I think that's fair, but that means I bought all this popcorn for nothing.
Kavanaugh
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
There we go being obtuse again. Pretending you’ve never heard a woman whose reported an attack being asked how much she’s had to drink and then having it immediately dismissed if she’s had any? It’s being u as an excuse with Kavanaugh now as drunken horseplay. Besides how much she’s had to drink, the other most important questions involve what she was wearing and her other sexual partners. Specifically? I can’t recall the names, but if you want multiple times it happened, read the Krakauer book I mentioned, Missoula.
Yes, really. He was one of the most abrasive people on TV at the time.
I actually had no clue he was a pro-lifer (is he still?), but that wasn’t an issue for my party switch.
Begala abrasive? If anything he gets criticized for being too meek and mild. James Carville, that one I could definitely see, but sure don’t consider Begala that way.
It's a matter of faith for him. He's a devout Catholic. He's been outspoken in the need for the Democratic party to embrace pro-life liberals.
This is nothing more than politics. It needs to be televised. I want to see what Spartacus does.
I agree. Let her put her weak story up against the denial of a DC Circuit Court Judge for all the world to see.
If she is convincing, maybe I'll change my mind. I wish it could be a debate format tbh.
Again? You’re always so civil . . .
My comment was directed at you and people in this thread.
I have not heard that. I wouldn’t have guessed it based on what I’ve seen of him. I think he’s wasting his tome on the pro-life issue though. Democrats have essentially purged that as a possible position nationally. Unfortunately, so have too many Republicans the other way.
I agree that the trend is going that way, but I don't think it's permanent. Abortion is non-debatable for too many people. Eventually, Republicans will realize there are too many pro-choice free-market proponents and Democrats will realize there are too many pro-life progressives. This issue is front and center because of the Court, but that won't be hanging over our heads forever, and eventually, both parties will realize they need to be open on this.
Isn’t it obvious I wasn’t talking about YOU, I was talking about in general?
For whatever reason, Carville entertains me. I will actually listen to him when I catch him on TV. Begala? I can’t stand. Just a smarmy POS.
Actually, you were talking about me specifically. Go back and see your post that I replied to.
Carville is funny, but Begala is a lot more reasonable. I'm genuinely surprised at the response to him by you and Aloha.
<cough>Keith Ellison<cough>
Additionally, Ms. Ford's own attorney has quite the history of looking the other way when it is Democrats behaving badly.
Yet again, what was Keith Ellison accused of exactly? Was it attempted rape? Was it anything remotely approaching attempted rape? No? Then STFU.
There were ****ing pictures with Franken and multiple females coming forward on guys like Weinstein. We currently have the word of one women who took 30 years to bring up her "attempted rape" and cannot remember where or when exactly it happened. Kind of a bit of different circumstances no?
Yeah, except the shit he did actually has, you know, corroboration. As opposed to, a so far, very weak recollection of an incident that may or may not have happened 36 years ago that were not brought up until 30 years after the fact and have had those facts change since then because Ford's new recollections do not match the notes her counselor took at the time (a time that was still 30 years after the fact). So you STFU because in one instance there is contemporaneous proof of an assault and in the other?
My reply was in response to what Goat wrote and I imagine he knows I wasn’t talking about him, I was responding to what he was saying.
Aloha's been trolling this thread almost from the get-go.
I've noticed something interesting. You can sense in any given post when the person is being genuine or not. This thread amplifies that effect. The liberals here by and large take this issue genuinely seriously and their posts reflect that. The conservatives by and large seem to be on the defensive for whatever reason but mask that with various disingenuous tacks such as mockery, sarcasm, or what have you. That's not every post, of course, including Aloha's. That's not a criticism, just an observation. One can troll, be sarcastic, or whatever for one's own pleasure. Why not? Just thought it might be helpful for you because spotting that, you're less likely to let them get under your skin.
I think the defensiveness might be an indicator of their inner tension or turmoil, knowing that November might bring a defeat and an end to their feeling of superiority they've enjoyed for two years.
Last edited:
I don't understand your point. The last time I heard, the job of an attorney is to take care of his/her client on legal matters, and he gets paid for that. His duty is not to take care of all Republicans or all Democrats for that matter. Am I wrong?
Apparently you are unaware of what happened to Franken and Weinstein. I will step back and allow you to do some basic research.
You mean that mysterious video that his accuser says she can’t even find any more?
Question: Dr. Ford has asked for an FBI investigation. Does that sound like someone lying? Wouldn’t she take her chances in front of the committtee?
You are missing the point, amigo.
When this thing first came out, I did not say anything because I thought; "Oh, come on, that happened eons ago, and the guy was a teenager with hormone-overflow problem. When he sees a pretty looking girl, it is natural that he might have had some dirty thoughts." or something to that effect. Fortunately, the rape did not take place. Therefore, I did not think it served any purpose to pursue it this late in time.
When Kavanaugh started denying it in absolute terms, I changed my tune because it occurred to me that this guy is going to be a supreme court justice. If the event actually took place the way she described, then it means Mr. K is lying! If so, that can't be tolerated for a supreme court justice. It may be OK for a president(
), but not for a supreme court justice! Ergo, the investigation is critical.If you wanted to reign in the idiocy of nutbags on the right, you might start with stoll. I've been waiting for you to stand up to greenironbossierpromenade for years.
