Kavanaugh
Moderator: Global Moderator
- Ad Orientem
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
- Location: Florida USA
- Contact:
Re: Kavanaugh
This would be a good moment to declare that I have lost all confidence in the American system of government, if I hadn't been saying that for years.
Re: Kavanaugh
I was also thinking to myself that this fiasco is about the last straw for me and it's time to tune out all things political for the rest of my life. It's just getting too painful to watch in my old age.Ad Orientem wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:19 pm This would be a good moment to declare that I have lost all confidence in the American system of government, if I hadn't been saying that for years.
And I still might end up doing that but I have to ask myself isn't that exactly what they want me to do?
And who are THEY exactly - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdn3O6aaMNc
- Cortopassi
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3338
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
- Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html
Re: Kavanaugh
I generally don't like Lindsey Graham, but he just gave a great oratory.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14304
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Kavanaugh
I have no argument, especially with your last line.
I wouldn’t want Kavanaugh tried (solely) by the court of public opinion.
(Deleting the rest of my drivel,while it’s still in draft form. It’s all obvious, and I’m sure it’s already been said in this thread, much of which I have not read).
p.s. Booker is kind of a dick, isn’t he?
- Cortopassi
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3338
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
- Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html
Re: Kavanaugh
On Booker, yes. Also these old farts need to freaking retire
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14304
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Kavanaugh
Senators are supposed to be old. The word shares an etymological root with senile. Well, that was Rome, anyway.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:36 pm On Booker, yes. Also these old farts need to freaking retire
Re: Kavanaugh
Yeah but pert-near stroking out while publicly speaking? Leahy & Grassley... wtf.dualstow wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:05 pmSenators are supposed to be old. The word shares an etymological root with senile. Well, that was Rome, anyway.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:36 pm On Booker, yes. Also these old farts need to freaking retire
Oh yeah and Trump too... though he's not a Senator.
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Kavanaugh
This shit is wild.
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Kavanaugh
I saw that it was on when I was at the gym, but I muted it. Can't be distracted during my swoletime!Cortopassi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:35 pm If any of you guys are watching the hearings today, I cannot now imagine that he won't be confirmed, after only 10 minutes of watching.
It's almost like you would need some evidence to figure this out.She was believable.
But so is he. Tough to watch a guy my age cry when talking about his family.
Re: Kavanaugh
I wish these hearings would focus less on a few rape accusations and more on the serial rape, robbery, spying, kidnapping, murder and torture that Kavanaugh helped our executive branch participate in.
But alas the 4th is dead.
But alas the 4th is dead.
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Kavanaugh
A few more observations...
1.) On a positive/non-partisan note, I can remember a lot of these senators going all the way to back to the Bork and Thomas hearings and at my age it's nice to see octogenarians Grassley(85),Hatch(83),Feinstein(85) doing so well. I'll be joining them in about 10 more years.
2.) One of the Dems, forget which one, brought up to Kavanaugh some legal term for instructions given to juries that basically means if a witness has found to be lying in one part of their testimony it is okay to assume that none of it is true. That was obviously aimed at some lie the Dem thought Kavanaugh had told but it made me think of Ford. I thought she couldn't come to Washington in a more timely manner because she was afraid of flying. If that wasn't an outright lie, then I don't know what is.
3.) I didn't watch her testimony because I figured all you were going to see were the same charges repeated over with no new evidence but with the added impact of human emotion in front of the camera. This turned out to be true but still everyone, even Republicans, were saying that she sounded "credible". Maybe she sounded credible if you are only going by how emotional she was but looking at the things she said without the background noise I didn't find any part of her testimony credible.
4.) Apparently those on the left have decided it is a non-risky strategy to demonize "old white men". They could be right but I'm not so sure.
1.) On a positive/non-partisan note, I can remember a lot of these senators going all the way to back to the Bork and Thomas hearings and at my age it's nice to see octogenarians Grassley(85),Hatch(83),Feinstein(85) doing so well. I'll be joining them in about 10 more years.
2.) One of the Dems, forget which one, brought up to Kavanaugh some legal term for instructions given to juries that basically means if a witness has found to be lying in one part of their testimony it is okay to assume that none of it is true. That was obviously aimed at some lie the Dem thought Kavanaugh had told but it made me think of Ford. I thought she couldn't come to Washington in a more timely manner because she was afraid of flying. If that wasn't an outright lie, then I don't know what is.
3.) I didn't watch her testimony because I figured all you were going to see were the same charges repeated over with no new evidence but with the added impact of human emotion in front of the camera. This turned out to be true but still everyone, even Republicans, were saying that she sounded "credible". Maybe she sounded credible if you are only going by how emotional she was but looking at the things she said without the background noise I didn't find any part of her testimony credible.
