(10-03-2018 12:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 09:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Democrats should carry 100% of the blame for the shitshow. They have shown a willingness to smear a man in front of his 10 year old daughter, just to stop the nomination. They dig up the most unsavory and mentally deranged "witnesses" from 35 years ago to impugn him. No personal attacks were used on Merrick Garland. This is not tit for tat - this is **** for tat.

I thought Feinstein was one of the better lefties. No more. Unless you want to consider her as better than most of a really bad lot.

Anybody defending the left's tactics on this is just showing a moral depravity that subjugates decency to politics.

There’s evidence that Dems dug up Ford, and not that she came forward willingly?

Also, there was no character assasination with Gorsuch - so why would Dems start making those type of things up now?

I think you can blame Feinstein for sitting on the allegations, but that’s about it.

Nah, I have been watching the Dems, and I would be ashamed if one of my sons acted like that.

She did NOT come forth willingly. she came forth reluctantly AFTER her name was leaked to the press. She testified to that under oath.

Are you proud of the Dems?

Your argument only carries weight if you don't think Kavanaugh actually did anything wrong. If Ford is telling the truth, calling him out on it is hardly "smearing" him.

Dude hit y’all up just now? Cmon man leave me alone lol

(10-03-2018 01:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 12:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 09:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Democrats should carry 100% of the blame for the shitshow. They have shown a willingness to smear a man in front of his 10 year old daughter, just to stop the nomination. They dig up the most unsavory and mentally deranged "witnesses" from 35 years ago to impugn him. No personal attacks were used on Merrick Garland. This is not tit for tat - this is **** for tat.

I thought Feinstein was one of the better lefties. No more. Unless you want to consider her as better than most of a really bad lot.

Anybody defending the left's tactics on this is just showing a moral depravity that subjugates decency to politics.

There’s evidence that Dems dug up Ford, and not that she came forward willingly?

Also, there was no character assasination with Gorsuch - so why would Dems start making those type of things up now?

I think you can blame Feinstein for sitting on the allegations, but that’s about it.

Nah, I have been watching the Dems, and I would be ashamed if one of my sons acted like that.

She did NOT come forth willingly. she came forth reluctantly AFTER her name was leaked to the press. She testified to that under oath.

Are you proud of the Dems?

Your argument only carries weight if you don't think Kavanaugh actually did anything wrong. If Ford is telling the truth, calling him out on it is hardly "smearing" him.

I don't think Kavanaugh did anything more wrong than some umderagemdrinking. I think Ford is telling the truth as she believes it in her mind, but I think she,has psychological problems that mean what she remembers is not what happened. I think Ford has been shown to lie about,her,polygraph skills.

If Kavanaugh is this sort of man, why nothing simce his frshman year at ,college? cosby, Weinstein, and Clinton did not cease,their,activities.

Now tell me why you believe her and not him.

(10-03-2018 01:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 12:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 09:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Democrats should carry 100% of the blame for the shitshow. They have shown a willingness to smear a man in front of his 10 year old daughter, just to stop the nomination. They dig up the most unsavory and mentally deranged "witnesses" from 35 years ago to impugn him. No personal attacks were used on Merrick Garland. This is not tit for tat - this is **** for tat.

I thought Feinstein was one of the better lefties. No more. Unless you want to consider her as better than most of a really bad lot.

Anybody defending the left's tactics on this is just showing a moral depravity that subjugates decency to politics.

There’s evidence that Dems dug up Ford, and not that she came forward willingly?

Also, there was no character assasination with Gorsuch - so why would Dems start making those type of things up now?

I think you can blame Feinstein for sitting on the allegations, but that’s about it.

Nah, I have been watching the Dems, and I would be ashamed if one of my sons acted like that.

She did NOT come forth willingly. she came forth reluctantly AFTER her name was leaked to the press. She testified to that under oath.

Are you proud of the Dems?

Your argument only carries weight if you don't think Kavanaugh actually did anything wrong. If Ford is telling the truth, calling him out on it is hardly "smearing" him.

Perhaps is there is any way to answer any of the following it would rise from an uncorroborated allegation.

