Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Starlight]

I find it interesting that no one has ask Feinstein the obvious question:

"You had the letter since July. You sat on it for 6 weeks and mentioned it to no one. The hearings were about to end. Since you clearly took no action beforehand, and you deny leaking the letter, it seems your intention was to allow the confirmation to continue despite knowing of the allegations. Since you have said that you believe Dr. Ford, why do you want to put someone you believe is guilty of sexual assault on the Supreme Court?"

I don't see another possible conclusion for her actions.

1 She had the letter.
2 She took no action.
3 She didn't leak it.
4 She believes Dr. Ford.
5 She knew that Kavanaugh would pass the committee and be confirmed along party lines.

If all these are true, then:
6 She believed the letter that she had that stated Kavanaugh was guilty of sexual assault (from 1 and 4).
7 She took no action against Kavanaugh when she believed he was guilty of assault (from 2 and 6).
8 She didn't leak it and took no other action when she knew he would be confirmed (from 2, 3, and 5).
9 She didn't leak it and took no other action knowing that a man she believed guilty of sexual assault would be confirmed to the Supreme Court (from 8 and 9).

Therefore,
She must be willing to allow someone guilty of sexual assault on the Supreme Court (implied by 9).

Am I missing something in my logic?

Feinstein's statements were that prior to Dr Ford's actual testimony she didn't have any active belief or disbelief in Ford's claims and regarded them as simply uncorroborated allegations. So what I think you're missing in your logic is that you ascribe to her a level of certainty of belief that Kavanaugh was guilty that she didn't have at that time.

Subsequent to Dr Ford's testimony before the committee, Feinstein along with the other Dems on the committee voted against Kavanaugh's nomination proceeding.

[Starlight]

While conservatives appear to be willfully ignoring the over a dozen different instances of Kavanaugh perjuring himself during his senate testimony, with false answers ranging from the meaning of terms in his yearbook, to his levels of drinking during college, to whether he had watched Dr Ford's testimony, it's now coming out that there's physical evidence of one of the instances of perjury.

Kavanaugh claimed during the hearings that the first time he heard of the allegations of Deborah Ramirez were after they allegations became public through The New Yorker article. Yet one of Kavanaugh's friends has provided the texts Kavanaugh sent him prior to that trying to co-ordinate their response to the accusation.

[Mountain Man]

While conservatives appear to be willfully ignoring the over a dozen different instances of Kavanaugh perjuring himself during his senate testimony, with false answers ranging from the meaning of terms in his yearbook, to his levels of drinking during college, to whether he had watched Dr Ford's testimony, it's now coming out that there's physical evidence of one of the instances of perjury.

Kavanaugh claimed during the hearings that the first time he heard of the allegations of Deborah Ramirez were after they allegations became public through The New Yorker article. Yet one of Kavanaugh's friends has provided the texts Kavanaugh sent him prior to that trying to co-ordinate their response to the accusation.

From The New Yorker story: "The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident."

You don't suppose one of those several dozen could have given Kavanaugh a heads-up, do you?

[JonathanL]

That post is meant for Chrawnus, who is complaining I've being namby pamby by not just naming names. So it seems only fair I should do exactly what he wants ... responding to him. . . .

. . . Sorry, I'll keep to what I actually believe to be true, and except when responding to someone that specifically asks me to be rude and boorish, I'll try to find ways of making my points that do not resolve to direct ad hominem. Not saying I'll always succeed. But I'll try.

Anyone who has even a smidgen of common sense can see that this is a gross mischaracterization of our exchange. But just for everyone's benefit I'll post it in it's entirety for all to see.

