Kavanaugh Confirmation

[evillawyer]

How can you be sure he's lying? He may be. But given the very nature of the issue, it's hardly "obvious."

At a minimum, it's more likely than not that he's lying about the meaning of boof, devil's triangle, and Renate alumnus.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

lol......

So has he been proven guilty?

 

[luthervol]

For precision, i will say that evil, immoral, means are never justified by their outcomes. This should be understood by definition, if the means have to be justified by anything but themselves, but i will be explicit.

I guess that's a no.

I was thinking about something as simple as speeding if your taking a severely injured person to the hospital.

 

[85SugarVol]

I think there's some conflation of issues here. The issue is not that he said unbecoming stuff in his yearbook, but that he's obviously lying about it NOW under OATH for an appointment to the SCOTUS. It's a strawman to argue that people are saying Kavanaugh should not be confirmed based on the content of the things he said in his yearbook.

How could you “prove” he is lying about what HE says those words in his yearbook mean?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

At a minimum, it's more likely than not that he's lying about the meaning of boof, devil's triangle, and Renate alumnus.

Which means nothing. Again, this spectacle is as dumb as those complaining about scoops of ice cream in the WH.

 

[luthervol]

So has he been proven guilty?

Of course not. Nor has Ford been proven to be lying.

 

[85SugarVol]

I guess that's a no.

I was thinking about something as simple as speeding if your taking a severely injured person to the hospital.

So in the situation we finds ourselves in now, with respect to this SCOTUS nomination. Does the end justify the means? In your opinion.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I guess that's a no.

I was thinking about something as simple as speeding if your taking a severely injured person to the hospital.

By speeding you’re more likely to wreck causing more harm to those you’re trying to help or possibly injure someone innocent.

And while I might choose to speed in that situation I’d in no way be “justified “ to do so.

 

[Squints]

Of course not. Nor has Ford been proven to be lying.

She’s the one leveling the accusations. The burden rests with her to prove Kavanaugh’s guilt, not for him to prove she’s lying.

Your pocket Constitution missing that section?

 

[Orangeslice13]

So in the situation we finds ourselves in now, with respect to this SCOTUS nomination. Does the end justify the means? In your opinion.

Of course it does but loother is an irrational scumbag (that’s my word for Democrats)

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Of course not. Nor has Ford been proven to be lying.

Then by logic and law, Kavanaugh is innocent. Oh and since literally nothing or nobody has been able to credibly corroborate Ford, Occams razor would suggest she is lying.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I guess that's a no.

I was thinking about something as simple as speeding if your taking a severely injured person to the hospital.

Speeding is not immoral. Nor is it unethical. Reckless endangerment, which speedng laws try to prevent, would be immoral and unethical, and naturally wouldn't be justified to get an injured person to a hospital. You are in danger of injuring or killing many others.

 

[85SugarVol]

She’s the one leveling the accusations. The burden rests with her to prove Kavanaugh’s guilt, not for him to prove she’s lying.

Your pocket Constitution missing that section?

It’s a job interview

 

[luthervol]

So in the situation we finds ourselves in now, with respect to this SCOTUS nomination. Does the end justify the means? In your opinion.

If he is being knowingly wrongly accused, then absolutely not. But I do not believe that to be the case.
Otherwise, certainly the ends justify the means.

 

[luthervol]

Speeding is not immoral. Nor is it unethical. Reckless endangerment, which speedng laws try to prevent, would be immoral and unethical, and naturally wouldn't be justified to get an injured person to a hospital. You are in danger of injuring or killing many others.

That's some fine hair splitting. Say the speed limit is 45 but you go 60, which increases the risk to others on the road. Are you justified in traveling 60 mph in order to get your severely injured child to the hospital?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I think there's some conflation of issues here. The issue is not that he said unbecoming stuff in his yearbook, but that he's obviously lying about it NOW under OATH for an appointment to the SCOTUS. It's a strawman to argue that people are saying Kavanaugh should not be confirmed based on the content of the things he said in his yearbook.

Ironic that you are saying lying under oath is such a big issue now. I mean lying under oath about something that happened almost 40 years ago that has zero to do with anything pertaining to national security? Man thats terrible. Lying about mishandling classified information? No biggie.

 

[85SugarVol]

If he is being knowingly wrongly accused, then absolutely not. But I do not believe that to be the case.
Otherwise, certainly the ends justify the means.

So if he is being accidentally wrongly accused, and it leads to him not making it to the court, you are Ok with that?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

If he is being knowingly wrongly accused, then absolutely not. But I do not believe that to be the case.
Otherwise, certainly the ends justify the means.

Why do you believe this woman? Seriously, I am curious. With literally zero credible evidence and the questionable timing of all this. What has Kavanaugh done to make you think he is guilty?

 

[luthervol]

She’s the one leveling the accusations. The burden rests with her to prove Kavanaugh’s guilt, not for him to prove she’s lying.

Your pocket Constitution missing that section?

She doesn't have to prove anything. He's not on trial. Now I guess he could sue her for defamation of character.

 

[NorthDallas40]

At a minimum, it's more likely than not that he's lying about the meaning of boof, devil's triangle, and Renate alumnus.

Nope!

 

[Orange_Crush]

That's some fine hair splitting. Say the speed limit is 45 but you go 60, which increases the risk to others on the road. Are you justified in traveling 60 mph in order to get your severely injured child to the hospital?

There is no hair splitting. It was a valid and rationally true answer. You are just hurt that you're not as smart as you thought you were.

I repeat my answer. If i am driving in such a way that i am endangering others, i am wrong no matter what. If i am not, there is nothing immoral or unethical to justify.

YOUR hair splitting is stupid. I may be immoral at 30 mph on ice in a congested area, and completely moral at 100 in the salt flats.

 

[luthervol]

So if he is being accidentally wrongly accused, and it leads to him not making it to the court, you are Ok with that?

yep. But a thorough investigation would decrease that possibility. K should be screaming for an investigation if he is innocent.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Of course not. Nor has Ford been proven to be lying.

His point went over your head

 

[luthervol]

Nope!

yep...it is.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

yep. But a thorough investigation would decrease that possibility. K should be screaming for an investigation if he is innocent.

Again, what does Kavanaugh have to,prove?