How did you get home? 'I don't remember.'
How did you get there? 'I don't remember.'
Where is the place? 'I don't remember.'
How many years ago was it? 'I don't know'

Further when the numbers of people change continuously, and when the specific people all named either say : 'Nothing like that I can remember' or 'It didnt happen' it tends to shade it to one way for me.

You would be correct 'if Ford is reciting events that actually happened'. I cant name a single objective piece of evidence that tends to show that predicate. Do you?

Given that review of the 'evidence' (actually the utter lack thereof, mind you) the question posed still stands: Are you proud of the Dems?

I mean you get utterly pissy when this is characterized as the 'politics of personal destruction', and get jazzed when asked that question, stated there. But again, given the review of corroborative evidence: Are you proud of the Dems?

(10-03-2018 02:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 01:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 12:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 09:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Democrats should carry 100% of the blame for the shitshow. They have shown a willingness to smear a man in front of his 10 year old daughter, just to stop the nomination. They dig up the most unsavory and mentally deranged "witnesses" from 35 years ago to impugn him. No personal attacks were used on Merrick Garland. This is not tit for tat - this is **** for tat.

I thought Feinstein was one of the better lefties. No more. Unless you want to consider her as better than most of a really bad lot.

Anybody defending the left's tactics on this is just showing a moral depravity that subjugates decency to politics.

There’s evidence that Dems dug up Ford, and not that she came forward willingly?

Also, there was no character assasination with Gorsuch - so why would Dems start making those type of things up now?

I think you can blame Feinstein for sitting on the allegations, but that’s about it.

Nah, I have been watching the Dems, and I would be ashamed if one of my sons acted like that.

She did NOT come forth willingly. she came forth reluctantly AFTER her name was leaked to the press. She testified to that under oath.

Are you proud of the Dems?

Your argument only carries weight if you don't think Kavanaugh actually did anything wrong. If Ford is telling the truth, calling him out on it is hardly "smearing" him.

Perhaps is there is any way to answer any of the following it would rise from an uncorroborated allegation.

How did you get home? 'I don't remember.'
How did you get there? 'I don't remember.'
Where is the place? 'I don't remember.'
How many years ago was it? 'I don't know'

Further when the numbers of people change continuously, and when the specific people all named either say : 'Nothing like that I can remember' or 'It didnt happen' it tends to shade it to one way for me.

You would be correct 'if Ford is reciting events that actually happened'. I cant name a single objective piece of evidence that tends to show that predicate. Do you?

Given that review of the 'evidence' (actually the utter lack thereof, mind you) the question posed still stands: Are you proud of the Dems?

I mean you get utterly pissy when this is characterized as the 'politics of personal destruction', and get jazzed when asked that question, stated there. But again, given the review of corroborative evidence: Are you proud of the Dems?

I distinctly remember who was in the car with me when I got in my first car accident. I don't remember exactly what building it was in front of, but the general part of town.

I remember what I was doing at the time of the accident, but I don't remember the make and model of the car I hit.

Since I don't remember other details about that event, should I not be believed when I say I rear ended another car because I was looking at a gas-powered scooter that was for sale?

(10-03-2018 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 02:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 01:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 12:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There’s evidence that Dems dug up Ford, and not that she came forward willingly?

Also, there was no character assasination with Gorsuch - so why would Dems start making those type of things up now?

I think you can blame Feinstein for sitting on the allegations, but that’s about it.

Nah, I have been watching the Dems, and I would be ashamed if one of my sons acted like that.

She did NOT come forth willingly. she came forth reluctantly AFTER her name was leaked to the press. She testified to that under oath.

Are you proud of the Dems?

Your argument only carries weight if you don't think Kavanaugh actually did anything wrong. If Ford is telling the truth, calling him out on it is hardly "smearing" him.

Perhaps is there is any way to answer any of the following it would rise from an uncorroborated allegation.

How did you get home? 'I don't remember.'
How did you get there? 'I don't remember.'
Where is the place? 'I don't remember.'
How many years ago was it? 'I don't know'

Further when the numbers of people change continuously, and when the specific people all named either say : 'Nothing like that I can remember' or 'It didnt happen' it tends to shade it to one way for me.

