New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Bogative said:
When anyone says the language he used in his yearbook quotes means something different than what he says they mean.
Click to expand...
The next time someone tells me that vent gleet means anything other than what I say it means (a refreshing beverage, of course) ... I will bear in mind that I'm conversing with a conspiracy theorist.
 
Stacyhs said:
What do you think are the odds that he "forgot or misremembered" everything written in his yearbook relating to sexual or drinking slang?
He "forgot or misremembered" what "boofing", "ralphing", and "devil's triangle" all mean? How convenient.

You think he "forgot or misremembered" what a "Renate alumnius" was when he claimed the term was " used to show affection, to show she was one of us"?
This is the yearbook 'poem' that another boy wrote about Renate:



K's best bud at the time, Mark Judge, described in his book
(The Guardian)

When asked by Sen. Leahy if he was "Bart O'Kavanaugh" K became belligerent and accused Leahy of trying to make fun of an alcoholic:


K would neither deny nor confirm that he was "Bart O'Kavanaugh".
Click to expand...


Yet here are tons of liberal posters willing to believe Ford forgot tons. #doublestandards
 
BeanieBaby said:
Owned by Jeff Bozos. Known liar and womanizing cheat
Click to expand...
First, I want to know your sources for the above claims. Second, do you really not see that Trump is all those things?

I tend to believe people are sincere in their posting, but in this case I am not sure your response is not satirical.

The whoppers Trump tells include talking about his historical landslide EC college victory. Mark Levin actually eviscerated Trump on this topic. He's barely in the bottom quartile of EC victories. There's no reason to rely on WaPo if you find it untrustworthy. He lies constantly, often in easily verifiable ways from public records. He could think he was telling the truth, but not without revealing that he's not quite right in the head.
 
Last edited:
alfaniner said:
Geez, the Judicial Crisis Network works fast...

New political saturation ad with several old girlfriends stating why Kav must be approved.
Click to expand...
Why fast? They've had two weeks to make it just in case. Only losers and Democrats sit around waiting for "the process" to fail on its own before considering their next step. Winners prep.

Similarly, how do you think the GOP managed to get 65 women who knew him in high school to sign a letter supporting him overnight after the allegations broke? They knew they were coming and had it ready beforehand, that's how.
 
Saw this on twitter earlier regarding statute of limitations and Kavanaugh.

DoT0BN7W0AAxPXt.jpg
 
River said:
Yet here are tons of liberal posters willing to believe Ford forgot tons. #doublestandards
Click to expand...

Really? Could you please explain how the senators questions could be perceived as making fun of an alcoholic? Kavanaughs pathetic distraction didn't even make sense.
 
River said:
Funny how selective people are when it fits their narrative.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It explains why you're ignoring the questions put to you by me about memory, and the research linked to by me about memory. You choose to ignore that in order to keep pushing the narrative that you want to push.

This seems to be your usual MO, although you don't normally do it while railing against your own actions.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
I'm confused. Do you want the real reason, or what Trump would see as the reason, or how one of his lackeys would convince him? They're all variations on "because he really did do it" anyway.
Click to expand...

I know. But are they really not able to act independently of Trump's orders?

Let's say they go and interview Person A on the list and they say, "Person X has told me that they witnessed everything\" or for the sake of complete impartiality "Person X has told me that Dr Ford made up the whole thing", but Person X is not on the list, does this mean that the FBI cannot interview them?

Or let's say that a pile of evidence mounts up and it is damning, at least of one person's story, but it will take a few weeks to leaf through it. Now, I can understand if the Senate says that they are going to take the vote anyway, but I cannot understand the idea that the FBI must suspend their investigation because it went longer than a week. That would be insane!
 
Cabbage said:
What evidence do you have that Omar Mateen's call to 911 was anything other than an afterthought?

Looks to me like the bias is yours.
Click to expand...

In the hours before the shooting, Mateen used several Facebook accounts to write posts vowing vengeance for American airstrikes in Iraq and Syria and to search for content related to terrorism. These posts, since deleted, were recovered and included in an open letter[123] by Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg seeking further information about Mateen's use of the site.
Click to expand...

I bolded the relevant part so no one misses it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting#cite_note-123
 
River said:
Saw this on twitter earlier regarding statute of limitations and Kavanaugh.

View attachment 38996
Click to expand...

Sorry, I tried to make out what it says. It was something like this, "In 1982, assault and attempted rape were misdemeanors and therefore subject to a one-year statute of limitations"?

Right, so Kavanaugh can't be prosecuted for this.

I take it you don't think that ends the matter, do you?

Because assuming that he cannot be prosecuted for his alleged crime, if it turns out to be true, he can and obviously should be stripped of his role as a judge of any kind and prosecuted for perjury.
 
River said:
Funny how selective people are when it fits their narrative. Lets just all forget about what the accuser said about burned in memories. Lets forget all the inconsistencies involved, and just believe. Right?
Click to expand...
So what's your theory? She's lying? Delusional? Mistaken identity?

According to experts, false rape accusations are the exception. (2-10%) According to the same experts, there are common motivations -- revenge, divorce/custody battle, monetary shakedown. These motivations do not appear to be in play here, making it even more unlikely that she's lying. And there's no evidence that she's delusional.

If I were on the jury for a criminal trial, the facts are such that I couldn't even come close to convicting. Yet I'm confident that he did the things she said he did.

And on the other hand, it's obvious that Kavanaugh is a weasel and a liar. I suspect the 2-10% number goes WAY down then the accused is an obvious weasel/liar.

A random, tangential observation... I was bleakly amused by Kavenaugh's "I was too busy being the best student, captain of team" etc. As if Big Man on Campus is actually a valid alibi, as opposed to a potential enabling factor.
 
varwoche said:
So what's your theory? She's lying? Delusional? Mistaken identity?
Click to expand...

As someone in a similar position as the person you replied to, let me share my answer.

I have no theory. She has not presented enough to even warrant the consideration of a theory.
 
BobTheCoward said:
As someone in a similar position as the person you replied to, let me share my answer.

I have no theory. She has not presented enough to even warrant the consideration of a theory.
Click to expand...
Never mind "theory". If you can't formulate a plausible alternate scenario, that speaks poorly for the skeptical position you're taking.
 
varwoche said:
Never mind "theory". If you can't formulate a plausible alternate scenario, that speaks poorly for the skeptical position you're taking.
Click to expand...

As a skeptic, it isn't my job to formulate alternative scenarios. It is on the person making the claim to substantiate theirs.
 
varwoche said:
Evasive bs that precludes Occam.
Click to expand...

There are not competing hypotheses to compare.

ETA: and it must still be supported by evidence to be a hypothesis to be evaluated by Occam's razor. Her story is not there yet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom