Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[Belz...]

Er, just to be clear: being inconsistent is certainly not a lesser sin than being wrong, since a hypocrite is guaranteed to be wrong. So, hypocrisy is certainly no better than being wrong.

But I'm merely being pedantic here. Feel free to ignore the nerd in the corner.

What? No, being pedantic is important. Do go on.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

http://www.shadolsonshow.com/2018/0...n-promiscuity-54-sex-partners-before-college/

Excerpt from the article:

"The inevitable levy break of background information allegedly reveals Christine Blasey-Ford as a prolific high school party girl who is alleged to have bragged to a friend of having 54 sexual partners prior to college. If true, the emergence of five high school yearbooks from exclusive college preparatory school, Holton Arms (Bethesda, Maryland) destroys Blasey-Ford’s self portrayal as an innocent coed 'church mouse' taken advantage of by an aggressive sexual predator."​

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
-- Captain Louis Renault

 

[varwoche]

Yes, I think so. She wrote it under oath and is an attorney. I think it would be churlish to dismiss it without warrant.

Yes, she was hired by one side, not the other. But she behaved well, did her job, and reported her findings.

You and I might doubt her findings, but I haven't seen any clear reason to doubt her integrity.

There's (at least) one aspect that should be dismissed without warrant - the way she presents herself in the report as an impartial actor. This self-described impartial actor focused her criticism solely on one side. What a steaming pile of BS.

 

[phiwum]

As an outsider my understanding is that in the US there is supposed to be a separation of powers between the executive the legislature and the judiciary. By politicising judicial appointments that separation of powers is being reduced. Other countries manage to have a non-political judiciary; there could be a non-political commission that could recommend potential candidates from whom the president could appoint (and the senate approve). Rather than having a list of candidates from a frankly political body which is what has happened in this case.

In practice, it must be difficult to claim that a particular commission is non-political. How should it be selected?

Even the ABA arguably has a political bias. (I'm guessing that it skews left of the populace.) Some political body would have to choose this non-political commission, yes? How does politics not enter into it?

Maybe I'm just jaded, but in the US at this time, it does seem that political allegiances enter into everything, and the notion of a non-political body coming out of the government is sadly hard to imagine. And it's been that way for a few decades, sadly. (There's some truth to the claim that the Bork nomination changed things, I think, but I'm no historian.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

What? No, being pedantic is important. Do go on.

Technically she's nitpicking, not being pedantic. Nitpicking is when you are overly precise about relevant details. Pedantics is when you are overly precise about irrelevant details.

 

[phiwum]

That's all true but, sue me, I'd like people, myself included, to be more consistent in their ideologies so that, when someone on our "sides" does something wrong, we call it out. That way when we complain about those on the other "sides", we have the high ground...

...

...

Damn right.

 

[phiwum]

This. So easily explained away as youthful chatter, but as a Supreme Court nominee he lies without a second thought

Right! Should be part of the administration instead of the court!

 

[johnny karate]

Excerpt from the article:

"The inevitable levy break of background information allegedly reveals Christine Blasey-Ford as a prolific high school party girl who is alleged to have bragged to a friend of having 54 sexual partners prior to college. If true, the emergence of five high school yearbooks from exclusive college preparatory school, Holton Arms (Bethesda, Maryland) destroys Blasey-Ford’s self portrayal as an innocent coed 'church mouse' taken advantage of by an aggressive sexual predator."​

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
-- Captain Louis Renault

True or not, this tells us nothing about the allegations Dr. Ford made regarding Kavanaugh.

But that you and Joecool revel in it, tells us so, so much about what kind of men you are.

 

[phiwum]

BULLCRAP.! I'm a few years older than Kavanaugh it didn't even exist in 1980.

Bullcrap yourself.

I don't know those terms, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist in 1980. It might have. Wasn't anything I encountered.

Your certainty that because you didn't know that silly abbreviation, it couldn't have existed in DC prep schools is just pathetic.

 

[acbytesla]

True or not, this tells us nothing about the allegations Dr. Ford made regarding Kavanaugh.

But that you and Joecool revel in it, tells us so, so much about what kind of men you are.

Their suggestion is that Ford wanted to be molested.

 

[Belz...]

