Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[BmorePat87]

(09-18-2019, 06:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I simply used the turn of phrase as it is mentioned in the Constitution. I freely admitted I was playing loose with the term and trying to preempt the "nu uhs" I knew would follow, when I first used the term by acknowledging this. No one on this side of the keyboard is confused (BTW which is more of an insult: calling someone bullheaded or confused in a discussion?); as I've freely admitted I'm NOT discussing the legality of the issue of double jeopardy; simply the principle as mention in the 5th Amendment. But I will concede so there's a chance of discussing the article . Lets just say it feels like the Dems are wanting to try him for the same offense, given no new information, and understand he's already been confirmed with the information given. Folks can call that whatever makes them feel better. I simply chose to associate it with the principle of Double Jeopardy. 

I would say using an adjective that implies a degree of stupidity by comparing someone to animal is an insult while saying that someone seemed to confuse two concepts is not. I could not call a student "bullheaded" or "pigheaded", but I could certainly say "there seems to be some confusion about what the difference between these two things is". It's silly that I have to respond to this question. Can we not play this game?

The new information is that 25 potential witnesses were not contacted.

Quote:Let's pretend it's your way: If the White House is within its scope and chose to limit the investigation what "new evidence" has been presented that would/should change their choice to do so? 

This is an incredibly loaded question. The point of the investigation should have been to uncover truth, not to appease some GOP senators that were on the fence. If we value truth then we wouldn't have to ask this question as the powers to be would never have limited the investigation.

Quote:Of course the 2020 Dems have been mentioned I just missed what you had to say on their calls for "impeachment" given they are now presented with this information everyone already knew. The only thing new is that a few of the "witnesses" that really meant it now really, really mean it; to include Hernandez's mom.

 
You're fully aware of the fact that I am going to dismiss this blatant attempt to grossly misrepresent what the report allegedly revealed, right? Who is Hernandez?

Quote:SSF keeps pointing to retractions in the article and by whom it was written; I don't even need to do that. It was "Mother Jonesish" as was. 

Cool?