"Here FBI, I have no date and no time, but please prove my claims true, after all, you are the FBI, Don't you work miracles?"
That is essentially what she's asking and you're clueless enough to go along with it.
If she won't go in front of the Senate or offer more details, BK needs to be confirmed because then it's just one non-committal's word against a forceful denial. Is that a precedent you want to set?
When Kavanaugh started denying it in absolute terms, I changed my tune because it occurred to me that this guy is going to be a supreme court justice. If the event actually took place the way she described, then it means Mr. K is lying! If so, that can't be tolerated for a supreme court justice. It may be OK for a president(
We have no way proving whether the event purported actually occured or not. What do you suggest in that case?
Freeze every public official who has ever had a true/ untrue allegation launched against them?
You're being hopelessly partisan in the hope of stalling BK.
Last edited:
My replies
1) If it is Mr. K vs. Prof. whats-her-name, and only them, it will become a partisan pissing match, as was the case with Clarence Thomas vs. Anita What's-her-name. I think it's about time the FBI is involved. FBI is the only organization that can investigate the matter close to impartial manner.
2) Don't be silly! In this case, a serious charge has been made, and Mr. K denied the charge. As I mentioned earlier, the attempted rape was some 30 years ago and the rape did not take place. As I mentioned in my post, that was the reason why I did not jump into the discussion. I wrote that off as a "youthful indiscretion."
However, when Mr. K vehemently denied it, it has become a brand new ball game. If he lied, that becomes extremely critical. I think we, at least I, expect near perfection of truism from a supreme court justice. We already have a lying president! We can't have a lying supreme court justice as well!
3) I am becoming hopelessly partisan? Look at yourself in the mirror before you say that!
Last edited:
Let's say President Obama had been through 123 background checks, but there was a new and serious allegation that he was a pedo 35 years ago. The FBI was not aware of that allegation during any of the prior background checks.
Your position would be that there is no need to investigate an allegation of pedophilia, solely because he had completed multiple background checks previously?
the entire confirmation process is all wrong, and is totally disingenuous as to what the position really is.
not only should policy, ideology, and stances on potential cases be asked about, and answered, but they should be the main focus.
imagine a election where all the politicians refused to speak of or give views on anything that might be voted on in future legislative sessions.
these are the most powerful people in the country over the long haul, have absolutely no choice but to legislate from the bench on a regular basis, are answerable to no one, ever, and while everyone recognizes that, the confirmation process does not even begin to do that reality justice..
pretending this is just about understanding Constitutional law is beyond absurd, and an end run around democratic rule.
that said, the position has way too much power for way too long, and no matter how extensive the nomination and confirmation process, should not be an indefinite tenure, but should have a limited term of no more than four yrs, with a one term limit.
how is it even possible to have this much debate on the subject, and have everyone totally ignore the obvious elephant in the room.
not only should policy, ideology, and stances on potential cases be asked about, and answered, but they should be the main focus.
imagine a election where all the politicians refused to speak of or give views on anything that might be voted on in future legislative sessions.
these are the most powerful people in the country over the long haul, have absolutely no choice but to legislate from the bench on a regular basis, are answerable to no one, ever, and while everyone recognizes that, the confirmation process does not even begin to do that reality justice..
pretending this is just about understanding Constitutional law is beyond absurd, and an end run around democratic rule.
that said, the position has way too much power for way too long, and no matter how extensive the nomination and confirmation process, should not be an indefinite tenure, but should have a limited term of no more than four yrs, with a one term limit.
how is it even possible to have this much debate on the subject, and have everyone totally ignore the obvious elephant in the room.
Last edited:
I notice a couple posters are downright angry she waited all this time to come forward. A quick look at the Catholic priest molestation thread did not show anyone angry that people were angry at those people for waiting.
I am sure this all could have been handled better, but in this multiverse we have been dealt this hand. If she does not testify, he will be confirmed. If she does testify and does not hit a home run, he will be confirmed. We have just has a couple day delay.
I am sure this all could have been handled better, but in this multiverse we have been dealt this hand. If she does not testify, he will be confirmed. If she does testify and does not hit a home run, he will be confirmed. We have just has a couple day delay.
The Dems have caused this type of environment . Put aside the delay tactic which is what this is about, pushing the nomination out until after the mid terms. One only has to go to Harry Reid admitting he falsely accused Romney of not paying his taxes. The MEDIA not requiring Reid to prove he didn’t. Then after Romney lost, Reid smuggly shrugs his shoulders and says he has no regrets because it worked and Romney lost.
Lies are not above the Dems in something so central to democracy because in the liberal world, the ends justify the means.
http://time.com/3765158/harry-reid-mitt-romney-no-taxes/
Lies are not above the Dems in something so central to democracy because in the liberal world, the ends justify the means.
http://time.com/3765158/harry-reid-mitt-romney-no-taxes/
What we have here are conservative men apoplectic over the possibility that a woman who has accused a man of sexual assault might be believed.
Check the emotional content of the posts in this thread. On one hand you have people calling for the facts to be investigated. On the other hand you have people foaming at the mouth.
If there's a blue wave this November, it will be wearing a pussy hat.
Yep. Is there anyone saying that he is guilty? We have a lot of people seemingly dismissing her angrily. But is there anyone suggesting he does not deserve a full chance to defend humself?
It was not long ago the GOP nominated people who were very dismissive of rape. One would think not all members caught on to the lessons.
Similar threads
