Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Captain Cranks

Brett Kavanaugh

Regarding BK's testimony on Thursday  

237 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Just now, Don't Noonan said:
5 minutes ago, Zow said:

Why? Or, in other words, how is that different from what the democrats did with Kavanaugh? 

Democrats publicly went after Kavanaugh in an attempt to ruin his life.  You honestly don't see the difference?

I think the idea they wanted to "ruin his life" is a mischaracterization of the motivation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Democrats publicly went after Kavanaugh in an attempt to ruin his life.  You honestly don't see the difference?

While both were technically lawful, I see them as distasteful tactics contrary to the spirit of the rules done solely for partisan gain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Democrats publicly went after Kavanaugh in an attempt to ruin his life.  You honestly don't see the difference?

The difference is that Kavanaugh actually got a hearing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:
9 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Democrats publicly went after Kavanaugh in an attempt to ruin his life.  You honestly don't see the difference?

The difference is that Kavanaugh actually got a hearing.

Acting like Republicans wouldn’t have done the exact same thing were situations reversed is either laughable and partisan or extremely naïve.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Democrats publicly went after Kavanaugh in an attempt to ruin his life.  You honestly don't see the difference?

I thought it was "doing everything they could to keep him from being confirmed" :oldunsure: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Yes

On what basis did you support McConnell blocking the Garland nomination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

On what basis did you support McConnell blocking the Garland nomination?

For the good of the country.  The basis for all of my political beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, whoknew said:

How was Brett Kavanaugh's life ruined?

By giving him a lifetime appointment to The Supreme Court...oh, wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

For the good of the country.  The basis for all of my political beliefs.

So it was simply about keeping a Democratic nominee off the bench, and not about nominations within so many months of the election.  That's a refreshingly honest, if not hyper-partisan, explanation, but it least it allows you to fully support replacing RBG in 2020 without coming off like a total hypocrite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sideshow Bob said:

You building an ark down there yet? House and family safe?

Last day or so have been fine, but now I'm at work staring out the window as we get dumped on.  I may end up stranded here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don't Noonan said:

You have to consider the circumstances.  Dems doing everything they can to block any nominee.  It was shenanigans and disgraceful.

Let's find a more common comparison with candidates that didn't have any controversy around their past history.  How did the Dems handle the Gorsuch nomination vs. how did the Repubs handle Garland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, urbanhack said:

Let's find a more common comparison with candidates that didn't have any controversy around their past history.  How did the Dems handle the Gorsuch nomination vs. how did the Repubs handle Garland?

I don’t want to take Don’t Noonan’s side but this isn’t a good comparison because Dems didn’t control the Senate.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

For the good of the country.  The basis for all of my political beliefs.

So partisan belief.  Thank you for acknowledging it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

So it was simply about keeping a Democratic nominee off the bench, and not about nominations within so many months of the election.  That's a refreshingly honest, if not hyper-partisan, explanation, but it least it allows you to fully support replacing RBG in 2020 without coming off like a total hypocrite.

 

The problem with this - it seems to me - is Noonan is using pretty short term thinking. It doesn't take into account that - at some point - its likely that the Dems will control the Senate with a GOP WH. And as much as I'd like to think that the Dems would rise above this nonsense and return the Senate to respectability - that's obviously quite unlikely.

I guess my point is that I think Noonan is wrong even when evaluating the world from his point of view. The long term damage from having the Senate behave this way outweighs the relatively limited benefit of having Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zow said:

Or if a reputable forensic expert testifies that the evidence demonstrates that law enforcement manipulated the scene to further inculpate the Defendant...

My memory of Dr. Lee's testimony was that law enforcement did not follow proper and established procedures in some instances and that the failure to do so would cast some doubt on the reliability of some collected evidence and that it would have theoretically also allowed for affirmative tampering with other evidence.  I do not recall him going so far as to state that law enforcement did tamper with evidence to inculpate, just that their failures allowed that possibility to exist and also that their failures also allowed for inadvertence to creep into the interpretations of the implications of the evidence. perhaps my memory is now faded, failing, and inaccurate.  At the time I watched most of the testimony, but it has been a quarter of a century and I have not viewed the testimony since I first saw it. 

 

What do you think, has my memory been clouded, drifting over the years to the point of a present misconception?  Certainly it is possible.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Wouldn’t want any of those 3 on the Supreme Court. 

