A wager

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

A wager

#1 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:09 pm

For bob-tel and aSSShole.

I will vote for one democrat of your choice in the next election if my prediction below is correct. If it isn't, then both of you, if you accept the wager, you each will have to vote for one candidate of my choice in the next election. Post if you accept.

Spoiler
As of today, there is an agreement in place to delay Kavanaugh's vote for a week while an investigation into the current situation between Blasey-Ford and Kavanaugh. According to the agreement announced by Flake, it is to be at the most one week.
Before the week is over:
More than one democrat will complain that it is too short a time period and DEMAND it be extended.
OR
A new 'accuser' will be found or some other kind of charge will be levied against Kavanaugh, and more than one democrat will DEMAND these charges be investigated.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: A wager

#2 Post by Bob78164 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:26 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:For bob-tel and aSSShole.

I will vote for one democrat of your choice in the next election if my prediction below is correct. If it isn't, then both of you, if you accept the wager, you each will have to vote for one candidate of my choice in the next election. Post if you accept.

Spoiler
As of today, there is an agreement in place to delay Kavanaugh's vote for a week while an investigation into the current situation between Blasey-Ford and Kavanaugh. According to the agreement announced by Flake, it is to be at the most one week.
Before the week is over:
More than one democrat will complain that it is too short a time period and DEMAND it be extended.
OR
A new 'accuser' will be found or some other kind of charge will be levied against Kavanaugh, and more than one democrat will DEMAND these charges be investigated.
In principle I think the FBI needs to take as long as they need to complete a reasonably thorough investigation, but I understand that some limit is necessary as a practical matter. I'd be willing to cut off the investigation after spending as much time on it as Merrick Garland waited for his confirmation vote.

This isn't a fucking game. There's a highly credible allegation of unspeakably evil conduct against a nominee for a lifetime appointment. The investigation takes as long as it takes. And if it gets cut off too soon, then when Democrats take the House, I will expect them to investigate in the course of impeachment proceedings. Because someone who did what Dr. Blasey Ford described can't be allowed to sit on the Court. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: A wager

#3 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:48 am

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:For bob-tel and aSSShole.

I will vote for one democrat of your choice in the next election if my prediction below is correct. If it isn't, then both of you, if you accept the wager, you each will have to vote for one candidate of my choice in the next election. Post if you accept.

Spoiler
As of today, there is an agreement in place to delay Kavanaugh's vote for a week while an investigation into the current situation between Blasey-Ford and Kavanaugh. According to the agreement announced by Flake, it is to be at the most one week.
Before the week is over:
More than one democrat will complain that it is too short a time period and DEMAND it be extended.
OR
A new 'accuser' will be found or some other kind of charge will be levied against Kavanaugh, and more than one democrat will DEMAND these charges be investigated.
In principle I think the FBI needs to take as long as they need to complete a reasonably thorough investigation, but I understand that some limit is necessary as a practical matter. I'd be willing to cut off the investigation after spending as much time on it as Merrick Garland waited for his confirmation vote.

This isn't a fucking game. There's a highly credible allegation of unspeakably evil conduct against a nominee for a lifetime appointment. The investigation takes as long as it takes. And if it gets cut off too soon, then when Democrats take the House, I will expect them to investigate in the course of impeachment proceedings. Because someone who did what Dr. Blasey Ford described can't be allowed to sit on the Court. --Bob
I assume that's a no.
You know I'm right. They won't stick to the agreement. It's just who they are.
Ford and Kavanaugh are both are on the record as being 100% sure of their positions. So, someone is lying, or someone is mistaken. Both have some holes in their stories. I hope that somehow the investigation can find some incontrovertible evidence to prove one side or the other. That's not very likely to happen. So we're back to where we started. What a mess.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: A wager

#4 Post by Bob78164 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:24 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:For bob-tel and aSSShole.

I will vote for one democrat of your choice in the next election if my prediction below is correct. If it isn't, then both of you, if you accept the wager, you each will have to vote for one candidate of my choice in the next election. Post if you accept.

Spoiler
As of today, there is an agreement in place to delay Kavanaugh's vote for a week while an investigation into the current situation between Blasey-Ford and Kavanaugh. According to the agreement announced by Flake, it is to be at the most one week.
Before the week is over:
More than one democrat will complain that it is too short a time period and DEMAND it be extended.
OR
A new 'accuser' will be found or some other kind of charge will be levied against Kavanaugh, and more than one democrat will DEMAND these charges be investigated.
In principle I think the FBI needs to take as long as they need to complete a reasonably thorough investigation, but I understand that some limit is necessary as a practical matter. I'd be willing to cut off the investigation after spending as much time on it as Merrick Garland waited for his confirmation vote.

This isn't a fucking game. There's a highly credible allegation of unspeakably evil conduct against a nominee for a lifetime appointment. The investigation takes as long as it takes. And if it gets cut off too soon, then when Democrats take the House, I will expect them to investigate in the course of impeachment proceedings. Because someone who did what Dr. Blasey Ford described can't be allowed to sit on the Court. --Bob
I assume that's a no.
You know I'm right. They won't stick to the agreement. It's just who they are.
Ford and Kavanaugh are both are on the record as being 100% sure of their positions. So, someone is lying, or someone is mistaken. Both have some holes in their stories. I hope that somehow the investigation can find some incontrovertible evidence to prove one side or the other. That's not very likely to happen. So we're back to where we started. What a mess.
It shouldn't take incontrovertible evidence. A preponderance of the evidence should certainly be enough.

And let's not forget, this is a job interview for a lifetime position. If you were considering a hire and you got an uneasy feeling, even if you couldn't prove it, you wouldn't hire the candidate. Especially if you knew you couldn't fire him later. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: A wager

#5 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:18 am

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:In principle I think the FBI needs to take as long as they need to complete a reasonably thorough investigation, but I understand that some limit is necessary as a practical matter. I'd be willing to cut off the investigation after spending as much time on it as Merrick Garland waited for his confirmation vote.

