User Tag List

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 112

Thread: Judging the Mitchell Report

  1. #61
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    There can be a "reasonable" cap that does both
    I think so too.

    but the Trial Lawyers fight against anything reasonable in regard to this subject.
    I don't know their position on the thing, or the response from business interests. But it seems to me something could be hammered out.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  2. #62
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,562 Times in 5,600 Posts

    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147819
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I think so too.


    I don't know their position on the thing, or the response from business interests. But it seems to me something could be hammered out.
    I'm glad we agree.

  3. #63
    TOL Legend glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,932
    Thanks
    13,760
    Thanked 35,917 Times in 18,050 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147795
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

    I will disagree with that appeal to his record for the reason that what we witnessed in his behavior is the man right now. Sure, maybe he will change when this is all over, but human experience teaches me that moments like what we witnessed in Kavanaugh's outbursts and low-balling attempts are life-altering crossroads that usually take one in a very different direction. The emotional toil coupled with clearly displayed abhorrent behavior becomes the triggering seed of a corrupt metamorphosis. Should Kavanaugh be confirmed, I fear he will take an agenda borne from the hearings experience with him on the way to SCOTUS.

    As a citizen I would prefer, no...I demand, to not be burdened by all these maybes and fears, especially for someone that will sit at our highest court for decades. We should and can do better than this at the governmental level, moreover our elected representatives have a duty to see to it.

    If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, as a Republican from my radiator to my tailpipe, I am not disheartened. Mme. Barrett sits in the wings and will do just fine.

    AMR
    You're being naive, AMR. Anyone nominated by Trump, Barrett included, will get the same treatment. That is if anyone is willing to stand before this slobbering horde.

    The Judge's reaction was not only right, it was necessary. Righteous indignation should never be mocked as you and others have done. His deep sorrow for his family was raw, and nothing to be ashamed of. As a Judge, he is in impartial arbiter not a victim being dragged across the coals by evil men and women who would destroy this man and his family without batting an eye. He was roasted and stoned....a martyr for the very law and the constitution he loves.

    Anyone who lets the angry mob influence them is a coward. And anyone who falls for this garbage is a fool. Mitchell was correct in everything she said. I say good for her.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Jerry Shugart (October 3rd, 2018),lifeisgood (October 4th, 2018),Tambora (October 4th, 2018)

  5. #64
    Over 5000 post club fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,279
    Thanks
    178
    Thanked 801 Times in 542 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    270266
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    We use rivers around here, mostly. I couldn't tell you. Normally I'm on the Tensaw, but that's close and I know it was further away, as in somewhere much nearer the beach.
    Sounds like you could work it out. She can't tell us where this took place.


    Ray. You know him? I actually thought I knew that one, but now that I think about it more, it had to be someone else, because none of us owned a boat. One of my friend's dads or someone's in the group of people.
    She can't tell us how she got there or back, sounds like you could figure out who's boat it was.


    One of my best friends. He'll remember it, but probably no one else there would.
    That's one more than she has.


    Jeeze...decades ago. I couldn't tell you the year. I could give you the range, but I'm not sure really.
    An injury would cause bills and time to heal, you should be able to figure out when you got injured. Things would be different after that.

    Either late teens or early twenties (my age, not the year ) It's been so long ago. Tony and George were my running mates. We kept getting together into our 20s. But by our mid 20s George was dead and Tony was in the Corps.
    Her Tony and George don't recall this.


    fool says;
    The only question she can answer is who the moron was.
    TH replies;

    No, that's not true, fool. If you aren't familiar with her testimony you should watch it. If you watched it again you have even worse memory issues than Mitchell or Ford.
    She needs to figure out when and where this happened. Or she's making an unfalsifiable claim.
    Everyman is a voice in the dark.
    I II III IV

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to fool For Your Post:

    Tambora (October 4th, 2018)

  7. #65
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by fool View Post
    Sounds like you could work it out. She can't tell us where this took place.
    Probably. I mean I should be able to narrow it. There aren't that many rivers. Where along that, at which landing is, again, up for grabs. Where would she start?

    Maybe she only went to this house the one time for the party.

