Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

modestobulldog

Christine Blasey Ford was a political hack after all

Recommended Posts

I'm on the fence as to whether Kavanaugh molested Ford. For one thing, as others have speculated, I think it's possible that perhaps only for a brief period of her life, she drank heavily at that time and so confused the event with someone else as having involved Kav. However, I think Kav was far less than truthful himself in at least one sense. I think he had a serious drinking problem at that time in his life but didn't own up to it. I normally wouldn't much care except he wasn't just interviewing to be an associate in a law firm and therefore a low-level legal advocate. Instead he was interviewing for one of the 9 most important NEUTRAL legal positions in the United States. Their legal chops aside, anyone who would shade the truth in order to obtain such a job can't be trusted to be objective in his decision making once he gets it.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

I'm on the fence as to whether Kavanaugh molested Ford. For one thing, as others have speculated, I think it's possible that perhaps only for a brief period of her life, she drank heavily at that time and so confused the event with someone else as having involved Kav. However, I think Kav was far less than truthful himself. I think he had a serious drinking problem at that time in his life and didn't own up to it. I normally wouldn't much care except he wasn't just interviewing to be an associate in a law firm and therefore a low-level legal advocate. Instead he was interviewing for one of the 9 most important NEUTRAL legal positions in the United States. Their legal chops aside, anyone who would shade the truth in order to obtain such a job can't be trusted to be objective in his decision making once he gets it.

I guess i am on the fence as to whether you molested Ford.

 

Same amount of evidence supports that theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2019 at 2:11 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

The slang terms? No not at all. He was certainly evasive as to how much he drank. But I don’t hold it against him because the point of the questioning was to imply maybe he got drunk and forgot he tried to rape a girl...and the never did it again for the rest of his life. It was a complicated song and dance with dishonest partners that were trying to pin any dishonest move on him as disqualifying for the position. Because it would have cast doubt he was a rapist.

And conspiracy? Did you not pay any attention to what happened? Did you not see a concerted effort mobilized through social media and pushed through by organizations that received funding and are run by political operatives that gained their station by working for and cozying up to the exact people he called out? Did you not see a compliant media, desperate for any story no matter how flimsy, reporting things that were not only not corroborated but were flat out ridiculous as if they were credible? Did you not see the despicable act the Judiciary Democrats tried to put on as if it wasn’t their job to seek the truth as statesmen, because they wanted to hold the seat? Did you not see that Feinstein herself directed Ford to get Katz to represent her, and all the underhanded things that representation did, even to the extent that Ford testified her lawyers withheld from her that the committee would fly out to meet her because they didn’t want to cause undue stress to her?

You are smarter than that. You are far too educated in people of positions of power and the networks that support them to be parroting some conspiracy talk, as if there wasn’t a concerted effort towards a hit job that went up and down through the left. It was a strategy, not a conspiracy. And even if you don’t like Kavanaugh or McConnell or the GOP as they are or were, honest people that know the facts can’t deny it.  Or at least they shouldn’t.

Well, the fact that you don't hold his fairly apparent obfuscation under oath from him against him is probably indicative of your biases on this. Most objective people would be uncomfortable with a candidate for the highest court in the land doing that.

Even if the Democrats had some kind of grand conspiracy to smear him (they probably did), utilizing that kind of partisan rhetoric is not befitting of a Supreme Court judge, period. 

Yes, it was a trying time for him. Yes, it probably was unfair. But that is not an excuse for his inappropriate behavior during the hearing. He's supposed to be a dispassionate arbiter, not an indignant hack.

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

Well, the fact that you don't hold his fairly apparent obfuscation under oath from him against him is probably indicative of your biases on this. Most objective people would be uncomfortable with a candidate for the highest court in the land doing that.

Even if the Democrats had some kind of grand conspiracy to smear him (they probably did), utilizing that kind of partisan rhetoric is not befitting of a Supreme Court judge, period. 

Yes, it was a trying time for him. Yes, it probably was unfair. But that is not an excuse for his inappropriate behavior during the hearing. He's supposed to be a dispassionate arbiter, not an indignant hack.

Only emotionally crippled thinking and extreme bias comes to these conclusions.

There is no evidence at all he lied or did any "obfuscation", of a degree more than any other nominee.