Excerpt from the article:

"The inevitable levy break of background information allegedly reveals Christine Blasey-Ford as a prolific high school party girl who is alleged to have bragged to a friend of having 54 sexual partners prior to college. If true, the emergence of five high school yearbooks from exclusive college preparatory school, Holton Arms (Bethesda, Maryland) destroys Blasey-Ford’s self portrayal as an innocent coed 'church mouse' taken advantage of by an aggressive sexual predator."​

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
-- Captain Louis Renault

Clearly, being promiscuous, she had it coming.

 

[theprestige]

Bullcrap yourself.

I don't know those terms, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist in 1980. It might have. Wasn't anything I encountered.

Your certainty that because you didn't know that silly abbreviation, it couldn't have existed in DC prep schools is just pathetic.

I think you may have missed the rest of the conversation you're trying to participate in.

In which you are trying to participate.

 

[Belz...]

Technically she's nitpicking, not being pedantic. Nitpicking is when you are overly precise about relevant details. Pedantics is when you are overly precise about irrelevant details.

You nitpicker.

 

[crescent]

Excerpt from the article:

"The inevitable levy break of background information allegedly reveals Christine Blasey-Ford as a prolific high school party girl who is alleged to have bragged to a friend of having 54 sexual partners prior to college. If true, the emergence of five high school yearbooks from exclusive college preparatory school, Holton Arms (Bethesda, Maryland) destroys Blasey-Ford’s self portrayal as an innocent coed 'church mouse' taken advantage of by an aggressive sexual predator."​

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
-- Captain Louis Renault

You made similar claims about Julie Swetnick. Why do you do this?

Do you think that promiscuous women can't be raped, because they would agree to it anyway?
Do you think that promiscuous women deserve to be raped?

Your posting history to a strong degree suggests that you believe one or the other.

 

[phiwum]

Of course it does. You're questioning our motives for opposing whiney liar boy. As if we don't know that Trump has 2 more years left in his term and there is a full 3 months with the present Senate to push through the nomination through if they are concerned about the mid terms.

Which, frankly, looks likely to be in their favor in the Senate.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I don't give a flying rodent's rectum how many times Side A said something wrong about Side B. It doesn't matter. It's not relevant.

The thing being discussed either did or did not happen.
The truth is not a bank account you get to overdraw and add more money to and vice versa. You don't get a freebie because the other side did it too.

It did happen. It is on tape. You have seen at least snippets of the video: Kav acted like a churlish school boy when asked questions during his job interview and spouted out conspiracy theories about the Clintons.

That is all you need to know. The claimed sexual assault is not even relevant to me at this point. He is not suited to be on the highest court.

 

[acbytesla]

Which, frankly, looks likely to be in their favor in the Senate.

Exactly. I hate to say it but the Dems could easily lose a couple of Senate seats in this class even if there is a blue wave in the house. So from a pure partisan position, it's kind of worthless to oppose this scumbag.

From a position of doing right by the country he should be opposed.

 

[Joecool]

True or not, this tells us nothing about the allegations Dr. Ford made regarding Kavanaugh.

But that you and Joecool revel in it, tells us so, so much about what kind of men you are.

Typical whiny liberal bigoted response.

Maybe your response shows your lack of integrity and your ability to find guilt in a he said she said accusation. In the US, someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have basically declared Kavanaugh guilty and preparing him for the firing squad.

It doesn't mean her allegation isn't true, but this is a skeptic's forum and no credible evidence has been produced to substantiate her claims. Her "lifelong friend" who was allegedly at the same party, did not corroborate Dr. Ford's story. If and when credible evidence is produced, I'm all ears.

 

[Cabbage]

You have basically declared Kavanaugh guilty and preparing him for the firing squad.

"You have basically declared Kavanaugh unfit to serve on the Supreme Court."

There. I fixed your straw man for you.

You're Welcome!

 

[acbytesla]

Typical whiny liberal bigoted response.

Maybe your response shows your lack of integrity and your ability to find guilt in a he said she said accusation. In the US, someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have basically declared Kavanaugh guilty and preparing him for the firing squad.

Total nonsensical hyperbole. This wasn't a court of law, Kavanaugh is not standing trial. I agree with you there is not enough evidence of the assault to convict Kavanaugh of anything. He's criminally NOT GUILTY. But we have no business using that high standard in what is effectively a job interview.

It was his testimony, not her accusation which demonstrated his lack of character and judicial temperament that we should demand of of a Supreme Court Justice.