Kavanaugh

tbergs

Spiritual_Chaos said:

EdsonNascimento said:

EdsonNascimento said:

And for the record, I actually don't agree with some of Kavanaugh's stances.   And I have no idea if Ford is telling the truth.

But, that's irrelevant. That's the point.  Everyone is just presuming the reality they want.  

It's ok to voice displeasure over his judicial decisions.  It's ok to support Ford (or Kavanaugh).  But, both sides are creating realities that just don't exist.  That's the problem with our politics, and why while the way it's delivered could be better, Trump has a point about the media.  They are not helping the situation (on either side) by being op-ed pieces masquerading as factual news.  Just give us the facts, not slanted headlines. Let us decide.

As an example, the way the news reports:

 Senators got a chance Thursday morning to learn the results of a quick, limited FBI investigation into sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a day before a crucial test vote on his confirmation.

The way an objective report should be:

 Senators got a chance Thursday morning to learn the results of a 3 day FBI investigation into sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that included interviews with 10 people related to 2 of the accusations, a day before a crucial test vote on his confirmation.


Then I can make up my mind that it was quick and limited.  Why is the reporter telling me their opinion? It's not an opinion piece.

How could they even decide "the FBI get a week FROM NOW!!" instead of "We will have the FBI come back with an idea of the time they need to cover this"

Why didn't journalists ask about that?

That's a great point. Who here would like an outside party to determine how long a law enforcement agency should investigate your loved one being assaulted? Then consider the outside party has a vested interest in making sure there is a limited timeframe so they can vote one of the suspects in to a position of authority. Yeah, that makes sense.

Merkin Baller

tempo_n_groove said:

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh.  The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.

No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.

I don't subscribe to some of the crazy on the right, but how is Kavanaugh not a liar?

I'll flip it for you as I hear both sides of the coin and this is what A Kavanaugh defender says.

How is she not?  Fear of flying, second door in the house, What house, how'd she get home, doesn't remember how she got there, the former boyfriend just came out with a statement that attacks her credibility.

She may or may not be lying, but she isn't up for the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh may or may not be lying about whether he tried to assault her, but he perjured himself in his defense last week, almost certainly multiple times over. You can argue about the meaning of Devil's Triangle, and Boof, but you can't argue about him having no prior connections to Yale before applying. His grandfather went there, which makes Kavanaugh Legacy... this is indisputable.

Regardless of how you feel about the accusations, as a federal judge he should be impeached for lying under oath. Not only is this NOT happening, the GOP is still almost certainly going to give him a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

It can't be stressed enough, the GOP is going to put a man on the Supreme Court who just perjured himself last week because it suits their agenda.

Are democrats underhanded themselves? They sure are, but that doesn't justify what the GOP is doing right now.

To say this shit has gone of the rails would be an understatement.

EdsonNascimento

Spiritual_Chaos said:

EdsonNascimento said:

EdsonNascimento said:

And for the record, I actually don't agree with some of Kavanaugh's stances.   And I have no idea if Ford is telling the truth.

But, that's irrelevant. That's the point.  Everyone is just presuming the reality they want.  

It's ok to voice displeasure over his judicial decisions.  It's ok to support Ford (or Kavanaugh).  But, both sides are creating realities that just don't exist.  That's the problem with our politics, and why while the way it's delivered could be better, Trump has a point about the media.  They are not helping the situation (on either side) by being op-ed pieces masquerading as factual news.  Just give us the facts, not slanted headlines. Let us decide.

As an example, the way the news reports:

 Senators got a chance Thursday morning to learn the results of a quick, limited FBI investigation into sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a day before a crucial test vote on his confirmation.

The way an objective report should be:

 Senators got a chance Thursday morning to learn the results of a 3 day FBI investigation into sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that included interviews with 10 people related to 2 of the accusations, a day before a crucial test vote on his confirmation.


Then I can make up my mind that it was quick and limited.  Why is the reporter telling me their opinion? It's not an opinion piece.

How could they even decide "the FBI get a week FROM NOW!!" instead of "We will have the FBI come back with an idea of the time they need to cover this"

Why didn't journalists ask about that?

