Kavanaugh

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#76 Post by Bob78164 » Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:19 pm

Jeff Flake wants to postpone the vote until the allegations have been investigated. Republicans have an 11-10 majority on the Judiciary Committee and that includes Flake, so that’s a potential game-changer. Bob Corker also wants a vote postponed until the allegations are investigated. If Republicans try to rush this through without an investigation, I don’t think they have 50 votes to confirm him right now.

In my view, the allegations are sufficiently credible that they must be investigated before he’s confirmed for a lifetime position. We already know that the Court can get along just fine with eight Members for more than a year. But if the allegations bear out, he simply can’t be on the Court. —Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Kavanaugh

#77 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:52 pm

Bob78164 wrote:Jeff Flake wants to postpone the vote until the allegations have been investigated. Republicans have an 11-10 majority on the Judiciary Committee and that includes Flake, so that’s a potential game-changer. Bob Corker also wants a vote postponed until the allegations are investigated. If Republicans try to rush this through without an investigation, I don’t think they have 50 votes to confirm him right now.

In my view, the allegations are sufficiently credible that they must be investigated before he’s confirmed for a lifetime position. We already know that the Court can get along just fine with eight Members for more than a year. But if the allegations bear out, he simply can’t be on the Court. —Bob
Well, here we go again. It's her word against his. Or his word against hers. Is there any proof? How can it be proven or disproven? The timing and the purpose seem very fishy to me. And since Kavanaugh has been nominated and had to be confirmed before, why this hasn't come up before is also rather fishy.

What I'd like to see, just once, is if the charges can be disproven, though I don't see how, is that the false accuser get SEVERELY punished, to try and discourage false charges from being leveled against anyone in the future. One case I can recall that was disproven was the Duke rape case. But to my knowledge, nothing much was done to the false accuser. (From Wikipedia: Mangum faced no charges for her false accusations, as Cooper declined to prosecute her)


Of course, it seems to work the other way. Charges that can't be disproven seem to harm the accused almost always. And it is almost impossible to prove a negative. Except if your name is Bill Clinton, of course. In that case, even proven charges are ignored.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#78 Post by Bob78164 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:56 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Well, here we go again. It's her word against his. Or his word against hers. Is there any proof? How can it be proven or disproven? The timing and the purpose seem very fishy to me. And since Kavanaugh has been nominated and had to be confirmed before, why this hasn't come up before is also rather fishy.
You didn't read the article. She's been talking about this in therapy for years, as evidenced by the therapists' contemporaneous notes. This is not a recent invention of hers.

As for how or whether it can be proven or disproven, the first step is to investigate and take testimony. Under oath. If she gives her account under oath and it proves to be an invention, she'll almost certainly be prosecuted for perjury. Presumably those consequences are severe enough for you. But this can't be ignored. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#79 Post by silverscreenselect » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:54 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote: And since Kavanaugh has been nominated and had to be confirmed before, why this hasn't come up before is also rather fishy.
Do you know every appellate judge, let alone every federal appointee, who gets nominated and confirmed over the course of a year?

What's fishy is the way that the Republicans have tried to steamroll this nomination through without the usual time period for investigating and hearings. And the way in which they mysteriously found 65 women to defend Kavanaugh (even though those defenses don't really speak to the charges) within a day of the charges becoming public. That's what's fishy.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Kavanaugh

#80 Post by BackInTex » Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:22 am

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Well, here we go again. It's her word against his. Or his word against hers. Is there any proof? How can it be proven or disproven? The timing and the purpose seem very fishy to me. And since Kavanaugh has been nominated and had to be confirmed before, why this hasn't come up before is also rather fishy.
You didn't read the article. She's been talking about this in therapy for years, as evidenced by the therapists' contemporaneous notes. This is not a recent invention of hers.

As for how or whether it can be proven or disproven, the first step is to investigate and take testimony. Under oath. If she gives her account under oath and it proves to be an invention, she'll almost certainly be prosecuted for perjury. Presumably those consequences are severe enough for you. But this can't be ignored. --Bob
The names ARE a recent invention.

There is no way to prove or disprove this. It is just slinging mud.

And Bob, what difference does it make either way?
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#81 Post by Bob78164 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:43 am

BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Well, here we go again. It's her word against his. Or his word against hers. Is there any proof? How can it be proven or disproven? The timing and the purpose seem very fishy to me. And since Kavanaugh has been nominated and had to be confirmed before, why this hasn't come up before is also rather fishy.
You didn't read the article. She's been talking about this in therapy for years, as evidenced by the therapists' contemporaneous notes. This is not a recent invention of hers.

As for how or whether it can be proven or disproven, the first step is to investigate and take testimony. Under oath. If she gives her account under oath and it proves to be an invention, she'll almost certainly be prosecuted for perjury. Presumably those consequences are severe enough for you. But this can't be ignored. --Bob
The names ARE a recent invention.

There is no way to prove or disprove this. It is just slinging mud.

And Bob, what difference does it make either way?
What difference does it make? What difference does it make?

If she's telling the truth, Kavanaugh tried to forcibly rape her. Only those who were okay with Roy Moore being in the Senate would be okay with an attempting rapist being on the Supreme Court. And at least Moore would have stood for re-election every six years. This is a lifetime appointment we're talking about. The charges need to be investigated. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#82 Post by Bob Juch » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:35 am

Dr. Ford passed a lie detector test.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Kavanaugh

#83 Post by BackInTex » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:36 am

Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:You didn't read the article. She's been talking about this in therapy for years, as evidenced by the therapists' contemporaneous notes. This is not a recent invention of hers.

As for how or whether it can be proven or disproven, the first step is to investigate and take testimony. Under oath. If she gives her account under oath and it proves to be an invention, she'll almost certainly be prosecuted for perjury. Presumably those consequences are severe enough for you. But this can't be ignored. --Bob
The names ARE a recent invention.

There is no way to prove or disprove this. It is just slinging mud.

And Bob, what difference does it make either way?
What difference does it make? What difference does it make?

If she's telling the truth, Kavanaugh tried to forcibly rape her. Only those who were okay with Roy Moore being in the Senate would be okay with an attempting rapist being on the Supreme Court. And at least Moore would have stood for re-election every six years. This is a lifetime appointment we're talking about. The charges need to be investigated. --Bob
But you were O.K. when is was Bill Clinton doing the attempting. Why the change of heart?

Don't give me your "whataboutism" crap. I'm not defending either, just wanting to understand your different positions on the matter, because from where I sit it looks like, to you, as long as someone is a Democrat, attempted and actual rape is O.K. Juanita Brodrick's and Paula Jone's accusations were not 40 years later. They were much more credible than this charge. And it wasn't Bill Clinton's high school behavior, either. It was his adult office holder behavior.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14889
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#84 Post by Beebs52 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:40 am

I deleted grabienews links since they f!@#ed up.
Last edited by Beebs52 on Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Well, then

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#85 Post by silverscreenselect » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:49 am

Based on what I'm hearing now, I would be very surprised is she is the only woman to come forward against Kavanaugh.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silvercamaro
Dog's Best Friend
Posts: 9608
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Kavanaugh

#86 Post by silvercamaro » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:05 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
Based on what I'm hearing now

Are you talking to yourself out loud again?
Now generating the White Hot Glare of Righteousness on behalf of BBs everywhere.

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14889
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#87 Post by Beebs52 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:06 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
Based on what I'm hearing now, I would be very surprised is she is the only woman to come forward against Kavanaugh.
What are you hearing and from whom?
Well, then

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#88 Post by silverscreenselect » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:09 pm

Here's a description of Grabien:
Grabien is a marketplace where users can buy and sell pre-edited news clips. The company services the growing demand for news video -- enabling bloggers, independent journalists, news junkies, as well as established media pros, to find exactly the clips they're looking for. All content on the site is customizable, enabling users to trim audio and video clips exactly as needed before downloading. Files can also be shared and embedded and come with searchable transcripts.

Users who upload their own clips are compensated every time their content is purchased. Accounts are free. Users only need to purchase the site's currency -- Grabien coins -- once their monthly allotment of free coins is spent. Grabien users can also request TV clips. The site offers clips from more than 1,000 North American/European TV stations.
Translation: Grabien offers "news" articles for sale. If you download and use one of their articles, you pay them, and, since most of their articles come from others who upload them to Grabien, you're essentially paying whoever wrote the article. I could post an article describing some scientist who says the moon is made of green cheese and if people want to buy my article and put it on their blog, I make some money off it. Grabien serves as the middleman. Not surprisingly, the site has a lot of slanted articles, both left and right wing, since those tend to make money.

So, no one is actually vouching for the accuracy of this unsigned article in Grabien.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14889
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#89 Post by Beebs52 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:14 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
Based on what I'm hearing now, I would be very surprised is she is the only woman to come forward against Kavanaugh.
What are you hearing and from whom?
So, what are you hearing and from whom?
Well, then

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#90 Post by silverscreenselect » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:20 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
Based on what I'm hearing now, I would be very surprised is she is the only woman to come forward against Kavanaugh.
What are you hearing and from whom?
So, what are you hearing and from whom?
Internet buzz and an article in Politico about the women who came out in favor of Kavanaugh and are having second thoughts and the number of Republicans who are now having second thoughts about proceeding with the vote. I didn't say that there had been more women to accuse him, only that I would be surprised based on what I've heard.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14889
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#91 Post by Beebs52 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:28 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
What are you hearing and from whom?
So, what are you hearing and from whom?
Internet buzz and an article in Politico about the women who came out in favor of Kavanaugh and are having second thoughts and the number of Republicans who are now having second thoughts about proceeding with the vote. I didn't say that there had been more women to accuse him, only that I would be surprised based on what I've heard.
Oh. Okay.
Well, then

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#92 Post by Bob Juch » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:34 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
So, what are you hearing and from whom?
Internet buzz and an article in Politico about the women who came out in favor of Kavanaugh and are having second thoughts and the number of Republicans who are now having second thoughts about proceeding with the vote. I didn't say that there had been more women to accuse him, only that I would be surprised based on what I've heard.
Oh. Okay.
trump's announcement that this will be fully investigated sounds like he knows he'd better not screw with it.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14889
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#93 Post by Beebs52 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:48 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
Internet buzz and an article in Politico about the women who came out in favor of Kavanaugh and are having second thoughts and the number of Republicans who are now having second thoughts about proceeding with the vote. I didn't say that there had been more women to accuse him, only that I would be surprised based on what I've heard.
Oh. Okay.
trump's announcement that this will be fully investigated sounds like he knows he'd better not screw with it.
No sane person would screw with it. QED on Trump's sanity.
Well, then

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Kavanaugh

#94 Post by Bob Juch » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:52 pm

Beebs52 wrote:No sane person would screw with it. QED on Trump's sanity.
No, on his advisors. He's crazy as a loon.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14889
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#95 Post by Beebs52 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:53 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:No sane person would screw with it. QED on Trump's sanity.
No, on his advisors. He's crazy as a loon.
Oh. Okay.
Well, then

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Kavanaugh

#96 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:14 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:No sane person would screw with it. QED on Trump's sanity.
No, on his advisors. He's crazy as a loon.
Quoteth the loon.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Kavanaugh

#97 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:37 pm

Kavanaugh and Ford will testify before the Committee on Monday. Can't wait to see what the 'protesters' do.
So she'll say he did it, he'll deny it. Everyone who believes her now will still believe her, and everyone who believes him will still believe him. But there will be more to argue about. Whooooppppeee!
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 8652
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: Kavanaugh

#98 Post by tlynn78 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:42 pm

I think I need to revisit my high school year books to see if any of the boys who made awkward passes have amounted to anything. You know, in case I feel traumatized in the next decade or so.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#99 Post by Bob78164 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:43 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Kavanaugh and Ford will testify before the Committee on Monday. Can't wait to see what the 'protesters' do.
So she'll say he did it, he'll deny it. Everyone who believes her now will still believe her, and everyone who believes him will still believe him. But there will be more to argue about. Whooooppppeee!
It's amazing that you can know what effect the testimony under oath will have before you've even heard it. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#100 Post by Bob78164 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:50 pm

tlynn78 wrote:I think I need to revisit my high school year books to see if any of the boys who made awkward passes have amounted to anything. You know, in case I feel traumatized in the next decade or so.
Did you read the allegations? What was described was much more than an awkward pass. It was attempted forcible rape. Dr. Ford claims that Kavanaugh forced her onto a bed, laid on top of her, clumsily tried to get her clothes off her, ground his body against hers, and when she protested, covered her mouth with his hand to prevent her from crying out.

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose it happened that there was video of the incident that completely bears out Dr. Ford's account. Would you still support the Kavanaugh appointment? Is the issue that (not yet having heard what she has to say) you've already decided not to believe her? Or is it that even if you do believe her, you're still okay with Kavanaugh on the Court?

I'm not suggesting, by the way, that the appropriate standard is reasonable doubt. It's not. No one has a right to a Supreme Court appointment. The appropriate standard for the Senate to apply here is preponderance of the evidence. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Post Reply