Kansas Crimson

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:13 pm

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:08 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:34 am

She's not.

I hope you're serious. I don't think she's lying either.

Even if he did, do you seriously think that something a 54 year-old man did when he was an 18 year-old kid really has any bearing on his fitness to be a Supreme Court justice today? If so, I assume you are also just as hopeful that Juanita Broaddrick's actual rape allegations against Slick Willie and those against Keith Ellison will also be thoroughly investigated so that justice can be served.

Investigate them. Works for me.

defixione wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:24 pm So we can put you down as being okay with all of the priestly molestations from 35 years ago?

That's an apples and oranges question.

It's awfully hard to argue against this today:

Brett Kavanaugh Is A Man The Right Can Get Behind

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/brett ... 1829225731

A thing it took, like, the New York Times and Washington Post and CNN and so forth maybe a little too long to figure out, back during the 2016 campaigns, a lapse that has launched innumerable blinkered Cletus Safaris in search of some other, less chillingly sociopathic answer in the aftermath of that hell-moment, is this: What the American right wants, what it’s after, isn’t some abstract pluralist success, like the smooth functioning of government and/or the material improvement of American life. It wants, only and entirely, to defeat its opponents. Those aren’t quite the same thing. The Republican party would not choose the former if it could be accomplished without the latter.

[...]

It has to be this guy. It has to be this guy now more than ever. It has to be this guy, now, because he has been accused, credibly, of attempting to rape a 15-year-old girl in 1982—moreover because people believe this should be considered a disqualifying blight on his record. The thing that must happen is that those people must be defeated. That is the whole point. What must be shown to the whole world is that this, even this, cannot stop him. The bigger the outrage that can be brushed aside, the more thorough the defeat for the people who thought something, anything, might take precedence over this white man being the pick of another white man.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:08 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:34 am

Geezer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:22 am What makes you think that she is lying?

She's not.

I hope you're serious. I don't think she's lying either.

I am serious. She has nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming forward here. I don't think for one second that she is lying.

That said, I don't think Kavanaugh is lying either.

Given what we know about memory, its fallibility over time, and the fact it literally changes every time it is accessed, I think it's almost guaranteed that one or both is misremembering something.

Who and what are the critical questions, though not likely ever to be answered.

This is accurate, and relevant:

Kavanaugh’s Senate hearing isn’t a trial. The standard isn’t ‘reasonable doubt.’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... 694c49afa5

[W]hen it comes to process, let’s be clear: If Ford testifies before the Judiciary Committee, if committee staffers interview her privately or if she puts her story on the official Senate record in some other way, senators aren’t tasked with measuring her accusation or Kavanaugh’s denial by the familiar “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applied in criminal proceedings, or with rendering a verdict of guilty or not.

[...]

Even if senators aren’t sure what, if anything, happened between Ford and Kavanaugh, if they think the accusation is probable, or even plausible, and decide that it’s too great a risk to put a maybe-sexual-assaulter on the high court, they’re entitled to vote no. If they believe that Kavanaugh lied under oath in answers to written or oral questions related to any part of the confirmation process, they’re entitled to vote no.

[...]

Kavanaugh’s public hearings, then, and any inquiry now into the accusations against him, are less like a trial and more like a high-stakes job interview — and this job comes with life tenure. The main point of the hearings is to determine the nominee’s fitness for the post. Senators evaluate judicial qualifications, record, demeanor and philosophy. Modern judicial nominees undergo in­cred­ibly thorough vetting in preparation because they know that senators may also explore every aspect of their past. Allegations of sexual misconduct fall well within the scope of relevant considerations. Because guilt or innocence isn’t the issue, but instead fitness for the Supreme Court, the burden of proof isn’t, and shouldn’t be, on Ford, the accuser; it remains on Kavanaugh.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:51 pm

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:08 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:34 am

She's not.

I hope you're serious. I don't think she's lying either.

I am serious. She has nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming forward here. I don't think for one second that she is lying.

That said, I don't think Kavanaugh is lying either.

Given what we know about memory, its fallibility over time, and the fact it literally changes every time it is accessed, I think it's almost guaranteed that one or both is misremembering something.

Who and what are the critical questions, though not likely ever to be answered.

As far as determining what happened or did not happen, sure. But Kavanaugh's candor on this matter (and others) is critical, as well. And, lord, if he was involved at all in the Ed Whelan thing...that should be disqualifying.

I'm not sure why he would be involved, but yes. If he had any involvement or even any foreknowledge, then that is, by far, the most damning thing I can imagine.

Still don't know WTF Ed was thinking.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:51 pm

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:08 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:34 am

She's not.

I hope you're serious. I don't think she's lying either.

I am serious. She has nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming forward here. I don't think for one second that she is lying.

That said, I don't think Kavanaugh is lying either.

Given what we know about memory, its fallibility over time, and the fact it literally changes every time it is accessed, I think it's almost guaranteed that one or both is misremembering something.

Who and what are the critical questions, though not likely ever to be answered.

You seriously don't see George Soros or some other liberal puppeteer putting money in her pocket in exchange for publicly humiliating herself? It's a story as old as time itself.

ridiculous.

Geezer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:01 pmridiculous.

^^^^^

There is none so blind as him who refuses to see.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:32 pm There is none so blind as him who refuses to see.

Yes

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:51 pm

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:08 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:34 am

She's not.

I hope you're serious. I don't think she's lying either.

I am serious. She has nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming forward here. I don't think for one second that she is lying.

That said, I don't think Kavanaugh is lying either.

Given what we know about memory, its fallibility over time, and the fact it literally changes every time it is accessed, I think it's almost guaranteed that one or both is misremembering something.

Who and what are the critical questions, though not likely ever to be answered.

