(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  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

I suggest that you attempt to show professionalism if/when you might be falsely of sexual assault. Might be tough.

(09-28-2018 01:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  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

I suggest that you attempt to show professionalism if/when you might be falsely of sexual assault. Might be tough.

Yeah, but BSWB (nor anyone else here) is not up for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. This isn't a regular job.

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  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

I've got no issues with the tears - this is obviously an emotional time for the guy who is being put through the ringer (to put it mildly).

I had an issue with him suggesting that this was a Clinton conspiracy.

I had an issue with him suggesting, repeatedly, that good grades means that someone can't party too hard on occasion (Rice taught me that was a big ol crock of ****).

I had an issue with him questioning a Senator and asking if she had ever blacked out as a response to her probing him (which apparently Kavanaugh even recognized was an issue, because he felt the need to specifically apologize for that).

Looks like Flake and Murkowski are going to vote no unless there is a one-week FBI investigation.

(09-28-2018 01:35 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  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

I suggest that you attempt to show professionalism if/when you might be falsely of sexual assault. Might be tough.

Yeah, but BSWB (nor anyone else here) is not up for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. This isn't a regular job.

His demeanor gave me a little pause, but what bothered me more was him going off about "revenge for the Clintons" and insinuations about left-wing conspiracies and whatnot. Regardless of what he believes, he's interviewing for the right to sit in judgment of laws authored by democratic senators, policies passed by democratic administrations, etc. John Roberts's face was probably red from all the facepalming. He's already going to have enough to do to maintain the court's legitimacy (like probably author a few 5-4 left-leaning opinions himself from time-to-time) - Kavanaugh certainly didn't help him on that yesterday.

(09-28-2018 01:41 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Looks like Flake and Murkowski are going to vote no unless there is a one-week FBI investigation.

They took Flake's lead bid well. The one week with investigation gives them just a little more cover, in the end, to vote Aye.

(09-28-2018 01:47 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:35 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  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

I suggest that you attempt to show professionalism if/when you might be falsely of sexual assault. Might be tough.

Yeah, but BSWB (nor anyone else here) is not up for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. This isn't a regular job.

His demeanor gave me a little pause, but what bothered me more was him going off about "revenge for the Clintons" and insinuations about left-wing conspiracies and whatnot. Regardless of what he believes, he's interviewing for the right to sit in judgment of laws authored by democratic senators, policies passed by democratic administrations, etc. John Roberts's face was probably red from all the facepalming. He's already going to have enough to do to maintain the court's legitimacy (like probably author a few 5-4 left-leaning opinions himself from time-to-time) - Kavanaugh certainly didn't help him on that yesterday.

The Democratic attitude towards Republican SCOTUS picks going back thirty years hasnt helped either.

Look, there are issues with Kavanaugh no doubt. There are serious fing issues with the pretty constant tenor of 'burn the barn' coming from the Democratic ranks over the last thirty years.

Graham probably feels stupid (as he should) for taking the normal Republican stance of 'dont agree but qualified' with his votes. Them days is over..... (for some odd ongoing and persistent reason....)

(09-28-2018 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  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

I've got no issues with the tears - this is obviously an emotional time for the guy who is being put through the ringer (to put it mildly).

I had an issue with him suggesting that this was a Clinton conspiracy.

I had an issue with him suggesting, repeatedly, that good grades means that someone can't party too hard on occasion (Rice taught me that was a big ol crock of ****).

I had an issue with him questioning a Senator and asking if she had ever blacked out as a response to her probing him (which apparently Kavanaugh even recognized was an issue, because he felt the need to specifically apologize for that).

Do you think 'party[ing] hard in school' is an event worthy of castigation in a SCOTUS nomination hearing?

I mean, jeezus h krist he was *grilled* if he had 'brewskis with Timmy on a Thursday'.....

(09-28-2018 01:35 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  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

I suggest that you attempt to show professionalism if/when you might be falsely of sexual assault. Might be tough.

Yeah, but BSWB (nor anyone else here) is not up for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. This isn't a regular job.

