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 Cow Poke View Post
    I'll wait til you sober up a bit.
    I'm sober...


    Just a tad happy...
    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 Cow Poke View Post
      Or, if she's "not all there" to begin with, and was manipulated by the bitterly partisan handlers.
      Yep... which brings me back to a point I made earlier: Would a rational person continue pressing a claim when everybody else who supposedly witnessed it is telling them it never happened?
      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 Chuckles View Post
        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.
        So you disagree with Trump?
        On this point, yes. I don't think she's a credible witness at all.
        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


        • Side note - I have seen several "forward this" emails and facebook posts with an alleged picture of Dr Ford with George Soros, 'confirming' the conspiracy.

          Viral Photo Doesn’t Show Soros with Ford

          Just sayin.
          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmuddle View Post
            Bearing false witness means you tell a lie about someone that you know is a lie.
            Precisely, and I've told you multiple times that your characterization of my statements is false. There is no hatred in my words. Identifying Democrats as the ones primarily if not exclusively responsible for this circus might be partisan, but it's not hateful. You might think it's hateful for whatever reason, but I have told this is not my intent. So by your own words I will judge you: you are willfully lying about me. Better get that log out of your eye before it starts to fester.

            Originally posted by oxmixmuddle View Post
            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?"
            It is not "hatred" but logic that leads me to my conclusion. When a person says that a particular event happened, and everybody they cite as witnesses refutes them, yet they persist in their claims, the only logical conclusions available are:

            1) The person is a liar.
            2) The person is mentally unsound.

            Logically, there is no other option.
            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
              Yep... which brings me back to a point I made earlier: Would a rational person continue pressing a claim when everybody else who supposedly witnessed it is telling them it never happened?
              Everyone else is not telling them "it never happened." Everyone else is saying "I don't remember." That's not the same thing.
              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 Cow Poke View Post
                That's actually a pretty loaded question. Something can be believable, yet uncorroborated.
                That is true. I can tell you I made straight A's in high school and it is believable, even though it is uncorroborated. Also, something being believable does not speak to its truth or falsehood.

                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".
                But should it disqualify you for supreme court justice?

                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.
                I wouldn't make that argument. At best, it may indicate that the accusation is more likely to be true.

                Again, should that allegation, though believable, but with no evidence, be allowed to disqualify him for supreme court?

                You see? Focusing on the principle allows us to sidestep the question of belief. Good lies and truth are both believable. Believing something does not make it true. We have to look at the evidence and keep hounding whether there is any.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Alsharad View Post
                  That is true. I can tell you I made straight A's in high school and it is believable, even though it is uncorroborated.

                  However, if you said, "I kin tell yoo i mad strat a's in hi skrool....."


                  "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                  Comment


                  • Bernie Sanders is asking for the FBI investigation to include some basic checking of Kavanaugh's statements during the hearing that the news media are widely reporting are false. In the time since Kavanaugh testified, the media have run dozens of headlines fact-checking basic statements made by Kavanaugh during the hearing and deeming them to have been lies.

                    Bernie Sanders calls for FBI to investigate whether Kavanaugh told truth in hearing:

                    "In order for the FBI investigation regarding Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to be complete, it is imperative the bureau must not only look into the accusations made by Dr. [Christine Blasey] Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, it should also examine the veracity of his testimony before the Judiciary Committee," Sanders wrote in the letter.

                    Sanders, who tweeted the letter Saturday morning, wrote on Twitter, "Lying to Congress is a federal crime. … Kavanaugh's truthfulness with the Senate goes to the very heart of whether he should be confirmed to the court."

                    I am intrigued to know if conservatives here think that if Kavanaugh lied under oath about simple things like the meanings of terms in his yearbook, that that should be disqualifying or have ramifications for him? How much lying under oath is acceptable to you guys?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      I'll
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Precisely, and I've told you multiple times that your characterization of my statements is false. There is no hatred in my words. Identifying Democrats as the ones primarily if not exclusively responsible for this circus might be partisan, but it's not hateful. You might think it's hateful for whatever reason, but I have told this is not my intent. So by your own words I will judge you: you are willfully lying about me. Better get that log out of your eye before it starts to fester.
                      MM, at this point and for the last three pages the discussion has been about what I said, not what I am saying.

                      That said - your statements about ford and democrats/liberals are said in the very same way someone with hatred for both would say them.

