lifeisgood
New member
First, it was in the quiet of my mind and now I say it publicly.
Judging the Mitchell Report
- Thread starter Town Heretic
- Start date
First, it was in the quiet of my mind and now I say it publicly.
lifeisgood
New member
When she said her therapist must have been mistaken.
lifeisgood
New member
I couldn’t swear to it either.
They did not ‘murder’ President Obama nominee’s reputation. They simply said they would not vote for him.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
How could she not know that the investigators would come to her if she was told that by her lawyers? That was "huge" concerning the timing of her testifying so it is inconceivable that if they told her she would forget it. However, according to her she didn't know:
"I was hoping that they come to me. But, then, I realized that that was an unrealistic request.”
If she was telling the truth then she forgot something which was very important to her just weeks after being told.
The only thing which she has to support her accusations is her "memory." That's the sum total of her evidence because even her long time friend denied what Dr. Ford supposedly remembered. The sum total. Nothing else!
So Dr. Ford forgot that Grassley made the offer, even though that offer came within a very short period of time before she forgot it. So anyone with any common sense can understand that her memory cannot be trusted since something so important to her just escaped her memory after a short period of time.
The only alternative is that she was lying and she did in fact know about the offer so anything she says cannot be trusted.
In either case her testimony has nothing at all to commend it and many reasons why it cannot be trusted. If she forgets information which is very important to her within weeks then who in their right mind could think that her testimony about what happened decades and decades ago can be trusted?
The Democrats vowed that they would do anything to stop Cavanaugh from being on the Supreme Court and that is one promise they are trying to keep. And here you are defending their star witness and her memory about what happened decades ago!
lifeisgood
New member
You sound almost like Senator Chuck Schumer this morning saying that the Democrats have nothing to do with what is going on with this judicial nomination.
lifeisgood
New member
That is something you would have to ask him.
Mike Cernovich of the Washington Post Investigations said that Dr. Ford is a left activist. Maybe he went back to corroborate something else and found out that all he had seen about her before had been scrub. :idunno:
I consider myself to be an 'Independent Conservative,' not a Republican or Democrat. However, when I see the 'far-left' and all of their 'mudslinging and finagling,' I have to figure that Kavanaugh appears to be a detriment to their agenda, therefore, might just be the right man for the job. Being a Christian and a member of the 'Body of Christ' I could not, in all good conscience, vote Democrat or be a member of the Democratic Party of today. I grew up with a family of Democrats, however, the Democratic Party back then, was NOT the Democratic Party of today. The Party has gone, too far-left.
lifeisgood
New member
:thumb:
And to receive justice, to have a chance for it in that setting she should expect open minds to consider her testimony. So should Kavanaugh.
Which apparently worked. I mean, because you went in on her side of it, that mud happened as you set it out, and you left on the other. As condemnations go that almost works out, consequentially speaking, as an endorsement.
Okay, but that can't ring as loudly for me. I'm not casting aspersions on your truthfulness, but I do think it speaks to where your passion and allegiance rests. Because, as I noted above, with that mud and with testimony, again, that the president and many of those to the right on that committee, along with real time commentators from Fox news, for Pete's sake, found credible, you have somehow realigned. And done so publicly.
About what? Where she says that she told the therapist there were four boys at the party and the therapist wrote four in the bedroom? That's it? A thing the therapist hasn't weighed in on to say, "No, I remember it distinctly," or, "Oh, probably. I wasn't taking dictation and it's entirely possible I jotted that down incorrectly." That's the turn for you? A fairly unsettled and tenuous point to reverse over, I'd say. Which maybe has some bearing on your public and perhaps tenuous support for her?
Is there a reason why you're doing all this so piecemail? I'm going to keep collecting them and putting them together to make it easier on the readers.
And no, I don't sound like a member of a body I've repeatedly and publicly criticized for their part in this.
Maybe the sky is a blue ribbon that hangs on a hook. Now as to the facts...
I have not once in my time here read anything by you that wasn't supportive of the conservative ranks or the republican efforts in relation to the democrats. And given the bias you'll pronounce at the end of this about those democrats, it's a particularly empty independence.
And that's just the wrong litmus for endorsing a Justice for the S. Ct. It's a quick sum of just about everything that's wrong with politics today.
