Kreepy Kavanaugh

[adrina]

You HAVE to agree the Democrat senators have behaved in a contemptible manner, right?

No I don't.

I'm supposing you find nothing wrong with Grassley's or Grahamy behavior?

Trump nominated someone that is favorable to him personally. Not the country. Almost half of the US does not agree with this nomination. Less than a third agree.

The man isn't fit for the bench, regardless of any sexual allegations. Lying, temperamental, contempt, partisan hackery. All if these things are not able to be argued with. But you think he's just fine and qualified, and you question my perspective?

Again, interesting.

 

[Ramone45]

And you don't agree that 6 FBI background checks and full Senate hearings accomplished that. That you are "certain that you recall" sounds familiar to some of the testimony against Kavanaugh.

I believe you are wrong that this is not the new normal, at least for the Democrats. The politics of personal attacks and destruction seem to be just another day in DC. We are all flawed. How do you see him as deeply flawed when so many who have known him for so long have testified of his moral character.

No, this is the new normal for Democrats. Personal destruction of their foes AND allies. They have a playbook and are following it to a "T". Let me ask you this. At what age would a bad act be considered inconsequential. I don't know anyone who at sometime in their life did something they were not proud of. What if he took his parents car without permission at 16? Disqualified? What if hepulled a girls pony tail at 14? Judge Kavanaugh has been accused of a horrible act. Thirty six years ago. With zero eveidence. And we a ready to believe he's guilty because we've deluded ourselves into thinking he's guilty. It doesn't work that way. As far as I'm concerned, without proof, he did not do it. Not,"I want to believe he did it", like the Democrats act. He did not do it.

 

[adrina]

Perhaps you can answer why it is "imperative" that the investigation be wrapped up by Thursday and the vote on Friday?

Somewhere in your partisan hackery I'm sure you have a justification.

 

[trysail]

Agreed. I can't believe anyone from that era, especially those choosing to drink, could not remember accurately what the drinking age was...

Wrongamundo.

The drinking age in D.C. was 18 from time immemorial. For many, many years, the drinking age in Maryland was 21.

Guess what happened? (note to self: if you ever have to explain the word "arbitrage" to someone unfamiliar with the concept, that's a readily understandable example).


People made fairly long road trips for the specific purpose of going drinking on Connecticut Avenue. Hell, there were rumors of cops tailing automobiles with Maryland license plates in order to catch transgressors.


At some point, the geniuses in Maryland figured out what was going on and lowered the drinking age.


Thirty-six years later, there is nobody resident in either place who could tell you exactly which year that happened (without looking it up) unless they had a singular, particular and unusual aide memoire.



​

 

[SalviaDivinorum]

But wasn't he 17 at the time in question?

 

[Dr. Groove]

You're telling me what an argument looks like? You have no idea. One doesn't subtitute words in another's statement. That's ignorant, and I demand you stop. Secondly, you don't make false accusations...no wait, that IS in fact exactly what you do. I do not take drugs. You all seem to have a playbook.

I suggested that this isn't what AGREEMENT looks like. Yes, I used a metaphor of hallucinogens, as in, "You must be hallucinating to think, "We all agree..." admidst protests, figurative gnashing of teeth and overall uproar."

I also believe it is commonplace on internet posting boards, such as the one we're on to use "FYP" as a satirical device, providing alternative context and humor within a conversational context by quoting/altering a previous poster's statement. I identified this inter-lit-erary mechanism with "FYP" as well as by putting the changed words in bold type, so they would not be mistaken for yours. I gather that you understand this, but want to claim a faux-indignation and moral high ground, as your side is want to do.

I did not imply you take drugs, nor did I make any false accusations. Nice pratfall, however - I'm sure there are several RWCJ-ers that fell for it.

I believe you are the one who erroneously substituted words of mine, but I understand that it can be difficult to type accurately while succumbing to a histrionic fit. (This is also a sarcastic illustration - I don't believe you are having an actual medical episode, but please let us know if you are, and we'll send help.)

