Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*bfine32*]

(09-25-2018, 01:04 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: For complaining the most about people not answering questions, you sure don't answer a lot of questions. I am assuming you and your friends did not make repeated references in your yearbook about having sex with the same girl based on your response. 

I cannot recall if we made repeated references in the yearbook about having sex with the same girl; but I would not put it past us. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-24-2018, 11:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you're saying Trump picked another "best person"?

See I'd agree entirely about the Democrats trying to push a narrative of "rushing" if only because of the Garland situation.  Comparatively they will always be "rushing"...but Kavanaugh has baggage and that is the GOP's fault for not picking a cleaner guy.

I agree that Garland makes every nomination appear like a rush in comparison, but that is an outlier in the dataset that skews the results. Also, as much as Trump and the GOP are one in the same these days, Trump chose Kavanaugh, not the rest of the leadership. They are trying to confirm him because that is there job, but this wasn't their man.

(09-25-2018, 01:01 AM)bfine32 Wrote: To say we didn't boast about our conquests would be lying. Of course we were just kids

I get what you're saying here, but my problem with the "they were kids" argument for this stuff is that is almost tries to have it both ways. We have the defense of Kavanaugh being both "he was an upstanding young man who would never do such a thing" and "so what if he was a horny misogynist? He was just a teenager and boys will be boys." You can't claim both as a defense of someone.

I also have a problem with that defense because in the spate of teenage people of color being killed in police shootings or by citizens "standing their ground" the people giving a pass to Kavanaugh's behavior as a teenager are quick to treat these young people as adults that are fully responsible for their actions and then some.

[GMDino]

(09-25-2018, 09:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree that Garland makes every nomination appear like a rush in comparison, but that is an outlier in the dataset that skews the results. Also, as much as Trump and the GOP are one in the same these days, Trump chose Kavanaugh, not the rest of the leadership. They are trying to confirm him because that is there job, but this wasn't their man.

I understand it is the outlier...that was my point about the right complaining that the left said this was "rushed". Of course they did. The last guy skewed everything for the next guy.

(09-25-2018, 09:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get what you're saying here, but my problem with the "they were kids" argument for this stuff is that is almost tries to have it both ways. We have the defense of Kavanaugh being both "he was an upstanding young man who would never do such a thing" and "so what if he was a horny misogynist? He was just a teenager and boys will be boys." You can't claim both as a defense of someone.

I also have a problem with that defense because in the spate of teenage people of color being killed in police shootings or by citizens "standing their ground" the people giving a pass to Kavanaugh's behavior as a teenager are quick to treat these young people as adults that are fully responsible for their actions and then some.

This is the typical "real man" who wants to boast about all the girls he's had...while saying the girls were sluts and he was just being a "man".

And in 2018 they are still out there saying it.

And they say "men are being attacked" when they are called out by women for their double standard and caveman ways.

[GMDino]

(09-25-2018, 01:07 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I cannot recall if we made repeated references in the yearbook about having sex with the same girl; but I would not put it past us. 

Classy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-25-2018, 09:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get what you're saying here, but my problem with the "they were kids" argument for this stuff is that is almost tries to have it both ways. We have the defense of Kavanaugh being both "he was an upstanding young man who would never do such a thing" and "so what if he was a horny misogynist? He was just a teenager and boys will be boys." You can't claim both as a defense of someone.

Sure you can.  It's inconsistent but not to the point of contradiction.

Quote:I also have a problem with that defense because in the spate of teenage people of color being killed in police shootings or by citizens "standing their ground" the people giving a pass to Kavanaugh's behavior as a teenager are quick to treat these young people as adults that are fully responsible for their actions and then some.

You normally make good points, this is possibly your worst attempt ever for both your suppositions and your conclusion.  One, it assumes that teenage "people of color" are the only teenagers killed by police or during a "stand your ground" scenario.  This is demonstrably untrue.  The fact that you don't hear about it on the news, because it doesn't attract clicks, is irrelevant.  Also, it ignores that the consequences for the actions of teenagers in those scenarios, whether white or a "person of color" are immediate.  A teenager trying to kill me doesn't get a pass because they are a teenager.  A teenager who tried to kill me, fled the scene, got caught thirty-five years later after making a law abiding life for themselves does get the benefit of making a horrible "youthful" decision.  Thus your entire point is built on an utterly flawed premise.

Secondly, you ignore the glaring contradiction the other way, that being that left leaning types are the first to point out that teenagers should not be treated as adults.  That their decisions should not have life long consequences.  Yet these are the same people howling for Kavanuagh's blood.  I'll reiterate, because some here will attempt to twist my points if I do not.  I don't minimize the accusation, I'm merely pointing out the contradiction in the position.

Lastly, the second "accuser" in the New Yorker story is flawed beyond belief, the story itself states she can't even be sure the person who exposed themselves was Kavanaugh.  This accuser will likely help Kavanaugh's case far more than it hurts it.  Also, I see sleazy Avenneti has entered the game.  It's hard for me to think of a bigger scumbag than that opportunist shyster.

[jj22]

You have to admit the Renate thing is comical given she signed off on how good of a guy Kav is. Surely she, as she says now, regrets it, and support Ford, but it's too late. I feel bad for her kids and grandkids finding out they Mom/Grandmother, was ran thru by her high school football team. Given her background, she should have stayed out of it.

[Belsnickel]

(09-25-2018, 09:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure you can.  It's inconsistent but not to the point of contradiction.

I would disagree.

