Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-01-2018, 08:58 AM   #211
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,458
Why would this surprise you
Does the FBI have the latitude needed?

Robert Bauer, who served as the White House counsel to President Obama, said that he had overseen numerous F.B.I. background investigations and never seen one so circumscribed. “The F.B.I. should have the latitude to determine what is necessary in a credible, professional inquiry,” he said. “The issue on the table is, Did he or didn’t he engage in the conduct that Dr. Ford alleged?” To reach the answer, he said, “The F.B.I. needs to utilize its expertise to investigate. But instead the White House has dictated a restricted investigative plan. So it’s contaminated at the core.”

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 09:05 AM   #212
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,380
Yup, have an investigation but not investigate every lead.
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 10:50 AM   #213
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
Even if you take the sexual assault out of the equation, does he seem to have the temperament and cool to handle some of the most challenging decisions to come; not to mention the blatantly partisan views he ranted about. Sure everyone on this board and the general public are entitled to those partisan views, but the high court is not supposed to have those partisan views.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
SCOTUS justices are allowed to have the same prejudices and biases as any other human being, as long as the leave them at the door when they put their robes on. Ginsberg and Sotomayor don’t show bias in their personal lives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 11:21 AM   #214
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,380
K said "what goes around comes around" when he blamed Clinton and the Dems. The way I remember him saying it was that he will get even. You might view it differently.





Justice Elena Kagan talked about perceptions of the court in an appearance at UCLA on Thursday. "The court's strength as an institution of American governance depends on people ... believing that it is not simply an extension of politics, that its decision-making has a kind of integrity to it," Kagan said. "And if people don't believe that they have no reason to accept what the court does."

The court's legitimacy was on the mind of Chief Justice John Roberts during an argument last year in a case about the drawing of electoral maps for partisan advantage. Putting the court in the middle of "deciding whether Democrats or Republicans would win in each case" would "cause very serious harm to the status and integrity of the decisions of this court in the eyes of the country," Roberts said.
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 01:03 PM   #215
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
SCOTUS justices are allowed to have the same prejudices and biases as any other human being, as long as the leave them at the door when they put their robes on. Ginsberg and Sotomayor don’t show bias in their personal lives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That's my main point, not only did he not leave them at the door, he acted like Trump had possessed his body. Keep in mind he's interviewing for the job, so that angry rant was so wrong for the job he was applying for. I'm not stupid guys, everyone has the right to have a political party and express their leaning towards the left or right, but the decisions at the highest level are never or should never be made based on what their party would want to see.
Got Stripers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 02:22 PM   #216
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
That's my main point, not only did he not leave them at the door, he acted like Trump had possessed his body. Keep in mind he's interviewing for the job, so that angry rant was so wrong for the job he was applying for. I'm not stupid guys, everyone has the right to have a political party and express their leaning towards the left or right, but the decisions at the highest level are never or should never be made based on what their party would want to see.
this is a joke right?
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 02:23 PM   #217
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post

Ginsberg and Sotomayor don’t show bias in their personal lives?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
nooooo
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 02:25 PM   #218
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

The way I remember him saying it was that he will get even.

you've lost your mind
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 03:06 PM   #219
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
you've lost your mind
He's a get even guy

Yeah, I know he changed sides
David Brock on NBC: “I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps." And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no. Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally. Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch."
But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.
Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.
At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke. In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.
When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)
Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them "the elves" — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office — and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.
That critical flow of inside information allowed Starr, in effect, to set a perjury trap for Clinton, laying the foundation for a crazed national political crisis and an unjust impeachment over a consensual affair.
But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time.
Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by peddling the same garbage at Starr's office.
A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.
Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.
Like millions of Americans this week, I tuned into Kavanaugh's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee with great interest. In his opening statement and subsequent testimony, Kavanaugh presented himself as a "neutral and impartial arbiter" of the law. Judges, he said, were not players but akin to umpires — objectively calling balls and strikes. Again and again, he stressed his "independence" from partisan political influences.
But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights.
But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us."