    She can't tell us how she got there or back, sounds like you could figure out who's boat it was.
    I can't remember how I got there or how I got back. I'm not sure where it was. I don't know whose boat it was. I'm not sure what year it was...and yet it happened. There was a blue stripe on the boat. Tony and George were there. I was hurt. Decades ago. Awful day.

    That's one more than she has.
    It might be. Or it might be that two other people remember it but aren't being honest. Or maybe only one. We don't really know.

    An injury would cause bills and time to heal, you should be able to figure out when you got injured. Things would be different after that.
    What records would there be relating to her trauma? At the time, none. Unless she kept a diary.

    Her Tony and George don't recall this.
    Rather, the people with reason to recall have a vested interest in not admitting it even if they do. The others have no particular reason to remember one party out of how many decades ago...

    She needs to figure out when and where this happened. Or she's making an unfalsifiable claim.
    All sorts of things we hold true can't be falsified. It' would be great if there was empirical evidence to support elements of the narrative, but it's not surprising at this point. She recalled Judge working at a store around that time and we know from his writing that he worked at the store. That's helpful. Could have been more helpful. With some of the things she wanted she could have done a better job.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    fool (October 4th, 2018)

  9. #66
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,705
    Thanks
    4,417
    Thanked 3,867 Times in 2,209 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147690
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    You're being naive, AMR.
    Heh! I only wish I was young enough to lay claim to that label.

    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Righteous indignation should never be mocked as you and others have done.
    Wherein I have written have I demonstrated a scornful or contemptuous manner—mockery—towards Kavanaugh? I rarely weigh in on the politics, but I am confident that when I do I have taken the proper care to not just be a mocker. I genuinely feel for the man, but I am not going to let that color my view that he clearly undid himself.

    Yes, the whole affair was an embarrassment upon all parties, scandalous, and unseemly. I have lived a few years and I frequently remark to my son that I have not seen anything like what has been happening since the primaries and Presidential election that can compare. I tell him how fearful I am about what I see and what he and his future generations will have to wrestle with long after I have departed. I am not at all happy about about the legacy my generation has wrought.

    You have assigned Kavanaugh's behavior to righteous indignation, but the very definition of the word is to be found in the teachings of Scripture. Our Lord's driving the money-lenders out of the temple was righteous indignation. Was he sinning? No, for the very phrase righteous indignation assumes a purity of life including rectitude (conformity to a right standard) and a righteous act or quality (holiness). Righteous indignation is the only form of anger than Scripture permits. All other forms are sin, sin, sin.

    By the Biblical standard, there was very little in Kavanaugh's eruptive behavior that anyone should label as righteous indignation. In the information age, where any thought that pops into someone's noggin is committed to online words, things like reticence and trepidation, have been replaced by certainty and daring. Accordingly, the phrase, righteous indignation nowadays appears to mean unbridled anger at any slight, real or imagined. Sigh.

    There's but a letter difference between anger and danger. Kavanaugh demonstrated it to be so.

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    nikolai_42 (October 4th, 2018),Town Heretic (October 3rd, 2018)

  11. #67
    Resident Rocket Surgeon rocketman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,871
    Thanks
    293
    Thanked 1,790 Times in 1,234 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147627
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    genuinely feel for the man, but I am not going to let that color my view that he clearly undid himself.
    Maybe in your eyes but, in defense of ones honor I was totally behind Kavanaugh, and really if someones behavior was in question it was every democrat member of that committee which extended no respect, or even remotely conducted themselves with a shred of dignity. I say he treated them with the exact same contempt, lack of respect & decorum that they displayed....they got exactly what they gave, and for that good on him, I wouldn't have shown them a shred of respect either under the circumstances, they had not earned it... I am old school too, respect is earned, and doesn't come with a title.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Yes, the whole affair was an embarrassment upon all parties, scandalous, and unseemly. I have lived a few years and I frequently remark to my son that I have not seen anything like what has been happening since the primaries and Presidential election that can compare. I tell him how fearful I am about what I see and what he and his future generations will have to wrestle with long after I have departed. I am not at all happy about about the legacy my generation has wrought.