At first I posted this post:

The kind of meek, non-confrontational and "forgive without demanding honest repentance" Christianity that's so popular in some Christian circles allowed a group of psychopaths (one of whom it was revealed was a pedophile who'd been molesting several children) to prey, manipulate and gorge themselves on the Christian congregation I grew up in. I have zero tolerance for "Christians" who refuse to call things by their proper name or shy away from confrontation using the excuse that it's "rude", "unloving", "hateful", "vindictive" or "hateful". Those kind of "Christians" are some of the worst kind of slimy and reprehensible snakes in existence. In my opinion they are actually worse than the wolves that prey on God's people because their cowardice is what enables the wolves to get access to the people who aren't capable of defending themselves in the first place. /rant

To which Oxmixmudd replied:

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 far no "rudeness", or "nastiness" exhibited by either party. I then decided to call oxmixmudd out on his hypocrisy of insulting people while simultaneously condemning that very same behaviour. Now, I'll admit, perhaps me implying that he was a coward went a bit too far, and for that, and only that, I apologize. I still stand by my allegation that he's a hypocrite though.

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"?:



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.

At this point oxmixmudd goes rabid and proceeds to grossly mischaracterize my position and motivation, accusing me of living for the opportunity to be rude and nasty, implying that unlike him I fear men, rather than God and that I present myself as one who seeks out and enjoys situations where I can be "rude and nasty". I've said nothing in my exchange with him so far that would even come close to supporting these ridiculous notions, but that doesn't seem to matter to oxmixmudd at all.

That is absurd. First, I'm not going to sit around and try to put together an accurate list. Second, I don't have any intrinsic need to call names. Perhaps you live for the opportunity to be rude and nasty, but honestly - I do not.




Umm that would be called being rude and nasty. It doesn't take a backbone to be rude and nasty, it just takes a lack of manners or a mean streak.



No, actually this is what Jesus said calling someone an idiot:



So contrary to your opinion, I'm going to generally avoid calling people idiots or fools directly. See, rather than men, I do in fact fear the one that can throw my soul into the hell of fire.




There is a place for such actions I agree. But not for people that enjoy doing it or who seek out excuses to act that way. People - such as how you present yourself in this post - that enjoy that sort of thing have seriously missed the mark and need to repent.

There - that enough 'backbone' for you?




Jim

He then continues to mischaracterize my position in his reply to Rogue where he alleges that I'm trying to be as "rude as possible" and acts as if my gripe with "'namby pamby' Christians" (his words, not mine) is that they're not slinging enough insults around.

At this point it becomes extremely clear to me what kind of a person I'm dealing with, and so instead of continuing the discussion in a civil manner, something I would have been perfectly happy to do if he had exhibited even a smidgen of self-awareness, I give him exactly the sort of response his hypocrisy and holier-than-thou attitude deserves:

Get off your high-horse. The only difference between what you did in post #1305 and using the word idiot or moron is that your way of doing it requires more verbiage.




There are some serious deficits in your reading comprehension skills when your interpretation of Jesus' own words makes Him condemn Himself to the fires of hell. Jesus used words that are far worse than "fool" to describe the scribes and pharisees. Forget about seeing the forest, you're so concentrated on the bark you're not even aware of the tree.



I have presented myself in no such way. If I actually cared about your opinion I'd ask you to apologize for your mischaracterization, but this post I'm replying to pretty much confirms your opinion isn't worth the bytes of memory it takes up.



Pitching a hissy fit when someone points out your hypocrisy isn't the same thing as exhibiting a backbone.

In post #1351 I again draw attention to his hypocrisy and the way he reacted when I mentioned it. His reply, instead of actually engaging with what I said in the post is to derisively claim that I can't handle what I asked for. How on earth he comes to the conclusion that I asked for him to make a fool out of himself is beyond me.

But he's not done yet. As if being a hypocrite and self-righteous pharisee isn't enough, he now proceeds to lay the blame for the way he acts squarely on my and MM's shoulders, as if he has no personal responsibility at all for the way he acts, and that he was only doing it "to make a point":

And looking at the last sequence as the fires burn higher and higher - this is exactly why I try to stick to more polite forms of communication. I think I've made my point, though it din't take much, did it?

I'm sure it will take a while for this little brush fire to die out. You and MM can go on congratulating yourselves for proving how awful a person I am and never even think about what hand you might have played in this little exchange.

Do carry on ...


Jim

In response I decide to tell him exactly what I think of him. At this point he decides that some "sarcastic humility" is the best way to showcase exactly how far above everyone else he's floating.

I think that pretty much covers it.

[JonathanL]

It would probably be best if my exchange with oxmixmudd was split off and made into it's own thread.

