Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 06:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It was not despicable to ask for an investigation of Ford's claims.   

It is despicable to chant to lock a person up even after there has been a thorough investigation that cleared her of any crime.  But you refuse to admit that because that is your side.

I have never said Kavanaugh was guilty.  I have just said we need an investigation.

I agree and she got 2. 

Oh, I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about those that did not provide the assumption of innocence to the accused. 

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2018, 06:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well, I'll give folks the presumption of innocence in my daily functions 

No you don't.  When you pay someone money for something you get a receipt.  You don't leave your keys in your car.  You don't leave the door of your home unlocked.  You teach your children not to talk to strangers.  And finally you accuse every person on the left of worshipping Ford and believing everything she says.

(10-04-2018, 06:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote:   I did notice you didn't answer the question I posed at the beginning of my post. 

 I did not see a question at the beginning of your post.

(10-04-2018, 06:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  I've never said lock Hillary up. 

No, but you keep insisting she broke the law when the investigation found that she did not.  You refuse to acknowledge that intent is an element of the crime.

Do you agree that everyone who chants "Lock her up" is despicable?

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2018, 06:54 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Does saying she broke the law but didn't intend to really clear her fo any crime, though? 

She did not break the law because intent is an element of the law.

No intent means no crime.  Anyone who does not accept that is ignoring reality in order to play partisan politics.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2018, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I was talking about those that did not provide the assumption of innocence to the accused. 

You mean "the left".


Isn't accusing everyone on the left of being despicable contrary to your "assumption of innocence".

[*PhilHos*]

(10-04-2018, 06:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: She did not break the law because intent is an element of the law.

No intent means no crime.  Anyone who does not accept that is ignoring reality in order to play partisan politics.

The smiley indicated I didn't care I was just being facetious, but now that you bring this up, could you care to show where in the law that intent has to be there?

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 06:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. No you don't.  When you pay someone money for something you get a receipt.  You don't leave your keys in your car.  You don't leave the door of your home unlocked.  You teach your children not to talk to strangers.  And finally you accuse every person on the left of worshipping Ford and believing everything she says.



2.  I did not see a question at the beginning of your post.


3. No, but you keep insisting she broke the law when the investigation found that she did not.  You refuse to acknowledge that intent is an element of the crime.

4. Do you agree that everyone who chants "Lock her up" is despicable?

1. When I lived on the beach in Hawaii, I didn't even close my door; much less lock it. Not sure what getting a receipt has to do with the issue. As to the keys; I often leave them in my car especially with the new push start function. I've had my employees bring me the keys out of my motorcycle ignition. I taught my children to greet everyone and treat them as a friend.

2, It was the statement followed by this ?

3. Sure she broke the law, but I freely admit the law decided she didn't commit a crime. See you even differentiate the difference between breaking the law and committing a crime.

4. Their actions are despicable. 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(10-04-2018, 06:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am sure that is what they are telling you in the echo chamber, but public opinion polls say otherwise.

An overwhelming majority felt the accusations deserved investigation.  Beyond that the public is split in their support of Kavanaugh.  Mor epeople believe he should be confirmed, but there is not a huge backlash against the Dems for delaying the vote for an investigation.

The only people squealing with self-righteous indignation are the ones that were going to vote Republican anyway.

Says the Echo Chamber, lol.

[GMDino]

(10-04-2018, 06:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Charged by whom; One person just said my babysitter raped someone and all the people that person said saw it has no idea what they are talking about?  Guarantee all you want; however, you might be surprised who I would give the benefit of innocence to. 

And I get you trying to make yourself feel better about the bastardization of due process and presumption of innocence (especially being as you propose to be a member of the judicial system), but it does not change one bit what the left tried to do to this guy. 

In your scenario above would you ask your babysitter to move in and watch your child full time after the accusation?  "Innocent until proven guilty" and all.

Would you want a full investigation?  Or would you just talk to them?

[SunsetBengal]

(10-04-2018, 06:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It was not despicable to ask for an investigation of Ford's claims.   

It is despicable to chant to lock a person up even after there has been a thorough investigation that cleared her of any crime.  But you refuse to admit that because that is your side.

I have never said Kavanaugh was guilty.  I have just said we need an investigation.

And, you got an investigation.  The problem is that you're not satisfied with the results.

You may have been hoping for a big load of juicy details to emerge?  However, it doesn't take an FBI man to see that the story was very flimsy, lacking in details, along with any corroborating witnesses.

The FBI does this shit for a living.  It didn't take them long to determine that there was nothing there worth pursuing.

[SunsetBengal]

(10-04-2018, 07:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: In your scenario above would you ask your babysitter to move in and watch your child full time after the accusation?  "Innocent until proven guilty" and all.

Would you want a full investigation?  Or would you just talk to them?

Full investigation of what?  She didn't name a place, a time, barely managed to pin down a year (yet, still sounded vague to me), any person that was able to be contacted completely refuted her story.

What was there exactly, to investigate?  Or, did you mean to just "keep it open" and chew up time?

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 07:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: In your scenario above would you ask your babysitter to move in and watch your child full time after the accusation?  "Innocent until proven guilty" and all.

Would you want a full investigation?  Or would you just talk to them?

Fred, you have to answer my question first, before you are allowed to ask others. 

Who accused my babysitter?

What proof did they provide? 

[GMDino]

(10-04-2018, 07:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fred, you have to answer my question first, before you are allowed to ask others. 

Who accused my babysitter?

What proof did they provide? 

Well I followed back to your scenario and then back a couple more posts and don't see a question.  So if you could repeat it?

