Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes, but it is being seriously inhibited by the White House, they have control over it. In other words they, the White House, is not looking for the truth, they're looking to get Kavanaugh through this regardless.

[lilpixieofterror]

Statistics are evidence of lack of commonality. You can look at methodology rather than assume you're right because you can't be bothered. People are arrested based on unverified claims all the time, that's what our judicial system is for. You're not doing so well here.

You are assuming that an accusation isn't evidence.

[rogue06]

Statistics are evidence of lack of commonality. You can look at methodology rather than assume you're right because you can't be bothered. People are arrested based on unverified claims all the time, that's what our judicial system is for. You're not doing so well here.



You are assuming that an accusation isn't evidence.

Statistics like that are useless in individual cases. It's like proclaiming that someone running under a 4 minute mile is essentially impossible because well over 99% of people can not do it.

[oxmixmudd]

"Love" in the Bible is not ooey-gooey sentimentality. Go watch the movie Stand By Me some time to see what real Biblical agape looks like in action. Joe Clark wielded a bullhorn and a baseball bat in order to protect his community.

This is agape:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31617[/ATTACH]

This is heresy:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31618[/ATTACH]

Nothing in my post would negate what is illustrated in 'Stand by me'. But it does stand against ignorant people with no compassion thinking they are emulating his actions while in reality they are destructively devoid of the compassion and genuine love that he was operating from.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

You are assuming that an accusation isn't evidence.

If accusations are evidence then so are denials.

Now what?

[Mountain Man]

Nothing in my post would negate what is illustrated in 'Stand by me'. But it does stand against ignorant people with no compassion thinking they are emulating his actions while in reality they are destructively devoid of the compassion and genuine love that he was operating from.

Then you should breath a sigh of relief that nobody is exhibiting that kind of behavior here.

[oxmixmudd]

Covered in Post #1151. Lots of problems with her changing claims.

Most of that list represents ignorance as regards how human memory works.

Let me put it this way. That same sort of reasoning, applied to the new testament accounts, is what is used to support the claim they are inconsistent and untrustworthy.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Most of that list represents ignorance as regards how human memory works.

Let me put it this way. That same sort of reasoning, applied to the new testament accounts, is what is used to support the claim they are inconsistent and untrustworthy.

That argument has been tried before in this thread, and it doesn't hold water. The disciples all agree on the major event (Jesus rose from the dead; several of Jesus' closest friends witnessed the empty tomb and the resurrected Messiah), but there are apparent differences in the details (who exactly was where and when). That is a big, big difference between someone saying that X happened, and named witnesses either directly refuting it or saying they have no memory of it.

[Cow Poke]

Unless somebody can prove otherwise, we're only talking about a supplemental background check.

Some of those screaming for an FBI "investigation" seem to think this means the FBI will subpoena witnesses like a criminal inquiry. This is not that. FBI agents will not be obtaining search warrants or issuing subpoenas to compel testimony - they'll simply be doing interviews and writing down what "he said" or "she said".

As has been stated repeatedly, the FBI will offer no conclusions - it will simply be yet another fight about who is telling the truth, who is believable, and I think nearly everybody has already made up their minds on that.

[Mountain Man]

Flakey Jeff Flake says that Kavanaugh has the demeanor of a man unjustly accused.

[rogue06]

Most of that list represents ignorance as regards how human memory works.

Let me put it this way. That same sort of reasoning, applied to the new testament accounts, is what is used to support the claim they are inconsistent and untrustworthy.

Jim

Baloney Jim. You don't forget all those essential details.

[Roy]

Yet another logical option is that everyone else is lying. Since most people in that experiment resist peer pressure and give correct accounts, MM's 'logic' leads to the conclusion that most people are liars or mentally unsound.

Right... the most likely scenario is that everybody but Ford is lying (despite her sketchy and contradictory narrative).

Thank you for providing a demonstration of "bearing false witness".

I didn't say it was "the most likely" option (that is your invention), merely a logical option.

[rogue06]

That argument has been tried before in this thread, and it doesn't hold water. The disciples all agree on the major event (Jesus rose from the dead; several of Jesus' closest friends witnessed the empty tomb and the resurrected Messiah), but there are apparent differences in the details (who exactly was where and when). That is a big, big difference between someone saying that X happened, and named witnesses either directly refuting it or saying they have no memory of it.

Moreover, it isn't one person constantly changing her story. I recommend Michael Licotta's Why Are There Differences in the Gospels (I attended one of his lectures on the subject with Nick (ApologiaPhoenix) and his lovely wife last year).

Here is a video of a similar lecture of his on the subject:

[oxmixmudd]

Baloney Jim. You don't forget all those essential details.

You know - I realize your mind is made up on this and that there is not much that can be said objectively to change it. But what I see in that list is very different from what you apparently see.

I appears much like how the conclusions of article Cow Poke posted were reached (though I misunderstood his intent with that and I cast no aspersions on him bringing that up again here). The person doing the critique (in the article, not CP) just wasn't reading what was said in the transcript, and as a result or possibly in addition to, nor were they understanding that the conversation was about the sequence of the counseling session discussion, not the timeline of when the name was first discussed vs when the remodeling was done.

So much of what I'm seeing here is in the very same vein of that or the ignorance that launched the 'inauguration pictures' conspiracy. Just a lot of people that want Ford to be a liar, skimming over the notes, looking for anything and everything that could possibly be a contradiction, and then posting snippits out of context to try to make a case. That's what I see so far, that is mostly what I see in the list you gave.

And keep in mind I'm not hostile to Kavanaugh being a judge, though at this point it does appear to me he very much fudged if not lied in his accounting of his participation in the wild high school and college partying outlined by Judge and associated with his time at Yale per the testimony of those that knew him at the time and appalled at his characterization during the Thursday testimony. My guess is that Judge will have to admit to the FBI that Bart O Kavanaugh was in fact Brett Kavanaugh, and not a ficticious or exaggerated accounting, as judge is part of the investigation of Fords allegations, and if that avenue is pursued, that may cook his goose.

On the Ford 'discrepancies', we can go through the list if you like and I can outline which ones I think are bogus (and why) and see what is left. Or you can leave it at "Baloney Jim" if you like.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Thank you for providing a demonstration of "bearing false witness".

I didn't say it was "the most likely" option (that is your invention), merely a logical option.

I'm finding that sort of subtle distinction is mostly lost around here. You have to spell it out in bold, with large font, and probably two or three times. And even then, who knows, you have maybe a 50/50 chance of the general audience getting what you are saying?

Jim