(09-27-2018 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 08:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 08:55 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:58 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Meh. This is nothing a few "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" ads can't neutralize. WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVER DENIED IT, TED?!

Why haven't YOU ever denied it? I know I haven't.

Sounds like a typical democratic smear tactic, similar to the ones we are seeing against Kavanaugh.

I doubt a few "Do you still beat your wife?" type of accusations will turn the trick. But in O'Rourke's case, there are witnesses and a paper trail.

DWI doesn't automatically disqualify anybody, but it sure doesn't help.

Are you guys really not familiar with the Zodiac Killer thing?! There's a Rice connection! (https://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/20...n-advocacy)

I am not a Houstonian, nor have I ever heard of this guy. There are a lot of people in Houston I have never heard of of, even Rice guys.

I knew it must be some sort of weird thing since the Zodiac Killer was so long ago. I know much more of the Zodiac Killer than I do of kooks in Houston.

There's no reason someone would know Tim Faust unless they were at Rice while he was there (he was rather memorable) or if you live in the Austin area and are a fan of backyard wrastlin'.

The Zodiac Killer joke became a meme that transcended Faust and being a Houstonian, but not every joke reaches all audiences. Not the end of the world that y'all hadn't heard it.

Quote:This is the best response to an obvious joke post I've seen here, well done inciting this response!

But apparently you do/did expect this one to reach all all audiences.

I guess it would be well within the realm of equivalence to cite political/social items from 40 years ago and high five each other about inciting a response from those who are obviously so ignorant on that....

(09-27-2018 10:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 09:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 08:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 08:55 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-26-2018 07:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why haven't YOU ever denied it? I know I haven't.

Sounds like a typical democratic smear tactic, similar to the ones we are seeing against Kavanaugh.

I doubt a few "Do you still beat your wife?" type of accusations will turn the trick. But in O'Rourke's case, there are witnesses and a paper trail.

DWI doesn't automatically disqualify anybody, but it sure doesn't help.

Are you guys really not familiar with the Zodiac Killer thing?! There's a Rice connection! (https://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/20...n-advocacy)

I am not a Houstonian, nor have I ever heard of this guy. There are a lot of people in Houston I have never heard of of, even Rice guys.

I knew it must be some sort of weird thing since the Zodiac Killer was so long ago. I know much more of the Zodiac Killer than I do of kooks in Houston.

There's no reason someone would know Tim Faust unless they were at Rice while he was there (he was rather memorable) or if you live in the Austin area and are a fan of backyard wrastlin'.

The Zodiac Killer joke became a meme that transcended Faust and being a Houstonian, but not every joke reaches all audiences. Not the end of the world that y'all hadn't heard it.

Quote:This is the best response to an obvious joke post I've seen here, well done inciting this response!

But apparently you do/did expect this one to reach all all audiences.

I guess it would be well within the realm of equivalence to cite political/social items from 40 years ago and high five each other about inciting a response from those who are obviously so ignorant on that....

Well, with the internet at our finger tips, someone might want to do a quick Google to see if such an absurd statement was made because of relevance, as opposed to going into straight attack mode.

And even if someone hadn't heard of the Zodiac Killer meme, the statement was so absurd that the best response wasn't calling it a "typical democratic smear tactic," but instead calling it out for being such an absurd statement.

I google things you and Owl#s and OO reference all of the time because I get that pop culture isn't a new phenomena.

What if I told you that Donald Rumsfeld is a lizard person? He wouldn't deny it, just like Cruz wouldn't deny his serial killer roots.

(psstttt, this is another pop culture reference, go to 0:45 mark http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...ard-person)

edit: btw, I was saying there was no reason to know who Faust was, not necessarily to know the Zodiac Killer joke (of course some people won't get every joke as I said). The Zodiac Killer meme did get a lot of play in mainstream media attention: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/us/po...tweet.html / https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-...iller-meme

Saying that I had no fing idea what you are talking about is attack mode? Seriously?

And, to be honest, if you feel the need to high five some weird obscure **** as being such an obvious bait, that is completely your prerogative. Free country and all.

Quote:This is the best response to an obvious joke post I've seen here, well done inciting this response!

And, also to be honest, pointing out that it might not be such an inherently obvious thing might similarly be within 'those obviously unable to fathom such an obvious point''s prerogative. Free country and all.

(09-27-2018 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Saying that I had no fing idea what you are talking about is attack mode? Seriously?

