What was online in 1982-83?bubbadog said:
But Debbie Ramirez's Yale classmates were talking about what happened to her online right after Kavanaugh was nominated and before she (reluctantly) forward.
Someone is Lying
28,313 Views |
282 Replies |
Last: 6 yr ago by RD2WINAGNBEAR86
Osodecentx said:What was online in 1982-83?bubbadog said:
But Debbie Ramirez's Yale classmates were talking about what happened to her online right after Kavanaugh was nominated and before she (reluctantly) forward.
The online discussion happened after the nomination.
Oldbear83 said:No corroboration. A necessary and vital point.Booray said:Why not. What false testimony did either of them give? I honestly can't remember any dispute.Oldbear83 said:Sorry, but I don't find you credible on that claim.Booray said:Yes.Oldbear83 said:Even Kagan or Sotomeyor?Booray said:Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.Oldbear83 said:
Goal posts moved, I notice
You aren't making any sense.
To the adults, I make perfect sense. Your mileage may differ ...Booray said:Oldbear83 said:No corroboration. A necessary and vital point.Booray said:Why not. What false testimony did either of them give? I honestly can't remember any dispute.Oldbear83 said:Sorry, but I don't find you credible on that claim.Booray said:Yes.Oldbear83 said:Even Kagan or Sotomeyor?Booray said:Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.Oldbear83 said:
Goal posts moved, I notice
You aren't making any sense.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
In that case, by definition Ms. Ramirez' classmates were, by definition, not discussing the alleged incident online right after it happened.Booray said:Osodecentx said:What was online in 1982-83?bubbadog said:
But Debbie Ramirez's Yale classmates were talking about what happened to her online right after Kavanaugh was nominated and before she (reluctantly) forward.
The online discussion happened after the nomination.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Doc Holliday said:What makes you believe he's being evasive?quash said:Doc Holliday said:I don't see a pattern because there is really no way of you knowing what the truth is to begin with.Booray said:
If this error was isolated, no big deal. But it is not. As my posts indicate there is a pattern of less than "whole truth" answers. If he goes down, that is what is going to sink him.
We could know the truth. But Judge Kavanaugh didn't help by being evasive, nor by asking us to believe some of the things on Booray's listicle.
The way he answered some questions and dodged others. His lack of responsiveness to Mitchell's questions.
Which matters less to than his demonstrable lack of judicial temperament, paranoia, and partisanship.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Temperament, paranoia, and partisanship you say? Do you mean like this?
"How Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the face of the Trump resistance"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-democrats/index.html
I'll give you this much, one characteristic you libtards demonstrate is consistent hypocrisy.
"How Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the face of the Trump resistance"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-democrats/index.html
I'll give you this much, one characteristic you libtards demonstrate is consistent hypocrisy.
Gunny Hartman said:
Temperament, paranoia, and partisanship you say? Do you mean like this?
"How Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the face of the Trump resistance"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-democrats/index.html
I'll give you this much, one characteristic you libtards demonstrate is consistent hypocrisy.
Don't use words you don't understand.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
IOW, you just don't like Kavanaugh, and are fishing to find reasons to say he should not be a SCOTUS Justice, since there's no evidence.quash said:Doc Holliday said:What makes you believe he's being evasive?quash said:Doc Holliday said:I don't see a pattern because there is really no way of you knowing what the truth is to begin with.Booray said:
If this error was isolated, no big deal. But it is not. As my posts indicate there is a pattern of less than "whole truth" answers. If he goes down, that is what is going to sink him.
We could know the truth. But Judge Kavanaugh didn't help by being evasive, nor by asking us to believe some of the things on Booray's listicle.
The way he answered some questions and dodged others. His lack of responsiveness to Mitchell's questions.
Which matters less to than his demonstrable lack of judicial temperament, paranoia, and partisanship.
You're gonna hate how this ends.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
quash said:Gunny Hartman said:
Temperament, paranoia, and partisanship you say? Do you mean like this?
"How Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the face of the Trump resistance"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-democrats/index.html
I'll give you this much, one characteristic you libtards demonstrate is consistent hypocrisy.
Don't use words you don't understand.
Incredibly ironic that a nimrod such as yourself could delude yourself into believing that you could match me in a war of wits. It's analogous to you bringing a knife to a gunfight.
I didn't suggest anything like that. The classmates were talking about it when they heard of Kavanaugh's nomination. They had not talked about it with Debbie Ramirez.Oldbear83 said:In that case, by definition Ms. Ramirez' classmates were, by definition, not discussing the alleged incident online right after it happened.Booray said:Osodecentx said:What was online in 1982-83?bubbadog said:
But Debbie Ramirez's Yale classmates were talking about what happened to her online right after Kavanaugh was nominated and before she (reluctantly) forward.
The online discussion happened after the nomination.