[Alsharad]

I think it most likely that Feinstein knew the accusation wasn't credible and held off on releasing the letter until it could do the most political damage.

I actually wondered if she was telling the truth about the leak. I wonder if she may have been holding it until it went to the senate for a full vote. Then, if derailed, a new nomination would have to go back to the Judicial Committee and eat up even more time.

[KingsGambit]

I haven't kept up with this thread at all, but I actually oppose his confirmation now when I had previously seen it as a slam dunk. I don't see any evidence for any of the sexual offense allegations, but it seems clear that he gave inaccurate testimony about the vulgar terms used in his yearbook. A number of his contemporaries have come out and explained what the terms actually do mean. The sad thing is none of this matters. I don't care at all what was in his high school yearbook. Ted Cruz's yearbook alluded to pornography, and while some liberals clubbed him with it, it doesn't affect who he is now and I don't care about it. However, testifying falsely is perjury, no matter how inconsequential it is, and that is completely disqualifying for SCOTUS.

[Alsharad]

Feinstein's statements were that prior to Dr Ford's actual testimony she didn't have any active belief or disbelief in Ford's claims and regarded them as simply uncorroborated allegations. So what I think you're missing in your logic is that you ascribe to her a level of certainty of belief that Kavanaugh was guilty that she didn't have at that time.

Subsequent to Dr Ford's testimony before the committee, Feinstein along with the other Dems on the committee voted against Kavanaugh's nomination proceeding.

So 4 would be that she either believed the letter or she did not believe the letter or she withheld judgement on the letter.

If she believed the letter, then my point is still valid.
If she did not believe the letter, then the point is no longer valid, but she will have to speak to why she changed her mind.
If she withheld judgement, then the point is still valid as she accepted the possibility that the letter might be true, but still took no action, meaning that she was willing to allow someone guilty of sexual assault on the Supreme Court.

The only option that doesn't validate my conclusion is that she got the letter and didn't believe it. It would be consistent with her claim that she didn't leak it and would explain why she didn't take any action. It would also explain why she threw Dr. Ford under the bus a bit when questioned about the leak. But that is not politically expedient and weakens her if it is pointed out that she did not believe Dr. Ford's letter.

I am trying to be as even handed in this as I can, but I don't see a way out for the logic. It is logically impossible for all the statements Feinstein has made to be true and her have an issue with someone guilty of sexual assault sitting on the SCOTUS. She must be lying about something OR she must be okay with someone guilty of sexual assault sitting on the Supreme Court.

[Tassman]

Meaning 1 out of 4 human beings are killed before they even have a chance to call you an idiot.

It means I in 4 fetuses are terminated before they have a functioning brain, i.e. non-persons. It is utter nonsense to grant full personhood rights to eggs or first trimester fetuses, especially on purely religious grounds.

Blatant lie.

Nope. The World Health Organisation estimates that approximately one-third of maternal deaths are due to complications arising from illegally induced abortions.

Depends on who gets to define what is "good"

Who decides what is good, YOU?

If you can't afford a condom, you have no business doing what causes something MUCH more expensive.

None of your business.

Absolutely not. There is no process that is "safe" where half of the affected members die.

See above.

The church should NEVER support abortion on demand. EVER.

The majority of the population, including many Christians, quite rightly believes that women have a moral right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

[oxmixmudd]

The majority of the population, including many Christians, quite rightly believes that women have a moral right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

I've never understood that line. A baby is not the women's body, it is the body of a newly developing human being. That baby has a right to it's own life - especially as we move into the second and without question the third trimester. It depends on its mother, yes. But so does a newborn. That baby is NOT it's mothers body. It is insider her, but they are completely different people. So why does she get to decide she can kill another human being just because that human being is an inconvenience to her?

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

It would probably be best if my exchange with oxmixmudd was split off and made into it's own thread.

The way I see it Chrawnus, I was trying to encourage civility. You sauntered up and because of that thought I was some little panty-waste sort of fellow that had no guts and no backbone and you slapped me in the face and dared me to hit you back. Now normally I'd have walked away from something like that.

But this time I didn't.


