Gunny Hartman said:

---

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.

---

Not looking for a battle of wits. But when you use the word "hypocrisy" you need to have something from me that relates to your chosen petard. Otherwise, no hoisting.

So, when I discuss Kavanaugh if you want to prove my a hypocrite you best have a quote from me about RBG, not merely your link.

Got one?

And thanks for the comparison to the mighty warrior.

This guy says someone is lying.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-college-roommate-jamie-roche.html

Simple question for Kavanaugh supporters. If he is completely innocent of any sexual assault, harassment or intimidation; the Democrats knew this and used the hearing as a set-up, but he is guilty of lying as described in the article, is he disqualified from SCOTUS?

While I disagree with some of your premise and all of your conclusions, thanks for an honest answer.

Booray said:

---

While I disagree with some of your premise and all of your conclusions, thanks for an honest answer.

---

Yeah, D.C. could learn from our board.

Any other Kavanaugh supported care to weigh in? OK to lie in defending against unethical and false allegations?

Booray said:

---

Any other Kavanaugh supported care to weigh in? OK to lie in defending against unethical and false allegations?

---

It is my opinion that your partisan politics have clouded your judgment. I suspect like most of the Democratic Senators, you had your mind made up about Kavanaugh before this character assassination even started. The FBI report is complete. Perhaps tomorrow we may find out some of their findings. Whatever is in it or not in it, it will not be good enough for the Democrats. I have no doubt about that.

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

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.

---

Not looking for a battle of wits. But when you use the word "hypocrisy" you need to have something from me that relates to your chosen petard. Otherwise, no hoisting.

So, when I discuss Kavanaugh if you want to prove my a hypocrite you best have a quote from me about RBG, not merely your link.

Got one?

And thanks for the comparison to the mighty warrior.

---

Goodness. It appears I have to spell out something which should be painfully obvious to you already. I will do so briefly.

When you said that one of the reasons that Kavanagh was unqualified was because of "partisanship," I pointed out that RBG, one of the leftist icons (incredible I know that people could actually look up to her, but I digress) has made profoundly partisan statements. Thus, quite obviously it would be the height of hypocrisy (there's that word again) to support her presence on the court (which you just made clear you bafflingly do) while pretending a similar accusation would disqualify Kavanaugh.

I do hope you are able to follow that elementary chain of logic, though I admit I'm highly doubtful you can.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Any other Kavanaugh supported care to weigh in? OK to lie in defending against unethical and false allegations?

---

It is my opinion that your partisan politics have clouded your judgment. I suspect like most of the Democratic Senators, you had your mind made up about Kavanaugh before this character assassination even started. The FBI report is complete. Perhaps tomorrow we may find out some of their findings. Whatever is in it or not in it, it will not be good enough for the Democrats. I have no doubt about that.

---

I consistently posted on this board through the end of the day last Thursday that he should be confirmed. The chorus of acquaintances who said he lied under oath makes me wonder.

Also, nice deflection. Want to answer the question: if he intentionally lied in defending himself against baseless and unethical charges, is the lying disqualifying?

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Any other Kavanaugh supported care to weigh in? OK to lie in defending against unethical and false allegations?

---

It is my opinion that your partisan politics have clouded your judgment. I suspect like most of the Democratic Senators, you had your mind made up about Kavanaugh before this character assassination even started. The FBI report is complete. Perhaps tomorrow we may find out some of their findings. Whatever is in it or not in it, it will not be good enough for the Democrats. I have no doubt about that.

---

I consistently posted on this board through the end of the day last Thursday that he should be confirmed. The chorus of acquaintances who said he lied under oath makes me wonder.

Also, nice deflection. Want to answer the question: if he intentionally lied in defending himself against baseless and unethical charges, is the lying disqualifying?

---

So what specifically did he lie about? His level of drinking as a nineteen year old in college? THE HORROR! Hell no I don't think he should be disqualified. Hope that answer was not too wishy washy for you.



WWBS (What Would BETO Say?)

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Any other Kavanaugh supported care to weigh in? OK to lie in defending against unethical and false allegations?

---

It is my opinion that your partisan politics have clouded your judgment. I suspect like most of the Democratic Senators, you had your mind made up about Kavanaugh before this character assassination even started. The FBI report is complete. Perhaps tomorrow we may find out some of their findings. Whatever is in it or not in it, it will not be good enough for the Democrats. I have no doubt about that.