No idea. Good questions. What does that have to do with my point about how the news frames their non-opinion reports?  Do you think in my example the former is better than the latter in reporting facts?

dignin

Here’s a list of people the FBI did NOT interview. Okay with this, Flake and Collins?

• A suitemate of Kavanaugh’s has now told the New Yorker he remembers hearing at the time about the incident Deborah Ramirez has recounted. Ramirez, who has been interviewed, had claimed that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a dorm party at Yale. The suitemate, Kenneth G. Appold, now says he is “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told the culprit was Kavanaugh. He does say he never discussed this with Ramirez, but he claims an eyewitness described the episode to him at the time. Appold has tried to share this story with the FBI, but there’s no indication the FBI is willing to hear from him.
• A classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Prep now strongly challenges one of Kavanaugh’s assertions under oath. The person told the New Yorker that he heard Kavanaugh talk repeatedly about Renate Dolphin as someone “that everyone passed around for sex” (the witness’ words), and even heard Kavanaugh singing a rhyme that included the words “you wanna get laid, you can make it with REE-NATE.” Kavanaugh (and many others) described themselves in their yearbook as a “Renate Alumnius,” but Kavanaugh has denied under oath that this was a sexual reference, claiming, ludicrously, that it was intended to show “affection.”
• This classmate is not named by the New Yorker. But he put his name on a statement to the FBI and Judiciary Committee that makes this claim, and he is prepared to talk to the FBI. There is no indication this happened.
• James Roche, one of Kavanaugh’s roommates at Yale, has written a piece for Slate that claims Kavanaugh lied under oath about his use of slang and his drinking. Roche claims that Kavanaugh “regularly” blacked out. Roche has offered to talk to the FBI, but there’s no indication this happened.
• Roche also pointedly added of Kavanaugh: “He said that ‘boofing’ was farting and the ‘Devil’s Triangle’ was a drinking game. ‘Boofing’ and ‘Devil’s Triangle’ are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.” Roche concluded that Kavanaugh “has demonstrated a willingness to be untruthful under oath about easily verified information.”
• NBC News reports that the FBI has not contacted dozens of people who could potentially corroborate the allegations against Kavanaugh or testify to his behavior at the time. This includes many people who knew either Ford or Ramirez at the time, and people who actually approached the FBI offering information.
• The Post reports that Ramirez’s lawyers provided the FBI with a list of more than 20 people who might have relevant information, but “as of Wednesday, Ramirez’s team had no indication that the bureau had interviewed any of them.”
• Neither Ford nor Kavanaugh have been interviewed by the FBI. As the Brookings Institution’s Susan Hennessey points out: “It is inconceivable they could close a real investigation without re-interviewing Kavanaugh.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/04/heres-a-list-of-people-the-fbi-did-not-interview-okay-with-this-flake-and-collins/?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_term=.55a63a8370a8

EdsonNascimento

dignin said:

EdsonNascimento said:

dignin said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Asterisk on the Street said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html

The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)

OCT. 3, 2018

The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.

Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.

We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:

See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.

One word: Professors.

Lol.  Too funny.  Like anyone should care what academics that couldn't cut it in the real world say.  

Hey look! We got a real genuine Trump voter right here!

Say it with me now, dumb is good.....smart bad!

Since you're so smart, where did I say that?  Too funny.

The problem is the Libs think they're smarter than everyone else.  Don't worry, keep thinking that. That's why we're all laughing at you.  

 


You probably think the UN was laughing with Trump too.

Wait.  Wait. Wait. I like these types of response.  So, am I dog and my house is on fire?   On the other hand - I AM a dog that can both sit like a human in a chair, apparently drink coffee AND speak!!!!    Can the libs do that?

And who cares what the UN does?  Does anyone really think it has any import other than giving Foreign Nationals an opportunity to visit and flout NYC parking laws?

tbergs

EdsonNascimento said:

dignin said:

EdsonNascimento said:

dignin said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Asterisk on the Street said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html

The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)

OCT. 3, 2018

The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.

Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.

We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:

See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.

One word: Professors.

Lol.  Too funny.  Like anyone should care what academics that couldn't cut it in the real world say.  

