Hello Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh

@C_M_ said:

@GaoLu said:
A real man rises above the assault of the little riffraff and stands tall and steady. That is Kavanaugh through and through.

Kavanaugh is proven--a REAL man.

Only by Trump's standards: "Kavanaugh is proven--a REAL man". Everyone in America knows that the bar for Trump is very low. On second thought, I guess an American man calls a woman, he had an affair with and gave her $ 130,000, to keep quiet about it, just before the 2016 election, "Horseface". Who was Trump standing tall and steady for today? Is Trump, like your Mr. Kavanaugh, is "proven--a REAL man"? What a poor example for American boys and girls.

We aren't talking about Trump. And I would never defend his adulterous actions.

GaoLu, you nor Christians should stand with or for this behavior. Don't become an enabler of this man and his bad behavior. Trump once again has debased himself and the nation. CM

We aren't talking about Trump.

@Bill_Coley said:

@GaoLu said:
A real man rises above the assault of the little riffraff and stands tall and steady. That is Kavanaugh through and through.

C_M_ in your view or your country, men may not be like that--I am sorry--but in ours, they are.

IF - Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise...

Kavanaugh is proven--a REAL man.

Kavanaugh kept his head when all around him were losing theirs? Then why did then Judge Kavanaugh apologize to Senator Klobuchar for his questions about her drinking habits? Why did he write this in his Wall Street Journal op-ed?... (emphasis added)

"I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.... At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character."

Are those the words and actions of a man who kept his head when others were losing theirs? Did his loud, angry, and bitter presentation of those words and actions reflect a man who was making allowance for others' doubts about him?

Considering the filth being hurled at him by the Democrats in their rabid desire to destroy the man without evidence? Yes, he kept his head.

@C_M_ said:

@reformed said:

@C_M_ said:

The only "Black man" on your Court behave better than Kavanaugh. Listen or read his appreciation speak far different Kavanaugh's-- an embarrassment, even for a spoil man-boy brat.

There is an old saying back home: "The bird with the broken wing will never be able to fly as high as the bird whose wings have never been broken." Kavanaugh is a damaged Justice. CM

Kavanaugh is a distinguished Justice who has had a phenomenal career and has been a staple for Constitutional originalism. None of that has changed.

The only thing that has changed is that liberals have further LOST THEIR STUPID MINDS.

If this is true and you really believe this, why is it that Kavanaugh the only one showing evidence that he has lost his mind? CM

He's not showing evidence of that at all. Quite the opposite.

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:

The only thing that has changed is that liberals have further LOST THEIR STUPID MINDS.

But when we liberals lose our "stupid" minds, doesn't that leave us with our "smart" minds?

No, it leaves you with no mind at all.

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:

But when we liberals lose our "stupid" minds, doesn't that leave us with our "smart" minds?

No, it leaves you with no mind at all.

That'll teach us to hang on to our "stupid" minds. Lesson learned.

Stupid is as stupid does...

@Bill_Coley said:

@C_M_ said:

Or better yet, Kavanaugh found the lost "liberals" 'stupid" minds" and wore it. How stupid a conservative behaves in a lost '"liberal" 'stupid" mind"? How stupid? CM

In my view, CM, "stupid" is a vacuous and lazy adjective of desperation, employed when people have nothing - or aren't willing (or able?) to take the time to find something - more specific and descriptive of the thing, person, or idea they're trying to criticize.

If I can't detail your failings, if I can't indict you for specific actions, if I can't constructively characterize my objections to your actions, ideas, politics, or existence, I can always call you or them "stupid." It's a one-size-fits-all put-down, most sensibly at home in junior high school yards, but sadly active in the vocabularies of people of all ages and political passions.

We have more than detailed your partisan failings on this topic. The lack of evidence, the smear campaign, the disgraceful tactics of the Democrat party. Yet, you put forth the same false narrative over and over again. The only logical explanation is insanity or stupidity. It is not a surrender, it is a reality.

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:

We have more than detailed your partisan failings on this topic. The lack of evidence, the smear campaign, the disgraceful tactics of the Democrat party. Yet, you put forth the same false narrative over and over again. The only logical explanation is insanity or stupidity. It is not a surrender, it is a reality.

No, you haven't "more than detailed (my) partisan failings." [And who's the "we" who have supposedly done all the detailing of my failings, by the way?] The one, two, or three sentence responses commonly found among your posts, reformed, simply aren't capable of "more than (detailing)" anything. For example, of your 25 replies in this very thread, 14 consist of two sentences or fewer, and 21 contain three sentences or fewer (by "reply" I mean the response to a quoted section from another's post, so one post can contain more than one reply) About the only thing you can "detail" in a two or three sentence reply is a summary of your reaction.

