New SCOTUS Judge

[Ziggurat]

This objection is meaningless.

It's not an objection, it's an observation. And a correct observation. If you paid better attention, you would have noted that I never objected to the call for releasing more documents or to the release of them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... As one of the MAJOR issues with him is that it looks like he committed perjury to Congress when he was being confirmed in 2006 in direct relationship to his activities during the Bush admin (a judge should NOT be ruling on policy they helped create), your confidence based on those data points is moronic.....

Well well well.. I did not know that.

From the left wing Alternet (go with the facts now, not the handwaving away): Trump's Supreme Court Pick May Have Committed Perjury — And the GOP Appears to Be Suppressing Evidence that Could Prove It

Sen. Patrick Leahy asserts Republicans were ready to request Brett Kavanaugh's records ... until they weren't.

Well here we go, this is something that isn't out much in the public discourse:

One of the top concerns of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding President Donald Trump's Supreme Court Nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, is whether he knew anything about, authorized, or advised the Bush administration on their torture program for detainees in the War on Terror while he served as White House staff secretary.

That's a Bush wound that has been slow to heal.

And then there's the perjury and the Grassley coverup:

In 2006, during his confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh told senators, under oath, that he was "not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants," and had no knowledge of issues about "the legal justifications or the policies relating to the treatment of detainees," according to NBC News. However, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Dick Durbin (D-IL) assert that multiple documents and email chains show Kavanaugh was briefed on the issue, implying he was not honest with the Senate.

Some of the documents Judiciary Democrats say prove Kavanaugh's knowledge of the torture program, and potentially even suggest that he perjured himself in his earlier confirmation, have been marked "Committee Confidential" by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) — meaning that even most senators are not allowed to review them.

 

[eeyore1954]

That answer is totally irrelevant as to how he'd behave on the Supreme Court.

I would suggest looking at his judicial records to give insight.

 

[The Big Dog]

The leftists were ina tizzy because some aide sitting behind the nominee was making the 'white power" sign. Sure she is the granddaughter of holocaust survivors and was merely crossing her arms. what a pack of clowns.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would suggest looking at his judicial records to give insight.

Wait till they find out Kavanaugh is a big believer in the BOFA doctrine.

 

[tyr_13]

GOLLY GEE!!! You think there was some opinions about the president leasing out a hotel from when he worked for BUSH!

That is totes amazing and as always I learn ever so much from the posters here.

How did you hear about the Dear W, Buy W Hotels memo, Love Brett with two TT's memo.

Golly so much information.

Thank you for show how completely intellectually bankrupt your argument is.

Or you're incapable of realizing that he was asked about no hotels during his 2006 confirmation. Either way, your pathetic strutting is actually more relevant that the 'observations' of some other Trump supporters.

It's not an objection, it's an observation. And a correct observation. If you paid better attention, you would have noted that I never objected to the call for releasing more documents or to the release of them.

If you paid better attention, you would have noted that I never said you objected to the call for releasing more documents. Your objection was to their minds having already been made up.

And I don't care if you refuse to summon up the intellectual integrity to admit you were objecting to that, you were clearly objecting to that. Don't defend your arguments if you don't want to, but don't suffer under the delusions that others can't rightfully recognize the tactic and argue against what you refuse to defend.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you paid better attention, you would have noted that I never said you objected to the call for releasing more documents. Your objection was to their minds having already been made up.

No, I do not object to that either. His judicial record is extensive and public. He's a conservative judge. If you're a liberal politician, that suffices to oppose him. Nothing objectionable about that. I object to pretending that your mind isn't made up when it already is, but I don't object to having already made up your mind.

And I don't care if you refuse to summon up the intellectual integrity to admit you were objecting to that

It's funny the rationalizations you make for setting up a straw man. And you're in no position to lecture me about intellectual integrity.

 

[The Big Dog]

Thank you for show how completely intellectually bankrupt your argument is.

Or you're incapable of realizing that he was asked about no hotels during his 2006 confirmation. Either way, your pathetic strutting is actually more relevant that the 'observations' of some other Trump supporters.