    You have assigned Kavanaugh's behavior to righteous indignation, but the very definition of the word is to be found in the teachings of Scripture. Our Lord's driving the money-lenders out of the temple was righteous indignation. Was he sinning? No, for the very phrase righteous indignation assumes a purity of life including rectitude (conformity to a right standard) and a righteous act or quality (holiness). Righteous indignation is the only form of anger than Scripture permits. All other forms are sin, sin, sin.

    By the Biblical standard, there was very little in Kavanaugh's eruptive behavior that anyone should label as righteous indignation. In the information age, where any thought that pops into someone's noggin is committed to online words, things like reticence and trepidation, have been replaced by certainty and daring. Accordingly, the phrase, righteous indignation nowadays appears to mean unbridled anger at any slight, real or imagined. Sigh.

    There's but a letter difference between anger and danger. Kavanaugh demonstrated it to be so.

    AMR
    I am sorry brother but, I am throwing down the bullcrap card, a man is being viciously attacked on a personal level by unsubstantiated, unverified ( and probably cannot be), uncorroborated tripe by a woman who cannot remember anything with any degree of accuracy, and he is supposed to show grace under fire while politicians who don't give a whit for him or her use this nonsensical fairy tale to tear his life apart for their political ends? And he is supposed to be silent & dignified through that circus side show? Please... Even I understood his ire... personally I understood it, and had no issue with it. Maybe you are a different breed of cat but , I can guarantee that if I felt it was my last stand while my honor was being dragged through the mud on a half rate political hit job I would probably been much more colorful with those charlatan senators. It is just my take anyway but, in my estimation of righteous indignation, Kavanaugh"s response to his attackers qualifies by definition.
    Last edited by rocketman; October 3rd, 2018 at 09:40 PM.
    The winner of the 2011 Truthsmacker of the Year Award

    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...pictureid=3504


    Help Take Back Our Country from Washington D.C.. with the Convention of States

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to rocketman For Your Post:

    fool (October 4th, 2018),glorydaz (October 3rd, 2018),Jerry Shugart (October 4th, 2018),lifeisgood (October 4th, 2018),Tambora (October 4th, 2018)

  13. #68
    TOL Legend glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,932
    Thanks
    13,760
    Thanked 35,917 Times in 18,050 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147795
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Heh! I only wish I was young enough to lay claim to that label.



    Wherein I have written have I demonstrated a scornful or contemptuous manner—mockery—towards Kavanaugh? I rarely weigh in on the politics, but I am confident that when I do I have taken the proper care to not just be a mocker. I genuinely feel for the man, but I am not going to let that color my view that he clearly undid himself.

    Yes, the whole affair was an embarrassment upon all parties, scandalous, and unseemly. I have lived a few years and I frequently remark to my son that I have not seen anything like what has been happening since the primaries and Presidential election that can compare. I tell him how fearful I am about what I see and what he and his future generations will have to wrestle with long after I have departed. I am not at all happy about about the legacy my generation has wrought.

    You have assigned Kavanaugh's behavior to righteous indignation, but the very definition of the word is to be found in the teachings of Scripture. Our Lord's driving the money-lenders out of the temple was righteous indignation. Was he sinning? No, for the very phrase righteous indignation assumes a purity of life including rectitude (conformity to a right standard) and a righteous act or quality (holiness). Righteous indignation is the only form of anger than Scripture permits. All other forms are sin, sin, sin.

    By the Biblical standard, there was very little in Kavanaugh's eruptive behavior that anyone should label as righteous indignation. In the information age, where any thought that pops into someone's noggin is committed to online words, things like reticence and trepidation, have been replaced by certainty and daring. Accordingly, the phrase, righteous indignation nowadays appears to mean unbridled anger at any slight, real or imagined. Sigh.

    There's but a letter difference between anger and danger. Kavanaugh demonstrated it to be so.

    AMR
    Eruptive anger? Unbridled anger? He was crying for the pain being endured by his mother, his wife, and his children. He was genuinely crushed to see his life being destroyed by callous, ugly politicians.