Hey look! We got a real genuine Trump voter right here!

Say it with me now, dumb is good.....smart bad!

Since you're so smart, where did I say that?  Too funny.

The problem is the Libs think they're smarter than everyone else.  Don't worry, keep thinking that. That's why we're all laughing at you.  

 


You probably think the UN was laughing with Trump too.

Wait.  Wait. Wait. I like these types of response.  So, am I dog and my house is on fire?   On the other hand - I AM a dog that can both sit like a human in a chair, apparently drink coffee AND speak!!!!    Can the libs do that?

And who cares what the UN does?  Does anyone really think it has any import other than giving Foreign Nationals an opportunity to visit and flout NYC parking laws?

Honestly, the first part of your response made me chuckle.

dignin

EdsonNascimento said:

dignin said:

EdsonNascimento said:

dignin said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Asterisk on the Street said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html

The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)

OCT. 3, 2018

The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.

Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.

We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:

See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.

One word: Professors.

Lol.  Too funny.  Like anyone should care what academics that couldn't cut it in the real world say.  

Hey look! We got a real genuine Trump voter right here!

Say it with me now, dumb is good.....smart bad!

Since you're so smart, where did I say that?  Too funny.

The problem is the Libs think they're smarter than everyone else.  Don't worry, keep thinking that. That's why we're all laughing at you.  

 


You probably think the UN was laughing with Trump too.

Wait.  Wait. Wait. I like these types of response.  So, am I dog and my house is on fire?   On the other hand - I AM a dog that can both sit like a human in a chair, apparently drink coffee AND speak!!!!    Can the libs do that?

And who cares what the UN does?  Does anyone really think it has any import other than giving Foreign Nationals an opportunity to visit and flout NYC parking laws?

Look at it for a little bit longer, I'm sure in time you can get it. People may think I'm wasting my time thinking a Trump supporter could figure it out, but I'm a glass half full kinda guy.

‘one of the wettest we’ve ever seen from the standpoint of water’ - The guy you voted for

CM189191

EdsonNascimento said:

dignin said:

EdsonNascimento said:

dignin said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Asterisk on the Street said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html

The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)

OCT. 3, 2018

The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.

Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.

We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:

See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.

One word: Professors.

Lol.  Too funny.  Like anyone should care what academics that couldn't cut it in the real world say.  

Hey look! We got a real genuine Trump voter right here!

Say it with me now, dumb is good.....smart bad!

Since you're so smart, where did I say that?  Too funny.

The problem is the Libs think they're smarter than everyone else.  Don't worry, keep thinking that. That's why we're all laughing at you.  

 


You probably think the UN was laughing with Trump too.

Wait.  Wait. Wait. I like these types of response.  So, am I dog and my house is on fire?   On the other hand - I AM a dog that can both sit like a human in a chair, apparently drink coffee AND speak!!!!    Can the libs do that?

And who cares what the UN does?  Does anyone really think it has any import other than giving Foreign Nationals an opportunity to visit and flout NYC parking laws?

The organization was established on after World War II with the aim of preventing another such conflict?

That UN?

You're right, the analogy isn't accurate.  If you were this dog, you're more likely to be in the corner licking your balls while the house burns down around you.  

CM189191

CM189191 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Yeah what was it a week ago when tRump said that the FBI didn't want to mess with this?  What a fucking piece of shit.

No matter. FBI is not a trial. They don't prosecute or even make a recommendation.  The report will read "he said, she said". Congress with proceed with approval stating "the FBI has not determined Mr Kavanaugh to be guilty of any crimes (because that's not they're fucking job here)". 

josevolution

https://apple.news/A_ytSzh3AQtqsHKLf-jK6BA
Yep they will confirm him tomorrow and this sends a clear sign to all women this president & senate don’t care at all if you get violated or sexually assaulted they just gave you a big middle finger to swallow with your lunch !

Jason P

I don’t think it was in the best interest of Feinstein’s strategy to get this allegation as drawn out as long as it has.  A quick dismissal in the court of public opinion would have been the best outcome.  And it kind of looked like that was going to happen.  