I think his popping a cork at the nomination process was about 30 years overdue, to be honest. But I *know* Im a belligerent scumbag at times....

And I had brewskis with Tommy on many weekdays including Thursdays.

(09-28-2018 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  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

I've got no issues with the tears - this is obviously an emotional time for the guy who is being put through the ringer (to put it mildly).

I had an issue with him suggesting that this was a Clinton conspiracy.

I had an issue with him suggesting, repeatedly, that good grades means that someone can't party too hard on occasion (Rice taught me that was a big ol crock of ****).

I had an issue with him questioning a Senator and asking if she had ever blacked out as a response to her probing him (which apparently Kavanaugh even recognized was an issue, because he felt the need to specifically apologize for that).

Do you think 'party[ing] hard in school' is an event worthy of castigation in a SCOTUS nomination hearing?

I mean, jeezus h krist he was *grilled* if he had 'brewskis with Timmy on a Thursday'.....

Two things.

1) Being that the entire premise of the accusation was centered around a drunk Kavanaugh sexually assaulting Ford, being grilled about having brewskis on Thursday makes sense, that's the situation in which an alleged assault took place.

2) The question of whether Kavanaugh is truthful was also under investigation, because that is a major part of his defense - that we trust his word. Him partying hard in high school or Yale isn't the issue really, it's whether he was truthfully and accurately portraying his partying ways. I was shocked that he couldn't speak openly and honestly about that - people can both do well and party hard in college. Rice taught me that.

(09-28-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:47 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:35 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  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

I suggest that you attempt to show professionalism if/when you might be falsely of sexual assault. Might be tough.

Yeah, but BSWB (nor anyone else here) is not up for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. This isn't a regular job.

His demeanor gave me a little pause, but what bothered me more was him going off about "revenge for the Clintons" and insinuations about left-wing conspiracies and whatnot. Regardless of what he believes, he's interviewing for the right to sit in judgment of laws authored by democratic senators, policies passed by democratic administrations, etc. John Roberts's face was probably red from all the facepalming. He's already going to have enough to do to maintain the court's legitimacy (like probably author a few 5-4 left-leaning opinions himself from time-to-time) - Kavanaugh certainly didn't help him on that yesterday.

The Democratic attitude towards Republican SCOTUS picks going back thirty years hasnt helped either.

Look, there are issues with Kavanaugh no doubt. There are serious fing issues with the pretty constant tenor of 'burn the barn' coming from the Democratic ranks over the last thirty years.

Graham probably feels stupid (as he should) for taking the normal Republican stance of 'dont agree but qualified' with his votes. Them days is over..... (for some odd ongoing and persistent reason....)

Are you talking about Bork again? Just drop it with that guy. He participated in the Saturday Night Massacre. He was a historically unpopular nominee. He was voted down (note that he actually received a vote *cough* Garland *cough*) by six Republicans. The next Republican pick was Kennedy (97-0). Then Souter (90-9). Surely you're not going to make me defend the Thomas vote. Then it was 15 years until Roberts. If you're pointing to a 30-year pattern, I'm not seeing it. I also know none of this will make a difference to you, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

(09-28-2018 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  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

I've got no issues with the tears - this is obviously an emotional time for the guy who is being put through the ringer (to put it mildly).

I had an issue with him suggesting that this was a Clinton conspiracy.

I had an issue with him suggesting, repeatedly, that good grades means that someone can't party too hard on occasion (Rice taught me that was a big ol crock of ****).

I had an issue with him questioning a Senator and asking if she had ever blacked out as a response to her probing him (which apparently Kavanaugh even recognized was an issue, because he felt the need to specifically apologize for that).

Do you think 'party[ing] hard in school' is an event worthy of castigation in a SCOTUS nomination hearing?

I mean, jeezus h krist he was *grilled* if he had 'brewskis with Timmy on a Thursday'.....

Two things.

1) Being that the entire premise of the accusation was centered around a drunk Kavanaugh sexually assaulting Ford, being grilled about having brewskis on Thursday makes sense, that's the situation in which an alleged assault took place.