It doesn't take much to detail your failings. I know you feel the need to vomit from the keyboard long dissertations to make you sound and feel important but it is all fluff. Doesn't mean any of it is correct and your writings on this topic are easily refuted in one or two sentences.

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:

@Bill_Coley said:

It doesn't take much to detail your failings. I know you feel the need to vomit from the keyboard long dissertations to make you sound and feel important but it is all fluff. Doesn't mean any of it is correct and your writings on this topic are easily refuted in one or two sentences.

Yes it does.

[You're right! I CAN refute your writings on this topic in one or two sentences!!]

Name one thing in your charges against Kavanaugh, his legitimacy, his record, his judicial temperament, that has not been successfully refuted and shot down.

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:
Name one thing in your charges against Kavanaugh, his legitimacy, his record, his judicial temperament, that has not been successfully refuted and shot down.

1. During his testimony, then-Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly claimed that the witnesses Dr Ford claimed were present in the house on the night of her assault had all "refuted" her claims. That's a false statement. Not one of those persons - other than Kavanaugh himself and Mark Judge, people you would EXPECT to "refute" her claim since she alleged they were her assailants! - refuted her claim. They said only they had no recollection of the party to which she referred.

Splitting hairs Bill. Even still, if you look at the definition of refute, I beleive he is correct:

re·fute
/rəˈfyo͞ot/Submit
verb
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
"these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
prove that (someone) is wrong.
deny or contradict (a statement or accusation).

If they don't remember it, not even remembering a time when all four people were at the same location, that is a contradiction to the accuser's story.

Brett Kavanaugh was a federal judge at the time he made that claim. Without question he KNEW how to receive and interpret testimony accurately. In my view, that means Kavanaugh lied when he said those witnesses had "refuted" Ford's claim.

See above.

You also need context to what he said just before his refuted comments because it explains more in detail: "[H]er friend, Ms. [Leland] Keyser, has not only denied knowledge of the party, Ms. Keyser said under penalty of felony she does not know me, does not recall ever being at a party with me ever,” Kavanaugh said. “And my two male friends who were allegedly there, who knew me well, have told this committee under penalty of felony that they do not recall any such party and that I never did or would do anything like this."

Again, this would fall into the contradiction part of refute.

2. During his testimony, Kavanaugh claimed that he had "no connection" to Yale that could have helped him get into its law school. But the truth is Kavanaugh’s grandfather Everett Edward Kavanaugh attended Yale, which made Kavanaugh a legacy student. He HAD a connection.

Can you prove that would have helped him get into Yale? If not, this is smoke and mirrors.

3. There were several of Kavanaugh's Yale classmates who were willing to speak under oath to the FBI that Kavanaugh had seriously understated/misrepresented/lied about his drinking habits while in school.

He said on occasion he had a few too many. To my knowledge the only statement really under question is that he was never "black out drunk." Do any of them say that this happened? If so, what is their proof?

4. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence available about their 1980's context is that Kavanaugh lied about meaning of the terms "boofing," "Devil's Triangle," and "Renate Alumnius" that appeared in his yearbook entry. "Boofing" was not flatulence. "Devil's Triangle" was not a drinking game. And "Renate Alumnius" was not an innocuous expression of friendship in its 14 or more appearances in the Georgetown Prep yearbook (including one that called nine football team members "Renate Alumni"). All were in fact sexualized terms.

sigh this has been thouroughly debunked Bill. Boofing is flatulence, Devil's Triangle was a drinking game and that is corroborated by others who played. All of these things have been debunked yet you hold onto them with a perverted mind because of your preconceived ideas about the accused.

5. Kavanaugh testified that he and Ford "did not travel in the same social circles." But his 1982 calendars show that he attended gatherings with the very people Ford named, one of whom - Chris Garrett - Ford went out with for a brief time. In addition, Kavanaugh testified that he had been "friends" with "a couple" of girls from the Holton-Arms school Ford attended, and that he could "imagine" that there were girls from that school at some of the parties he attended. He obviously DID travel in the same social circles as did Ford. He lied.

That depends on your definition of social circle Bill.

6. When asked whether he was "Bart O'Kavanaugh," a character in Mark Judge's memoir, Kavanaugh testified that the senate would have to ask Judge, and that the memoir was "fictionalized." But the NY Times published a note from 1983 signed by Kavanaugh using the name "Bart," and in the introduction to his book, Judge wrote "This book is based on actual experiences." Kavanaugh obviously lied.

Based on actual experiences and "these are true events" are totally different things. That is not an obvious lie.

ALL OF THOSE I offer (and I could offer many more) to demonstrate that one of the things in my "charges" against Kavanaugh that "has not been successfully refuted and shot down" is my claim that Brett Kavanaugh lied during his Senate hearing. In my view, lying is a character and judicial temperament issue.

Try again. No lies found by anyone yet except Dr. Ford and you liberals.