H
HarryStotle
Guest
You misspelled abhorrent.
Kavanaugh Drama Risks Driving Moderates, Women Away From GOP
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Why?MonteRCMS:
I tried to read it. The author is either obtuse, or a liar himself.
Iâve never viewed Matt Walsh as a liar nor obtuse. He thinks and expounds his position clearly.
To just declare him to be a liar or obtuse is kind of a cop-out, no?
Isnât at least part of the problem with post-modern culture the fact that individuals are afraid to commit to the truth, even in the first step to truth by not being afraid of expressing their current thinking clearly?
Partly it is because they will very likely be attacked by the mob if it â the truth they have come to believe â disagrees with the politically correct narrative, partly because there are so many conflicting views of truth that individuals feel incapable of even beginning to sort it out in a way to resist challenges to it, but mostly because it is easier not to admit the truth to begin with because that way it can make no demands upon us?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Not necessarily, she could just be deluded or confused, (or hypnotized?) or something else without having the presence of mind or intention to deceive, which would be required to catch her in a deliberate lie.
Her claim that Kavanaugh was her assailant with 100% certainty is certainly false. There is no 100% certainty on that, and she cannot have 100% certainty on that. In fact, we (nor she) are not even at the level of 50% certainty.MonteRCMS:
Actually, we canât. Mitchell does not say we can prove Fordâs claims are false.
And actually we can prove some of Fordâs claims are definitely false because if she has made conflicting claims, and she has, then they all CANNOT be true, so at least some of her claims are certainly false, with 100% certainty âin real life and pinky swear.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
You might find them more than a âtad too convenientâ if you were more familiar with Kavanaughâs judicial record.
Copied from another thread
And wouldnât we suppose that Kavanaugh knows stuff that isnât part of the public record? And we might suggest an additional reason why the Dems do not want him in the Supreme Court and Trump does?
Perhaps that accounts for the emotion in his testimony and his inclusion of the Clintonâs, by name, in it?
To answer a point brought up earlier by LeafâŚ
Copied from another thread
You wouldnât suppose Kavanaugh has gotten some wind of payback for all of that, which has made him just a bit twitchy for his family?HarryStotle said:Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded
Except that Kavanaugh was well publicized as a serious potential candidate for Supreme Court when Romney was running for president. A CNN article from 2012 has him second on the list.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/court-romney-list/index.html
The interesting thing is that 2012 corresponds to the time when Ford FIRST floated Kavanaughâs name as her supposed assaulter.
Kavanaugh had a major role in Ken Starrâs investigations of the death of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster, the Whitewater real estate investments of Bill Clinton, and the allegations of Monica Lewinsky that led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the five-year suspension of Clintonâs law license.
The Clintons and the Dems do not exactly have a favourable view of Kavanaugh, so he has been in their crosshairs for some time, including [his part in] the drafting of the Starr Report, which urged Clintonâs impeachment.
âŚ
And wouldnât we suppose that Kavanaugh knows stuff that isnât part of the public record? And we might suggest an additional reason why the Dems do not want him in the Supreme Court and Trump does?
Perhaps that accounts for the emotion in his testimony and his inclusion of the Clintonâs, by name, in it?
To answer a point brought up earlier by LeafâŚ
Perhaps his inside knowledge of what has happened during the Clinton administration, and following, is very crucial to the question of why the Dems do want to keep him out?
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
I think you could make that claim if you were friends at the time, or maybe went to the same school and âknewâ each other from regular socializing.
Sheâs making the claim about someone from a different school and several years difference in age. They didnât move in the same circles at all.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Her best friend in high school, who she cited as her witness, claims to never have met Kavanaugh, so there is that.HarryStotle:
I think you could make that claim if you were friends at the time, or maybe went to the same school and âknewâ each other from regular socializing.
Sheâs making the claim about someone from a different school and several years difference in age. They didnât move in the same circles at all.
A
Annie
Guest
What points in the article lead you to that conclusion?
J
jesucated
Guest
Speaking as a white male, I find this claim absolutely absurd.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Are you claiming to represent all white males or just one?
In which case, why not just say, âSpeaking for myself?â
Oh what the heckâŚ
Look for yourself through the 6100 entries here.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
And Fordâs story that renovations to her house in 2012 where she inexplicably wanted a second front door in the house, leading to coupleâs therapy is beginning to unravel.
The renovations were completed in 2008 and for very different reasons.
