Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[GMDino]

(09-25-2018, 11:46 AM)michaelsean Wrote: We didn't say it in a yearbook.  

But you said it.

I suppose it's just "locker room talk".  Just "boys being boys".

Sorry, I hold boys to higher standard when it comes to how they treat and talk about girls.

And yes, I hold girls to the same standard about boys.

[*bfine32*]

(09-25-2018, 11:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: But you said it.

I suppose it's just "locker room talk".  Just "boys being boys".

Sorry, I hold boys to higher standard when it comes to how they treat and talk about girls.

And yes, I hold girls to the same standard about boys.

You are so awesome, St. Dino; unfortunately some kids acted/act juvenile when they are juveniles.  Of course as adults we should try to curb this behavior.

[GMDino]

(09-25-2018, 11:59 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You are so awesome, St. Dino; unfortunately some kids acted/act juvenile when they are juveniles.  Of course as adults we should try to curb this behavior.

I'm sure the Hyperbole Police will be by any second to question your post.

I am not saint.  Never said I was.  I said I dislike "boys" who disrespect girls as sexual conquests as you said you did, as Mike said he did.

I have never been critical of anyone who chose to have sex before marriage even while attempting to discourage it...even with my own children.

But again, being "decent" seems lost on many.

Edit: That is why I acknowledge that juveniles do such things and I am still critical of it...because it is wrong.

[BmorePat87]

(09-25-2018, 10:45 AM)michaelsean Wrote: We did refer to some girls as "the bullpen".  There goes my SCOTUS chance.

Not outside of the realm of believable teen male behavior, but I think you'd agree that you wouldn't suggest that you didn't see any disrespectful behavior towards girls during your time in high school.

The point I find "funny", is that his lawyer admitted that Kavanaugh and his buddies had this huge inside joke about this girl, but said it was only in reference to kissing her and that Kavanaugh has a lot of respect for him. This is also after Kavanaugh said he never saw disrespectful behavior towards women among his rich, prep school teen friends. I don't know if any of this disqualifies him for SCOTUS, but I think trying to maintain this image despite what we know doesn't really help him. 

[jj22]

As we see Cosby getting sentenced to jail, folks aren't giving him the "it was 35 years ago" excuse..... I think there is another thread explaining this somewhere.....

[*PhilHos*]

(09-25-2018, 12:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm sure the Hyperbole Police will be by any second to question your post.

I am not saint.  Never said I was.  I said I dislike "boys" who disrespect girls as sexual conquests as you said you did, as Mike said he did.

I have never been critical of anyone who chose to have sex before marriage even while attempting to discourage it...even with my own children.

But again, being "decent" seems lost on many.

Edit: That is why I acknowledge that juveniles do such things and I am still critical of it...because it is wrong.

But do you think everyone who did something 'indecent' when a youth should be prevented from getting a promotion 30+ years later?

[jj22]

It beats Jail.
Signed,
Bill Cosby.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-25-2018, 04:07 PM)jj22 Wrote: As we see Cosby getting sentenced to jail, folks aren't giving him the "it was 35 years ago" excuse..... I think there is another thread explaining this somewhere.....

35 years ago, Cosby wasn't a kid.

[jj22]

Right. My fault. Cosby's accusations were from close to 50 years ago. Which puts him in his 20's and not much older than Kav (but much younger than Trump who was elected President with more accusers and actually admitting to sexual assault).

Moral of the story is we can hold those we WANT to hold accountable. No matter how long ago it took place And if not getting into the Supreme Court is the only consequences, then not bad at all. It could be worse. As Cosby is finding out.

[GMDino]

(09-25-2018, 04:15 PM)PhilHos Wrote: But do you think everyone who did something 'indecent' when a youth should be prevented from getting a promotion 30+ years later?

I suppose it depends on the level of indecency.

Did he write "for a good time call...." or did he try to rape someone?

I've already said these accusations were not the reason I felt Kavanaugh was unfit for the position.  His lying under oath to congress, twice, is more damning to me.

But the defense of "he was just a boy being a boy" doesn't fly with me when it come to him (or anyone) shaming others.  

"Be best"

[Yojimbo]

(09-25-2018, 04:15 PM)PhilHos Wrote: But do you think everyone who did something 'indecent' when a youth should be prevented from getting a promotion 30+ years later?