And, to be honest, if you feel the need to high five some weird obscure **** as being such an obvious bait, that is completely your prerogative. Free country and all.

Quote:This is the best response to an obvious joke post I've seen here, well done inciting this response!

And, also to be honest, pointing out that it might not be such an inherently obvious thing might similarly be within 'those obviously unable to fathom such an obvious point''s prerogative. Free country and all.

Lol, what? When did I suggest you were in attack mode? You look for a fight in everything, don't you?

I specifically referenced the comment OO made - the "typical democratic smear" comment he made. That was the attack mode I was referencing. I made sure not to say "you might want to do a quick Google" because you weren't the person I was referencing. I said "someone might want to do a quick Google" because I was referring to someone else (OO).

Heck, you hadn't even commented about the Zodiac thing when I said:

Quote:This is the best response to an obvious joke post I've seen here, well done inciting this response!

The responses there were just OO and OldOwlNewHeel2 going back and forth.

But yeah, fly off the rails here over this.

(09-27-2018 12:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Saying that I had no fing idea what you are talking about is attack mode? Seriously?

And, to be honest, if you feel the need to high five some weird obscure **** as being such an obvious bait, that is completely your prerogative. Free country and all.

Quote:This is the best response to an obvious joke post I've seen here, well done inciting this response!

And, also to be honest, pointing out that it might not be such an inherently obvious thing might similarly be within 'those obviously unable to fathom such an obvious point''s prerogative. Free country and all.

Lol, what? When did I suggest you were in attack mode? You look for a fight in everything, don't you?

I specifically referenced the comment OO made - the "typical democratic smear" comment he made. That was the attack mode I was referencing. I made sure not to say "you might want to do a quick Google" because you weren't the person I was referencing. I said "someone might want to do a quick Google" because I was referring to someone else (OO).

Heck, you hadn't even commented about the Zodiac thing when I said:

Quote:This is the best response to an obvious joke post I've seen here, well done inciting this response!

The responses there were just OO and OldOwlNewHeel2 going back and forth.

But yeah, fly off the rails here over this.

As most of you know, I am a bit older, a bit of a Luddite. Thus my first response is to take somebody at their word, not to google them. Guess I need to modernize.

But the typical democrat smear stands on its own merit. Just look at the Kavanaugh hearings or the collusion probe. If you can't stop them, smear them. Label them a nazi, a rapist, a racist, and put them on defense.

So when I see somebody quacking like a duck and acting like a duck, my first impulse is not to google ducks.

Lad, your comment to me may not have been very specific about 'whom was attacking'. And, it was seemingly in a direct reply to me (as I was the one quoted).

Regardless of when your response of

Quote:This is the best response to an obvious joke post I've seen here, well done inciting this response!

was made, to be blunt, it is a twerpy response. Real awesome that a guy who graduated college roughly about the time I was born, and bluntly, probably close to 40 years prior to your birth doesnt have an idea about some jerkball t-shirt maker. Wow, you really proved something there.

As you said

Quote:well done inciting this response!

Yep, really awesomely cool. (I guess...)

Via scrappleface (parody site)

Beto committed 6 years to life in Federal facility

The takeaway lines:

Quote:The Democratic challenger to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, used the pledge to needle his GOP opponent, implying Cruz dodges the question to keep his presidential options open.

“In one sentence: I’m committed to serving my full term,” O’Rourke said. “Departing early to run for higher office would be like leaving the scene of an accident. I could never do that ”

Quote:Rep. O’Rourke said Washington D.C. can make some men ‘intoxicated with power and craving more.’

Quote:“It’s my clear-eyed, sober, assessment that being a Senator is a staggering responsibility,” said O’Rourke. “Once you choose that road, you can’t just veer off in another direction without risk of hurting people.”

(09-27-2018 12:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad, your comment to me may not have been very specific about 'whom was attacking'. And, it was seemingly in a direct reply to me (as I was the one quoted).

Regardless of when your response of

Quote:This is the best response to an obvious joke post I've seen here, well done inciting this response!

was made, to be blunt, it is a twerpy response. Real awesome that a guy who graduated college roughly about the time I was born, and bluntly, probably close to 40 years prior to your birth doesnt have an idea about some jerkball t-shirt maker. Wow, you really proved something there.

As you said

Quote:well done inciting this response!