You would be correct 'if Ford is reciting events that actually happened'. I cant name a single objective piece of evidence that tends to show that predicate. Do you?

Given that review of the 'evidence' (actually the utter lack thereof, mind you) the question posed still stands: Are you proud of the Dems?

I mean you get utterly pissy when this is characterized as the 'politics of personal destruction', and get jazzed when asked that question, stated there. But again, given the review of corroborative evidence: Are you proud of the Dems?

I distinctly remember who was in the car with me when I got in my first car accident. I don't remember exactly what building it was in front of, but the general part of town.

I remember what I was doing at the time of the accident, but I don't remember the make and model of the car I hit.

Since I don't remember other details about that event, should I not be believed when I say I rear ended another car because I was looking at a gas-powered scooter that was for sale?

That's not a very good analogy because the law (reflecting human nature in general) views admissions against one's own interests as having greater inherent reliability than other types of statements. I mean, simply change your analogy from one of confessing to having hit a car to specifically accusing John Doe (or Brett Kavanaugh, if you like) of having hit you and tell me if you still unquestionably should be believed despite the memory gaps.

(10-03-2018 03:54 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 02:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 01:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 12:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Nah, I have been watching the Dems, and I would be ashamed if one of my sons acted like that.

She did NOT come forth willingly. she came forth reluctantly AFTER her name was leaked to the press. She testified to that under oath.

Are you proud of the Dems?

Your argument only carries weight if you don't think Kavanaugh actually did anything wrong. If Ford is telling the truth, calling him out on it is hardly "smearing" him.

Perhaps is there is any way to answer any of the following it would rise from an uncorroborated allegation.

How did you get home? 'I don't remember.'
How did you get there? 'I don't remember.'
Where is the place? 'I don't remember.'
How many years ago was it? 'I don't know'

Further when the numbers of people change continuously, and when the specific people all named either say : 'Nothing like that I can remember' or 'It didnt happen' it tends to shade it to one way for me.

You would be correct 'if Ford is reciting events that actually happened'. I cant name a single objective piece of evidence that tends to show that predicate. Do you?

Given that review of the 'evidence' (actually the utter lack thereof, mind you) the question posed still stands: Are you proud of the Dems?

I mean you get utterly pissy when this is characterized as the 'politics of personal destruction', and get jazzed when asked that question, stated there. But again, given the review of corroborative evidence: Are you proud of the Dems?

I distinctly remember who was in the car with me when I got in my first car accident. I don't remember exactly what building it was in front of, but the general part of town.

I remember what I was doing at the time of the accident, but I don't remember the make and model of the car I hit.

Since I don't remember other details about that event, should I not be believed when I say I rear ended another car because I was looking at a gas-powered scooter that was for sale?

That's not a very good analogy because the law (reflecting human nature in general) views admissions against one's own interests as having greater inherent reliability than other types of statements. I mean, simply change your analogy from one of confessing to having hit a car to specifically accusing John Doe (or Brett Kavanaugh, if you like) of having hit you and tell me if you still unquestionably should be believed despite the memory gaps.

It's actually not that bad of an bad analogy because we aren't discussing a court case, and therefore, how the law handles memories and admissions isn't completely relevant.

We're somewhere below a even a civil court, where not even the preponderance of evidence is necessary (and certainly not a criminal court where a defendant must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).

(10-03-2018 04:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 03:54 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 02:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 01:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Your argument only carries weight if you don't think Kavanaugh actually did anything wrong. If Ford is telling the truth, calling him out on it is hardly "smearing" him.

Perhaps is there is any way to answer any of the following it would rise from an uncorroborated allegation.

How did you get home? 'I don't remember.'
How did you get there? 'I don't remember.'
Where is the place? 'I don't remember.'
How many years ago was it? 'I don't know'

Further when the numbers of people change continuously, and when the specific people all named either say : 'Nothing like that I can remember' or 'It didnt happen' it tends to shade it to one way for me.

You would be correct 'if Ford is reciting events that actually happened'. I cant name a single objective piece of evidence that tends to show that predicate. Do you?

