Kavanaugh hearing

[Sean Hayden]

So what do you guys think? The right-wingers just lie, lie, lie. Or they can't be arsed to read anything other than fox news? I really wanna know man. I'm referring of course to our right-wingers who keep repeating the same lies over and over. It's not just with this issue either.

Here is a hint - if you can't paraphrase your opponents position in a way that is satisfactory to THEM, you probably don't understand it.

I haven't seen very many people take that step before they come in disagreeing. Look at you saying everyone who disagrees lies and only reads fox news.

Whenever I hear of an 'alt-right' villian, I go find out what they have to say, and in nearly every case, the claims don't match up with what the person said, or what their response is.

Do you think what pErvinalia, or the bit in my signature, shows understanding?

I spent pages not doing this. You're a broken record dude. But I'm going to help you anyway.

All Ford's witnesses did not deny her claim. That is a misrepresentation of the facts. It keeps being repeated. I wanna know why. Is it intentional, or are they ignorant?

Another way of describing it, is that with her claim, she named people who could have corroborated her story, and none of them did.

The focus on every flaw in Kavanaugh, while not being as critical of her, seems more than just one-sided.

It's almost like the political parties are doing the writing.

Phrasing is important, it's equally important not to omit relevant information.

So, you're not dumb. You know how to use phrasing and omission to your advantage. Is that what those repeating the lie are doing, or are they ignorant because they can't be arsed to read beyond fox?

[Cunt]

So, you're not dumb. You know how to use phrasing and omission to your advantage. Is that what those repeating the lie are doing, or are they ignorant because they can't be arsed to read beyond fox?

We could argue about her colluders/co-victims or whatever they were, without ever even knowing if we disagree.

Asking the right question is important.

What is it you think I have wrong about this?

I see no reason to call Ford a liar.

I see no reason to call Kavanaugh a liar.

Let's start there, and see what exactly we disagree on, and whether it is a matter which can yield to available facts.

[Brian Peacock]

So what do you guys think? The right-wingers just lie, lie, lie. Or they can't be arsed to read anything other than fox news? I really wanna know man. I'm referring of course to our right-wingers who keep repeating the same lies over and over. It's not just with this issue either.

I don't know mate. I really don't. But perhaps we could ask the right-wingers what they do to verify certain facts for themselves.

[Svartalf]

:sigh:1

All Ford's witnesses did not deny her claim. That is a misrepresentation of the facts. It keeps being repeated. I wanna know why. Is it intentional, or are they ignorant?

The ignorant repeat what the malicious first spread...

[Seabass]

[L'Emmerdeur]

Regarding your assertion that Leland Keyser said that she had 'never met' Kavanaugh, can you cite this quote? As far as I'm aware what she said is that she doesn't know Kavanaugh.

She doesn't know Mr. Kavanaugh. Had she met him, she would know him. Before the FBI interview, Keyser submitted two statements, and then she was interviewed by the FBI and reaffirmed it. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/l ... thing-new/

Lame bullshit. I've met thousands of people in my life, as I expect you have. Most of them I don't know. I asked you for the quote of Keyser saying that she never met Kavanaugh, or never met him, ever, as you claimed she said. Despite your claim it looks like you don't have one, because she never said that, ever, and it was a fabrication on your part.

The difference is relevant and it seems you realize that because it's the only thing in my post that you responded to. Keyser says she believes Blasey Ford's allegation, but she cannot recall the party at which it occurred. If she attended the party she would have met Kavanaugh, because it was a small gathering. She didn't say she's never met him. Given that this was a statement issued by a lawyer on her behalf, I think it's reasonable to believe that under the lawyer's advice she didn't say she's never met Kavanaugh because that would be asserting something of which she cannot be sure.

[Tero]

Collins merely covering her ass. Nothing in FBI interviews would be of any help to her, as the 2 principals were not interviewed, except one had a "calendar" and one had a lie detector test

“I found Dr. Ford’s testimony to be heart wrenching, painful, compelling and I believe she believes what she testified to,” the senator told CNN on Sunday morning. “Here you have two people who are each 100 percent certain of what they were saying.”

The difference between senators and scientists is that Collins, like many in her party, resolved the dilemma by assuming a fault in the victim’s memory.

“I do believe that she was assaulted,” Collins told CNN. "I don’t know by whom, and I’m not certain when, but I do not believe that he was the assailant.”

How well such logic holds up with the lay population could be put to the test as Democrats seek to punish Kavanaugh’s backers in the midterm elections and beyond. After Collins left the CNN set, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) sat down to say she found the Republican’s equivocation “even more insulting.”

“To say she thinks that Dr. Ford thinks she was assaulted, what is that?” Hirono said. “Was she mistaken?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... 069d04232c

[L'Emmerdeur]

The results of this may prove interesting ...

'Chief Justice Roberts Requests Tenth Circuit To Investigate Kavanaugh Ethics Questions'

While the Republican leadership celebrates the seating of Brett Kavanaugh as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts yesterday requested the Tenth Circuit to review more than twelve ethics complaints that have been made against Kavanaugh. The complaints concern Kavanaugh’s behavior at the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 27.

These complaints were initially received by the U.S. Court of Appeals prior to Kavanaugh’s seating on the Supreme Court. Chief Judge Merrick Garland — whose nomination to the Supreme Court was blocked by Senate Republicans—recused himself from the matter. The complaints were then passed to Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, whom President George H.W. Bush nominated to the bench.

Judge Henderson dismissed some of the complaints made against Judge Kavanaugh as frivolous. But she concluded that more than a dozen complaints were substantive enough to warrant investigation by an impartial panel and that they should not be handled by Judge Kavanaugh’s fellow judges in the D.C. Circuit. She referred them to Chief Justice Roberts, who has now referred them to the 10th Circuit.

The complaints were not made without legal basis. More than 2,400 law professors have determined that Kavanaugh has “displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court.

I personally doubt that Kavanaugh is going to be willing to recuse himself in an instance similar to this one, where Merrick Garland is apparently recusing himself merely because he was previously nominated for a seat on the court and was denied a hearing by Republicans. After Kavanaugh's recent overtly partisan tirade, he should be recusing himself from any cases with a political component. To do otherwise is to call into question future Supreme Court decisions on such cases.

[Brian Peacock]

...
I personally doubt that Kavanaugh is going to be willing to recuse himself in an instance similar to this one, where Merrick Garland is apparently recusing himself merely because he was previously nominated for a seat on the court and was denied a hearing by Republicans. After Kavanaugh's recent overtly partisan tirade, he should be recusing himself from any cases with a political component. To do otherwise is to call into question future Supreme Court decisions on such cases.

Won't that make him a lame duck Justice? I'll be interested to see how Republicans spin this as a Democrat conspiracy without de-legitimising Justice Roberts and Judge Henderson.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Won't that make him a lame duck Justice? I'll be interested to see how Republicans spin this as a Democrat conspiracy without de-legitimising Justice Roberts and Judge Henderson.

As a political tool, yes it would make him a lame duck. As I say, I strongly doubt that he's going to do any such thing. He strikes me as a person that will happily use his position to advance his political agenda.

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed, and perhaps that is what made him soooo important to the GOP - he'll take the political role of the Supreme Court to the next level.

level_up.jpg (44.13 KiB) Viewed 2958 times

[Seabass]

Wasn't someone saying that it's wrong to call political opponents "evil"?

[Tero]

Evil douchebag.

[Jason]

I'm loving this use of the word 'evil'

[Brian Peacock]

I'm loving this use of the word 'boof'.