And the nominee himself has written a judge should not appear to be a partisan.
And many a Christian differs with you on that.
The older you go in the population the more that sentiment rings true. It's a variation on Reagan's, "I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."
It's why by the time I'm my father's age I have little doubt I'll look largely conservative to my son's children.
lifeisgood
New member
Well, it certainly seems to me that you are casting aspersions on my truthfulness and now for Pete's sake? you are asking me to say what I do not believe anymore. No can do.
I believe two times now you, Town Heretic, has used the word 'aspersions' on what I have stated and now you are asking for Pete's sake that I change what I said publicly, because what I said "can't ring as loudly for me (Town Heretic)". I would say that the one that would have the problem with your 'ringing' is you and I cannot do anything about your 'can't ring as loudly for me (Town Heretic).' I apologize for not being able to help your 'ringing'.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
How could anyone with an open mind actually believer her testimony from decades ago since she cannot remember things from just a few weeks ago?
She couldn't remember the day she took the polygraph. It might have been the day of her grandmother's funeral or it could have been on another day.
She couldn't remember who advised her to take the polygraph.
She couldn't remember who paid for the polygraph.
She was told that Grassley would send the investigators to her but she forgot that.
The only evidence she has in regard to her accusations against Kavanaugh is her "memory" but even her own long time friend disputes what Dr. Ford "remembered."
And now we read this:
Since you have considered her testimony tell us why anyone in their right mind can believe that her memory of what happened in the '80s can be believed as being accurate since she admits that she can't even remember many things that happened just a short time ago.
Sometimes in order to determine the truth a person has to use a little common sense.
It shouldn't since I went to pains to literally tell you and anyone reading that I didn't doubt your truthfulness.
I have no reason outside of cynicism and an absence of external evidence to attempt to doubt you and I suppose I could with some reason if I was inclined to, given that silence and this volume. It doesn't take overly much to move a mind from one to the other if they're inclined.
I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt absent a compelling reason not to.
What I've noted is that on the other side of it you're rather public and pronounced. That has to speak to the level of commitment and certainty or else why the fairly dramatic disparity? That you were moved from the one point to this current one with a fairly thin reason relating to an unsettled dispute over where 4 boys were that might not even end up as a dispute supports this at the very least, this least cynical of readings possible.
I noted that you said she was dragged through the mud, that you wouldn't find that a just treatment for your daughter or mine, and that it happened. And yet, on the other side of that you move your opinion. And as reason for moving it relate to that potential dispute between the notes and Ford's recollection of what she said to her therapist. The therapist who might recant, who is unheard, and uncalled. But then, who wasn't left on the vine in this hearing?
It's almost as if the truth were secondary to something else so far as the movers and shakers were concerned...but that would be cynical of me to believe.
lifeisgood
New member
WE all did consider her testimony, Town Heretic.
I spent all her testimony glued to the TV. I heard every single word she said. I was so hoping that someone she provided as witnesses (because they saw/knew? something), including her long life friend, would have corroborated any of her allegations. None did.
She provided the 'allegation' and the witnesses, Town Heretic. You or I did not provide the 'allegation' or the witnesses. The Democrats did not provide the 'allegation' or the witnesses. The Republicans did not provide the 'allegation' or the witnesses either.
Dr. Ford alone provided the 'allegation' and her witnesses and none corroborated what she said. Either the 'alleged' whatever happened to her happened in another setting with other people and witnesses and she has all her 'allegation', witnesses, and accused confused..... You can make your own decision on that, exactly like I can and did. That that 'can't ring as loudly for me (Town Heretic)' there is nothing I can do about it.
I did not hear Judge Kavanaugh's defense though.
How bout what lake it was on?
Who's boat?
Who was the moron?
When did this happen?
The only question she can answer is who the moron was.
lifeisgood
New member
Me too. And I did.
I could say the same thing about you changing from Judge Kavanaugh to Dr. Ford. Rhetorical comment.
That was only ONE of the many reasons.
I could say the same thing about you. I believe you said something to the effect that you also changed your mind.
lifeisgood
New member
Dr. Ford kept resorting to technical testimony as "how laughter is stored in the hippocampus". IMHO, a real victim wouldn't say that, a real victim would describe the laughter.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Believe the woman.