Yep, really awesomely cool. (I guess...)

I can't speak for Tim Faust, but my guess is he'd rather be labeled an amateur wrestling enthusiast or healthcare advocate, as opposed to t-shirt maker, but I can't be sure.

And yeah, it was a twerpy response, not gonna deny that.

(09-27-2018 12:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 12:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Saying that I had no fing idea what you are talking about is attack mode? Seriously?

And, to be honest, if you feel the need to high five some weird obscure **** as being such an obvious bait, that is completely your prerogative. Free country and all.

Quote:This is the best response to an obvious joke post I've seen here, well done inciting this response!

And, also to be honest, pointing out that it might not be such an inherently obvious thing might similarly be within 'those obviously unable to fathom such an obvious point''s prerogative. Free country and all.

Lol, what? When did I suggest you were in attack mode? You look for a fight in everything, don't you?

I specifically referenced the comment OO made - the "typical democratic smear" comment he made. That was the attack mode I was referencing. I made sure not to say "you might want to do a quick Google" because you weren't the person I was referencing. I said "someone might want to do a quick Google" because I was referring to someone else (OO).

Heck, you hadn't even commented about the Zodiac thing when I said:

Quote:This is the best response to an obvious joke post I've seen here, well done inciting this response!

The responses there were just OO and OldOwlNewHeel2 going back and forth.

But yeah, fly off the rails here over this.

As most of you know, I am a bit older, a bit of a Luddite. Thus my first response is to take somebody at their word, not to google them. Guess I need to modernize.

But the typical democrat smear stands on its own merit. Just look at the Kavanaugh hearings or the collusion probe. If you can't stop them, smear them. Label them a nazi, a rapist, a racist, and put them on defense.

So when I see somebody quacking like a duck and acting like a duck, my first impulse is not to google ducks.

Your comment implies that anyone who accuses someone else of a transgression is smearing that person. So from your perspective, how does someone bring to light crimes where there isn't evidence without smearing the accused?

(09-27-2018 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 12:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 12:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Saying that I had no fing idea what you are talking about is attack mode? Seriously?

And, to be honest, if you feel the need to high five some weird obscure **** as being such an obvious bait, that is completely your prerogative. Free country and all.

Quote:This is the best response to an obvious joke post I've seen here, well done inciting this response!

And, also to be honest, pointing out that it might not be such an inherently obvious thing might similarly be within 'those obviously unable to fathom such an obvious point''s prerogative. Free country and all.

Lol, what? When did I suggest you were in attack mode? You look for a fight in everything, don't you?

I specifically referenced the comment OO made - the "typical democratic smear" comment he made. That was the attack mode I was referencing. I made sure not to say "you might want to do a quick Google" because you weren't the person I was referencing. I said "someone might want to do a quick Google" because I was referring to someone else (OO).

Heck, you hadn't even commented about the Zodiac thing when I said:

Quote:This is the best response to an obvious joke post I've seen here, well done inciting this response!

The responses there were just OO and OldOwlNewHeel2 going back and forth.

But yeah, fly off the rails here over this.

As most of you know, I am a bit older, a bit of a Luddite. Thus my first response is to take somebody at their word, not to google them. Guess I need to modernize.

But the typical democrat smear stands on its own merit. Just look at the Kavanaugh hearings or the collusion probe. If you can't stop them, smear them. Label them a nazi, a rapist, a racist, and put them on defense.

So when I see somebody quacking like a duck and acting like a duck, my first impulse is not to google ducks.

Your comment implies that anyone who accuses someone else of a transgression is smearing that person. So from your perspective, how does someone bring to light crimes where there isn't evidence without smearing the accused?

It doesn't imply that at all.

I don't think Ford is smearing Kavanaugh on purpose. I think she believes what she says. Believing it does not make it so. We have discussed this, Lad.

The smearers are the Democratic leaders who are using these false accusations as a means to am end.

He would be happily confirmed now if only he had said one sentence: "RVW is settled law and I will not vote to overturn it." And the letter would still be gathering dust in Feinstein's desk, unleaked.

If/when a Democratic President makes a nomination, expect the same in return. Republicans wisked Kagan and Sotomayor through. That is over.

Yep. nothing but sandbag and scorched earth from this point forward.

good job.

I think Feinstein just figured out questioning Kavanaugh right now is literally the TV equivalent of walking into a buzzsaw.

