Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

You might as well install AI computer software to make SCOTUS decision with your standards lol

Do you ever find yourself questioning why you're super critical of a guy that is pretty damn centered and not extremely conservative?

I know you're very left leaning, but you lost an election...this is good as you're going to get. I suggest you focus on why your Democrats can't seem to resonate with voters anymore.

---

1) I have never said he shouldn't be confirmed. I said his honesty issue is troubling.

2) Do you ever ask yourself why any criticism of any right-wing position or politician is automatically incorrect?

3) Specifically in this instance, does Judge Kavanaugh's obvious minimizing of his drinking habits and distorted remembrance of some of the collateral matters from his yearbook bother you in the least? Or do you fall in the camp of "lying is ok if he was unfairly attacked?"

4) More people vote for Democrats than for Republicans. Print your post and 20 years from now tell me how much the current GOP continued to "resonate."

---

Yep. High School and College drinking and what we wrote in our high school yearbooks should be the litmus test for all of us regarding our employment.

---

Said no one.

---

See your bullet point #3 above. Not sure why you feel the need to dance around your reason you don't think Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court. You think he should not because you think he lied about his degree of drinking in college or what he wrote in high school yearbooks. Is that not correct?

And for the record, there is nothing wrong with that if your answer is YES. People just have different opinions about what is and is not important.

---

Because I think it is a really hard decision. As I have pointed out several times, we don't have the whole record. He very well could have been more forthcoming abut his drinking habits in closed door communications with the committee; being a sloppy, belligerent drunk is not the same as being a blackout drunk but they are in the same universe and it was decades ago. I assume that if he still drank like that, we would know about it.

All of which is why you could never prove a perjury case. But he did present as someone whose drinking was usually within reasonable limits and there is plenty of evidence that it went beyond that.

On the yearbook side I had never heard the terms "boofing" or "devil's triangle" before his testimony. The explained urban slang is apparently sexual; he said they refer to farting and drinking. Would like to know what Mark Judge, P.J. and Squi had to say about that. Is it possible they used the terms differently-sure. Unlikely, but possible.

My guess is that if I had the full record my vote would be no based on less than complete candor. But I really don't know for sure. BTW, I think the Dems-in a rush to solidify the women's vote--did an awful job of focusing on this point. There was no way we were ever going to know if there had been a sexual assault, yet that became the sole focus. The GOP was happy to let that happen-because there was no way we were ever going to know if there was sexual assault.

---

Booray said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Booray said:

---

Not all the classmates are in his corner:


https://www.thecut.com/amp/2018/10/former-classmate-details-kavanaughs-cruel-mocking-of-renate.html

---

Did Brett lie? No idea. But there is no way to prove he did, with some evidence to indicate he didn't.

Edit: Booray; I appreciate that while you've been consistent on your opinion, you've at least engaged on the topic, instead of either outright ignoring responses or only responding with insults. That's why I keep responding to your posts, so I hope you don't feel like I'm out to get you or something. I also appreciate that you don't just take your talking points to another thread once someone responds to your posts, which I see happening often in these multi-thread/same topic situations.

---

That was an impressive post. I've enjoyed the discussion. He is going to be confirmed.

My only issue is I felt I was being a bit wishy-washy during the whole thing. But what I have seen today made me feel better about the ground I staked out. So my last post on the subject:

On Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, I thought he was about as good as the left could hope for and I have always held the position that the Senate should "consent" as long as the nominee was well-qualified and of good character. If you object on ideological grounds, go win a presidential election.

Judge Kavanaugh is obviously qualified and I assumed a man of good character. I also understood the context of committee hearings. They have become a game designed to score points. The dissenting senators try to get a sound bite out of the nominee and the nominee tries not to give it to them. Judge Kavanaugh's time in the White House was going to make that a difficult game for him to play.

As Staff Secretary, he managed the paper flow. So he saw most everything and was in charge of document revision. On the one hand that gave the Democrats a huge field in which other people's ideas and comments could be attributed to the Judge; on the other hand, he had a ready made excuse for anything controversial by saying he was just an administrator, not an opinion giver. So while I thought that Judge Kavanaugh pushed the limits of evasiveness pretty hard in the primary hearing on some substantive matters, nothing I heard seemed to be disqualifying.

