans are likely to suffer serious lack of voter turnout from their side in these midterms. Since Republican voters have a tendency to care more about SCOTUS than Dem voters do, holding a seat open on SCOTUS could asymmetrically motivate higher turnout for Republican voters.

                  On the other hand, there seems to be a reasonable chance (~20%?) that Dems will have a majority in the Senate after Nov. IF they do, and IF they grow a spine (fat chance of that happening, I know), then they could either try to hold the SCOTUS seat open until 2020, or (more likely) try to force a more moderate nominee from Trump.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    A Democratic senator tried to get Brett Kavanaugh to commit to an FBI investigation. He would not. He was embarrassingly evasive.
                    Well the FBI investigation is going ahead now, anyway. It's apparently to be a "maximum of 7 days" and "limited in scope". Everyone on Fox News saying that Dr Ford struck them as "very credible" eventually got thorough to the Sexual Assaulter In Chief (along with the Senate Republicans saying they wanted one), and he's ordered an FBI investigation.

                    The devil's going to be in the details of what exactly "limited in scope" means. There's some suggestion it refers to limited to current accusers, in which case it's a bit unclear whether Michael Avenatti's client is included in that. If it turns out "limited in scope" means "you're only allowed to interview Kavanaugh and Dr Ford and don't you dare go talking to the other students who could corroborate allegations" then a lot of people are going to be very upset.
                    Last edited by Starlight; 09-29-2018, 02:01 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      Well the FBI investigation is going ahead now, anyway. It's apparently to be a "maximum of 7 days" and "limited in scope". Everyone on Fox News saying that Dr Ford struck them as "very credible" eventually got thorough to the Sexual Assaulter In Chief (along with the Senate Republicans saying they wanted one), and he's ordered an FBI investigation.

                      The devil's going to be in the details of what exactly "limited in scope" means. There's some suggestion it refers to limited to current accusers, in which case it's a bit unclear whether Michael Avenatti's client is included in that. If it turns out "limited in scope" means "you're only allowed to interview Kavanaugh and Dr Ford and don't you dare go talking to the other students who could corroborate allegations" then a lot of people are going to be very upset.
                      Well the Senate Republican leaders have no choice other than to reopen the FBI background investigation; given that two key Republicans suggested that they would not vote to confirm him to the Supreme Court without additional information on alleged sexual misconduct while Kavanaugh was a teenager. I think the other accusations, e.g. Avenatti's client, are included

                      Also, what may well come into prominence are the widespread reports from college contemporaries about his heavy drinking. Liz Swisher, former Yale classmate of Brett Kavanaugh, told CNN that he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee about his drinking habits. “Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him. I watched him drink more than a lot of people. He’d end up slurring his words, stumbling.” “There’s no medical way I can say that he was blacked out. . . . But it’s not credible for him to say that he has had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess.”

                      This last is of particular significance given that drunkenness was cited by Dr Ford as a key factor in Kavanaugh’s attempted rape of her.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        It's also possible, most probable really, that Dr. Ford not only believes, but that she, just like she testified to, is 100% certain that it was Kavanaugh and his friend M. Judge.
                        At one time she was certain it was four guys who assaulted her and Kavanaugh wasn't named (her original account to the therapist). At another time it was just one person. Her latest 100% certain recollection is that it was two people.

                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        She knows who Kavanaugh and Judge are.
                        Yet she didn't appear to know it was him when she talked to her therapist in 2012. So when exactly did she know who they were and become 100% certain? In another startling inconsistency, Ford told the Washington Post she was upset when Trump won in 2016, because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick, however Kavanaugh was not added to Trump’s list of possible SCOTUS picks until November of 2017 -- a full year later. In reality she didn't name him as her alleged assailant until July of this year.

                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        And if Kavanaugh is innocent then he would have been clamoring for an FBI investigation from the get go, not evading one.
                        Back to your mindless regurgitation of your blatantly dishonest talking points.

