Read 9135 times

Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #40 on: September 29, 2018, 09:17:56 am »
Would you at least concede that the woman who is accusing him of gang rape on ten different occasions is full of crap? These gang rapes happened when he was a teenager at teen parties. The accuser was an adult at the time supposedly attending these parties and viewing the rapes. Again, she has no witnesses to back her up.

When you were a teenager would you have been able to recognise consensual sexual activity?  Would you have been able to look at a woman who was with a group of popular people and known instantly that everything she was doing was thought out, and wanted?

Have you ever acted in a way that made you feel uncomfortable because you didn't want to be judged, or ridiculed by your peers?  Have you ever put on a show or a false face to show willing when you wanted to remove yourself from a situation due to the fear of being a pariah?

Hindsight is 20/20 they say.  Maybe when she thought back at her memories and remembers a single woman getting attention from a group of guys, and she was smiling and playing along, then disappeared along with the group to a room somewhere, maybe she wasn't as happy as she seemed.

Think about your time in Korea, the bullshit you put up with, the bureaucracy, the instruction to "SNIP" (smile, nod, ignore, proceed).  Does smiling mean you agree with what you heard?  or does it mean you don't want a fight?  You don't want to be cast out? It may be easier to just go along with it, even though you think it is wrong?

Think back to your youth, how many times were you told to "read between the lines"?  Did you take everything at face value?  Did you ever look back and realise you misunderstood?  Did you realise that you didn't know enough at the time to have made a correct assessment of a situation?

I am guessing that if any gang rape happened, it wasn't on the floor in the living room, and was not signposted.  If the woman was not 100% comfortable with what was happening, and was lead to an action / situation with which she was not comfortable, then you have to ask yourself: What do we call that?



Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #41 on: September 29, 2018, 09:25:45 am »
And maybe this is my bias as a working class girl coming to the fore, but he really did strike me as every entitled middle class/rich kid who's never been told no in his life throwing a fit about not getting his way. I'll probably never know for sure if he did what he's been accused of, but he still makes my skin crawl either way.
People of all classes throw fits and tantrums about not getting their way. Rich kids may do it over getting rejected from Harvard. Poor kids do it because McDonald's won't give them 50 free ketchup packets.

I think Flake's compromise was good. If the FBI doesn't turn up anything, then he should get an up or down vote. I am very leery of the idea that unsubstantiated allegations can be used to destroy someone, even if I find the accuser very credible (obviously it depends on the degree of their credibility vs. the accused's lack of credibility).


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 3483

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #42 on: September 29, 2018, 09:53:15 am »
This has nothing to do with sexual abuse. Dr. Ford is clearly mentally ill, and the others are lying. Hell, one accused him of gang rape on 10 separate occasions. Yeah. Sure.

This is all about Roe v. Wade. The progressive left is terrified that it will be overturned. So they're crucifying the guy.

By Any Means Necessary.

That's the new mantra of the progressive left.
You've got things backasswards, but that's par for the course for trumpists.


  • kengreen
  • Expert Waygook

    • 654

    • July 03, 2013, 11:30:02 am
    • South Korea
Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #43 on: September 29, 2018, 10:32:40 am »
Here's a little known fact. It turns out that the people who were hanged in Salem were actually witches. Ulterior motives and hysteria had nothing to do with it.


Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #44 on: September 29, 2018, 01:43:42 pm »
This has nothing to do with sexual abuse. Dr. Ford is clearly mentally ill, and the others are lying. Hell, one accused him of gang rape on 10 separate occasions. Yeah. Sure.

This is all about Roe v. Wade. The progressive left is terrified that it will be overturned. So they're crucifying the guy.

By Any Means Necessary.

That's the new mantra of the progressive left.

Weren't you recently upset about certain companies banning Infowars from their platforms? So when a previously inconspicuous woman freely takes a polygraph, testifies before a Senate committee and offers to assist with an FBI investigation, this is evidence of a political conspiracy to bring a good man down. When someone with millions of social media followers repeatedly accuses public figures of sex crimes and complicity in murder, and triggers the harassment of private citizens by suggesting that they faked the violent deaths of their own families (allegations that have led to well-documented threats  and, in at least one case, a public shooting), the person spreading these allegations is the victim. In fact, many people arguing on behalf of Alex Jones (est. net worth approx. $10m) seem to want the government to compel private companies to publish and broadcast this slander, regardless of the consequences, and even if it's against their best interests.