4.) Apparently those on the left have decided it is a non-risky strategy to demonize "old white men". They could be right but I'm not so sure.
Re: Kavanaugh
Ok, so the Dems, with the help of Jeff Flake, bought themselves another week to plot their next move.
I have no idea what it will be but I suspect it will be very entertaining.
I saw a hint of what it might be in news reports that Maryland police said they would investigate the matter if a complaint was filed. I can't see where Ms. Ford would have anything to lose by filing such a report with the help of her lawyers so this wouldn't surprise me at all. Without any verifiable evidence it will go absolutely nowhere just like the FBI investigation probably will not, but it will keep the circus going and that's the whole point.
Or maybe once the FBI investigation is done and they conclude they have no new information to add, the Dems will finally decide enough is enough.
That last sentence was a joke.
I have no idea what it will be but I suspect it will be very entertaining.
I saw a hint of what it might be in news reports that Maryland police said they would investigate the matter if a complaint was filed. I can't see where Ms. Ford would have anything to lose by filing such a report with the help of her lawyers so this wouldn't surprise me at all. Without any verifiable evidence it will go absolutely nowhere just like the FBI investigation probably will not, but it will keep the circus going and that's the whole point.
Or maybe once the FBI investigation is done and they conclude they have no new information to add, the Dems will finally decide enough is enough.
That last sentence was a joke.
Re: Kavanaugh
jacksonM wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:22 pm I saw a hint of what it might be in news reports that Maryland police said they would investigate the matter if a complaint was filed. I can't see where Ms. Ford would have anything to lose by filing such a report with the help of her lawyers so this wouldn't surprise me at all. Without any verifiable evidence it will go absolutely nowhere just like the FBI investigation probably will not, but it will keep the circus going and that's the whole point.
IMHO the Maryland police letter is being misrepresented in some places. The full letter clearly states that Dr. Ford's allegations, even if true, were misdemeanors in 1982 and the statute of limitations passed ages ago. There's no crime within their authority for the police to investigate.
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Kavanaugh
Simonjester wrote:Victor Davis Hanson's succinct summary of Blasey Ford's testimony:
The "process" of memorializing Ford's testimony involved a strange inversion of constitutional norms: The idea of a statute of limitations is ossified; hearsay is legitimate testimony; inexact and contradictory recall is proof of trauma, and therefore of validity; the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser; detail and evidence are subordinated to assumed sincerity; proof that one later relates an allegation to another is considered proof that the assault actually occurred in the manner alleged; motive is largely irrelevant; the accuser establishes the guidelines of the state's investigation of the allegations; and the individual allegation gains credence by cosmic resonance with all other such similar allegations.
- "Kavanaugh has to prove his innocence in the court of credibility."
- Senator Moron-o - Hirono also said Kavanaugh is suspect because he "doesn't even get the basics of the law," although he received a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association.
- Hirono argued that the Senate has done nothing to corroborate the story and called for the FBI to investigate, even though the Senate has gotten statements from people Ford alleges were at the party in question, and none of them have backed up her story.
- She lambasted Kavanaugh's supporters for attempting to "railroad" him onto the court, and she said "women and all the enlightened men" in the country know this is a "set-up job."
- Hirono also argued women are in an environment where they will not come forward. She called it "appalling and unacceptable" that the FBI is not investigating, despite the fact that the alleged crime occurred in the 1980s and is not under federal jurisdiction.
- John Boehner
Re: Kavanaugh
The bigger picture is that this is just another day in the life of the "by any means necessary crowd" who have not yet hit bottom.
Re: Kavanaugh
When the blue wave turns out to be a red wave will they then realize that they've hit bottom or will they just continue to pursue the same insane tactics and policies that have them on the outside looking in?
Simonjester wrote:
they seem to have abandoned all pretence of principal, morals, belief in the American system of justice and the laws/rules of our representative republic, so I guess the answer comes down to how many uneducated voters/useful idiots are there out there, who have never learned or acquired the basic understanding of American civics, to see this kind of dirty politics for the bold faced "grab for power at all costs, for the sake of power" that it is...
if there are enough blind willing to be led down this path to tyranny they will keep doubling down on this kind of tactic till they control all.... if not they will (hopefully) be unceremoniously replaced with a principled, moral, and educated wave of a new colour to balance the excesses of the red side of the spectrum.
- Ad Orientem
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
- Location: Florida USA
- Contact:
Re: Kavanaugh
A Proclamation:
It is represented to us that the universal suffrage, as now existing through the Union, is abused; that fraud and corruption prevent a fair and proper expression of the public voice; that open violation of the laws are constantly occurring, caused by mobs, parties, factions and undue influence of political sects; that the citizen has not that protection of person and property which he is entitled to by paying his pro rata of the expense of Government--in consequence of which, WE do hereby abolish Congress, and it is therefore abolished; and WE order and desire the representatives of all parties interested to appear at the Musical Hall of this city on the first of February next, and then and there take the most effective steps to remedy the evil complained of.