2) The question of whether Kavanaugh is truthful was also under investigation, because that is a major part of his defense - that we trust his word. Him partying hard in high school or Yale isn't the issue really, it's whether he was truthfully and accurately portraying his partying ways. I was shocked that he couldn't speak openly and honestly about that - people can both do well and party hard in college. Rice taught me that.

One thing should stand out, and Im not surprised that one thing is not noted.

The *entire* episode is based on a grand total of ZERO fing supporting evidence. Think abut that. ZERO. As in nada, zilch, the complete lack thereof.

In something aside from fing bizarro-world **** that Republican SCOTUS nominations seem to engender, *that* would be the *most* striking thing about it.

Let me rephrase, not ZERO. If truly balancing, the net weight is actually less than zero. Every single witness pointed to as 'there' said one of two things.

One, 'I dont remember' not just the actual assault, but a complete lack of knowledge on any get together like it. Or two, no, that did not happen (a refutation).

The *only* other corroborative evidence was, in fact, the calendars. Which tended to show that Kavanaugh was not present at any such event (to the extent the calendar evidence can show it).

So spare me the 'well it is part of the inquiry'.

Im a little disturbed, mind you, that it is seemingly accepted as 'par for the course' that 'party[ing] too hard' is within the tolerances of *this* investigation. If there was *any* evidence *in the gd slightest* that tended in any *scintilla* to show that Kav should be subject to this, I might agree with you.

But you seemingly swallow the approriateness to what is an edge issue in the best of cases when assessing your support of it, in case that has no utter sign of supporting evidence. I find that a tad disquieting.

So yes there are two things you cite. When you utterly overlook the predicate that I have a base problem with, that might be on point.

(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:47 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:35 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I suggest that you attempt to show professionalism if/when you might be falsely of sexual assault. Might be tough.

Yeah, but BSWB (nor anyone else here) is not up for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. This isn't a regular job.

His demeanor gave me a little pause, but what bothered me more was him going off about "revenge for the Clintons" and insinuations about left-wing conspiracies and whatnot. Regardless of what he believes, he's interviewing for the right to sit in judgment of laws authored by democratic senators, policies passed by democratic administrations, etc. John Roberts's face was probably red from all the facepalming. He's already going to have enough to do to maintain the court's legitimacy (like probably author a few 5-4 left-leaning opinions himself from time-to-time) - Kavanaugh certainly didn't help him on that yesterday.

The Democratic attitude towards Republican SCOTUS picks going back thirty years hasnt helped either.

Look, there are issues with Kavanaugh no doubt. There are serious fing issues with the pretty constant tenor of 'burn the barn' coming from the Democratic ranks over the last thirty years.

Graham probably feels stupid (as he should) for taking the normal Republican stance of 'dont agree but qualified' with his votes. Them days is over..... (for some odd ongoing and persistent reason....)

Are you talking about Bork again? Just drop it with that guy. He participated in the Saturday Night Massacre. He was a historically unpopular nominee. He was voted down (note that he actually received a vote *cough* Garland *cough*) by six Republicans. The next Republican pick was Kennedy (97-0). Then Souter (90-9). Surely you're not going to make me defend the Thomas vote. Then it was 15 years until Roberts. If you're pointing to a 30-year pattern, I'm not seeing it. I also know none of this will make a difference to you, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

Dude, there is a fing pattern with Bork, Estrada. When you plop in the 90+ votes for the friggin General Counsel of the ACLU, and the 70 votes for the equally radical Kagan and Sotomayor, and contrast with the 52 for Alito and the 53 for Gorsuch ---

Yes there is a fing problem. I mean hell, even the evil archvillian Scalia garnered 97 votes before the shitshow got launched......

but please feel free to isolate to one vote.

As for Bork, yep, the entire script of personal attack versus professional disagreement was very much put into place. I suggest you actually compare your paragraph with what the supposed Lion of the Senate ripped Bork on. Just a tad different.

I guess with your paragraph above that would perfectly okay to equate this shitshow with being 'okay' since Kavanaugh was with the Starr investigation. Same difference there as you allege above, so go for it.

