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 Alsharad View Post
    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?
    Once you concede that an accuser is credible, meaning their claims are consistent and believable with no good reason to doubt them, that's as good as saying that the accused is guilty.

    What the Republicans should be hammering home is that the evidence, Ford's inconsistent narrative and the unanimous refutation of hey accusations by named witnesses, demands that she is NOT credible.
    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
      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
      Mountain Man is the name I've used online for around two-decades.
      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.
        Regardless, have you noticed that while I might point out a behavior I see as contrary to Christ's teaching, I don't call you derogatory names, or stuff you into some class of people and then deride them? That I always or at least most of the time speak to you directly and with respect for you as a man, even if I disagree with your position?

        And hayou notied you do not return the favor?

        Jim
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Mountain Man is the name I've used online for around two-decades.
          Ok, then I had you confused with someone else. My apologies. But that is why I asked. I didn't want to accuse you falsely.

          Jim
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            Regardless, have you noticed that while I might point out a behavior I see as contrary to Christ's teaching, I don't call you derogatory names, or stuff you into some class of people and then deride them? That I always or at least most of the time speak to you directly and with respect for you as a man, even if I disagree with your position?

            And hayou notied you do not return the favor?

            Jim
            I'll have to take you at your word. It's just that in my experience, when someone tries to bolster their opinion with statements like, "Is that how a Christian should act?" it's code for "Are you really a Christian?" It doesn't help your case that you went on to falsely accuse me of hatred.
            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 Alsharad View Post
              By the way, does anyone here believe that an uncorroborated accusation lacking any evidence should be sufficient to stop someone from being confirmed?
              That's actually a pretty loaded question. Something can be believable, yet uncorroborated.

              If you were to receive an uncorroborated accusation against me - that I had an affair with a woman in my office - I don't believe anybody would believe it because I'm one of those right wing nuts who employs "the Billy Graham rule".

              If, however, you were to receive the very same uncorroborated accusation against a particular pastor in our area - I think people would consider it likely, because he's now married to a woman with whom he had an affair in his office several years ago.

              I supposed you'd argue that the allegation is 'corroborated' by his history.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              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.
                He knew full well that the call for an FBI investigation was just an open-ended stall tactic. He would have been dumb to fall for their trickery and deceit. Since the Democrats didn't have anything but uncorroborated allegations from a woman whose confidence they betrayed, it was the next dirty trick in their book.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Once you concede that an accuser is credible, meaning their claims are consistent and believable with no good reason to doubt them, that's as good as saying that the accused is guilty.

                  What the Republicans should be hammering home is that the evidence, Ford's inconsistent narrative and the unanimous refutation of hey accusations by named witnesses, demands that she is NOT credible.
                  But the danger in that is that the Republicans will be, again, characterized as a bunch of old white men beating up on a woman. They play the race card and slam the gender card on top of it. (It's odd that they play the race card, since it's a white woman... )
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    If you should ever decide to engage in civil discourse, please let me know.
                    Uncivil? How so?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      I'll have to take you at your word. It's just that in my experience, when someone tries to bolster their opinion with statements like, "Is that how a Christian should act?" it's code for "Are you really a Christian?" It doesn't help your case that you went on to falsely accuse me of hatred.
                      You mean when I said your derogatory comments about ford where sourced in partisan hatred and the list some 15 or 20 examples of you exhibiting partisan hatred in this thread alone?

                      There is nothing explicitly wrong with hating some thing or some policy or some action. Cow Poke said quite forcefully he hates abortion. Nothing wrong there.

                      The problem is when we allow our hatred of that thing to manifest in how we treat a person associated with that thing.

                      I was calling out the fact you had clearly crossed that line with Ford and we're allowing your hatred of democratic policies and ideals to cause you to demonize Ford and to attack her directly in ways that simply can't be justified.

                      Jim
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      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?
                        That's why an investigation should have been done in the first place Lilpix. You know that, you're just to biased to admit it. The Republican majority knows that as well, which is why they tried, as M. McConnell said, to plow right through. Besides all that, Judge Kavanaugh pretty much disqualified himself regardless of the accusations of Dr. Ford. He showed himself to be a biased right winger, to be a blatant liar under oath, to disrespect the office and the Senate which is responsible to consent to his confirmation. He doesn't belong on the SC. even if the FBI can't corroborate the accusation.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmuddle View Post
                          You mean when I said your derogatory comments about ford where sourced in partisan hatred and the list some 15 or 20 examples of you exhibiting partisan hatred in this thread alone?
                          That you continue to uncharitably mischaracterize my remarks as "hatred" only proves my point. The log in your eye is getting longer be the minute.
                          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 JimL View Post
                            That's why an investigation should have been done in the first place Lilpix.
                            Absolutely correct. When DiFi received this information, she should have brought it to the committee for consideration, where they could have authorized the investigation in private, rather than sit on it until after the hearings were concluded. That fact that she handled it like she did is why we're in this mess in the first place.

                            During the hearing, and the previous 6 FBI backgrounds checks of Kavanaugh, not a single allegation of sexual misconduct was raised.

                            The Democrats treated this thing with intense political bias.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Once you concede that an accuser is credible, meaning their claims are consistent and believable with no good reason to doubt them, that's as good as saying that the accused is guilty.
                              We do not have the same definition of credible. That's okay, though. I was using credible to mean that the person's character is generally good and they seem sincere. I like your definition better. It still doesn't change the fact that the credibility factor should be a secondary issue. To attack credibility, you have to attack the person, which plays directly into democrat hands.

                              I think that it would not be a bad idea to continually hound that this is about unsubstantiated allegation with no evidence. I don't see the republicans losing any political ground by saying "She seems to be sincere. But so does he. Without any other evidence, we must look at the principles we espouse. Even if we believe her, we cannot set the precedent that an unsubstantiated allegation is all that is required to disqualify someone from the supreme court. Our democrat friends, however, did not care about Dr Ford until it was expedient and they don't care about evidence (having not asked for any of it in the hearings). They do seem intent on setting the precedent that an unsubstantiated allegation is all that is required to disqualify someone from the supreme court."

                              What the Republicans should be hammering home is that the evidence, Ford's inconsistent narrative and the unanimous refutation of hey accusations by named witnesses, demands that she is NOT credible.
                              And they look like they are attacking the victim when they do that.

                              I am not saying that they should believe Dr. Ford, but they should couch everything in the terms of looking for and at the evidence because an unsupported accusation should not be enough to disqualify a nominee.

                              Comment


                              • I have to wonder, when Ford named her witnesses, and they unanimously refuted her accusation, what was going through her mind?

                                Was she bewildered that the people she distinctly remembered being there said it never happened? Or did she know they wouldn't back up her story but named them anyway in order to make her story seem more believable? She tried to use the exuse that they didn't remember because the party would have been unremarkable despite the very remarkable incident of her running down the stairs, past her friends in the living room, and out the door. She also said that maybe her best friend didn't remember because of recent medical problemss, which seems a rather cruel assertion.

                                No matter how you look at it, Ford is not a credible accuser.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                52 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                191 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                318 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X