 

[adrina]

But wasn't he 17 at the time in question?

He was in his 40s and 50s for his repeated lies under oath.

 

[SalviaDivinorum]

He was in his 40s and 50s for his repeated lies under oath.

He must be Benjamin Button, because I could swear I was watching a petulant teenager the other day.

 

[Lorilei]

He must be Benjamin Button, because I could swear I was watching a petulant teenager the other day.

He does seem to have a rather severe case of arrested development.

 

[adrina]

He must be Benjamin Button, because I could swear I was watching a petulant teenager the other day.

He does seem to have a rather severe case of arrested development.

Serious personal and emotional self control issues. To call him "unprofessional" would be a kindness.

 

[Ramone45]

Perhaps you can answer why it is "imperative" that the investigation be wrapped up by Thursday and the vote on Friday?

Somewhere in your partisan hackery I'm sure you have a justification.

I'm not a partisan. Why do you keep saying that? You're making wrong inferences. You should give that some thought. It's not good.
The nominee has been thoroughy vetted. The Democrats have an ulterior motive. They bypassed the normal procedure for dealing with an unsubstantiated claim by an anonymous party.
You know that the longer this goes on, the worse it is for the nominee. That's what the Democrats want. They clearly want to grind down Judge Kavanaugh, and you know that.
The longer this goes on, the more controversy there will be.
Their are protests at Harvard against a course Judge Kavanaugh teaches there. And these are purportedly our intellectually elite students.
He's vetted. There's no evidence. He's undoubtedly qualified. He should be approved.
I don't agree with Judge Ginsburg. I don't agree with Judge Sotomayor, I don't agree with Judge Kagan. However, they are fully qualified an belong on the Court without a doubt. I would have voted for them if I was a Senator.

 

[pointless]

dude, no one is buying that shit.

 

[SalviaDivinorum]

He does seem to have a rather severe case of arrested development.

Serious personal and emotional self control issues. To call him "unprofessional" would be a kindness.

It's like he's surprised at being questioned during what he agrees is a job interview. Especially being questioned by women - that's when he drops all guards and shows all his anger and pettiness. Like when Sen. Klobuchar asked him about drinking blackouts... HOW VERY DARE SHE???!!!!

But the thing I find most surprising is how bad he is at politics. He seems totally unable to grasp the political implications of what he says and does. I'm surprised he was even on a nomination list, let alone got nominated.

 

[adrina]

I'm not a partisan. Why do you keep saying that? You're making wrong inferences. You should give that some thought. It's not good.
The nominee has been thoroughy vetted. The Democrats have an ulterior motive. They bypassed the normal procedure for dealing with an unsubstantiated claim by an anonymous party.
You know that the longer this goes on, the worse it is for the nominee. That's what the Democrats want. They clearly want to grind down Judge Kavanaugh, and you know that.
The longer this goes on, the more controversy there will be.
Their are protests at Harvard against a course Judge Kavanaugh teaches there. And these are purportedly our intellectually elite students.
He's vetted. There's no evidence. He's undoubtedly qualified. He should be approved.
I don't agree with Judge Ginsburg. I don't agree with Judge Sotomayor, I don't agree with Judge Kagan. However, they are fully qualified an belong on the Court without a doubt. I would have voted for them if I was a Senator.

Riiiight.

Obviously he wasn't fully vetted. Else we wouldn't have this come out during the confirmation process.

Again, why is it imperative?

Your words.

(Christ Almighty I feel like one of the democratic senators trying to get a straight answer from Kavanaugh.)

 

[KeithD]

But wasn't he 17 at the time in question?

Yep. He was 17 when the drinking age in Maryland was 18. The drinking age was lifted to 21 in Maryland in 1982--before Kavanaugh reached 18. So, any drinking he did in Maryland before he was 21 was illegal drinking. And he's been lying about his drinking there before he was 21 having ever been legal.