    I don't agree with you at all. He was "angry" just as our Lord was when He drove the money lenders from the temple. The only thing he didn't do was pick up a whip. It absolutely was righteous indignation. He knew he had never done anything like that. He was being falsely accused, and what you witnessed was exactly what any normal person would display who had been accused of such a horrendous thing. And you are being naive if you fall for the Dem's latest line of attack. Don't fall for lack of judicial temperament. He had been praised for his judicial temperament by all his colleagues on the bench.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Jerry Shugart (October 4th, 2018),lifeisgood (October 4th, 2018),Tambora (October 4th, 2018)

  15. #69
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,705
    Thanks
    4,417
    Thanked 3,867 Times in 2,209 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147690
    Quote Originally Posted by rocketman View Post
    Maybe in your eyes but, in defense of ones honor I was totally behind Kavanaugh, and really if someones behavior was in question it was every democrat member of that committee which extended no respect, or even remotely conducted themselves with a shred of dignity. I say he treated them with the exact same contempt, lack of respect & decorum that they displayed....they got exactly what they gave, and for that good on him, I wouldn't have shown them a shred of respect either under the circumstances, they had not earned it... I am old school too, respect is earned, and doesn't come with a title.
    I get that, brother, I really do.

    The issue for me is that the "job interview" is for a position that carries great responsibility that requires detachment and temperament. These qualities are expected to be on display in the interview. If I go to an interview and am baited (many interviews these days are purposefully so), if I take the bait, the interview is over, simply because part of the interview is far more than just my credentials and accomplishments.

    Just because someone draws first blood, I am not obligated to return the "favor", giving as good or better than I got on the same exact level of that which was given to me. I am not in doubt about Kavanaugh's treatment. It was sordid. I am also not in doubt that he should have risen above the fray keeping himself blameless. I will ignore the other matters wherein he became churlish and evasive when it came to his drinking habits. He could have easily answered these lines of questioning in a sober (heh!) matter.

    Respect is not earned at all. Respect may be deepened or lessened. But respect is due wherein it is rightfully demanded (e.g., you are a parent, with children, no?) and is to be given to all. If you are not being treated respectfully, you are not compelled to return the disrespect in kind. You are compelled to comport yourself respectfully and do have the option of withholding your respect for another via polite detachment.

    Quote Originally Posted by rocketman View Post
    I am sorry brother but, I am throwing down the bullcrap card, a man is being viciously attacked on a personal level by unsubstantiated, unverified ( and probably cannot be), uncorroborated tripe by a woman who cannot remember anything with any degree of accuracy, and he is supposed to show grace under fire while politicians who don't give a whit for him or her use this nonsensical fairy tale to tear his life apart for their political ends? And he is supposed to be silent & dignified through that circus side show? Please... Even I understood his ire... personally I understood it, and had no issue with it. Maybe you are a different breed of cat but , I can guarantee that if I felt it was my last stand while my honor was being dragged through the mud on a half rate political hit job I would probably been much more colorful with those charlatan senators. It is just my take anyway but, in my estimation of righteous indignation, Kavanaugh"s response to his attackers qualifies by definition.
    I suspect we are similar in many ways. Our natural inclination is meet fire with fire when one's sense of honor is at stake. Yet sometimes that inclination is actually cognitive dissonance or even mistaken ideas about honor, such that the accusations being made have a modicum of truth to them, yet our very being seeks to reject it vehemently. Surely most of us can recall examples where we were caught in a lie, yet our responses were not admission and contriteness, rather we simply redoubled our animated efforts to proclaim our truthfulness.

    I have little complaints that Kavanaugh's reactions were proper when it came to calling out the sham all around. But when he mounted partisan complaints and became evasive, he revealed a level of attachment and temperament that is not suitable for the position he sought.

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  16. #70
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by rocketman View Post
    Maybe in your eyes but, in defense of ones honor I was totally behind Kavanaugh
    I supported him. I won't say I was totally behind him, or anyone in living memory nominated to the Court. At least not since I've been of age to vote.

    and really if someones behavior was in question it was every democrat member of that committee which extended no respect, or even remotely conducted themselves with a shred of dignity.
    I'd say that's overreaching, but that as a body they played politics with something more important and to their discredit. It's one reason I find it hard to respect politicians or their judgements/declarations these days.