This isn't a fucking game. There's a highly credible allegation of unspeakably evil conduct against a nominee for a lifetime appointment. The investigation takes as long as it takes. And if it gets cut off too soon, then when Democrats take the House, I will expect them to investigate in the course of impeachment proceedings. Because someone who did what Dr. Blasey Ford described can't be allowed to sit on the Court. --Bob
I assume that's a no.
You know I'm right. They won't stick to the agreement. It's just who they are.
Ford and Kavanaugh are both are on the record as being 100% sure of their positions. So, someone is lying, or someone is mistaken. Both have some holes in their stories. I hope that somehow the investigation can find some incontrovertible evidence to prove one side or the other. That's not very likely to happen. So we're back to where we started. What a mess.
It shouldn't take incontrovertible evidence. A preponderance of the evidence should certainly be enough.

And let's not forget, this is a job interview for a lifetime position. If you were considering a hire and you got an uneasy feeling, even if you couldn't prove it, you wouldn't hire the candidate. Especially if you knew you couldn't fire him later. --Bob
Yes, bob-tel, this isn't a fucking game. But you are, as always, on your high self righteous horse. But I agree with you. If he did what Ford said he did, he should not be confirmed, and furthermore, should not be a judge or even a lawyer, because he would also be a proven bald faced liar on top of it, like Clinton.
However, we are not likely to get any blue dress in this matter, so it will probably still be his word against hers.

The thing is, bob-tel, Kavanaugh has had a long career. He has a public record. He has been investigated numerous times for very sensitive positions in the highest levels. He has gone through multiple confirmations in the past, and was confirmed each time.
Don't you think that if he had a drinking problem, it would have been picked up by the FBI in at least one of those background checks. Especially the one that gave him access to the nuclear codes? Don't you think it would have affected his job performance?
If he had stuff in his past like the dems are fishing for, don't you think it would have come up before this?
What I have that you don't have is a deep distrust of both major political parties. Especially their leadership. If Kavanaugh had just come into government service yesterday, I could believe that such a checkered past might have gone unnoticed to this point. But I really don't think he could have risen to this level if he is the kind of man the dems are painting him as. And I don't think he would have been nominated if the repubs knew of anything like what the dems are slinging. They would have nominated Barrett instead.
Do I think the leadership of the repubs is trying their hardest to get him appointed quickly? Yes. They know they need to do it before the mid terms or it will probably remain vacant till the next election.
But, unlike you, I am certain that the dems are doing what Schumer said he would do. You think, for some reason, the dems are pure hearted and ethical. I am certain that they are neither. And the timing, the handling, and the use of this accusation smells very putrid.
So, if this accusation can't be proven, and the dems want to delay it even more, I say go ahead and confirm him, and trust the 6 previous background checks. Ford has my sympathies, but as far as I know, she has not passed 6 background checks and several high level government confirmations.
And please stop using the focus group words that come from your bat phone, like "lifetime appointment", "serious", "credibly", etc. Its so phony, because you hear the politicians all use exactly the same words ad nauseum, like they were told to use them. Which they probably were.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: A wager

#6 Post by silverscreenselect » Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:02 am

Flock, once again you seem to have no idea about the nature of sexual assault claims, despite the numerous examples that have played out over the last couple of years. It wouldn't surprise me if an additional victim (or more) came forth, knowing that her claim would be more likely to be taken seriously. And what Dr. Ford has gone through should give you a pretty good idea of what women who do come forward face.

You also don't seem to realize the nature of FBI background checks. They are more interested in recent information, and the checks are based on what people reveal on the forms they fill out. Again, there's a reason for that. They are looking for information about activities that might make people susceptible to blackmail or other threats or might indicate a need for additional money (to fuel a drug or drinking problem). Lots of people experimented with various drugs in their youth and are looking for clearances in their 50s or 60s. I doubt Kavanaugh has a serious drinking problem today. That doesn't mean he wasn't a serious binge drinker in high school and college or that the FBI would spend much time trying to chase that down during those various background checks.

Do you think the various FBI background checks in the past talked to any of the people that they will talk to in the next week and will ask any of the specific questions they are going to ask in the next week?

As far as who the "Republicans" would have nominated, the nominating process in this case is one man, Donald Trump. You should know by now how difficult it is for people to change his mind. One thing Kavanaugh has going for him that other conservatives don't is an expansive view of possible presidential immunity to various types of legal challenges, something that may well come before the Supreme Court. Or it just may be that Kavanaugh struck Trump as "his kind of guy." Some of the Republicans did want other candidates, but Trump picked Kavanaugh. By now, the track record of lots of Trump's higher level appointees should give you some indication that the man isn't the best judge of the character of the people he names to the highest level positions.

If Kavanaugh isn't confirmed and the Democrats do take control of the Senate, I don't think that the position will remain open for two years. I expect that Trump will at some point name a more moderate justice, one more like Anthony Kennedy, and the Democrats will confirm. And that's how the process is supposed to work.

There has also been a change in how background checks in general have been conducted more recently in regard to sexual activity. There have been accusations in the past that those who ran those checks were acting as "morality police" so that people with unconventional sexual lifestyles were singled out as poor security risks for that reason. It's a very sensitive area and often the investigators tread somewhat lightly, especially if no arrests were ever made or complaints filed with the police.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: A wager

#7 Post by Bob Juch » Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:14 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:For bob-tel and aSSShole.

I will vote for one democrat of your choice in the next election if my prediction below is correct. If it isn't, then both of you, if you accept the wager, you each will have to vote for one candidate of my choice in the next election. Post if you accept.

