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 rogue06 View Post
    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.
    It was decades ago, rogue. And according to her husband Kavanaugh was named as the one who assaulted her. Where do you get that it was only one person, and why on earth would she put another person there if he wasn't there? That's just dumb. Her 100% certain was in answer to who the actual attacker was, not in answer to how many were in the room. Besides, are you really so jaded as to believe Dr. Ford made up this whole story? I don't think so, I think that you just want to win regardless. Right?

    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?
    Says who, you?

    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 TrumpÂ’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.
    No she didn't, she didn't mention it until Kavanaugh, who wasn't on the original list, was to the list by Trump. In other words, she was trying to give Trump the heads up, in order that he pick one of the other conservative judges on the list. Trump had Kavanaugh in mind from the get go, because Kavanaugh was going to be his boy, or so he believed.

    Back to your mindless regurgitation of your blatantly dishonest talking points.
    Oh really, then why is he so afraid of an FBI investigation? I suppose you couldn't see that fear expressed by him at the hearing, could you? How many times was he asked if he would request an FBI investigation, and how many times did he give his complete trepidation away in trying to explain away his refusal to do so.

    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
    Actually she kept quite a few of the details straight, which is exactly what the FBI is going to investigate.
    • 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.
    • Unfortunately for Kavanaugh, and for you, even though it was decades ago, she remembered enough details for the FBI to investigate.
    • 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.
That she took a polygragh has nothing to do with whether or not she intended on coming forward or not, it has to do with whether or not she was telling the truth.

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.
Blah blah blah, she remembered the important details and the important details of a traumatic experience are the ones that stick in ones memory decades after the fact.
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?
Egad. Anyone, i.e. anyone with an ounce of objectivity watching the hearing knows which of the two were telling the truth, and which one was lying. You can't admit to that, understood, he's on your team and you want to believe him, but face it rogue, the guy was obviously lying through his teeth about many things asked of him, so why do you believe him at all? I think we all know the reason for that!




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.[/QUOTE]

Comment


  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    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.
    I underlined your error. This is misinformation being passed around by many on the right. Ford identified the people present at the party. She was clear that there were only two witnesses to the event itself: Kavanaugh and Judge. They are the only two witnesses refuting her accusation - which could be because it never happened, or it could be because they are guilty and guilty people tend to say, "not me."

    The other people she named were in the house, not in the room. She was clear they did not necessarily know what was happening (or what happened), and what they have said is they do not remember anything happening. Some don't even remember the party. "I do not remember that" is not the same as "that did not happen." The latter is a refutation. The former is not.

    Ford has presented affidavits from four people who heard her story about the incident BEFORE Kavanaugh was nominated, which I have to admit raises my suspicions. However, not to the point where I am comfortable saying "it happened." There is also significant corroboration that Kavanaugh had a drinking problem. I have no clue if he still does. I would also very much like to know what is in the marriage counselor's notes. Perhaps the FBI investigation will shed more light.

    Standing by...
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-29-2018, 11:31 AM.
    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 Alsharad View Post
      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."



      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.
      If somebody is making demonstrably false accusations then they SHOULD be attacked (in the legal sense, of course; I make this clarification for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hypocrite's edification). Given the testimony of her friends, I think any reasonable person would question their own memories. Even if she was groped at a high school party, the evidence makes it all but certain that Kavanaugh was not the assailant, and for her to press on with her accusation anyway shows that she is either irrational, or dishonest
      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
        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.
        I think I explained what I meant quite well. That you refuse to acknowledge the difference between hatred of an idea and hatred of a person is not something I can control, though I note the concept is certainly well within your capacity to understand. Are you now going to claim you like the ideals associated with liberalism and often found in the Democratic party? The list I posted of your own comments would cast a rather significant doubt on such a claim. What word would you prefer I use for the attitude expressed in those quotes?

        As for charity - can you point me to an example of you exhibiting charity in this thread?


        Jim
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-29-2018, 12:40 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


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          If somebody is making demonstrably false accusations then they SHOULD be attacked (in the legal sense, of course; I make this clarification for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hypocrite's edification). Given the testimony of her friends, I think any reasonable person would question their own memories. Even if she was groped at a high school party, the evidence makes it all but certain that Kavanaugh was not the assailant, and for her to press on with her accusation anyway shows that she is either irrational, or dishonest
          Only if can be demonstrated that she is knowingly doing so. If she has false memories as a result of her therapist and later liberal activist lawyers reinforced them then she's still a victim. Just not of being assaulted by Kavanaugh.

          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 oxmixmudd View Post
            That you refuse to acknowledge the difference between hatred of an idea and hatred of a person is not something I can control...
            I understand the difference just fine. That's not the problem. The problem is that you continue to falsely accuse me of hatred. Doesn't the Bible have some rather harsh things to say about "bearing false witness", or is yours the special "Rules For Thee But Not For Me" translation?
            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 carpedm9587 View Post
              I underlined your error.
              Actually, you bolded it.