You have always been totally incapable of logical thought, this is just another example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

Well, the fact that you don't hold his fairly apparent obfuscation under oath from him against him is probably indicative of your biases on this. Most objective people would be uncomfortable with a candidate for the highest court in the land doing that.

Even if the Democrats had some kind of grand conspiracy to smear him (they probably did), utilizing that kind of partisan rhetoric is not befitting of a Supreme Court judge, period. 

Yes, it was a trying time for him. Yes, it probably was unfair. But that is not an excuse for his inappropriate behavior during the hearing. He's supposed to be a dispassionate arbiter, not an indignant hack.

He’s supposed to be a dispassionate arbiter when he is in the role of a judge. He was not in the role of a judge. He was in the role of a person accused of heinous acts. No sensible person could deny that’s what the entire hearing was about. Perhaps you think a judge, when not acting in the role of arbiter, should never mount a defense for themselves. I’d say that’s a shame for anyone think, but it’s your own biases, not mine, that have led you there.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

He’s supposed to be a dispassionate arbiter when he is in the role of a judge. He was not in the role of a judge. He was in the role of a person accused of heinous acts. No sensible person could deny that’s what the entire hearing was about. Perhaps you think a judge, when not acting in the role of arbiter, should never mount a defense for themselves. I’d say that’s a shame for anyone think, but it’s your own biases, not mine, that have led you there.

No, I don't think that. 

 

I simply think he could've (and should've) mounted a defense for himself without 

a. obfuscating 

b. utilizing partisan rhetoric 

 

It's pretty simple.

 

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

I'm on the fence as to whether Kavanaugh molested Ford. For one thing, as others have speculated, I think it's possible that perhaps only for a brief period of her life, she drank heavily at that time and so confused the event with someone else as having involved Kav. However, I think Kav was far less than truthful himself. I think he had a serious drinking problem at that time in his life and didn't own up to it. I normally wouldn't much care except he wasn't just interviewing to be an associate in a law firm and therefore a low-level legal advocate. Instead he was interviewing for one of the 9 most important NEUTRAL legal positions in the United States. Their legal chops aside, anyone who would shade the truth in order to obtain such a job can't be trusted to be objective in his decision making once he gets it.

I love the sanctimony given to the Supreme Court Justices, as if they are supposed to be hallowed angels but it doesn’t matter that Kavanaugh already held a lifetime appointment to a court that is almost every bit as important. Yet shading the truth only matters when it’s convenient for you, and by the people it’s convenient to you to overlook. It seemingly makes no difference to you that the processes judge, jury, and supposed investigators, were trotting out outright monstrous fabrications. But because in that environment a man might have downplayed drinking to excess in his teens and early twenties, that itself is disqualifying. Very telling.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

No, I don't think that. 

 

I simply think he could've (and should've) mounted a defense for himself without 

a. obfuscating 

b. utilizing partisan rhetoric 

 

It's pretty simple.

 

I’d love to hear your critiques of the line of questioning while you’re at it. You seem to be presupposing an honest and fair process, which not even the people who wanted him shot down for “belligerence” admit wasn’t a reality. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I’d love to hear your critiques of the line of questioning while you’re at it. You seem to be presupposing an honest and fair process, which not even the people who wanted him shot down for “belligerence” admit wasn’t a reality. 

Sure! 

Most of them utilized quite a bit of presupposition, and it was fairly apparent that they were attempts by Democrats to end his candidacy in one stroke of theater. Was it honest? Hell no. Was it fair? Nope. 

.........

But then again, almost nothing in politics is honest or fair. Supreme Court judges are supposed to be above politics, not actively engage in their divisive rhetoric. He behaved inappropriately, period.

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

Sure! 

Most of them utilized quite a bit of presupposition, and it was fairly apparent that they were attempts by Democrats to end his candidacy in one stroke of theater. Was it honest? Hell no. Was it fair? Nope. 

.........

But then again, almost nothing in politics is honest or fair. Supreme Court judges are supposed to be above politics, not actively engage in their divisive rhetoric. He behaved inappropriately, period.

How can you be above politics in the political circus the democrats have made of confirmation hearings?  While your reputation is being destroyed on a national level, without an iota of evidence. 

