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 19th September 2019, 08:16 PM   #3481
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 936
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Name someone in this thread who thought Moore sexually assaulted a teen girl and still supported him.
I took "they" to be the larger constituency. Like the actual people who *voted* for the creep in spite of the multiple, credible accusations that would have sunk a Dem in the eyes of his constituents.
Lurch 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 19th September 2019, 08:58 PM   #3482
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,941
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I took "they" to be the larger constituency. Like the actual people who *voted* for the creep in spite of the multiple, credible accusations that would have sunk a Dem in the eyes of his constituents.

Seriously, do we really need to dig those "Better a paedophile than a Democrat/Liberal" tweets for those who insist on crawling under rocks everything something that challenges their worldview comes into view? Some people apparently have the memory the length of a gnat's fart.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog 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 19th September 2019, 10:40 PM   #3483
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,433
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
If anyone prevented a full investigation it was Diane Fienstein, who appears to have sat on the accusation for weeks until days before the confirmation, someone in her staff decided to reveal the accusation publicly. I'm curious as to why she didn't want a full investigation.
IIRC, Feinstein was given the information in confidence and did what she could to uphold that confidence. Also, there's a good chance that it was not someone on her staff who leaked such to the press. It wouldn't have been about not wanting a full investigation so much as... Meh. I'm just going to invoke a link.

Feinstein hits back at GOP: I didn’t leak Ford letter

Quote:
Feinstein has repeatedly denied that she or her staff leaked the letter from Christine Blasey Ford. Republicans have also knocked Feinstein for not immediately sharing the letter with other senators once she got it, something Feinstein says she did to protect Ford’s privacy.

“I honored Dr. Blasey Ford’s request for confidentiality. It was only when reporters were knocking on her door that I referred the letter to the FBI. At no point did I or anyone on my staff divulge Dr. Blasey Ford’s name to press. She knows that and believes it, for which I’m grateful,” Feinstein added.

The Intercept first reported on the existence of the letter on Sept. 12 and has denied that Feinstein provided it.

The next day, Sept. 13, Democrats announced they had referred the letter to the FBI.

Feinstein added on Monday that the timeline around the letter is “clear.”

“The New Yorker published details on September 14, and Dr. Blasey Ford went public in The Washington Post on September 16. It wasn’t until September 17 that someone with access to the redacted version of the letter read it to CNN, where it was published online,” Feinstein added.
So, in short, by the look of it, Ford told her senator her story in confidence to give firm reason for her senator to vote against Kavanaugh, and because of the actions of others, it became public and her life and the lives of her family were thrown into turmoil. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that Feinstein did nothing wrong in attempting to respect Ford's request.

Further, I think that Kavanaugh's perjury and demonstrated partisanship with regards to stolen Democratic Party documents was already plenty disqualifying before then.

In other Kavanaugh news...

New York Times reporters reveal Brett Kavanaugh asked them to lie in upcoming book.

A "small" lie, but still a lie.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 19th September 2019 at 10:48 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 19th September 2019, 10:53 PM   #3484
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I took "they" to be the larger constituency. Like the actual people who *voted* for the creep in spite of the multiple, credible accusations that would have sunk a Dem in the eyes of his constituents.
Then the accusation is not relevant here, since his post was about engaging in debate in this thread, not with the “larger constituency”. Furthermore, such generic broad accusations are pointless in general except as a way to signal tribal loyalty.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 20th September 2019, 04:17 AM   #3485
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Then the accusation is not relevant here, since his post was about engaging in debate in this thread, not with the “larger constituency”. Furthermore, such generic broad accusations are pointless in general except as a way to signal tribal loyalty.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.

Last edited by zooterkin; 20th September 2019 at 10:02 AM.
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 20th September 2019, 04:39 AM   #3486
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Let's take the one you scoff at: Boof. You say people won't care about that. Sorry, but that is not for you to judge (yet another past example of your disingenuity).

To the contrary, I claim he had a clear motive for lying: Under the accusation of perpetrating a sexual assault in high school, he was attempting to paint a picture of himself as being an innocent virgin child who liked to have a few beers now and then. In order to do so he had to pretend ignorance or even lie about references to promiscuous behavior (such as "boof" and "devil's triangle" to protect his image against the accusation.

Indeed, his own friends from high school have told us precisely what those words meant to their circle of friends back then.