You do know that I hate you when you are reasonable and I have to agree with you?

Fuck you DC!

That said all of this is pretty much spot on. It is not a surprise to me that these things come out years later. If the assault did not result in a rape or worse (death), few people care to endure the personal humiliation and backlash of filing charges or telling anyone else about it. I am not surprised that she came out with this as she is reading about Kavanaugh becoming a Supreme Court Justice and decided now is the time she had to say something. You can’t keep that shit inside forever or it eats you up.

I first made public my story about being assaulted by a pedophile priest 45 years after the fact. Very few people other than close friends and family have heard the stories. But because of a project I was working on I googled the name of one of my old nemesis’ priests from back when I was in junior high. And when his name came up it turned out there was a recent article about him in the smalltown newspaper where I grew up. He has been dead for 10 plus years and the church admitted 20 years ago that he molested kids in an orphanage before he came to our parish. The church knew about it and reassigned him to our parish and told no one in the parish what he had done. There had never been any reports of him doing it at our church but he left after a decade or so to be “reassigned” again which was the practice back then. The newspaper article noted that the Catholic Church had just admitted that they had documentation of seven more cases of abuse against him and confirmed their internal investigation corroborated the victims stories. The journalist who wrote the article wondered out loud if there had ever been any documentation of abuse while in our town, because there was no documentation of such. And then I proceeded to the comment section……and in the middle of the comments there was a screed by a parishioner about my age that I knew who essentially said, “why can’t everyone leave this man alone? He is dead and can’t defend himself now, what good does this do? I knew him and he was friends with my family and he was never anything but good to me and when we asked him about these accusations years ago he said it was all lies, so unless someone I know tells me this really happened, then I will never believe it!” So I replied right there in the paper and said, you know me, I am telling you this shit happened, are you going to call me a liar? The man was creepy and weird and he was a different person when he was alone with the altar boys than he was out front of the church with the parents. I was one of the “lucky ones” in that even as a 12 year old I knew shit wasn’t right and got myself out of the situation but not without paying a price by being ostracized and even told by my own parents that I should go back to being an altar boy because maybe I was making too much of a 50 year old man wanting to wrestle with young boys in the back room. Uhm…NO, he was grooming us and it freaked me out. He committed no crime, but even a little kid could inherently feel something was wrong here. So it didn’t surprise me when my mom called one morning to say, “did you see Fr Spike mentioned on Good Morning America this morning?” She told me he was named as part of a group of priests who had molested children. She: “Is that why you quit being an altar boy?” Me: “Well fuck yeah that’s why I quit being an altar boy, I told you that 20 years ago, the guy was a freak.” Her: “well, we didn’t know”…..seriously, that’s your defense? The truth is, kids have told the truth for years and not been believed and paid consequences for talking about it. So I understand exactly why Christine Ford decided to stay quiet and now finally come out and tell the public what happened after all these years after never feeling it was worth pressing charges way back then. To carry this shit around for years and then see someone who had abused you being declared a great and noble person when your experience is otherwise brings it all back, all of the anger and humiliation from the event, and so you vent. Been there done that.

The Kavanaugh vs Ford case is a lot less cut and dried than mine in that both victim and perp were kids. And if I was put on trial for everything I did when I was 17, I could be looking at life in prison. No evidence at this late date, but plenty of witnesses still alive. I believe Ford and am more skeptical of Kavanaugh. I think he should answer questions, if it was indeed one drunken juvenile mistake that’s one thing. If it was part of a pattern that’s something else. If he was complicit in Ed Whelan’s smear campaign then that shows a lack of ethics in my mind which is a big problem in a judge.

Thank you for sharing your personal story, japhy.

But, this isn't a trial. As jfish noted, this is a job interview to find a lawyer, out of the 450,000 in the US, to serve among the 9 on the highest court. This is the only lawyer out of that group with the credentials to serve on the SCOTUS?

It has to be hard to even put that out anonymously, japhy. I hope you've found some peace.

I went to Catholic grade school and high school and never had an issue. Had lots of Jesuit priests as teachers. None of my friends have mentioned anything regarding this to me. It came as a huge shock to me in the 80s when this news started to break. I can't image the intimidation and isolation of someone who was that revered doing something like this to a kid. At this point, I have a hard time walking into a church.

Back on track. She is a female, she is obviously lying.

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:22 pm Back on track. She is a female, she is obviously lying.

That's helpful.

She is a female, she is obviously lying.

I could swear there was a reference to what Norman said about RBG somewhere on this thread.
I can't find it - so I guess not.
Joke or not, funny or not, big deal or not - this was my response to someone this morning on a different "social media" platform.

I'm providing Norman's Twitter response after he was called out. Before I do, I want to ask him - are you that clueless that you don't realize YOU'RE ONE OF THE "CLOWNS" and YOU felt the need to add yourself to the "current circus"? ALSO, congrats on being taught a new word (substantive) by your advisor/s and using it repeatedly. ONE MORE THING - Your opponent "understood it (your "joke") that way"? REALLY? This what your opponent (Parnell) had to say about you and your "joke" - "My opponent apparently thinks sexual assault is a joke. It is not. But I guess that’s the best we can expect from someone who pulled a loaded gun on his own constituents".
Norman - 1 of 3: My comments earlier today were meant to add a bit of levity to a very serious debate between me and my Democrat opponent and to point to the circus-like atmosphere that Washington DC has become. People really need to learn to lighten up. 2 of 3: Clearly my opponent understood it that way since for the next hour we engaged in a substantive discussion about our many differences without mention of my comments. 3 of 3: Once again, the Democrats and the media have taken an event that was newsworthy for so many substantive reasons and are now only adding more clowns and distractions to the current circus.