---

I consistently posted on this board through the end of the day last Thursday that he should be confirmed. The chorus of acquaintances who said he lied under oath makes me wonder.

Also, nice deflection. Want to answer the question: if he intentionally lied in defending himself against baseless and unethical charges, is the lying disqualifying?

---

If intentionally lied about a material issue relating to any charges he was answering, yes, absolutely disqualifying.

OK, so two Kavanaugh supporters have candidly said some lies to Congress would be understandable and not disqualifying. One says no. Anyone else agree or disagree?

Booray said:

---

OK, so two Kavanaugh supporters have candidly said some lies to Congress would be understandable and not disqualifying. One says no. Anyone else agree or disagree?

---

So if it is confirmed that Blasey-Ford lied under oath in an attempt to destroy a man's life, should she go to jail? A simple yes or no will do. (This should be good!)

Booray said:

---

OK, so two Kavanaugh supporters have candidly said some lies to Congress would be understandable and not disqualifying. One says no. Anyone else agree or disagree?

---

I think the reason it has to be disqualifying is because he was under oath, and if you can prove he intentionally lied (successful prosecution for perjury), that's a five year prison sentence.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

OK, so two Kavanaugh supporters have candidly said some lies to Congress would be understandable and not disqualifying. One says no. Anyone else agree or disagree?

---

So if it is confirmed that Blasey-Ford lied under oath in an attempt to destroy a man's life, should she go to jail? A simple yes or no will do. (This should be good!)

---

Not sure on the jail penalty, but she should be prosecuted in that scenario.

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

OK, so two Kavanaugh supporters have candidly said some lies to Congress would be understandable and not disqualifying. One says no. Anyone else agree or disagree?

---

So if it is confirmed that Blasey-Ford lied under oath in an attempt to destroy a man's life, should she go to jail? A simple yes or no will do. (This should be good!)

---

Not sure on the jail penalty, but she should be prosecuted in that scenario.

---

I agree. Not sure jail time is appropriate, but I think the punishment should be severe to send a message. A fine would do no good. She would just create another GoFundMe page. Perhaps a few defamation of character lawsuits would do the trick.

Booray said:

---

OK, so two Kavanaugh supporters have candidly said some lies to Congress would be understandable and not disqualifying. One says no. Anyone else agree or disagree?

---

Why didn't you answer my question?

Booray said:

---

OK, so two Kavanaugh supporters have candidly said some lies to Congress would be understandable and not disqualifying. One says no. Anyone else agree or disagree?

---

Is this what you are asking?
From your link:
I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends. But I can say that he lied under oath. He claimed that he occasionally drank too much but never enough to forget details of the night before, never enough to "black out." He did, regularly. He said that "boofing" was farting and the "Devil's Triangle" was a drinking game. "Boofing" and "Devil's Triangle" are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Booray said:

---

While I disagree with some of your premise and all of your conclusions, thanks for an honest answer.

---

Wait, it is your belief that he is lying because one guy said he is? So does that mean that Ford's longtime boyfriend's testimony proves that she was lying also? Asking for a friend.

---

I don't know if he lied. He testified behind closed doors and gave written answers that I am not aware of. Without the full record, it is tough to say.

But there is way more than "one guy" who suggests he lied. There are several Yale classmates who corroborate his roommate. His explanation on the Renate Dolphin reference is implausible, to say the least.

My question though is-does it matter to you?

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

OK, so two Kavanaugh supporters have candidly said some lies to Congress would be understandable and not disqualifying. One says no. Anyone else agree or disagree?

---

Is this what you are asking?
From your link:
I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends. But I can say that he lied under oath. He claimed that he occasionally drank too much but never enough to forget details of the night before, never enough to "black out." He did, regularly. He said that "boofing" was farting and the "Devil's Triangle" was a drinking game. "Boofing" and "Devil's Triangle" are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.

---

It's a leading example of what I am talking about.

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

OK, so two Kavanaugh supporters have candidly said some lies to Congress would be understandable and not disqualifying. One says no. Anyone else agree or disagree?

---

Is this what you are asking?
From your link:
I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends. But I can say that he lied under oath. He claimed that he occasionally drank too much but never enough to forget details of the night before, never enough to "black out." He did, regularly. He said that "boofing" was farting and the "Devil's Triangle" was a drinking game. "Boofing" and "Devil's Triangle" are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.

---

It's a leading example of what I am talking about.

---

His freshman roommate who hates K says he isn't sure about accusations of Ford or Debbie. So that can't be K's alleged lie.

