Kavanaugh hearing

[Jason]

Sorry. Might have to set your VPN to the US.

cool got it on Tor

[Cunt]

Jeez what those Democrats are doing is really really terrible. And you know what? It could get worse. If they were to take the US Senate, they could simply refuse to hold any hearings at all for a Trump nominee to the Supreme Court. Oh, the howls of outrage that would rise up then.

L'Emmerdeur, your criticism of 'them' is a bit weak-sounding. If you started a criticism with 'we', it would sound a lot stronger.

If I were a card-carrying political supporter, I would think it wisest to carry a card from each party. Why not hold them ALL to account.

Certainly in this case the Dems have done the dirtier, but it would be much better to stop the behaviour (bringing any victim they can find to bear on a republican action)

Instead of stopping the dems, or the reps, how about identifying what is fuckity about the back-and-forth, and stop THAT ?

Of course, it would require stepping back from taking sides...it took me a long time before being able to comfortably respect those across the aisle, but it's been worth it.

[Jason]

Sorry. Might have to set your VPN to the US.

cool got it on Tor

OK I watched that facile tripe. In 29 minutes he managed to assert that the burden of proof is on the accused rather than the accuser, insult homosexuals, make negative remarks that are ethnically based, and level his dismissive criticism predicated on nothing more than a person's physical appearance. Brilliant. Is this really the best you guys can bring to the table?

I'm not if I should golf clap or fart in disgust.


... fart in disgust you ask? Yes...

[Tero]

Back and forth? It’s the founding fathers. They set it up. American politics with 2 parties is bound to be a huge pendulum forever. Undoing each other’s deeds is the ”work” politicians do.

[Cunt]

Back and forth? It’s the founding fathers. They set it up. American politics with 2 parties is bound to be a huge pendulum forever. Undoing each other’s deeds is the ”work” politicians do.

I think it's pretty good. The US is one of the places I think would be good to live. I admit being biased though. I think Canada, the US and a few european countries are about all I would choose. Australia used to make the list, but it looks like they are a rape culture. I suppose New Zealand would do.

What's better, Tero? Is there a country you think does it better than the US?

[Tero]

I would live almost anywhere North of Italy in Europe. The Nordic home is a bit alien by now, mainly the dark winters. I had 6 hours daylight in December. Going to school in the dark and the sun setting as I walked home, over the horizon and street lights on.

[laklak]

Nah, go somewhere in the 3rd world where you're rich and top of the food chain, and bribery and corruption are an affordable way of life.

[Tero]

The fucking molesting dick waggling judge lied lied lied

[Cunt]

The fucking molesting dick waggling judge lied lied lied

You changed your mind on Kavanaugh? Wow, that was unexpected.

[Tero]

He forged the note, signing his mom’s name.

[Jason]

Aha... case cracked. There was a keg in the room!

[Joe]

Joe, let's address points from the article you posted:

The article says

Here is what he says: “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.”

The article says that he's lying because he was at other parties where other people, and some of the same folks (PJ and Mark Judge) were in attendance. I mean, to start with this is monumentally disingenuous. How in the world, Joe, does the fact that Kavanaugh went to high school parties translate into he was lying when he says he never attended a gathering like the one Ford describes in her allegation? He wasn't there, and and that means he wasn't anywhere - Blasey Ford isn't specific as to whose house and when it is - all that Kavanaugh can say is that he was not at a gathering like the one described by Ford. That doesn't mean the guy wasn't at any roughly similar parties - like - get togethers with other friends where they drank beer. Does it? I mean, does it? Surely you'll admit that the article does not illustrate a lie here.

So - go ahead - explain how Kavanaugh's statement "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation" has been demonstrated to be untrue. Remember, the authoer said "I want to show you, clearly and definitively, how Brett Kavanaugh has lied to you and lied to the Senate."

So - point me to it.

Ah, as Seth once said, "so much bilge, so little time."

Look in the mirror Forty Two. You've done your usual strawman argument trick, misrepresenting the argument, and railing against that instead of the author's more powerful one. You quote the first sentence of a sizable passage and disingenuously paraphrase the rest.

Let's look at what you're trying to hide. From after your quote:

And here is the gathering as Ford describes it:

After a day of diving at the club, I attended a small gathering at a house in the Bethesda area. There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending. I do not remember all of the details of how that gathering came together, but like many that summer, it was almost surely a spur-of-the-moment gathering… People were drinking beer in a small living room/family room-type area on the first floor of the house.

Kavanaugh says that he never attended any event like this. Like what, though? He never attended a small gathering in Bethesda where people were drinking beer? Kavanaugh submitted his own calendars from the summer of 1982 into evidence for the Senate. As he said himself, “the calendars show a few weekday gatherings at friends’ houses after a workout or just to meet up and have some beers.” He says that he never attended a gathering like this, but that’s obviously false, because the type of gathering he says he did attend is exactly the kind she describes.

Coverage of Ford’s allegations has often implied that the “party” at which she alleges she was assaulted was a kind of large Bacchanalian house party. This is a crucial part of Kavanaugh’s “calendar” defense: If there had been a big party, lots of people would have been there, it would probably have been on his summer calendar under “PAR-TAY!” It would have been notable, and since nobody seems to remember it and he even wrote far less significant events on his calendar, Ford must be misremembering.

But Ford has been clear: She is not talking about a big event. She is talking about a few friends and acquaintances hanging around drinking some beer in a living room:

It was not really a party like the news has made it sound. It was not. It was just a gathering that I assumed was going to lead to a party later on that those boys would attend, because they tended to have parties later at night than I was allowed to stay out. So it was kind of a pre-gathering.

It’s impossible to believe Kavanaugh when he says he never attended any event “like the one Dr. Ford describes.” It was a very typical low-key high school event, and it would have been shocking if Kavanaugh never attended such a thing. Indeed, he admits it himself.