(09-25-2018, 09:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You normally make good points, this is possibly your worst attempt ever for both your suppositions and your conclusion.  One, it assumes that teenage "people of color" are the only teenagers killed by police or during a "stand your ground" scenario.  This is demonstrably untrue.  The fact that you don't hear about it on the news, because it doesn't attract clicks, is irrelevant.  Also, it ignores that the consequences for the actions of teenagers in those scenarios, whether white or a "person of color" are immediate.  A teenager trying to kill me doesn't get a pass because they are a teenager.  A teenager who tried to kill me, fled the scene, got caught thirty-five years later after making a law abiding life for themselves does get the benefit of making a horrible "youthful" decision.  Thus your entire point is built on an utterly flawed premise.

I should have been more clear in my post, and I though about adding this but got pulled away. The reason I said this is because young minorities often have a smear campaign against them in the media for underage drinking or possible pot smoking in an attempt to make the shooting appear more justified. This behavior is delinquent behavior, but yet is treated differently for people of color than white people.

(09-25-2018, 09:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Secondly, you ignore the glaring contradiction the other way, that being that left leaning types are the first to point out that teenagers should not be treated as adults.  That their decisions should not have life long consequences.  Yet these are the same people howling for Kavanuagh's blood.  I'll reiterate, because some here will attempt to twist my points if I do not.  I don't minimize the accusation, I'm merely pointing out the contradiction in the position.

I, personally, have an issue when someone's right to life, liberty, or property are violated in too harsh of a way because of youthful indiscretion. A seat on the SCOTUS is not a right. People get turned down for jobs all of the time because of stupid decisions in high school and/or college thanks to them being made public on social media. This is just a more public version of that.

(09-25-2018, 09:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Lastly, the second "accuser" in the New Yorker story is flawed beyond belief, the story itself states she can't even be sure the person who exposed themselves was Kavanaugh.  This accuser will likely help Kavanaugh's case far more than it hurts it.  Also, I see sleazy Avenneti has entered the game.  It's hard for me to think of a bigger scumbag than that opportunist shyster.

And this is why there should be an investigation. That's what the majority of people wanting to delay the vote are asking for, an impartial and fair investigation into the claims.

[fredtoast]

(09-24-2018, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Everyone's aware of the Garland situation. It just varies on whether folks think that justifies the Dems current circus. I find them both to be wrong. There's actually a well known fallacy for those that think it makes it right. 

It does justify it.

As long as one side does it then the other side also has to do it.  You may feel they are both wrong, but one side can't give in when the other side does it.

The system requires this type of behavior.

[fredtoast]

(09-24-2018, 08:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's not pretend that deviants can be stereotyped. Keith Ellison in not conservative, nor white, nor gun-toting, nor baptist.  And it seems the left does not mind. 

Link to any Dem saying that the claims against Ellison should not be investigated or STFU with this weaksauce.

Amazing what people will fall for in the echo chamber.

"Dems are saying claims against Ellison should not be investigated just like Republicans with Kavanaugh. Derp!"

[Benton]

(09-25-2018, 09:37 AM)jj22 Wrote: You have to admit the Renate thing is comical given she signed off on how good of a guy Kav is. Surely she, as she says now, regrets it, and support Ford, but it's too late. I feel bad for her kids and grandkids finding out they Mom/Grandmother, was ran thru by her high school football team. Given her background, she should have stayed out of it.

You lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

It would be a different world if people were held to any kind of standard for their endorsements. Which, in a way, maybe they are. It's more plausible that Kavanaugh has some sort of guilt since Trump — who now has a history of hiring and speaking highly of abusers — is endorsing him. 

[*michaelsean*]

(09-25-2018, 12:54 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You and your buddies also made repeated references about having sex with the same girl?

We did refer to some girls as "the bullpen".  There goes my SCOTUS chance.

[GMDino]

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

How nice of you.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-25-2018, 11:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: How nice of you.

Ahhhh....to be so pure.

[GMDino]

(09-25-2018, 11:20 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Ahhhh....to be so pure.

You spelled "decent" wrong.  

[*michaelsean*]

(09-25-2018, 11:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: You spelled "decent" wrong.  

You spelled virgin wrong. Oh wait you may have done that on purpose now that I think about it. Guess you can throw stones.

[GMDino]

(09-25-2018, 11:35 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You spelled virgin wrong.  Oh wait you may have done that on purpose now that I think about it.  Guess you can throw stones.

Indeed.  But my choosing to not have sex until marriage is separate and above not shaming those who didn't.  

[Vlad]

Toxic femininity is at the root of this fiasco.

DemocRATS are not interested in getting the truth. Truth does not matter. What matters is destroying this man by whatever means necessary.

Accusations are sufficient. They are perceived as truth.

[GMDino]

(09-25-2018, 11:41 AM)Vlad Wrote: Toxic femininity is at the root of this fiasco.

DemocRATS are not interested in getting the truth. Truth does not matter. What matters is destroying this man by whatever means necessary.

Accusations are sufficient. They are perceived as truth.

"Accusations are sufficient"  

[*michaelsean*]

(09-25-2018, 11:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: Indeed.  But my choosing to not have sex until marriage is separate and above not shaming those who didn't.  

We didn't say it in a yearbook.  

[*bfine32*]

(09-25-2018, 10:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Link to any Dem saying that the claims against Ellison should not be investigated or STFU with this weaksauce.

Amazing what people will fall for in the echo chamber.

"Dems are saying claims against Ellison should not be investigated just like Republicans with Kavanaugh. Derp!"

You did read the post I was replying to didn't you? If not go back and read it and you will understand the motivation for my wording. Do that or STFU with this weaksauce. (See what I did?)