Garland --- please do tell the politics of personal destruction employed there in your feeble analogy. Yep Garland didnt get a vote. Pure political move, didnt have the hallmarks of personal and political destruction that have become the hallmark of democratic actions on Republicans who have the fing temerity to say or write that they might be (horrors) textualists and might challenge the golden Buddha of progressive Constitutional theocracy.

Garland and Bork arent even in same fing galaxy.

(09-28-2018 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  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

I've got no issues with the tears - this is obviously an emotional time for the guy who is being put through the ringer (to put it mildly).

I had an issue with him suggesting that this was a Clinton conspiracy.

I had an issue with him suggesting, repeatedly, that good grades means that someone can't party too hard on occasion (Rice taught me that was a big ol crock of ****).

I had an issue with him questioning a Senator and asking if she had ever blacked out as a response to her probing him (which apparently Kavanaugh even recognized was an issue, because he felt the need to specifically apologize for that).

Do you think 'party[ing] hard in school' is an event worthy of castigation in a SCOTUS nomination hearing?

I mean, jeezus h krist he was *grilled* if he had 'brewskis with Timmy on a Thursday'.....

Two things.

1) Being that the entire premise of the accusation was centered around a drunk Kavanaugh sexually assaulting Ford, being grilled about having brewskis on Thursday makes sense, that's the situation in which an alleged assault took place.

2) The question of whether Kavanaugh is truthful was also under investigation, because that is a major part of his defense - that we trust his word. Him partying hard in high school or Yale isn't the issue really, it's whether he was truthfully and accurately portraying his partying ways. I was shocked that he couldn't speak openly and honestly about that - people can both do well and party hard in college. Rice taught me that.

One thing should stand out, and Im not surprised that one thing is not noted.

The *entire* episode is based on a grand total of ZERO fing supporting evidence. Think abut that. ZERO. As in nada, zilch, the complete lack thereof.

In something aside from fing bizarro-world **** that Republican SCOTUS nominations seem to engender, *that* would be the *most* striking thing about it.

Let me rephrase, not ZERO. If truly balancing, the net weight is actually less than zero. Every single witness pointed to as 'there' said one of two things.

One, 'I dont remember' not just the actual assault, but a complete lack of knowledge on any get together like it. Or two, no, that did not happen (a refutation).

The *only* other corroborative evidence was, in fact, the calendars. Which tended to show that Kavanaugh was not present at any such event (to the extent the calendar evidence can show it).

So spare me the 'well it is part of the inquiry'.

Im a little disturbed, mind you, that it is seemingly accepted as 'par for the course' that 'party[ing] too hard' is within the tolerances of *this* investigation. If there was *any* evidence *in the gd slightest* that tended in any *scintilla* to show that Kav should be subject to this, I might agree with you.

But you seemingly swallow the approriateness to what is an edge issue in the best of cases when assessing your support of it, in case that has no utter sign of supporting evidence. I find that a tad disquieting.

So yes there are two things you cite. When you utterly overlook the predicate that I have a base problem with, that might be on point.

There is actually an event on his calendar on July 1 that fits Ford's description to a tee - small get together, the people she remembers being there were there, and it was a casual get together, not a rager. It also fits in the period (summer '82) when she alleges the assault occurred, and there's evidence that Judge worked at a grocery store bagging groceries that same summer (per his book and a yearbook post).

You're right that there isn't hard evidence - the "evidence" Ford has is her memory and experience. It's why she initially wanted to bring this to the attention of the committee prior to nomination.

But I do wonder, in your firm, if a clerk came forward with an accusation of assault against a partner, but with no evidence, would your firm not interview the partner and anyone reportedly at the event where the assault took place?

(09-28-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:47 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:35 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Yeah, but BSWB (nor anyone else here) is not up for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. This isn't a regular job.