Agreed.  In the vanishingly unlikely event that a Democratic president nominated Hillary Clinton to the supreme court (which would make no sense regardless given her age), I would be jumping and down with fury over the prospect of somebody so dishonest sitting on the court.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

You have to consider the circumstances.  Dems doing everything they can to block any nominee.  It was shenanigans and disgraceful.

by your own logic, there was nothing disgraceful about it if Democrats believed it was for the good of the country

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

I have no problem with Democrats being upset with what McConnell did.  I would have been upset too if the tables were turned.  :shrug:

Exactly!  And that’s my point about the Kavanaugh hearings.  It’s politics (valid sexual assault complaint or which I’m not litigating here) and the Republicans would have done the exact same thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, whoknew said:

 

The problem with this - it seems to me - is Noonan is using pretty short term thinking. It doesn't take into account that - at some point - its likely that the Dems will control the Senate with a GOP WH. And as much as I'd like to think that the Dems would rise above this nonsense and return the Senate to respectability - that's obviously quite unlikely.

I guess my point is that I think Noonan is wrong even when evaluating the world from his point of view. The long term damage from having the Senate behave this way outweighs the relatively limited benefit of having Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland.

Seems to me the horse is out of the barn for Supreme Court nominations being non-political.  Unless you have a Senate majority the nomination isn't going thru.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jomar said:

by your own logic, there was nothing disgraceful about it if Democrats believed it was for the good of the country

Understood.  But I draw the line when someone is unfairly attacked that ruins their life and family life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whoknew said:

How was Brett Kavanaugh's life ruined?

For one thing, Matt Damon played him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:
1 hour ago, jomar said:

by your own logic, there was nothing disgraceful about it if Democrats believed it was for the good of the country

Understood.  But I draw the line when someone is unfairly attacked that ruins their life and family life.

How was his life ruined?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

For the good of the country.  The basis for all of my political beliefs.

What did Garland have in his background that suggested he was unfit to sit as a Supreme Court Justice?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zow said:

What did Garland have in his background that suggested he was unfit to sit as a Supreme Court Justice?

He was appointed by Obama. 

  • Like 4
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Well, like most Christian denominations, homosexuality is seen as a sin.  Repent and be saved and all.  Id guess most homosexuals don’t consider it a sin and thus don’t ask forgiveness.

I don't want to completely derail this thread from ignoring the obvious Kavanaugh traits that disqualify him from being a SC justice.  This is for another thread.  I'll just point out that "most" Christian denominations understand that Jesus' death on the cross was for all sin for those accept him as their Savior.  Whether they ask forgiveness of a particular sin isn't all that important.  Apparently, that's not the case in the Catholic Church?  Good to know.  I don't think I'd have a shot at being Catholic...way too many rules for me to remember.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Like most religions, they define homosexuality by activity and not existence.

You can be gay and you're fine, but if you start "pushing your friend's penis around" at a party, you're sinning.

Ah, but the great thing about the catholic teachings - its never too late to ask for forgiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Wait...the Catholic Church teaches that if you're gay you're going to hell? 

I don't know about Catholics, but I know Southern Baptist do that is why I no longer am one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zow said:

Yes (arguably a person would have to act on it or “covet” in one’s mind). At least this was the case back when I studied my then dogmatic Catholic faith very in depth in the early 2000s. 

Interesting...thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I don't want to completely derail this thread from ignoring the obvious Kavanaugh traits that disqualify him from being a SC justice.  This is for another thread.  I'll just point out that "most" Christian denominations understand that Jesus' death on the cross was for all sin for those accept him as their Savior.  Whether they ask forgiveness of a particular sin isn't all that important.  Apparently, that's not the case in the Catholic Church?  Good to know.  I don't think I'd have a shot at being Catholic...way too many rules for me to remember.

In the Catholic church if one dies with a mortal sin on his soul he is going to Hell regardless of his faith or otherwise good works. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Like most religions, they define homosexuality by activity and not existence.

You can be gay and you're fine, but if you start "pushing your friend's penis around" at a party, you're sinning.

This was not true under the prior pope.  He made a decree that it is a sin just to be gay and, as a result, several otherwise great priests and monks within the Benedictine Order had to quit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Zow said:

In the Catholic church if one dies with a mortal sin on his soul he is going to Hell regardless of his faith or otherwise good works. 

 

Sounds very forgiving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I don't want to completely derail this thread from ignoring the obvious Kavanaugh traits that disqualify him from being a SC justice.  This is for another thread.  I'll just point out that "most" Christian denominations understand that Jesus' death on the cross was for all sin for those accept him as their Savior.  Whether they ask forgiveness of a particular sin isn't all that important.  Apparently, that's not the case in the Catholic Church?  Good to know.  I don't think I'd have a shot at being Catholic...way too many rules for me to remember.