GOLLY!!! He wasn't asked about hotels in 2006, well slap my ass, I am utterly shocked why nobody asked him whether he authored a memo regarding whether someone staying in Bush's hotels (which are nonexistent of course) was peachy. That is knock me over with a turnip level shocking.

Say, I know you didn't bother to read the thread for context, but I was responding to the absolutely beyond ludicrous speculation that the documents they have might show "Kavanaugh expressed the opinion that Trump getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign leaders staying at his hotels was peachy?" which is completely ludicrous.

protip: don't wade into the middle of a discussion if you ain't gonna take the time to figure out what the sam hell people are talking about, you dig?

 

[tyr_13]

No, I do not object to that either. His judicial record is extensive and public. He's a conservative judge. If you're a liberal politician, that suffices to oppose him. Nothing objectionable about that. I object to pretending that your mind isn't made up when it already is, but I don't object to having already made up your mind.



It's funny the rationalizations you make for setting up a straw man. And you're in no position to lecture me about intellectual integrity.

Which means now you do admit to having an objection, confirming that your previous post was dishonest. Isn't it better to just say what you are actually arguing, rather than try to hide it?

I'm in a very good position to lecture you about intellectual integrity. Own your arguments. If you think someone has them wrong, clarify. The game of pretending you weren't making an argument you were will not fly when people are perfectly willing to still point out its flaws. You don't get out of the burden of supporting your arguments by calling them something else.

GOLLY!!! He wasn't asked about hotels in 2006, well slap my ass, I am utterly shocked why nobody asked him whether he authored a memo regarding whether someone staying in Bush's hotels (which are nonexistent of course) was peachy. That is knock me over with a turnip level shocking.

Say, I know you didn't bother to read the thread for context, but I was responding to the absolutely beyond ludicrous speculation that the documents they have might show "Kavanaugh expressed the opinion that Trump getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign leaders staying at his hotels was peachy?" which is completely ludicrous.

protip: don't wade into the middle of a discussion if you ain't gonna take the time to figure out what the sam hell people are talking about, you dig?

Protip: I didn't say anything about Bush's hotels and my argument before didn't rely on them. As you were responding to me and quoting my post, my 'observation' of your post stands.

You were not responding to a post about hotels; you were responding to my post.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which means now you do admit to having an objection, confirming that your previous post was dishonest. Isn't it better to just say what you are actually arguing, rather than try to hide it?

What part of " I object to pretending that your mind isn't made up when it already is" do you not understand?

I'm in a very good position to lecture you about intellectual integrity.

After this latest display? Bwahahahahahaha!

To clarify: I never, ever said I had no objection. I said I didn't object to the specific things you claimed I objected to. It's really not hard to understand, unless you're trying to. Which, at this point, is the simplest explanation for your repeated lies.

 

[alfaniner]

Because they have so little time?

The Chairman already talked about how much time it was going to take. Even at the very beginning, he said he was allowing objections and comments to be made Out of Order because it takes less time to let them talk than it does to get back to proper procedure.

 

[tyr_13]

What part of " I object to pretending that your mind isn't made up when it already is" do you not understand?



After this latest display? Bwahahahahahaha!

What part of 'previous post' do you not understand?

When I said you objection was meaningless, you pretended to not have an objection. When you admitted to having one, I asked if it was not better to admit what you were arguing. Somehow you take that to mean that I don't understand what you said? Why? My contention that your admission you do have an objection supports my observation that your pretending you didn't have one was dishonest is predicated on you indeed admitting you had an objection all along.

Again, own your arguments in the first place and clarify openly rather than point scoring, and this wouldn't be an issue. Having intellectual integrity has value, which I'm in a perfectly fine position to point out yet again.

That you think this argument is predicated on my personal qualities or position is just another line of fallacious reasoning you should deal with, but, baby steps.

 

[Ziggurat]

What part of 'previous post' do you not understand?

When I said you objection was meaningless, you pretended to not have an objection.

No, tyr. That one post wasn't an objection. That post isn't the only post of mine in this thread, and does not constitute the entirety of my position on the topic. And your lack of reading comprehension is not a fault I am responsible for.

 

[The Big Dog]

You were not responding to a post about hotels; you were responding to my post.

Hi, it is gratifying to see y'all dive right in the deep end without, you know, reading the thread, or trying to understand the discussion or even being even polite.

