(September 28, 2018 at 9:28 pm)UCatholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 8:34 pm)Cathooloo Wrote: Even if he didn't do it - and I think he did - his penchant for evasive, deceptive answer and his temperament make him utterly unsuitable to fill any judgeship, much less on SCOTUS.

I'm -thrilled- there's going to be an investigation but it may matter little.

At least until the election.

On the contrary, IF he is innocent (big if), I can understand why he is angry. Could you imagine being wrongfully accused, in front of the whole world, of sexually assaulting women? Not only does that ruin your career, but your family and your name. Over something you never did. If he is innocent, I dont blame him for acting angry. I think any human would, under those circumstances.

Except that when he was proclaiming his innocence, he was misrepresenting the evidence against him and lying repeatedly about his drinking (contradicted by multiple of his college classmates).  

If it turns out that he only committed a couple of the offenses charged to him, hopefully the FBI will figure it out.

(September 28, 2018 at 2:32 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I know..I know, bitches be lying, I thought we already addressed that?

Here again, you're entirely missing the thrust.  He could have denied it, too..without causing so much damage to his nomination and his supporters.  It was his choice to be a raging dumpsterfire.

Now look at what's happened to what could have been a simple plowing through.

Ew!  Ew!   We need a raging dumpster fire emoticon!  I think that would be mega-useful!

---

I would feel sooooo much better about K if he owned up to drinking enough at times as a teenager that he had nights when he didn't remember what he said or did.

Something along the lines of, "like many people, I have some regrets about my teen years. But I genuinely believe that it is simply not in my character to have sexually assaulted anyone even in my drunkest moments. Did I do or say anything I'm not proud of when I was a teenager? Who hasn't? As an adult I have not and will not drink to the point of lost memories ever again."

If he had said anything remotely like that I would probably have wavered in the intensity of my dislike of him. But to double, triple, quadruple down and deny there is even so much as a possibility that he rubbed against someone-----to deny that he ever drank so much he had to be told the next day what he said or did? I truly believe that's a bald-faced lie.

Oh, and we get it K.....you liked beer. And still like beer. Just tell me you'll never drink to the point it affects your ability to judge. Even if THAT'S a lie. But he wouldn't even give me that much. Not reassuring.

(September 28, 2018 at 9:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 8:34 pm)Cathooloo Wrote: Even if he didn't do it - and I think he did - his penchant for evasive, deceptive answer and his temperament make him utterly unsuitable to fill any judgeship, much less on SCOTUS.

I'm -thrilled- there's going to be an investigation but it may matter little.

At least until the election.

On the contrary, IF he is innocent (big if), I can understand why he is angry. Could you imagine being wrongfully accused, in front of the whole world, of sexually assaulting women? Not only does that ruin your career, but your family and your name. Over something you never did. If he is innocent, I dont blame him for acting angry. I think any human would, under those circumstances.

IF.

I find that possibility unlikely in the extreme.

(September 28, 2018 at 10:14 pm)Cathooloo Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 9:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: On the contrary, IF he is innocent (big if), I can understand why he is angry. Could you imagine being wrongfully accused, in front of the whole world, of sexually assaulting women? Not only does that ruin your career, but your family and your name. Over something you never did. If he is innocent, I dont blame him for acting angry. I think any human would, under those circumstances.

IF.

I find that possibility unlikely in the extreme.

Based on what?

(September 28, 2018 at 6:06 am)alpha male Wrote: That's interesting. I was just saying to my wife that lefties call us Nazis in order to dehumanize us so that they can live with their hatred. This is an even more direct approach.

We call you Nazi's because you carry around flags with swastikas and defend your fellow Nazi's.

You dehumanize yourselves by acting so very unhuman like.  f you were to take the turing test, you would most likely fail.

Quote:That's interesting. I was just saying to my wife that lefties call us Nazis in order to dehumanize us so that they can live with their hatred. This is an even more direct approach.

No we call you Nazi's because you like them in your attempts to dehumanize other people and spread hatred and you are rightly labelled and opposed with the vigor such opposition requires . We can't dehumanize you you have done that yourselves .

---

Quote:On the contrary, IF he is innocent (big if), I can understand why he is angry. Could you imagine being wrongfully accused, in front of the whole world, of sexually assaulting women? Not only does that ruin your career, but your family and your name. Over something you never did. If he is innocent, I dont blame him for acting angry. I think any human would, under those circumstances.