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 04:56 PM   #220
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
He's a get even guy

Yeah, I know he changed sides
David Brock on NBC: “I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps." And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no. Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally. Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch."
But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.
Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.
At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke. In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.
When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)
Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them "the elves" — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office — and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.
That critical flow of inside information allowed Starr, in effect, to set a perjury trap for Clinton, laying the foundation for a crazed national political crisis and an unjust impeachment over a consensual affair.
But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time.
Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by peddling the same garbage at Starr's office.
A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.
Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.
Like millions of Americans this week, I tuned into Kavanaugh's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee with great interest. In his opening statement and subsequent testimony, Kavanaugh presented himself as a "neutral and impartial arbiter" of the law. Judges, he said, were not players but akin to umpires — objectively calling balls and strikes. Again and again, he stressed his "independence" from partisan political influences.
But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights.
But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us."
This is list of personal opinions. If this is persuasive to you, I can see why you think SCOTUS judgments based on personal preference are perfectly OK.
detbuch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 05:17 PM   #221
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
That's my main point, not only did he not leave them at the door, he acted like Trump had possessed his body. Keep in mind he's interviewing for the job, so that angry rant was so wrong for the job he was applying for. I'm not stupid guys, everyone has the right to have a political party and express their leaning towards the left or right, but the decisions at the highest level are never or should never be made based on what their party would want to see.
His "angry rant," as you characterize it, was not a lie. It was not a judicial interpretation. It was not a legal judgment. It was defending himself against those who are trying to destroy him. The whole charade, as Lindsey Graham rightly called what the Dems were doing, was a politicized attempt to stop Kavanaugh and hold off the nomination until after the midterms. Professor Fords accusation should not have been part of the procedures without being substantiated first. The idea that an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated charge should be used to stop the procedure, and then to delay and delay and delay it, should be, and is, permissible to anyone, including judges, to call it out. Defending yourself against your accusers and those who wish to stop you in a job interview does not disqualify a judge from telling the truth.

It would be unconscionable of a SCOTUS Justice to withhold the truth simply to be politically correct.
detbuch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 06:03 PM   #222
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
This is list of personal opinions. If this is persuasive to you, I can see why you think SCOTUS judgments based on personal preference are perfectly OK.
Of someone who knew him.
Kavanaugh is not standing before a court of law, he is standing before the Senate where opinions and politics are what he will be judged by.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 06:31 PM   #223
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
His "angry rant," as you characterize it, was not a lie. It was not a judicial interpretation. It was not a legal judgment. It was defending himself against those who are trying to destroy him. The whole charade, as Lindsey Graham rightly called what the Dems were doing, was a politicized attempt to stop Kavanaugh and hold off the nomination until after the midterms. Professor Fords accusation should not have been part of the procedures without being substantiated first. The idea that an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated charge should be used to stop the procedure, and then to delay and delay and delay it, should be, and is, permissible to anyone, including judges, to call it out. Defending yourself against your accusers and those who wish to stop you in a job interview does not disqualify a judge from telling the truth.

It would be unconscionable of a SCOTUS Justice to withhold the truth simply to be politically correct.
I guess my bulb is diming, but I know you will help set me straight as you always do and I’m always so grateful for the endless wisdom you selflessly share.

If I wanted to derail this nomination and wanted to pick the perfect time to leak the letter, would I not want to do this early on, so as to not risk the GOP controlled senate the opportunity to ram it threw? Had they done so, it more than likely would have meant a far more in depth FBI investigation, than one afforded to them in a short week.

If Flake hadn’t made that last minute move, the vote would have been a done deal more than likely. Again I’m only a dim 60 watt bulb and I’m certain your 150 watt brilliance will shed some light on this dem or Clinton conspiracy plan the was launched at the last minute.

By now if the FBI had weeks and weeks and proof was forthcoming, than the outcome would have been a rest and new pick and nobody seated before the mid terms.

Oh my I’m so confused!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last edited by Got Stripers; 10-01-2018 at 06:49 PM..
Got Stripers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 07:05 PM   #224
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
If I wanted to derail this nomination and wanted to pick the perfect time to leak the letter, would I not want to do this early on, so as to not risk the GOP controlled senate the opportunity to ram it threw? Had they done so, it more than likely would have meant a far more in depth FBI investigation, than one afforded to them in a short week.
The letter should not have been leaked. It was submitted with the understanding that it wouldn't be. It was a lie to leak it. But that is supposed to be OK. Only if Kavanaugh lies does it matter. Some lies are, apparently, more honest than others.

The "perfect time" to release it, would be when it is verified, corroborated. Otherwise, it is no more useful than a lie.

Making the letter public stirs up the expected rabid media and negative public reaction based on mere accusation without verification. These are the very things that should not be part of deliberations seeking actual facts and records regarding the verifiable qualifications of someone you wish to hire.