Democrats, after the chastising they just received personally from Kavanaugh, are going to have a hard time 'playing to their voters' and looking good after Kavanaugh threw a high hard (i.e. a fu intentional brushback pitch) one straight back at Feinstein.

They could come across as ultra-asshats if not careful.

(09-27-2018 03:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think Feinstein just figured out questioning Kavanaugh right now is literally the TV equivalent of walking into a buzzsaw.

Democrats, after the chastising they just received personally from Kavanaugh, are going to have a hard time 'playing to their voters' and looking good after Kavanaugh threw a high hard (i.e. a fu intentional brushback pitch) one straight back at Feinstein.

They could come across as ultra-asshats if not careful.

Just my take:

Somebody leaked Ford's ID/letter to Media. The only people who had it- Feinstein and her Staff. Ford's lawyers. And Ford.

I'm thinking that Katz, Ford's lawyer, leaked it since Feinstein didn't bring the allegation up during the initial Hearings. I don''t think Feinstein leaked it herself, because if she did it that could be cause to get her tossed off the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Everyone knew Ford's Legal Fees, Polygraph Fees, and probably travel expenses were being picked up. No surprise that Feinstein referred Ford to Katz.

Ford apparently had no idea that Senate Committee staffers were prepared to fly to California to interview her without having to go through this humiliating experience. Didn't her lawyers tell her? No. They wanted the TV exposure.

Why in the Hell did I submit all that stuff to The Campanile??

As far as the future, even if Kavanaugh gets confirmed I see an unpleasant experience awaiting for anyone needing Senate Confirmation in the future-- for any Federal position, Judicial or Executive.

I see many qualified individuals turning down positions because they don't want their High School or College transgressions being aired. Kavanaugh is right-- "Paybacks will be Hell" and both the Democrats and Republicans will do it to each other.

I thought Kavanaugh was dead on how the process that this took has *seriously* ruptured SC nominations -- perhaps for my lifetime.

Much to the chagrin of my (currently p-offed) wife (she hates politics and we typically vote somewhat opposite) I didnt have anything due today so sidled back and watched the shitshow to end shitshows in all its glory. (I hope shes mad for the simple fact that I was entranced by the damn thing.....)

My only comment is that after watching pretty much everything, I truly think *someone's* ass should wind up in jail.

There are only 4 ways that I see this, and none of them are pretty:

a) BK did pass out drinking; it happened, and does not remember it.
b) CBF has done some weird transference. She was assaulted and somehow believes BK is the perp.
c) CBF is lying (this one is really low on the list, to the point of non-existence)
d) BK has no route but forward, and he knows he did it, but feels entitled to what he's worked all his life to attain. Since there's no way back to his old life, he must force his way through this obstacle. And he's barreling ahead to save his life and save his family. Cornered, he had to fight like hell, and that includes lying.

If d), he is among the absolute best liars I have ever seen. If d) he not only should not be confirmed, he should be removed from office and subject to perjury charges.

Regardless, Feinstein, with no doubt, should have made the information known and available to the committee when she got it. I cant tell you the contempt I hold for her for this. And Graham was absolutely correct in popping off that major league shot at her and her sandbag.

One thing I have noted --- to a tee the Democrats have spouted that Kavanaugh assaulted her -- that was rampant during today's questioning. No pretense at all in the questions with a 'supposedly' (that is, the few times a Democratic Senator actually traipse down that path when not trying to fish the FBI investigation time rope a dope or trying to jacktie Kavanaugh about alcohol. Given that he "assaulted" her, they should be filing impeachment proceedings against him right here and now..... and referring perjury charges as well.....

Best cross examination question (from another source)

Booker: did you have brewskis with timmy after football practice. just answer the question yes or no.

(09-27-2018 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I thought Kavanaugh was dead on how the process that this took has *seriously* ruptured SC nominations -- perhaps for my lifetime.

Much to the chagrin of my (currently p-offed) wife (she hates politics and we typically vote somewhat opposite) I didnt have anything due today so sidled back and watched the shitshow to end shitshows in all its glory. (I hope shes mad for the simple fact that I was entranced by the damn thing.....)

My only comment is that after watching pretty much everything, I truly think *someone's* ass should wind up in jail.