Spoiler
As of today, there is an agreement in place to delay Kavanaugh's vote for a week while an investigation into the current situation between Blasey-Ford and Kavanaugh. According to the agreement announced by Flake, it is to be at the most one week.
Before the week is over:
More than one democrat will complain that it is too short a time period and DEMAND it be extended.
OR
A new 'accuser' will be found or some other kind of charge will be levied against Kavanaugh, and more than one democrat will DEMAND these charges be investigated.
I'll take the over. Both of your predictions will probably happen.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: A wager

#8 Post by Bob Juch » Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:23 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I assume that's a no.
You know I'm right. They won't stick to the agreement. It's just who they are.
Ford and Kavanaugh are both are on the record as being 100% sure of their positions. So, someone is lying, or someone is mistaken. Both have some holes in their stories. I hope that somehow the investigation can find some incontrovertible evidence to prove one side or the other. That's not very likely to happen. So we're back to where we started. What a mess.
It shouldn't take incontrovertible evidence. A preponderance of the evidence should certainly be enough.

And let's not forget, this is a job interview for a lifetime position. If you were considering a hire and you got an uneasy feeling, even if you couldn't prove it, you wouldn't hire the candidate. Especially if you knew you couldn't fire him later. --Bob
Yes, bob-tel, this isn't a fucking game. But you are, as always, on your high self righteous horse. But I agree with you. If he did what Ford said he did, he should not be confirmed, and furthermore, should not be a judge or even a lawyer, because he would also be a proven bald faced liar on top of it, like Clinton.
However, we are not likely to get any blue dress in this matter, so it will probably still be his word against hers.

The thing is, bob-tel, Kavanaugh has had a long career. He has a public record. He has been investigated numerous times for very sensitive positions in the highest levels. He has gone through multiple confirmations in the past, and was confirmed each time.
Don't you think that if he had a drinking problem, it would have been picked up by the FBI in at least one of those background checks. Especially the one that gave him access to the nuclear codes? Don't you think it would have affected his job performance?
If he had stuff in his past like the dems are fishing for, don't you think it would have come up before this?
What I have that you don't have is a deep distrust of both major political parties. Especially their leadership. If Kavanaugh had just come into government service yesterday, I could believe that such a checkered past might have gone unnoticed to this point. But I really don't think he could have risen to this level if he is the kind of man the dems are painting him as. And I don't think he would have been nominated if the repubs knew of anything like what the dems are slinging. They would have nominated Barrett instead.
Do I think the leadership of the repubs is trying their hardest to get him appointed quickly? Yes. They know they need to do it before the mid terms or it will probably remain vacant till the next election.
But, unlike you, I am certain that the dems are doing what Schumer said he would do. You think, for some reason, the dems are pure hearted and ethical. I am certain that they are neither. And the timing, the handling, and the use of this accusation smells very putrid.
So, if this accusation can't be proven, and the dems want to delay it even more, I say go ahead and confirm him, and trust the 6 previous background checks. Ford has my sympathies, but as far as I know, she has not passed 6 background checks and several high level government confirmations.
And please stop using the focus group words that come from your bat phone, like "lifetime appointment", "serious", "credibly", etc. Its so phony, because you hear the politicians all use exactly the same words ad nauseum, like they were told to use them. Which they probably were.
I would not hold what Kavanaugh's been accused of doing against his confirmation IF he had admitted what he did and sincerely apologized to Dr. Ford. It's not the crime, it's the coverup, however. His recent statements show that he's extremely biased against the Democrats and that he thinks he deserves a seat with the Supremes. His repeated statements that he was accepted into the top law school in the country and that he was the top one or two students show he believes he is privileged. He does not deserve his confirmation for those reasons.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: A wager

#9 Post by Bob78164 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:00 am

Bob Juch wrote:I would not hold what Kavanaugh's been accused of doing against his confirmation IF he had admitted what he did and sincerely apologized to Dr. Ford.
I sure as hell would. An apology, even a sincere one, is not a sufficient consequence for attempted forcible rape.

This sounds like the same reasoning that got Judge Aaron Persky recalled from office. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
jarnon
Posts: 6264
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Merion, Pa.

Re: A wager

#10 Post by jarnon » Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:56 am

Bob78164 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:I would not hold what Kavanaugh's been accused of doing against his confirmation IF he had admitted what he did and sincerely apologized to Dr. Ford.
I sure as hell would. An apology, even a sincere one, is not a sufficient consequence for attempted forcible rape.

This sounds like the same reasoning that got Judge Aaron Persky recalled from office. --Bob
The hypothetical situation we're imagining is something like this: Somebody with years of distinguished public service (for the other party, but that still counts) admits to a crime in his youth, he sincerely apologizes, and the victim forgives him and doesn't press charges. That's very different from Stanford swimmer case.
Слава Україні!
עם ישראל חי

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: A wager

#11 Post by Bob78164 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:12 pm

jarnon wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:I would not hold what Kavanaugh's been accused of doing against his confirmation IF he had admitted what he did and sincerely apologized to Dr. Ford.
I sure as hell would. An apology, even a sincere one, is not a sufficient consequence for attempted forcible rape.

This sounds like the same reasoning that got Judge Aaron Persky recalled from office. --Bob
The hypothetical situation we're imagining is something like this: Somebody with years of distinguished public service (for the other party, but that still counts) admits to a crime in his youth, he sincerely apologizes, and the victim forgives him and doesn't press charges. That's very different from Stanford swimmer case.
I saw nothing in flock's hypothetical about Dr. Blasey Ford accepting the apology. Persky gave the swimmer a ridiculously light sentence because he didn't want the swimmer's rape conviction to ruin his life.

I have no problem with the concept that someone who attempts forcible rape, even when he was young and stupid, is permanently disqualified from the Supreme Court. Hell, there are still some states where such a person (upon conviction) would be permanently disqualified from voting. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
jarnon
Posts: 6264
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Merion, Pa.

