Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[oxmixmudd]

Jim if you are wrong and she is lying or mistaken, then by supporting her, you are wrong and have contributed to the abuse of an innocent person. Doesn't that bother you at all??

You would be correct if I had attacked Kavanagh. I have not. I have said there is not sufficient evidemse to denigrate or be hostile to him either. And yes, if I had denigrated Kavanaugh based on a belief Ford is likely telling the truth, the possibility he might be innocent and Forder could be lying would indeed bother me a lot. And that is why I haven't done it.

Jim

[Sparko]

You would be correct if I had attacked Kavanagh. I have not. I have said there is not sufficient evidemse to denigrate or be hostile to him either. And yes, if I had denigrated Kavanaugh based on a belief Ford is likely telling the truth, the possibility he might be innocent and Forder could be lying would indeed bother me a lot. And that is why I haven't done it.

Jim

You have attacked Kavanaugh just as much as someone defending Kavanaugh is attacking Ford. By believing her you are calling him a sexual predator and liar.

The only fair stance is to say that he is innocent unless she can prove him guilty. That is not calling her a liar, nor him. That is saying nobody can know without some evidence. Shroedinger's cat. until we have a way to measure whether Ford or Kavanaugh is right, the outcome is neither.

[Cow Poke]

You have attacked Kavanaugh just as much as someone defending Kavanaugh is attacking Ford. By believing her you are calling him a sexual predator and liar.

If one of these men were the victim of uncorroborated allegations by a woman, and they knew they were innocent, they'd be singing a totally different song. They would not be shaming everybody for not believing her. They would HOPE nobody would believe her.

[Sparko]

If one of these men were the victim of uncorroborated allegations by a woman, and they knew they were innocent, they'd be singing a totally different song. They would not be shaming everybody for not believing her. They would HOPE nobody would believe her.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36969...ign=benshapiro

Seems like this appears a lot in the news, yet people say we HAVE to believe the woman. Apparently not all the time.

This is what the police are for, to check out such accusations before someone gets hurt by a false accusation.

[oxmixmudd]

You have attacked Kavanaugh just as much as someone defending Kavanaugh is attacking Ford. By believing her you are calling him a sexual predator and liar.

The only fair stance is to say that he is innocent unless she can prove him guilty. That is not calling her a liar, nor him. That is saying nobody can know without some evidence. Shroedinger's cat. until we have a way to measure whether Ford or Kavanaugh is right, the outcome is neither.

That is patently absurd. Forming an opinion about the most likely truth is not to attack either person.

1) I have focussed on attacks on Ford like "shes been lyin the whole time" or irrational expectations of a potential assault victim like "if they don't report it right away they should just keep their mouths shut".

2) I have not called out simply expressing the fact one believes Kavanaugh over Ford, or Ford over Kavanaugh. The evidence is inconclusive, different people will find one or the other the more believable.

3) the only fair stance is not to subject either to hostile words or actions regardless of which one we personally find the more believable because there isn't sufficient evidence to justify any such response.


Jim

[Sparko]

That is patently absurd. Forming an opinion about the most likely truth is not to attack either person.

Exactly. So why did you make that claim in the first place?

1) I have focussed on attacks on Ford like "shes been lyin the whole time" or irrational expectations of a potential assault victim like "if they don't report it right away they should just keep their mouths shut".

2) I have not called out simply expressing the fact one believes Kavanaugh over Ford, or Ford over Kavanaugh. The evidence is inconclusive, different people will find one or the other the more believable.

3) the only fair stance is not to subject either to hostile words or actions regardless of which one we personally find the more believable because there isn't sufficient evidence to justify any such response.


Jim

This is a discussion board. People have opinions, sometimes strong, and they want to express them. That doesn't equate to "contributing to the abuse of an innocent person."

That was more drama queenery. I was just pointing that out to you by turning it around.

[Mountain Man]

You can micharacterize what I've said all you want MM. You'll not find many actual words about my own actions in these threads. My words are nothing more than calls to general moral principles taught in most major religions and certainly by christ. They are no more self congratulatory than it would be to say it is wrong to have an abortion as birth control, or it is wrong to steal, or it is wrong to hate.

Your complete lack of self-awareness and introspection is noted.

[oxmixmudd]

Exactly. So why did you make that claim in the first place?

I didn't. But I don't expect you to understand the difference between what I did say and what you are here implying was said.

This is a discussion board. People have opinions, sometimes strong, and they want to express them. That doesn't equate to "contributing to the abuse of an innocent person."

It depends on what is said and how it is said - doesn't it. I can think of some 'opinions' that if expressed a little to strongly here could land a person in a small room discussing them with an FBI agent. But all this is so far of from where I started in any initial post I've made its absurd. I'll go back to how the mess in deep state started out. I pointed out an objective truth. I noted such things are not normally tolerated but were being tolerated there. Daring to point out the contradiction landed me in the penalty box. And that is pretty much how every conversation in Civics goes. You guys form a good 'ol boys club. And I'm an outsider making things uncomfortable. Such is life. But if you think there is any more objective reason for your offense, you are deluded.

That was more drama queenery. I was just pointing that out to you by turning it around.