Given under our hand and seal in the City of San Francisco this Nineteenth day of October in the Year of Our Savior 1859
Norton I
Emperor of these United States
& Protector of Mexico
It is represented to us that the universal suffrage, as now existing through the Union, is abused; that fraud and corruption prevent a fair and proper expression of the public voice; that open violation of the laws are constantly occurring, caused by mobs, parties, factions and undue influence of political sects; that the citizen has not that protection of person and property which he is entitled to by paying his pro rata of the expense of Government--in consequence of which, WE do hereby abolish Congress, and it is therefore abolished; and WE order and desire the representatives of all parties interested to appear at the Musical Hall of this city on the first of February next, and then and there take the most effective steps to remedy the evil complained of.
Given under our hand and seal in the City of San Francisco this Nineteenth day of October in the Year of Our Savior 1859
Norton I
Emperor of these United States
& Protector of Mexico
Simonjester wrote: all hail emperor Norton... LOL
Re: Kavanaugh
Well, of course the Maryland police are going to say the statute of limitations has passed. Probably another bunch of old white men.Tyler wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:38 pmjacksonM wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:22 pm I saw a hint of what it might be in news reports that Maryland police said they would investigate the matter if a complaint was filed. I can't see where Ms. Ford would have anything to lose by filing such a report with the help of her lawyers so this wouldn't surprise me at all. Without any verifiable evidence it will go absolutely nowhere just like the FBI investigation probably will not, but it will keep the circus going and that's the whole point.
IMHO the Maryland police letter is being misrepresented in some places. The full letter clearly states that Dr. Ford's allegations, even if true, were misdemeanors in 1982 and the statute of limitations passed ages ago. There's no crime within their authority for the police to investigate.
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Kavanaugh
Emperor Norton I
LIVED IN SOUTH AFRIKA??
SOMETHING SOMETHINGMUMBLE ANTAGONIZING MEXICO?!?!
He must have radiated evil.
White guy?Joshua Abraham Norton (February 4, 1818[3] – January 8, 1880), known as Emperor Norton, was a citizen of San Francisco, California who proclaimed himself "Norton I, Emperor of the United States" in 1859. He later assumed the secondary title of "Protector of Mexico". Norton was born in England but spent most of his early life in South Africa. He sailed west after the death of his mother in 1846 and his father in 1848, arriving in San Francisco possibly in November 1849.
LIVED IN SOUTH AFRIKA??
SOMETHING SOMETHINGMUMBLE ANTAGONIZING MEXICO?!?!
He must have radiated evil.
A historico-actuality Rhett Butler/Donald Trump love child. The seventh trumpet surely sounded.Norton initially made a living as a businessman, but he lost his fortune investing in Peruvian rice due to a Chinese rice shortage. He bought rice at 12 cents per pound from Peruvian ships, but more Peruvian ships arrived in port which caused the price to drop sharply to 4 cents. He then lost a lawsuit in which he tried to void his rice contract, and his public prominence faded. He re-emerged in September 1859, laying claim to the position of Emperor of the United States.
Re: Kavanaugh
As all of these women's testimony unravels, the response of the "true believers" has become even more shrill and even hysterical. I was the unfortunate attendee of an agricultural seminar last weekend in which the topic turned, without warning, to the Kavanaugh hearings. Several of the women in attendance started visibly melting down--tears, shaking, you name it. And, of course, they got center stage. They claimed to have never experienced sexual assault themselves, but to be victims of a "rape culture" and to be reliving the repetitive trauma of this status. All I could think was, Lordy, here we are, 60 years into the women's movement and all we've got are these ineffectual little girl victims to show for it.
Re: Kavanaugh
You might find this an interesting read .... https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/aca ... holarship/Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:11 am As all of these women's testimony unravels, the response of the "true believers" has become even more shrill and even hysterical. I was the unfortunate attendee of an agricultural seminar last weekend in which the topic turned, without warning, to the Kavanaugh hearings. Several of the women in attendance started visibly melting down--tears, shaking, you name it. And, of course, they got center stage. They claimed to have never experienced sexual assault themselves, but to be victims of a "rape culture" and to be reliving the repetitive trauma of this status. All I could think was, Lordy, here we are, 60 years into the women's movement and all we've got are these ineffectual little girl victims to show for it.
It's about a group of people who did an experiment submitting ridiculous and absurd "grievance studies" to see if they would be accepted for publication. Many of them were. One of them was even a rewrite of Mein Kampf with a feminist viewpoint.