The degree of cognitive dissonance required to hold such views, coupled with a stunning lack of empathy and the paranoia necessary to believe such illogical theories, is far more indicative of mental illness than anything suggested in Dr. Ford's calm, coherent and rational testimony.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2018, 01:58:38 pm by Andyman »


Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #45 on: September 29, 2018, 01:49:59 pm »
I mean, just look at these QAnon morons parading around the Trump rallies. These people are openly accusing multiple public figures of being involved with child sex abuse, on the most ridiculous premise imaginable. But yeah, Christine Blasey Ford has done a terrible thing to Brett Kavanagh from which America will never recover...


Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #46 on: September 29, 2018, 02:14:13 pm »
One more thing... Sligo is right about the "gang rape" stuff. I don't 100% trust Michael Avenatti's motives, and I think his appearance has made the whole affair sleazier. It could also indirectly damage the credibility of other accusers. That being said, there seems to be a deliberate attempt to make the claims sound more incredible than what they might truly be. Of course, "I went to 10 gang rape parties when I was younger, and Brett Kavanagh was at all of them, but I just decided to tell people yesterday" sounds completely crazy. But something along the lines of "I went to a lot of parties at that age. I'm sure that Brett Kavanagh and Mark Judge were present at some. I know that some girls had their drinks spiked and various guys took turns having non-consensual sex with them" is not that difficult to believe. It could be totally false, but I'm guessing that her account more closely resembles the latter.

For what it's worth, when I was in high school, there was a notorious party (that I didn't attend) at which a heavily inebriated girl was "traded" among several players on the basketball team (and perhaps some guys that weren't on the team...). She ended up in the hospital after passing out and choking on her vomit, and had to have her stomach pumped due to alcohol poisoning. This was in the late 90s, and nobody (that I'm aware of) regarded it as a crime. In fact, the story was always framed to cast the girl as a slut. You were expected to laugh about it.  There was certainly no mention of gang rape. And there are many people who participated in it, and many more who've sat on the details for 20 years and said nothing.


Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #47 on: September 29, 2018, 02:29:43 pm »
I think the two most plausible explanations at this point are either that Ford has Kavanaugh mixed up with someone or Kavanaugh has no memory of it because of a blackout. Given what Dr. Ford as a psychologist should know about memory and Kavanaugh's drinking, I think both are being a bit optimistic in saying "100%". Both should have some small doubt.

I also think anyone who is 100% certain one way or the other anout who is telling the truth is not part of the rational discussion.


  • Mr C
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1629

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #48 on: September 29, 2018, 04:50:01 pm »
I think the two most plausible explanations at this point are either that Ford has Kavanaugh mixed up with someone or Kavanaugh has no memory of it because of a blackout. Given what Dr. Ford as a psychologist should know about memory and Kavanaugh's drinking, I think both are being a bit optimistic in saying "100%". Both should have some small doubt.

I also think anyone who is 100% certain one way or the other anout who is telling the truth is not part of the rational discussion.
I don't agree, but what exact percentage should someone have in order to disqualify him? Can you hear a senator saying: "Yes, I'm ninety-nine percent sure we have elevated a sexual predator to the Supreme Court.  But I needed 100% before I would say No."


Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #49 on: September 29, 2018, 09:34:22 pm »
Devils Triangle
A threesome with 1 woman and 2 men. It is important to remember that straight men do not make eye contact while in the act. Doing so will question their sexuality.
Larry: Did you hear that Eric and Brian were in a Devils Triangle with Sarah last night?
Brad: Yeah man, I did, what homo's.
Larry: No man, its cool, they didn't make eye contact.
#threesome#menage a trois#sex#threeway#orgy
by W_J May 11, 2008

devils trianglesex
inserting your dick in all three of her holes, mouth,ass, and *****.
NOT A THREESUM WITH TWO GUYS.
i did a devils triangle on her last night and i started with her ***** she loved it so much and i got so turned on
#*****#****#boston booty call#sex#dirty sex
by A.B. + H.G. February 07, 2011

Five F's
A man's take on 'dating' women...

1. Find em
2. Feel em
3. Finger em
4. **** em
5. Forget em
Man 1: Hey do you know the Five F's?
Man 2: Hell yeah...who doesn't?
Man 3: I don't...
Man 1 and 2: huh???!!!
#four f's#dating#men#rules#5 f's
by Bingo69 April 26, 2009

Five Fs
Find 'em , Follow 'em, Finger 'em, **** 'em, Forget 'em
John introduced the concept of the Five Fs to a smiling Mary during their speed date: "You don't know about the Five Fs? It's a maxim I've always tried to live by."
#find#follow#finger#****#forget
by Bobalong June 21, 2007

five f's
The five stages in a successful relationship with a woman. They are: Find her. Feed her. Feel her. **** her. And forget her.
Marmaduke met Chloe. This was a standard five f's scenario.
#sex#relationships#casual sex#tittillation#male-female relations
by Sinner Bob July 31, 2006

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devils%20Triangle&page=4
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Five%20F%27s

All of these "definitions" far predate any of this.  Surely these prove the guy lied, even if it was just about what the terms meant.  Lying under oath is perjury!