It's the bottom line of #MeToo.
It's orders of magnitude more difficult now to steal merchandise from retails stores than it used to be, before surveillance generally everywhere. It's more difficult to rob liquor stores because of the same reality. So people can't do what they used to do so easily due to video cameras.
With these matters in the OP, there are no cameras involved, the 'video evidence' is the victim herself, or the child, or the man. While video evidence is usually definitive and unambiguous as to investigators, juries, and individuals being able to accurately determine the facts, the supposed victim's testimony is a different type of evidence, but 'Believe the Woman' does capture the essence of how we are changing as a society, we are not dismissing these testimonies out of hand or with diminished effort.
Has Dr. Ford been 'believed' in this case, by our elected officials; has the supposed victim been given a fair opportunity to deliver her testimony, the closest thing that any of us has to 'video footage;' have they dismissed her testimony out of hand, or given only diminished effort to establishing the facts?
Now, due to this process, we've come to learn more about Judge Kavanaugh personally, and how he handles himself under some duress, either being falsely accused of a thing, or of hoping to survive a just accusation, and so he may not make it through, for a different reason than why we might have thought, back at the beginning of this seeming debacle.
I'm not sure that testiness is troubling in a Supreme Court justice, myself. Their decisions are never made 'in the moment,' and plus there are nine of them, and I believe that perhaps these nine people provide an impressive mix of both self-modulation and internal competition when fashioning a ruling. So I don't think his temper is something to rule out his confirmation here.
I think that our elected officials have been given a fair chance to determine their final decision, and I think the forthcoming FBI report on their additional investigation is being even more than fair also, so I'll support whatever they decide, given their closer proximity to the thing.
I just need to see a justice who intends to read the Second Amendment as it's written and largely as it's been authoritatively interpreted, that the right of the people to keep and bear all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, shall not be infringed. If it's not Kavanaugh, it can be someone else.
It's the bottom line of #MeToo.
It's orders of magnitude more difficult now to steal merchandise from retails stores than it used to be, before surveillance generally everywhere. It's more difficult to rob liquor stores because of the same reality. So people can't do what they used to do so easily due to video cameras.
With these matters in the OP, there are no cameras involved, the 'video evidence' is the victim herself, or the child, or the man. While video evidence is usually definitive and unambiguous as to investigators, juries, and individuals being able to accurately determine the facts, the supposed victim's testimony is a different type of evidence, but 'Believe the Woman' does capture the essence of how we are changing as a society, we are not dismissing these testimonies out of hand or with diminished effort.
Has Dr. Ford been 'believed' in this case, by our elected officials; has the supposed victim been given a fair opportunity to deliver her testimony, the closest thing that any of us has to 'video footage;' have they dismissed her testimony out of hand, or given only diminished effort to establishing the facts?
Now, due to this process, we've come to learn more about Judge Kavanaugh personally, and how he handles himself under some duress, either being falsely accused of a thing, or of hoping to survive a just accusation, and so he may not make it through, for a different reason than why we might have thought, back at the beginning of this seeming debacle.
I'm not sure that testiness is troubling in a Supreme Court justice, myself. Their decisions are never made 'in the moment,' and plus there are nine of them, and I believe that perhaps these nine people provide an impressive mix of both self-modulation and internal competition when fashioning a ruling. So I don't think his temper is something to rule out his confirmation here.
I think that our elected officials have been given a fair chance to determine their final decision, and I think the forthcoming FBI report on their additional investigation is being even more than fair also, so I'll support whatever they decide, given their closer proximity to the thing.
I just need to see a justice who intends to read the Second Amendment as it's written and largely as it's been authoritatively interpreted, that the right of the people to keep and bear all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, shall not be infringed. If it's not Kavanaugh, it can be someone else.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
There is also the evidence that in ten years as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit his temper has never been an issue.
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. :idunno:
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.
One of my best friends. He'll remember it, but probably no one else there would.
Jeeze...decades ago. I couldn't tell you the year. I could give you the range, but I'm not sure really. Either late teens or early twenties (my age, not the year :mmph
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.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.