His demeanor gave me a little pause, but what bothered me more was him going off about "revenge for the Clintons" and insinuations about left-wing conspiracies and whatnot. Regardless of what he believes, he's interviewing for the right to sit in judgment of laws authored by democratic senators, policies passed by democratic administrations, etc. John Roberts's face was probably red from all the facepalming. He's already going to have enough to do to maintain the court's legitimacy (like probably author a few 5-4 left-leaning opinions himself from time-to-time) - Kavanaugh certainly didn't help him on that yesterday.

The Democratic attitude towards Republican SCOTUS picks going back thirty years hasnt helped either.

Look, there are issues with Kavanaugh no doubt. There are serious fing issues with the pretty constant tenor of 'burn the barn' coming from the Democratic ranks over the last thirty years.

Graham probably feels stupid (as he should) for taking the normal Republican stance of 'dont agree but qualified' with his votes. Them days is over..... (for some odd ongoing and persistent reason....)

Are you talking about Bork again? Just drop it with that guy. He participated in the Saturday Night Massacre. He was a historically unpopular nominee. He was voted down (note that he actually received a vote *cough* Garland *cough*) by six Republicans. The next Republican pick was Kennedy (97-0). Then Souter (90-9). Surely you're not going to make me defend the Thomas vote. Then it was 15 years until Roberts. If you're pointing to a 30-year pattern, I'm not seeing it. I also know none of this will make a difference to you, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

Dude, there is a fing pattern with Bork, Estrada. When you plop in the 90+ votes for the friggin General Counsel of the ACLU, and the 70 votes for the equally radical Kagan and Sotomayor, and contrast with the 52 for Alito ---

yes there is a fing problem.

but please feel free to isolate to one vote.

As for Bork, yep, the entire script of personal attack versus professional disagreement was very much put into place. I suggest you actually compare your paragraph with what the supposed Lion of the Senate ripped Bork on. Just a tad different.

I guess with your paragraph above that would perfectly okay to equate this shitshow with being 'okay' since Kavanaugh was with the Starr investigation. Same difference there as you allege above, so go for it,

Yeah, still not seeing a "30-year" pattern. Also, you forgot the 0 votes for Garland. And what was the rationale for that, again?

(09-28-2018 02:43 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:47 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  His demeanor gave me a little pause, but what bothered me more was him going off about "revenge for the Clintons" and insinuations about left-wing conspiracies and whatnot. Regardless of what he believes, he's interviewing for the right to sit in judgment of laws authored by democratic senators, policies passed by democratic administrations, etc. John Roberts's face was probably red from all the facepalming. He's already going to have enough to do to maintain the court's legitimacy (like probably author a few 5-4 left-leaning opinions himself from time-to-time) - Kavanaugh certainly didn't help him on that yesterday.

The Democratic attitude towards Republican SCOTUS picks going back thirty years hasnt helped either.

Look, there are issues with Kavanaugh no doubt. There are serious fing issues with the pretty constant tenor of 'burn the barn' coming from the Democratic ranks over the last thirty years.

Graham probably feels stupid (as he should) for taking the normal Republican stance of 'dont agree but qualified' with his votes. Them days is over..... (for some odd ongoing and persistent reason....)

Are you talking about Bork again? Just drop it with that guy. He participated in the Saturday Night Massacre. He was a historically unpopular nominee. He was voted down (note that he actually received a vote *cough* Garland *cough*) by six Republicans. The next Republican pick was Kennedy (97-0). Then Souter (90-9). Surely you're not going to make me defend the Thomas vote. Then it was 15 years until Roberts. If you're pointing to a 30-year pattern, I'm not seeing it. I also know none of this will make a difference to you, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

Dude, there is a fing pattern with Bork, Estrada. When you plop in the 90+ votes for the friggin General Counsel of the ACLU, and the 70 votes for the equally radical Kagan and Sotomayor, and contrast with the 52 for Alito ---

yes there is a fing problem.

but please feel free to isolate to one vote.

As for Bork, yep, the entire script of personal attack versus professional disagreement was very much put into place. I suggest you actually compare your paragraph with what the supposed Lion of the Senate ripped Bork on. Just a tad different.

