Kansas Crimson

Gutter's Mother wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:32 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:40 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:24 pm

First of all, welcome Feral! Please do stick around, assuming you aren’t DC’s sock.

Second, is that photo real? Cuz psych said it was fake news. I just don’t even know any more.

Hey, don’t blame me if you can’t tell Photoshop when you see it.

Jim Bourg and/or Reuters said he/they is/are suing you and psych for slander.
What next? Are you going to try and convince us that Kavanaugh doesn't like beer?

https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/ka ... USRTS2333B

https://www.businessinsider.com/whats-h ... ?r=UK&IR=T

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidalm/2 ... 4d5fd63eac

It’s fine. I just remembered that Bourg tried to rape me when I was in high school, so it will work out in my favor. Good luck to him proving that he didn’t.

I might be inclined to believe him if he didn't lie under oath - related or unrelated to the alleged rape accusations.

Here is my worthless take.
Kavanaugh is no saint. I know, no one is - not even saints.
That doesn't mean I feel he attempted to "rape" Ford and/or other women and it doesn't mean I feel he didn't attempt to "rape" Ford and/or other women.
What I do feel is that he's not been 100% truthful during his "testimony" and "hearing".
There are things he has said that have been proven false. Doesn't mean he intentionally lied but when he has been so adamant about things from his past that are true or false, he's been forgetful and wrong about things he did and didn't do that can and have been proven otherwise.
I would probably take Kavanaugh on the bench over 90% of other possible "candidates" but I refuse to believe the man is as "innocent" and "clean" as he would like for everyone to believe he is.
He like 99% of all people involved in politics is full of shit (to different degrees) and in his case - ANY degree can be considered too much of a degree.

Agreed. He has blatantly lied repeatedly, under oath, to support his version of the story and that's not a good thing to see out of someone who may be tasked with ruling on the most important legal matters in our nation.

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:02 am Agreed. He has blatantly lied repeatedly, under oath, to support his version of the story and that's not a good thing to see out of someone who may be tasked with ruling on the most important legal matters in our nation.

How can he lie when he is refuting falsified accusations in the first place? It’s not a lie when you contradict a lie. Basic logic.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:55 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:02 am Agreed. He has blatantly lied repeatedly, under oath, to support his version of the story and that's not a good thing to see out of someone who may be tasked with ruling on the most important legal matters in our nation.

How can he lie when he is refuting falsified accusations in the first place? It’s not a lie when you contradict a lie. Basic logic.

You are aware that he spoke more than one sentence, right? And that all of those sentences need to be the truth when you are under oath? A number of his statements have been verified as lies. In which part of his testimony is irrelevant.

He lied. Under oath. To try to get on the Supreme Court. Try to wrap your brain around that.

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:59 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:55 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:02 am Agreed. He has blatantly lied repeatedly, under oath, to support his version of the story and that's not a good thing to see out of someone who may be tasked with ruling on the most important legal matters in our nation.

How can he lie when he is refuting falsified accusations in the first place? It’s not a lie when you contradict a lie. Basic logic.

You are aware that he spoke more than one sentence, right? And that all of those sentences need to be the truth when you are under oath? A number of his statements have been verified as lies. In which part of his testimony is irrelevant.

He lied. Under oath. To try to get on the Supreme Court. Try to wrap your brain around that.

I have seen contentions to that effect but no verification.

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:59 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:55 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:02 am Agreed. He has blatantly lied repeatedly, under oath, to support his version of the story and that's not a good thing to see out of someone who may be tasked with ruling on the most important legal matters in our nation.

How can he lie when he is refuting falsified accusations in the first place? It’s not a lie when you contradict a lie. Basic logic.

You are aware that he spoke more than one sentence, right? And that all of those sentences need to be the truth when you are under oath? A number of his statements have been verified as lies. In which part of his testimony is irrelevant.

He lied. Under oath. To try to get on the Supreme Court. Try to wrap your brain around that.

You religious nuts scare me!

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:09 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:59 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:55 pm

How can he lie when he is refuting falsified accusations in the first place? It’s not a lie when you contradict a lie. Basic logic.

You are aware that he spoke more than one sentence, right? And that all of those sentences need to be the truth when you are under oath? A number of his statements have been verified as lies. In which part of his testimony is irrelevant.

He lied. Under oath. To try to get on the Supreme Court. Try to wrap your brain around that.

I have seen contentions to that effect but no verification.

What are you talking about? There have been a number of sworn statements that are of the Trumpian, obviously-false variety, the "wait, you're even trying to lie about this?" variety.

Whatever bro, the sex assault accusations really wuz another Dowdy conspiracy.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:31 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:09 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:59 pm

You are aware that he spoke more than one sentence, right? And that all of those sentences need to be the truth when you are under oath? A number of his statements have been verified as lies. In which part of his testimony is irrelevant.