But it's YOUR scenario.  Does it matter who accused them?  You being willing to put your trust of someone over that of another person's accusations is admirable, but it still begs the question:  With an accusation made and a denial given would you then "promote" the babysitter to live-in caretaker based solely on their word?

[GMDino]

(10-04-2018, 07:11 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Full investigation of what?  She didn't name a place, a time, barely managed to pin down a year (yet, still sounded vague to me), any person that was able to be contacted completely refuted her story.

What was there exactly, to investigate?  Or, did you mean to just "keep it open" and chew up time?

Well I was talking about bfines babysitter.....


But if you want to talk about Kavanaugh there were four (4) accusations.  All with various amounts of supporting witnesses.

I get that the GOP needs to hurry things along but...

So back to bfine's scenario:  If the babysitter was accused of 2 rapes, or 4...do only ask about the first one?

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2018, 06:14 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: That's because of your bias, you can't see how the Democrats are hurting themselves, which is how I see it because of my bias. I see how the Republicans bent over backwards to accommodate Ford and Democrats. I also see how Democrats have no intention of being fair towards anyone Trump nominates. I also think that if Trump were to say "2+2=4" Democrats will yell "YOU'RE LIEING". But of course, that's my bias

If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, it's because Republicans failed to confirm him and I think the Democrats will take the House and Senate if that happens. From the get go, this was the plan of Democrats except they went to far and now it has backfired. The longer they oppose this nomination, the more seats they will lose barring Trump doing something stupid between now and election day, which we all know he will do.

I just said in that post that they are hurting themselves, so not sure why you're saying I don't see it.

And no, there was definitely no bending over backwards to accommodate.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 07:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well I followed back to your scenario and then back a couple more posts and don't see a question.  So if you could repeat it?

But it's YOUR scenario.  Does it matter who accused them?  You being willing to put your trust of someone over that of another person's accusations is admirable, but it still begs the question:  With an accusation made and a denial given would you then "promote" the babysitter to live-in caretaker based solely on their word?

Hell, I did in the post you just quoted. 

Of course it matters who accused them and what evidence the accuser provided. It would also matter that my babysitter had been performing in that job for over 2 decades and had been vetted a minimum of 6 times by the FBI. That may weigh a little more on my babysitter's than someone that has never been vetted to that degree stating my baby sitter assaulted her, but cannot tell me anything else and the "witnesses" state they have no idea what the person is talking about.
It would be irrational to think otherwise.

I'm not sure what point you and you Fred are trying to make. I can only assume you are trying to sell yourselves on something. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2018, 06:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No, but you keep insisting she broke the law when the investigation found that she did not.  You refuse to acknowledge that intent is an element of the crime.

The investigation came to the conclusion that she should not be prosecuted. That is not the same thing.

(10-04-2018, 06:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: She did not break the law because intent is an element of the law.

No intent means no crime.  Anyone who does not accept that is ignoring reality in order to play partisan politics.

Intent often means that a person is not going to be charged, but it doesn't mean they didn't break the law.

[GMDino]

(10-04-2018, 07:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, I did in the post you just quoted. 

Of course it matters who accused them and what evidence the accuser provided. It would also matter that my babysitter had been performing in that job for over 2 decades and had been vetted a minimum of 6 times by the FBI. That may weigh a little more on my babysitter's than someone that has never been vetted to that degree stating my baby sitter assaulted her, but cannot tell me anything else and the "witnesses" state they have no idea what the person is talking about.
It would be irrational to think otherwise.

I'm not sure what point you and you Fred are trying to make. I can only assume you are trying to sell yourselves on something. 

Well then hell I answered because it's YOUR SCENARIO.  I don't know who else is in this little fantasy of yours.  Like why your kids has had a babysitter for "decades" that has been investigated by the FBI 6 times.

But since I'm allowed to add details:  Did you know how many of the priests recently named did their job for decades and were investigated multiple times and still were never stopped?  

If you're gonna just make crap up at least keep it consistent.  One time its just a babysitter, the next it's a drunk frat boy you leave alone with your kids to play "Devil's Triangle"and have FFFFFFFFfun with.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 08:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well then hell I answered because it's YOUR SCENARIO.  I don't know who else is in this little fantasy of yours.  Like why your kids has had a babysitter for "decades" that has been investigated by the FBI 6 times.

But since I'm allowed to add details:  Did you know how many of the priests recently named did their job for decades and were investigated multiple times and still were never stopped?  

If you're gonna just make crap up at least keep it consistent.  One time its just a babysitter, the next it's a drunk frat boy you leave alone with your kids to play "Devil's Triangle"and have FFFFFFFFfun with.

I think the most obvious and telling part you missed; is it was not my scenario or little fantasy; it was Fred's, but what are the odds of you calling him out?

[GMDino]

(10-04-2018, 08:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the most obvious and telling part you missed; is it was not my scenario or little fantasy; it was Fred's, but what are the odds of you calling him out?

Guess I didn't follow back far enough.  I stand by my statements and questions though.

[SunsetBengal]

(10-04-2018, 07:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well I was talking about bfines babysitter.....


But if you want to talk about Kavanaugh there were four (4) accusations.  All with various amounts of supporting witnesses.

I get that the GOP needs to hurry things along but...

So back to bfine's scenario:  If the babysitter was accused of 2 rapes, or 4...do only ask about the first one?

If the Democrat side really thought that there was anything damning?  You can bet that they would NOT have sat on it, until the eleventh hour.  They would have taken that straight to the judiciary committee, and had it looked into to the fullest.