Re: A wager

#12 Post by jarnon » Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:13 pm

Maybe it isn't so hypothetical. This first person column is from the New York Times.
Sarah Hepola wrote:One of the trickiest things about blackouts is that you don’t necessarily know you’re having one. I wrote a memoir, so centered around the slips of memory caused by heavy drinking that it is actually called “Blackout,” and in the years since its 2015 release, I’ve heard from thousands of people who experienced them. No small number of those notes contain some version of this: “For years, I was having blackouts without knowing what they were.” Blackouts are like a philosophical riddle inside a legal conundrum: If you can’t remember a thing, how do you know it happened?

In the days leading up to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a theory arose that he might have drunk so much as a teenager that he did not remember his alleged misdeeds. The blackout theory was a way to reconcile two competing narratives. It meant that Christine Blasey Ford was telling the truth but so was Brett Kavanaugh. He simply did not remember what happened that night and therefore believed himself falsely accused. Several questions at the hearing were designed to get at this theory, but it gained little ground.

I want to be clear, up front, that I cannot know whether Judge Kavanaugh experienced a blackout. But what I do know is that blackouts are both common and tragically misunderstood.

Before the prosecutor Rachel Mitchell was mysteriously dispatched, she was aiming toward the above line of inquiry.

“Have you ever passed out from drinking?” she asked.

Kavanaugh’s answer was dismissive but slightly confusing: “I’ve gone to sleep, but I’ve never blacked out. That’s the allegation? That’s wrong.”

A few clarifications. First, I dare you to find the heavy drinker who hasn’t passed out from too much booze. To say you were just sleeping is like my dad saying he’s resting his eyes when he’s napping. It’s a semantic dodge.

Second, and more crucially, this answer tips toward a common conflation of the act of passing out — sliding into unconsciousness, eyes closed, being what drinkers often call “dead to the world” — and the act of blacking out, a temporary, alcohol-induced state in which you can remain functional and conversational, but later you will have no memory of what you did, almost as though your brain failed to hit the “record” button. This phenomenon remains unknown to many, even experts who ought to know better — doctors, journalists, judges.

Blackouts are caused by a spike in the blood-alcohol level. Crucial is not only how much you drink or what you drink but also how fast. People who don’t eat before drinking are at higher risk for blackout. Shot contests, beer-chugging competitions, keg stands — the macho pre-gaming world of intercollegiate boozing is a perfect setup for blackouts, part of why they’re so rampant at universities — a 2002 survey conducted by researchers at Duke University found that approximately 50 percent of college drinkers reported having at least one blackout — though adults are no less prone.

There are two kinds of blackouts. The more common is fragmentary, where slivers of the night are missing. The more extreme version is “en bloc,” where several hours can be wiped from the memory drive. Fragmentary blackouts start at a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.2, though they’ve been found at lower levels; everyone’s brain is different. En bloc blackouts happen closer to 0.3, and it’s worth noting that at 0.35, it is estimated that about half of drinkers will die, so blackout drinkers are getting up there.

A common bonding experience in drinking circles is “piecing the night together”— friends sitting around the next day, laughing as they scroll through text messages and camera rolls, trying to fill in the gaps in one another’s memories. Some of the missing dots are easy to connect: Oh, that’s right, we went to the bar! Others might be confounding: Wait, we went to a BAR?

“Piecing things together” is a phrase that jumped out at me when I read Judge Kavanaugh’s 2014 speech to the Yale Law School Federalist Society, in which he describes drunken heroics as a routine part of campus life; Senator Richard Blumenthal also leapt on this at the hearing, although Judge Kavanaugh deflected the inquiry, as he did every question about any possible dark side to his consumption.

One particularly dastardly aspect of blackouts is that other people don’t necessarily know you’re having one. Some people in a blackout stagger around in a zombie state; others quote Shakespeare. I had friends who told me I got this zombie look in my eyes, like a person who was unplugged, but others friends told me, on different occasions, that I’d seemed fine.

It wasn’t until this century that scientists really understood blackouts. For generations, experts thought they were the exclusive realm of alcoholics, a sign of troubled late-stage drinking. But non-problem drinkers black out all the time. In fact, that kind of drinker would be a good candidate for someone who might remain ignorant of their blackouts. You see this in sexual assault cases: A woman believes she passed out the night before, but she actually blacked out, leaving untold minutes or hours unaccounted for in her memory bank. This is hellishly confusing — because to the person who wakes up not remembering what happened, it feels like you must have been asleep. Disrupting that assumption requires some contrary piece of evidence: Cuts and bruises, strange clothes you don’t recall putting on, a friend’s testimony, surveillance footage. Today’s young people are more aware of their own blackouts — in part because scientists have gained insight about them, allowing media stories to spread, but also because those kids carry around phones that record everything they do, making them much more likely to have that jarring moment of cognitive disconnect. Wait, when did I type THAT? Wait, when was THAT picture taken? Previous generations simply did not carry such handy data collection services in their pockets.

I suspect Mark Judge — if he were ever able to speak from the heart and not through sworn statements vetted by his lawyer and dispatched from a Bethany Beach house — would be able to speak powerfully on this topic. As a recovering alcoholic, Mr. Judge has gotten real about his drinking, something that can be tough for the people around you, who are not nearly so invested in staring down their high school keggers. I believe Mr. Judge when he swears he doesn’t remember the incident that Christine Blasey Ford described. I also think that absence of information might have been why, assuming Dr. Blasey’s recollection is correct, he had such a queasy reaction when he ran into her at a grocery store. I used to get a hideous gnawing sensation when I stumbled across people I’d blacked out around, because I did not know. What had I said? What had I done? The sheer unknowing rattled me.