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 3483

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #50 on: September 30, 2018, 12:50:37 am »
I think the two most plausible explanations at this point are either that Ford has Kavanaugh mixed up with someone or Kavanaugh has no memory of it because of a blackout. Given what Dr. Ford as a psychologist should know about memory and Kavanaugh's drinking, I think both are being a bit optimistic in saying "100%". Both should have some small doubt.

I also think anyone who is 100% certain one way or the other anout who is telling the truth is not part of the rational discussion.
He's lying is another very real possibility. This is what he's worked for all his life, the brass ring finally in reach. You don't think he'd lie to get it, as well as to avoid the shame that would follow him around the rest of his life?

He has very "rational" reasons to lie.


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 3483

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #51 on: September 30, 2018, 12:51:48 am »
Here's a little known fact. It turns out that the people who were hanged in Salem were actually witches. Ulterior motives and hysteria had nothing to do with it.
Red herrings must be on sale.


Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #52 on: September 30, 2018, 01:30:05 am »
I don't agree, but what exact percentage should someone have in order to disqualify him? Can you hear a senator saying: "Yes, I'm ninety-nine percent sure we have elevated a sexual predator to the Supreme Court.  But I needed 100% before I would say No."
Given that the information Ford has provided would certainly not be enough for a conviction, that the other people named as being at the party have denied any recollection of the incident, and that it is questionable there'd be enough for a warrant much less an indictment, I have to say that 'percentage' is not enough. Do I give the edge to Ford? Yes. But it's not enough of an edge.

And really, you can't be no one can be close to certain as to what happened. Now, that being said, I don't think anyone who says that they feel so disturbed about this that they feel Kavanaugh should be passed over is taking an entirely unreasonable position.

I think the two most plausible explanations at this point are either that Ford has Kavanaugh mixed up with someone or Kavanaugh has no memory of it because of a blackout. Given what Dr. Ford as a psychologist should know about memory and Kavanaugh's drinking, I think both are being a bit optimistic in saying "100%". Both should have some small doubt.

I also think anyone who is 100% certain one way or the other anout who is telling the truth is not part of the rational discussion.
He's lying is another very real possibility. This is what he's worked for all his life, the brass ring finally in reach. You don't think he'd lie to get it, as well as to avoid the shame that would follow him around the rest of his life?

He has very "rational" reasons to lie.

Well I agree that him lying is a real possibility, I put it at somewhat less than the other two, but it is a very real possibility, just as it is a very real possibility she is lying, even though I put that at less of a chance than him lying.

All of these "definitions" far predate any of this.  Surely these prove the guy lied, even if it was just about what the terms meant.  Lying under oath is perjury!
I think we have to be very careful about taking yearbook quotes on their face. You can certainly believe that it is probable that they are referring to acts, but I think certainty is an entirely different leap. The moment you shut your brain off to alternatives on something like this is the moment you have stopped thinking and keeping an open mind.

To give an example, we are familiar with the term "bangbus", right? It's commonly referred to a type of Japanese pornography video depicting group sex with a female or groups of women, frequently in a rape context. That's it's accepted definition.

However, I have used the term to refer to Korean tour buses, commonly with ajummas, that roll by blasting trot music. A friend of mine back in the day in referred to his van as the "bangbus" and this dude was not getting any groups of girls or doing anything improper in it. I think he might have even called it that on his yearbook page. Under the 'Kavanaugh Standard' this would be evidence he was engaged in sexual assault.

I think we all have certain terms that exist in the popular lexicon that amongst our respective groups of friends, we have taken and used in a different context, one that is familiar to only our group of friends. The meaning could vary drastically from the slang term. To assume that such a term can only apply to its original slang definition, and that said individuals who have used the term must be engaged in improper conduct is an unwarranted stretch. It ignores everything we know about how slang terms are used and how groups of friends speak with each other.

Is it cause for concern and scrutiny? Absolutely. Can you be sure that someone is lying about it or that there is only one conclusion to be drawn? Absolutely not.