Dr. Ford came out and it all blew up. I have defended people accused of sexual assault and have a good deal of sympathy for how hard it is to fight those types of charges. In fact, I would guess that the criminal defense bar in Phoenix was just tickled with some of Rachel Mitchell's comments because they are about 180 degrees from what she tells juries when she is prosecuting cases. I watched every minute of the additional hearing and at the end of the day still concluded he should be confirmed. I don't believe "Innocent until proven guilty" is a standard that applies to SCOTUS confirmations; found Dr. Ford more compelling than I had thought she would be; I was surprised by how directly Judge Kavanaugh challenged Democrats as a party and thought his challenge to Senator Klobuchar was completely out of line. Still, it was just one person saying something happened 36 years ago with no one else to back it up.

During his testimony, I thought he was highly evasive on the collateral matters. If I had been in charge of Democratic strategy, I would have pushed hard by cross-examining on potential discrepancies. Instead most of the Democratic senators made grandstanding speeches and/or fixated on the idea of a FBI investigation.That last point was the the one where the Judge had the most ammunition: (1) it is not the nominee's job to decide what, when and how the FBI investigates; (2) it wasn't his fault the information had been withheld (to put it mildly); and (3) if the FBI investigated and found something bad, the GOP would paint it with the same brush as the Mueller investigation. Just didn't seem convincing to me.

As more of his Yale classmates (it seems to me one lesson we might take here is that high school friends are more loyal than people you knew in college) started to lambaste him about mischaracterizing his drinking; as it became clear he had orchestrated (or helped to) the response to Ramirez; and that the GOP was not interested in a fulsome investigation, the chance that he had actually intentionally lied to the committee grew. Even recognizing that large parts of this proceeding were unfair to him and some of the subject matter was personally embarrassing, an intentional lie to congress should be disqualifying no matter the circumstances.

But I also knew this guy is a brilliant lawyer with an impeccable record after college. So there was a lot of cognitive dissonance. To reach a correct judgment on what became the only reason I could see not to confirm him (dishonesty), I felt we needed more information. I have lawyered long enough to lose cases I was sure I was going to win and win cases I was sure I was going to lose, becuase there are two sides to every story. The screwed up 5 minutes then switch procedure coupled with the fact half of that time was speechmaking left me convinced there was a whole lot we did not know. So I hedged along the lines of "lying is disqualifying, but I am not really sure he lied," although I am sure he evaded and pumped up his choirboy resume pretty hard.

The stuff on the drinking games today sort of confirmed to me that we really don't have all the information and I was right to be wishy-washy. It looks to me like the GOP made sure we would not look too deeply into those issues this week and I don't want to hear about how they conducted a deep investigation because it was designed to be a white-wash. Which is Diane Feinstein's fault. And at some point you have to vote on what you know; its not going to do the country any good to keep litigating this.

Time is up and the Democrats don't have the goods on him. Senator Manchin makes a great point when he says from his college graduation until the committee hearings started no one has a bad word for him. If he isn't appointed we will get his legal clone and a near civil war. Weigh all that against the fact that I have general feeling he was unusually evasive, and I think you have to confirm him.

It would help if people could see that there was reason to doubt some of the things he said and reason to believe that he is a good man. Those are not contradictory ideas. This was a very tough set of circumstances and our grandstanding senators-on both sides of the aisle-made it much worse than it needed to be. So lets put it to bed and start arguing about Beto's DWI.

Booray OUT.

---

Booray said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Booray said:

---

Not all the classmates are in his corner:


https://www.thecut.com/amp/2018/10/former-classmate-details-kavanaughs-cruel-mocking-of-renate.html

---

Did Brett lie? No idea. But there is no way to prove he did, with some evidence to indicate he didn't.

Edit: Booray; I appreciate that while you've been consistent on your opinion, you've at least engaged on the topic, instead of either outright ignoring responses or only responding with insults. That's why I keep responding to your posts, so I hope you don't feel like I'm out to get you or something. I also appreciate that you don't just take your talking points to another thread once someone responds to your posts, which I see happening often in these multi-thread/same topic situations.

---

That was an impressive post. I've enjoyed the discussion. He is going to be confirmed.

My only issue is I felt I was being a bit wishy-washy during the whole thing. But what I have seen today made me feel better about the ground I staked out. So my last post on the subject:

On Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, I thought he was about as good as the left could hope for and I have always held the position that the Senate should "consent" as long as the nominee was well-qualified and of good character. If you object on ideological grounds, go win a presidential election.