    I say he treated them with the exact same contempt, lack of respect & decorum that they displayed....they got exactly what they gave, and for that good on him, I wouldn't have shown them a shred of respect either under the circumstances, they had not earned it... I am old school too, respect is earned, and doesn't come with a title.
    See, that's just not right and, more, the judge knows it isn't because he lectured others on that point, before setting it aside to lecture others from a subordinate position.

    Respect is often conferred with office and rank. That's why you don't get to dress down your commanding officer, even if you're certain he's wrong, even if you're sure he's being a class-A jerk.

    I am sorry brother but, I am throwing down the bullcrap card, a man is being viciously attacked on a personal level by unsubstantiated, unverified ( and probably cannot be), uncorroborated tripe by a woman
    And there you step into it. The truth of this is largely beyond us.

    who cannot remember anything with any degree of accuracy,
    You may not credit her, but she has been clear on any number of points. She says that she knows what happened to her, and who did that to her. The rest is whether you find her credible or not.

    As someone who has taken testimony and dealt with cases like this for years, I find her testimony consistent with what I'd expect to see in someone speaking the truth from her position. . . But I'm also old enough and experienced enough to be able to pull together a narrative for either of them wherein that truth is either fabricated or settled in another way. So I don't know. I found both of their testimonies on the point that brought us here believable.

    Then the judge violated just about everything he once said should be required of a judge in terms of conduct. And he didn't do it because something new was suddenly sprung on him by the left. He prepared it.

    He prepared remarks inconsistent with what I expect and what he declared essential for a sitting judge, let alone one on the highest court of the land.


    he is supposed to show grace under fire while politicians who don't give a whit for him or her use this nonsensical fairy tale to tear his life apart for their political ends?
    Yes. Because this is fire he saw coming and knew the nature of. Yes, because he also knew there were more allies than enemies, men who would do that lifting and that sort of politicized fighting on the points. Yes. He should have dressed his character in the robes of the office he seeks.

    And he is supposed to be silent & dignified through that circus side show?
    Silent? No. Impassioned? Of course. But within the bounds of propriety and in keeping with the sobriety of the office he aspires to. He should look and sound like a Justice of the Supreme Court.

    He did not. He acted like a politician. And we must expect more than that. He once told us so himself.
    Last edited by Town Heretic; October 4th, 2018 at 06:04 PM.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (October 4th, 2018)

  18. #71
    Over 1500 post club nikolai_42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,872
    Thanks
    133
    Thanked 813 Times in 516 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    406774
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Heh! I only wish I was young enough to lay claim to that label.



    Wherein I have written have I demonstrated a scornful or contemptuous manner—mockery—towards Kavanaugh? I rarely weigh in on the politics, but I am confident that when I do I have taken the proper care to not just be a mocker. I genuinely feel for the man, but I am not going to let that color my view that he clearly undid himself.

    Yes, the whole affair was an embarrassment upon all parties, scandalous, and unseemly. I have lived a few years and I frequently remark to my son that I have not seen anything like what has been happening since the primaries and Presidential election that can compare. I tell him how fearful I am about what I see and what he and his future generations will have to wrestle with long after I have departed. I am not at all happy about about the legacy my generation has wrought.

    You have assigned Kavanaugh's behavior to righteous indignation, but the very definition of the word is to be found in the teachings of Scripture. Our Lord's driving the money-lenders out of the temple was righteous indignation. Was he sinning? No, for the very phrase righteous indignation assumes a purity of life including rectitude (conformity to a right standard) and a righteous act or quality (holiness). Righteous indignation is the only form of anger than Scripture permits. All other forms are sin, sin, sin.

    By the Biblical standard, there was very little in Kavanaugh's eruptive behavior that anyone should label as righteous indignation. In the information age, where any thought that pops into someone's noggin is committed to online words, things like reticence and trepidation, have been replaced by certainty and daring. Accordingly, the phrase, righteous indignation nowadays appears to mean unbridled anger at any slight, real or imagined. Sigh.