Given that review of the 'evidence' (actually the utter lack thereof, mind you) the question posed still stands: Are you proud of the Dems?

I mean you get utterly pissy when this is characterized as the 'politics of personal destruction', and get jazzed when asked that question, stated there. But again, given the review of corroborative evidence: Are you proud of the Dems?

I distinctly remember who was in the car with me when I got in my first car accident. I don't remember exactly what building it was in front of, but the general part of town.

I remember what I was doing at the time of the accident, but I don't remember the make and model of the car I hit.

Since I don't remember other details about that event, should I not be believed when I say I rear ended another car because I was looking at a gas-powered scooter that was for sale?

That's not a very good analogy because the law (reflecting human nature in general) views admissions against one's own interests as having greater inherent reliability than other types of statements. I mean, simply change your analogy from one of confessing to having hit a car to specifically accusing John Doe (or Brett Kavanaugh, if you like) of having hit you and tell me if you still unquestionably should be believed despite the memory gaps.

It's actually not that bad of an bad analogy because we aren't discussing a court case, and therefore, how the law handles memories and admissions isn't completely relevant.

We're somewhere below a even a civil court, where not even the preponderance of evidence is necessary (and certainly not a criminal court where a defendant must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).

Come on, man. Whether in a court of law or the court of public opinion, there is no rational standard below preponderance of the evidence. You're not seriously arguing that people are justified in believing a given proposition in the face of a lack of preponderance of evidence? Are you that indulgent with, say, climate change "deniers," etc.?

People can choose to believe Ford. But just be honest that doing so is a choice, not a conclusion.

(10-03-2018 04:44 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 04:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 03:54 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 02:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps is there is any way to answer any of the following it would rise from an uncorroborated allegation.

How did you get home? 'I don't remember.'
How did you get there? 'I don't remember.'
Where is the place? 'I don't remember.'
How many years ago was it? 'I don't know'

Further when the numbers of people change continuously, and when the specific people all named either say : 'Nothing like that I can remember' or 'It didnt happen' it tends to shade it to one way for me.

You would be correct 'if Ford is reciting events that actually happened'. I cant name a single objective piece of evidence that tends to show that predicate. Do you?

Given that review of the 'evidence' (actually the utter lack thereof, mind you) the question posed still stands: Are you proud of the Dems?

I mean you get utterly pissy when this is characterized as the 'politics of personal destruction', and get jazzed when asked that question, stated there. But again, given the review of corroborative evidence: Are you proud of the Dems?

I distinctly remember who was in the car with me when I got in my first car accident. I don't remember exactly what building it was in front of, but the general part of town.

I remember what I was doing at the time of the accident, but I don't remember the make and model of the car I hit.

Since I don't remember other details about that event, should I not be believed when I say I rear ended another car because I was looking at a gas-powered scooter that was for sale?

That's not a very good analogy because the law (reflecting human nature in general) views admissions against one's own interests as having greater inherent reliability than other types of statements. I mean, simply change your analogy from one of confessing to having hit a car to specifically accusing John Doe (or Brett Kavanaugh, if you like) of having hit you and tell me if you still unquestionably should be believed despite the memory gaps.

It's actually not that bad of an bad analogy because we aren't discussing a court case, and therefore, how the law handles memories and admissions isn't completely relevant.

We're somewhere below a even a civil court, where not even the preponderance of evidence is necessary (and certainly not a criminal court where a defendant must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).

Come on, man. Whether in a court of law or the court of public opinion, there is no rational standard below preponderance of the evidence. You're not seriously arguing that people are justified in believing a given proposition in the face of a lack of preponderance of evidence? Are you that indulgent with, say, climate change "deniers," etc.?

People can choose to believe Ford. But just be honest that doing so is a choice, not a conclusion.

I'm more advocating for the position that Ford not remember the details of the before/after perfectly is not evidence that she is making up or mis-remembering the event itself. That is what my car crash analogy was getting at.

I'll fully admit that at this point it's people choosing to believe or not believe Ford - she has not offered any evidence outside of her testimony.