Mr. Judge describes this terror in his memoir “Wasted,” where he tells the story of a wedding rehearsal dinner where he got so blasted he doesn’t remember the evening’s end. A friend informs him the next day that he tried to take off his clothes and “make it” with a bridesmaid. Mr. Judge’s response cuts me. “Please tell me I didn’t hurt her,” he said.

Inside those haunted words I see a life and a trail of damage that could have been my own. I consider it nothing but a gift of biology, or temperament, or sexual dynamics that I never had to worry I had physically or sexually assaulted anyone in a blackout. I worried I was rude. I worried I was weird, dumb, deathly unsexy. As I grew older, and more risk-taking, I worried I’d had sex with someone I didn’t know, a not-uncommon experience in my own daily calendar. But I have known men who drank too much, and I have loved them, and this is a fear that beats in their private hearts. I hope I didn’t hurt her. I interviewed a blackout expert for my book, and he told me something I’ve never forgotten: “When men are in a blackout, they do things to the world. When women are in a blackout, things are done to them.”

One of the most unforgettable moments in an unforgettable hearing came when Senator Patrick Leahy asked Dr. Blasey about her strongest memory of that night. “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter,” she said. The word Dr. Blasey used, hippocampus, is significant. The hippocampus is a part of the brain that plays a central role in memory formation. And damned if it isn’t a part of the brain disrupted by a blackout. The hippocampus stops placing information in long-term storage, which means what happened, what you did, what you said, what hurt you might have caused another human — all of it turns to a stream of unremembered words and images that pour forever into the dark night.

So while Dr. Blasey’s brain was pumping the epinephrine and norepinephrine that would etch the moment on her brain, it is quite possible that one if not both of those men were experiencing something like the opposite: A mechanical failure of the brain to record anything. Such a dynamic is breathtaking in its cruelty, which makes it no less common.

I suspect we’ll never know whether Brett Kavanaugh experienced blackouts as a young drinker. I suspect he’ll never know, because what I took from the man at his hearing was that he was not interested in going there. Those days are gone; he has closed the door on that era. But as a wise man once said, just because we are done with the past doesn’t mean the past is done with us. You can ask Christine Blasey Ford about that. You can ask Mark Judge. I bet both of them would have a few things to say about the way memories splinter and implant in the body. How the past lives inside us, guides us, owns us. I have often wondered what the body remembers even as the mind forgets. And then there are other things. The ones that will and never can be forgotten.
This article is troubling but informative. If Judge Kavanaugh comes to the realization that that could have happened, and being a decent man apologizes, Dr. Ford may be willing to accept it.
Слава Україні!
עם ישראל חי

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: A wager

#13 Post by Bob78164 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:15 pm

One other point I just learned. It's (apparently) true that sexual assault has no statute of limitations in Maryland. But that wasn't true in 1982, when Dr. Blasey Ford was attacked. Back then, the incident she described was legally a misdemeanor with a one-year statute of limitations. So even if she were to report it to the police, there'd be nothing the police could do. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silvercamaro
Dog's Best Friend
Posts: 9608
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: A wager

#14 Post by silvercamaro » Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:55 pm

Bob78164 wrote:I sure as hell would. An apology, even a sincere one, is not a sufficient consequence for attempted forcible rape.
I am incredulous that you can sincerely believe that whatever she said happened -- in her own words -- could possibly rise to the level of "attempted forcible rape." If I accept every word of her statement as Absolute Truth, then I might believe he could be blamed for Attempted Cop-a-Feel. Period.

I don't even know what she meant by "tried to disrobe me." What? He fumbled with the top button on her shirt? It seems to me that anything worse than that would have elicited a bit more detail. Apparently, nobody has asked.

Her entire story seems to include carefully crafted phrases that can be interpreted in various ways, according to the mindset of the listener.
Now generating the White Hot Glare of Righteousness on behalf of BBs everywhere.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: A wager

#15 Post by Bob78164 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:36 pm

silvercamaro wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:I sure as hell would. An apology, even a sincere one, is not a sufficient consequence for attempted forcible rape.
I am incredulous that you can sincerely believe that whatever she said happened -- in her own words -- could possibly rise to the level of "attempted forcible rape." If I accept every word of her statement as Absolute Truth, then I might believe he could be blamed for Attempted Cop-a-Feel. Period.

I don't even know what she meant by "tried to disrobe me." What? He fumbled with the top button on her shirt? It seems to me that anything worse than that would have elicited a bit more detail. Apparently, nobody has asked.

Her entire story seems to include carefully crafted phrases that can be interpreted in various ways, according to the mindset of the listener.
He put her hand over her mouth to prevent her from crying out and he used his body to trap her in place as he tried to remove her clothes. Minimizing that conduct as Attempted Cop-a-Feel is revolting to me. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14889
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: A wager

#16 Post by Beebs52 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:04 pm

I believe Kavanaugh. I also believe the next delay will be alleged alcoholism. That's my wager.
Well, then

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: A wager

#17 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:12 pm

jarnon wrote:Maybe it isn't so hypothetical. This first person column is from the New York Times.
Sarah Hepola wrote:One of the trickiest things about blackouts is that you don’t necessarily know you’re having one. I wrote a memoir, so centered around the slips of memory caused by heavy drinking that it is actually called “Blackout,” and in the years since its 2015 release, I’ve heard from thousands of people who experienced them. No small number of those notes contain some version of this: “For years, I was having blackouts without knowing what they were.” Blackouts are like a philosophical riddle inside a legal conundrum: If you can’t remember a thing, how do you know it happened?

In the days leading up to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a theory arose that he might have drunk so much as a teenager that he did not remember his alleged misdeeds. The blackout theory was a way to reconcile two competing narratives. It meant that Christine Blasey Ford was telling the truth but so was Brett Kavanaugh. He simply did not remember what happened that night and therefore believed himself falsely accused. Several questions at the hearing were designed to get at this theory, but it gained little ground.