And yet you scoff and dismiss. Why? What justification do you have? Don't give me this nonsense that there's evidence of "boof" being used to mean fart. His own friends have told us their meaning. You, Zig, are the one "bending over backwards" to make excuses for Kavanaugh.

I want you to address this.
Zig?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 20th September 2019, 01:55 PM   #3487
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,286
Ya know, I do have a life outside this forum. But maybe you should change your approach if you don't want to feel ghosted.

Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Do you think the Franken and Kavanaugh events are analogous? Because I don't think they are particularly analogous: The alleged Kavanaugh offenses were much, much worse than Franken's.
They are somewhat analogous: Uncorroborated allegations of sexual misconduct from years ago with no supporting evidence which are then used to attack a politician.
Quote:
Does it matter? I mean, we're just talking about my opinion here; I have no power to effect the world with my opinion. I'll answer your question, though: The accusations against Kavanaugh are far more severe and the main witness against him seemed to me to be significantly more credible than Franken's accusers.
Why are they more credible? The lady whose butt he allegedly grabbed seems pretty credible. The other accounts are too even if you dismiss Tweeden. But I do agree the accusations were more severe. Where I differ is that mere allegations, regardless of severity, shouldn't warrant much when there is no possibility of getting corroborating evidence. Franken would still be a Senator but for the pressure from his colleagues. Kavanaugh's colleagues supported him. That's the big difference here.
Quote:
I don't think those accusations were of such a significant nature to warrant removing a man from his job, but I do think it's quite different in what amounts to an application for a job. A person does not have a right to a job he is applying for. It seems the wiser course would have been to choose someone without so much baggage for such an important (and intended to be non-partisan) position.
I can agree with that but I also don't have a problem with fighting the charges. As you yourself pointed out: Such accusations can be fueled by political motives.

Quote:
And this is without even addressing his demeanor in the investigation, along with the perjury: Even if I was agnostic about Kavanaugh (and I am not) that was enough to disqualify him from the Supreme Court in my opinon.
In my opinion, he's human. I would probably react the same way in an extreme situation like that but it shouldn't reflect on who I am as a person.

Quote:
At this link you will find an enumeration of a few instances that certainly have the potential for perjury:

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/179276...-lied-congress

I'll include a couple here:



which is followed by this Tweet:



I find it rather difficult to believe that sexual references of that nature from a man's adolescence could be so easily forgotten in healthy middle age.

Can I prove he committed perjury? No. As I've been arguing in the Elizabeth Warren thread, that's a rather high bar to cross: It requires knowledge of a man's state of mind at the time for definitive "proof". That's rather nearly impossible. So let me be absolutely clear:

1. I am not proposing a criminal indictment of Kavanaugh for perjury. Insufficient proof.

2. I am in fact proposing the evidence is sufficient to keep him from getting the job.
I don't see it that way. What kind of world would we live in if mere accusations were enough to keep public servants out of office? I think we need to tighten up what we get all up in arms about.

Quote:
Let me give you an example. Suppose you or I are seeking a baby sitter for a 4 year old child. You (or I) hear rumors that a certain job applicant is rumored to be a child molester. Indeed, that is the whole purpose of his baby sitting side hustle. Now, if it's merely rumor, I would certainly think twice about going to the police with such hearsay. But I know damn well I would never hire him as my baby sitter. I feel rather confident that you would not, either.

The point is you're confusing two different standards of evidence. The standard of evidence required to indict and convict and strip away the Constitutional rights of a man is necessarily a much higher standard than the evidence required to disqualify a man from a job.
I don't think your analogy works. If I had a babysitter already working for me and then I heard the rumors, I would fire him just to be sure. That's a very different scenario than what we are working with here.



Quote:
No. Serious allegations only require a credible witness. You make the mistake that many Trump apologists make (I'm not saying you are one; I'm not sure and from seeing you around I tend to think you are not): That the evidence is required to justify the investigation. No No No No, complete BS, you have it backwards:

The investigation is to see if there is corroborating evidence.
But that's not what happens. Accusations are made public before there is an investigation and evidence. The accusations become a political tool. That's how Franken got railroaded and it almost worked with Kavanaugh.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 20th September 2019, 03:15 PM   #3488
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,361
Okay which is?

Are the accusations against Kavanaugh "not credible" or are they credible but "hey lookit over there at what that Demmie-crat did."

