Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[JonathanL]

DISCLAIMER

The uptick in rudeness is for chrawnus. A one time thing just to provide glimpse into what things might be like if we all joined him and Mountain Man in being as rude as possible. Wouldn't it be just wonderful!

What a load of crock. You're the one who started with the escalation of rudeness in post #1344 when you couldn't handle the fact that I pointed out your hypocrisy in post #1305.

[JonathanL]

Go away, pharisee, and spread your self-righteous manure somewhere else. You're stinking up the place.

I was initially hesitant to amen this post because I wasn't familiar enough with oxmixmudd's posts to judge whether or not he deserved this kind of treatment. After my short exchange with him I can fully assent to your description of him as a self-righteous pharisee.

[oxmixmudd]

So you'd rather call them idiots and fools indirectly?

I realize this is snarky and sarcastic, but if you honestly can't see that this is exactly what you're doing (and have done, more than once), then I think you should do some self-examination.

So - if I'm nice about things I'm a 'namby pamby' Christian? And If I'm direct or a little more aggressive I need 'some self-examination'.

That post is meant for Chrawnus, who is complaining I've being namby pamby by not just naming names. So it seems only fair I should do exactly what he wants ... responding to him.

But of course now you hop on and suddenly I'm a rude nasty fellow. Wow.

Basically - what it boils down to is if I speak, I'm going to be wrong unless I jump on the Trump bandwagon and start accusing Ford of lying and enshrine Kavanaugh as the savior of the Supreme Court.

Sorry, I'll keep to what I actually believe to be true, and except when responding to someone that specifically asks me to be rude and boorish, I'll try to find ways of making my points that do not resolve to direct ad hominem. Not saying I'll always succeed. But I'll try.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

What a load of crock. You're the one who started with the escalation of rudeness in post #1344 when you couldn't handle the fact that I pointed out your hypocrisy in post #1305.

No. But it is clear you can't handle what you've asked for. Enjoy.

[Mountain Man]

There are some serious deficits in your reading comprehension skills when your interpretation of Jesus' own words makes Him condemn Himself to the fires of hell. Jesus used words that are far worse than "fool" to describe the scribes and pharisees. Forget about seeing the forest, you're so concentrated on the bark you're not even aware of the tree.

I pointed out earlier that ox's reading of scripture turns Jesus, the Apostles, and the prophets into "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrites

[RumTumTugger]

That’s ironic, coming from someone ignoring problems with his star witnesses testimony.

plus no source which means JimL asserting something not in evidence again.

[Zymologist]

So - if I'm nice about things I'm a 'namby pamby' Christian? And If I'm direct or a little more aggressive I need 'some self-examination'.

That post is meant for Chrawnus, who is complaining I've being namby pamby by not just naming names. So it seems only fair I should do exactly what he wants ... responding to him.

But of course now you hop on and suddenly I'm a rude nasty fellow. Wow.

Basically - what it boils down to is if I speak, I'm going to be wrong unless I jump on the Trump bandwagon and start accusing Ford of lying and enshrine Kavanaugh as the savior of the Supreme Court.

Sorry, I'll keep to what I actually believe to be true, and except when responding to someone that specifically asks me to be rude and boorish, I'll try to find ways of making my points that do not resolve to direct ad hominem. Not saying I'll always succeed. But I'll try.


Jim

What the hell?

My problem has consistently been crap like the super-duper mega-hyperbole in the bolding above, and your broad-brushing--which you don't even acknowledge in this post. You have been frequently and repeatedly broad-brushing lately, and when called out on it, you...laugh it off, as if you can't possibly be in the wrong.

If you have a problem with sarcastic comments and/or being rude and nasty, what do you call this?

I'm finding that sort of subtle distinction is mostly lost around here. You have to spell it out in bold, with large font, and probably two or three times. And even then, who knows, you have maybe a 50/50 chance of the general audience getting what you are saying?

Jim

Or this?

DISCLAIMER

The uptick in rudeness is for chrawnus. A one time thing just to provide glimpse into what things might be like if we all joined him and Mountain Man in being as rude as possible. Wouldn't it be just wonderful!

And I see no point in wasting large quantities of time on the same. You remember all those posts as I tried to offer rather obvious evidence that the inauguration pictures were not in fact being manipulated? I spent a good deal of time spoon feeding the characters on this page detail by detail. Scientific fact by scientific fact. Doing the math for them all to show how much background is obscured by a standing man at that distance and angle. I color coded each section in each picture. This is just basic physics and the most basic optics. Absolutely objective stuff. No real question about it at all.