I want to be clear, up front, that I cannot know whether Judge Kavanaugh experienced a blackout. But what I do know is that blackouts are both common and tragically misunderstood.

Before the prosecutor Rachel Mitchell was mysteriously dispatched, she was aiming toward the above line of inquiry.

“Have you ever passed out from drinking?” she asked.

Kavanaugh’s answer was dismissive but slightly confusing: “I’ve gone to sleep, but I’ve never blacked out. That’s the allegation? That’s wrong.”

A few clarifications. First, I dare you to find the heavy drinker who hasn’t passed out from too much booze. To say you were just sleeping is like my dad saying he’s resting his eyes when he’s napping. It’s a semantic dodge.

Second, and more crucially, this answer tips toward a common conflation of the act of passing out — sliding into unconsciousness, eyes closed, being what drinkers often call “dead to the world” — and the act of blacking out, a temporary, alcohol-induced state in which you can remain functional and conversational, but later you will have no memory of what you did, almost as though your brain failed to hit the “record” button. This phenomenon remains unknown to many, even experts who ought to know better — doctors, journalists, judges.

Blackouts are caused by a spike in the blood-alcohol level. Crucial is not only how much you drink or what you drink but also how fast. People who don’t eat before drinking are at higher risk for blackout. Shot contests, beer-chugging competitions, keg stands — the macho pre-gaming world of intercollegiate boozing is a perfect setup for blackouts, part of why they’re so rampant at universities — a 2002 survey conducted by researchers at Duke University found that approximately 50 percent of college drinkers reported having at least one blackout — though adults are no less prone.

There are two kinds of blackouts. The more common is fragmentary, where slivers of the night are missing. The more extreme version is “en bloc,” where several hours can be wiped from the memory drive. Fragmentary blackouts start at a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.2, though they’ve been found at lower levels; everyone’s brain is different. En bloc blackouts happen closer to 0.3, and it’s worth noting that at 0.35, it is estimated that about half of drinkers will die, so blackout drinkers are getting up there.

A common bonding experience in drinking circles is “piecing the night together”— friends sitting around the next day, laughing as they scroll through text messages and camera rolls, trying to fill in the gaps in one another’s memories. Some of the missing dots are easy to connect: Oh, that’s right, we went to the bar! Others might be confounding: Wait, we went to a BAR?

“Piecing things together” is a phrase that jumped out at me when I read Judge Kavanaugh’s 2014 speech to the Yale Law School Federalist Society, in which he describes drunken heroics as a routine part of campus life; Senator Richard Blumenthal also leapt on this at the hearing, although Judge Kavanaugh deflected the inquiry, as he did every question about any possible dark side to his consumption.

One particularly dastardly aspect of blackouts is that other people don’t necessarily know you’re having one. Some people in a blackout stagger around in a zombie state; others quote Shakespeare. I had friends who told me I got this zombie look in my eyes, like a person who was unplugged, but others friends told me, on different occasions, that I’d seemed fine.

It wasn’t until this century that scientists really understood blackouts. For generations, experts thought they were the exclusive realm of alcoholics, a sign of troubled late-stage drinking. But non-problem drinkers black out all the time. In fact, that kind of drinker would be a good candidate for someone who might remain ignorant of their blackouts. You see this in sexual assault cases: A woman believes she passed out the night before, but she actually blacked out, leaving untold minutes or hours unaccounted for in her memory bank. This is hellishly confusing — because to the person who wakes up not remembering what happened, it feels like you must have been asleep. Disrupting that assumption requires some contrary piece of evidence: Cuts and bruises, strange clothes you don’t recall putting on, a friend’s testimony, surveillance footage. Today’s young people are more aware of their own blackouts — in part because scientists have gained insight about them, allowing media stories to spread, but also because those kids carry around phones that record everything they do, making them much more likely to have that jarring moment of cognitive disconnect. Wait, when did I type THAT? Wait, when was THAT picture taken? Previous generations simply did not carry such handy data collection services in their pockets.

I suspect Mark Judge — if he were ever able to speak from the heart and not through sworn statements vetted by his lawyer and dispatched from a Bethany Beach house — would be able to speak powerfully on this topic. As a recovering alcoholic, Mr. Judge has gotten real about his drinking, something that can be tough for the people around you, who are not nearly so invested in staring down their high school keggers. I believe Mr. Judge when he swears he doesn’t remember the incident that Christine Blasey Ford described. I also think that absence of information might have been why, assuming Dr. Blasey’s recollection is correct, he had such a queasy reaction when he ran into her at a grocery store. I used to get a hideous gnawing sensation when I stumbled across people I’d blacked out around, because I did not know. What had I said? What had I done? The sheer unknowing rattled me.

Mr. Judge describes this terror in his memoir “Wasted,” where he tells the story of a wedding rehearsal dinner where he got so blasted he doesn’t remember the evening’s end. A friend informs him the next day that he tried to take off his clothes and “make it” with a bridesmaid. Mr. Judge’s response cuts me. “Please tell me I didn’t hurt her,” he said.

Inside those haunted words I see a life and a trail of damage that could have been my own. I consider it nothing but a gift of biology, or temperament, or sexual dynamics that I never had to worry I had physically or sexually assaulted anyone in a blackout. I worried I was rude. I worried I was weird, dumb, deathly unsexy. As I grew older, and more risk-taking, I worried I’d had sex with someone I didn’t know, a not-uncommon experience in my own daily calendar. But I have known men who drank too much, and I have loved them, and this is a fear that beats in their private hearts. I hope I didn’t hurt her. I interviewed a blackout expert for my book, and he told me something I’ve never forgotten: “When men are in a blackout, they do things to the world. When women are in a blackout, things are done to them.”