I've posted before about how difficult of a situation this is, and that many people are basically holding two contradictory ideas in their heads - that neither are lying about the situation. As it stands, there isn't enough evidence to disprove Ford's testimony nor prove her testimony.

(10-03-2018 04:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 03:54 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 02:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 01:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Your argument only carries weight if you don't think Kavanaugh actually did anything wrong. If Ford is telling the truth, calling him out on it is hardly "smearing" him.

Perhaps is there is any way to answer any of the following it would rise from an uncorroborated allegation.

How did you get home? 'I don't remember.'
How did you get there? 'I don't remember.'
Where is the place? 'I don't remember.'
How many years ago was it? 'I don't know'

Further when the numbers of people change continuously, and when the specific people all named either say : 'Nothing like that I can remember' or 'It didnt happen' it tends to shade it to one way for me.

You would be correct 'if Ford is reciting events that actually happened'. I cant name a single objective piece of evidence that tends to show that predicate. Do you?

Given that review of the 'evidence' (actually the utter lack thereof, mind you) the question posed still stands: Are you proud of the Dems?

I mean you get utterly pissy when this is characterized as the 'politics of personal destruction', and get jazzed when asked that question, stated there. But again, given the review of corroborative evidence: Are you proud of the Dems?

I distinctly remember who was in the car with me when I got in my first car accident. I don't remember exactly what building it was in front of, but the general part of town.

I remember what I was doing at the time of the accident, but I don't remember the make and model of the car I hit.

Since I don't remember other details about that event, should I not be believed when I say I rear ended another car because I was looking at a gas-powered scooter that was for sale?

That's not a very good analogy because the law (reflecting human nature in general) views admissions against one's own interests as having greater inherent reliability than other types of statements. I mean, simply change your analogy from one of confessing to having hit a car to specifically accusing John Doe (or Brett Kavanaugh, if you like) of having hit you and tell me if you still unquestionably should be believed despite the memory gaps.

It's actually not that bad of an bad analogy because we aren't discussing a court case, and therefore, how the law handles memories and admissions isn't completely relevant.

We're somewhere below a even a civil court, where not even the preponderance of evidence is necessary (and certainly not a criminal court where a defendant must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).

So claims the liberal knee jerk trope.

Legally speaking you may or may not be correct. Practically speaking it is kind of an atrocious position to take. Especially when the allegation is literally life-changing ---

When I am speaking in terms of 'balance', I havent even brought up a standard from which to judge against.

I am literally speaking that there is 'NO' (zero, zilch, nada, completely lacking) corroboration to her story. And, has been noted before, the people that she claims are 'witnesses' or their stories are 'pertinent' to a fing tee either fail to corroborate a shred of the allegation, or refute portions that she alleges.

And the retort is 'well..... this isnt a court of law...' Yep, I understand that. I also understand the crap that is the 'this is a job interview'. I also am familiar with the concept of absolutely ZERO corroborative evidence *and* the concept of complete lack of detail as to the vast majority of who, what, when, where, *and* the (now issue) of 'changing details in retrospect'.

Take for example 'where' it happened. It used to be 'near a landmark'. Now that has changed to 'somewhere between my house and the landmark'.

So please keep defending a standard of proof that says 'with ZERO fing corroboration, near ZERO details as to when, where, and who, and changing details on on those scant details proffered' we will excoriate someone completely.

And yes, if you offered up those 'non-facts' when trying to blame someone else for your accident, you are damn fing straight I will doubt your version. If it is a solo accident and a story you are telling, I dont give a rat's ass over the lack of details. Ballgame completely changes when you accuse someone of something. In that situation, facts matter Lad.

So given what the Dems have plopped on our collective national debate with that level of facts, the question is absolutely and fundamentally fair. It should be rhetorical when you think about it, but I guess for some with certain viewpoints it isnt, oddly enough.

(10-03-2018 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 02:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 01:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 12:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There’s evidence that Dems dug up Ford, and not that she came forward willingly?

Also, there was no character assasination with Gorsuch - so why would Dems start making those type of things up now?

I think you can blame Feinstein for sitting on the allegations, but that’s about it.