                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Part of his testimony was that "I called for a hearing as soon as this accusation came out." And he wanted the reps to take that as proof of his innocence. What it was actually evidence of was that he didn't want an FBI investigation and a quick hearing would get around that. I'll bet he had you all fooled with that one, eh? Mistaken identity indeed! Sheesh, the stuff you guys will conjure up in order to hold to your beliefs.
                        Funny coming from someone who thinks that an accuser who can't recall or keep any of the important details straight is an unimpeachable witness
                        • She doesn't remember when it supposedly happened: She thinks it might have been some time during the Summer of 1982 (a 3 month period) when she was 15. She can't even say if it was on a school night or on the weekend. But this is in stark contrast to her original account when she claimed she was in her "late teens" when it supposedly took place. Nobody in their 50s describes 15 as "late teens."
                        • She doesn't remember where it supposedly happened: She thinks it might have happened in a house somewhere in Montgomery County, Maryland.
                        • She doesn't remember how she got to the party: She said she didn't go alone but can't remember who she went with. Keep in mind this was supposedly a tiny party with something like 5 people there[1] and yet everyone she has named, including her "lifelong friend" Leland Ingham Keyser (the one she likely would have gone with), deny that any such party took place.
                        • She doesn't remember how she got home: and she can't plead that was because she was slightly inebriated because she claims she only had the proverbial "one beer" at the party.
                        • She's claimed that Kavanaugh and Ford followed her upstairs and then assaulted her as well as claimed they were waiting upstairs and ambushed her there
                        • As noted above the details about who was supposed involved changed dramatically starting with it was four guys without Kavanaugh or anyone else being named, then a few years later it was Kavanaugh who did it and finally it was Kavanaugh assisted by Judge.
                        • She claims that she never wanted to or planned on coming forward but her actions contradict this. Well before knowledge of her accusation was made she had already hired a lawyer and took a polygraph back in August.



                        While there are numerous other inconsistencies among her various different accounts to be fair most of these can be attributed to recalling an event decades later, but those listed above aren't inconsequential details but glaring inconsistencies about the most basic facts about what she says was the most traumatic event in her life. Ford told the San Jose Mercury News that she has reached out to her friends and classmates from that time hoping that they could help to jog her memory -- but nobody knew anything about this supposed party or anything else.

                        One other detail that is particularly damning is that her own immediate family doesn't appear to be backing her up here. Her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from the letter of support signed by a dozen relatives -- almost all of them from her husband's side of the family -- attesting to her honesty and integrity. It is completely fair to ask why wouldn't her parents and brothers sign the letter?





                        1. In the letter Ford sent to Feinstein in July, she declared that the party "included me and 4 others." All four others deny such a party ever took place. Three of them, Kavanaugh, Judge, and another classmate, Patrick Smyth, did so under penalty of felony in statements to the Judiciary Committee. Her "life-long friend" Leland Ingham Keyser has simply said she doesn't know Kavanaugh or remember ever being at the party with him.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                          So where did it happen? When did it happen? How come nobody remembers it happening? What would an FBI investigation reveal that already hasn’t been revealed, other than a stalling tactic to try to retake the senate that is?
                          It's going to be an incredibly short investigation.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmuddle View Post
                            MM is generalizing his statements to far more than just the leaders in congress. He is creating classes of people. And the classes he doesn't like are just hardly even human anymore.
                            The irony of you grossly mischaracterizng me and my comments in order to hypocritically accuse me of mischaracterizng others is not lost on me. Nor is the fact that you demand from me a certain display of charity and "tolerance" that you conspicuously refuse to exhibit in return.

                            Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hypocrite. It's a good name for you.
                            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 oxmixmudd View Post
                              I do believe that in the old TWEB you called me an Apostate as we discussed ideas about how to reconcile evolution with the scripture - did you not? Or am I confusing you with someone else?
                              You've either confused me with someone else, or you misunderstood something I did say. Given your conduct in this thread, the latter is entirely possible.
                              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
                                You've either confused me with someone else, or you misunderstood something I did say. Given your conduct in this thread, the latter is entirely possible.
                                No that happened, I just don't know if it was you or not. To find our I just nwed to know if you had a different handle then and what that that handle was. So has your handle always been Mountain Man? If so it was a different person.

                                Jim
                                He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                                "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Today, 02:50 PM
                                12 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post thormas
                                by thormas
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 02:18 PM
                                3 responses
                                38 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 07:17 PM
                                52 responses
                                220 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Bill the Cat  
                                Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 04:39 PM
                                3 responses
                                37 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Whateverman  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 03:30 PM
                                91 responses
                                423 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Working...
                                X