Nope it shows that he's emotionally frail and cracks easily under pressure and thus is wholly unsuited to such an important job .

(September 28, 2018 at 10:17 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 10:14 pm)Cathooloo Wrote: IF.

I find that possibility unlikely in the extreme.

Based on what?

Eyewitness testimony, Ofc. 😏

(September 28, 2018 at 11:47 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 10:17 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Based on what?

Eyewitness testimony, Ofc. 😏

That thing Road and his gang keep telling us is totally awesome and why better then science 

(September 28, 2018 at 9:29 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 8:38 am)Aroura Wrote: One should care about finding the truth, not just voting for or pushing through people who have unheard and/or uninvestigated accusers.  
Kavanaugh's vote was scheduled before they finished even hearing Ford or Kavanagh's testimony. They have apparently decided not to even look into the other accusation.  And yes, that is a problem.  And if you support or defend the people who will overlook serious allegations, I don't think you are less than human, but I will adamantly say we disagree on more than simple politics.

I can disagree with someone on trade policy, taxes, social security benefits, different drug legalization statuses, and a very long list of things, and that's fine.  These are politics. You can want lower taxes and be a good person.  You can support small government and be a good person.  I am happy to have conservative friends like these.

Treating all humans with basic decency isn't politics, it's just basic decency.  Taking an accusation seriously enough (particularly when there is more than one) to look into more than just asking a few question is basic decency.  Not taking children from their parents without good cause is decency.  Helping people fleeing from violence is decency. Not supporting someone who is ON TAPE admitting to groping women without their permission is decency. Standing up for people who are not part of your in group; LGBT people, other nationalities and races, the opposite gender, and people of other religious beliefs is basic decency. I consider none of the above to be political stances, but human ones.  To degrade children in cages to a political stance is disgusting.  To not care about it enough to even vote a little differently to change it is worse.  Pro life.  Pfah.  

So yeah, you can still be a human.  You just aren't a very good one, imho.  I can only take solace that your position is actually the minority, and that your idiocy only continues to win out through cheating.  So enjoy it while it lasts.  I still have hope that good people will win out in the long run.  In the short term, we are all very, very fucked.

Not buying it.

1. The only people benefiting from tax breaks are millionaires and billionaires. The crumb cuts the rest of us get are overwhelmed by inflation and the cuts the top gets.

2. "Small government" to what extent and how? If you can accept our government could not work with only 13 representatives today like we had when we started, then you have to accept that as our population grows the government has to grow with it.

3. If your goal is to create more independence, the cheapest way is to create it DIRECTLY through wages that meet the cost of living. That is what will reduce taxes on all classes and pay down the dept long term.

4. Go study the policies that existed between the end of WW2  and 1980 and the tax rate also. 

Taxes are not robbery. Taxes are what built our middle class, built our modern bridges and highways, got us too the moon. Social safety nets like social security and medicare are also not robbery. A stable neighbor isn't a matter of them wanting to rob you, but a matter of knowing that stability long term is beneficial to everyone. 

The less stress an individual has, or a family has, and the more balance they have the less social problems and health problems they have, the more they can be involved with their kids.

None of what I typed above is a call for a nanny state. Nobody is or should suggest the end of the private sector. But when the majority of the stock market is a monopoly owned by the top 2%, it should be clear that they have no interest in our current climate of caring about the other two classes.

If you think even just on economics the GOP or Libertarians are right, you are fooling yourself. There is a way to create less dependency but the way we are doing it now is not the way.

I was giving an example of political vs non political stances.  Nowhere in my post did I say anything remotely like whatever you are ranting on about.  I don't agree with libertarian or GOP fiscal stances.  I feel like you read 2 sentences of my post, then wrote a rant, because what you wrote has almost nothing to do with anything I posted.

I said it before, but the fact that the republican senators were unwilling to call Judge is in itself an effective guilty verdict on Rapey McRapeface, and his acquiescence without demur an acceptance of the truth of that verdict.

Think about it, when an injured party (i/p) names a suspected offender's (s/o) friend and co-accused as the only witness in an allegation, the s/o, if innocent, would do anything to ensure his friend took to the stand. Plus, factor in the fact that the republicans would have grilled Judge, they knew of this problem well before it became public, and they knew how likely Judge would fold..

So yeah, this whole process is an admission by McRapeface's defenders that he's guilty. And one so transparent that a skilled communicator can easily make it stick.