One of the most unforgettable moments in an unforgettable hearing came when Senator Patrick Leahy asked Dr. Blasey about her strongest memory of that night. “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter,” she said. The word Dr. Blasey used, hippocampus, is significant. The hippocampus is a part of the brain that plays a central role in memory formation. And damned if it isn’t a part of the brain disrupted by a blackout. The hippocampus stops placing information in long-term storage, which means what happened, what you did, what you said, what hurt you might have caused another human — all of it turns to a stream of unremembered words and images that pour forever into the dark night.

So while Dr. Blasey’s brain was pumping the epinephrine and norepinephrine that would etch the moment on her brain, it is quite possible that one if not both of those men were experiencing something like the opposite: A mechanical failure of the brain to record anything. Such a dynamic is breathtaking in its cruelty, which makes it no less common.

I suspect we’ll never know whether Brett Kavanaugh experienced blackouts as a young drinker. I suspect he’ll never know, because what I took from the man at his hearing was that he was not interested in going there. Those days are gone; he has closed the door on that era. But as a wise man once said, just because we are done with the past doesn’t mean the past is done with us. You can ask Christine Blasey Ford about that. You can ask Mark Judge. I bet both of them would have a few things to say about the way memories splinter and implant in the body. How the past lives inside us, guides us, owns us. I have often wondered what the body remembers even as the mind forgets. And then there are other things. The ones that will and never can be forgotten.
This article is troubling but informative. If Judge Kavanaugh comes to the realization that that could have happened, and being a decent man apologizes, Dr. Ford may be willing to accept it.
Ms. Hepola was mentioned on the bored in 2016 viewtopic.php?p=512371#p512371
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
silvercamaro
Dog's Best Friend
Posts: 9608
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: A wager

#18 Post by silvercamaro » Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:41 pm

Bob78164 wrote: He put her hand over her mouth to prevent her from crying out and he used his body to trap her in place as he tried to remove her clothes. Minimizing that conduct as Attempted Cop-a-Feel is revolting to me. --Bob
Bob, it may surprise you to learn that I don't care how you vote or whether you tend to believe more of Kavanaugh's or Ford's testimony. What is revolting to me is that anyone in the U.S. Senate or any part of the legal system may place a higher priority on politics than basic fairness to people who present conflicting accounts of long-ago events. Part of fairness involves looking at the actual words used by both accusers and the accused, and trying to expand the surface meaning into the "whole truth."
Now generating the White Hot Glare of Righteousness on behalf of BBs everywhere.

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10495
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: A wager

#19 Post by Estonut » Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:16 am

Bob78164 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:I would not hold what Kavanaugh's been accused of doing against his confirmation IF he had admitted what he did and sincerely apologized to Dr. Ford.
I sure as hell would. An apology, even a sincere one, is not a sufficient consequence for attempted forcible rape.

This sounds like the same reasoning that got Judge Aaron Persky recalled from office.
You keep calling it attempted forcible rape. You do not know what the attacker might have intended to do. She claims she feared he might accidentally kill her. Why not call it attempted manslaughter?
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: A wager

#20 Post by Bob78164 » Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:23 am

Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:I would not hold what Kavanaugh's been accused of doing against his confirmation IF he had admitted what he did and sincerely apologized to Dr. Ford.
I sure as hell would. An apology, even a sincere one, is not a sufficient consequence for attempted forcible rape.

This sounds like the same reasoning that got Judge Aaron Persky recalled from office.
You keep calling it attempted forcible rape. You do not know what the attacker might have intended to do. She claims she feared he might accidentally kill her. Why not call it attempted manslaughter?
I use the words "attempted forcible rape" to describe the incident Dr. Blasey Ford recounted in her sworn testimony because the incident Dr. Blasey Ford recounted in her sworn testimony was attempted forcible rape. Her attacker used his body weight to pin her down, used his hand to prevent her from summoning help, ground himself against her, and attempted to remove her clothes against her will. Put that behavior on film and I'll get an attempted rape conviction anywhere in the country. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10495
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: A wager

#21 Post by Estonut » Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:28 am

Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:I sure as hell would. An apology, even a sincere one, is not a sufficient consequence for attempted forcible rape.

This sounds like the same reasoning that got Judge Aaron Persky recalled from office.
You keep calling it attempted forcible rape. You do not know what the attacker might have intended to do. She claims she feared he might accidentally kill her. Why not call it attempted manslaughter?
I use the words "attempted forcible rape" to describe the incident Dr. Blasey Ford recounted in her sworn testimony because the incident Dr. Blasey Ford recounted in her sworn testimony was attempted forcible rape. Her attacker used his body weight to pin her down, used his hand to prevent her from summoning help, ground himself against her, and attempted to remove her clothes against her will. Put that behavior on film and I'll get an attempted rape conviction anywhere in the country.
You would not. Besides, I'd take Alan Dershowitz' legal opinion over yours anytime, especially when he agrees with me.

He said, "There’s no evidence whatsoever, even under her story, of attempted rape. Attempted rape under Maryland law requires a specific intent to, I have to use this word — penetrate. There has to be that specific intent."
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: A wager

#22 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:01 am

Estonut wrote:
He said, "There’s no evidence whatsoever, even under her story, of attempted rape. Attempted rape under Maryland law requires a specific intent to, I have to use this word — penetrate. There has to be that specific intent."
Well, I did look up Maryland cases on attempted rape, and they don't read the way Dershowitz interprets them. Further, the language about him inadvertently strangling her is very important under Maryland law. Maryland has separate crimes of both rape and sexual assault and attempts to commit both. The most serious of these are rape in the first degree and sexual assault in the first degree, which require an aggravating circumstance, one of which is to:

"threaten, or place the victim in fear, that the victim, or an individual known to the victim, imminently will be subject to death, suffocation, strangulation, disfigurement, serious physical injury, or kidnapping"

According to her testimony, she believed she was subject to being suffocated or strangled, which would make this a first-degree crime which carries possible life imprisonment, either for commission or attempt. So, if she told this story to a jury that believed her, Kavanaugh could be facing life imprisonment, even if they didn't feel there was an "attempt to penetrate."
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: A wager

#23 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Sun Sep 30, 2018 2:00 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
silvercamaro wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:I sure as hell would. An apology, even a sincere one, is not a sufficient consequence for attempted forcible rape.
I am incredulous that you can sincerely believe that whatever she said happened -- in her own words -- could possibly rise to the level of "attempted forcible rape." If I accept every word of her statement as Absolute Truth, then I might believe he could be blamed for Attempted Cop-a-Feel. Period.