Re: Kavanaugh
I worry that there is an even simpler explanation here: the more prominent the person & the more attention paid in the media, the more likely that nut jobs will try to claim some notoriety by jumping in with ever more fantastic accusations that they well know can never be disproven. I am guessing that the majority of the "#metoo" accusations are of this ilk. Unfortunate, then, that the new standard in these cases is that the man must be guilty until proven innocent.
In Kavanaugh's case, I am guessing that there is some substance to the initial accusation by Ford, but that the others are follow-on nut cases - especially that last one about the gang-rapes, ridiculous on so many levels. The question in my mind is whether the event occurred as described, or whether it had its roots in an episode that was probably fairly innocent in reality and the story got embellished over time.
Also, I would bet that right now, Ford is wishing she'd kept her mouth shut. She is probably not too happy at becoming the latest political football, and there's a good chance it will ruin her career as a professor also. On the other hand, I'm sure she'll be drowning in lucrative book deals and speaking engagements soon enough.
In Kavanaugh's case, I am guessing that there is some substance to the initial accusation by Ford, but that the others are follow-on nut cases - especially that last one about the gang-rapes, ridiculous on so many levels. The question in my mind is whether the event occurred as described, or whether it had its roots in an episode that was probably fairly innocent in reality and the story got embellished over time.
Also, I would bet that right now, Ford is wishing she'd kept her mouth shut. She is probably not too happy at becoming the latest political football, and there's a good chance it will ruin her career as a professor also. On the other hand, I'm sure she'll be drowning in lucrative book deals and speaking engagements soon enough.
Re: Kavanaugh
I tend to agree with you WiseOne, that something probably did occur, but most likely it involved drunkenness, mixed messages, the usual teenage fumbling, and a good dose of Saturday morning remorse. But that's a far cry from what's being alleged.
We live in a culture where much of communication consists of "signals," and nowhere is this more apparent than in the sexual realm. The obvious corollary, which every self-respecting woman knows, is that you don't play fast and loose with culturally resonant signals if you don't intend to invite the consequences. I found the following YouTube clip of an interview by Camille Paglia--the left-wing lesbian feminist professor of criticism (wouldn't that be a hoot of a job?), who, it seems to me, has a pretty level-headed view of the issue. And it's not complimentary of a good number of today's young women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-Zj-buRsvA
An entirely different video which I don't seem to be able to locate this morning included a clip from a young woman bloviating about the Kavanaugh hearings and insisting that she should be able to show up at a frat house party wearing a g-string or a short skirt without underwear, and that she should be able to get flat-on-her-ass drunk, and that none of that should have any bearing on how she is treated by men. This is really an astounding assertion that not only infantilizes women but that ignores the manipulative reality behind her mixed messages. This is one aspect of the problem that I think Paglia misses. When a woman shows up at a chaotic frat party drunk in sexually revealing garb, and then proceeds to behave in an overtly seductive manner (including, in many instances, going up to a guy's room), does anyone think to ask why she's doing that? Why would a woman choose to behave in a manner that sends unambiguously sexually-charged signals if she does not intend to invite sex? This is an easy question, because women have been doing it for ages. In the old days, we used to call it "playing hard to get," and although the game was much tamer then, the point then--as now--is power. Specifically the power to manipulate a man to the point where he's ready to burst a zipper and then toy with him. This is the unfortunate reality of most "date rape" situations.
We live in a culture where much of communication consists of "signals," and nowhere is this more apparent than in the sexual realm. The obvious corollary, which every self-respecting woman knows, is that you don't play fast and loose with culturally resonant signals if you don't intend to invite the consequences. I found the following YouTube clip of an interview by Camille Paglia--the left-wing lesbian feminist professor of criticism (wouldn't that be a hoot of a job?), who, it seems to me, has a pretty level-headed view of the issue. And it's not complimentary of a good number of today's young women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-Zj-buRsvA
An entirely different video which I don't seem to be able to locate this morning included a clip from a young woman bloviating about the Kavanaugh hearings and insisting that she should be able to show up at a frat house party wearing a g-string or a short skirt without underwear, and that she should be able to get flat-on-her-ass drunk, and that none of that should have any bearing on how she is treated by men. This is really an astounding assertion that not only infantilizes women but that ignores the manipulative reality behind her mixed messages. This is one aspect of the problem that I think Paglia misses. When a woman shows up at a chaotic frat party drunk in sexually revealing garb, and then proceeds to behave in an overtly seductive manner (including, in many instances, going up to a guy's room), does anyone think to ask why she's doing that? Why would a woman choose to behave in a manner that sends unambiguously sexually-charged signals if she does not intend to invite sex? This is an easy question, because women have been doing it for ages. In the old days, we used to call it "playing hard to get," and although the game was much tamer then, the point then--as now--is power. Specifically the power to manipulate a man to the point where he's ready to burst a zipper and then toy with him. This is the unfortunate reality of most "date rape" situations.