Jim

[Alsharad]

It means I in 4 fetuses are terminated before they have a functioning brain, i.e. non-persons. It is utter nonsense to grant full personhood rights to eggs or first trimester fetuses, especially on purely religious grounds.

They are still humans. They are at a fetal stage in development, but they are still human. They are still living creatures. You were at that stage of development at one point and so was I. You also ignore the potentiality aspect. The odds of a fetus becoming a fully functional person are overwhelmingly strong. If someone was on life support or comotose, but had a 99% chance of coming out of it, pulling the life support would be considered a crime. There is over a 99% chance that the fetus will develop a functioning heart and brain. Destroying it because of its current condition is, in principle, no different than pulling life support on someone with a 99% chance to recover.

Nope. The World Health Organisation estimates that approximately one-third of maternal deaths are due to complications arising from illegally induced abortions.

Source? Just curious.

Who decides what is good, YOU?

Pretty sure that you were the first one to pull the "good" card. The question is legitimate. What determines is sex ed is "good" enough?

None of your business.

By making me pay for it (AKA making it "free" by having the government provide contraceptives or provide the funds to provide them), you make it everyone's business.

The majority of the population, including many Christians, quite rightly believes that women have a moral right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

I take issue with "quite rightly" but it is true that some Christians have a right to do what they want with their own bodies. The fetus isn't the woman's body. So you could make an argument for chemical abortions since the woman is causing her own body to reject the fetus, but surgical abortions clearly damage and/or destroy the fetus. That is not a part of her body and she has no right to destroy it. It is a living creature which may arguably have a right to its own existence simply by being a living thing.

[JonathanL]

The way I see it Chrawnus, I was trying to encourage civility. You sauntered up and because of that thought I was some little panty-waste sort of fellow that had no guts and no backbone and you slapped me in the face and dared me to hit you back. Now normally I'd have walked away from something like that.

But this time I didn't.


Jim

The way you see it is wrong and has no connection to reality what so ever.

[Tassman]

I've never understood that line. A baby is not the women's body, it is the body of a newly developing human being. That baby has a right to it's own life - especially as we move into the second and without question the third trimester. It depends on its mother, yes. But so does a newborn. That baby is NOT it's mothers body. It is insider her, but they are completely different people. So why does she get to decide she can kill another human being just because that human being is an inconvenience to her?

Jim

[Starlight]

It is logically impossible for all the statements Feinstein has made to be true and her have an issue with someone guilty of sexual assault sitting on the SCOTUS. She must be lying about something OR she must be okay with someone guilty of sexual assault sitting on the Supreme Court.

It's kind of hard to take your 'logic' seriously when you exclude the possibility that Feinstein might have various different issues with all the possible outcomes and be trying to operate in a space where she's not thrilled with any of the options.

She can simultaneously not want a sexual assaulter sitting on SCOTUS, want to respect Dr Ford's request for privacy and to not be a public figure, have no proof that Dr Ford's accusations are true or false, and know the political process well enough to know that even Dr Ford testifying credibly might not change the outcome as to whether Republicans vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

Feinstein is / was not operating in an environment where she personally can decide whether or not Kavanaugh is confirmed. So your logic about her options is kind of worthless.

The choice that she personally had was of how best to proceed when a constituent brought to her an unsubstantiated allegation but was not willing to go public with it. Feinstein and her staff apparently choose to honor Dr Ford's request to not go public with it and kept the allegation to themselves (reporter Ryan Grimm who ran the story confirms his source for the story wasn't Feinstein or her staff). Now we can reasonably debate which is the better course for someone like Feinstein in that circumstance: To honor the complainant's request to not make her a public figure, with the result that the allegation doesn't end up getting fully aired and the accused ends up getting confirmed; or to air the complaint with the result that the complainant receives death threats and she and her family have to flee their house and hire private security and she has to give a gruelling public testimony in front of the world and have her credibility questioned by everyone, and the accused is reasonably likely to end up getting confirmed by the Republican Senators anyway. Neither of those options is great. You can argue she chose the wrong one and that you would have chosen the other, but I think she was between a rock and a hard place... and I say that as someone who doesn't like Feinstein and who still hopes she gets voted out this November.