The (essential) point isn't his drinking (if he's an alcoholic, that's a germane point too; that impairs judgment and judging is all about exercising judgment). It's that he has lied and continues to lie about the issue. He's a federal judge who lies almost as constantly as the Republican president does. The congressional Republicans and the Trumpettes on this board are playing a shell game on that issue.

 

[KeithD]

I'm not a partisan. Why do you keep saying that?

Well, because you're lying. You obviously are a partisan--and a rabid one, at that. Your posts ooze of it. So much so that I didn't bother to read past your ridiculous opening sentence in this post.

 

[KeithD]

But the thing I find most surprising is how bad he is at politics. He seems totally unable to grasp the political implications of what he says and does. I'm surprised he was even on a nomination list, let alone got nominated.

He's channeling Trump in this. And I believe Kavanaugh wasn't on the original list given to Trump. His name was added later--and most likely by the White House, because Trump wanted "his boy" on the court to protect his back and Kavanaugh was signaling like mad that he was that boy.

 

[Ramone45]

It's imperative because he has already been vetted. The claim brought before the judiciary has no evidence. The longer this goes on the more likely specious claims will arise(that's what the Democrats want). It is unfair to the nominee. That's why it is imperative.
Frankly, I did not feel an FBI investigation was needed at all.
They should have listened to Dr. Ford's testimony and voted.
Jeff Flake is despicable and complicit in the Democrat's attempt at character assasination.

 

[Ramone45]

Well, because you're lying. You obviously are a partisan--and a rabid one, at that. Your posts ooze of it. So much so that I didn't bother to read past your ridiculous opening sentence in this post.

The fact that I'm a conservative does not make me a partisan. Are you a partisan?

 

[adrina]

It's imperative because he has already been vetted. The claim brought before the judiciary has no evidence. The longer this goes on the more likely specious claims will arise(that's what the Democrats want). It is unfair to the nominee. That's why it is imperative.
Frankly, I did not feel an FBI investigation was needed at all.
They should have listened to Dr. Ford's testimony and voted.
Jeff Flake is despicable and complicit in the Democrat's attempt at character assasination.

So, lying under oath, repeatedly isn't a problem for you.

See Keith's post. You're a partisan hack. Party over country.

 

[KeithD]

It's imperative because he has already been vetted. The claim brought before the judiciary has no evidence. The longer this goes on the more likely specious claims will arise(that's what the Democrats want). It is unfair to the nominee. That's why it is imperative.
Frankly, I did not feel an FBI investigation was needed at all.
They should have listened to Dr. Ford's testimony and voted.
Jeff Flake is despicable and complicit in the Democrat's attempt at character assasination.

He isn't vetted on the current lying spree he's running on. The vetting being done now should be on his testimony under oath. The real issue is his lying NOW and in the hearings for the job he's currently in, and you are trying to sweep that under the rug. Deflection, distraction. Hey, look over there, not at DonaldGrabEmbythePussy Trump's Republicans-in-Congress-supported end-around play.

 

[KeithD]

The fact that I'm a conservative does not make me a partisan. Are you a partisan?

Yes, nut jobs like you are making me increasingly partisan. Partisan toward the actual America First concept. Not Trump First as blindly and viciously and stupidly supported by you Trumpettes.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

The party of Swiftboating and Emails Emails Emails Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi and Monica Lewinsky complaining about "Character Assassination":

http://images.amcnetworks.com/ifc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/henrylaugh.jpg

Also, the Party of Merrick Garland and "We will do everything to ensure Barack Obama is a one-term President" complaining about "political tactics"

 

[Ramone45]

Yes, nut jobs like you are making me increasingly partisan. Partisan toward the actual America First concept. Not Trump First as blindly and viciously and stupidly supported by you Trumpettes.

I don't think you know what partisan means. You are in reality a partisan. Nothing wrong with that, we know where you stand. We don't have to think.

 

[Ramone45]

dude, no one is buying that shit.

there ya' go. exactly. You believe what you want to believe.