There are only 4 ways that I see this, and none of them are pretty:

a) BK did pass out drinking; it happened, and does not remember it.
b) CBF has done some weird transference. She was assaulted and somehow believes BK is the perp.
c) CBF is lying (this one is really low on the list, to the point of non-existence)
d) BK has no route but forward, and he knows he did it, but feels entitled to what he's worked all his life to attain. Since there's no way back to his old life, he must force his way through this obstacle. And he's barreling ahead to save his life and save his family. Cornered, he had to fight like hell, and that includes lying.

If d), he is among the absolute best liars I have ever seen. If d) he not only should not be confirmed, he should be removed from office and subject to perjury charges.

Regardless, Feinstein, with no doubt, should have made the information known and available to the committee when she got it. I cant tell you the contempt I hold for her for this. And Graham was absolutely correct in popping off that major league shot at her and her sandbag.

One thing I have noted --- to a tee the Democrats have spouted that Kavanaugh assaulted her -- that was rampant during today's questioning. No pretense at all in the questions with a 'supposedly' (that is, the few times a Democratic Senator actually traipse down that path when not trying to fish the FBI investigation time rope a dope or trying to jacktie Kavanaugh about alcohol. Given that he "assaulted" her, they should be filing impeachment proceedings against him right here and now..... and referring perjury charges as well.....

Best cross examination question (from another source)

Booker: did you have brewskis with timmy after football practice. just answer the question yes or no.

I think (b).

(09-27-2018 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I thought Kavanaugh was dead on how the process that this took has *seriously* ruptured SC nominations -- perhaps for my lifetime.

Much to the chagrin of my (currently p-offed) wife (she hates politics and we typically vote somewhat opposite) I didnt have anything due today so sidled back and watched the shitshow to end shitshows in all its glory. (I hope shes mad for the simple fact that I was entranced by the damn thing.....)

My only comment is that after watching pretty much everything, I truly think *someone's* ass should wind up in jail.

There are only 4 ways that I see this, and none of them are pretty:

a) BK did pass out drinking; it happened, and does not remember it.
b) CBF has done some weird transference. She was assaulted and somehow believes BK is the perp.
c) CBF is lying (this one is really low on the list, to the point of non-existence)
d) BK has no route but forward, and he knows he did it, but feels entitled to what he's worked all his life to attain. Since there's no way back to his old life, he must force his way through this obstacle. And he's barreling ahead to save his life and save his family. Cornered, he had to fight like hell, and that includes lying.

If d), he is among the absolute best liars I have ever seen. If d) he not only should not be confirmed, he should be removed from office and subject to perjury charges.

Regardless, Feinstein, with no doubt, should have made the information known and available to the committee when she got it. I cant tell you the contempt I hold for her for this. And Graham was absolutely correct in popping off that major league shot at her and her sandbag.

One thing I have noted --- to a tee the Democrats have spouted that Kavanaugh assaulted her -- that was rampant during today's questioning. No pretense at all in the questions with a 'supposedly' (that is, the few times a Democratic Senator actually traipse down that path when not trying to fish the FBI investigation time rope a dope or trying to jacktie Kavanaugh about alcohol. Given that he "assaulted" her, they should be filing impeachment proceedings against him right here and now..... and referring perjury charges as well.....

Best cross examination question (from another source)

Booker: did you have brewskis with timmy after football practice. just answer the question yes or no.

I think there's a slight alternative possibility to (d) - namely, that he knows he drank so much that it's possible it might have happened, but he's decided to go guns blazing for all the reasons you mentioned.

My opinion:

1) Definitely believe CBF was sexually assaulted in the manner she stated.
2) Very concerning as to why no one else can:
a) corroborate that the party/gathering happened as she stated
b) no one remembers taking CBF to this house, her leaving this house, or picking her up to take her from this house
If the gathering was actually that small, and she stated that she had to pass by the gathering of people on her way out of the house, how come no one noticed this immediately or later on? There is no recollection that anyone has of saying something to her in the ensuing days such as "Hey, Christine, where did you go off to last night?"

Let's just say the house where the party/gathering was at was very close to her house and she could have walked home. As she stated, this was more of a "pre-party/pre-gathering" after a day of being at the pool. So presumably she did not arrive home late in the evening. Why did her parents not ask her where she had been or why she seemed shaken up? I can understand CBF not remembering some of this stuff, but the fact she can't get anyone to back her up is concerning.