Judge Kavanaugh is obviously qualified and I assumed a man of good character. I also understood the context of committee hearings. They have become a game designed to score points. The dissenting senators try to get a sound bite out of the nominee and the nominee tries not to give it to them. Judge Kavanaugh's time in the White House was going to make that a difficult game for him to play.

As Staff Secretary, he managed the paper flow. So he saw most everything and was in charge of document revision. On the one hand that gave the Democrats a huge field in which other people's ideas and comments could be attributed to the Judge; on the other hand, he had a ready made excuse for anything controversial by saying he was just an administrator, not an opinion giver. So while I thought that Judge Kavanaugh pushed the limits of evasiveness pretty hard in the primary hearing on some substantive matters, nothing I heard seemed to be disqualifying.

Dr. Ford came out and it all blew up. I have defended people accused of sexual assault and have a good deal of sympathy for how hard it is to fight those types of charges. In fact, I would guess that the criminal defense bar in Phoenix was just tickled with some of Rachel Mitchell's comments because they are about 180 degrees from what she tells juries when she is prosecuting cases. I watched every minute of the additional hearing and at the end of the day still concluded he should be confirmed. I don't believe "Innocent until proven guilty" is a standard that applies to SCOTUS confirmations; found Dr. Ford more compelling than I had thought she would be; I was surprised by how directly Judge Kavanaugh challenged Democrats as a party and thought his challenge to Senator Klobuchar was completely out of line. Still, it was just one person saying something happened 36 years ago with no one else to back it up.

During his testimony, I thought he was highly evasive on the collateral matters. If I had been in charge of Democratic strategy, I would have pushed hard by cross-examining on potential discrepancies. Instead most of the Democratic senators made grandstanding speeches and/or fixated on the idea of a FBI investigation.That last point was the the one where the Judge had the most ammunition: (1) it is not the nominee's job to decide what, when and how the FBI investigates; (2) it wasn't his fault the information had been withheld (to put it mildly); and (3) if the FBI investigated and found something bad, the GOP would paint it with the same brush as the Mueller investigation. Just didn't seem convincing to me.

As more of his Yale classmates (it seems to me one lesson we might take here is that high school friends are more loyal than people you knew in college) started to lambaste him about mischaracterizing his drinking; as it became clear he had orchestrated (or helped to) the response to Ramirez; and that the GOP was not interested in a fulsome investigation, the chance that he had actually intentionally lied to the committee grew. Even recognizing that large parts of this proceeding were unfair to him and some of the subject matter was personally embarrassing, an intentional lie to congress should be disqualifying no matter the circumstances.

But I also knew this guy is a brilliant lawyer with an impeccable record after college. So there was a lot of cognitive dissonance. To reach a correct judgment on what became the only reason I could see not to confirm him (dishonesty), I felt we needed more information. I have lawyered long enough to lose cases I was sure I was going to win and win cases I was sure I was going to lose, becuase there are two sides to every story. The screwed up 5 minutes then switch procedure coupled with the fact half of that time was speechmaking left me convinced there was a whole lot we did not know. So I hedged along the lines of "lying is disqualifying, but I am not really sure he lied," although I am sure he evaded and pumped up his choirboy resume pretty hard.

The stuff on the drinking games today sort of confirmed to me that we really don't have all the information and I was right to be wishy-washy. It looks to me like the GOP made sure we would not look too deeply into those issues this week and I don't want to hear about how they conducted a deep investigation because it was designed to be a white-wash. Which is Diane Feinstein's fault. And at some point you have to vote on what you know; its not going to do the country any good to keep litigating this.

Time is up and the Democrats don't have the goods on him. Senator Manchin makes a great point when he says from his college graduation until the committee hearings started no one has a bad word for him. If he isn't appointed we will get his legal clone and a near civil war. Weigh all that against the fact that I have general feeling he was unusually evasive, and I think you have to confirm him.

It would help if people could see that there was reason to doubt some of the things he said and reason to believe that he is a good man. Those are not contradictory ideas. This was a very tough set of circumstances and our grandstanding senators-on both sides of the aisle-made it much worse than it needed to be. So lets put it to bed and start arguing about Beto's DWI.

Booray OUT.

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

You might as well install AI computer software to make SCOTUS decision with your standards lol

Do you ever find yourself questioning why you're super critical of a guy that is pretty damn centered and not extremely conservative?

I know you're very left leaning, but you lost an election...this is good as you're going to get. I suggest you focus on why your Democrats can't seem to resonate with voters anymore.

---

1) I have never said he shouldn't be confirmed. I said his honesty issue is troubling.

2) Do you ever ask yourself why any criticism of any right-wing position or politician is automatically incorrect?

3) Specifically in this instance, does Judge Kavanaugh's obvious minimizing of his drinking habits and distorted remembrance of some of the collateral matters from his yearbook bother you in the least? Or do you fall in the camp of "lying is ok if he was unfairly attacked?"

4) More people vote for Democrats than for Republicans. Print your post and 20 years from now tell me how much the current GOP continued to "resonate."

---

Yep. High School and College drinking and what we wrote in our high school yearbooks should be the litmus test for all of us regarding our employment.

---

Said no one.

---

See your bullet point #3 above. Not sure why you feel the need to dance around your reason you don't think Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court. You think he should not because you think he lied about his degree of drinking in college or what he wrote in high school yearbooks. Is that not correct?

And for the record, there is nothing wrong with that if your answer is YES. People just have different opinions about what is and is not important.

---

Because I think it is a really hard decision. As I have pointed out several times, we don't have the whole record. He very well could have been more forthcoming abut his drinking habits in closed door communications with the committee; being a sloppy, belligerent drunk is not the same as being a blackout drunk but they are in the same universe and it was decades ago. I assume that if he still drank like that, we would know about it.

All of which is why you could never prove a perjury case. But he did present as someone whose drinking was usually within reasonable limits and there is plenty of evidence that it went beyond that.

On the yearbook side I had never heard the terms "boofing" or "devil's triangle" before his testimony. The explained urban slang is apparently sexual; he said they refer to farting and drinking. Would like to know what Mark Judge, P.J. and Squi had to say about that. Is it possible they used the terms differently-sure. Unlikely, but possible.

My guess is that if I had the full record my vote would be no based on less than complete candor. But I really don't know for sure. BTW, I think the Dems-in a rush to solidify the women's vote--did an awful job of focusing on this point. There was no way we were ever going to know if there had been a sexual assault, yet that became the sole focus. The GOP was happy to let that happen-because there was no way we were ever going to know if there was sexual assault.

---

Boofing was an anal sex reference I first heard at Baylor my freshman year, along with bufu and boofed.

Imagine my surprise a few years later to meet a kid named Boofie.

---

You're lying. And what's sad here is that it's not even a good lie.

So since it's already been well-established that you are hopelessly dense beyond remedy, thank you for now plainly demonstrating that you're also a lying sack of s***.

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

You might as well install AI computer software to make SCOTUS decision with your standards lol

Do you ever find yourself questioning why you're super critical of a guy that is pretty damn centered and not extremely conservative?

I know you're very left leaning, but you lost an election...this is good as you're going to get. I suggest you focus on why your Democrats can't seem to resonate with voters anymore.

---

1) I have never said he shouldn't be confirmed. I said his honesty issue is troubling.

2) Do you ever ask yourself why any criticism of any right-wing position or politician is automatically incorrect?

3) Specifically in this instance, does Judge Kavanaugh's obvious minimizing of his drinking habits and distorted remembrance of some of the collateral matters from his yearbook bother you in the least? Or do you fall in the camp of "lying is ok if he was unfairly attacked?"

4) More people vote for Democrats than for Republicans. Print your post and 20 years from now tell me how much the current GOP continued to "resonate."

---

Yep. High School and College drinking and what we wrote in our high school yearbooks should be the litmus test for all of us regarding our employment.

---

Said no one.

---

See your bullet point #3 above. Not sure why you feel the need to dance around your reason you don't think Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court. You think he should not because you think he lied about his degree of drinking in college or what he wrote in high school yearbooks. Is that not correct?

And for the record, there is nothing wrong with that if your answer is YES. People just have different opinions about what is and is not important.