    There's but a letter difference between anger and danger. Kavanaugh demonstrated it to be so.

    AMR
    I hope you'll forgive my jumping off of your apt post. You may not agree fully with my points but there is certainly something fundamentally wrong about the whole thing.

    As someone who sees the Democrats on the committee (and Ford's representative - I can't recall her name) as typifying everything that is wrong in American politics today, I find the extreme polarization of the parties just as disturbing (Washington was prescient) - and the near sainthood apparently being conferred upon Kavanaugh as troubling. I would love to see a man of his stance and constitutional conviction (as I understand him to be) on the court. The Democrats, of course, don't want to tilt the balance in any direction that might risk Roe v. Wade and legislate-by-judge that has characterized much of the left in recent years. An originalist flies in the face of the progressive agenda and - more importantly - the enshrining of the right to moral anarchy. Watching the hearing only reinforce to me how much this generation has become driven primarily by feelings, sound bytes and professionally crafted images. The Democrats - to a man - fostered a touchy-feely atmosphere (that Ford, in my opinion, played into - victim or not) because they knew this was about PR. Their assumption of Kavanaugh's guilt after delaying the release of the story and then piling on the Republicans for not giving time for an investigation into the allegations was disingenuous at its very best - and heartlessly manipulative (of both Ford and the process) at its very worst. I could see it on Senator Feinstein's face when she was confronted with the delay. She knew what she was doing. If the Democrats really cared if Ford was telling the truth and believed that justice needed to be served, they would have acted on it immediately (in confidence).

    But my larger thought is that the circus served only to obscure the real issues. Are Ford's allegations substantive enough to block Kavanaugh's appointment (I don't believe there is any positive evidence that they are) and is Kavanaugh fit to be a Supreme Court justice? The hearing was a show for the voters. And the degree to which the Democrats avoided any real scrutiny of Ford's claims and the Republicans apologized to Kavanaugh was almost embarassing. But people are making their decisions now based almost solely on emotion, images and the immediate. There has always been some degree of that with media, but in today's world it has run rampant. College students who need safe spaces and are not allowed to be exposed to views that differ from those who run the schools - they are voting. And they can't handle the dissonance. So they have to be fed pure emotion. And anytime there is an attempt at dealing with objective facts, images and emotion become the response. That's the only way the progressive media can respond. They've trained their audience well.

    But another thing that is lost in all of this is that Kavanaugh is just a man. And I heard one lady on the radio saying he was standing for righteousness and was front and center in a spiritual battle. She had him at a point where he could have preached a sermon. The man admitted to being frequently drunk in school. He never blacked out, but he did drink - often more than he should have. He "enjoys beer". Possibly not enough to impair his ability to concentrate on and deal with the case when he has to, but nothing has indicated he has moderated his regular drinking. How can a believer treat such a man as though he is a brother in Christ? So righteous anger seems a misnomer to me, too. Having said that, I think he was probably told he needed to act that way for the voters. Again...images and emotion - even in the supposed context of vetting a potential jurist. The well has been poisoned. I wish someone had gotten up in the hearing and read Isaiah 59:1-15 -- that would have been a picture of a different sort.

    Those are my concerns, anyway...
    If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

    Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
    Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

    Isaiah 50:10-11

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nikolai_42 For Your Post:

    Jerry Shugart (October 4th, 2018),lifeisgood (October 4th, 2018)

  20. #72
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,562 Times in 5,600 Posts

    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147819
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Anyone who lets the angry mob influence them is a coward. And anyone who falls for this garbage is a fool. Mitchell was correct in everything she said. I say good for her.
    I couldn't have said it better myself.

    Those who foolishly support Ford's testimony are the same ones who defend the dastardly actions of the Obama's Justice Department, FBI and CIA. These people claim to be wise but at the same time they can't even see the criminal behavior of those crooks.

    Did we hear even a peep out of those who would dare judge Mitchell's testimony when Obama's secret police went after Fox New's chief Washington correspondent, James Rosen?:

    "Journalists, First Amendment watchdogs and government transparency advocates reacted with outrage Monday to the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks.