Got that? The author claims Kavanaugh's statement appears to be contradicted by his own testimony. Unlike you, he even provides a link to the transcript, so we can check it out ourselves. Your paraphrasing doesn't mention this at all.

But he goes on.

Okay, so this was a weird lie to tell, because everyone goes to these sorts of events and he had them on his own calendar. But okay, maybe you think that he wasn’t trying to subtly reinforce the impression that Ford was alleging some kind of noteworthy event. Maybe you think he just meant “I never went to this kind of small gathering with the people Ford says.” Indeed, Kavanaugh says:

[N]one of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified. And as my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there; very precise.

Well it’s hard to misinterpret that. He was very precise. Who, then, is the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified? From her testimony:

There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending.

So presumably, if we looked at what Kavanaugh’s calendars show, we wouldn’t find an event with Mark Judge, P.J., some other boy, and Leland. Instead, he gives examples of the kinds of gatherings he did attend:

I [was] in D.C. on Saturday night, August 7th. But I was at a small gathering at Becky’s house in Rockville with Matt, Denise, Laurie and Jenny. Their names are all listed on my calendar. I won’t use their last names here. And then on the weekend of August 20 to 22nd, I was staying at the Garrets’ (ph) with Pat (ph) and Chris (ph) as we did final preparations for football training camp.

None of these names are the names Ford cites. Clearly she knows nothing about his summer. But wait: Let’s look at the entry for July 1st, one Kavanaugh did not cite in his list of “parties with people who are not the people Ford cited.” On July 1st, Kavanaugh planned to go “to Timmy’s for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.” There’s Mark Judge! There’s P.J.! So he gathered for [brew]skis with 2 of the 3 people Ford says she remembers being there. Small gathering? Beer? Judge, Brett, and P.J.? Check, check, and check. So when Kavanaugh says none of the gatherings on the calendar include the people Ford says, and implies that Ford was just conjuring names of people he would never gather with, that’s false. In fact, she cited a small gathering with P.J. and Judge before he released his calendar confirming it.

So here, Robinson shows that physical evidence contradicts a statement Kavanaugh made. He even provides a picture of the calendar. Again, you don't mention it in your paraphrase.

So your "refutation" fails by relying on a strawman, and Robinson's case for lying under oath looks pretty solid, being based on actual testimony and physical evidence.

BTW, strawman is a polite term for lie, and occurs all too often in your arguments.

[Brian Peacock]

Sorry. Might have to set your VPN to the US.

cool got it on Tor

OK I watched that facile tripe. In 29 minutes he managed to assert that the burden of proof is on the accused rather than the accuser, insult homosexuals, make negative remarks that are ethnically based, and level his dismissive criticism predicated on nothing more than a person's physical appearance. Brilliant. Is this really the best you guys can bring to the table?

I'm not if I should golf clap or fart in disgust.


... fart in disgust you ask? Yes...

I'm no fan of Argumentum ad YouTube and the video doesn't represent a proxy for my argument, which is that Mr Kavanaugh has demonstrated he doesn't have the necessary temperament or the political independence for the role. I posted it more for its light-hearted relief.

[Galaxian]

I'm no fan of Argumentum ad YouTube and the video doesn't represent a proxy for my argument, which is that Mr Kavanaugh has demonstrated he doesn't have the necessary temperament or the political independence for the role. I posted it more for its light-hearted relief.

In a single paragraph you have contradicted yourself admirably! a) You're not in favor of seeing videos. But, b) Kavanaugh has demonstrated...

Pray, tell. How did you become aware that Kavanaugh "demonstrated" without seeing a video? Did you simply glean it from a transcribed text? If you only read it, would it not have been better to also "hear" it. And better yet, to "see" it. And better still to have been there. And the best, to have entered his brain and experienced his thoughts directly?

In other words; the more senses we use, the more accurate our interpretation of the information. There's no denying that.

But the last two methods are denied us. So we are left with the video, which is head & shoulders above a mere text. With that in mind, Galaxian presents 3 YouTube videos from two razor sharp thinkers. (YouTube, because other video platforms are far less popular, and not really supported on Rationalia).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwwOrRchD0E


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf7HBOtjL_M


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpMGiUOd6fo

[Brian Peacock]

I'm no fan of Argumentum ad YouTube and the video doesn't represent a proxy for my argument, which is that Mr Kavanaugh has demonstrated he doesn't have the necessary temperament or the political independence for the role. I posted it more for its light-hearted relief.

In a single paragraph you have contradicted yourself admirably! a) You're not in favor of seeing videos. But, b) Kavanaugh has demonstrated...

Pray, tell. How did you become aware that Kavanaugh "demonstrated" without seeing a video? Did you simply glean it from a transcribed text? If you only read it, would it not have been better to also "hear" it. And better yet, to "see" it. And better still to have been there. And the best, to have entered his brain and experienced his thoughts directly?

In other words; the more senses we use, the more accurate our interpretation of the information. There's no denying that.

But the last two methods are denied us. So we are left with the video, which is head & shoulders above a mere text. With that in mind, Galaxian presents 3 YouTube videos from two razor sharp thinkers. (YouTube, because other video platforms are far less popular, and not really supported on Rationalia).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwwOrRchD0E


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf7HBOtjL_M


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpMGiUOd6fo

I watched the live stream of the hearing on YouTube - to which my contemporaneous comments in this thread attest. I'm quite interested to see what lengths you're prepared to go to in order to support your contention by showing us how that is essentially no different than the stated Argumentum ad YouTube, where the content or existence of a video is used as a proxy for, or cited in lieu of, making an argument in, or on, one's own terms. You had a good first stab by implying I operate to a double standard, now I'd like to see the meat in your sandwich.