I guess with your paragraph above that would perfectly okay to equate this shitshow with being 'okay' since Kavanaugh was with the Starr investigation. Same difference there as you allege above, so go for it,

Yeah, still not seeing a "30-year" pattern. Also, you forgot the 0 votes for Garland. And what was the rationale for that, again?

Not surpised you dont see a pattern.

Garland

Quote:Garland --- please do tell the politics of personal destruction employed there in your feeble analogy. Yep Garland didnt get a vote. Pure political move, didnt have the hallmarks of personal and political destruction that have become the hallmark of democratic actions on Republicans who have the fing temerity to say or write that they might be (horrors) textualists and might challenge the golden Buddha of progressive Constitutional theocracy.

Garland and Bork arent even in same fing galaxy. Cry me a river on how badly Garland was treated with respect to the fundamental strategy of search and destroy so aptly refined by the Democratic side.

(09-28-2018 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I've got no issues with the tears - this is obviously an emotional time for the guy who is being put through the ringer (to put it mildly).

I had an issue with him suggesting that this was a Clinton conspiracy.

I had an issue with him suggesting, repeatedly, that good grades means that someone can't party too hard on occasion (Rice taught me that was a big ol crock of ****).

I had an issue with him questioning a Senator and asking if she had ever blacked out as a response to her probing him (which apparently Kavanaugh even recognized was an issue, because he felt the need to specifically apologize for that).

Do you think 'party[ing] hard in school' is an event worthy of castigation in a SCOTUS nomination hearing?

I mean, jeezus h krist he was *grilled* if he had 'brewskis with Timmy on a Thursday'.....

Two things.

1) Being that the entire premise of the accusation was centered around a drunk Kavanaugh sexually assaulting Ford, being grilled about having brewskis on Thursday makes sense, that's the situation in which an alleged assault took place.

2) The question of whether Kavanaugh is truthful was also under investigation, because that is a major part of his defense - that we trust his word. Him partying hard in high school or Yale isn't the issue really, it's whether he was truthfully and accurately portraying his partying ways. I was shocked that he couldn't speak openly and honestly about that - people can both do well and party hard in college. Rice taught me that.

One thing should stand out, and Im not surprised that one thing is not noted.

The *entire* episode is based on a grand total of ZERO fing supporting evidence. Think abut that. ZERO. As in nada, zilch, the complete lack thereof.

In something aside from fing bizarro-world **** that Republican SCOTUS nominations seem to engender, *that* would be the *most* striking thing about it.

Let me rephrase, not ZERO. If truly balancing, the net weight is actually less than zero. Every single witness pointed to as 'there' said one of two things.

One, 'I dont remember' not just the actual assault, but a complete lack of knowledge on any get together like it. Or two, no, that did not happen (a refutation).

The *only* other corroborative evidence was, in fact, the calendars. Which tended to show that Kavanaugh was not present at any such event (to the extent the calendar evidence can show it).

So spare me the 'well it is part of the inquiry'.

Im a little disturbed, mind you, that it is seemingly accepted as 'par for the course' that 'party[ing] too hard' is within the tolerances of *this* investigation. If there was *any* evidence *in the gd slightest* that tended in any *scintilla* to show that Kav should be subject to this, I might agree with you.

But you seemingly swallow the approriateness to what is an edge issue in the best of cases when assessing your support of it, in case that has no utter sign of supporting evidence. I find that a tad disquieting.

So yes there are two things you cite. When you utterly overlook the predicate that I have a base problem with, that might be on point.

There is actually an event on his calendar on July 1 that fits Ford's description to a tee - small get together, the people she remembers being there were there, and it was a casual get together, not a rager. It also fits in the period (summer '82) when she alleges the assault occurred, and there's evidence that Judge worked at a grocery store bagging groceries that same summer (per his book and a yearbook post).

You're right that there isn't hard evidence - the "evidence" Ford has is her memory and experience. It's why she initially wanted to bring this to the attention of the committee prior to nomination.

I would agree. Funny thing someone shitcanned that application for so long, isnt it?

As for your hypo happening at my firm, probably a near impossibility of that happening.