3) Kavanaugh has a major issue with his temperament - he acted like a petulant child for parts of the hearing. Personally, in the context of his Supreme Court nomination, I don't think it matters whether or not he sexually assaulted CBF, because the man could not keep from going completely unhinged in a Senate hearing, which I think makes him a poor choice for a SC justice. I get raging in private, but if you're going to be a judge on the Supreme Court, you better learn how to give off a demeanor of being calm when you're in a visible setting.
4) Kavanaugh's defense was lackluster. The calendars are useless, and no one gives two ***** about how many women you're friends with (same with not caring about CBF's letters of support). It is not out of the realm of possibility to act one way towards certain people and another way towards others.
5) Some of these senators have been on this panel / in the Senate for way too long. Looking at you, Grassley, Feinstein, Hatch and Leahy.
6) The Dems were bigger ******** than the Republicans.

I predict he'll be confirmed.

(09-28-2018 11:00 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  My opinion:

1) Definitely believe CBF was sexually assaulted in the manner she stated.
2) Very concerning as to why no one else can:
a) corroborate that the party/gathering happened as she stated
b) no one remembers taking CBF to this house, her leaving this house, or picking her up to take her from this house
If the gathering was actually that small, and she stated that she had to pass by the gathering of people on her way out of the house, how come no one noticed this immediately or later on? There is no recollection that anyone has of saying something to her in the ensuing days such as "Hey, Christine, where did you go off to last night?"

Let's just say the house where the party/gathering was at was very close to her house and she could have walked home. As she stated, this was more of a "pre-party/pre-gathering" after a day of being at the pool. So presumably she did not arrive home late in the evening. Why did her parents not ask her where she had been or why she seemed shaken up? I can understand CBF not remembering some of this stuff, but the fact she can't get anyone to back her up is concerning.

3) Kavanaugh has a major issue with his temperament - he acted like a petulant child for parts of the hearing. Personally, in the context of his Supreme Court nomination, I don't think it matters whether or not he sexually assaulted CBF, because the man could not keep from going completely unhinged in a Senate hearing, which I think makes him a poor choice for a SC justice. I get raging in private, but if you're going to be a judge on the Supreme Court, you better learn how to give off a demeanor of being calm when you're in a visible setting.
4) Kavanaugh's defense was lackluster. The calendars are useless, and no one gives two ***** about how many women you're friends with (same with not caring about CBF's letters of support). It is not out of the realm of possibility to act one way towards certain people and another way towards others.
5) Some of these senators have been on this panel / in the Senate for way too long. Looking at you, Grassley, Feinstein, Hatch and Leahy.
6) The Dems were bigger ******** than the Republicans.

I predict he'll be confirmed.

2) The lack of evidence as the alleged act is disturbing to me as well. But it isnt a zero - zero game. All four witnesses either do not corroborate, and in some instances, refute the allegation.

3) I understand the temperament. I would be fing livid *if* I was wrongfully accused. I *would* be saying there is something weird or hinky *if* I didnt see that level of emotion on his part. And, to be blunt, whether he is confirmed or not, I think the message of his first four minutes about what the SCOTUS issue has devolved into was spot-fing on. And, the roots go way gd deeper than Garland.

4) The calendars are not 'useless'. They have *some* weight. Not just a whole bunch. That is important in what in the best of light is a 0-0 ballgame; and add to the defense advantage of the proffer of proof and succeeding fail of the proffer. The calendar is like an additional free throw in a 3-0 basketball game.

Agree that the 'numbers of women thing' was cringe-worthy. But, no more cringe-worthy than the tidal wave of 'white male senators' comments I have seen. Someone answer me this: Any particular reason for the term 'white' in that litany? Or am I somehow too stupid to note any particular racism when a white accuser is dealing with a white accused, and the person who sat on evidence is a lily white older Senator? Is there a dog-whistle somewhere that I missed in this?

5) completely agree. Of the bunch the only one that wasnt completely at drool bucket stage was Grassley. The others might want to check their animatronic controls.

6) That is understandable because the hot seat is someone they support, they are playing defense. The House Strzok hearing was just the opposite, where all the Democrats could do was sit there and look interested and pander while the Pubs went as-hat snark postal on that witness. And with the 'Pubs only oppty to press, they Pubs simply could not. They cannot be viewed as an all men's club being mean to Ford in the slightest. Or all-white from what I hear, I guess.

