ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brett Kavanaugh , Christine Blasey Ford , Congressional hearings , Supreme Court nominees , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 30th September 2018, 03:21 PM   #481
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
And the Oscar for Best Distortion of What Was Actually Said in an ISF Forum goes to....

(drum roll)

The Big Dog!
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?
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 03:33 PM   #482
AnonyMoose
Muse
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 615
Quote:
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.

I know right ?

All those gawd awful freedom-stealing police officers investigating suspects all the time. Who the hell do they think they are ?
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 03:33 PM   #483
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,121
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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.
Do you believe that Kavanaugh was completely honest in his testimony Thursday?
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 03:34 PM   #484
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,781
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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.
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?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 03:34 PM   #485
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 03:36 PM   #486
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,925
Originally Posted by River View Post
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.
Out of curiosity, what do you think BK was not being honest about?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 03:41 PM   #487
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
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?
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.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 03:43 PM   #488
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,121
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 03:45 PM   #489
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
SOP
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 03:45 PM   #490
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,113
You guys have got to watch a couple of minutes of this. It's pretty damned insane.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 03:47 PM   #491
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
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.
What are you talking about?

So bizarre.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 03:54 PM   #492
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,121
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
What are you talking about?

So bizarre.
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.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 03:57 PM   #493
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
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.
I asked you a question, where do you get off ripping into me for no damn reason?

I will answer your question, tho.

Yes.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:01 PM   #494
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,681
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?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:09 PM   #495
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,121
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Yes.
Which one?
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:13 PM   #496
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
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.

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

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:14 PM   #497
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,781
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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.
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.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:14 PM   #498
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,925
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
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?
"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.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:17 PM   #499
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Question

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Which one?
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.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:17 PM   #500
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,224
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I must admit I'm in a quandary.
"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.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:20 PM   #501
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
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.
Well, there is no corroborating evidence supporting Ford’s story at all, which is why you are desperately trying to flip the burden onto BK. If you can’t see that, I suggest you remove your partisan blinders.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:21 PM   #502
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,121
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Which one what?
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
/I notice you are ducking explaining why you lit into me. No surprise.
The level of confrontation I am giving you right now is one that neither of us finds excessive. I'm just engaging in the discourse. No more, no less.

If you really thing my posts are crossing a line, then I encourage you to report them and set a good example for me and others to follow.


Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Which one what?
Which of these do you disagree with?
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
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.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:23 PM   #503
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,639
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
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?
I would dare to say that, if Kavanaugh loses, the USA wins, not just the Senate Dems. Again, Kavanaugh, on investigation, is quite clearly a man who should not have been nominated in the first place for reasons that have little to do with Ford. The whole matter with Ford just gave him opportunity to show them off loudly and clearly again. That Trump seems to be choosing to draw from a list of people who very likely should not be nominated in the first place is an entirely separate and notable problem. The direct choice is pretty clear, really. On the other hand, Kavanaugh being confirmed would likely lead to even more backlash against the Republicans in the upcoming election and in 2020, very possibly leading Kavanaugh to be impeached and removed early as a belated check and balance.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 30th September 2018 at 04:28 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:24 PM   #504
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
The level of confrontation I am giving you right now is one that neither of us finds excessive. I'm just engaging in the discourse. No more, no less.

If you really thing my posts are crossing a line, then I encourage you to report them and set a good example for me and others to follow.

Which of these do you disagree with?
Ok, I will just forget that you posted several incredibly false statements attacking me out of the blue.

The first
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:29 PM   #505
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,080
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"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.
Woah now. Sophie never had to consider supporting a Democrat.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:29 PM   #506
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,797
Are we still in the anger phase? Because the bargaining phase is coming up real soon. The acceptance phase is going to take much much longer
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:35 PM   #507
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,121
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Ok, I will just forget that you posted several incredibly false statements attacking me out of the blue.

The first
It's a conversation, not an attack. If my words are too harsh for you to handle, just say so.

And now I know what I need to know. The Big Dog, of the International Skeptic's Forum, upon reviewing Kavanaugh's Thursday testimony, said, "Yeah, that's what a completely honest person looks like."

I appreciate your assistance.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:35 PM   #508
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,080
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Are we still in the anger phase? Because the bargaining phase is coming up real soon. The acceptance phase is going to take much much longer
No, we're still in the denial phase. People are telling themselves that surely, at some point, the adults in the room will take charge and we can all forget any of this ever happened.

You haven't seen the anger phase yet.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:45 PM   #509
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
It's a conversation, not an attack. If my words are too harsh for you to handle, just say so.

And now I know what I need to know. The Big Dog, of the International Skeptic's Forum, upon reviewing Kavanaugh's Thursday testimony, said, "Yeah, that's what a completely honest person looks like."