"Free your ass and your mind will follow." -- George Clinton
Come on rifle, that's not fair. This is Democrats we're talking about here. They don't care about facts, only about acquiring power, disarming you so that you can't stop them from grabbing more power, and controlling your money.
Well and killing babies. They really really like that, too.
Well and killing babies. They really really like that, too.
Judicial Temperament: We have 12 years of evidence of his "judicial temperament," up to and including the Spartacus/protest clown show that was his original hearings, but you would now say that he doesn't have the right "judicial temperament" when he was on public opinion trial for heinous crimes as the accused not as a judge. The idea that someone should be calm, cool and collected after what he went through last week is incredibly disingenuous. He had just spent a week being accused of the some of the most atrocious acts possible (the ring-leader of a gang rape!), he was having to answer questions from the judiciary committee on the record all week long about the minutia of every allegation, regardless how debasing and crazy, he had to wait over a week to defend himself as the media piled on and on and on, all the while receiving death and other threats from people, not just aimed at him but his family, his children. If he were my husband, his tone, which you so derisively state lacks "judicial temperament," is exactly what I would expect for someone fighting for his reputation, his family's reputation, and their entire livelihood. He will never be able to get back what he has lost due to what happened last week. Ever. For the rest of his life people are going to accuse him -- without any actual evidence -- of being a rapist. His children will forever have to deal with this for their entire lives.quash said:Doc Holliday said:What makes you believe he's being evasive?quash said:Doc Holliday said:I don't see a pattern because there is really no way of you knowing what the truth is to begin with.Booray said:
If this error was isolated, no big deal. But it is not. As my posts indicate there is a pattern of less than "whole truth" answers. If he goes down, that is what is going to sink him.
We could know the truth. But Judge Kavanaugh didn't help by being evasive, nor by asking us to believe some of the things on Booray's listicle.
The way he answered some questions and dodged others. His lack of responsiveness to Mitchell's questions.
Which matters less to than his demonstrable lack of judicial temperament, paranoia, and partisanship.
His tone was every bit the righteous anger that was appropriate in the circumstance. And let me be very clear. If you actually listened to what he said, he never once denigrated Ford in his entire speech or subsequent testimony. Not once. Nothing he said was in any way unjustified under the circumstances, and despite his anger, he managed to lay out, point by point, why he believes he was unjustly accused. That -- the righteous anger he expressed -- to me, is the very essence of someone who I want to be on the bench deciding issues regarding fundamental questions of life and liberty.
Some of you people would accuse Jesus of not being fit to be the Messiah because he overturned tables in the temple. Anger, righteous anger, is not a sin. And I, for one, am glad he stood up for himself. Because until he did, no one else was going to do it.
Paranoia: what paranoia?
Partisanship: Is your position that a Supreme Court justice cannot support a political party? Do you find all of the opinions written by former Supreme Court justices that were also senators prior to their time on the bench illegitimate?
I'll tell you what paranoia he is referring to. The paranoia from the leftists that Kavanaugh will assist in overturning Roe v Wade and thereby make it illegal to kill babies again, which is of course something they really love doing. They are so paranoid of that possibility that they're willing to destroy a good man's life over that fear.
Of course like much paranoia, it has no actual basis in reality, and this is where the great irony kicks in. Because if somehow Roe v Wade were to be overturned, then that in and of itself would not make killing babies illegal, but rather the issue would be kicked down to the individual states to decide their own laws regarding the heinous practice. So any states that wanted to keep it legal would have that right.
Of course but once again we're talking about facts here, and if there's one thing that leftists hate, it's facts.
Of course like much paranoia, it has no actual basis in reality, and this is where the great irony kicks in. Because if somehow Roe v Wade were to be overturned, then that in and of itself would not make killing babies illegal, but rather the issue would be kicked down to the individual states to decide their own laws regarding the heinous practice. So any states that wanted to keep it legal would have that right.
Of course but once again we're talking about facts here, and if there's one thing that leftists hate, it's facts.
heh, point still remains that there is no corroboration for any claim by any of the accusers.bubbadog said:I didn't suggest anything like that. The classmates were talking about it when they heard of Kavanaugh's nomination. They had not talked about it with Debbie Ramirez.Oldbear83 said:In that case, by definition Ms. Ramirez' classmates were, by definition, not discussing the alleged incident online right after it happened.Booray said:Osodecentx said:What was online in 1982-83?bubbadog said:
But Debbie Ramirez's Yale classmates were talking about what happened to her online right after Kavanaugh was nominated and before she (reluctantly) forward.
The online discussion happened after the nomination.