              The other people she named were in the house, not in the room. She was clear they did not necessarily know what was happening (or what happened), and what they have said is they do not remember anything happening.
              But think about that part of it - it appears to have been a small house, she mentioned small living room. Supposedly, her friends are downstairs, she's upstairs, and she claims all of this "jumping on the bed" stuff was going on. Then she locks herself in the bathroom, and hears the two accusers "pinballing off the walls" as they drunkenly go down the stairs. Then she comes down, after allegedly been sexually assaulted, and... her friends don't notice? They don't care?
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Only if can be demonstrated that she is knowingly doing so. If she has false memories as a result of her therapist and later liberal activist lawyers reinforced them then she's still a victim. Just not of being assaulted by Kavanaugh.
                Or, if she's "not all there" to begin with, and was manipulated by the bitterly partisan handlers.
                "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
                  No matter how you look at it, Ford is not a credible accuser.
                  Trump said:

                  "And I thought that Brett's testimony likewise was really something that I haven't seen, it was incredible. It was an incredible moment I think in the history of our country. But certainly she was a very credible witness. She was very good in many respects
                  https://nordic.businessinsider.com/t...18-9?r=US&IR=T

                  So you disagree with Trump?
                  "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Charles View Post
                    Trump said:

                    https://nordic.businessinsider.com/t...18-9?r=US&IR=T

                    So you disagree with Trump?
                    Partially.
                    "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
                      Actually, you bolded it.


                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      But think about that part of it - it appears to have been a small house, she mentioned small living room. Supposedly, her friends are downstairs, she's upstairs, and she claims all of this "jumping on the bed" stuff was going on. Then she locks herself in the bathroom, and hears the two accusers "pinballing off the walls" as they drunkenly go down the stairs. Then she comes down, after allegedly been sexually assaulted, and... her friends don't notice? They don't care?
                      CP - all of this is filled with so much speculation, I cannot even begin to respond (ETA: apparently, I was able to respond... ). Loud noises and horsing around is not unusual at teenage parties. A young girl who has been sexually assaulted bolting in as quick and nondescript manner as possible is not unusual. Teenagers being oblivious is not unusual. So here's a perfectly reasonable teenage scenario:

                      (Lots of noise from upstairs)
                      "Man - must be having a party up there!" (as they keep watching TV or playing a game or shooting the breeze about last week's football game and the geeks in chemistry class).
                      (Ford sneaks out of the house either unseen or unremarked, or she is actually seen leaving - if the latter...)
                      (Two boys come down)
                      "Where did Ford go?"
                      "Dunno - said she had something to do. Any pizza left?"

                      And then 30 years later...everything thinks this nondescript encounter is going to be remembered? Let me see...

                      "Remember that time 35 years ago that we were watching TV at Jim's house and Suzie left and didn't say good-bye?"

                      Really?

                      Look - None of this proves anything, or even rises to the level of "suspicious." All of this speculation about WHY people didn't remember a small party 35 years ago is pointless. Like I said, I remember a handful of specific gathering I had with my friends in high school, and I had a large circle of friends and was pretty socially active. All of this speculation is really being fed by what people WANT to be true, not what IS true. The fact is, we don't know. People are grabbing onto any detail that supports their desired outcome. The exercise is pointless.

                      Hopefully the FBI will be able to find something. If not....
                      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 carpedm9587 View Post
                        CP - all of this is filled with so much speculation...
                        Sure, and if the Democrats had been seeking the truth instead of character assassination, we wouldn't even be here.


                        (lemme guess - you're gonna accuse me of "WhatIfIsm" )
                        "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
                          Sure, and if the Democrats had been seeking the truth instead of character assassination, we wouldn't even be here.

                          (lemme guess - you're gonna accuse me of "WhatIfIsm" )
                          No - that's not an example of whataboutism or whatifism.

                          It's an example of cluelessnessism



                          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 carpedm9587 View Post
                            No - that's not an example of whataboutism or whatifism.

                            It's an example of cluelessnessism



                            I'll wait til you sober up a bit.
                            "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
                              I understand the difference just fine. That's not the problem. The problem is that you continue to falsely accuse me of hatred. Doesn't the Bible have some rather harsh things to say about "bearing false witness", or is yours the special "Rules For Thee But Not For Me" translation?
                              Bearing false witness means you tell a lie about someone that you know is a lie. Specifically, one is making up a story about another person they know is not true. My comments are based on specific observations, not something made up. I listed a subset of quotes which I believe show exactly the sort of sentiment and verbal group hostility I'm talking about.

                              Secondarily, you are taking the actual element I called you out on and blowing it up into an accusation of generalized hatred, which it simply was not. I was very specific. Your accusations of Ford are based (primarily) on partisan hatred(or if it is more palatable - extreme dislike based on political ideology), not the actual implications of the evidence or her character. Further, the quotes I listed show how you group all democrats together and generally demonized them. If you don't want to call that hatred, fine, pick a different word or phrase.

                              Nevertheless, what I see in those quotes and so many of your posts I would call 'partisan hatred'. To paraphrase you as you explain your accusation Dr. Ford is literally a liar - "what else could it be?"


                              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 CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 08:17 AM
                                1 response
                                26 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by LiconaFan97, 10-23-2020, 04:56 PM
                                20 responses
                                165 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by Juvenal, 10-23-2020, 11:08 AM
                                10 responses
                                98 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Juvenal
                                by Juvenal
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 10-23-2020, 08:52 AM
                                6 responses
                                64 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 10-22-2020, 10:59 PM
                                62 responses
                                471 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Watermelon  
                                Working...
                                X