canpakes wrote:I understand the argument. But I simply don’t see the appropriateness of needling to make that claim in front of the public, and in the way that he did in that setting. This was not the behavior I’d want to see a Judge exhibit even on a lower court, let alone Supreme Court.
Would you have supported his nomination had, say, the accusations and resultant behavior not occurred?
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Some Schmo wrote:Forget the Clintons. Kavanaugh went off the rails the moment he said "political hit" and it only got worse from there. He's a partisan hack.
It was a political hit.... SMH. His temperament, his temperament! There is no way you people are serious with this rhetoric. It is incomprehensible to me that y'all can possibly believe what you're saying.
Isn't it interesting how Ford has quietly slithered back into whatever hole she came out of. With her pot of gofundme gold. Why isn't she taking up the offer that was publicly extended to her by Maryland PD to open an investigation? It's all about avoiding perjury charges now. An investigation is the last thing she wants.
Why do liberals always project themselves onto their opposition? I am interested in understanding the psychology behind this phenomena. In your mind do you actually imagine me to be "stewing?"
cinepro wrote:I think you're a little mixed up on what "corroborating evidence" is
Well you can think that if you want. This is America. You have the right to be wrong.
Here's a question for you.
Suppose a woman who went to Harvard in 1977 remembered being at a party where a man exposed himself to her. Upon hearing her story, I suspect it was Merrick Garland who did it, and I make an accusation.
Does the fact that Merrick Garland went to Harvard in 1977 corroborate my accusation?
cinepro wrote:Suppose a woman who went to Harvard in 1977 remembered being at a party where a man exposed himself to her. Upon hearing her story, I suspect it was Merrick Garland who did it, and I make an accusation.
Does the fact that Merrick Garland went to Harvard in 1977 corroborate my accusation?
It certainly closes off one possible objection to your accusation. Hence, if we assume that a male student at Harvard did expose himself to that woman, if increases the possibility that it was MG from zero, which is what it would have been if we knew that MG went to college in Bolivia.
But since a whole lot of other young men went to Harvard too at the same time, it is not much of a corroboration.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:It certainly closes off one possible objection to your accusation. Hence, if we assume...
Yeah, you can stop right there.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Chap wrote:It certainly closes off one possible objection to your accusation. Hence, if we assume that a male student at Harvard did expose himself to that woman, if increases the possibility that it was MG from zero, which is what it would have been if we knew that MG went to college in Bolivia.
But since a whole lot of other young men went to Harvard too at the same time, it is not much of a corroboration.
Um, it most certainly does not corroborate....and no, it is not much of a corroboration, because it is not a corroboration at all. It is becoming obvious that you are unaware of what the word "corroboration" means in the context of accusation and allegation. At the very least - Corroboration intends to require evidence which actually supports the allegation...but if you want to condemn or convict then : https://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... roboration
For example, cinepro's example only stated that a man (student or otherwise) exposed himself. Under your brilliance this puts in play every single man alive at the time having to offer an "objection" lest he be guilty. Or did you have some magical reasoning to share with how geographic proximity was to be measured in order to draw your imaginary line between "corroborated" and "non-corroborated" ?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
