kavanaugh

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

See now there you go, telling me what I know, what you know and not answering either of my questions. I know the difference between right and wrong, I've already agreed the release against her will was wrong; you can give that a rest now.

You brought up the release and I was answering your question re it.

You seemed to be agreeing with K's rant and the GOP position that this entire process was a staged and calculated ploy by the Dem's and if we can believe it Clinton's revenge.

I didn't bring up Clinton's revenge. The Dem ploy was, rightly or wrongly, obvious to me. Didn't need what you refer to as a rant.

I see it as maybe a simple case of one staffer leaking a letter that they probably in hindsight, shouldn't have even had access to, yet that water is over the dam and down river.

You can give that a rest now.

So I wanted clarification from you on why you think this was all a calculated ploy to leak a letter last minute, in order to stall the confirmation and affect the mid terms.

I gave you one explanation.

I made the case, that if that's a plan, it's not a very well thought out one; an early release and early detailed FBI probe would have been far more effective at doing just that.

It's not the first time a not very well thought out plan was attempted.

Then in my last post and since the cat is out of the bag, with an FBI investigation underway; I asked if they presented evidence to support her claim, would that change your opinion of the man or his right I guess to win confirmation.

I guess I'm looking to see if that were to happen, if him lying about the incident would sway your vote, or do you feel is it just a stupid 17 year old getting too liquored up and acting inappropriate and we should move on.

No, it would not sway my vote. I certainly have considered that Kavanaugh may be lying about what happened. I have also considered, for some time now, probably the Clinton episode (episodes) was the final straw, that lying (and doing it well) has become a prerequisite to survival in our corrupt milieu of the politics of personal destruction. And studying the past, as I have been doing for the past two decades or so of American politics, and by extension world politics, the beautiful myths of honesty and honor, and idealistic moral character have been exaggerated. "In the course of human events" such as wars, revolutions, political battles, creation of societies, and the search for freedom, those who are totally pure of heart, and never, ever, deceive, even for good and right ends, are prone to lose battles--maybe become martyrs, righteous models, saints, the essence of honor and truth used to persuade new generations to support some cause which inevitably is populated with various malcontents and dissemblers who know how to stir up a crowd with high notions of which they themselves are not purely capable of totally emulating.

I don't doubt that every Senator, lawyer, apparatchik in that room where Kavanaugh was being questioned, lied or were lying about some important incident that promoted their success or saved them from failing.

I am more concerned with the ideological direction of the Supreme Court than in the personal purity of the judges. I would rather have a low level scoundrel who would uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights than have the most honest socialist, communist, or Progressive for whom the Constitution is a living, breathing means to create a version of unlimited government.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, it would not sway my vote. I certainly have considered that Kavanaugh may be lying about what happened. I have also considered, for some time now, probably the Clinton episode (episodes) was the final straw, that lying (and doing it well) has become a prerequisite to survival in our corrupt milieu of the politics of personal destruction. And studying the past, as I have been doing for the past two decades or so of American politics, and by extension world politics, the beautiful myths of honesty and honor, and idealistic moral character have been exaggerated. "In the course of human events" such as wars, revolutions, political battles, creation of societies, and the search for freedom, those who are totally pure of heart, and never, ever, deceive, even for good and right ends, are prone to lose battles--maybe become martyrs, righteous models, saints, the essence of honor and truth used to persuade new generations to support some cause which inevitably is populated with various malcontents and dissemblers who know how to stir up a crowd with high notions of which they themselves are not purely capable of totally emulating.

I don't doubt that every Senator, lawyer, apparatchik in that room where Kavanaugh was being questioned, lied or were lying about some important incident that promoted their success or saved them from failing.

I am more concerned with the ideological direction of the Supreme Court than in the personal purity of the judges. I would rather have a low level scoundrel who would uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights than have the most honest socialist, communist, or Progressive for whom the Constitution is a living, breathing means to create a version of unlimited government.

The second half of your statement seems poorly thought out. I’m going to assume there was a better way to state what you intended and given time, you might clarify that statement.

Because I’d surely rather trust a justice I vehemently disagree with (John Roberts for example) but whose values and reason seem well equipped then someone whose aren’t surely can’t be trusted to “uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights” with any degree of confidence, regardless of the side of the political spectrum you align with.

If what you say is in fact what you’ve meant, a lot of the clever stabs you make around here regarding your respect for the constitution, the rule of law and our ability to govern ourselves just got a lot cheaper.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, it would not sway my vote. I certainly have considered that Kavanaugh may be lying about what happened. I have also considered, for some time now, probably the Clinton episode (episodes) was the final straw, that lying (and doing it well) has become a prerequisite to survival in our corrupt milieu of the politics of personal destruction. And studying the past, as I have been doing for the past two decades or so of American politics, and by extension world politics, the beautiful myths of honesty and honor, and idealistic moral character have been exaggerated. "In the course of human events" such as wars, revolutions, political battles, creation of societies, and the search for freedom, those who are totally pure of heart, and never, ever, deceive, even for good and right ends, are prone to lose battles--maybe become martyrs, righteous models, saints, the essence of honor and truth used to persuade new generations to support some cause which inevitably is populated with various malcontents and dissemblers who know how to stir up a crowd with high notions of which they themselves are not purely capable of totally emulating.

I don't doubt that every Senator, lawyer, apparatchik in that room where Kavanaugh was being questioned, lied or were lying about some important incident that promoted their success or saved them from failing.

I am more concerned with the ideological direction of the Supreme Court than in the personal purity of the judges. I would rather have a low level scoundrel who would uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights than have the most honest socialist, communist, or Progressive for whom the Constitution is a living, breathing means to create a version of unlimited government.

I'd agree DC has become a good old boy and girl club, where partisan politics rule the day, Flatks comments about him never pulling that for fear of party retribution if he were running again is proof enough. So if he lied and in front of the senate, where he is running for the highest court in the land, you are ok with that series of lies because they all do it. That's a sad commentary on acceptance of what our system has become and being ok with just throwing another lier into the system. Now I'm going to grant you, he has yet to be proven a lyer, but I found her testimony far more believable than his denial.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Now I'm going to grant you, he has yet to be proven a lyer,

the most sensible thing you've written in a while..sort of


but I found her testimony far more believable than his denial.

I'm pretty confident it you had 100 people that were unaware of the history, partisan nature of the time prior and they watched her performance and were asked afterward if they thought she was a doctor or a patient...100 would say patient....now you can say something similar about Kavanaugh in the afternoon but the obvious difference was that he'd been under and was continuing to under go vicious assault by some of the most loathsome people on the planet while she was getting a baby oil rub down