Well...Id disagree there too...as most do say you must actually repent as part of taking Christ as your savior.  Catholics just go through the whole official confession thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Zow said:

In the Catholic church if one dies with a mortal sin on his soul he is going to Hell regardless of his faith or otherwise good works. 

 

Did jesus death on ther cross not account for that in the catholic church's view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Well...Id disagree there too...as most do say you must actually repent as part of taking Christ as your savior.  Catholics just go through the whole official confession thing.

 

If you mean acknowledges that you are a sinner, i'd agree. That's usually part of the prayer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Did jesus death on ther cross not account for that in the catholic church's view?

Jesus opened the gates of heaven.  We just still can't get there if we die with a mortal sin on the soul. Hence the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick or whatever it's called. In short, it made hormonal 7th grade Woz run to priests for confession a bunch because I thought about the hot chicks in my class pretty much constantly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Sounds very forgiving

I recall this very strict Irish priest in 8th staring me down when I questioned the harshness of this particular dogma. I believe my initial response was something like, "Father, that can't be right..." 

Unfortunately it took me ten or so more years to realize how dumb that dogma really is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To derail this thread further, while the more popular differences between Christian faiths and the Catholic faiths are things like whether Mary had original sin and transubstantiation versus consubstantiation, the ease of getting to Heaven with faith alone versus the difficulty whereby one has to have been baptized, have faith, perform good acts, and not have a mortal sin on one's soul really is, to me at least, the biggest dogmatic difference. 

This is why you may hear even the strictest of Christian faiths referred to as Catholic-lite or why why Christianity is a cop-out for people who just can't handle being perfect all the time. 😛 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Zow said:

To derail this thread further, while the more popular differences between Christian faiths and the Catholic faiths are things like whether Mary had original sin and transubstantiation versus consubstantiation, the ease of getting to Heaven with faith alone versus the difficulty whereby one has to have been baptized, have faith, perform good acts, and not have a mortal sin on one's soul really is, to me at least, the biggest dogmatic difference. 

This is why you may hear even the strictest of Christian faiths referred to as Catholic-lite or why why Christianity is a cop-out for people who just can't handle being perfect all the time. 😛 

The flying spaghetti monster will touch us all with his noodly appendage, irrespective of our works. :bow: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no idea about any of this @Zow  Thanks for the lesson :thumbup:  I've run across countless people who were "ex-Catholic"....I think I am beginning to see why.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I had no idea about any of this @Zow  Thanks for the lesson :thumbup:  I've run across countless people who were "ex-Catholic"....I think I am beginning to see why.

I am ex-Catholic but don’t remember things being as strict as Woz is talking about. I’m an atheist now, but my family is still super Catholic. My aunt was a nun, and my uncle is a Jesuit. Both are very progressive and seem way less rigid in their beliefs than people I know who define themselves simply as Christian

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

Are you admitting this was the Dems attempt at payback?

No. He’s pointing out what hypocrite you are.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, whoknew said:

I'm just joking. I watched the documentary on OJ and the dramatic show on FX or whatever. And based on what was presented there, I would have likely voted not guilty also.

Not a great job by Marcia and Chris.

Of course, this is WAY off topic.

Agreed.  But they can sleep comfortably knowing that he wouldn’t have been convicted if they put in the best case ever.

That jury was never going to convict O.J.   Because the trial, in the jury’s eyes, was way bigger than a double homicide.  It was about Los Angeles.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Commish said:

I had no idea about any of this @Zow  Thanks for the lesson :thumbup:  I've run across countless people who were "ex-Catholic"....I think I am beginning to see why.

FWIW, Pope Francis has spoken much more acceptingly of homosexuals...as things are wont to due in the Church, things evolve/change very slowly. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, zoonation said:

Agreed.  But they can sleep comfortably knowing that he wouldn’t have been convicted if they put in the best case ever.

That jury was never going to convict O.J.   Because the trial, in the jury’s eyes, was way bigger than a double homicide.  It was about Los Angeles.   

The prosecutor made an early blunder which resulted being tried in the specific venue that it was which resulted in the jury pool that they got. 

Edited by Zow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Zow said:

That prosecutor made an early blunder which resulted being tried in the specific venue that it was which resulted in the jury pool that they got. 

Agreed.  I don’t think the venue would have ultimately mattered though.  

Edited by zoonation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.