Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Mountain Man]

Rachel Mitchell Destroys Dr. Ford, full report: https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaug...00aa9a711.html

That's a pretty devastating rebuttal that reflects many of the problems that have been pointed out in this thread.

[Cow Poke]

Terrible, the can not fly thing, she was never told that they would go to her. The Dems wanted the spectacle.

Which goes to show, for me, that they Dems didn't care the least little bit about Dr Ford -- they just used her to their own end to assassinate Kavanaugh's character, Dr Ford be damned.

[seer]

That's a pretty devastating rebuttal that reflects many of the problems that have been pointed out in this thread.

It is good to see it all in one place laid out in order...

[Cow Poke]

It is good to see it all in one place laid out in order...

Except, of course, that the report was produced by a rabidly political active person with a track record of destroying the lives of women!!!!

[Mountain Man]

Terrible, the can not fly thing, she was never told that they would go to her. The Dems wanted the spectacle.

I have to wonder if she was really not told.

[Bill the Cat]

Kavenaugh has a history of lying to Congress, and lying to Congress is not only disqualifying of ones confirmation to the SC, it's a felony. At this hearing he denied knowing about files stolen from judiciary committee democrats, but e-mails attest to the contrary. In 2004, Kavanaugh claimed he had no involvement in the nomination process of William Pryor to the 11th circuit, that it was not something that he personally worked on, but newly released documents contradict his testimony. He claimed the same concerning the nomination of Charles Pickering, which again was contradicted by newly released documents. In 2006, Kavanaugh claimed he knew nothing about the warrantless wiretapping. Newly released e-mails, once again, contradict his testimony to Congress. Finally in 2006, Kavanaugh testified to Congress that he was not involved with questions concerning the rules governing detention of combatants. New evidence has now contradicted that claim as well.
In this hearing he even lied about stupid stuff like his drinking habits, the meaning of "Devils triangle" and "Ralphing" not to mention his disgusting misogynistic joke (alumnius Renate) at the expense of a female aqaintance Renate Dolphin.

So Kavanaugh has a pattern of dishonesty, of lying to Congress, and should not only not be confirmed to the SC, but shouldn't even be a judge period.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.50a9954392c2

All lies from Leahy and Durbin.

[Mountain Man]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.50a9954392c2

All lies from Leahy and Durbin.

2 and 3 Pinocchios respectively, and that's even with the liberal WaPo pulling its punches.

[rogue06]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.50a9954392c2

All lies from Leahy and Durbin.

Yeah but the WaPo is a right wing pro-Trump rag and... um... er...

[One Bad Pig]

Yeah but the WaPo is a right wing pro-Trump rag and... um... er...

Starlight certainly thinks so.

[Cow Poke]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.50a9954392c2

All lies from Leahy and Durbin.

Yeah, but that makes them true!

[rogue06]

Starlight certainly thinks so.

He also said and even reiterated that Stalin was a right winger

[Sparko]

Question: For those advocating a "full" FBI investigation, what do you mean? Do you mean a "criminal" investigation? If so, can you point me to a source that shows this is within their jurisdiction? I always thought FBI jurisdiction for criminal investigations was limited to (1) situations where the incident occurred when one of the involved parties was a Federal employee at the time, and (2) cases where a state or local LE agency specifically invited the FBI.

Also, would you allow an investigation so "full" that it was able to force the therapist to release all documents and recordings pertaining to Ford and her husband, and to require providing of the recordings or transcripts of the polygraph session?

They are hoping for another never-ending Mueller type investigation.

[JonathanL]

Careful not to confuse boldness in speaking out against sin with angry and hurtful attacks on people. "Speak the truth in Love" we are commanded. Love is defined in 1 Corinthians 13 and less completely several other places in the Scripture. We never have license to abuse in the name of righteousness or in the name of Christ. While you are right to reject cowardice, it is never right to be cruel and/or merciless individual to individual in this life. Remember the ungrateful servant who was forgiven a great debt but would not forgive a minor debt owed him. Remember the command to forgive not 7 times, but 'seven times seventy".


Jim

So instead of insulting people directly to their face, or without naming exactly who you're referring to it's better to go the cowards way and simply speak generally about "[the people] around here"?:

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

If you're going to accuse people of simply being too stupid to understand what you're saying you should at least have the backbone to mention people by name.

Jesus himself called Peter Satan. Calling someone something like an idiot or moron is magnitudes less "angry and hurtful" than that. He called the Pharisees hypocrites and whitewashed tombs. Paul asked the Judaizers to go and castrate themselves. Saying that we never have license to "speak out against sin with 'angry and hurtful remarks'" flies right in the face of the biblical witness. There are cases where "angry and hurtful" remarks (to use your own terminology) is definitely appropriate.

The command to forgive seventy times seven times applies when someone has slighted you personally, it has nothing to do with the kind of psychopath (the wolves Jesus speaks of in the Gospels) who endangers the whole congregation spiritually, or the people who enable his/her behaviour.

[oxmixmudd]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31621[/ATTACH]

One irony here is that by posting that picture, you confirm the sentence above it - in your case - on this issue.

And another irony overall here is that, unlike so many posting here, I am completely open to being shown that my current opinion or position is in error. All it takes are facts and convincing argumentation.

"Baloney Jim" doesn't quite cut it. I offered to discuss the list if you wanted to rogue.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

And another irony overall here is that, unlike so many posting here, I am completely open to being shown that my current opinion or position is in error. All it takes are facts and convincing argumentation.