Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[CGVT]

42696837_2062695760448902_5155191851740823552_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&oh=6c264a706c216648247abd98034c1340&oe=5C21C339.jpg

[Kapture1]

don't meme if you can't meme toolbox

[froot loops]

Sturridge's goal was amazing

[Jeff Buchanan]

Hack, et. al........ this is a good piece that touches on some of the aspects of our disagreement about interjecting facts into the spectacle of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, i.e., did I say at one point that facts were important or not. First, I firmly view the hearings as a spectacle and the author here writes about why it is - power, who will have it and at whose expense. It's underlying thesis though is plainly feminist in character although it goes beyond that.

So, for me, facts are pertinent to due process but, the question has been raised: Is this a job interview or a due process proceeding. If the later, facts are paramount. If the former, they might be important but to a lesser degree, I would think. One is trying to learn about qualification, easily verified, and character, a subjective sort of thing based less on facts and more on a view of performance over time. The other is interested in determining if a violation of the law or, in some cases rules, has occurred. Evidence has to be gathered to support the facts present in the determining process.

In the context of a job interview, which I believed the hearings should have been, facts while somewhat important are less so. I'd conclude that as the hearings progressed from the spectacle of a hearing about who will have power and at whose expense, to a due process proceeding to determine if Kavanaugh committed a crime and is therefore unfit for a seat on the SC, facts become very important.

The D's own steering this supposed job interview into a due process hearing and it's attendant delay tactics. I give BK some credit for sticking this out and I hope he does. His nomination to the SC coming out of the Judicial Committee and then to a floor vote, given that the votes are there to confirm, is a huge deal for conservatives and a considerable defeat for liberals. It's pretty clear that the D's want the due process thing to demonstrate BK is unfit to serve on the SC. I don't think they will, or should I say shouldn't as this all started out as a job interview.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/kavanaugh-ford-hearing-was-never-about-truth/571729/

[crashcourse]

course snl had to do their thing last night with opening skit on the hearings

they nailed the Arizona prosecuter. semi nailed a few of the senators and matt damon as kavanaugh was p;lausible

somewhere in the mildle is likely correct.

I probably blacked out while still functioning twice in my adult life. unlikely I had enough coordination to thwow a woman on a bed and attempt to pin her down during thjose times and as a 17 year old never in a million years can I see myself doing that

these days however once in a while the wife like a little role playing but she's the one throwing me around

flood not remembering a thing is somewhat surprising. both time I blacke dou I definitely tremeber the circumstances getting me there souther comfort and Bacardi 151

[WingsFan]

[WingsFan]

SNL NOOOO!!

[hack]

Jeff, I don't know what the fuck any of that means. Sounds like you are chasing your own tail.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Well, start with this question: are the the BK hearings a job interview or a due process hearing?

That's the point. Depending on your answer to that question the interjection of facts is either less or more important.

What I want you to get is that my personal view is that the BK hearings should be a job interview not a due process hearing. So, when the spectacle began, my position was there should have been little need for facts based on evidence. When the D's steered it to a due process hearing, evidence based facts became very important. Hence my post that you took issue with and that made your head spin.

The article speaks to the question I asked you among several other important issues.

[hack]

Good fucking god, Jeff. This is simple.

1. Obviously a sexual-assault allegation is important enough to warrant more of this process, because if it were not, they wouldn't have brought her in.

2. In a scenario that came down to his word against hers, everybody found her credible. Nobody even bothered trying to poke holes in her story.

3. A majority still voted to proceed with his candidacy.


That's it, Jeff. That's what happened and the conclusion is obvious. Muddle your own thoughts about it if you want to, but that's got nothing to do with involve me.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Of course ........ it is simple. The guy is here for a job interview, right? Important to that interview in the context of a hearing to determine if BK is qualified to sit on the SC, is BK's judicial record and his job performance. Absent the allegations of sexual misconduct, the Judiciary Committee's hearings on BK would have been pretty straight forward.

Once the allegation of sexual misconduct was raised, the next question that has to arise becomes, is this a credible allegation, not everyone thinks it is - you think it is based on sworn testimony. That is not going to fly in any fair-minded hearing. The Judiciary committee is now, and correctly I'd add, dealing with a due process hearing thanks to that question being raised.

Now fact based evidence becomes important where as heretofore, in a job interview, it may not have been as important.

[hack]

Forest for the trees, Jeff. You read an article that made a clear point, but you apparently missed that point and instead came away with I don't know what. Not my problem.

[Jeff Buchanan]

No, I got the article's point. It was a good one. I also noted, politely I might add, that the article also spoke to your charge that I appeared to change my stripes with respect to the need for facts.

My first and only post on the BK hearings to that point declaring them as a political spectacle was based on my view that it was a job interview sort of thing, not a trial. It clearly later became one thanks to Fienstein's impromptu request for the FBI to investigate an alleged sexual assault. We'll they declined. That should have been the end of it but no, the charges surfaced and we are where we are, essentially at trial now. Factual evidence should damn well be important to the Judiciary committee and i said so.

Seems to me you get my point or should get it. All our discussion has become is childish bickering over who said what and why it was said.

[Kapture1]

creepy porn lawyer stomping up and down upset the FBI is only looking at credible allegations lmao

[Kapture1]

McConnell has a split personality. either turtle Mitch, or Cocaine Mitch.

ill let you guess which one posted this