Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Nolder

Kavenough

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Sure it matters. When your sides claiming it's a democrat conspiracy.

There political leanings mean it's entirely plausible they could be lying for political gain.
Just like you guys are saying, she's lying for political gain.

May I ask you to consider the logic of what you said.

 

Certainly its my view that she lied for pollitical gain. However she was the one who identified those that she claimed could cooraborate her claims. The fact that they did not corraborate her claims does not in any way suggest that it was their political leanings that led them to make the statements they made. 

 

Also a rather large percentage of white affluent upper middle class people consider themselves Democrats and vote Democratic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

Also a rather large percentage of white affluent upper middle class people consider themselves Democrats and vote Democratic.

Check out the 2 guys that called Swetnick a liar. Note, she didn't list these two guys as people to corroborate her story. (I don't think she ever listed anyone to corroborate it?) You're thinking of Ford.

I know for sure the weatherman is Republican, and the other, I wouldn't be surprised if he is as well.

 

Those Ford mentioned, those that out-right denied it, and called her a liar, what's there political allegiance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Those Ford mentioned, those that out-right denied it, and called her a liar, what's there political allegiance?"

 

Again I do not know their political affiliation as their social/economic backbround is not enough to assume such a fact. That Ford did offer them as witnesses makes it more likely that they share her liberal political views but the fact that they did not support her claims cannot be "blamed" on their political affiliation as in that case they would have been more likely to support her claims if politics trumped the truth for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

Again I do not know their political affiliation as their social/economic backbround is not enough to assume such a fact. That Ford did offer them as witnesses makes it more likely that they share her liberal political views but the fact that they did not support her claims cannot be "blamed" on their political affiliation as in that case they would have been more likely to support her claims if politics trumped the truth for them.

 

But they are clearly good friends of Kavanough. (Those that called Ford an outright liar)

Ford Naming them doesn't mean they are straight Democrats. (If they were, wouldn't they corroborate her, if this was some vast Democrat conspiracy!?)
It means that they might have been there, regardless of friendship/political leaning.

Also, you ignored the thing about Swetnick.

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Swtnick allegations have been pretty much debunked. She is not at all a credible witness.

 

"(If they were, wouldn't they corroborate her, if this was some vast Democrat conspiracy!?)"

 

No, that would be true if they were actually part of the conspiracy. Ford might have believed that because of their political leanings they would have corraborated her story.  However, that they did not their political leanings are irrelevant unless you can show any evidinece that their testimny was clouded by their political views.

 

 

"But they are clearly good friends of Kavanough."

 

While it can be said that they knew Kavanaugh it is more correct to say that most of those witnesses were at the time good friends of Ford. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CUBAREY said:

The Swtnick allegations have been pretty much debunked. She is not at all a credible witness.

What debunked it?

2 ex's saying she didn't tell them about it? When they weren't even at these parties in the 80s?

That doesn't debunk anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nolder said:

So, in essence, you choose to believe Ford. It's faith more than anything else.

 

It's a judgment call given limited evidence.

 

 

10 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

A two question polygraph test (Normally, "when the polygraph test starts, the questioner asks three or four simple questions to establish the norms for the person's signals. Then the real questions being tested by the polygraph are asked. Throughout questioning, all of the person's signals are recorded on the moving paper).  Thus the test given to Ford fails to satisfy even the common standards set for a polygraphg test!  " However, because the examiner's interpretation is subjective and because different people react differently to lying, a polygraph test is not perfect and can be fooled." Thus while it might be considered a helpful tool in assessing a person's veracity it is not admissable in a court of law.

 

This wasn't a court of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, WWWwombat said:
Quote

A two question polygraph test (Normally, "when the polygraph test starts, the questioner asks three or four simple questions to establish the norms for the person's signals. Then the real questions being tested by the polygraph are asked. Throughout questioning, all of the person's signals are recorded on the moving paper).  Thus the test given to Ford fails to satisfy even the common standards set for a polygraphg test!  " However, because the examiner's interpretation is subjective and because different people react differently to lying, a polygraph test is not perfect and can be fooled." Thus while it might be considered a helpful tool in assessing a person's veracity it is not admissable in a court of law.

This wasn't a court of law.

The one thing I wonder about this, because I don't see many polygraphs released to the public. Do they even include the test-baseline questions in this kind of report?

