SCOTUS thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Would you confirm Kavanaugh?

Yes
16
57%
No
12
43%
 
Total votes : 28

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:03 pm

If Kavanaugh knowingly lied under oath he should be disqualified. If he used grey areas to his advantage i have no problem
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 333 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:04 pm

The fact that someone was being interrogated about their page in their high school yearbook as a matter of extreme national importance should make all of us shudder. That would be a comedy sketch or an article from the Onion 5 years ago. Now, seems like half the country thinks it’s exceedingly relevant to evaluate a Federal Judge.

My theory is that Trump’s Twitter Account has basically lowered the bar across the board.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:10 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:Obviously he's blacked out multiple times, to argue otherwise is incredibly naive (stop dread)


Why is it obvious? I feel like I must be missing a relevant detail here.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13187
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 542 times
Been thanked: 571 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:11 pm

Ken Carson wrote:The fact that someone was being interrogated about their page in their high school yearbook as a matter of extreme national importance should make all of us shudder. That would be a comedy sketch or an article from the Onion 5 years ago. Now, seems like half the country thinks it’s exceedingly relevant to evaluate a Federal Judge.

My theory is that Trump’s Twitter Account has basically lowered the bar across the board.



I think the questions were bullshit. The whole thing was a farce. 99% of the players involved should be ashamed of themselves ... they made a mockery of sexual assault and the Supreme Court
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 333 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:14 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:Obviously he's blacked out multiple times, to argue otherwise is incredibly naive (stop dread)


Why is it obvious? I feel like I must be missing a relevant detail here.



I’m with you here. This is a grey area ... what’s the difference between drinking to excess, passing out and blacking out? Those definitions may be different to everyone



To me blacking out is waking up god knows where and not knowing how you got there. Passing out is basically and vaguely knowing how you got to the bed or couch or whatever but not remembering every detail.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 333 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:18 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:The fact that someone was being interrogated about their page in their high school yearbook as a matter of extreme national importance should make all of us shudder. That would be a comedy sketch or an article from the Onion 5 years ago. Now, seems like half the country thinks it’s exceedingly relevant to evaluate a Federal Judge.

My theory is that Trump’s Twitter Account has basically lowered the bar across the board.



I think the questions were bullshit. The whole thing was a farce. 99% of the players involved should be ashamed of themselves ... they made a mockery of sexual assault and the Supreme Court


this is where I stand on it
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3153
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 382 times
Been thanked: 250 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:20 pm

Ken Carson wrote:My theory is that Trump’s Twitter Account has basically lowered the bar across the board.


I think there is some logic to this. People are using Trump as the standard bearer or justification for their own behavior/actions as if it absolves them. My favorite is when people bash something Trump says or does, but then that same person uses it as justification when they do the same or worse.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13187
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 542 times
Been thanked: 571 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:29 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:Obviously he's blacked out multiple times, to argue otherwise is incredibly naive (stop dread)


Why is it obvious? I feel like I must be missing a relevant detail here.


Putting aside all of the people who said he blacked out in college. Anyone who drinks that much and has that many stories of throwing up or attending massive parties has absolutely blacked out. It's just common sense.

Trying to shift the definition is also disingenious. Everyone former or current binge drinker knows what blacking out is. It's drinking so much you can't remember a portion of the night. There's no finite amount of time or actions that qualify. If you can't remember how you got in bed, you blacked out.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4997
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 113 times
Been thanked: 138 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:37 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
Why is it obvious? I feel like I must be missing a relevant detail here.


Putting aside all of the people who said he blacked out in college. Anyone who drinks that much and has that many stories of throwing up or attending massive parties has absolutely blacked out. It's just common sense.

Trying to shift the definition is also disingenious. Everyone former or current binge drinker knows what blacking out is. It's drinking so much you can't remember a portion of the night. There's no finite amount of time or actions that qualify. If you can't remember how you got in bed, you blacked out.


So would it be fair to say it would be like not remembering how you got home? :lol:
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13187
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 542 times
Been thanked: 571 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:39 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
Putting aside all of the people who said he blacked out in college. Anyone who drinks that much and has that many stories of throwing up or attending massive parties has absolutely blacked out. It's just common sense.

Trying to shift the definition is also disingenious. Everyone former or current binge drinker knows what blacking out is. It's drinking so much you can't remember a portion of the night. There's no finite amount of time or actions that qualify. If you can't remember how you got in bed, you blacked out.