And how many could get over their preconceived notions about what the press was doing? How many could even actually discuss the evidence I presented? It was an absolutely eyeopening experience for me. Simple, objective, no possibility of debate except to the most ignorant or the most stubborn. And yet debate and debate and debate they did, with Mountain Man holding onto his little delusion to the very end.

You just sort of disappeared in that one. No one actually said: Yep - you are right.

So don't talk to me about 'ignoring evidence'. That had not one ounce of possible opinion to it. And you guys couldn't rise to what is the simple and obvious truth. This is 90% opinion. There is no way any logical argument I present would even be read, let alone considered objectively.

So if I don't respond to some long list, it is often because it is so much opinion based hoo rah that I know there is nothing I or anyone else could say that could possibly persuade any of you.

The issue of a 5 year old record of Ford discussing the matter provided from the counselor I thought had a chance, but once again I have underestimated the simple boneheaded stubbornness and ignorance* that is in play here.

So - as relates to this list. If you can hold your sarcasm and limit the discussion to the data sans a bunch of ad hominem 'dressing', we can discuss it. And I'll be absolutely honest with you on each element as to whether I see it as significant or insignificant. And I'll provide the best rational reason I can to back up my opinion to boot.

It's up to you.


Jim

*Chrawnus - that direct enough for you?

My apologies to Rogue - don't take any of the crude rhetoric personally. That was for Chrawnus - a one time thing. I have no desire to create a forest fire just to make Chrawnus happy that people are not being 'namby pamby' Christians.

In case you didn't see my post after the hearing, here is what I had to say:

I watched most of the hearing. I caught both opening statements, but missed chunks of the questioning of both of them. Keeping in mind that I don't fancy myself a judge of character or whether somebody is lying:

I thought Ford seemed credible. It sounded to me like something happened to her. But I also thought Kavanaugh sounded credible (more belligerent than I would have liked, although if he's innocent I can understand why). So I don't think Ford is lying, but there do appear to be some holes in her story, and the elephant in the room is the whole "presumption of innocence" thing that seems to be getting beaten to death.

Yesterday was a circus, but not because of Dr. Ford. I get the impression this has gone very badly for her, and I feel bad about that.

It was amened by four people. Please, tell me how I have idolized Trump or Kavanaugh.

So yeah, you're being rude and nasty.

[Mountain Man]

47,000 women die annually from unsafe abortions. 44 million abortions are carried out annually and about half of those are unsafe. Nothing the church does will save unwanted pregnancies. If they had any humanity they would concentrate their efforts towards women’s healthcare.

It is a woman's right to have a safe way to murder her own unborn child!

[oxmixmudd]

What a load of crock. You're the one who started with the escalation of rudeness in post #1344 when you couldn't handle the fact that I pointed out your hypocrisy in post #1305.

And looking at the last sequence as the fires burn higher and higher - this is exactly why I try to stick to more polite forms of communication. I think I've made my point, though it din't take much, did it?

I'm sure it will take a while for this little brush fire to die out. You and MM can go on congratulating yourselves for proving how awful a person I am and never even think about what hand you might have played in this little exchange.

Do carry on ...


Jim

[RumTumTugger]

After carefully reading that report, and looking at the evidence Mitchell cites, I think I'm even more convinced than ever that she was grossly manipulated by the Dems and their lawyers.

You too?

[Mountain Man]

I'm actually kinda surprised ox hasn't pulled out the "Jesus could read their hearts and minds" canard without realizing that Jesus was judging their words and actions and not their secret inner thoughts.

[JonathanL]

And looking at the last sequence as the fires burn higher and higher - this is exactly why I try to stick to more polite forms of communication. I think I've made my point, though it din't take much, did it?

I'm sure it will take a while for this little brush fire to die out. You and MM can go on congratulating yourselves for proving how awful a person I am and never even think about what hand you might have played in this little exchange.

Do carry on ...


Jim

What a contemptible and self-righteous person you are.

[Mountain Man]

And looking at the last sequence as the fires burn higher and higher - this is exactly why I try to stick to more polite forms of communication. I think I've made my point, though it din't take much, did it?

I'm sure it will take a while for this little brush fire to die out. You and MM can go on congratulating yourselves for proving how awful a person I am and never even think about what hand you might have played in this little exchange.

Do carry on ...


Jim

The irony is that you apparently do recognize there is a time and a place for sarcasm and insults, but like the self-righteous pharisee you are, you think it's only right when you choose the time and the place.

[JonathanL]

No. But it is clear you can't handle what you've asked for. Enjoy.

I can handle you being rude just fine. What I have a problem with is your self-righteous pretensions.

[Zymologist]

I actually am interested in Starlight's and JimL's claim that the White House is somehow obstructing the FBI investigation, so I meant it when I asked for a source on that. I frankly wouldn't put it past Trump to do something like that.