But you didn't 'turn it around'. You just used the same words in a context where they didn't apply


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

A SC confirmation hearing is not a process in which allegations are dependent upon proof beyond doubt, Lilpix. Everyone concerned found Dr. Fords testimony credible, and said so, then they made excuses and said though she is credible, she must be mistaken. But the accusations against him by Dr. Ford and others were not the best reason for not confirming him, that's just what your fearless leaders wanted you to think, which strategy obviously worked, but the best reason for not confirming Kavanaugh was his uncontrolled behavior and lying under oath to congress.

[carpedm9587]

Great because I never said that either. Nice attempt to nitpick something I didn't say though.

I said:

and you proved it by providing sources for me. Great irony. Thanks.

Your original post is here. I suggest you reread it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Jimmy you are such a misogynist. Why don't you believe LPOT? She is a woman. Why would she lie? Women don't lie Jimmy, remember? And calling women names shows what a bigoted woman-hater you are.

[JimL]

Jimmy you are such a misogynist. Why don't you believe LPOT? She is a woman. Why would she lie? Women don't lie Jimmy, remember? And calling women names shows what a bigoted woman-hater you are.

It has nothing to do with Dr. Fords gender, Sparko. Who ever said that women never lie? You're like LPOT, you just make stuff up that was never said and hope no one notices I guess. And btw, like most all of you here, including yourself, I'm an equal opportunity name caller when deserved.

[JimL]

Too bad there is absolutely zero evidence to back up a single claim made, huh?

Oh but there is evidence Lilpix, you just didn't pay attention.

Again Jimmy, I don’t care how credible she sounds because human memory is faulty and error prone.

Blah blah blah. She also took a lie detector test, and past. She reported it to people before Kavanaugh was even picked by Trump. She also told the story to her therapist and told her husband who the culprit was long before Trump nominated him. There are also many witnesses, who were not interviewed, who corroborated through the media Dr. Fords depiction of Kavanaugh's character.

That’s why police do intevistigations, look for other witnesses, make a timeline of events, check the story for holes, etc.

Yeah, too bad the FBI wasn't allowed to look for and investigate those witnesses who were more than willing to testify, eh?

Every last claim has produced zero evidence and yet you keep wanting to believe, with no evidence.

No, it's just that as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I also keep asking you for evidence Kavanaugh lied and thus far nothing. See, you show you believe what you want to believe, evidence or not. Thus reasoning with you is pointless.

It's hardly worth my time with you Lipix, you could simply google it yourself if you truly cared to know. But here you are. Kavanaugh was found to have lied to Congress back in 2006 when he said under oath that he had nothing to do with the rules governing the detention of combatants, he denied having knowledge of and participating in the GOP's hacking of Senate Democrat computer files which were used to get Bush nominated judges confirmed. And he lied in September concerning the nature of his drinking as well as the meaning of his yearbook entries, i.e. the meaning of "the devils triangle", "Boofing" and Renate Alumnus. The fact that he lied under oath is in itself disqualifying for a seat on the highest court in the land. Now you can have the last word, because reasoning with you is pointless!

[Tassman]

Who? you have evidence she was sexually assaulted?

You have evidence she wasn't sexually assaulted?

On balance of probability, given Dr Ford's credible testimony (even acknowledged as such by Trump at the time), combined with Kavanaugh's substantive reputation among contemporary's as an aggressive, belligerent drunk, very likely prone to the memory blackouts commonplace among such people, then is is a reasonable assumption that Kavanaugh is guilty as charged. Unfortunately, the additional corroborative evidence required to reinforce this probability was deliberately curtained by the WH's limitations placed upon the FBI investigation. The WH and Senate were determined to get their man appointed come what may.

[lilpixieofterror]

Oh but there is evidence Lilpix, you just didn't pay attention.

Blah blah blah. She also took a lie detector test, and past.

Lie detector test are not evidence in court Jimmy because they are not perfect and can be beat. And she has refused to turn over the test results. Why?

She reported it to people before Kavanaugh was even picked by Trump.

She also told the story to her therapist and told her husband who the culprit was long before Trump nominated him.

There are also many witnesses, who were not interviewed, who corroborated through the media Dr. Fords depiction of Kavanaugh's character.

And yet nobody named knows anything about it. Why do you ignore that little detail?

Yeah, too bad the FBI wasn't allowed to look for and investigate those witnesses who were more than willing to testify, eh?

No, it's just that as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.

And yet here you are spouting off conspiracy theories and still failing to produce a smoking gun.

It's hardly worth my time with you Lipix, you could simply google it yourself if you truly cared to know. But here you are. Kavanaugh was found to have lied to Congress back in 2006 when he said under oath that he had nothing to do with the rules governing the detention of combatants, he denied having knowledge of and participating in the GOP's hacking of Senate Democrat computer files which were used to get Bush nominated judges confirmed. And he lied in September concerning the nature of his drinking as well as the meaning of his yearbook entries, i.e. the meaning of "the devils triangle", "Boofing" and Renate Alumnus. The fact that he lied under oath is in itself disqualifying for a seat on the highest court in the land. Now you can have the last word, because reasoning with you is pointless!