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

Brett Kavanaugh

Regarding BK's testimony on Thursday  

244 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

19 hours ago, Dickies said:

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

I don't doubt any of this as my experience was unique in that I got far more in depth in terms of learning the nuances of the Catholic dogmas. I attended Catholic school from pre-school through college and I paid attention. Because I paid attention I had a priest pull me out of class in 6th through 8th grade to do some independent study where we really looked at the strict dogmas and got into mortal sins and getting into heaven.* In high school I studied apologetics, found it fascinating, and got into the works of St. Thomas and C.S. Lewis in my spare time. In college, I studied the Old Testament with the Benedictine priest tasked with translating from Hebrew to English the then most recent version of the bible. 

In contrast, at least in my experience, most other Catholics didn't get that in depth. Heck, I remember going to church once with my mom, who is a Catholic school teacher, and afterwards raising an issue that I found interesting in the priest's homily. Instead of engaging, I mom sort of stared at me blankly and then commented about how some other kid in church was wearing the same kind of khakis as me or something. And, honestly, I got it. Most of the Catholics I knew went to church to feel good because it's a clear rule. There were many good people there, the priests didn't beat us much over the head with dogma during the homilies, and the concepts of the Eucharist and Reconciliation aren't that difficult to grasp. So, it's pretty easy to understand why or how many Catholics go through it without any uneasiness or feeling that the religion is too strict. 

But, to anybody who looks in to the catechisms and the particular dogmas, I don't know how one could come away without describing them as almost impossibly too strict. 

 

 

*He was the only one of the three priests at my parish as the time to not later wind up on the list of child abusers. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dawgtrails said:

He'll isn't really a thing guys

Probably why Kavanaugh is so willing to lie under oath.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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

It shouldn't have, because there was identifiable reasonable doubt. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 7:24 PM, Gary Coal Man said:

So you created a strawman that conversion therapy is the paramount issue that conservatives are upset about regarding censorship so that’s the hill they will die on?  Cute argument.

So do you want to discuss Dennis Prager’s lawsuit against YouTube censorship which has nothing to do with conversion therapy?

 

Prager/PragerU lost their appeal on this dumb lawsuit today.

Quote

“Despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment,” wrote Ninth Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown

So, the argument was that YouTube should be held to the same standard as the government with regards to the First Amendment. The far right-wing media ecosystem is really, really weird.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, McBokonon said:

Prager/PragerU lost their appeal on this dumb lawsuit today.

So, the argument was that YouTube should be held to the same standard as the government with regards to the First Amendment. The far right-wing media ecosystem is really, really weird.

What the... 

Share this post


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

What the... 

I love seeing the Lawyerguys here #### all over the Constitution, to a man, all because they hate Trump.

Share this post


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

I love seeing the Lawyerguys here #### all over the Constitution, to a man, all because they hate Trump.

What? You think my comment went against the constitution? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

I love seeing the Lawyerguys here #### all over the Constitution, to a man, all because they hate Trump.

This is something you care about now?  Weird....better late than never I guess.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 9:24 PM, Gary Coal Man said:

So you created a strawman that conversion therapy is the paramount issue that conservatives are upset about regarding censorship so that’s the hill they will die on?  Cute argument.

So do you want to discuss Dennis Prager’s lawsuit against YouTube censorship which has nothing to do with conversion therapy?

How about Conservative lawsuits against Twitter which also have nothing to do with conversion therapy. ...

^ This was an interesting exchange. This isn’t actually a “conservative” viewpoint. This is a Trumpite viewpoint. It’s about resentment or a feeling of mistrust of supposed unequal treatment by the press and Big Tech. Technically treating private platforms and forums as de facto state-public squares is like a wildly far left view point that would result in crazy absorption of control over private property by government entities of all stripes. It’s practically socialistic madness. But the point is to defend Trump and reinforce the concept of disenfranchisement, no matter the costs.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This is something you care about now?  Weird....better late than never I guess.

It is also a completely bogus accusation.  

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 100 Democrats were polled, the results would be very similar.  Also interesting how people vastly underestimate the level of partisanship double-standards they employ when judging circumstances.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW this was a great ruling.  We should be embarrassed it ever got this far.  You would think a right-leaning org would be on board with this.  You know, something like private business has the right to refuse wedding cakes to people they religiously despise ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

FWIW this was a great ruling.  We should be embarrassed it ever got this far.  You would think a right-leaning org would be on board with this.  You know, something like private business has the right to refuse wedding cakes to people they religiously despise ...

Aren't these also the same people who argued we don't need net neutrality because government shouldn't tell businesses how to act?

  • Love 1

Share this post


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

This is something you care about now?  Weird....better late than never I guess.

We also aren't ####ting all over the constitution. @Bozeman Bruiser seems to have a fundamental lack of understanding of the First Amendment. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

If 100 Democrats were polled, the results would be very similar.  Also interesting how people vastly underestimate the level of partisanship double-standards they employ when judging circumstances.  

Not if those polled were actual lawyers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Aren't these also the same people who argued we don't need net neutrality because government shouldn't tell businesses how to act?

Are 'they'?  Who are they?  Everyone who argued against net neutrality support's Prager U's silly lawsuit?  Can you prove this?  Of course no one here calls out your completely unsupported assertions.

 

1 hour ago, JAA said:

FWIW this was a great ruling.  We should be embarrassed it ever got this far.  You would think a right-leaning org would be on board with this.  You know, something like private business has the right to refuse wedding cakes to people they religiously despise ...

 

How far did it go?  It got thrown out at every level.  Anyone can file and appeal.  Where have right-leaning org's taken a stance on this?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jon_mx said:
38 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Aren't these also the same people who argued we don't need net neutrality because government shouldn't tell businesses how to act?

Are 'they'?  Who are they?  Everyone who argued against net neutrality support's Prager U's silly lawsuit?  Can you prove this?  Of course no one here calls out your completely unsupported assertions.

 

You could have just said "no". However it's conservatives who argue against NN claiming the government has no right to tell businesses how to operate. PragerU is a conservative organization claiming bias because a privately owned company is biased against them. Seems a bit ironic to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Not if those polled were actual lawyers. 

How would Democratic lawyers respond to this poll?  Take the parties out of it.  Let's just say we have a lifelong well respected  judge who has zero record or even reports of any type of improprieties in his entire career.   We have an accuser who comes forward on the eve on of a Supreme Court confirmation  with some 35-plus year old accusation, which she is uncertain of the year or month or location, which every person she names including her long-time friend can not even recall such a party, a story which was coordinated with political operatives and conveniently leaked at the very last moment, from a person who confided to her lawyer it was politically motivated to protect abortion rights.....what conclusion would most lawyers reach about the accused purposely lying and the alleged victim telling the truth?  I would hope very few could conclude he is purposely lying.  

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


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

You could have just said "no". However it's conservatives who argue against NN claiming the government has no right to tell businesses how to operate. PragerU is a conservative organization claiming bias because a privately owned company is biased against them. Seems a bit ironic to me.

And what percentage of these conservatives who argue against NN now support this lawsuit?  You seem to imply all, but it is probably much closer to zero.  

Share this post


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

We also aren't ####ting all over the constitution. @Bozeman Bruiser seems to have a fundamental lack of understanding of the First Amendment. 

agreed

Share this post


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

Aren't these also the same people who argued we don't need net neutrality because government shouldn't tell businesses how to act?

:banned:

Share this post


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

We also aren't ####ting all over the constitution. @Bozeman Bruiser seems to have a fundamental lack of understanding of the First Amendment. 

No - IMO Bruiser just hates people and their ability to be happy.

Edited by JAA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Are 'they'?  Who are they?  Everyone who argued against net neutrality support's Prager U's silly lawsuit?  Can you prove this?  Of course no one here calls out your completely unsupported assertions.

 

 

How far did it go?  It got thrown out at every level.  Anyone can file and appeal.  Where have right-leaning org's taken a stance on this?   

Please read about the case and let me know your thoughts.  Your statement feels like an argument for the purpose of arguing and not knowing the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

You could have just said "no". However it's conservatives who argue against NN claiming the government has no right to tell businesses how to operate. PragerU is a conservative organization claiming bias because a privately owned company is biased against them. Seems a bit ironic to me.

That said, NN is critical and should never have been repealed.  Our internet providers and their physical medium of transit should be a protected resource, just like railroads (were), electrical utility grid, and the interstate hwy system.  I get your point, but completely different.

Edited by JAA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

How would Democratic lawyers respond to this poll?  Take the parties out of it.  Let's just say we have a lifelong well respected  judge who has zero record or even reports of any type of improprieties in his entire career.   We have an accuser who comes forward on the eve on of a Supreme Court confirmation  with some 35-plus year old accusation, which she is uncertain of the year or month or location, which every person she names including her long-time friend can not even recall such a party, a story which was coordinated with political operatives and conveniently leaked at the very last moment, from a person who confided to her lawyer it was politically motivated to protect abortion rights.....what conclusion would most lawyers reach about the accused purposely lying and the alleged victim telling the truth?  I would hope very few could conclude he is purposely lying.  

1. In evaluating an objective legal question, partisanship has nothing to do with it for a lawyer. 

2. Your second "hypothetical" is drafted in a biased manner and calls for a conclusion of fact (not a conclusion of law). Nonetheless, I assume a lawyer would say, "I cannot answer this 'hypo' without viewing the in-person testimony of each person and trying to determine credibility and bias and then apply the legal burden of proof which is not identified specifically in the 'hypo.'"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

How would Democratic lawyers respond to this poll?  Take the parties out of it.  Let's just say we have a lifelong well respected  judge who has zero record or even reports of any type of improprieties in his entire career.   We have an accuser who comes forward on the eve on of a Supreme Court confirmation  with some 35-plus year old accusation, which she is uncertain of the year or month or location, which every person she names including her long-time friend can not even recall such a party, a story which was coordinated with political operatives and conveniently leaked at the very last moment, from a person who confided to her lawyer it was politically motivated to protect abortion rights.....what conclusion would most lawyers reach about the accused purposely lying and the alleged victim telling the truth?  I would hope very few could conclude he is purposely lying.  

I think its ####ty that a business can deny fair use against a protected class (sexual orientation).  However, SCOTUS ruled that way.  However, if you look at the ADA, all corporations must comply, which is due to a protected class (disability).

That said, I do believe a private company should be able to filter its use in any way it wants.  Speech (people's opinion or what they have to say) is not a protected class.

Edited by JAA

Share this post


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

1. In evaluating an objective legal question, partisanship has nothing to do with it for a lawyer. 

2. Your second "hypothetical" is drafted in a biased manner and calls for a conclusion of fact (not a conclusion of law). Nonetheless, I assume a lawyer would say, "I cannot answer this 'hypo' without viewing the in-person testimony of each person and trying to determine credibility and bias and then apply the legal burden of proof which is not identified specifically in the 'hypo.'"

Of course they can answer the hypo.  The actual testimony may be compelling as she probably has convinced herself those are the fact, but scientifically, some 35-year old memory pulled from the banks of some relatively recent therapy session is about as reliable as a Trump speech.  

Share this post


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

I think its ####ty that a business can deny fair use against a protected class (sexual orientation).  However, SCOTUS ruled that way.  However, if you look at the ADA, all corporations must comply, which is due to a protected class (disability).

That said, I do believe a private company should be able to filter its use in any way it wants.  Speech (people's opinion or what they have to say) is not a protected class.

Which federal laws protect sexual orientation?  Sexual orientation is generally not a protected class on a national level.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Which federal laws protect sexual orientation?  Sexual orientation is generally not a protected class on a national level.  

Good catch - thats MA link.  Its buried in me as part of the hiring process.  Thats prolly why SCOTUS ruled the way they did.

Share this post


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

How would Democratic lawyers respond to this poll?  Take the parties out of it.  Let's just say we have a lifelong well respected  judge who has zero record or even reports of any type of improprieties in his entire career.   We have an accuser who comes forward on the eve on of a Supreme Court confirmation  with some 35-plus year old accusation, which she is uncertain of the year or month or location, which every person she names including her long-time friend can not even recall such a party, a story which was coordinated with political operatives and conveniently leaked at the very last moment, from a person who confided to her lawyer it was politically motivated to protect abortion rights.....what conclusion would most lawyers reach about the accused purposely lying and the alleged victim telling the truth?  I would hope very few could conclude he is purposely lying.  

Hypothetically - just say a random situation in another place or time - the Republican lawyer likely being a conservative would say that family values and character absolutely matter in selecting any judge, and a Democratic lawyer likely being a liberal would say that women's experiences should be respected and heard. I think they'd then both hear the testimony and make their determinations the exact same way after that, if they were being intellectually honest.

But I'll tell you how you can tell how it went sour for one Republican, conservative lawyer - when Lindsey Graham jumped in, started shouting and put a halt to permitting his own hand selected independent prosecutor from Arizona from continuing to keep asking questions on the very evidence that Kavanaugh himself had introduced, his calendar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again, hypothetically, say you run a business and you learn that a competing business has bribed a public official to steal away a major city contract. Does it matter that you stand to profit from reporting this fact? No, of course not, if the information is vetted. - There is this idea in the Age of Trump that political beliefs affect the ability of people in places of responsibility to do their jobs honestly and ethically. That is a crazy, horrible idea.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Hypothetically - just say a random situation in another place or time - the Republican lawyer likely being a conservative would say that family values and character absolutely matter in selecting any judge, and a Democratic lawyer likely being a liberal would say that women's experiences should be respected and heard. I think they'd then both hear the testimony and make their determinations the exact same way after that, if they were being intellectually honest.

But I'll tell you how you can tell how it went sour for one Republican, conservative lawyer - when Lindsey Graham jumped in, started shouting and put a halt to permitting his own hand selected independent prosecutor from Arizona from continuing to keep asking questions on the very evidence that Kavanaugh himself had introduced, his calendar.

Family values played no role because the allegations were flimsy at best.  Kavanaugh is a good man and has a good family.  And that is based on a good liberal friend of mine who worked with him for years.   What Graham did has zero to do with Kavanaugh  Zero.  And quite honestly, the dems deserved a shout down for such a cheap desperate tactic.   It was beyond shameful that Democrats tried to bring up high school antics.  What next, investigate if he played doctor as a 5 year old?  

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Family values played no role because the allegations were flimsy at best.  Kavanaugh is a good man and has a good family.  And that is based on a good liberal friend of mine who worked with him for years.   What Graham did has zero to do with Kavanaugh  Zero.  And quite honestly, the dems deserved a shout down for such a cheap desperate tactic.  

I agree he does seem to be a good man with a good family.

About flimsy. You see my point about Graham though, don't you? He shut off the questioning when the GOP investigator got to drilling on the point in the calendar that sounded like the party that Ford described.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Hypothetically - just say a random situation in another place or time - the Republican lawyer likely being a conservative would say that family values and character absolutely matter in selecting any judge, and a Democratic lawyer likely being a liberal would say that women's experiences should be respected and heard. I think they'd then both hear the testimony and make their determinations the exact same way after that, if they were being intellectually honest.

But I'll tell you how you can tell how it went sour for one Republican, conservative lawyer - when Lindsey Graham jumped in, started shouting and put a halt to permitting his own hand selected independent prosecutor from Arizona from continuing to keep asking questions on the very evidence that Kavanaugh himself had introduced, his calendar.

Still never understood this choice. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon, this is what I'm referring to:

 

**********

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?

KAVANAUGH: No, as I’ve said in my opening statements — opening statement.

**********

MITCHELL: Judge, do you still have your calendar — calendars there?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

MITCHELL: I would like you to look at the July 1st entry.

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: The entry says — and I quote — “Go to Timmy’s (ph) for skis (ph) with Judge (ph), Tom (ph), P.J. (ph), Bernie (ph) and Squee (ph)”?

KAVANAUGH: Squee. That’s a nick…

MITCHELL: What does…

KAVANAUGH: … that’s a nickname.

MITCHELL: OK. To what does this refer, and to whom?

KAVANAUGH: So first, says “Tobin’s (ph) house workout”. So that’s one of the football workouts that we would have — that Dr. (inaudible) would run for guys on the football team during the summer.

So we would be there — that’s usually 6:00 to 8:00 or so, kind of — until near dark. And then it looks like we went over to Timmy’s — you want to know their last names too? I’m happy to do it.

MITCHELL: If you could just identify, is — is “Judge,” Mark Judge?

KAVANAUGH: It is.

MITCHELL: And is “P.J.,” P.J. Smith?

KAVANAUGH: It is.

So — all right. It’s Tim Gaudette (ph), Mark Judge, Tom Caine (ph), P.J. Smith, Bernie McCarthy (ph), Chris Garrett (ph).

MITCHELL: Chris Garrett is Squee?

KAVANAUGH: He is.

MITCHELL: Did you in your calendar routinely document social gatherings like house parties or gatherings of friends in your calendar?

KAVANAUGH: Yes. It — it certainly appears that way, that’s what I was doing in the summer of 1982. And you can see that reflected on several of the — several of the entries.

MITCHELL: If a gathering like Dr. Ford has described had occurred, would you have documented that?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, because I documented everything of those kinds of events, even small get-togethers. ....

**********

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lmao: ####### squee...

 

Also, from a legal perspective, the biggest concern I had about Kavanaugh from the confirmation hearing is not the substance of the accusation or his testimony, but his indignant manner displayed while testifying. Any testifying defendant should know better, and should know that false allegations can be made in court. The fact he didn't suggests to me he shouldn't be deciding major cases. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

  It was beyond shameful that Democrats tried to bring up high school antics.  What next, investigate if he played doctor as a 5 year old?  

I think we're going to need a ruling.  Just how old does stuff have to be before it's okay for a Supreme Court nominee to lie under oath to Congress about it?  

Edited by parrot
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


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

:lmao: ####### squee...

 

Also, from a legal perspective, the biggest concern I had about Kavanaugh from the confirmation hearing is not the substance of the accusation or his testimony, but his indignant manner displayed while testifying. Any testifying defendant should know better, and should know that false allegations can be made in court. The fact he didn't suggests to me he shouldn't be deciding major cases. 

I had a conversation with a federal judge who was a co-worker who is vastly more familiar with Kavanaugh's demeanor than what anyone could possibly discern from the circus surrounding the Senate hearing who completely disagrees with this assessment.  Although he did say that Kavanaugh advisors did him no favors.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, parrot said:

I think we're going to need a ruling.  Just how old does stuff have to be before it's okay for a Supreme Court nominee to lie under oath to Congress about it?  

No one said he lied about anything.   But digging into someone's childhood antics to dig up dirt is pretty low.  

Share this post


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

No one said he lied about anything.   But digging into someone's childhood antics to dig up dirt is pretty low.  

I wonder if you'd feel differently if your daughter was subject to these "antics"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, James Daulton said:

I wonder if you'd feel differently if your daughter was subject to these "antics"

The antics I was talking about was the yearbook stuff.  I put no weight into Ford's claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jon_mx said:

How would Democratic lawyers respond to this poll?  Take the parties out of it.  Let's just say we have a lifelong well respected  judge who has zero record or even reports of any type of improprieties in his entire career.   We have an accuser who comes forward on the eve on of a Supreme Court confirmation  with some 35-plus year old accusation, which she is uncertain of the year or month or location, which every person she names including her long-time friend can not even recall such a party, a story which was coordinated with political operatives and conveniently leaked at the very last moment, from a person who confided to her lawyer it was politically motivated to protect abortion rights.....what conclusion would most lawyers reach about the accused purposely lying and the alleged victim telling the truth?  I would hope very few could conclude he is purposely lying.  

I’m a lawyer and answered the poll question without any reference to the claim of alleged assault. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I had a conversation with a federal judge who was a co-worker who is vastly more familiar with Kavanaugh's demeanor than what anyone could possibly discern from the circus surrounding the Senate hearing who completely disagrees with this assessment.  Although he did say that Kavanaugh advisors did him no favors.  

I obviously don’t personally know the man. Also, he obviously likely comes across well to rise to the level that he did. I’d enjoy a beer with him and would happily talk law with him. I formed no distinct opinion as to whether he did sexually assault Dr. Ford. 
 

What I got to see is a man who responded poorly and unwisely when pressed under pressure. Respectfully to him, that’s not what I want from somebody looking to hold one of the nine most important legal positions in the world. 

Edited by Zow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sho nuff said:
15 hours ago, The Commish said:

This is something you care about now?  Weird....better late than never I guess.

It is also a completely bogus accusation.  

Completely fake/debunked claims over and over again.  Zero engagement in discussion about them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jon_mx said:

No one said he lied about anything.   But digging into someone's childhood antics to dig up dirt is pretty low.  

He absolutely lied about the "Renate Alumni' thing, IMO.  And yeah, it was inconsequential zany high school hijinx, but you still don't get to lie about it under oath.   

Edited by parrot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, parrot said:

He absolutely lied about the "Renate Alumni' thing, IMO.  And yeah, it was inconsequential zany high school hijinx, but you still don't get to lie about it under oath.   

You don't absolutely know whether he lied or not.  The fact that Democrats cared nothing about dragging an innocent women's reputation  into the dirt by trying to expose some alledged underage sexual activity to meet their political ends says all I need to know about them. 

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

You don't absolutely know whether he lied or not.  

It's my opinion. That's what "IMO" means.  My full opinion is it was an obvious lie, and should have been obvious to anyone watching.  And telling obvious lies to Congress while under oath, no matter how minor, should preclude you from being on the Supreme Court.  But that's not the world we live in.  

Edited by parrot
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

It's my opinion. That's what "IMO" means.  My full opinion is it was an obvious lie, and should have been obvious to anyone watching.  And telling obvious lies to Congress while under oath, no matter how minor, should preclude you from being on the Supreme Court.  But that's not the world we live in.  

Sure, that is what IMO means.  But to say something is absolutely true and then to caveat it with IMO is contradictory.  

It is not about how minor the alleged lie is, it is about an irrelevant topic which can only serve to slander an innocent woman about her underage sexual activity.  The topic should have never been touched.    If Kavanaugh did lie to protect this lady's reputation, good on him.  The whole confirmation process and the levels politicians have taken it in slandering people is beyond pale.  

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


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

Sure, that is what IMO means.  But to say something is absolutely true and then to caveat it with IMO is contradictory.  

My opinion is that not only did he absolutely lie, it was obvious and pathetic.  But it's still just an opinion because it's not something I can prove.  None of that is contradictory.  

  • Like 1

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.