Nah, I have been watching the Dems, and I would be ashamed if one of my sons acted like that.

She did NOT come forth willingly. she came forth reluctantly AFTER her name was leaked to the press. She testified to that under oath.

Are you proud of the Dems?

Your argument only carries weight if you don't think Kavanaugh actually did anything wrong. If Ford is telling the truth, calling him out on it is hardly "smearing" him.

Perhaps is there is any way to answer any of the following it would rise from an uncorroborated allegation.

How did you get home? 'I don't remember.'
How did you get there? 'I don't remember.'
Where is the place? 'I don't remember.'
How many years ago was it? 'I don't know'

Further when the numbers of people change continuously, and when the specific people all named either say : 'Nothing like that I can remember' or 'It didnt happen' it tends to shade it to one way for me.

You would be correct 'if Ford is reciting events that actually happened'. I cant name a single objective piece of evidence that tends to show that predicate. Do you?

Given that review of the 'evidence' (actually the utter lack thereof, mind you) the question posed still stands: Are you proud of the Dems?

I mean you get utterly pissy when this is characterized as the 'politics of personal destruction', and get jazzed when asked that question, stated there. But again, given the review of corroborative evidence: Are you proud of the Dems?

Interst

I distinctly remember who was in the car with me when I got in my first car accident. I don't remember exactly what building it was in front of, but the general part of town.

I remember what I was doing at the time of the accident, but I don't remember the make and model of the car I hit.

Since I don't remember other details about that event, should I not be believed when I say I rear ended another car because I was looking at a gas-powered scooter that was for sale?

Interesting. When was this, 10 years ago?

I recently went to my 55th high school reunion. Ran into an old friend. I "thought" he was one of the guys with me for my first wreck, but I had to ask him to make sure. He was. Even so, there were some details of that night and the accident we remembered differently.

How many people have been sent to prison on victim identification and later cleared by DNA? and those are people who have the incident fresh in their minds, not decades later. You sure are depending on a mighty poor witness with a mighty poor memory.

There are about sixty people in the world with perfect memory. Ford is not one of them.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017...ver-forget

This is the thing. The whole case appears to turn on Ford's ability to remember one specific fact about the alleged incident--and absolutely nothing else.

She doesn't know where. But Kavanaugh.
She doesn't know when. But Kavanaugh.
She doesn't know how she got there. But Kavanaugh.
She doesn't know how she got home. But Kavanaugh.

It is entirely possible that she forgot all those things. But when it is a question of credibility, not remembering any of them does not help her case.

She identified other "witnesses." They don't remember it.
She took a polygraph. Those are beatable, and as a psychologist she likely knew how. And there are now stories that she actually coached others on how to beat them.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/...count.html

The discrepancy raises fresh doubts about Ford's candor and credibility amid other inconsistencies, congressional and other knowledgeable sources say, including her purported "fear of flying." Ford initially refused to submit to an interview with the committee because of an alleged airplane phobia, but investigators established that she had taken a number of flights back East this summer, and had previously flown to Hawaii, Costa Rica, French Polynesia and other South Pacific islands.

Imagine if Justice Kavanaugh had gone to NOD. Or run Club 13. Or any number of other items. The hypocrisy of the left is stunning to witness.

Edit: Heck, what of those who were "chuggers" on beer-bike teams? Or those in the Rally Club? Or those who actually attended football games regularly? Condemn them all?

To say nothing of the fact that the nomination process is supposed to be a review of a nominee's qualifications, not a purity test.

Frizz:

I am not going to mock the subject matter. Nor am I going to say the *only* thing is a nominee's qualifications.

As for the initial subject matter re: Ford, if there was anywhere near any sort of corroboration I would have to say that Kavanaugh should not be on the Court, notwithstanding his stellar qualifications for it.

And, had it been shown that Kavanaugh lied to either the investigators *or* the Senate, he should not only be not considered, but probably removed from the current appellate posting.

That is the fun we get ourselves into by opening up the can of worms that fell out of it. The assault charges *made* the binge drinking / nasty drunk whatnot thread relevant.