If in the weird amazingly odd instance that it did occur, the complaint would be addressed and assessed in a timely manner. That really wasnt was what was done here, was it? Big honking surprise on that count....

Next, the complainant would be interviewed and corroborative evidence assessed. If the resulting corroborative evidence was zero, the complained about person would be made aware and allowed comment.

None of this shitshow happened in this manner, did it?

In a non-bizarro world, when the complainant provided potential corroborative evidence that had zero weight, and negative on the reminder, no, I would not find it anywhere near proper to grill the partner on whether he had brewskis with Timmy on weeknight in high school. Let alone grill him on the manner with *no* evidence. Let alone fing destroy his life in a public manner in the process.

But that's just me I guess. I'm not up on, nor a proponent of, nor really an expert at, the intricacies of the art of political destruction that seems to be the cool calling card of some groups these days.

(09-28-2018 02:43 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:47 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  His demeanor gave me a little pause, but what bothered me more was him going off about "revenge for the Clintons" and insinuations about left-wing conspiracies and whatnot. Regardless of what he believes, he's interviewing for the right to sit in judgment of laws authored by democratic senators, policies passed by democratic administrations, etc. John Roberts's face was probably red from all the facepalming. He's already going to have enough to do to maintain the court's legitimacy (like probably author a few 5-4 left-leaning opinions himself from time-to-time) - Kavanaugh certainly didn't help him on that yesterday.

The Democratic attitude towards Republican SCOTUS picks going back thirty years hasnt helped either.
Look, there are issues with Kavanaugh no doubt. There are serious fing issues with the pretty constant tenor of 'burn the barn' coming from the Democratic ranks over the last thirty years.
Graham probably feels stupid (as he should) for taking the normal Republican stance of 'dont agree but qualified' with his votes. Them days is over..... (for some odd ongoing and persistent reason....)

Are you talking about Bork again? Just drop it with that guy. He participated in the Saturday Night Massacre. He was a historically unpopular nominee. He was voted down (note that he actually received a vote *cough* Garland *cough*) by six Republicans. The next Republican pick was Kennedy (97-0). Then Souter (90-9). Surely you're not going to make me defend the Thomas vote. Then it was 15 years until Roberts. If you're pointing to a 30-year pattern, I'm not seeing it. I also know none of this will make a difference to you, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

Dude, there is a fing pattern with Bork, Estrada. When you plop in the 90+ votes for the friggin General Counsel of the ACLU, and the 70 votes for the equally radical Kagan and Sotomayor, and contrast with the 52 for Alito ---
yes there is a fing problem.
but please feel free to isolate to one vote.
As for Bork, yep, the entire script of personal attack versus professional disagreement was very much put into place. I suggest you actually compare your paragraph with what the supposed Lion of the Senate ripped Bork on. Just a tad different.
I guess with your paragraph above that would perfectly okay to equate this shitshow with being 'okay' since Kavanaugh was with the Starr investigation. Same difference there as you allege above, so go for it,

Yeah, still not seeing a "30-year" pattern. Also, you forgot the 0 votes for Garland. And what was the rationale for that, again?

Just for grins, after the events of the last few weeks, how many votes do you think Garland could get from this senate, or any senate with a republican majority?

(09-28-2018 01:41 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Looks like Flake and Murkowski are going to vote no unless there is a one-week FBI investigation.

The scope of the new FBI investigation is vague. It wont be just Ford, but it will also include the Ramirez allegations and the insane story told by Swetnick.

Once the FBI 302s are returned, I predict the Democrats will leak sensationalized or exaggerated portions and demand even more Hearings and Investigations.

(09-28-2018 03:22 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:41 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Looks like Flake and Murkowski are going to vote no unless there is a one-week FBI investigation.

The scope of the new FBI investigation is vague. It wont be just Ford, but it will also include the Ramirez allegations and the insane story told by Swetnick.

Once the FBI 302s are returned, I predict the Democrats will leak sensationalized or exaggerated portions and demand even more Hearings and Investigations.

You think?