I don't even know what she meant by "tried to disrobe me." What? He fumbled with the top button on her shirt? It seems to me that anything worse than that would have elicited a bit more detail. Apparently, nobody has asked.

Her entire story seems to include carefully crafted phrases that can be interpreted in various ways, according to the mindset of the listener.
He put her hand over her mouth to prevent her from crying out and he used his body to trap her in place as he tried to remove her clothes. Minimizing that conduct as Attempted Cop-a-Feel is revolting to me. --Bob
I don't think there are many people who really care what is revolting to you, bob-tel. You are a closed minded super partisan, as evidenced by your conviction of Kavanaugh without proof.
He put her hand over her mouth to prevent her from crying out and he used his body to trap her in place as he tried to remove her clothes.
She says he did. He says he didn't. There are no corroborating witnesses for either. There are likely never to be any, unless Mark Judge confesses to something. So why do you assume he did it? And why do you just ignore the counter arguments?
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: A wager

#24 Post by Bob78164 » Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:22 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
silvercamaro wrote:
I am incredulous that you can sincerely believe that whatever she said happened -- in her own words -- could possibly rise to the level of "attempted forcible rape." If I accept every word of her statement as Absolute Truth, then I might believe he could be blamed for Attempted Cop-a-Feel. Period.

I don't even know what she meant by "tried to disrobe me." What? He fumbled with the top button on her shirt? It seems to me that anything worse than that would have elicited a bit more detail. Apparently, nobody has asked.

Her entire story seems to include carefully crafted phrases that can be interpreted in various ways, according to the mindset of the listener.
He put her hand over her mouth to prevent her from crying out and he used his body to trap her in place as he tried to remove her clothes. Minimizing that conduct as Attempted Cop-a-Feel is revolting to me. --Bob
I don't think there are many people who really care what is revolting to you, bob-tel. You are a closed minded super partisan, as evidenced by your conviction of Kavanaugh without proof.
He put her hand over her mouth to prevent her from crying out and he used his body to trap her in place as he tried to remove her clothes.
She says he did. He says he didn't. There are no corroborating witnesses for either. There are likely never to be any, unless Mark Judge confesses to something. So why do you assume he did it? And why do you just ignore the counter arguments?
Among other things, because she's the one who wants a full investigation, not a fig leaf to provide some political cover. For another, I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh lied or dissembled under oath about a bunch of other stuff. For a third, because he had a lot of trouble giving direct answers to questions. For a fourth, because he acted exactly how I've seen bullies react when confronted.

Yes, I think he did it. But the real point is that there's enough evidence that he did it that there needs to be a full and fair investigation. And if the Senate insists on confirming him without one, then I expect the House to begin one on January 3. The nation needs to know one way or another with as much confidence as possible, whether an attempted rapist is sitting on the Court.

And theer's a pretty good chance that a full and fair investigation will come up with a lot. I'd be interested to know, for instance, whether Kavanaugh's classmates and contemporaries (including Justice Gorsuch) agree that his definitions of "boof" and "devil's triangle" are truthful. I'd be interested to know whether any classmates have additional information about the party. There's lots of potential corroboration out there, if anyone bothers to look for it. And if they look hard and don't find corroboration, that's got probative value as well.

But the half-assed investigation that Donny is authorizing, with the FBI hamstrung both in time and in scope, certainly won't satisfy me that this is a full and fair investigation. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: A wager

#25 Post by silverscreenselect » Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:39 pm

Bob78164 wrote: But the half-assed investigation that Donny is authorizing, with the FBI hamstrung both in time and in scope, certainly won't satisfy me that this is a full and fair investigation. --Bob
Another Yale classmate of Kavanaugh's disputes his claims about his drinking behavior. Chad Ludington, a professor at North Carolina State University has sent a statement to the FBI:
I have been contacted by numerous reporters about Brett Kavanaugh and have not wanted to say anything because I had nothing to contribute about what kind of justice he would be. I knew Brett at Yale because I was a classmate and a varsity basketball player and Brett enjoyed socializing with athletes. Indeed, athletes formed the core of Brett’s social circle.

In recent days I have become deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale. When I watched Brett and his wife being interviewed on Fox News on Monday, and when I watched Brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I cringed. For the fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know, because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.

I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18- or even 21-year-old should condemn a person for the rest of his life. I would be a hypocrite to think so. However, I have direct and repeated knowledge about his drinking and his disposition while drunk. And I do believe that Brett’s actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. If he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences. It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges.

I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth.

I felt it was my civic duty to tell of my experience while drinking with Brett, and I offer this statement to the press. I have no desire to speak further publicly, and nothing more to say to the press at this time. I will, however, take my information to the F.B.I.
Now, Flock will probably say that if Kavanaugh fibbed about his drinking, that doesn't mean he assaulted Dr. Ford. It does however make her story more likely to be true since the behavior described by Dr. Ludington corresponds to what Dr. Ford says Kavanaugh did. And there is also a general legal axiom that some judges instruct juries on it in evaluating witness testimony and credibility. That is falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, or false in everything. At one time, judges could completely strike a witness' testimony if it were demonstrated they lied in one material matter. If Kavanaugh lied about his at-times violent binge drinking, what else did he lie about?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/p ... naugh.html
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

Post Reply