    Critics said the government’s suggestion that James Rosen, Fox News’s chief Washington correspondent, was a “co-conspirator” for soliciting classified information threatened to criminalize press freedoms protected by the First Amendment."

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Jerry Shugart For Your Post:

    glorydaz (October 4th, 2018)

  22. #73
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    742
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 126 Times in 112 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    15294
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    ...the truth of this is largely beyond us.
    We can infer some certainties though. It isn't a complete void of knowledge. We can say that Judge Kavanaugh here is either a victim, or that he is not a victim, and that there isn't a third option.

    So if he is a victim, it is either due to mistaken identity made in good faith, or it is due to deliberate dishonesty; and either way, there is no reason to disqualify him for the job over this. His regrettable behavior in this case can be justly I think chalked up to him being a victim of a terrible inquisition. While the best among us could have handled it better than he has, I don't think that this trial is relevant to, or bears on, what his duty would be on the Supreme Court.

    And if he is not a victim, then he is probably-to-certainly not who we the people of the United States are looking for in a Supreme Court justice.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  23. #74
    Silver Member lifeisgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,881
    Thanks
    8,188
    Thanked 2,972 Times in 1,919 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147610
    It just dawned on me that there is NO LAW Roe v. Wade. No wonder the Democrats do not want a Republican president to nominate any judges for the Supreme Court.

    If President Trump had nominated a woman to the Supreme Court, she would have been cut to pieces by these same women screaming bloody Mary against Judge Kavanaugh.
    No man can come to God except through Christ. (Jn. 14:20)
    No man can come to Christ unless he comes through the Cross. (Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2:13–18)
    No man can come to the Cross without a denial of self. (Lk. 9:23–24)

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to lifeisgood For Your Post:

    Tambora (October 4th, 2018)

  25. #75
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    742
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 126 Times in 112 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    15294
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    An originalist flies in the face of the progressive agenda and - more importantly - the enshrining of the right to moral anarchy.
    I see the opposite of moral anarchy in the Democrat agenda. Political correctness is nothing but moral stricture; a moral code of speech, and Democrats would like nothing more than to outlaw certain 'politically incorrect' speech. Furthermore, wrt your observation about the polarization of the parties, it has become more and more practically immoral to disagree with certain Democrat party planks. I understand that in the context here you're probably thinking about abortion when you say 'moral anarchy,' but Democrats are constructing a definite moral code in their work, and they are violating the First Amendment right to free speech and against the establishment of religion in so doing, in my view. While they insist that abortion ought to be freely available, and even funded publicly, they just as strongly push the notion that to be anti-abortion is immoral, according to their fabricated moral code.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    Watching the hearing only reinforce to me how much this generation has become driven primarily by feelings, sound bytes and professionally crafted images.
    We all have 'wordlviews,' Democrats included. Worldviews found 'narratives,' and it is Democrat narratives from which many people derive their 'tropes.' It is according to these tropes that people make their judgments.

    I think, rather than condemning people for being 'emotional,' it's clearer to talk about worldviews and narratives and tropes, because I myself am also very 'emotional,' but, I reject the worldviews of many Democrats, and their narratives and tropes. I have my own. It is useful to know about what other people are perceiving however, so that you can talk to and about them, in terms that are understood. We can be more respectful.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    The man admitted to being frequently drunk in school. He never blacked out, but he did drink - often more than he should have. He "enjoys beer". Possibly not enough to impair his ability to concentrate on and deal with the case when he has to, but nothing has indicated he has moderated his regular drinking. How can a believer treat such a man as though he is a brother in Christ?
    I have not heard his testimony of Christian faith in the Gospel, so I am agnostic on the matter. Even serious sinners can still be Christians, since there are a wide variety of circumstances and conditions that can negatively affect our morals, and that are largely beyond our immediate control, including social pressures. Their objective sin remains so, but we cannot judge another's soul on the basis of their behavior, with the abundantly clear scriptural example of bona fide murder (cf. 1Jo3:15KJV) being an obvious exception. And nobody's accusing him of that.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us