Originally posted by seer
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...
Collapse
X
-
Nobody's blaming the women - it's your kind of "murdering children is a right" idiocy that does the damage.
Sometimes I have to believe you're just being incredibly dense or dishonest or provocative or whatever just for effect.
They have to be grown up and deal with a situation that men helped to create. Your piety is misplaced.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
This sounds suspiciously like an ...uncompromising position.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostWhat makes you certain it's not his contemporaries who are lying? As we've seen, those on the left are willing to do and say anything to stop this confirmation."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
I'll bet that for the most part this will be studiously ignored by the MSM which was all aflutter that Kavanaugh wanted to push back when he learned of Deborah Ramirez's accusation when the New Yorker started questioning his friends and former classmates about it.
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)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostOops.
I'll bet that for the most part this will be studiously ignored by the MSM which was all aflutter that Kavanaugh wanted to push back when he learned of Deborah Ramirez's accusation when the New Yorker started questioning his friends and former classmates about it.
Hence both stories could be true, i.e. Ford was sexually attacked by a highly drunken Kavanaugh, who has no memory of the occurrence and so denies it. But does one want such a man on the Supreme Court?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe bottom line is that Dr Ford's testimony was credible, as is generally agreed. And Kavanaugh, despite his dishonest contrary story on Fox, was known to be a heavy drinker during his Yale days and would become belligerent and aggressive when drunk...plus very likely subject to blackouts as a consequence. This according to numerous of his Yale contemporaries.
Hence both stories could be true, i.e. Ford was sexually attacked by a highly drunken Kavanaugh, who has no memory of the occurrence and so denies it. But does one want such a man on the Supreme Court?Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe bottom line is that Dr Ford's testimony was credible, as is generally agreed. And Kavanaugh, despite his dishonest contrary story on Fox, was known to be a heavy drinker during his Yale days and would become belligerent and aggressive when drunk...plus very likely subject to blackouts as a consequence. This according to numerous of his Yale contemporaries.
Hence both stories could be true, i.e. Ford was sexually attacked by a highly drunken Kavanaugh, who has no memory of the occurrence and so denies it. But does one want such a man on the Supreme Court?"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostYou seem to be ignoring the fact that Feinstein doesn't control the nomination process, the Republicans do. Feinstein might have been unwilling to let Brett Kavanaugh ascend to SCOTUS prior to finding out he was a possible sexual assaulter. She might have been even more unwilling once she believed he'd committed sexual assault. She can, and has, voted against his confirmation in the committee, and will presumably do so again once this reaches the senate floor.
Your concern would only be relevant if she had real power in the situation, like, say Chuck Grassley does. He, and his fellow Republican Senators are actually the ones who have to decide if they are willing to let someone that most of the country believes has committed sexual assault sit on SCOTUS. They are the ones who will make this decision, so your logic should be applied to them, not Feinstein who has voted against Kavanaugh. If you think Feinstein is at fault for sitting on an allegation of sexual assault due to the request for confidentiality, how much more are the Republicans at fault now that the allegation has been publicly aired and the accuser acknowledged as a credible witness (even by the Fox News hosts) at fault for their apparent willingness to put a sexual assaulter onto SCOTUS?
For someone with a philosophy degree, you seem to be missing something. You obviously cannot apply the same argument to the republicans. Let's look again...
1 She had the letter. (not true of republicans)
2 She took no action. (not true of republicans - they acted much more quickly once it was leaked, including volunteering to send investigators to Ford)
3 She didn't leak it. (n/a as they had nothing to leak)
4 She either :
a) believes Dr. Ford. (might be true of republicans)
b) does not believe Dr. Ford (true of some republicans)
c) withheld judgement (true of some republicans)
5 She knew that Kavanaugh would pass the committee and be confirmed along party lines. (true of republicans)
Not all of the conditionals do not hold true for republicans, therefore, the same argument fails against them. They acted when they got the information. They have asked for and listened to testimony. They have asked for/not fought against additional investigation. All of these are the hallmarks of people that want to know the truth. Why do they want to know? Because they do not want to put someone guilty of sexual assault on the SCOTUS.
You haven't shown that my premises are false nor have you shown that the argument was not valid. She may not have consciously or intentionally done it, but I don't see how you can, given the facts that we have, escape the conclusion that she was willing to put someone guilty of sexual assault on the SCOTUS.
You simply cannot say that about republicans using the same argument. Their actions to date are in line with the belief that they want due process and more than unsupported allegations before they make a decision.
Given Trump's own video-taped admission of sexual assault that was released prior to his election, if the Republicans vote to put yet another sexual assault accused onto SCOTUS (in addition to Clarence Thomas) they will simply cement their reputation as the party of sexual assault in the eyes of the nation, and be openly admitting they are willing to put sexual assaulters on SCOTUS just as they are willing to put them into the Presidency.
Oh hey, look! It looks like Dr. Ford may have committed perjury.
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostI am truly impressed that you managed to come away from rogue's post with the idea that Dr. Ford's testimony was credible after everything he quoted poked holes in it. Never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs, eh?
Originally posted by Starlight View PostYep. And more problematic is the number of different perjury allegations against Kavanaugh, with numerous friends and acquaintances of his poking holes in his claims under oath.Last edited by Tassman; 10-02-2018, 11:52 PM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seanD, Yesterday, 01:20 PM
|
18 responses
103 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:27 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 09:42 AM
|
167 responses
727 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
Today, 05:35 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 05:32 AM
|
14 responses
105 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 06:41 AM
|
||
Started by Slave4Christ, 06-30-2024, 07:59 PM
|
13 responses
115 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 04:33 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 06-29-2024, 03:49 PM
|
45 responses
271 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 06:51 PM
|
Comment