---

Because I think it is a really hard decision. As I have pointed out several times, we don't have the whole record. He very well could have been more forthcoming abut his drinking habits in closed door communications with the committee; being a sloppy, belligerent drunk is not the same as being a blackout drunk but they are in the same universe and it was decades ago. I assume that if he still drank like that, we would know about it.

All of which is why you could never prove a perjury case. But he did present as someone whose drinking was usually within reasonable limits and there is plenty of evidence that it went beyond that.

On the yearbook side I had never heard the terms "boofing" or "devil's triangle" before his testimony. The explained urban slang is apparently sexual; he said they refer to farting and drinking. Would like to know what Mark Judge, P.J. and Squi had to say about that. Is it possible they used the terms differently-sure. Unlikely, but possible.

My guess is that if I had the full record my vote would be no based on less than complete candor. But I really don't know for sure. BTW, I think the Dems-in a rush to solidify the women's vote--did an awful job of focusing on this point. There was no way we were ever going to know if there had been a sexual assault, yet that became the sole focus. The GOP was happy to let that happen-because there was no way we were ever going to know if there was sexual assault.

---

Boofing was an anal sex reference I first heard at Baylor my freshman year, along with bufu and boofed.

Imagine my surprise a few years later to meet a kid named Boofie.

---

You're lying. And what's sad here is that it's not even a good lie.

So since it's already been well-established that you are hopelessly dense beyond remedy, thank you for now plainly demonstrating that you're also a lying sack of s***.

---

Helluva charge to make since you weren't there at the time. And just because you assert a thing doesn't make it well established.

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

You might as well install AI computer software to make SCOTUS decision with your standards lol

Do you ever find yourself questioning why you're super critical of a guy that is pretty damn centered and not extremely conservative?

I know you're very left leaning, but you lost an election...this is good as you're going to get. I suggest you focus on why your Democrats can't seem to resonate with voters anymore.

---

1) I have never said he shouldn't be confirmed. I said his honesty issue is troubling.

2) Do you ever ask yourself why any criticism of any right-wing position or politician is automatically incorrect?

3) Specifically in this instance, does Judge Kavanaugh's obvious minimizing of his drinking habits and distorted remembrance of some of the collateral matters from his yearbook bother you in the least? Or do you fall in the camp of "lying is ok if he was unfairly attacked?"

4) More people vote for Democrats than for Republicans. Print your post and 20 years from now tell me how much the current GOP continued to "resonate."

---

Yep. High School and College drinking and what we wrote in our high school yearbooks should be the litmus test for all of us regarding our employment.

---

Said no one.

---

See your bullet point #3 above. Not sure why you feel the need to dance around your reason you don't think Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court. You think he should not because you think he lied about his degree of drinking in college or what he wrote in high school yearbooks. Is that not correct?

And for the record, there is nothing wrong with that if your answer is YES. People just have different opinions about what is and is not important.

---

Because I think it is a really hard decision. As I have pointed out several times, we don't have the whole record. He very well could have been more forthcoming abut his drinking habits in closed door communications with the committee; being a sloppy, belligerent drunk is not the same as being a blackout drunk but they are in the same universe and it was decades ago. I assume that if he still drank like that, we would know about it.

All of which is why you could never prove a perjury case. But he did present as someone whose drinking was usually within reasonable limits and there is plenty of evidence that it went beyond that.

On the yearbook side I had never heard the terms "boofing" or "devil's triangle" before his testimony. The explained urban slang is apparently sexual; he said they refer to farting and drinking. Would like to know what Mark Judge, P.J. and Squi had to say about that. Is it possible they used the terms differently-sure. Unlikely, but possible.

My guess is that if I had the full record my vote would be no based on less than complete candor. But I really don't know for sure. BTW, I think the Dems-in a rush to solidify the women's vote--did an awful job of focusing on this point. There was no way we were ever going to know if there had been a sexual assault, yet that became the sole focus. The GOP was happy to let that happen-because there was no way we were ever going to know if there was sexual assault.

---

Boofing was an anal sex reference I first heard at Baylor my freshman year, along with bufu and boofed.

Imagine my surprise a few years later to meet a kid named Boofie.

---

You're lying. And what's sad here is that it's not even a good lie.

So since it's already been well-established that you are hopelessly dense beyond remedy, thank you for now plainly demonstrating that you're also a lying sack of s***.

---

Helluva charge to make since you weren't there at the time. And just because you assert a thing doesn't make it well established.