So would it be fair to say it would be like not remembering how you got home? :lol:

Lol

Yes.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4997
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 113 times
Been thanked: 138 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:45 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Trump goes out and publicly says that Ford made it all up. If he wasn't POTUS, he might have gotten in trouble for that.


Let me ask this, other than Dr. Ford's own allegation (which is missing MANY pertinent details) what makes you think/believe it wasn't made up?

If her allegation is "credible", what does a "non-credible" allegation look like?

I expect everyone wills have different standards as to what they find to be credible. But what are those specific benchmarks we look for in making that determination and which of those apply to Dr. Ford and her allegation against BK?

My issue with Dr. Ford is that NONE of her story can be, or has been corroborated by anyone or by any supporting evidence. We heard claims from her legal team, but none these 'therapist notes' or details around this polygraph were ever turned over to the Senate Judiciary or anyone else. Doesn't that seem odd? I mean after the witnesses Dr. Ford cited were present ALL REFUTED any event took place as described including her friend (and connection to BK) Leyland Keyser stating she didn't even know BK the therapist notes and polygraph would be the 2 most important pieces of circumstantial evidence left, so why not use them to support your allegation?

I found Dr. Ford believable during her testimony, I do think she was likely a victim. But details matter, corroboration matters, evidence matters, even if it's circumstantial. And there is none of that here which supports her allegation.

The President of the United States just accused an American citizen of perjury with no evidence to support his claim.

That doesnt even give you a little pause?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:51 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
Let me ask this, other than Dr. Ford's own allegation (which is missing MANY pertinent details) what makes you think/believe it wasn't made up?

If her allegation is "credible", what does a "non-credible" allegation look like?

I expect everyone wills have different standards as to what they find to be credible. But what are those specific benchmarks we look for in making that determination and which of those apply to Dr. Ford and her allegation against BK?

My issue with Dr. Ford is that NONE of her story can be, or has been corroborated by anyone or by any supporting evidence. We heard claims from her legal team, but none these 'therapist notes' or details around this polygraph were ever turned over to the Senate Judiciary or anyone else. Doesn't that seem odd? I mean after the witnesses Dr. Ford cited were present ALL REFUTED any event took place as described including her friend (and connection to BK) Leyland Keyser stating she didn't even know BK the therapist notes and polygraph would be the 2 most important pieces of circumstantial evidence left, so why not use them to support your allegation?

I found Dr. Ford believable during her testimony, I do think she was likely a victim. But details matter, corroboration matters, evidence matters, even if it's circumstantial. And there is none of that here which supports her allegation.

The President of the United States just accused an American citizen of perjury with no evidence to support his claim.

That doesnt even give you a little pause?

That's not normalized by now?
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4997
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 113 times
Been thanked: 138 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:26 pm

Seems like the time for this...

Image
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11570
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 953 times
Been thanked: 402 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:37 pm

Buc2 wrote:Seems like the time for this...

Image


I laughed
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3153
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 382 times
Been thanked: 250 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby RedLeader » Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:48 pm

Buc2 wrote:Seems like the time for this...

Image


Lol. That’s some funny **** right there.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:23 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
Let me ask this, other than Dr. Ford's own allegation (which is missing MANY pertinent details) what makes you think/believe it wasn't made up?

If her allegation is "credible", what does a "non-credible" allegation look like?

I expect everyone wills have different standards as to what they find to be credible. But what are those specific benchmarks we look for in making that determination and which of those apply to Dr. Ford and her allegation against BK?

My issue with Dr. Ford is that NONE of her story can be, or has been corroborated by anyone or by any supporting evidence. We heard claims from her legal team, but none these 'therapist notes' or details around this polygraph were ever turned over to the Senate Judiciary or anyone else. Doesn't that seem odd? I mean after the witnesses Dr. Ford cited were present ALL REFUTED any event took place as described including her friend (and connection to BK) Leyland Keyser stating she didn't even know BK the therapist notes and polygraph would be the 2 most important pieces of circumstantial evidence left, so why not use them to support your allegation?

I found Dr. Ford believable during her testimony, I do think she was likely a victim. But details matter, corroboration matters, evidence matters, even if it's circumstantial. And there is none of that here which supports her allegation.

The President of the United States just accused an American citizen of perjury with no evidence to support his claim.