(09-28-2018 11:00 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  My opinion:

1) Definitely believe CBF was sexually assaulted in the manner she stated.
2) Very concerning as to why no one else can:
a) corroborate that the party/gathering happened as she stated
b) no one remembers taking CBF to this house, her leaving this house, or picking her up to take her from this house
If the gathering was actually that small, and she stated that she had to pass by the gathering of people on her way out of the house, how come no one noticed this immediately or later on? There is no recollection that anyone has of saying something to her in the ensuing days such as "Hey, Christine, where did you go off to last night?"

Let's just say the house where the party/gathering was at was very close to her house and she could have walked home. As she stated, this was more of a "pre-party/pre-gathering" after a day of being at the pool. So presumably she did not arrive home late in the evening. Why did her parents not ask her where she had been or why she seemed shaken up? I can understand CBF not remembering some of this stuff, but the fact she can't get anyone to back her up is concerning.

3) Kavanaugh has a major issue with his temperament - he acted like a petulant child for parts of the hearing. Personally, in the context of his Supreme Court nomination, I don't think it matters whether or not he sexually assaulted CBF, because the man could not keep from going completely unhinged in a Senate hearing, which I think makes him a poor choice for a SC justice. I get raging in private, but if you're going to be a judge on the Supreme Court, you better learn how to give off a demeanor of being calm when you're in a visible setting.
4) Kavanaugh's defense was lackluster. The calendars are useless, and no one gives two ***** about how many women you're friends with (same with not caring about CBF's letters of support). It is not out of the realm of possibility to act one way towards certain people and another way towards others.
5) Some of these senators have been on this panel / in the Senate for way too long. Looking at you, Grassley, Feinstein, Hatch and Leahy.
6) The Dems were bigger ******** than the Republicans.

I predict he'll be confirmed.

Agree with much of your post, but will push back against the bolded. A first minor quibble is that an appellate judge (which is what a SCOTUS justice is of course) doesn't (IMO) necessarily have to be the paragon of unflappability and dispassion that we stereotypically expect trial judges to be. Impartial, yes, but otherwise appellate judges generally don't deal with ordinary laypeople directly, they deal with arguments, and extremely smart and capable lawyers making those arguments, and the testing of both through sharp questioning and scrutiny. Combativeness (within reason) can be an asset in that context.

The major quibble is with holding Kavanaugh to a standard of judicial temperament in a nonjudicial context. It's a false equivalency. Kavanaugh was a defendant in a trial yesterday, not a judge presiding over proceedings. Why would how he acts when he and his family have been outright attacked and personally brutalized have anything to do with judicial demeanor? Why should it be taken as having any bearing on how he would conduct himself on the job? If he'd been caught flying off the handle, whether in public or private, about something minor or trivial, *that* I could see as legitimately impacting an assessment of his suitability. But some things are OK to get angry about, even for people whose day jobs otherwise generally call for maintaining an even keel.

And let's face it, had Kavanaugh gone the other direction and showed what some think is model judicial temperament, that simply would have been twisted right back around on him in a similar manner. It would be offered up as proof that he really is Patrick Bateman in American Psycho.

As far as his defense being lackluster, that seems to be holding him to an unfair standard as well. No, he doesn't have receipts to prove he was out of the country at the time. What he does have is more evidence than most 50-somethings would have about their daily summer whereabouts at age 17 and, let's not forget, sworn statements in his favor from 100% of the witnesses named by his accuser. So really, *all* of yesterday's testimony was lackluster, from an evidentiary standpoint, next to that.

As far as predictions go, I too think he will be confirmed, if for no other reason than that the Left is already blathering about their Plan B (pun definitely intended, since this spectacle is and always has been mainly about abortion), which is to impeach him once they're back in power.

With these allegations, it boils down to a he said/she said situation and 36 years later, it's unlikely we'll ever know one way or the other what really went down. Some folks are more likely to believe the accuser, some folks are more likely to believe the accused. *shrug*

But man yesterday...I thought Kavanaugh straight up embarrassed himself. I get that he's pissed, but you gotta do more to at least try to come off as "above it all." He's literally being nominated for the most "above it all" position in the country. Folks in here talking Patrick Bateman-style calm, but I think there's a balance that could've been struck with defending yourself while still keeping your ish together. Show some professionalism.

Dude was up there crying about his daddy's calendars...his dad is still alive! No matter you think about Kavanaugh, that's pretty funny. Seriously, why is he crying??? Did no one prepare him for this? Geez lol