Another lying snake comes out from under her rock

Who says Feinstein is distancing herself? What about the letter? Feinstein has had a couple of months to vet Ford. If she knew Ford was a nutjob, she should have known by now.

As it is, I think Ford is telling the truth. So what? Kavanaugh would still be confirmed no matter what evidence is presented. That's how the New Republicans roll!

 

You claim I have stated some untruths but you give no examples. What is it that you do not like when you see your reflection in the mirror.

The justification for law is not "we don't know" / "we don't know otherwise".
For example - A law on abortion is not made on the basis of "we don't know its not a living human". This would be stupid.

 

Agreed. The ****ing little 15 year old slut bitch was wearing a swimming suit so the little **** deserved being taught a lesson, amirite @JusticeOne? Ironic username, eh? LOL

 

That is of course possible- but we know a great deal more about Kavanaugh than we do about Ford, and so far- none of what has been found indicates a character issue.
And- if this was a drunken party and Ford was pure and innocent, what was she doing there? Even it the allegation were accurate, (it was not rape, it was drunken groping) it would seem more like a bugspot on the hood of a rolls royce than something that should deprive the country of an honorable justice.
Regardless of the outcome, I believe the motivation is to taint, imply and delay for political reasons, not any actual concern for Kavanaughs. character

What bothers me most is the fact that Ford is playing the position very politically, clearly trying to do more than reveal truth. It's obvious Feinstein is using the situation, the question is why is Ford playing it the same way.

Fact is, there is probably nobody in existence that hasn't done something stupid at some time in their lives, especially in high school years.

 

Every single sentence in this not true.

If you don't like what I said earlier. Disregard it. This is my position. There are numerous points where various people believe life begins. There is no consensus. Focus on those words.

 

Egg and sperm are alive. Your cheek cells are alive; the same ones you wash down the drain every time you brush your teeth.....or in Arkansas; tooth.

 

That justifications come from religious or politics is largely the point. It is fine for someone to believe a zygote is a "living human" on the basis of the Catholic concept of "ensoulment" - that the soul arrives at some point during conception.

The problem is when one wants to make law on the basis of such a belief. There is a difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence.

Law gives Gov't the authority to use physical violence to force compliance with law.

The question of a referendum is not "do you like alcohol personally". The question is do you have legitimate justification to force your personal belief on others through physical violence.

"God says so" is not legitimate legal justification - simply on the basis that no one can prove what God thinks.

On some level people realize that the religious argument does not cut it. This is why you seldom hear the religious right (at least not the political elite) make this argument - even though it is the basis for their actions. Instead they will try to come up with some other justification using the most mind bending and nonsensical arguments.

Take Kavanaugh for example. Clearly this is a man who is intelligent - YET - he has a anti abortion agenda.

In the case of abortion - using the zygote example - the best place the anti-abort side can get to is "experts disagree" (the reality is that there are few subject matter experts that actually believe a single human cell is a living human however - lets give the benefit of the doubt)

"Experts disagree" = "We don't know".

As per the referendum question above - since when is "we don't know" legitimate justification for forcing ones belief on others through physical violence.

Now while I do not expect average Joe to put this together - this man is a candidate for SCOTUS. While he may have personal beliefs - and again this is fine - on what legal planet does "we don't know" constitute legitimate justification for law.

Intelligent people sometimes hold really dumb beliefs. The idea that someone who is a subject matter expert - in law - believes that "we don't know/ we don't know otherwise" constitutes legitimate justification for law is preposterously dumb.

 

Ford was underage at the time and, for good reason, didn't mention it to her parents.

Even so; do you believe a woman who drinks to the point of being passed out at a party is "asking" to be raped? Yes or no, please.

Agreed, it wasn't rape and no one says it is; it was sexual assault. As noted elsewhere, most of most American males of that age group from that time are guilty of it. So what's the big deal? Like with Bill Clinton, it's not the act that matters but the cover-up. Why doesn't Brett just say "I wasn't a good role model in those days. While I don't recall the claim, I do not doubt her word and sincerely apologize" then move on? His record of the past 30 years proves he's not the same person as Ford describes, so why cover it up? Two likely answers are that either he's completely 100% innocent or he's done this more than once.

 

Agreed. We should base our laws on science, not religious beliefs. If someone disagrees with abortion, then don't get one. If someone disagrees with porn, then don't look at it. If someone doesn't like guns, don't buy one. If someone doesn't like the way another person talks or what they have to say, don't listen to them. Just don't pass laws denying people their rights to beliefs, free speech, assembly or self-defense.

 

1) that you engaged in "appeal to authority" fallacy is True -

you said "There are smarter and more knowledgeable people than either you or me who believe that life begins at a different point than your arbitrary significant brain function" as proof that some claim I never made - was false.

There were actually two fallacies 1) strawman and 2) appeal to authority.

2) You did wander down the rabbit hole by not addressing the central premise which is the "Legal" argument

3) "Experts disagree" is a statement of fact

4) That it is an anathema to make law using the justification "we don't know" is a statement of fact.

You are wrong on all counts.

I opened with the premise that there is no consensus. Why would you now infer that I believe otherwise ?

The question - one which you seem desperate to avoid - is how does the fact that there is no consensus justify law against abortion.

 

No, I don't think she is "asking:" to be raped- but she is putting herself at risk. If you lie down in the middle of the highway at night, you are not asking to be run over, either- but you are setting the stage and dramatically increasing the probability. There has always been a challenge between what a woman wants and what she is saying, and we as men.... are supposed to be psychic about that.