I appreciate your assistance.
I knew your questions were completely dishonest.

I appreciate your assistance in proving that.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:48 PM   #510
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,335
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Good thing River said "support", rather than either of the words you used.
But that's also false.

Not remembering the event is understandable for everyone aside from Judge, Kavanaugh and Ford. Judge and Kavanaugh have, for obvious reasons, a motive to deny the events.

That others don't remember really matters not at all. It's a lack of evidence, not support, unless we have good reason to believe that that night would've been memorable for them. I don't see why it would.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:54 PM   #511
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,287
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
That quote is not from Orrin Hatch. (Can anyone seriously suggest that Orrin Hatch talks that way?)

That quote is from Jonah Goldberg, in this article:

https://www.nationalreview.com/g-fil...l-panic-phase/
It didn't seem likely the goody two shoes Mormon said that.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:54 PM   #512
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,681
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
"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.
If you believe that, you are hopelessly naïve.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:56 PM   #513
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,335
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
Kellyanne Conway is now a member of the #metoo movement.

But she didn't report it to the police, and she's only speaking up about now... many years later.

Therefore, she's must be lying and has some kind of agenda going on.

Damn republican commies and their damn lying fake news agendas trying to ruin this country and mens' lives !


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...62fdf206a5.gif
I'd back off this kind of approach. Mocking apparent victims of sexual harassment isn't attractive, whether they're on your side or not.

Plenty of legitimate reasons to disparage Conway. Let's not belittle her claims of suffering from harassment without really good evidence that she's lying, not even if your point is to suggest that the other side is hypocritical.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 04:58 PM   #514
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,781
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, there is no corroborating evidence supporting Ford’s story at all, which is why you are desperately trying to flip the burden onto BK. If you can’t see that, I suggest you remove your partisan blinders.
Despite his claims to the contrary, there is corroborating evidence that as a youth BK had black out drunk episodes. The fact that he's trying to hide that is damning for me.There are also other claims against him, as well.

Honestly, I don't even consider it an issue of "flipping the burden". Is it so hard for Trump to find a nominee without such baggage?

Surely that would be the better course for everyone.

But spin it however you want to; that seems to be your mission here.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 05:01 PM   #515
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,925
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
If you believe that, you are hopelessly naïve.
I see you subscribe to the "perjury trap" idea. Please quote one question that was posed to Kav in such a way that it was designed to catch him in a lie. He was asked direct questions. Whether he lied or not depended totally on Kav, not the person who asked the question.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 05:02 PM   #516
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Charles Ludington, a former varsity basketball player and friend of Kavanaugh’s at Yale, told The Washington Post on Sunday that he plans to deliver a statement to the FBI field office in Raleigh on Monday detailing violent drunken behavior by Kavanaugh in college.

Ludington, an associate professor at North Carolina State University, provided a copy of the statement to The Post.

In it, Ludington says in one instance, Kavanaugh initiated a fight that led to the arrest of a mutual friend: “When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.”

Ludington says he was deeply troubled by Kavanaugh appearing to blatantly mischaracterize his drinking in Senate testimony.

“I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18 or even 21 year old should condemn a person for the rest of his life,” Ludington wrote. “However ... if he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.36f538e36e99
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 05:04 PM   #517
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,335
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
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.
I think that it's incredibly unlikely that he was completely honest. You and I bloody well know that his explanation for "Renate Alumnius" is just laughable.

Doesn't reach perjury, probably, and not really the place to stake one's claim that he should be rejected. Same thing with denial of blackouts. Almost certainly false, but he's literally the only plausible authority on that.

I think his partisan tone was enough to reject him, even if he's not guilty of the alleged sexual assault. We don't need a Supreme Court Justice viewing things explicitly in terms of R vs. D.

Prior to his performance, I could've gone either way. I know that he's mighty conservative and, more significantly, has some remarkable views about Presidential immunity. Those concerned me, could've understood a political vote against him. But his performance sealed the deal. He either doesn't have the temperament to be on the SJC, or he put on a show for Trump and his base, which is just as bad.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 05:05 PM   #518
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,781
To The Big Dog:

How many individual, uncorroborated yet credible witnesses against a nominee are necessary before you recognize a pattern and consider it evidence?

Serious question. I'm looking for a number here.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 05:07 PM   #519
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,335
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
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?
Sorry? Digging through evidence regarding his behavior at the time is way worse than perjury for an SJC nominee?

Seriously? The man is nominated for the Supreme Court of the land. You're willing to grant him a little harmless lying under oath?
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 05:09 PM   #520
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,925
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Damning for Kavanaugh...unless you're a GOP supporter. Then, it doesn't mean anything.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.