                      As I said, I found and posted a list of statements as examples of what I'm talking about.

                      [Quote [
                      It is not "hatred" but logic that leads me to my conclusion. When a person says that a particular event happened, and everybody they cite as witnesses refutes them, yet they persist in their claims, the only logical conclusions available are:

                      1) The person is a liar.
                      2) The person is mentally unsound.

                      Logically, there is no other option.
                      And you are wrong again. The other option is that no one else noticed. Others have recited in detail exactly why that is a credible option. And if you've had kids or ever been at a high school party the the only option to explain why you won't admit that would be a partisan unwillingness to admit or accept what is simply a fact.

                      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


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        It is not "hatred" but logic that leads me to my conclusion. When a person says that a particular event happened, and everybody they cite as witnesses refutes them, yet they persist in their claims, the only logical conclusions available are:

                        1) The person is a liar.
                        2) The person is mentally unsound.

                        Logically, there is no other option.
                        And to arrive at that conclusion you must ignore the simple fact that she sought help for the event 5 years previous, identifying Kavanaugh as the subject to her husband. 5 YEARS.

                        When that simple fact is factored in, coupled with the simple fact she is a stable and competent person and has been for a very long time, your assertion the only option is she's lying falls flat on its face.

                        In point of fact, at this point in the process the only one for whom there is direct evidence of telling lies is Kavanaugh in how he has characterized his participation in the rather extreme party culture he immersed himself in during high school and college, as discussed openly by several that knew him well during that period of time.

                        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


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          And to arrive at that conclusion you must ignore the simple fact that she sought help for the event 5 years previous, identifying Kavanaugh as the subject to her husband. 5 YEARS.
                          Not being combative, but asking some questions...

                          A) Can you please provide the source that shows that she sought help for THIS event 5 years ago? All other sources seem to indicate it was "relationship counseling"*.
                          2) We don't know that she told her husband - we just know that he said that after the fact.

                          Here is his "declaration" from 25 September, 2018. It would be interesting to see if there was any mention of this PRIOR to the hearings.


                          *in fact, in my next post, I show, in her own words from her testimony before the Senate committee, that the Kavenaugh issue was peripheral to the main reason for the counseling - it wasn't because of the alleged Kavanaugh incident. She was there for couples counseling.
                          Last edited by Cow Poke; 09-29-2018, 09:23 PM.
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • Also, from the hearing, she had said...
                            Over the years, I told very, very few friends that I had this traumatic experience. I told my husband before we were married that I had experienced a sexual assault. I had never told the details to anyone — the specific details — until May 2012, during a couples counseling session.

                            The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand.

                            In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all-boys school in Bethesda, Maryland. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.


                            According to TheGatewayPundit, the door she describes had actually been installed at least by 2011 - prior to this "couples counseling" session where she was insisting that a second front door be installed.
                            "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
                              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.
                              The accusations against Kavanaugh are for the most part credible and have left his reputation under a considerable cloud. So, why would Kavanaugh worry about a "stall tactic" if the end result would clear his name? It's reminiscent of Trump's desperate attempts to close down the Mueller enquiry; it indicates guilt.

                              Since the Democrats didn't have anything but uncorroborated allegations
                              The FBI investigation is an opportunity to collaborate the accusations or prove them unfounded. What's the problem?
                              “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 Tassman View Post
                                The accusations against Kavanaugh are for the most part credible
                                We've finally backed down to "for the most part"?

                                and have left his reputation under a considerable cloud. So, why would Kavanaugh worry about a "stall tactic" if the end result would clear his name?
                                Because he's MUCH smarter than you are, Tassy. He knows that the FBI would NOT "clear his name" - they don't provide conclusions - only summaries of interviews. And then there would be a huge cabal in the Senate committee like we've already been seeing about what "this statement" meant, and what "that person" was meaning when they said....

                                You really are clueless about what, exactly, and FBI investigation does, and does not do. CLUE-LESS!
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 08:17 AM
                                3 responses
                                54 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Started by LiconaFan97, 10-23-2020, 04:56 PM
                                29 responses
                                192 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Started by Juvenal, 10-23-2020, 11:08 AM
                                10 responses
                                103 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Juvenal
                                by Juvenal
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 10-23-2020, 08:52 AM
                                6 responses
                                65 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 10-22-2020, 10:59 PM
                                70 responses
                                556 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X