That doesnt even give you a little pause?

Of course it does. Any accusation without corroboration gives me pause.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby RedLeader » Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:14 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:The President of the United States just accused an American citizen of perjury with no evidence to support his claim.

That doesnt even give you a little pause?

Of course it does. Any accusation without corroboration gives me pause.


Exacty this. I was about to do a whole FIFY retort, but this works perfectly...
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby RedLeader » Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:32 pm

"It's a diversionary tactic," she starts. "It's a self-fulfilling prophesy, you demonize and then — the 'wrap-up smear.' You wanna talk politics? We call it the 'wrap-up smear.'"

"You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest," Pelosi detailed, "and then you merchandise it. And then you (gesturing to the media) write it, and then they say, 'See, it's reported in the press that this, this, this, and this.' So they have that validation that the press reported the smear, and then it's called the 'wrap-up smear.'"

Nancy Pelosi. 2017



Sounds about right.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:48 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:The President of the United States just accused an American citizen of perjury with no evidence to support his claim.

That doesnt even give you a little pause?

Of course it does. Any accusation without corroboration gives me pause.

If a crime happens in the middle of the woods and nobody sees it, did a crime occur?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13840
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Babeinbucland » Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:52 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote: And we talked like we all fucked eachother's mothers too. Did any of us actually **** somebody else's mom!?

I did.


Me too
User avatar
Babeinbucland
 
Posts: 4696
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:24 pm
Has thanked: 120 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:59 pm

Babeinbucland wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:I did.


Me too

Devil's triangle done right.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13840
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Babeinbucland » Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:58 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Babeinbucland wrote:
Me too

Devil's triangle done right.

Damn straight
User avatar
Babeinbucland
 
Posts: 4696
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:24 pm
Has thanked: 120 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Brazen331 » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:20 am

Babeinbucland wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Devil's triangle done right.

Damn straight


Sounds like we need a new movement to empower our mothers to overcome the abuse inflicted on them by the likes of you and your boy MB. #MeTooMoms
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2907
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:15 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:Of course it does. Any accusation without corroboration gives me pause.

If a crime happens in the middle of the woods and nobody sees it, did a crime occur?

Of course.

If a crime didn’t happen in the woods and no one is there to see it, can it be disproven?
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:18 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:Of course it does. Any accusation without corroboration gives me pause.

If a crime happens in the middle of the woods and nobody sees it, did a crime occur?

Convincing take Mr. Prosecutor :roll:
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13187
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 542 times
Been thanked: 571 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:00 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:If a crime happens in the middle of the woods and nobody sees it, did a crime occur?

Convincing take Mr. Prosecutor :roll:

Well at least we've established you guys are still litigating this case.

Its over. Who are you trying to convince?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13840
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:16 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:Convincing take Mr. Prosecutor :roll:

Well at least we've established you guys are still litigating this case.

Its over. Who are you trying to convince?


lol, your post implies a crime happened then your next post you accuse others of litigating it.

Just curious what peoples benchmarks are when it comes to finding an allegation credible and how those benchmarks apply to Dr. Ford.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13187
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 542 times
Been thanked: 571 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:27 am

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to witness it, then clearly that tree just made the whole thing up and is just trying to ruin that lumberjack's life - The current stand of the GOP
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:36 am

if the last few posts in this thread are read on a computer in the forest will they appear as dumb as they do now?

would it matter if a tree fell down next to the computer?

or on it?
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 333 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:43 am

bucfanclw wrote:If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to witness it, then clearly that tree just made the whole thing up and is just trying to ruin that lumberjack's life - The current stand of the GOP

Cannot believe this was not a Babeinbucland post.

It’s fine if you believe Ford, despite the lack of evidence. I have always maintained it is completely possible that it happened just as she stated.

What I’d encourage you to do is look at all the people who think Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. People who went to DC to protest like Whoopie Goldberg and Joy Behar, for example, loudly supported Roman Polanski and Al Franken when they were in the throes of controversy WITH evidence. All the Hollywood people who were huge praises of Harvey Weinstein. Even Democrats within Washington who argued vehemently against Bill Clinton’s accusers, man of whom who had evidence, and his perjury case.

I have no time for people whose positions on things like sexual assault or due process change with the person accused. That is spineless, weak, partisan and lacks principle.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], NavyBuc and 11 guests