What was lost in the rain of crap was that there was ZERO corroboration for the initial issue. *That* is the serious issue I have -- *that* is the precursor to the shower of crap.

Someone with a 'D' by their name should be fing charged with 'something' for the leak. But that is my la-la land view of it, I guess.

Good for the Democrats for putting the illusion of 'qualified but I dont agree' into the grave. They did a fantastic job of shivving that one in the spine in this go around. But, at least there is *no* illusion as to the normal matter of course that these will be from here on out, instead of the Lucy/football/Charlie Brown charade of the last 30 years. I'm not happy about it, but it is simple now.

(10-06-2018 07:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Frizz:

I am not going to mock the subject matter. Nor am I going to say the *only* thing is a nominee's qualifications.

As for the initial subject matter re: Ford, if there was anywhere near any sort of corroboration I would have to say that Kavanaugh should not be on the Court, notwithstanding his stellar qualifications for it.

And, had it been shown that Kavanaugh lied to either the investigators *or* the Senate, he should not only be not considered, but probably removed from the current appellate posting.

That is the fun we get ourselves into by opening up the can of worms that fell out of it. The assault charges *made* the binge drinking / nasty drunk whatnot thread relevant.

What was lost in the rain of crap was that there was ZERO corroboration for the initial issue. *That* is the serious issue I have -- *that* is the precursor to the shower of crap.

Someone with a 'D' by their name should be fing charged with 'something' for the leak. But that is my la-la land view of it, I guess.

Good for the Democrats for putting the illusion of 'qualified but I dont agree' into the grave. They did a fantastic job of shivving that one in the spine in this go around. But, at least there is *no* illusion as to the normal matter of course that these will be from here on out, instead of the Lucy/football/Charlie Brown charade of the last 30 years. I'm not happy about it, but it is simple now.

This. I am closer to Frizzy's position, but I recognize that not all (perhaps not many) agree with me....

but even if they don't, the fact that this has become a purity test is beyond ridiculous, especially in that a few of the most important tenants we expect this person to uphold are the presumption of innocence, due process, timely trials, statutes of limitations, rules of evidence etc etc etc

If the woman was assaulted by ANYONE, then I have compassion for her. If HE was the one, then it's beyond sad, but this is why we insist on speedy trials.

Ran across this today. Made nearly a year ago. Rarely get to hear from Justice Thomas. Only the second black man to serve our country on the Supreme Court. A true model of integrity for people to follow. Has also a unique insight into the sadness of the antics going on today (see video starting at about 7:35.

(10-01-2018 04:16 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 02:57 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  If you have an argument to make, go ahead and make it. Use your words.

He doesnt. Ever.

His posts are to discussion what Raymond Joseph Teller is to stand up comedy.

Unfortunately, his little mutual admiration society gives him no reason to act otherwise.

Hey guys --

Get this: At Ease and his sidekick Barrett were so offended by this little comment that they BOTH decided to dock my reputation, as follows:

- Barrett accused me of "often introduc[ing] ugliness" and being a "drama queen".

- At Ease claims that my life is "defined" by a "disconnect between privilege and ability" (does anyone know what he's talking about there?) and that I am "tormented" by "phantom cabals" (does anyone know what that means either?)

No wonder no one pays attention to their political silliness!

(10-06-2018 11:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 04:16 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 02:57 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  If you have an argument to make, go ahead and make it. Use your words.

He doesnt. Ever.

His posts are to discussion what Raymond Joseph Teller is to stand up comedy.

Unfortunately, his little mutual admiration society gives him no reason to act otherwise.

Hey guys --

Get this: At Ease and his sidekick Barrett were so offended by this little comment that they BOTH decided to dock my reputation, as follows:

- Barrett accused me of "often introduc[ing] ugliness" and being a "drama queen".

- At Ease claims that my life is "defined" by a "disconnect between privilege and ability" (does anyone know what he's talking about there?) and that I am "tormented" by "phantom cabals" (does anyone know what that means either?)

No wonder no one pays attention to their political silliness!

It is said a man is known by his enemies. You are in good company.

I have always enjoyed your comments. Barrett’s too, quite often.