There are many reasons for dysfunctional government. Allowing this method of jaccuse to become standard procedure in hearings, campaigns, choosing political appointees, will only make government process more dysfunctional than it already is.
detbuch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 07:26 PM   #225
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Of someone who knew him.
Kavanaugh is not standing before a court of law, he is standing before the Senate where opinions and politics are what he will be judged by.
There are hundreds of opinions by those who knew and know Kavanaugh that are totally opposite to Brock's. There is a several year actual record of Kavanaugh's quality as a judge, as a husband and father, and as a member of the community. Opinion can matter. But it is still the facts that should ultimately decide.

The fact's in the Constitution are its text.

The facts of a persons Character are the public and legal record of his life as well as the disposition of those currently around him.

The fact's re his qualification as a judge are plainly exposed by his judicial record.

The personal opinion of someone who is ideologically opposed to the party in question and is remembering the past may cast a negative light. But if it is entirely different than a preponderance of other opinions, at best it might moderate to some degree, however small, overall opinion. Or it may just be taken with a grain of salt.
detbuch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 07:50 PM   #226
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
The letter should not have been leaked. It was submitted with the understanding that it wouldn't be. It was a lie to leak it. But that is supposed to be OK. Only if Kavanaugh lies does it matter. Some lies are, apparently, more honest than others.

The "perfect time" to release it, would be when it is verified, corroborated. Otherwise, it is no more useful than a lie.

Making the letter public stirs up the expected rabid media and negative public reaction based on mere accusation without verification. These are the very things that should not be part of deliberations seeking actual facts and records regarding the verifiable qualifications of someone you wish to hire.

There are many reasons for dysfunctional government. Allowing this method of jaccuse to become standard procedure in hearings, campaigns, choosing political appointees, will only make government process more dysfunctional than it already is.
I’m disappointed, I was hoping for the explanation as to why the supposed ploy by the evil dems to delay, delay and delay involved such a late leak of the letter.

All you did was tell me what I already knew, that this poor women’s trust was betrayed by some (not a well coordinated dem-Clinton conspiracy) person who felt getting that information out there was more important.

One staffer likely thinking that was needed to prevent someone accused of attempted rape being confirmed to the highest post in our legal system is probably what happened. So tell me, you buying into his rant claiming that conspiracy is real and that happened, because you seemed to believe so and if so I’d refer you back to me previous post. Also, since we are in agreement (OMG mark the calendar) the letter release was wrong and that now we have an FBI investigation under way, does you opinion of the man change if they come back with enough to support her claim? Or does the actions of a beer drinking party crazed 17 year old not matter when we appoint someone to the highest court in the land; maybe not but would lying about it to the senate sway your vote?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last edited by Got Stripers; 10-01-2018 at 08:10 PM..
Got Stripers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 08:16 PM   #227
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
I’m disappointed, I was hoping for the explanation as to why the supposed ploy by the evil dems to delay, delay and delay involved such a late leak of the letter.

If Ford's letter was vetted when it was received, the matter, if it was going to involve the FBI, could have been resolved already. If an investigation proved Kavanaugh unfit, Kavanaugh's nomination could have been withdrawn, and a new nomination could have been made and the Senate's deliberations could have been done before the midterm elections. Time is possibly too short for that to happen now, especially if the Dems demand a further expansion of the FBI investigation. If the Dems win the Senate, then they can stop any further nominations. That's one explanation.

All you did was tell me what I already knew, that this poor women’s trust was betrayed by some (not a well coordinated dem-Clinton conspiracy) person who felt getting that information out there was more important.

One staffer likely thinking that was needed to prevent someone accused of attempted rape being confirmed to the highest post in our legal system is probably what happened. So tell me, you buying into his rant claiming that conspiracy is real and that happened, because you seemed to believe so and if so I’d refer you back to me previous post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If that staffer was really motivated by some idea of justice, not politics, why would he/she/it believe it was right to expose, against the writer's wishes, a confused, uncorroborated statement which could destroy lives, including the accuser's as well as the judge's and his family?
detbuch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 08:38 PM   #228
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
If that staffer was really motivated by some idea of justice, not politics, why would he/she/it believe it was right to expose, against the writer's wishes, a confused, uncorroborated statement which could destroy lives, including the accuser's as well as the judge's and his family?
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 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 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.

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 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.

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.
Got Stripers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 09:00 PM   #229
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,247
Who got accused with attempted rape?