I dont see any republicans flipping. It may be interesting to see how some democrats in traditional GOP strongholds now end up voting.  The longer that emotion is removed from the equation hurts the chance of Kavanaugh not getting confirmed.  

Gern Blansten

I don't understand how repubs wouldn't flip based on Kavanaugh lying....he fucking lit up that hearing

oftenreading

tempo_n_groove said:

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh.  The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.

No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.

I don't subscribe to some of the crazy on the right, but how is Kavanaugh not a liar?

I'll flip it for you as I hear both sides of the coin and this is what A Kavanaugh defender says.

How is she not?  Fear of flying, second door in the house, What house, how'd she get home, doesn't remember how she got there, the former boyfriend just came out with a statement that attacks her credibility.

Just what is the issue that people see as significant with “fear of flying”? 

Spiritual_Chaos

So he will be voted through, right?

CM189191

Gern Blansten said:

I don't understand how repubs wouldn't flip based on Kavanaugh lying....he fucking lit up that hearing

Absolute power corrupts absolutely

tempo_n_groove

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh.  The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.

No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.

I don't subscribe to some of the crazy on the right, but how is Kavanaugh not a liar?

I'll flip it for you as I hear both sides of the coin and this is what A Kavanaugh defender says.

How is she not?  Fear of flying, second door in the house, What house, how'd she get home, doesn't remember how she got there, the former boyfriend just came out with a statement that attacks her credibility.

Just what is the issue that people see as significant with “fear of flying”? 

Credibility is what they are saying.  If she was afraid of flying then why was she.

josevolution

Spiritual_Chaos said:

So he will be voted through, right?

yep he will be the judge that clears and pardons the Baffoon and overturns RvsW ....

Merkin Baller

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh.  The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.

No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.

I don't subscribe to some of the crazy on the right, but how is Kavanaugh not a liar?

I'll flip it for you as I hear both sides of the coin and this is what A Kavanaugh defender says.

How is she not?  Fear of flying, second door in the house, What house, how'd she get home, doesn't remember how she got there, the former boyfriend just came out with a statement that attacks her credibility.

Just what is the issue that people see as significant with “fear of flying”? 

Credibility is what they are saying.  If she was afraid of flying then why was she.

How's Kavanaugh's credibility after lying last week? Shouldn't perjury immediately disqualify him from the Supreme court?

tempo_n_groove

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh.  The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.

No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.

I don't subscribe to some of the crazy on the right, but how is Kavanaugh not a liar?

I'll flip it for you as I hear both sides of the coin and this is what A Kavanaugh defender says.

How is she not?  Fear of flying, second door in the house, What house, how'd she get home, doesn't remember how she got there, the former boyfriend just came out with a statement that attacks her credibility.

Just what is the issue that people see as significant with “fear of flying”? 

Credibility is what they are saying.  If she was afraid of flying then why was she.

How's Kavanaugh's credibility after lying last week? Shouldn't perjury immediately disqualify him from the Supreme court?

Are you asking me or asking what the republicans think?

oftenreading

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh.  The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.

No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.

I don't subscribe to some of the crazy on the right, but how is Kavanaugh not a liar?

I'll flip it for you as I hear both sides of the coin and this is what A Kavanaugh defender says.

How is she not?  Fear of flying, second door in the house, What house, how'd she get home, doesn't remember how she got there, the former boyfriend just came out with a statement that attacks her credibility.

Just what is the issue that people see as significant with “fear of flying”? 

Credibility is what they are saying.  If she was afraid of flying then why was she.

Honestly, people are complaining about that, and you are accepting of that argument? Because that a pretty crappy thing to do to someone. 

Almost half of people are afraid of flying to one degree or another, and yet most people do fly, if they have to. Most people muscle through it, with Ativan or alcohol or just willpower. 

I had a bad bike accident on an icy road more than 20 years ago, I am still terrified of cycling on the ice, but I do. I cycle year round and when it’s icy, or I even think it’s icy, I am anxious my whole ride. I hyperventilate as I ride over bridges and arrive at work all tense, but I still do it. It hasn’t gotten any better, either. 

So, am I lying about being afraid of cycling on icy roads?