They are supposed to be above politics when serving on the court.   Which Kavanaugh has done, unlike Kagan and Sotomayor who are constantly interjecting their political views into their questions and comments while on the court.   Yet your emotionally crippled brain and its bias doesn't really care when it is your side who is serving a political master on the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

Sure! 

Most of them utilized quite a bit of presupposition, and it was fairly apparent that they were attempts by Democrats to end his candidacy in one stroke of theater. Was it honest? Hell no. Was it fair? Nope. 

.........

But then again, almost nothing in politics is honest or fair. Supreme Court judges are supposed to be above politics, not actively engage in their divisive rhetoric. He behaved inappropriately, period.

He wasn’t acting as a Supreme Court judge. He was a man being accused of running a gang rape ring as a teenager by some of the people who were there to investigate, publicly indict, and judge him. But you’re right, you didn’t want him there in the first place. Competently defending himself when he felt he was innocent of being a monster, in an hostile atmosphere with the gears of culture working against him, how dare he. The Supreme Court of the United States doesn’t need anyone like that on it.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I love the sanctimony given to the Supreme Court Justices, as if they are supposed to be hallowed angels but it doesn’t matter that Kavanaugh already held a lifetime appointment to a court that is almost every bit as important. Yet shading the truth only matters when it’s convenient for you, and by the people it’s convenient to you to overlook. It seemingly makes no difference to you that the processes judge, jury, and supposed investigators, were trotting out outright monstrous fabrications. But because in that environment a man might have downplayed drinking to excess in his teens and early twenties, that itself is disqualifying. Very telling.

Kavanaugh formerly held one of 179 positions within the federal court structure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals Decisions of the 13 federal appellate circuits are binding only on states within each circuit. In Kavanaugh's case, the DC circuit. In contrast, decisions of the US Supreme Court are binding on every circuit court of appeal as well every federal district court throughout the United States and its territories. Therefore, to argue that the position Kav held before going up to SCOTUS was "almost every bit as important" as the one for which the interview at issue was held is analogous to saying that being an umpire in the Pacific Coast League is as important as being an umpire in Major League Baseball.

So you're damn right failing to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" when being questioned under oath for a position of that magnitude should be disqualifying.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

No matter how Kavanaugh acted in the senate hearing, @youngrebelfan40 and @SleepingGiantFan would find fault with it.    Their bias and emotions over rule any legitimate thinking process.

They didn't complain about Gorsuch, at all, so I'm going to say that this opinion is patently absurd

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, happycamper said:

They didn't complain about Gorsuch, at all, so I'm going to say that this opinion is patently absurd

You realize the logical fallacy in this statement, right?

If not reread Brs post, then read your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, happycamper said:

They didn't complain about Gorsuch, at all, so I'm going to say that this opinion is patently absurd

To compare the confirmation hearings of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as roughly equal is patently absurd. But in two minutes I found one poster certainly did weigh in on the Gorsuch confirmation, and they were able to look at the calculation of the politicians in response to the political atmosphere of the resistance and excuse it. Funny how it differs on the next go around with an entirely more hostile, and personal atmosphere.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

To compare the confirmation hearings of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as roughly equal is patently absurd. But in two minutes I found one poster certainly did weigh in on the Gorsuch confirmation, and they were able to look at the calculation of the politicians in response to the political atmosphere of the resistance and excuse it. Funny how it differs on the next go around with an entirely more hostile, and personal atmosphere.

No. If they really were going to complain about anything, they would have complained about Gorsuch. Blue's comment stands as absurd. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, happycamper said:

They didn't complain about Gorsuch, at all, so I'm going to say that this opinion is patently absurd

Only because they couldn't find a patsy to make an allegation.

Not to mention they did complain about Gorsuch.

 

Republicans by the way haven't ever Borked anyone.  Not Sotomayor who isn't qualified, Not Kagan who lied by ommission in the hearings over her liberal positions just Like Kavanaugh is accused of.   They didn't attack Ginsburg who is so crazy left she is dangerous to our civil rights.

Democrats have a history of ridiculous character attacks.   Any excuse will work.   They just couldn't find anything to stick at all to Gorsuch. 

But to say they didn't complain is not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...