Kavanaugh Confirmation

[evillawyer]

Nope!

Absolutely no recorded uses of devil's triangle and boof to mean what Kavanaugh says they mean. Could Judge, Kavanaugh and crew have been using some private language only they knew? Possible, but highly unlikely.

 

[Squints]

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

Then neither does he.

Make your damn minds up! Y’all have burned enough straw over the last 10+ days to send Al Gore in to cardiac arrest.

Take a position and logically defend it. You certainly can’t. Every argument you make devolves to speed limits, rational/reasonable, abolishing Red Ryder BB guns, or tree frogs.

 

[luthervol]

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.

lol.....you are endangering others every time you drive. More so at 60 than at 58. More so at 58 than at 52. Less so at 60 than at 70. How fast would you be justified in driving to get your severely injured child to the hospital?

 

[luthervol]

Then neither does he.

Make your damn minds up! Y’all have burned enough straw over the last 10+ days to send Al Gore in to cardiac arrest.

Take a position and logically defend it. You certainly can’t. Every argument you make devolves to speed limits, rational/reasonable, abolishing Red Ryder BB guns, or tree frogs.

Of course he doesn't. It may just be that he's not fit for the SC.

 

[volbeast33]

When I was a HS Sophomore a Junior jumped me and picked a fight after a basketball game. I got whipped pretty good. I'm 69 and to this day I'm damn well 100% certain who it was. I couldn't name all the boys who were there or whether it was October or January but the who did what is perfectly clear. And no I didn't tell anyone.

That’s the issue.... the time to do something about it is within the first few years afterwards..... 36 years later it’s too bad bc there is no evidence left to pursue.

 

[luthervol]

His point went over your head

lol....not at all
He's going on the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. Not applicable in a job interview.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Then neither does he.

Make your damn minds up! Y’all have burned enough straw over the last 10+ days to send Al Gore in to cardiac arrest.

Take a position and logically defend it. You certainly can’t. Every argument you make devolves to speed limits, rational/reasonable, abolishing Red Ryder BB guns, or tree frogs.

Luther and EL obviously have very little knowledge on how the burden of proof actually exists in the real world. Only in their bizzaro world does the one making the claim NOT have to prove anything.

 

[Orange_Crush]

lol.....you are endangering others every time you drive. More so at 60 than at 58. More so at 58 than at 52. Less so at 60 than at 70. How fast would you be justified in driving to get your severely injured child to the hospital?

It must be sad to be you. Deputy Fife thought he had that one bullet. Good night Luther. Better luck next time.

 

[luthervol]

Luther and EL obviously have very little knowledge on how the burden of proof actually exists in the real world. Only in their bizzaro world does the one making the claim NOT have to prove anything.

It's a job interview, not a trial. Do you guys understand the difference?

 

[evillawyer]

Luther and EL obviously have very little knowledge on how the burden of proof actually exists in the real world. Only in their bizzaro world does the one making the claim NOT have to prove anything.

You mean how it works in job interviews?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

lol....not at all
He's going on the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. Not applicable in a job interview.

Really? Ok wow. So lets recap. Ford makes the claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her almost 40 years ago. Kavanaugh denied it. Now, if the burden of proof isn't applicable in a job interview, then why is this even being investigated?

 

[luthervol]

It must be sad to be you. Deputy Fife thought he had that one bullet. Good night Luther. Better luck next time.

Can't say that I blame you for bailing. You got to know when to fold them.

 

[evillawyer]

It's a job interview, not a trial. Do you guys understand the difference?

They don't. I've tried explaining this in a variety of ways. They're just being stubborn. Scotch Irish folk. Watcha gonna do?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

You mean how it works in job interviews?

Ok then. Why are you making a big deal of someone lying in a job interview?

 

[luthervol]

Really? Ok wow. So lets recap. Ford makes the claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaukted her almist 40 years ago. Kavanaugh denied it. Now, if the burden of proof isn't applicable in a job interview, then why is this even being investigated?

So the senators can make an informed decision.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Can't say that I blame you for bailing. You got to know when to fold them.

Sure thing, Luther. If that's what you need to post to save face, have at it. Next time you think you have a bullet, let me know. Good night.

 

[luthervol]

Ok then. Why are you making a big deal of someone lying in a job interview?

Because it makes the person unfit for the job.....especially this one.

 

[NorthDallas40]

yep...it is.

I’ve already stated how Renate Alumnus was disproved you’re FOS as usual.

 

[evillawyer]

Ok then. Why are you making a big deal of someone lying in a job interview?

Because the job interview was under oath.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Absolutely no recorded uses of devil's triangle and boof to mean what Kavanaugh says they mean. Could Judge, Kavanaugh and crew have been using some private language only they knew? Possible, but highly unlikely.

You included Renate Alumnus again in your broad statement and that’s wrong.

 

[luthervol]

Sure thing, Luther. If that's what you need to post to save face, have at it. Next time you think you have a bullet, let me know. Good night.

You've typed two posts that each took longer than it would have to just answer the question. I get it.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Because it makes the person unfit for the job.....especially this one.

How so?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Because the job interview was under oath.

And?

 

[luthervol]

I’ve already stated how Renate Alumnus was disproved you’re FOS as usual.

Boof? Devil's triangle? Spin away, just know it leads to sinking.

 

[luthervol]

How so?

Are you asking how lying under oath makes someone unfit to be a supreme court justice?