Please share this information Got Stripers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sea Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 09:06 PM   #230
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,380
I got to give it to him he does have good taste in music. I called a friend to see if we were at that show as we did see UB40 there once.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 09:42 PM   #231
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
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.
detbuch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 11:29 PM   #232
Ian
Idiot
iTrader: (0)
 
Ian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 2,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
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

The artist formerly known as Scratch59.
Ian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2018, 11:59 PM   #233
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post

do you feel is it just a stupid 17 year old getting too liquored up and acting inappropriate and we should move on.
there is no evidence that this even/ever happened

imagine how the dems would treat Dr Ford if she was accusing a democrat nominee or politician....I wonder if they'd find her "credible".....I suspect she'd be the one getting the anal exam and every aspect of her life overturned...yet we know almost nothing about the accuser except we believe her whoever she is

left is in full smear mode....should be a fun week
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2018, 06:46 AM   #234
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
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
If I thought that Kavanaugh would not adjudicate by original constitutional text, I would not vote for him even if it were proven that his character was as pure as the white of newly driven snow. Nor would I vote for a judge with a record of Progressive judicial review even if his character was proven so to be.

Kavanaugh's record as a judge gives me as much confidence as I could reasonably be expected to have, that he is a textual originalist.

Good character is a wonderful thing. But at the eleventh hour, when the choice is Kavanaugh with a tainted past he's lied about, or someone picked by a Progressive President choosing on the basis of a judge's past record of Progressive jurisprudence, I'll take Kavanaugh in a heartbeat.

And especially so since it appears that Kavanaugh is no longer, nor has been for several years, the person he is portrayed by some as being when he was 17 years old.

I do not want to be judged now by how I acted as a teenager. And I am not interested in what any of our judges or politicians (the difference between those becoming less discernable as the Court has been shifting toward Progressive ideology) were like as teenagers. Some of the most aggressive and sexually loose men I've known during teen years became the most loving and trustworthy men in their adult years, especially as they married and had children.

I don't mean to be "clever" in my "respect for the constitution, the rule of law and our ability to govern ourselves." I passionately wish to preserve those things. That is why I want to retard and reverse the trend of our federal government becoming, as simply put as some would say, too big for its britches--its britches being the Constitution. If it is allowed to continue on the path of not only intruding in every aspect of our lives, but dictating how we must live, then the Constitution, and the ability to govern ourselves will become a museum piece to be admired as some quaint relic no longer relevant to some currently proscribed society. And we will be ruled by a law that has no limits or boundaries in its ability to define what we can do and who we are.

That may be "extreme" to some, but I think the Constitution as originally meant to be understood is the most moderate structure of an actual practicing government ever conceived. It is, for me, a most reasonable dividing line between lawlessness and tyranny.

Again, I don't see Kavanaugh as a threat to the Constitution. I may be wrong about that. But I don't think I am wrong about the threat of jurists from a Progressive persuasion. Perhaps you could persuade me otherwise. I have asked for that discussion many times on this forum. No one from the left or so-called "center" seems to want to engage in that dialogue.

Will you?
detbuch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2018, 06:53 AM   #235
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
there is no evidence that this even/ever happened

imagine how the dems would treat Dr Ford if she was accusing a democrat nominee or politician....I wonder if they'd find her "credible".....I suspect she'd be the one getting the anal exam and every aspect of her life overturned...yet we know almost nothing about the accuser except we believe her whoever she is

left is in full smear mode....should be a fun week
Franken, Kihuen, Esty, Conyers
But then you have Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last edited by Pete F.; 10-02-2018 at 06:55 AM.. Reason: Add

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2018, 07:09 AM   #236
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Franken, Kihuen, Esty, Conyers
But then you have Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
lot's of actual evidence in all of those....adults, in office behaving badly....


Nancy Pelosi regarding Conyers...

“Just because someone is accused — was it one accusation? Was it two?
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2018, 07:47 AM   #237
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
lot's of actual evidence in all of those....adults, in office behaving badly....


Nancy Pelosi regarding Conyers...

“Just because someone is accused — was it one accusation? Was it two?
Are they still in office?

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2018, 07:52 AM   #238
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,458
Why doesn't the FBI want to talk to Kerry Berchem?

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2018, 08:16 AM   #239
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles View Post
Who got accused with attempted rape?

Please share this information Got Stripers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
One of the legal websites pieces pretty much mirrors her testimony, but maybe in your mind he needed to actually finish the dead.

"Evidence showing an accused person’s voluntary attempt to remove complainant’s clothes to expose his/her private parts would be sufficient to support conviction for attempted rape, even though no further actions were taken to commit an offense of rape."
Got Stripers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2018, 08:22 AM   #240
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
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.
Got Stripers is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com