Renovation Records Undercut Ford's Exit-Door Account
Real estate and other records undercut a key part of Christine Blasey Fordâs account of why she finally came forward with charges of attempted rape against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavan
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
Then the Republicans should have let him or her testify. It would have impeached Fordâs testimony for most doubters.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I am all for grammar Nazis, so keep up our good work. But in this case, I used the word I meant. That comment about castrating men was so far out there, the idea of taking it up as a rallying cry against the left is parallel to the the bizarre caricatures of other groups used to justify hate in the past. Carol Fairâs (the professor who made the remark) remark is more representative of the criminally insane than of liberals. I looked at your link at the bottom of the post above. I stand by my opinion that a call to murder and castrate is aberrant behavior.pnewton:
You misspelled abhorrent.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
Itâs an idea which has been around since 1967. Now certain women are just being more public about it. SCUM Manifesto - Wikipedia Check it out.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
It was intended to be funny, thus theHarryStotle:
I am all for grammar Nazis, so keep up our good work. But in this case, I used the word I meant. That comment about castrating men was so far out there, the idea of taking it up as a rallying cry against the left is parallel to the the bizarre caricatures of other groups used to justify hate in the past. Carol Fairâs (the professor who made the remark) remark is more representative of the criminally insane than of liberals. I looked at your link at the bottom of the post above. I stand by my opinion that a call to murder and castrate is aberrant behavior.pnewton:
You misspelled abhorrent.
. Clearly the comment from Fair (ironically 
) was aberrant, as you claim, but it was also abhorrent. My comment was in jest to poke a bit at grammar nazis as well as to make an observation, but nevermind.Now we might note that Fair, although representing the point of view of the criminally insane, as you have noted, has kept her position at the college and was, in fact, defended by the administration there. This just might be evidence that the inmates, even criminally insane ones, are indeed running the institution, but letâs not get too worried about that, shall we? No letâs continue sending our children to be educated there. She only represents the criminally insane and not liberals, generally, although the supposed liberals are abhorrently permitting Fair to represent them, despite your claim that Fair does not fairly represent liberals. Ironic, no?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
This was Fordâs friend and the Republicans had nothing to do with not letting her testify. The woman, herself, and her lawyers and Ford agreed not to let her testify due to mental state and illness. She has cancer.HarryStotle:
Then the Republicans should have let him or her testify. It would have impeached Fordâs testimony for most doubters.
Sure, now cancer is also the fault of Republicans, and the Republicans were controlling the womanâs lawyers? Time to remove those tinted lenses and Learn something about the real world, ConstantLearner.
P
pnewton
Guest
Well, it is possible that Carol Fair meant the comment as satire as well. Men do not have a monopoly on making jokes in bad taste, and if it was satire, it was in terrible taste. There are a lot of men that are genuinely concerned that we are moving toward taking claims that are wild and considering them credible on face value, and taking claims that are credible and consider them proof. Priests have already had to deal with this sort of shift.
This whole thing will be done in a few days (most likely). I just hope the vote isnât 100% along party lines, though I am not holding my breath. If it is, then the evidence is convincing to me that the Democrats are a much greater danger to the unity of the country than the Republicans. At least a few Republicans are willing to compromise and put justice ahead of party. On the other hand, if the report shows perjury was committed, the Republicans will have a chance to show their character, or lack of character.
This whole thing will be done in a few days (most likely). I just hope the vote isnât 100% along party lines, though I am not holding my breath. If it is, then the evidence is convincing to me that the Democrats are a much greater danger to the unity of the country than the Republicans. At least a few Republicans are willing to compromise and put justice ahead of party. On the other hand, if the report shows perjury was committed, the Republicans will have a chance to show their character, or lack of character.
A
Annie
Guest
You know those people who say mean things, and when you get upset they say, Hey, I was kidding! Canât you take a joke, and they do this all the time?
Sure, this may be some bizarre form of satire. And we will keep hearing more and more of it until suddenly it isnât anymore.
You know those studies which discuss abuse? Notice they rolled biological fathers in first with step-fathers and then with boyfriends, until we are left with the amount of abuse by âfather figuresâ? Biological fathers are far less likely to commit abuse against their own children, and live-in boyfriends the most. But they are all rolled in together so that is looks like all âfather figuresâ are equally to be feared.
This is how the Left operates, slowly, slowly, which is why that analogy of the frog in boiling water has become so frequently used.
P
pnewton
Guest
This is such a great example of the need to read carefully that I wanted to point it out. Despite what Mark Twain said, statistics arenât lies, but darned if they arenât used by liars all the time. People must read the news carefully. Never take more away than your skills at the language arts allows.
Yes, @HarryStotle, I am one of those Grammar Nazis you mentioned. I live to âcorrect and serve.â I get what you said about changing that word above. Well done.
Last edited:
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
Well, Trump and the Repubs did say âonly two witnesses,â so it was difficult for either Ford or Kavanaugh to corroborate his or her story. No one needed to agree to ânot let her let her testifyâ when she wasnât allowed to anyway.
They could have interviewed her if Trump would have allowed it. Ford has the right to a corroborating witness, and Kavanaugh has the right to full exoneration, if not guilty. Both were deprived, and both will be forever doubted. Whoever is innocent doesnât deserve that.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Why bother, if they had her sworn statement.
Are you a fan of Kabuki Theater?
- Status