Or do they only release the actual questions in context of the case?
I assume any polygraph is going to have a baseline. Not that I believe Polygraphs are even worth their salt. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

The one thing I wonder about this, because I don't see many polygraphs released to the public. Do they even include the test-baseline questions in this kind of report?

Or do they only release the actual questions in context of the case?
I assume any polygraph is going to have a baseline. Not that I believe Polygraphs are even worth their salt. :wink:

Problem is that the person who did the test has stated that he only asked two questions, total. He although an expert did not deem it necessary to to even set up a baseline.  Polygraphs are problematic at best. The most you can say about them is that the subject appear to have reacted differently then expected. That in itself is not enough to whether the person is being truthful or not. Further, it's quite well kown that sociopaths can pass any lie detecter test and that others can learn to pass lie detecter tests by purposely reacting unnaturally to the baseline questions.

 

2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

What debunked it?

2 ex's saying she didn't tell them about it? When they weren't even at these parties in the 80s?

That doesn't debunk anything.

Swetnik changed her story. In the Affidavit she said she saw Kavanaugh spike the punch he gave to girls. Later she said that she only saw him near the punch bowl handing out drinks. She has also alleged that the lawyer was the one who suggested certain language in the Affidavit that she now admits is incorrect (that's why the lawyer;s name was also given to the FBI for investigation).  Further her story is rather strange, she was a college student at the time and no one that is actually known to have attended the parites remembers her. She was also a graduate from a near by public school and not a member of the social group which Kavanaugh belonged to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2018 at 2:37 PM, Tyzack said:

 

The mimunum national standard of "abortions should be legal"

 

Which is a diferent standard than "no standard; states are free to do as they choose"

 

I'm 100% for the former, and 100% against the later.

 

 

The coming months are sure going to be interesting.

image.png.25c833b91ec81c7ade7b8aec18018f03.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 3:58 PM, SinisterDeath said:

The coming months are sure going to be interesting.

image.png.25c833b91ec81c7ade7b8aec18018f03.png

He is a Supreme Court Justice. They should not be making any laws, the court's role is to interprete the existing lasw and constitution not make laws based on what they believe would make good laws or policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

He is a Supreme Court Justice. They should not be making any laws, the court's role is to interprete the existing lasw and constitution not make laws based on what they believe would make good laws or policy.

Have you been keeping up with the news? 
 

The meme wasn't anything I said, It was a meme to illustrate someone who doesn't know shit, enforcing/upholding the current abortion legislature that' is clearly aimed at going to the supreme court. 

 


 

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Have you been keeping up with the news? 
 

The meme wasn't anything I said, It was a meme to illustrate someone who doesn't know shit, enforcing/upholding the current abortion legislature that' is clearly aimed at going to the supreme court. 

 


 

.As a Justice he does not need to know anything about abortion.contraception, all he needs to know is the proper role of the Supreme Court which is not to judge the wisdom of legislation but only to opine on it's constitutionality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

.As a Justice he does not need to know anything about abortion.contraception, all he needs to know is the proper role of the Supreme Court which is not to judge the wisdom of legislation but only to opine on it's constitutionality.

I would say if you think any given supreme court justice is ruling purely based on constitutionality, your naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

.As a Justice he does not need to know anything about abortion.contraception, all he needs to know is the proper role of the Supreme Court which is not to judge the wisdom of legislation but only to opine on it's constitutionality.

One would think you would need to know the basics of what is being discussed, to know how it potentially impacts it's constitutionality. 

 

5 hours ago, Lenlo said:

I would say if you think any given supreme court justice is ruling purely based on constitutionality, your naive.

It's almost like they think all the Liberal judges are activist judges, and the Conservative judges are all pure constitutionalists without an activist bone in their body.

Interestingly out of the 9 Justices, 5 are Catholic, 1 Raised Catholic. The other 3 are Jewish. 

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"One would think you would need to know the basics of what is being discussed, to know how it potentially impacts it's constitutionality."

 

And you would be wrong. The only legitimate question is whether abortion rights are protected by the lan guage of the constitution. 

 

 

"Interestingly out of the 9 Justices, 5 are Catholic, 1 Raised Catholic. The other 3 are Jewish. "

 

You do know that the only question that cannot be legitimately asked of a Judicial nominee is his religious affiliation?

