Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*bfine32*]

(09-18-2019, 06:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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.




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.



 
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?





Cool? 

To be fair I feel it's a reach to call either a personal insult especially when framed "In this instance"; it's not like he dismissed you as a troll or anything. I just asked which was worse

That's not new information. Folks were totally aware of who was and wasn't interviewed during the confirmation. to include those that collaborated Ramirez' story. Here's a story from over a year ago stating as such:
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/02/deborah-ramirez-fbi-brett-kavanaugh-investigation/

It's not loaded; it's a simple question. The point of the investigation was to determine the worthiness of a SJ to sit the bench, some just thought it should be a witch hunt.

I simply asked your thoughts on 2020 Dems reaction after this "ground breaking" article. I accidentally said Hernandez instead of Ramirez.

No need for question mark It is cool