The roommate who hates him claims he drank too much in college. I'll need more than the testimony (not under oath) of an ancient foe.

---

If being snot-slinging drunk in college is the allegation, there are plenty of Yalies besides the freshman roommate who have confirmed that part, because they drank with him.

Don't forget that Kavanaugh himself bragged about being stumble-down drunk at Yale Law School. And he did it in a speech just 4 years ago to Yale Law students.

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

OK, so two Kavanaugh supporters have candidly said some lies to Congress would be understandable and not disqualifying. One says no. Anyone else agree or disagree?

---

Is this what you are asking?
From your link:
I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends. But I can say that he lied under oath. He claimed that he occasionally drank too much but never enough to forget details of the night before, never enough to "black out." He did, regularly. He said that "boofing" was farting and the "Devil's Triangle" was a drinking game. "Boofing" and "Devil's Triangle" are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.

---

It's a leading example of what I am talking about.

---

His freshman roommate who hates K says he isn't sure about accusations of Ford or Debbie. So that can't be K's alleged lie.

The roommate who hates him claims he drank too much in college. I'll need more than the testimony (not under oath) of an ancient foe.

---

If being snot-slinging drunk in college is the allegation, there are plenty of Yalies besides the freshman roommate who have confirmed that part, because they drank with him.

Don't forget that Kavanaugh himself bragged about being stumble-down drunk at Yale Law School. And he did it in a speech just 4 years ago to Yale Law students.

---

I suspect you disqualified K before the hard drinking allegations surfaced. In my mind, binge drinking college isn't a DQ

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

OK, so two Kavanaugh supporters have candidly said some lies to Congress would be understandable and not disqualifying. One says no. Anyone else agree or disagree?

---

Is this what you are asking?
From your link:
I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends. But I can say that he lied under oath. He claimed that he occasionally drank too much but never enough to forget details of the night before, never enough to "black out." He did, regularly. He said that "boofing" was farting and the "Devil's Triangle" was a drinking game. "Boofing" and "Devil's Triangle" are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.

---

It's a leading example of what I am talking about.

---

His freshman roommate who hates K says he isn't sure about accusations of Ford or Debbie. So that can't be K's alleged lie.

The roommate who hates him claims he drank too much in college. I'll need more than the testimony (not under oath) of an ancient foe.

---

I'll accept your general premise, we need more than one accuser with a motive. Which is why it would have been a good idea for the FBI to not ignore the more than 40 potential witnesses who reached out to discuss this stuff.

Moreover, there are several other witnesses with no grudges who came forward on the drinking issues. Two female athlete classmates in particular.

Finally, my point about not knowing the full record applies. I am fairly confident, but not 100% sure, that the animosity was between the other two roommates and not between the Judge and the guy talking now. Judge Kavanaugh referred to his close door testimony on this point and left the impression you have, but his actual words and the guy's statement say different.

But I am not asking if you think he lied. Assuming he lied, is that disqualifying?

Sam Lowry said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

If being snot-slinging drunk in college is the allegation...

---

Which, of course, it isn't.

---

Sort of. One of the questions is whether he drank to the point of memory loss. He said no. Lots of Eli say that is a lie.

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

OK, so two Kavanaugh supporters have candidly said some lies to Congress would be understandable and not disqualifying. One says no. Anyone else agree or disagree?

---

Is this what you are asking?
From your link:
I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends. But I can say that he lied under oath. He claimed that he occasionally drank too much but never enough to forget details of the night before, never enough to "black out." He did, regularly. He said that "boofing" was farting and the "Devil's Triangle" was a drinking game. "Boofing" and "Devil's Triangle" are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.

---

It's a leading example of what I am talking about.

---

His freshman roommate who hates K says he isn't sure about accusations of Ford or Debbie. So that can't be K's alleged lie.

The roommate who hates him claims he drank too much in college. I'll need more than the testimony (not under oath) of an ancient foe.

---

I'll accept your general premise, we need more than one accuser with a motive. Which is why it would have been a good idea for the FBI to not ignore the more than 40 potential witnesses who reached out to discuss this stuff.

Moreover, there are several other witnesses with no grudges who came forward on the drinking issues. Two female athlete classmates in particular.

Finally, my point about not knowing the full record applies. I am fairly confident, but not 100% sure, that the animosity was between the other two roommates and not between the Judge and the guy talking now. Judge Kavanaugh referred to his close door testimony on this point and left the impression you have, but his actual words and the guy's statement say different.