It’s not just a “promotion” to get a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in the country. Those positions should be filled with people of impeccable morals, behavior and judgement. A Supreme Court seat should be something that is difficult to fill because you need to find such an exceptional person.

[BmorePat87]

(09-25-2018, 04:15 PM)PhilHos Wrote: But do you think everyone who did something 'indecent' when a youth should be prevented from getting a promotion 30+ years later?

Depends on the job and what the indecent thing was. 

[BmorePat87]

Republicans have hired an outside counsel to question the accuser tomorrow and have already scheduled for a vote on Friday, seemingly suggesting that nothing that happens tomorrow matters.

[GMDino]

(09-25-2018, 08:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Republicans have hired an outside counsel to question the accuser tomorrow and have already scheduled for a vote on Friday, seemingly suggesting that nothing that happens tomorrow matters.

Was there some doubt before?

This is a done deal unless there is an actual fresh body of someone he killed.  Then the vote gets delayed until next week.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-25-2018, 08:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Republicans have hired an outside counsel to question the accuser tomorrow and have already scheduled for a vote on Friday, seemingly suggesting that nothing that happens tomorrow matters.

Probably a smart move to have a woman question Ford rather than the all male GOP panel.  As to the vote, why does scheduling the vote mean they will vote yes?  Also, is it not possible that they will reschedule the vote if something comes up on Thursday that warrants doing so?  Seriously, the reading extreme significance into every detail is effing maddening.

[BmorePat87]

(09-25-2018, 09:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Probably a smart move to have a woman question Ford rather than the all male GOP panel.  As to the vote, why does scheduling the vote mean they will vote yes?  Also, is it not possible that they will reschedule the vote if something comes up on Thursday that warrants doing so?  Seriously, the reading extreme significance into every detail is effing maddening.

The first move would appear to prevent an Anita Hill 2.0 situation. I think it's fair to say that scheduling the vote for hours after the testimony signals an unwillingness to consider the other allegations and doesn't give adequate amount of time to even process either of the testimonies. Senators have even said that Ford won't change how they vote.

Scheduling it for Monday would have been more appropriate. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-25-2018, 08:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Republicans have hired an outside counsel to question the accuser tomorrow and have already scheduled for a vote on Friday, seemingly suggesting that nothing that happens tomorrow matters.

That would make sense if they scheduled the vote before the questioning. 

What's wrong with let's hear from the accused and accuser then vote? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-25-2018, 09:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The first move would appear to prevent an Anita Hill 2.0 situation.

I'm sure Joe Biden would approve.  In all seriousness I think it's a smart move on their part for reasons I already explained.

Quote:I think it's fair to say that scheduling the vote for hours after the testimony signals an unwillingness to consider the other allegations and doesn't give adequate amount of time to even process either of the testimonies. Senators have even said that Ford won't change how they vote.

Other allegations?  If you're referring to the New Yorker allegations, those have been roundly excoriated and don't appear to be worthy of serious consideration.  This is a rather widely held opinion.  Yes, some senators have said that the, he said she said, of an event thirty-five years old will not change their mind.  I can see their reasoning for saying so even if I don't agree with it.  

Quote:Scheduling it for Monday would have been more appropriate. 

A reasonable point.  I would counter by saying that a delay of three days rather pales in the face of a delay of two months.  Point being, if the Dems wanted these allegations to be investigated at length they should have come forward with them when they received them, months ago.  As they did not it appears a thorough investigation is not really their objective.

[BmorePat87]

(09-25-2018, 09:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That would make sense if they scheduled the vote before the questioning. 

What's wrong with let's hear from the accused and accuser then vote? 

Is a few hours enough time to consider pretty heavy accusations against someone you're confirming to be one of the most powerful people for the rest of their life?

[*bfine32*]

(09-25-2018, 09:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Is a few hours enough time to consider pretty heavy accusations against someone you're confirming to be one of the most powerful people for the rest of their life?

Sure, what time limit would you put on it? 

And it's not for "the rest of his life". If the Dems want to push for an investigation and there is proof of his guilt he can be impeached. Your wording just makes it sound much more dramatic.