---

I noticed that you didn't deny it. Busted.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

You might as well install AI computer software to make SCOTUS decision with your standards lol

Do you ever find yourself questioning why you're super critical of a guy that is pretty damn centered and not extremely conservative?

I know you're very left leaning, but you lost an election...this is good as you're going to get. I suggest you focus on why your Democrats can't seem to resonate with voters anymore.

---

1) I have never said he shouldn't be confirmed. I said his honesty issue is troubling.

2) Do you ever ask yourself why any criticism of any right-wing position or politician is automatically incorrect?

3) Specifically in this instance, does Judge Kavanaugh's obvious minimizing of his drinking habits and distorted remembrance of some of the collateral matters from his yearbook bother you in the least? Or do you fall in the camp of "lying is ok if he was unfairly attacked?"

4) More people vote for Democrats than for Republicans. Print your post and 20 years from now tell me how much the current GOP continued to "resonate."

---

Yep. High School and College drinking and what we wrote in our high school yearbooks should be the litmus test for all of us regarding our employment.

---

Said no one.

---

See your bullet point #3 above. Not sure why you feel the need to dance around your reason you don't think Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court. You think he should not because you think he lied about his degree of drinking in college or what he wrote in high school yearbooks. Is that not correct?

And for the record, there is nothing wrong with that if your answer is YES. People just have different opinions about what is and is not important.

---

Because I think it is a really hard decision. As I have pointed out several times, we don't have the whole record. He very well could have been more forthcoming abut his drinking habits in closed door communications with the committee; being a sloppy, belligerent drunk is not the same as being a blackout drunk but they are in the same universe and it was decades ago. I assume that if he still drank like that, we would know about it.

All of which is why you could never prove a perjury case. But he did present as someone whose drinking was usually within reasonable limits and there is plenty of evidence that it went beyond that.

On the yearbook side I had never heard the terms "boofing" or "devil's triangle" before his testimony. The explained urban slang is apparently sexual; he said they refer to farting and drinking. Would like to know what Mark Judge, P.J. and Squi had to say about that. Is it possible they used the terms differently-sure. Unlikely, but possible.

My guess is that if I had the full record my vote would be no based on less than complete candor. But I really don't know for sure. BTW, I think the Dems-in a rush to solidify the women's vote--did an awful job of focusing on this point. There was no way we were ever going to know if there had been a sexual assault, yet that became the sole focus. The GOP was happy to let that happen-because there was no way we were ever going to know if there was sexual assault.

---

Boofing was an anal sex reference I first heard at Baylor my freshman year, along with bufu and boofed.

Imagine my surprise a few years later to meet a kid named Boofie.

---

You're lying. And what's sad here is that it's not even a good lie.

So since it's already been well-established that you are hopelessly dense beyond remedy, thank you for now plainly demonstrating that you're also a lying sack of s***.

---

Helluva charge to make since you weren't there at the time. And just because you assert a thing doesn't make it well established.

---

I noticed that you didn't deny it. Busted.

---

I don't have to reassert a proposition for its truth to continue.

BTW, you appear to be a troll, go beg for scraps elsewhere.

---

Quote:

---

...just because you assert a thing doesn't make it well established.

---

Quote:

---

I don't have to reassert a proposition for its truth to continue.

---

Quote:

---

Lindsey Graham asked for his thoughts on Kavanaugh possibly being first SCOTUS justice confirmed by a single vote: "This is the first time the Senate has tried to destroy a good man's life."

Said he's concerned they're legitimizing "lies, slander and character assassination."

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

That Ford seemed giddy part of the time she testified seemed strange to me, now we have seen behind the scenes of a political hit job, the FBI kinda has pulled back that curtain, these are ruthless, useless people who truly chose to try and ruin a man and his families lives over nothing more than political gain.

For the first time in my life I will go to the booth, not even look at the ballot excepting local elections and simply mark straight ticket R. Never have done that in my life. There is always someone worth a look and worth the benefit, not this year. Not going to waste my time looking at every single contest.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oso,

Sort of an old news post. No one I know questions his credentials.

Those who would vote against him on idealogical grounds would agree that he is not as far right as others.

Did he sexually assault someone? Not enough evidence to say yes; I don't think that is a close call.

