New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Stacyhs said:
And the Oscar for Best Distortion of What Was Actually Said in an ISF Forum goes to....

(drum roll)

The Big Dog!
Click to expand...

Y’all missed the change our correspondent made to my post huh?

He changed it to read “suspected until proven innocent.”

Yeah, maybe want to walk that back?
 
Oh sorry, “suspected before proven innocent” it is then.

Most people know that the accused does not have to prove his innocence. Different rules for the targets of the leftists, I reckon.
Click to expand...


I know right ?

All those gawd awful freedom-stealing police officers investigating suspects all the time. Who the hell do they think they are ?
 
The Big Dog said:
I see that the leftists are trying to flip the burden onto the accused.

Now BK has to show he was out of town the whole time . Sure he was out of town most weekends or at other events, but that is not corroboration, I guess, guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that Kavanaugh was completely honest in his testimony Thursday?
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh sorry, “suspected before proven innocent” it is then.

Most people know that the accused does not have to prove his innocence. Different rules for the targets of the leftists, I reckon.
Click to expand...

LOL. You seem to be confusing a criminal trial with a supreme court nomination.

Do you see the difference?

For example, if I were a parent and was looking for a baby sitter for my daughter, if even a hint of a rumor of pedophilia is present in an applicant for the job, that person is not hired.

Doesn't mean the person goes to jail. Doesn't mean the person is subject to any penalty. He or she simply doesn't get the job.

Do you see the difference now?
 
I Am The Scum said:
River knows that Kavanaugh was lying in his testimony, Thursday.

River, if the above does not properly reflect your views, then please state them more accurately.
Click to expand...

I've stated my opinion numerous times in the thread. I don't think he should be confirmed. Nothing to do with Fords allegations. I didn't say I "knew" anything. What I said was, I felt like most likely he was not being honest in some of his testimony. That matters.
 
River said:
I've stated my opinion numerous times in the thread. I don't think he should be confirmed. Nothing to do with Fords allegations. I didn't say I "knew" anything. What I said was, I felt like most likely he was not being honest in some of his testimony. That matters.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what do you think BK was not being honest about?
 
Cabbage said:
LOL. You seem to be confusing a criminal trial with a supreme court nomination.

Do you see the difference?

For example, if I were a parent and was looking for a baby sitter for my daughter, if even a hint of a rumor of pedophilia is present in an applicant for the job, that person is not hired.

Doesn't mean the person goes to jail. Doesn't mean the person is subject to any penalty. He or she simply doesn't get the job.

Do you see the difference now?
Click to expand...

LOL did you see that people are asking Kavanaugh for corroboration where Ford does not know where or when it took place.

By the way, critical thinkers know that it is fallacious to try the burden of proof to the defending party, which is what all the leftists are trying to do here, because they know that Ford’s story is totally uncorroborated.
 
Big Dog knows he can't admit that Kavanaugh was being dishonest in his testimony.

Big Dog also knows that he would look like a fool if he implies that Kavanaugh was the slightest bit trustworthy.

Big Dog will talk about other things instead.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Big Dog knows he can't admit that Kavanaugh was being dishonest in his testimony.

Big Dog also knows that he would look like a fool if he implies that Kavanaugh was the slightest bit trustworthy.

Big Dog will talk about other things instead.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

So bizarre.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Do you disagree with either of the following:

1. Kavanaugh was not being completely honest in his testimony Thursday.
2. Anyone who lies under oath should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I asked you a question, where do you get off ripping into me for no damn reason?

I will answer your question, tho.

Yes.
 
I must admit I'm in a quandary. So much of what people are saying about Kavanaugh is true. He's a political operative. He wasn't honest. At best, he stretched the truth about his drinking habits. Like so many high school and college kids of the era, he drank, a lot, and to excess, but he tried to paint a "choir boy" image. It's kind of weaselly.

Then we come to the committee Democrats. They dug through a high school yearbook looking for dirt on a 53 year old man. That's low. That's very, very, low. Dragging a guy in to see if they can catch him in a lie about "boofing". That's bottom of the barrel scummy.