 

And the Justice that penned Roe v. Wade was himself a Practicing Catholic. 

21 hours ago, Lenlo said:

I would say if you think any given supreme court justice is ruling purely based on constitutionality, your naive.

All Justices are people. All people have biases but Supreme Court Justices do actually attempt to self-consciously avoid them to the extent that they do not fundamentally impact their judicial philosophy. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

And you would be wrong. The only legitimate question is whether abortion rights are protected by the lan guage of the constitution. 

 

Knowing the Scientific definitions of what exactly is involved with abortion, and the moral & Philosophical aspects of the Mother's right to privacy and life, versus that of the Embryonic cell's/Fetus's right to life/self seems rather integral to the constitutional arguments of the validity of abortion rights.

 

16 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

You do know that the only question that cannot be legitimately asked of a Judicial nominee is his religious affiliation?

and?

I just said it was interesting... It's interesting because 6 out of 9 Justices are from a religion that are vehemently opposed to Abortion.
6 out of 9 Justices are part of a religion that 56 years ago, America was convinced shouldn't have been able to hold the office of POTUS because of prejudiced view that they would hold an allegiance to the Pope, over that of our constitution and country.

 

Quote

All Justices are people. All people have biases but Supreme Court Justices do actually attempt to self-consciously avoid them to the extent that they do not fundamentally impact their judicial philosophy. 

Unless their judicial philosophy is to say F*** precedence , liberals, and any interpretation of the constitution that doesn't conform to the republican party's view..  :Wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"6 out of 9 Justices are part of a religion that 56 years ago, America was convinced shouldn't have been able to hold the office of POTUS because of prejudiced view that they would hold an allegiance to the Pope, over that of our constitution and country."

 

Actually 56 years ago was 1963 three years after a Roman Catholic won election as President. Also does the fact that 56 years ago most Americans would agree that being black, a woman or an athiest disqualified one from being President mean that that view have any relevance for today?

 

 

"Unless their judicial philosophy is to say F*** precedence , liberals, and any interpretation of the constitution that doesn't conform to the republican party's view..  :Wink:"

 

I think you are reading your own biases into my argument. I may vehemently disagree with the decisions of many Liberal Justices. Indeed, I think both Roe V. Wade and the Gay Marriage decisions were fundamentally flawed. However I think that is do to the philosophical judical philosphy that those judges followd not becasue they went into the cases already determind to see a particular outcome and taylored their philosophical views to fit.

 

" the moral & Philosophical aspects of the Mother's right to privacy and life, versus that of the Embryonic cell's/Fetus's right to life/self seems rather integral to the constitutional arguments of the validity of abortion rights."

 

Only if you can point out to constituutional provision wish covers abortion rights or on the other hand are arguing that Fetus' have a constitutional right to be protected. THe view of most conservatives and all Conservatice Justices has been that a right to abortion is simply not covered in the constituition and that therefore states are free to restrict or ban abortions within their individual borders a they see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

Actually 56 years ago was 1963 three years after a Roman Catholic won election as President.

I used 56 years & JFK for a very specific reason.

Do you not remember some of the most common attacks against JFK was precisely because of his being Catholic? Concerns of the Pope? 

Quote

Also does the fact that 56 years ago most Americans would agree that being black, a woman or an athiest disqualified one from being President mean that that view have any relevance for today?

Seems to me, that the Republican party still thinks all 3 of those should disqualify you for the office of POTUS. :wink:

31 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

I think you are reading your own biases into my argument. I may vehemently disagree with the decisions of many Liberal Justices. Indeed, I think both Roe V. Wade and the Gay Marriage decisions were fundamentally flawed. However I think that is do to the philosophical judical philosphy that those judges followd not becasue they went into the cases already determind to see a particular outcome and taylored their philosophical views to fit.

Not reading my bias into your argument, rather the bias of several of the newer conservative Judges that are probably going to say "**** it, I do what I want."

 

Quote

Only if you can point out to constituutional provision wish covers abortion rights or on the other hand are arguing that Fetus' have a constitutional right to be protected. THe view of most conservatives and all Conservatice Justices has been that a right to abortion is simply not covered in the constituition and that therefore states are free to restrict or ban abortions within their individual borders a they see fit.

