Quote:There is zero corroborating evidence. 

There is most likely too bad Republicans won't let the FBI find it because they are scared

(September 29, 2018 at 10:21 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 9:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't think his account of his memory of events is at all credible.  He may justifiably be angry, but not necessarily because he's innocent.

---

Sounds like the tale about a dead Jew that I'm familiar with.

Was there a point to re-posting this RR or did you just forget to comment?

(September 29, 2018 at 9:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't think his account of his memory of events is at all credible.  He may justifiably be angry, but not necessarily because he's innocent.

And the question is why do you not think that it is credible.    What facts and reasons do you point to, to say that his testimony is unbelievable.   Should we dispense with the judicial process altogether and just go off of what you feel is credible?

Quote:Sounds like the tale about a dead Jew that I'm familiar with.

In that case there where a number of collaborating witnesses.   I don't think that your comparison is apt, and if there was that kind of evidence against Kavenaugh I think that the discussion would be very different.

(September 29, 2018 at 10:28 am)Joods Wrote: Was there a point to re-posting this RR or did you just forget to comment?

He had a Christian brain spasm

(September 29, 2018 at 10:29 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

(September 29, 2018 at 10:28 am)Joods Wrote: Was there a point to re-posting this RR or did you just forget to comment?

He had a Christian brain spasm

OMG lol.

This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't a criminal case.

Stop making arguments as if it were.

(September 29, 2018 at 10:33 am)Aroura Wrote: This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't a criminal case.

Stop making arguments as if it were.

Arguments are still going to be made, regardless. Why? Because this is a discussion board and we are discussing Kavanaugh's alleged actions and his behavior during the time he was testifying at the hearing.

(September 29, 2018 at 9:51 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 11:47 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Eyewitness testimony, Ofc. 😏

And you have the testimony from a number of others, that say they have no recollection of this party.  The testimony from Kavenaugh and Judge, that this did not occur.   And the testimony of her good friend, who was supposedly there (as well as a number of other parties with Ford), but denies having ever known Judge and Kavenaugh or remembering the party described.  There is zero corroborating evidence.  It seems that this is based on more emotion and I see people pointing to the ends, rather than the means.  I'm starting to suspect that this is the case in a number of arguments here (hence the inconsistencies I see in many)  It's less about reason and evidence, and more about emotion and the desired result.

---

(September 29, 2018 at 9:41 am)Brian37 Wrote: You do understand this is not a criminal case?

And FYI dippy, any good defense lawyer in a criminal court will tell you yelling in front of a jury has a very high probability of making the accused look guilty.

It still speaks to his temperament and fitness to serve.

Applying for a job does not mean you are entitled to that job.

I could imagine that fucker hearing an abortion case,

Pro, choice lawyer "Roe v says,,,,,,,,"......

Kavanaugh interupts shouting, "WHAT PART OF THE WORD LIFE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND"?

What if I were a judge being pro choice, "WHAT PART OF NOT YOUR FUCKING BODY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?".

Don't hand me any bullshit that if Ford had raised her voice, you'd call that more credible than what she did.

Ford, "HE GOT ON TOP OF ME AND TRIED TO MOVE MY CLOTHS AND PUT HIS HAND OVER MY MOUTH".

No matter what you think of his guilt or innocence his outbursts alone speak about his fitness.

You imagine a lot, and often the what is in your head doesn't match up with reality.   I don't think that the question "did you cry; when old yeller died" should be a qualifier for the supreme court process.  Your just making stuff up  now.

BULLSHIT

Air line pilot in training, "SON OF A BITCH, THAT RED LIGHT IS ON AND THE ENGINE FELL OFF"

If I am a trainer and a student did that, I'd tell the CEO might not be a good Idea they fly for United Airlines. He's not applying to fly a hand glider. 

We are not talking about a radio shock jock job here moron!

And please explain to me the logic of how Ford created a conspiracy with out any ability to know if he would get nominated? Somehow magically Ford had a time machine, came to now, went back in time and told herself to repeat her claims to several people long before he got nominated?

(September 29, 2018 at 10:33 am)Aroura Wrote: This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't a criminal case.

Stop making arguments as if it were.

So you don't need evidence and reasons for you belief then?

Does that standard only apply to a criminal case?

edit:   This seems like a principle that may bite you in the ass later (on an atheists forum).

(September 29, 2018 at 10:33 am)Aroura Wrote: This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't a criminal case.

Stop making arguments as if it were.

I don't understand these arguments. We are not debating sending this man in prison for sexual assault, we are debating giving this judge the biggest promotion he could ever have. Is Brett Kavanaugh one of the best and most brilliant conservative judge in the USA. Frankly, after these accusations and the events of thursday, I don't think he can be qualified of "good" conservative judge. The man shows little of the qualities that makes a good impartial and respectable judge no matter his personnal political and social beliefs. Accepting to nominate him now would only prove to the rest of the world and the more critical citizen of the US that the Supreme Court is transforming from an impartial and independant organisation heading the judicial power of this country to a political tool at the service of an ideology. Trump isn't the culpitre of this change. In my opinion, it strated in the Bush years, took steam during the Obama administration and is now getting to a point where the impartiality and independance of the SCOTUS from the Congress and the Presidency can be called in question.