NOPE! Now, had one read the thread, or even you know one's own post, one could have seen that you replied to my post 131 (you know your reply is where you called my post moronic)

My post 131 was in turn replying to a post about hotels by another poster, which again, we get that y'all did not bother to look at before saying, and The Big Dog is going to go right ahead and quote:

"You were not responding to a post about hotels." Which bwhahaha!!!

Now kindly get back to REGALING the thread and all who pass this way with tales of how our posts are "moronic," "completely intellectually bankrupt," "pathetic strutting," lacking "intellectual integrity," and "dishonest."

Now I am certain that this is but a partial list and that you shall continue to REGALE us one and all with your vituperative and utterly baseless attacks.

REGALE AWAY!!!

 

[tyr_13]

No, tyr. That one post wasn't an objection. That post isn't the only post of mine in this thread, and does not constitute the entirety of my position on the topic. And your lack of reading comprehension is not a fault I am responsible for.

That post DID contain your objection that you then pretended not to have when responding to my observation that your objection was meaningless. You did this by saying you never objected to something else that I never claimed you did object about. That was an intentional red herring, as I don't for a second believe you lack reading comprehension to the degree that you thought I was labeling your objection to the release of documents.

Your objection had a small adjustment from what I thought; your objection is still meaningless.

Nothing I said is based on you having no other posts in this thread. You tried to deflect away from having to defend your argument by pretending I was objecting to a different argument and insulting me at the same time.

Improve your intellectual integrity and move on. Or don't. Your continued flailing makes the argument for me.

 

[The Big Dog]

Improve your intellectual integrity and move on. Or don't. Your continued flailing makes the argument for me.

Mmmmmmmm, we are being REGALED!

Blessed day.

 

[tyr_13]

Hi, it is gratifying to see y'all dive right in the deep end without, you know, reading the thread, or trying to understand the discussion or even being even polite.

NOPE! Now, had one read the thread, or even you know one's own post, one could have seen that you replied to my post 131 (you know your reply is where you called my post moronic)

My post 131 was in turn replying to a post about hotels by another poster, which again, we get that y'all did not bother to look at before saying, and The Big Dog is going to go right ahead and quote:

"You were not responding to a post about hotels." Which bwhahaha!!!

Now kindly get back to REGALING the thread and all who pass this way with tales of how our posts are "moronic," "completely intellectually bankrupt," "pathetic strutting," lacking "intellectual integrity," and "dishonest."

Now I am certain that this is but a partial list and that you shall continue to REGALE us one and all with your vituperative and utterly baseless attacks.

REGALE AWAY!!!

You were responding to my post, that you quoted. I was not talking about hotels. You know I wasn't, but it's easier for you to pretend.

Your post was not about hotels either. Perhaps you really can't keep up with conversational drift. More likely you are making a pathetic attempt to draw attention away from the fact that this judge was referred for potential prosecution from perjury, and those documents might prove that perjury.

Remember, the thing my post was actually about rather than your intellectually dishonest deflection? Can you address the point properly?

Readers want to know.

 

[tyr_13]

Mmmmmmmm, we are being REGALED!

Blessed day.

Get on my level.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why would any of those documents contain anything like that?
Why wouldn't it be peachy?
He was elected knowing he owned a fancy hotel close to the White House and the Capital Building.

well considering he has been on the Bench since 2006 I am going to go ahead and confidently predict there are zero such documents in his papers.

As one of the MAJOR issues with him is that it looks like he committed perjury to Congress when he was being confirmed in 2006 in direct relationship to his activities during the Bush admin (a judge should NOT be ruling on policy they helped create), your confidence based on those data points is moronic.

The better bet is there is nothing in there on that because they refused to release anything that might hurt the nomination.

Yum yum! That is some fine regaling.

Readers, you see want to know why my post replying to eeyore was IN FACT an REPLY to our correspondent here.

And anyone who says differently:

INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.

Some of the very finest regaling one will ever see.

 

[Ziggurat]

That post DID contain your objection that you then pretended not to have

No, it did not. You are now simply lying, as I have already corrected you on this point. You constructed a straw man, and now you are trying to blame me for the fact that you lied.