But I am not asking if you think he lied. Assuming he lied, is that disqualifying?

---

Depends on what he was lying about

"Did you sexually assault Ford?" DQ
"Did you black out 35 years ago?" No DQ

Fair enough.

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

OK, so two Kavanaugh supporters have candidly said some lies to Congress would be understandable and not disqualifying. One says no. Anyone else agree or disagree?

---

Is this what you are asking?
From your link:
I do not know if Brett attacked Christine Blasey Ford in high school or if he sexually humiliated Debbie in front of a group of people she thought were her friends. But I can say that he lied under oath. He claimed that he occasionally drank too much but never enough to forget details of the night before, never enough to "black out." He did, regularly. He said that "boofing" was farting and the "Devil's Triangle" was a drinking game. "Boofing" and "Devil's Triangle" are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.

---

It's a leading example of what I am talking about.

---

His freshman roommate who hates K says he isn't sure about accusations of Ford or Debbie. So that can't be K's alleged lie.

The roommate who hates him claims he drank too much in college. I'll need more than the testimony (not under oath) of an ancient foe.

---

If being snot-slinging drunk in college is the allegation, there are plenty of Yalies besides the freshman roommate who have confirmed that part, because they drank with him.

Don't forget that Kavanaugh himself bragged about being stumble-down drunk at Yale Law School. And he did it in a speech just 4 years ago to Yale Law students.

---

I suspect you disqualified K before the hard drinking allegations surfaced. In my mind, binge drinking college isn't a DQ

---

You tribalism is showing. Again.

I've consistently said that I originally thought Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he was qualified by intellect and experience and there seemed to be nothing we knew of to disqualify him.

The hard drinking is NOT a disqualifier. Given his years on the bench, no one would even be looking at his HS and college and law school drinking... EXCEPT that he has been accused of sexual assault, and he was allegedly very drunk when the alleged assaults took place.

Even then, he could have been honest about what many of his friends already knew and what everyone else was about to find out. But he wasn't -- perhaps because he believed (or was coached) that any admission that he was regularly "drunk and obnoxious" (his phrase) might be construed as a tacit admission that the allegations were true and he had been too drunk to remember. He flat-out lied to the Senate and misrepresented the truth in other areas. That undercut his credibility about everything else. If he lied about that stuff, what else did he lie about?

And on top of that, his hysterical rant was a huge red flag. His defenders dismiss that as righteous anger. I get that. I'd be angry, too, were I falsely accused. I also expect someone being considered for his position to be able to control his anger enough to navigate a hearing without flying off into wild furies about the revenge of the Clintons and demanding to know from senators whether they'd been blind drunk. You're not going to convince the undecided that you're not a mean, drunken bully by acting like a mean, drunken bully on national TV.

Is that a DQ? I don't know. It's not the term I'd use, necessarily. What I'd say, as the job interviewer, is, "Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Kavanaugh. We believe we have some candidates who are even better qualified than you."

This guy could have displayed anger and frustration and yet still conveyed to people that he could be an honest caller of balls and strikes. He didn't even try on that latter part. Didn't bother and didn't care.

I don't see how anyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent, could believe this guy will as a Supreme Court justice anything other than what he showed on TV the other day. The difference is that the partisans who support him don't care if he takes partisanship to a new and bitter level on that Court.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

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.

---

Not looking for a battle of wits. But when you use the word "hypocrisy" you need to have something from me that relates to your chosen petard. Otherwise, no hoisting.

So, when I discuss Kavanaugh if you want to prove my a hypocrite you best have a quote from me about RBG, not merely your link.

Got one?

And thanks for the comparison to the mighty warrior.

---

Goodness. It appears I have to spell out something which should be painfully obvious to you already. I will do so briefly.

When you said that one of the reasons that Kavanagh was unqualified was because of "partisanship," I pointed out that RBG, one of the leftist icons (incredible I know that people could actually look up to her, but I digress) has made profoundly partisan statements. Thus, quite obviously it would be the height of hypocrisy (there's that word again) to support her presence on the court (which you just made clear you bafflingly do) while pretending a similar accusation would disqualify Kavanaugh.

I do hope you are able to follow that elementary chain of logic, though I admit I'm highly doubtful you can.

---

Ah. You're one of those "silence is support" guys. When using a phrase like "you just made clear" it should refer to a quote. You didn't.

And condescension is not persuasion. It just make you feel better, snowflake.

See?