It would be nice if you could at least keep your apologetics consistent.
__________________
- "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 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 20th September 2019, 04:18 PM   #3489
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,006
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I took "they" to be the larger constituency. Like the actual people who *voted* for the creep in spite of the multiple, credible accusations that would have sunk a Dem in the eyes of his constituents.
Correct, but don't fall into the trap of thinking Zig didn't know that or even cares. He's trying his thing of picking one element out of a post, arguing every angel of that to death while leveraging that focus to misrepresent the rest of the post. It is the same mistake as thinking they (this time Trump allies posting in this thread) care if Kavanaugh really is a sexual predator or unsuited for the court for his lack of composure and judicial temperament. Trying to prove those things would not change their support for him because their priorities are hurting libs, and having power (or having power and hurting libs depending on the individual).

You have to first convince them (general Trump allies them now) to care. But they won't till they suffer for their bad behavior. They won't come around until they are defeated, and then not all of them for a long time.

EDIT: Fun fact, theprestige and someone else who I can't remember right now actually argued that the continued support of Moore was actually the fault of the Dems, while not denying the sexual assault accusations but just objecting to them being called 'pedophilia' and chastising the 'overreaction'. So even on Zig's terms, well, there it is...
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

Last edited by tyr_13; 20th September 2019 at 04:21 PM.
tyr_13 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 20th September 2019, 06:30 PM   #3490
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,739
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Correct, but don't fall into the trap of thinking Zig didn't know that or even cares. He's trying his thing of picking one element out of a post, arguing every angel of that to death while leveraging that focus to misrepresent the rest of the post. It is the same mistake as thinking they (this time Trump allies posting in this thread) care if Kavanaugh really is a sexual predator or unsuited for the court for his lack of composure and judicial temperament. Trying to prove those things would not change their support for him because their priorities are hurting libs, and having power (or having power and hurting libs depending on the individual).

You have to first convince them (general Trump allies them now) to care. But they won't till they suffer for their bad behavior. They won't come around until they are defeated, and then not all of them for a long time.

EDIT: Fun fact, theprestige and someone else who I can't remember right now actually argued that the continued support of Moore was actually the fault of the Dems, while not denying the sexual assault accusations but just objecting to them being called 'pedophilia' and chastising the 'overreaction'. So even on Zig's terms, well, there it is...
Are Zig and the prestige the topic of this thread?
__________________
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 20th September 2019, 06:39 PM   #3491
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Correct, but don't fall into the trap of thinking Zig didn't know that or even cares. He's trying his thing of picking one element out of a post, arguing every angel of that to death while leveraging that focus to misrepresent the rest of the post. It is the same mistake as thinking they (this time Trump allies posting in this thread) care if Kavanaugh really is a sexual predator or unsuited for the court for his lack of composure and judicial temperament. Trying to prove those things would not change their support for him because their priorities are hurting libs, and having power (or having power and hurting libs depending on the individual).

You have to first convince them (general Trump allies them now) to care. But they won't till they suffer for their bad behavior. They won't come around until they are defeated, and then not all of them for a long time.

EDIT: Fun fact, theprestige and someone else who I can't remember right now actually argued that the continued support of Moore was actually the fault of the Dems, while not denying the sexual assault accusations but just objecting to them being called 'pedophilia' and chastising the 'overreaction'. So even on Zig's terms, well, there it is...
First off, considering that people are calling for impeachment over the definition of “boof”, you really aren’t in a position to lecture me about nitpicking. Second, you’re repeating the same smear you tried before, imputing vague sins of a larger community to individual posters. I note that you don’t actually claim theprestige supported Moore. And you won’t be able to point to actual bad behavior on my part for which I need to be punished. There is one poster here in this thread who actually admitted that they don’t care about the truth, only partisan advantage. And they mostly got a pass, because they were on the right side. So spare me your sanctimony, it rings hollow.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 21st September 2019, 12:39 AM   #3492
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
First off, considering that people are calling for impeachment over the definition of “boof”, you really aren’t in a position to lecture me about nitpicking.
What an absolutely absurd strawman. You should be embarrassed for such an egregious transgression against logic.

As usual.

And I continue to notice you haven't got the cojones to actually respond to my comment on this exact same strawman in post 3523. You are not a honest man. You are not an honest debater.
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 21st September 2019, 07:41 PM   #3493
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
What an absolutely absurd strawman. You should be embarrassed for such an egregious transgression against logic.