He lied. Under oath. To try to get on the Supreme Court. Try to wrap your brain around that.

I have seen contentions to that effect but no verification.

What are you talking about? There have been a number of sworn statements that are of the Trumpian, obviously-false variety, the "wait, you're even trying to lie about this?" variety.

I have seen nothing that could not be chalked up to misremembering due to the passage of time or difference of perspective. I understand your deep-seated need to discredit him at all costs, but this has gone way beyond ridiculous. If you're looking for a blatant liar, look no farther than Ms. Ford.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:44 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:31 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:09 pm

I have seen contentions to that effect but no verification.

What are you talking about? There have been a number of sworn statements that are of the Trumpian, obviously-false variety, the "wait, you're even trying to lie about this?" variety.

I have seen nothing that could not be chalked up to misremembering due to the passage of time or difference of perspective. I understand your deep-seated need to discredit him at all costs, but this has gone way beyond ridiculous. If you're looking for a blatant liar, look no farther than Ms. Ford.

These bolded parts aren't pointed at each other, but...shouldn't they be?

In any case, it's Kavanaugh who is supposed to be establishing his fitness for the Supreme Court, so here are a few instances:

“I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.”

He attended many gatherings like the one Dr. Ford described in her allegation.

“She and I did not travel in the same social circles.”

They incontrovertibly traveled in the same social circles.

“Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted.”

One of the witnesses, in fact, says she believes Dr. Ford's testimony (and that she does not refute Dr. Ford's story, just cannot, under oath, claim a specific recollection of it). This is obviously misleading by Kavanaugh.

“The event described by Dr. Ford presumably happened on a weekend because I believed everyone worked and had jobs in the summers. And in any event, a drunken early evening event of the kind she describes, presumably happened on a weekend. ... If the party described by Dr. Ford happened in the summer of 1982 on a weekend night, my calendar shows all but definitively that I was not there.”

Kavanaugh later states, "The calendars show a few weekday gatherings at friends' houses after a workout or just to meet up and have some beers."

One of the witnesses, in fact, says she believes Dr. Ford's testimony (and that she does not refute Dr. Ford's story, just cannot, under oath, claim a specific recollection of it).

OK.

But you left out the key part of her statement -- that she DOES NOT know Brett Kavanaugh, which not only effectively refutes the notion that they were at the same party, but also lends credence to the notion that they were not part of the same social circle.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:58 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:44 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:31 am

What are you talking about? There have been a number of sworn statements that are of the Trumpian, obviously-false variety, the "wait, you're even trying to lie about this?" variety.

I have seen nothing that could not be chalked up to misremembering due to the passage of time or difference of perspective. I understand your deep-seated need to discredit him at all costs, but this has gone way beyond ridiculous. If you're looking for a blatant liar, look no farther than Ms. Ford.

These bolded parts aren't pointed at each other, but...shouldn't they be?

In any case, it's Kavanaugh who is supposed to be establishing his fitness for the Supreme Court, so here are a few instances:

“I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.”

He attended many gatherings like the one Dr. Ford described in her allegation.

“She and I did not travel in the same social circles.”

They incontrovertibly traveled in the same social circles.

“Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted.”

One of the witnesses, in fact, says she believes Dr. Ford's testimony (and that she does not refute Dr. Ford's story, just cannot, under oath, claim a specific recollection of it). This is obviously misleading by Kavanaugh.

“The event described by Dr. Ford presumably happened on a weekend because I believed everyone worked and had jobs in the summers. And in any event, a drunken early evening event of the kind she describes, presumably happened on a weekend. ... If the party described by Dr. Ford happened in the summer of 1982 on a weekend night, my calendar shows all but definitively that I was not there.”

Kavanaugh later states, "The calendars show a few weekday gatherings at friends' houses after a workout or just to meet up and have some beers."

You are basing all of your "incontrovertible" evidence on Ford's statements and/or on those of people who have a vested interest in preventing Kavanaugh's confirmation. At best, you have he said/she said situations; in reality, you have blatant lies motivated by political power-mongering that you desperately want to believe to be true.

Honestly, my position on this doesn't go much beyond "someone this uncomfortable with transparency and unvarnished truth shouldn't get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."

You won't believe me, but up until the 2016 general election, I hadn't cast a vote for a Democratic federal candidate in my life. I'm not the guy to be painted as a hard leftist.

umm dude psych, I’m pretty sure you’re the one who hears those blatant lies motivated by political power-mongering and you desperately want to believe to be true.

Could you imagine how OuTrAgEd psych would be if the judge pulling these stunts was nominated by a libtard?

But perspective and self-awareness were never really psych’s strengths...

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:25 am Could you imagine how OuTrAgEd psych would be if the judge pulling these stunts was nominated by a libtard?

Or how outraged some posters on this site would be if the Republicans did what the Democrats did....

Did wut?

Pull stunts to avoid confirming a political opponent’s scotus nominee?