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 carpedm9587 View Post
    However, the larger observation of there being a "vein of anger" in Christianity - that I stand by. It is fairly obvious.
    You are just as far off base with this "observation" as you are with your personal observations. Some fundamentalist (as opposed to evangelical) Christians may rail angrily on various topics, but Christianity in general? Er, no. Was there a "vein of anger" running through you as a pre-Jesuit?
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    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 firstfloor View Post
      In this situation you go find a more popular candidate. A politicised SCOTUS would be a disgrace to the USA.
      Yes, let's just find somebody everybody likes.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        A politicised SCOTUS would be a disgrace to the USA.
        It's a little late to shut that particular barn door. The horses are long gone.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        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 firstfloor View Post
          In this situation you go find a more popular candidate. A politicised SCOTUS would be a disgrace to the USA.
          Wow, you're even more idealistic than I am.

          The SCOTUS is already a political instrument. The Constitution of the United States established it along with two other branches of government. Candidates are named by the President and reviewed by the Senate. The justices are seated with the expectation they will measure cases by the yard of the Constitution which established it in the first place. Of course we all hope they will be impartial and that they rule properly. The fact that NINE members are required should tell you that's not expected to always happen, and it doesn't.
          Last edited by DesertBerean; 09-28-2018, 10:52 AM.
          Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Yes, let's just find somebody everybody likes.
            That’s not difficult to do.
            Europeans up 5 to 3 in Paris.
            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
            “not all there” - you know who you are

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
              Wow, you're even more idealistic than I am.

              The SCOTUS is already a political instrument. The Constitution of the United States established it along with two other branches of government. Candidates are named by the President and reviewed by the Senate. The justices are seated with the expectation they will measure cases by the yard of the Constitution which established it in the first place. Of course we all hope they will be impartial and that they rule properly. The fact that NINE members are required should tell you that's not expected to always happen, and it doesn't.
              Actually, I don't think the Constitution gives an actual number required. We have had 6, 7 and 10, and now 9.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Actually, I don't think the Constitution gives an actual number required. We have had 6, 7 and 10, and now 9.
                I stand corrected.
                Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oxmixmuddle View Post
                  You are so completely wrong, at least as this relates to me MM. I absolutely understand how hard it would be to be in Kavanaugh's shoes on this, guilty or innocent, but especially if innocent.

                  And I'm not 'defending Ford' in the sense you imply here. But I doubt you can tell the difference between being fair to the possibility she believes what she is saying to be true and what you imply here. The reality is it is possible that either of these people could be telling the absolute truth, and it is also possible that BOTH of these people might believe they are telling the absolute truth. And that requires a very different approach than what is being taken here or at the Capitol.

                  The reality is MM, what you imply here is that the person speaking for a necessary respect for both sides of this issue is a person that simply can't be tolerated. To avoid being castigated by you, one must choose which person they believe to be telling the truth (and that person must be Kavanaugh), and having made that choice, one must decide that the other party (Ford) is lying with the most perverse motives - or at best mentally deficient - and after deciding that, one must 'defend' the party believed to be innocent (Kavanaugh) with all vigor and without mercy.

                  That is what you mean MM.

                  And someone like me - a person that sees exactly what you see as it relates to Kavanaugh or to any man potententially falsely accused of sexual harrassment, but who also sees in Dr. Ford a women that most likely was assaulted by someone and believes that someone was Kavanaugh. , is scum.

                  Therefore I will defend BOTH of them until and unless some actual facts surface that can decide the case. Only - in this forum, with you yahoos carrying on as you are, the only one of the two that NEEDS defending is Ford. Because most of you (at least in your opinions as cast in this thread) can't separate Dr. Ford the person from the Politics and the Circus of what yesterday was. And so many of you on Kavanaugh's side can see only little red demon eyes in anyone not taking the position I outlined above.



                  Jim
                  Here's the problem for Ford: every person she named as a witness refuted her accusation. So even if something did happen to her, she has to know that it wasn't Kavanaugh.

                  For Ford to press ahead with her claims despite the significant reasonable doubt introduced by the denials of her own named witnesses leaves us with two and only two possibilities:

                  1) Ford is lying.
                  2) Ford is irrational.

                  Tell me, did she come across as irrational during the hearing?
                  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


                  • I notice that none of tWeb’s liberals has yet to prove they are not rapist, why not?
                    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Here's the problem for Ford: every person she named as a witness refuted her accusation. So even if something did happen to her, she has to know that it wasn't Kavanaugh.

                      For Ford to press ahead with her claims despite the significant reasonable doubt introduced by the denials of her own named witnesses leaves us with two and only two possibilities:

                      1) Ford is lying.
                      2) Ford is irrational.

                      Tell me, did she come across as irrational during the hearing?
                      There's always the possibility that she sincerely believed what she was saying, which is what I'm inclined to believe, and somehow, Kavanaugh's name got attached to her story.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        There's always the possibility that she sincerely believed what she was saying, which is what I'm inclined to believe, and somehow, Kavanaugh's name got attached to her story.
                        Again, how sincere can your belief be when every person you named as a witness flatly denies your claims? I would expect a reasonable person to at least say, "It would appear that my memories are not accurate." That's why I say that Ford is either lying, or she's not rational. There's no other reasonable possibility.
                        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 Cow Poke View Post
                          Sure it was.
                          As I said... not a lot of consistency there...
                          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


                          • By the way, Republican fence-sitter Jeff Flake is a yes. Very good news for Kavanaugh. Coons' reaction to this announcement was hilarious.

                            "Oh [add your own expletive]..."

                            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 One Bad Pig View Post
                              You are just as far off base with this "observation" as you are with your personal observations. Some fundamentalist (as opposed to evangelical) Christians may rail angrily on various topics, but Christianity in general? Er, no. Was there a "vein of anger" running through you as a pre-Jesuit?
                              You have this habit, OBP, of taking statements I make and generalizing them, and then objecting to your own generalization. Yes - there is a vein of anger in Christianity. It is not in all Christians. It is not in all sects. A vein is PART of the body - or PART of the mountain. It is not the sum total of the body OR the mountain. It is present within it - in some individuals - in some sects - in some attitudes and arguments.

                              Nobody said anything about ALL. That is your addition - not mine.
                              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 Mountain Man View Post
                                Again, how sincere can your belief be when every person you named as a witness flatly denies your claims? I would expect a reasonable person to at least say, "It would appear that my memories are not accurate." That's why I say that Ford is either lying, or she's not rational. There's no other reasonable possibility.
                                We're going to have to disagree. Quite honestly, I don't think she's "all there". She's a grown woman with a PhD, yet she presents as a scared little girl. Even when she was being sworn in, her attorney had to motion to her how to do it. I think she's been coached and pushed, and I believe she became convinced she's "doing the right thing".
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                149 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                397 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                367 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X