None.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:To the adults, I make perfect sense. Your mileage may differ ...Booray said:Oldbear83 said:No corroboration. A necessary and vital point.Booray said:Why not. What false testimony did either of them give? I honestly can't remember any dispute.Oldbear83 said:Sorry, but I don't find you credible on that claim.Booray said:Yes.Oldbear83 said:Even Kagan or Sotomeyor?Booray said:Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.Oldbear83 said:
Goal posts moved, I notice
You aren't making any sense.
Welcome back 83....have you been awol for a while ?
Don't recall reading your posts lately.
A side note on the temperament question:
New story today in NYT says that the ABA downgraded its rating of Kavanaugh in 2006. Three years earlier it had given him the "well qualified" rating. After interviews with lawyers who had participated in cases with him, they revised it down to "qualified" in 2006. Still a good rating. People in the interviews raised doubts about his temperament and honesty.
His rating eventually went back up to "well qualified."
New story today in NYT says that the ABA downgraded its rating of Kavanaugh in 2006. Three years earlier it had given him the "well qualified" rating. After interviews with lawyers who had participated in cases with him, they revised it down to "qualified" in 2006. Still a good rating. People in the interviews raised doubts about his temperament and honesty.
His rating eventually went back up to "well qualified."
I continue to laugh a bit at those who seem to expect judges to be stoic, robotic arbiters in all situations -- I would encourage these people to spend some time in a courtroom to see how judges of all stripes act in all different occassions. (They often get quite angry, quite often). But, that, in of itself, doesn't answer the question: should they? Should they be stoic at all times or is there room for anger in appropriate circumstances?
I just came across this article published in the Vanderbilt Law Review in 2012 about that very question:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2099634
I just came across this article published in the Vanderbilt Law Review in 2012 about that very question:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2099634
I doubt people are really that interested in the topic other than its current talking point value; but, there it is for the few who are.Quote:
Abstract
Judges get angry. Law, however, is of two minds as to whether they should; more importantly, it is of two minds as to whether judges' anger should influence their behavior and decision making. On the one hand, anger is the quintessentially judicial emotion. It involves appraisal of wrongdoing, attribution of blame, and assignment of punishmentprecisely what we ask of judges. On the other, anger is associated with aggression, impulsivity, and irrationality. Aristotle, through his concept of virtue, proposed reconciling this conflict by asking whether a person is angry at the right people, for the right reasons, and in the right way. Modern affective psychology, for its part, offers empirical tools with which to determine whether and when anger conforms to Aristotelian virtue.
This Article weaves these strands together to propose a new model of judicial anger: that of the righteously angry judge. The righteously angry judge is angry for good reasons; experiences and expresses that anger in a well-regulated manner; and uses her anger to motivate and carry out the tasks within her delegated authority. Offering not only the first comprehensive descriptive account of judicial anger but also first theoretical model for how such anger ought to be evaluated, the Article demonstrates how judicial behavior and decision making can benefit by harnessing angerthe most common and potent judicial emotionin service of righteousness.
Having been the observer of--and on a few occasions, the cause and recipient of-- judicial anger, I can say it is almost always justified.
The Senate should have considered Judge Judy's temperament before they confirmed her to the Supreme Court.Quote:
A recent survey showed that nearly ten percent of recent college graduates say that television star Judith Sheindlin is on the Supreme Court.
Yes, friends our best and brightest seem to think that Judge Judy sits on the highest court in the land.
Parents your child's B.A. may in fact be a bunch of B.S.
The American Council of Trustees and Alumni said their survey uncovered a "crisis in American civic education."
I've been busy-ish.Canada2017 said:Oldbear83 said:To the adults, I make perfect sense. Your mileage may differ ...Booray said:Oldbear83 said:No corroboration. A necessary and vital point.Booray said:Why not. What false testimony did either of them give? I honestly can't remember any dispute.Oldbear83 said:Sorry, but I don't find you credible on that claim.Booray said:Yes.Oldbear83 said:Even Kagan or Sotomeyor?Booray said:Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.Oldbear83 said:
Goal posts moved, I notice
You aren't making any sense.
Welcome back 83....have you been awol for a while ?
Don't recall reading your posts lately.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:I've been busy-ish.Canada2017 said:Oldbear83 said:To the adults, I make perfect sense. Your mileage may differ ...Booray said:Oldbear83 said:No corroboration. A necessary and vital point.Booray said:Why not. What false testimony did either of them give? I honestly can't remember any dispute.Oldbear83 said:Sorry, but I don't find you credible on that claim.Booray said:Yes.Oldbear83 said:Even Kagan or Sotomeyor?Booray said:Not by me. I always expect nominees to tell the truth.Oldbear83 said:
Goal posts moved, I notice
You aren't making any sense.
Welcome back 83....have you been awol for a while ?
Don't recall reading your posts lately.
Understood
LOL
Game Over - Kennedy absolutely torches this Soros paid protestor on the facts and when she's asked questions she has the most off the wall non relevant answers. These people are crazy.