Did he lie about sexual assault? Logically, has to be the same answer, but I would go further and say that even if there was some sort of incident, he doesn't remember it so he can't lie about it.

Did he lie about collateral matters? Lie is a strong word. He certainly did not tell the whole truth.

---

You might as well install AI computer software to make SCOTUS decision with your standards lol

Do you ever find yourself questioning why you're super critical of a guy that is pretty damn centered and not extremely conservative?

I know you're very left leaning, but you lost an election...this is good as you're going to get. I suggest you focus on why your Democrats can't seem to resonate with voters anymore.

---

1) I have never said he shouldn't be confirmed. I said his honesty issue is troubling.

2) Do you ever ask yourself why any criticism of any right-wing position or politician is automatically incorrect?

3) Specifically in this instance, does Judge Kavanaugh's obvious minimizing of his drinking habits and distorted remembrance of some of the collateral matters from his yearbook bother you in the least? Or do you fall in the camp of "lying is ok if he was unfairly attacked?"

4) More people vote for Democrats than for Republicans. Print your post and 20 years from now tell me how much the current GOP continued to "resonate."

---

Yep. High School and College drinking and what we wrote in our high school yearbooks should be the litmus test for all of us regarding our employment.

---

Said no one.

---

See your bullet point #3 above. Not sure why you feel the need to dance around your reason you don't think Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court. You think he should not because you think he lied about his degree of drinking in college or what he wrote in high school yearbooks. Is that not correct?

And for the record, there is nothing wrong with that if your answer is YES. People just have different opinions about what is and is not important.

---

Because I think it is a really hard decision. As I have pointed out several times, we don't have the whole record. He very well could have been more forthcoming abut his drinking habits in closed door communications with the committee; being a sloppy, belligerent drunk is not the same as being a blackout drunk but they are in the same universe and it was decades ago. I assume that if he still drank like that, we would know about it.

All of which is why you could never prove a perjury case. But he did present as someone whose drinking was usually within reasonable limits and there is plenty of evidence that it went beyond that.

On the yearbook side I had never heard the terms "boofing" or "devil's triangle" before his testimony. The explained urban slang is apparently sexual; he said they refer to farting and drinking. Would like to know what Mark Judge, P.J. and Squi had to say about that. Is it possible they used the terms differently-sure. Unlikely, but possible.

My guess is that if I had the full record my vote would be no based on less than complete candor. But I really don't know for sure. BTW, I think the Dems-in a rush to solidify the women's vote--did an awful job of focusing on this point. There was no way we were ever going to know if there had been a sexual assault, yet that became the sole focus. The GOP was happy to let that happen-because there was no way we were ever going to know if there was sexual assault.

---

Boofing was an anal sex reference I first heard at Baylor my freshman year, along with bufu and boofed.

Imagine my surprise a few years later to meet a kid named Boofie.

---

You're lying. And what's sad here is that it's not even a good lie.

So since it's already been well-established that you are hopelessly dense beyond remedy, thank you for now plainly demonstrating that you're also a lying sack of s***.

---

Helluva charge to make since you weren't there at the time. And just because you assert a thing doesn't make it well established.

---

I noticed that you didn't deny it. Busted.

---

I don't have to reassert a proposition for its truth to continue.

BTW, you appear to be a troll, go beg for scraps elsewhere.

---

Hold up.

You said:

Quote:

---

...just because you assert a thing doesn't make it well established.

---

Then you said:

Quote:

---

I don't have to reassert a proposition for its truth to continue.

---

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Nope. You need to prove it first before you accept it.

---

riflebear said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

That Ford seemed giddy part of the time she testified seemed strange to me, now we have seen behind the scenes of a political hit job, the FBI kinda has pulled back that curtain, these are ruthless, useless people who truly chose to try and ruin a man and his families lives over nothing more than political gain.

For the first time in my life I will go to the booth, not even look at the ballot excepting local elections and simply mark straight ticket R. Never have done that in my life. There is always someone worth a look and worth the benefit, not this year. Not going to waste my time looking at every single contest.

---

I was hoping they would have interviewed Ford to dig a little deeper into some of her accusations but this was a background check, not an investigation so I don't know if we'll ever know. Hopefully her political attorneys are exposed, Dr. Ford should probably be left alone but I have a feeling we'll see her start popping up at paid speaking engagements for liberals & the #metoo movement.

---