  • Adel
  • Expert Waygook

    • 605

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #53 on: September 30, 2018, 04:15:35 am »
Aside from the sexual assault allegations, it was pretty clear that Kavanaugh perjured himself when questioned about his alcohol consumption in his high school days. His evasiveness, hysterical demeanor and contemptuousness of the hearing should have been enough to disqualify his suitability for the position to any impartial observers, let alone his bizarre accusation of a political conspiracy involving the Clintons in his testimony.
While it might have measured up as standard for content on an episode of infowars, one would hope higher standards of honesty should apply for this vacancy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVDtKBdw34k


« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 04:45:55 am by Adel »


Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #54 on: September 30, 2018, 07:56:48 am »
I don't agree, but what exact percentage should someone have in order to disqualify him? Can you hear a senator saying: "Yes, I'm ninety-nine percent sure we have elevated a sexual predator to the Supreme Court.  But I needed 100% before I would say No."
Given that the information Ford has provided would certainly not be enough for a conviction, that the other people named as being at the party have denied any recollection of the incident, and that it is questionable there'd be enough for a warrant much less an indictment, I have to say that 'percentage' is not enough. Do I give the edge to Ford? Yes. But it's not enough of an edge.

And really, you can't be no one can be close to certain as to what happened. Now, that being said, I don't think anyone who says that they feel so disturbed about this that they feel Kavanaugh should be passed over is taking an entirely unreasonable position.

I think the two most plausible explanations at this point are either that Ford has Kavanaugh mixed up with someone or Kavanaugh has no memory of it because of a blackout. Given what Dr. Ford as a psychologist should know about memory and Kavanaugh's drinking, I think both are being a bit optimistic in saying "100%". Both should have some small doubt.

I also think anyone who is 100% certain one way or the other anout who is telling the truth is not part of the rational discussion.
He's lying is another very real possibility. This is what he's worked for all his life, the brass ring finally in reach. You don't think he'd lie to get it, as well as to avoid the shame that would follow him around the rest of his life?

He has very "rational" reasons to lie.

Well I agree that him lying is a real possibility, I put it at somewhat less than the other two, but it is a very real possibility, just as it is a very real possibility she is lying, even though I put that at less of a chance than him lying.

All of these "definitions" far predate any of this.  Surely these prove the guy lied, even if it was just about what the terms meant.  Lying under oath is perjury!
I think we have to be very careful about taking yearbook quotes on their face. You can certainly believe that it is probable that they are referring to acts, but I think certainty is an entirely different leap. The moment you shut your brain off to alternatives on something like this is the moment you have stopped thinking and keeping an open mind.

To give an example, we are familiar with the term "bangbus", right? It's commonly referred to a type of Japanese pornography video depicting group sex with a female or groups of women, frequently in a rape context. That's it's accepted definition.

However, I have used the term to refer to Korean tour buses, commonly with ajummas, that roll by blasting trot music. A friend of mine back in the day in referred to his van as the "bangbus" and this dude was not getting any groups of girls or doing anything improper in it. I think he might have even called it that on his yearbook page. Under the 'Kavanaugh Standard' this would be evidence he was engaged in sexual assault.

I think we all have certain terms that exist in the popular lexicon that amongst our respective groups of friends, we have taken and used in a different context, one that is familiar to only our group of friends. The meaning could vary drastically from the slang term. To assume that such a term can only apply to its original slang definition, and that said individuals who have used the term must be engaged in improper conduct is an unwarranted stretch. It ignores everything we know about how slang terms are used and how groups of friends speak with each other.

Is it cause for concern and scrutiny? Absolutely. Can you be sure that someone is lying about it or that there is only one conclusion to be drawn? Absolutely not.

Not one of his "definitions" for his quotes were added to Urban Dictionary until September 27th.  Most of them in ridicule to what he said. 

The Wikipedia page was changed:

https://twitter.com/congressedits/status/1045422483082551302

On the day of the hearings by an IP address from within the house of representatives.

As for your example, it has to be your worst attempt yet!  His childish defence (a lot like a lot of yours) of "i had a different meaning" just shows his lack of maturity, and his unwillingness to face up to his consequences of his actions.  Even if he is innocent (except for perjury), there is no way he can take that seat.  He has tainted the position by lying under oath in an attempt to seal the position.  A judge is about truth, and when someone is prepared to abused and manipulate the truth to get the position, then they don't it.  As for what his position on sex laws will be...conflict of interest maybe?
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 08:05:51 am by sligo »


Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #55 on: September 30, 2018, 10:35:48 am »
His evasiveness, hysterical demeanor and contemptuousness of the hearing should have been enough to disqualify his suitability for the position to any impartial observers, let alone his bizarre accusation of a political conspiracy involving the Clintons in his testimony.
No matter how Kavanaugh presented himself, the left would have found something wrong with it that disqualified him based on temperament. He would have been too robotic, too entitled, too smug, too something.