As usual.

And I continue to notice you haven't got the cojones to actually respond to my comment on this exact same strawman in post 3523. You are not a honest man. You are not an honest debater.
Nobody's making that argument, but I'm dishonest for not addressing that argument that nobody is making.

Sure, Cabbage, sure.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 21st September 2019, 07:50 PM   #3494
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,609
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Nobody's making that argument, but I'm dishonest for not addressing that argument that nobody is making.

Sure, Cabbage, sure.
No one is making the argument that Kavanaugh should be impeached for the definition of "boof", and you are dishonest for saying that they are.

I am making the argument I presented in post 3523.

Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12/0

Last edited by kmortis; 23rd September 2019 at 06:47 AM.
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 23rd September 2019, 07:23 AM   #3495
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,864
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I took "they" to be the larger constituency. Like the actual people who *voted* for the creep in spite of the multiple, credible accusations that would have sunk a Dem in the eyes of his constituents.
Please adult men going after high school girls is a normal southern tradition. See Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson

"In a newly surfaced 2009 video posted on YouTube, Robertson shares some of his dating advice, which includes that men should marry girls as young as 15.

“Make sure that she can cook a meal,” Robertson is heard telling a group in Georgia in the 2009 video. “You need to eat some meals that she cooks, check that out.”"

https://wtvr.com/2014/01/01/phil-rob...n-cook-a-meal/

So in this case it is just a conservative christian southern thing.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 23rd September 2019, 07:33 AM   #3496
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
In my opinion, he's human. I would probably react the same way in an extreme situation like that but it shouldn't reflect on who I am as a person.
You'd make up a crazy conspiracy theory about the Clintons?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 23rd September 2019, 07:34 AM   #3497
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
First off, considering that people are calling for impeachment over the definition of “boof”
No one's doing that.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 23rd September 2019, 07:39 AM   #3498
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No one's doing that.
Yes, actually, they are. People are calling for his impeachment for perjury, and "boof" is one of the things they point to to try to prove the charge of perjury.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 23rd September 2019, 07:39 AM   #3499
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,286
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Please adult men going after high school girls is a normal southern tradition. See Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson

"In a newly surfaced 2009 video posted on YouTube, Robertson shares some of his dating advice, which includes that men should marry girls as young as 15.

“Make sure that she can cook a meal,” Robertson is heard telling a group in Georgia in the 2009 video. “You need to eat some meals that she cooks, check that out.”"

https://wtvr.com/2014/01/01/phil-rob...n-cook-a-meal/

So in this case it is just a conservative christian southern thing.
This is the kind of argument I'm talking about. Broad-brush arguments where you pick a few (or even just one) egregious cases and use them to damn a whole group of people. It's wrong and you are really making two arguments 1)This behavior is bad and 2)Because this person is X, all people who are X are the same. So if I present cases of people from all parties doing the same thing, it's not a response to the first argument at all; it's a response to the second argument. If you just want to argue that the behavior itself is wrong, I would have no argument with that and it would be wrong to bring up other cases just to say, "this is wrong too."
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 23rd September 2019, 08:01 AM   #3500
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes, actually, they are. People are calling for his impeachment for perjury, and "boof" is one of the things they point to to try to prove the charge of perjury.
Which is not what you claimed.

You said they called for impeachment based on a definition of that word. Now you say they are calling for impeachment based on a lie over what the word means among other lies told to Congress, a crime. I get that you were saying that for effect, but when you then try to make it sound like it was literally what happened, it sounds silly.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 23rd September 2019, 09:05 AM   #3501
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,864
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
This is the kind of argument I'm talking about. Broad-brush arguments where you pick a few (or even just one) egregious cases and use them to damn a whole group of people. It's wrong and you are really making two arguments 1)This behavior is bad and 2)Because this person is X, all people who are X are the same. So if I present cases of people from all parties doing the same thing, it's not a response to the first argument at all; it's a response to the second argument. If you just want to argue that the behavior itself is wrong, I would have no argument with that and it would be wrong to bring up other cases just to say, "this is wrong too."
Hey at least it is about being married like republicans regularly fight to preserve the right for grown men to marry teen girls after all.

But hey this is america there is nothing wrong with parents forcing a 13 year old to marry her rapist.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 09:22 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.