Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[Amarok]

I don't know if Anita Hill's story was true or not. I don't automatically assume that people are innocent or guilty particularly when there are potential political motivations on both sides to fudge and exaggerate reported events. And I would think you would be the very first to admit the fallibility of human memory. That said, her testimony was exploited to slander Thomas.

Here is the report transcript by NPR: NPR

So here we have 3 things: 1) Hill's own testimony, 2) confirmation to NPR by an anonymous source, and 3) the FBI report stating that there were no contradictions in Hill's testimony.

The question is whether the last two support Hill's testimony, (1). (2) appears to do so but the source is not identified so that doesn't really count. (3) doesn't really count as supporting either. Just because there is no evidence that something isn't true doesn't mean that it is actually true.

I haven't read the NPR article you quote, other than to note that it says the Anita Hill accusations against Thomas were brought to the committee a month before Republicans, who, at the last minute, decided to investigate them.  A key difference between that and the Blasey Ford allegations.  If I missed something in your article, I apologize in advance, but I'm busy and felt this deserved a response even though I am somewhat unprepared.

My first reaction is utter disgust.  This past week, Don Jr. tweeted a derisive satire of Blasey Ford's letter, apparently designed to undermine her.  Then today, Don Jr. has seen fit to retweet a post about corroborating evidence that Democratic AG candidate Keith Ellison abused a former partner.  In that I see much the same story I see in every aspect of the Republican response, both to Ms. Hill's allegations and to Christine Blasey Ford and her allegations, and that is a rather obvious intention to set aside concerns for the truth and interest in handling the allegations appropriately in the favor of pursuing narrowly defined self interest.  Your latest volley falls right squarely under that heading.  Lacking any actual knowledge about Ms. Hill's allegations, or those of Ms. Blasey Ford, you chose to attack the victim and accuse both of "unfounded slander."  Having looked at the Oxford English Dictionary this afternoon, I have been made aware that the only definitions of slander without an allegation of falsehood are obsolete or historical.  But you eliminated all doubt by including the claim that Ms. Hill and Ms. Blasey Ford's accusations were unfounded, implying they were false.  Your obvious intent was nothing but a propagandistic undermining of the credibility of both Ms. Hill and Ms. Blasey Ford.  And despite some moderation of your tone now, that remains your basic attitude.  Obviously, these allegations mean nothing to you if they interfere with your narrowly defined self interest.  And you wonder why my impression of you is that you are a person lacking in character, morals, and integrity?

Perhaps I will find something to ameliorate my concern in your NPR article, but for the moment, disgust appears to be the mood of the day.

Of course the Republicans are the party of "boys will be boys "

[Neo-Scholastic]

You seem to read a lot in to my posts, Jor. My stance hasn't 'moderated'. It is the same as before. The Democratic politicians have in the past and are now exploiting these allegations of sexual misconduct to slander Republican nominees. I do not care what motivated Hill or Ford. I clearly said, with respect to Ford, I believe that she probably believes her story.

[Joods]

And all of the sudden; anonymous hearsay, about an account that we have little details on; and happened about 40 years ago, is evidence.  For some, it sometimes appears, that evidence and reason is heavily dependent on what narrative the wish to tell.

Yet when boys complain about priest abuse happening decades ago, we rally behind them and show our disgust for the church's blatant mishandling of that entire situation.

Women do it and they are shamed for it. And people wonder why women don't always report abuse right away. When you have a bunch of the members of the opposite sex condemning women for coming out, why bother?

[RoadRunner79]

And all of the sudden; anonymous hearsay, about an account that we have little details on; and happened about 40 years ago, is evidence.  For some, it sometimes appears, that evidence and reason is heavily dependent on what narrative the wish to tell.

Yet when boys complain about priest abuse happening decades ago, we rally behind them and show our disgust for the church's blatant mishandling of that entire situation.

Women do it and they are shamed for it. And people wonder why women don't always report abuse right away. When you have a bunch of the members of the opposite sex condemning women for coming out, why bother?

I think you missed the point... also, I’m not condemning or shaming anyone for the accusation.

[Joods]

Yet when boys complain about priest abuse happening decades ago, we rally behind them and show our disgust for the church's blatant mishandling of that entire situation.

Women do it and they are shamed for it. And people wonder why women don't always report abuse right away. When you have a bunch of the members of the opposite sex condemning women for coming out, why bother?

I think you missed the point... also, I’m not condemning or shaming anyone for the accusation.

I didn't miss the point. I got it correct and you absolutely were condemning and shaming. Why bother mentioning 40 years if you weren't?

Just keep being blind to all of the double standards your party has. We wouldn't want you suddenly coming to your senses or anything now would we?

[RoadRunner79]

I think you missed the point... also, I’m not condemning or shaming anyone for the accusation.

I didn't miss the point. I got it correct and you absolutely were condemning and shaming. Why bother mentioning 40 years if you weren't?

Just keep being blind to all of the double standards your party has. We wouldn't want you suddenly coming to your senses or anything now would we?

You did miss the point, I’m not shaming, and I think this identity politics stuff is a bunch of crap. If I was a woman, would you believe me, and stop making stuff up? Do you think that the man is always guilty or to blame?

[Joods]

Did you bother being outraged at all those men who claimed sexual abuse by all those priests because they waited decades to speak up? Or was your acceptance of just "their word", an immediate response?

How about you try being honest with yourself for once.

[RoadRunner79]

Did you bother being outraged at all those men who claimed sexual abuse by all those priests because they waited decades to speak up? Or was your acceptance of just "their word", an immediate response?

How about you try being honest with yourself for once.

I am, being honest with myself, and with you. You seem to be arguing something that only exists in your imagination here.

[Joods]

You are fucking unreal.

[RoadRunner79]

You are fucking unreal.

Perhaps you should try listening a little, and trying to have a conversation, rather than speaking for others. Maybe ask questions that aren’t loaded for instance. If you are going to make stuff up, and through an emotional tantrum every time, the discussion isn’t going to go very far.