He certainly came across as someone who thought his name was being dragged through the mud for political purposes.


  • Savant
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1917

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #56 on: September 30, 2018, 10:43:21 am »
His evasiveness, hysterical demeanor and contemptuousness of the hearing should have been enough to disqualify his suitability for the position to any impartial observers, let alone his bizarre accusation of a political conspiracy involving the Clintons in his testimony.
No matter how Kavanaugh presented himself, the left would have found something wrong with it that disqualified him based on temperament. He would have been too robotic, too entitled, too smug, too something.

He certainly came across as someone who thought his name was being dragged through the mud for political purposes.

Maybe, but bringing up the Clintons showed that he was an unhinged as Lindsay Graham's rant about the whole process. He didn't come across as a "victim" but a "ranter and raver".

The only thing missing from his speech were mentions of Benghazi, Deep State and Fake News.


Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #57 on: September 30, 2018, 10:51:32 am »
Not one of his "definitions" for his quotes were added to Urban Dictionary until September 27th.  Most of them in ridicule to what he said. 
I agree. That's why I pointed out that a private usage amongst friends can differ from the defined slang term.

How do you think slang starts? Do you think it starts with someone going to urbandictionary.com or Merriam-Webster and adding a definition and then starting to use it amongst their friends?

At some point salty, whack, boots, ratchet, ass, ghetto, goat, lit, woke, etc. all meant their dictionary definition. Then somehow, a circle of people started using it and it changed the definition. In fact, with some of them like "whack", developed TWO slang meanings- to kill someone OR someone/something is crazy. Same with "ass"- it refers both to a posterior AND a booty, a word that also means treasure or babies shoes.

Quote
As for your example, it has to be your worst attempt yet!  His childish defence (a lot like a lot of yours) of "i had a different meaning" just shows his lack of maturity, and his unwillingness to face up to his consequences of his actions.  Even if he is innocent (except for perjury), there is no way he can take that seat.  He has tainted the position by lying under oath in an attempt to seal the position.  A judge is about truth, and when someone is prepared to abused and manipulate the truth to get the position, then they don't it.  As for what his position on sex laws will be...conflict of interest maybe?

Actually my example is how linguistics and slang start and how normal people talk.

I see very little in your above paragraph discounting the linguistic phenomenon that groups of people/friends use words, some of which might be slang, and develop their own meaning/usage.


Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #58 on: September 30, 2018, 10:59:20 am »
Maybe, but bringing up the Clintons showed that he was an unhinged as Lindsay Graham's rant about the whole process. He didn't come across as a "victim" but a "ranter and raver".

The only thing missing from his speech were mentions of Benghazi, Deep State and Fake News.
I think there's two possible interpretations for his "Clintons" meaning. One is a direct conspiracy claim. The other referring to "The Clintons" in a sort of "Royal We" style that means the broader Democratic/Left phenomenon- essentially people eager still aggrieved over 2016 and seeking to relitigate the election.

As far as Graham goes, he mentioned his support of Kagan and Sotomayor, which was very politically risky for him to do, and he took a lot of grief for it from the right. I think he's (and this is some of the buzz filtering out) genuinely upset and feels "betrayed" over what has happened. I think Feinstein dropping the letter at the tail end of the process really irked him.

Graham had his rant. Booker got to claim he's Spartacus. Balances out in my book.


  • Savant
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1917

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
Re: Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing
« Reply #59 on: September 30, 2018, 11:31:15 am »
Maybe, but bringing up the Clintons showed that he was an unhinged as Lindsay Graham's rant about the whole process. He didn't come across as a "victim" but a "ranter and raver".

The only thing missing from his speech were mentions of Benghazi, Deep State and Fake News.
I think there's two possible interpretations for his "Clintons" meaning. One is a direct conspiracy claim. The other referring to "The Clintons" in a sort of "Royal We" style that means the broader Democratic/Left phenomenon- essentially people eager still aggrieved over 2016 and seeking to relitigate the election.

As far as Graham goes, he mentioned his support of Kagan and Sotomayor, which was very politically risky for him to do, and he took a lot of grief for it from the right. I think he's (and this is some of the buzz filtering out) genuinely upset and feels "betrayed" over what has happened. I think Feinstein dropping the letter at the tail end of the process really irked him.

Graham had his rant. Booker got to claim he's Spartacus. Balances out in my book.

Kagan and Sotomayor were straight swaps for replacing two retiring Liberal Justices. There was no political risk as the balance of the court would not change.