Can you point out where exactly the constitution defines what a Person is? Whether Embryonic Cells, or even a Fetus are a 'person'?
 

Clearly, you haven't been reading up on your conservative anti-choice game plan enacted across the country.
 

They're passing their Religious Law across the country in the hopes that the Supreme Court will rule in Favor of Christian Sharia Law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To follow up, Alabama I believe it is, their new law would make it possible for a rape victim aborting their child from said rape to receive a longer prison sentence than the rapist.

 

Good times Alabama. And people said Christian Sharia Law wasn't a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lenlo said:

To follow up, Alabama I believe it is, their new law would make it possible for a rape victim aborting their child from said rape to receive a longer prison sentence than the rapist.

 

Good times Alabama. And people said Christian Sharia Law wasn't a thing.

Nope if you actually are going to opine about a law at least have the sense to look at the damn statute or an arucle that actually cites the law.

 

Alabama lawmakers propose law that would punish abortion providers with up to 99 years in prison in bid to get Supreme Court reversal of Roe v Wade

  • Republicans introduced bill into the Alabama Senate and House on Tuesday
  • Bill would make performing abortions Class A felony, punishable up to 99 years
  • Would not punish women receiving abortions and includes medical exemption

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6889279/Alabama-lawmakers-propose-law-making-performing-abortions-felony.html

 

The proposed law specifically applies only to abortion providers not the women who attempt or get abortions.

Edited by CUBAREY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

I used 56 years & JFK for a very specific reason.

Do you not remember some of the most common attacks against JFK was precisely because of his being Catholic? Concerns of the Pope? 

Seems to me, that the Republican party still thinks all 3 of those should disqualify you for the office of POTUS. :wink:

Not reading my bias into your argument, rather the bias of several of the newer conservative Judges that are probably going to say "**** it, I do what I want."

 

Can you point out where exactly the constitution defines what a Person is? Whether Embryonic Cells, or even a Fetus are a 'person'?
 

Clearly, you haven't been reading up on your conservative anti-choice game plan enacted across the country.
 

They're passing their Religious Law across the country in the hopes that the Supreme Court will rule in Favor of Christian Sharia Law.

Actually read the London Mail's article on the proposed Alabama statute and similar statutes the goal is to have the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade which would return the abortion issue to individual states.  Alabama, Georgia, etc would prohibit abortions of Fetus after a heartbeat is detected. New York and California would be free to continue there policy of allowing abortions till the child is actually born (and even  afterword if  a late term Fetus survives being aborted.) 

 

 

"Can you point out where exactly the constitution defines what a Person is? Whether Embryonic Cells, or even a Fetus are a 'person'?"

 

It does not it leaves such questions to the individual states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lenlo said:

To follow up, Alabama I believe it is, their new law would make it possible for a rape victim aborting their child from said rape to receive a longer prison sentence than the rapist.

 

Good times Alabama. And people said Christian Sharia Law wasn't a thing.

 

5 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Nope if you actually are going to opine about a law at least have the sense to look at the damn statute or an arucle that actually cites the law.

 

Alabama lawmakers propose law that would punish abortion providers with up to 99 years in prison in bid to get Supreme Court reversal of Roe v Wade

  • Republicans introduced bill into the Alabama Senate and House on Tuesday
  • Bill would make performing abortions Class A felony, punishable up to 99 years
  • Would not punish women receiving abortions and includes medical exemption

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6889279/Alabama-lawmakers-propose-law-making-performing-abortions-felony.html

 

The proposed law specifically applies only to abortion providers not the women who attempt or get abortions.

 

5 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Actually read the London Mail's article on the proposed Alabama statute and similar statutes the goal is to have the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade which would return the abortion issue to individual states.  Alabama, Georgia, etc would prohibit abortions of Fetus after a heartbeat is detected. New York and California would be free to continue there policy of allowing abortions till the child is actually born (and even  afterword if  a late term Fetus survives being aborted.) 

 

 

"Can you point out where exactly the constitution defines what a Person is? Whether Embryonic Cells, or even a Fetus are a 'person'?"

 

It does not it leaves such questions to the individual states.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/16/fact-check-9-things-to-know-about-alabamas-abortion-law/

 

Quote
Quote

6 – Does it make it a felony for women, or just the abortion provider?

Just the provider.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...