So, either they win, or Kavanaugh wins. If Kavanaugh wins, we get a conservative on the court, with an agenda, who says he doesn't have one. Also, someone who, in his youth, was not exactly a perfect gentleman, and conceivably could have been much, much, worse.

If Kavanaugh loses, the senate Dems win, and they are rewarded for character assassination, invasion of privacy, and generally scummy behavior. Since they are being rewarded, we can expect more of it in the future. However, Trump nominates someone else, but someone who is likely to vote in a way that is almost identical to how Kavanaugh would have voted.

It's a no win situation, but which is the lesser of two evils?
 
Belz... said:
Wow, that's hilar--- oh, sorry, that's right-wing humour, and like left-wing humour it's never funny.

But do go on, keep making fun of sexual assault. You clearly don't care about it.
Click to expand...


Humor is quite subjective isn't it? Some probably get offended watching this too. However, I find it quite funny. (language warning)

 
The Big Dog said:
LOL did you see that people are asking Kavanaugh for corroboration where Ford does not know where or when it took place.

By the way, critical thinkers know that it is fallacious to try the burden of proof to the defending party, which is what all the leftists are trying to do here, because they know that Ford’s story is totally uncorroborated.
Click to expand...

Again, you are confusing the standards of a criminal trial (which takes away rights) with the standards of a supreme court nomination (which grants a privilege).

Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt is the standard that must be passed to remove rights. Much weaker evidence is all that's required to disallow the granting of a privilege.

Would you hire a person rumored to be a thief to manage your finances?

If you can't see the difference then I can't help you remove your partisan blinders.
 
Meadmaker said:
I must admit I'm in a quandary. So much of what people are saying about Kavanaugh is true. He's a political operative. He wasn't honest. At best, he stretched the truth about his drinking habits. Like so many high school and college kids of the era, he drank, a lot, and to excess, but he tried to paint a "choir boy" image. It's kind of weaselly.

Then we come to the committee Democrats. They dug through a high school yearbook looking for dirt on a 53 year old man. That's low. That's very, very, low. Dragging a guy in to see if they can catch him in a lie about "boofing". That's bottom of the barrel scummy.

So, either they win, or Kavanaugh wins. If Kavanaugh wins, we get a conservative on the court, with an agenda, who says he doesn't have one. Also, someone who, in his youth, was not exactly a perfect gentleman, and conceivably could have been much, much, worse.

If Kavanaugh loses, the senate Dems win, and they are rewarded for character assassination, invasion of privacy, and generally scummy behavior. Since they are being rewarded, we can expect more of it in the future. However, Trump nominates someone else, but someone who is likely to vote in a way that is almost identical to how Kavanaugh would have voted.

It's a no win situation, but which is the lesser of two evils?
Click to expand...

"Dragging a guy in to see if they can catch him in a lie about "boofing". That's bottom of the barrel scummy."

Nobody dragged BK in. He DEMANDED to be heard. No one tried to catch him in a lie. All they did was ask him what it meant. HE chose to lie about it. That is not a perjury trap. It was a reasonable question and he lied because the truth would not reflect well on him.

"they are rewarded for character assassination, invasion of privacy, and generally scummy behavior"

The DEMS did not accuse BK of sexual assault; Dr. Blasey-Ford did. The Dems didn't make BK lie. The Dems didn't make him behave in such an aggressive, belligerent, aggressive and unacceptable manner. All investigations are an "invasion of privacy". That's what they are.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Which one?
Click to expand...

Which one what?

Any comments about my expert analysis of the leftists attempt to switch the burden that I was explaining when you attacked me out of the blue.

/I notice you are ducking explaining why you lit into me. No surprise.
 
Meadmaker said:
I must admit I'm in a quandary.
Click to expand...

"Sure we could not put a sexual predator on the Supreme Court... but then I'd have to briefly stop poking the other social-political tribe and drop my end of the rope a pointless round of point scoring and their political pee-pee might look a little bigger than my side's political pee-pee for the brief few moments until the Facebook algorithm tells us what the next thing we're to be outraged about is."

Yes, quite a pickle that. It's practically Sophie's Choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom