Even more problematic stuff

[Sean Hayden]

It's just weird. It's like I'm supposed to ignore everything I know about Saddam. Sure, everyone knows his palaces were contrasted with how his people lived to show what a dick he was, but don't bring any of that into your reading on an article comparing Trump to Saddam. Why? Because the author doesn't explicitly say it.

Besides, consider all these other reasons Saddam was hated that's not why Saddam was hated, this is why...

[Scot Dutchy]

It's just weird. It's like I'm supposed to ignore everything I know about Saddam. Sure, everyone knows his palaces were contrasted with how his people lived to show what a dick he was, but don't bring any of that into your reading on an article comparing Trump to Saddam. Why? Because the author doesn't explicitly say it.

Besides, consider all these other reasons Saddam was hated that's not why Saddam was hated, this is why...

He did not live in a a so called civilised country.

[Sean Hayden]

Hey 42, I feel like I should say that the article is indeed bullshit insofar as its comparisons can't be taken as proof that Saddam and Trump share some kind shithead gene. It is a hit piece, and I took it as such. But, Saddam was a good choice vs some others for the reasons I gave. It works for its intended purpose.

[Forty Two]

It's just weird. It's like I'm supposed to ignore everything I know about Saddam. Sure, everyone knows his palaces were contrasted with how his people lived to show what a dick he was, but don't bring any of that into your reading on an article comparing Trump to Saddam. Why? Because the author doesn't explicitly say it.

Besides, consider all these other reasons Saddam was hated that's not why Saddam was hated, this is why...

Saddam Hussein was hated because he seized control of the country by force, declared a 1/4 of the parliament traitors by fiat and had them summarily shot in public by security forces, he took over absolute dictatorial control and ruled the country through force and violence, and he maintained political prisons for anyone who spoke out against him, he used rape and torture as a means of punishment and population control, he gassed his own people, he massacred anyone that did not kowtow to his will. He was among the most brutal dictators of the 20th century.

The article was about how he and Trump's preferences in decor are "basically the same" and it speculated that they both share characteristics as despots and demagogues that make them have the staircases and chandeliers they have. The article misrepresented that they had the same taste in decor - the article juxtaposed, for example, staircases in one of Trump's old homes (in which he had a typical northeast New England type mansion foyer with a dual staircase - rich, but not uncommon for rich people - and said that's "basically the same" as double spiral staircases - gilded - towering in one of Saddam's many "palaces." That's what the author says is "basically the same."

The author made precisely ZERO mention about how Trump and Saddam are just two examples of wealth people who live far and away above the common man, and that's why rich people in general are bad, not saying anything in particular about Trump or Saddam.

I mean, come on, Sean. Read the article.

[Forty Two]

Hey 42, I feel like I should say that the article is indeed bullshit insofar as its comparisons can't be taken as proof that Saddam and Trump share some kind shithead gene. It is a hit piece, and I took it as such. But, Saddam was a good choice vs some others for the reasons I gave. It works for its intended purpose.

Oh, I agree, it works for its "intended purpose."

[Sean Hayden]

It's just weird. It's like I'm supposed to ignore everything I know about Saddam. Sure, everyone knows his palaces were contrasted with how his people lived to show what a dick he was, but don't bring any of that into your reading on an article comparing Trump to Saddam. Why? Because the author doesn't explicitly say it.

Besides, consider all these other reasons Saddam was hated that's not why Saddam was hated, this is why...

He did not live in a a so called civilised country.

I guess, but many have said that Iraq wasn't as bad as we made it out to be prior to the invasion. Also, if I understand your point, Trump isn't nearly as bad, so...

[Brian Peacock]

It's just weird. It's like I'm supposed to ignore everything I know about Saddam. Sure, everyone knows his palaces were contrasted with how his people lived to show what a dick he was, but don't bring any of that into your reading on an article comparing Trump to Saddam. Why? Because the author doesn't explicitly say it.

Besides, consider all these other reasons Saddam was hated that's not why Saddam was hated, this is why...

Yeah mate. Our friend is basically arguing against the idea that the decor maketh the man. It's hay fellas all the way down.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Swetnick as well - she admitted to lying.

In a television interview she changed the account she gave in a sworn affidavit and Senator Grassley has called for her to be investigated, but you'll have to provide a source for the claim that 'she admitted to lying.'

It's all very well to repeatedly attempt to discredit Kavanaugh's accusers, but it seems you have no problem with the distinct probability that he lied repeatedly in his testimony before the Senate judiciary committee.

When a person signs a sworn affidavit, and then changes the account they swore to, they did not tell the truth. Key parts of her interview with NBC walked back her affidavit, ultimately stating that she had no information on Kavanaugh spiking any punch, or participating in any rapes. He got "a little to handsy", she says, at the party, with other women, not Swetnick.

And, oh, I do have a problem with any lying by either party. However, you need to specify the statements that you're claiming have been shown to be lies. With Swetnick, her factual misstatements are in her affidavit, and she herself walked them back later and changed her story. Kavanaugh did no such thing. So, we are absolutely sure Swetnick did not tell the truth.

The link you cited does not, not even close, show a "distinct probability" that he lied in his testimony. But to see that, you have look past the headline and examine exactly what they are claiming are "lies."

For example, the Guardian says that "former roommates have come forward to say he told bald-faced lies." However, that is not in the least an accurate description. The link in the Guardian article is to a former roommate (for a couple of months) who says he saw Kavanaugh "stumbling drunk" regularly. Kavanaugh never denied being stumbling drunk regularly, and he admitted to drinking to excessive quite a bit in high school and college. What he denied was blacking out. And, Roche has no knowledge of whether Kavanaugh blacked out. Roche claims that Kavanaugh drank enough to black out, but Roche can't possibly know that. He doesn't say that Kavanaugh had told he had blacked out. His allegation of Kavanaugh drinking to black-outs is based on him observing Kavanaugh getting drunk at parties. Kavanaugh says "I didn't black out." Roche says "I think he drank enough to black out." There is neither a lie there, nor a "distinct probability" of a lie. It's "possible" one or the other, or both, are lying. Roche also says that Kavanaugh lied in explaining the meaning of yearbook quotes - however, Roche didn't know Kavanaugh in high school, nor does Roche have personal knowledge of what Kavanaugh and his friends meant by different turns of phrase, and turns of phrase have different meantings, sometimes multiple meanings. Does boof not mean fart? I've heard it used for that - I'm also from the northeast. Does devil's triangle not mean a drinking game ? The term "devi's threeway" can be used as a term to mean a threesome in sex, or a set of three of anything that is difficult or troublesome, like a devil's threeway of problems. A yearbook, any yearbook, in the US - in the 1980s for sure - was filled with innuendo, references, profanity, vulgarity and inside jokes were the rage. We had drinking games that were peculiar to my high school and college that nobody else ever heard of, and sometimes they involved innuendo laden terminology.

So, what's the lie?

At bottom, when a person says one thing on one day, and then reverses themselves on the next day or materially changes the story, then they aren't telling the truth on at least one of those occasions. That's just logic. Where A and B are inconsistent, if A is true, then B cannot be true. If B is true, then A cannot be true. A and B can both be untrue, but A and B cannot both be true. If one or the other, or both, are untrue, then the person making statements A and B must be telling an untruth. That's Swetnick.

We don't have that with Kavanaugh. What we have with Kavanaugh are things like "Kavanaugh says he didn't black out..." -- someone else says that he got stumbling drunk a lot, so it's not credible (to that person) that Kavanaugh did not black out. Both A and B in that scenario can be true or untrue, and they are not inconsistent. Kavanaugh could well have been a heavy drinker at that age, been stumbling drunk a lot, but never blacked out. Also, Kavanaugh and Roche may well have different definitions of "regularly" and "stumbling drunk" and the like. Roche may not have been much of a drinker, and to him, drinking 6 beers might be massively excessive, but to Kavanaugh and his circle, 6 might have been the warm-up. Anyone who went to high school and college has a "lived experience" (most likely) that substantiates that distinction.

So, here's where we are, as I see it. You've spent a lot of time attempting to discredit Blasey Ford. You've also claimed that other accusers were lying. When called on that, you cited one person who'd falsely claimed to be an accuser only known as 'Jane Doe.' What that person lied about is being the accuser known as 'Jane Doe.' So this was not a case of an actual accuser lying. You then claimed that Swetnick 'admitted to lying.' When asked to provide a source for this claim, you failed to do so, and instead presented your own interpretation which you believe shows that she was lying. Your claim that Swetnick 'admitted to lying' appears to be false.

As I pointed out, you've spent a lot of time and energy attacking Kavanaugh's accusers, but have been silent in regards to Kavanaugh's own apparent lack of honesty. If we're going by your standard (inconsistencies = lies), then Kavanaugh was definitely lying. He claimed in his testimony that he'd never attended a gathering such as Blasey Ford described. However his own calendar shows him attending such a gathering in July of 1982.

Kavanaugh also claimed that he'd never attended a gathering which included the group of people that Blasey Ford identified. Again, his calendar shows that the July gathering did indeed include that group of people. Blasey Ford named these people before the calendar was released, so it's not as if she'd found that entry on the calendar and used it as a source for her claim. By your own standard, Kavanaugh was lying.

Kavanaugh claimed in his testimony that all four people named by Blasey Ford said that the gathering 'never happened.' This isn't a mere inconsistency, it's simply a lie. The actual statements by these people were that they don't recall the gathering.

When Kavanaugh was asked about his drinking in high school (as evidenced by various things in his high school yearbook), he didn't give an honest answer, but instead launched into a description of himself as an exemplary student and athlete. This was evasion, pure and simple.

When asked about his inclusion among 'Renate Alumni' in the yearbook (referring to a young woman) Kavanaugh claimed that it was 'clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us.' The woman in question didn't see it that way when she learned of it, and elsewhere in the yearbook one of the 'Renate Alumni' printed this:

'You need a date
and it’s getting late
so don’t hesitate
to call Renate.'

It seems pretty clear that the 'Renate Alumni' were naming her as 'easy,' and Kavanaugh would certainly have known that, but instead of admitting to being an insensitive high school boy, he lied about it.

Kavanaugh was consistently evasive, dishonest, and belligerent in the hearing about Blasey Ford's allegations, but you apparently don't see any problem with that, instead you choose to denigrate his accusers, even returning to that tack in response to a post about how Blasey Ford is still being targetted by right-wing creeps.

The Blasey Ford hearing wasn't the only time Kavanaugh was dishonest in his answers to the Senate, however. In hearings held in 2004 and 2006 he claimed that he'd never seen materials that had been stolen from Democratic senators during the run-up to judicial confirmation hearings when he'd been with the White House counsel’s office in the Bush II administration. In the hearings of September 2018, it was shown that he'd definitely seen at least some of that material. Here's the exchange where he's asked about it directly:

SENATOR LEAHY: So you didn’t realize what you had was a stolen letter [sent] by me, that you had a letter that had not been sent to anybody, had not been made public?

KAVANAUGH: All I see that I said was “Who signed this?” That’s all I see.

He evades answering the question because he knows that he's previously denied ever seeing any of this material.

When Leahy referred to an email sent to Kavanaugh while he was with the White House counsel's office which explicitly told him that the materials were obtained by illicit means, Kavanaugh claimed that he 'couldn't recall' such an email.

What we have is a record of dishonesty on Kavanaugh's part. Not merely dishonesty in regards to the Blasey Ford allegation, but dishonesty about his past while in the Bush administration. For somebody in such a vital and important governmental position, such dishonesty in hearings before the US Senate is damning. It appears that you don't care about that, and would rather continue to focus on your pet project of discrediting Blasey Ford and other women who've made allegations regarding his behavior toward them.

[Jason]

Vancouver Polish church daycare vandalized on 100th anniversary of nation’s independence

Another parishioner pointed to the fact that a staggering number of Polish Jews were killed in Nazi concentration camps. Estimates by historians suggest three million polish Jews were murdered, while the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum estimates another 1.5 million Polish citizens were taken and used as forced labour during the Second World War.

“We are the victims of Nazi Germany, and now we are called the Nazis? It’s absolutely crazy,” she said.

“It’s pure hatred against Polish people. How can you justify it?”

https://globalnews.ca/news/4653750/vanc ... andalized/

[laklak]

They just don't make Nazis like they used to.

[Brian Peacock]

Dutchland had the best trolls...

Dutch man, 69, starts legal fight to identify as 20 years younger

A 69-year-old Dutch “positivity guru” who says he does not feel his age has started a battle to make himself legally 20 years younger on the grounds that he is being discriminated against on a dating app.

Emile Ratelband told a court in Arnhem in the Netherlands that he did not feel “comfortable” with his date of birth, and compared his wish to alter it to people who identified as transgender.

Ratelband said that due to having an official age that did not reflect his emotional state he was struggling to find both work and love. He has asked for his date of birth to be changed from 11 March 1949 to 11 March 1969.

“When I’m 69, I am limited. If I’m 49, then I can buy a new house, drive a different car,” he said. “I can take up more work. When I’m on Tinder and it says I’m 69, I don’t get an answer. When I’m 49, with the face I have, I will be in a luxurious position.”

Doctors had told him his body was that of a 45-year-old man, Ratelband argued. He described himself as a “young god”....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... _clipboard

[laklak]

He he he he
He said "69"
He he he he

[Seabass]

An entire town erased from existence. Dozens dead. Hundreds missing. But hey, at least they got tax cuts. That's what's really important.

[JimC]

It seems very late in the season for your bushfires - it's nearly the time for our bushfire season...

California and Oz share this very dangerous problem...

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Our fire season is now too. I would have expected California to be 6 months before/after ours.