My feeling, based on the lack of confirming statements regarding Brett's behavior by anyone else, and by the fact that Ford seems to be unable to remember many details that victims of sexual abuse normally recall vividly, and the fact she is acting much more like a person on a political mission that someone wanting to reveal truth-
Is that Kavanaugh did not do this, and that Ford is either volunteering to be used for a political pawn and/or is very confused about incidents in her past. Having been victim of sexual abuse in my childhood, I can tell you a number of things about it with absolute certainty, despite it being 65 years ago. Ford can't even remember where or when. Does she actually remember who? Or- is it convenient to remember an actual incident this way for political purposes? It just lacks some of the things I know should be there.

 

Science but also logic and rational thought.

One would think that more would understand this simple principle ( The Golden Rule) but so many do not. Don't do to others what you do not want done to you.

If you do not want others forcing their personal and religious beliefs on you through physical violence (law) - then do not do this to others. This is one of the fundamental rules that underlies the founding principles - and the social contract - construct which whereby the people give power to some authority.

The whole concept of "Harm" has been turned on its head. The legitimate authority of Gov't is direct harm - one person on another (rape murder, theft and so on). As per the social contract - we give Gov't authority to punish violators of codes of conduct - but this is limited only to acts of direct harm.

Rights end where the nose of another begins. This is also where Gov't authority is supposed to begin and end.

Gov't (the Establishment) has extended the concept of harm to include "collective harm". This effectively removes the safeguards put in place to protect individual liberty. This was never the intention of the founders who put individual liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't for a reason.

An example of how far down the slippery slope we slid is the "Supersize" issue. Since when does someone ordering a bigger drink "Pick my pocket or break my leg" ?

The argument goes - Fat people put a bigger burden on the healthcare system which - indirectly picks your pocket. "Harm reduction" argument and/or "If it saves one life" argument.

These arguments (Utilitarianism) are extremely insidious because they sound good on the surface "who does not want to save one life - reduce harm".

It turns out that this is a horrible justification for law in general. If - "If it saves one life" is a valid justification for law should we not ban skiing tomorrow ? would this not save one life ? Boating - that is very dangerous - one could drown - Banned. Driving a car ? forget it.

In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

It is an end run around individual liberty. In a free society people have the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to themselves. In totalitarianism you don't.

As soon as we start chipping away at these freedoms on the basis of Utilitarianism - we are going down a very dark path.

 

Bu#sh##--Robert----

 

What a bunch of piffle!

 

It's been called in to question now if Ford even knows who if anybody assaulted her.

 

More made up stuff. Where did I even talk about the law against abortion?

To your other comments. Nonsense.

 

LOL Agreed. One guess which side is the major force behind that one.

 

Agreed. A 15 year old making a stupid mistake and getting assaulted for it. Go figure.

 

It is piffle, harmful piffle, contrived and timed as a political weapon.
Why would Ford choose to send such a revelation to Feinstein?
Why would Feinstein wait until the most useful moment in the confirmation hearings to reveal it?
Why does Ford want to evade answering questions about her charge, and particularly want Kavanaugh to go first?
Ever see a trial where the defendant's case had to be made before the accusers?
Ever hear the old saying, "The first liar doesn't stand a chance?"

Too many things that indicate a lack of credibility and factual basis. Piffle is as good a word as any for that.

 

The topic is law against abortion. A topic you have not addressed. The problem is that you have not talked about how your comments relate to a law against abortion.

Anyone can twirl around crying "Nonsense - Nonsense ... its all nonsense"

What is nonsense is the fact that you can not seem to post without committing fallacy. The above is a prime example. You infer that I "made up" a story about you talking about a law against abortion when the reality is that I have stated that you have been avoiding talking about how your comments relate to abortion.

Either you are completely dazed and confused or disingenuously obtuse.

 

You keep making assumption and then thrash about. I was never talking about the laws against abortion.

 

Excuse me,I should have made myself clear----Your narrative is a bunch of piffle-------

 

But but but the cultural-marxist revisionist judge history to today's standards ignoring what was acceptable at the time and what was really going on back in the day. The left rewrites history to further a socialist political agenda.
(Did I just stuttered like a community organizer ?)

Recreational sex was born during the era of "sex, drugs and rock n roll" by the counterculture movement during the 1960's.
It was bad years for the oldest possession back then.

Who were the leaders of the counterculture movement ? The radical left.

 

That would be the Liberals however, the Right has also jumped on that bandwagon and the religious right loves utilitarian and fallacious utilitarian arguments.

The nature of Gov't is to try to increase its power - by hook or by crook. The Establishment (which includes influence from big money/ international financiers) promote these arguments on a wide scale. They rain down on the public on a daily basis from Politicians and the MSM.

The problem of this brainwashing is that the public have little defense. 12 years of school and we manage not to teach the basic principles on which this nation was founded - legitimacy of authority and so on. We do not even teach the Golden Rule - never mind connect to the founding principles.

We also fail to teach the basics of Philosophy (logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument).

Without these basic tools how are folks supposed to be able to combat the cacophony of bad and fallacious arguments raining down on them on a daily basis from politicians and the MSM.

We are now told that voters knowing "The Truth" about a candidate prior to voting "Harmed" our electoral process (what Hillary and the DNC did to Bernie Sanders).

We are told that a Facebook ad - a pic of Bernie sanders with the caption "The Clinton foundation is a problem" - is "Propaganda" that harms our electoral process. The Ad was 100% the Truth. Propaganda is a falsehood. It is the claim that this ad was propaganda that is the falsehood.

Black is white and up is down ... Orwellian doublespeak on steroids.

How many people are running around claiming "Russia meddled with/harmed our electoral process" on the basis of this falsehood - a whole lot.

https://alethonews.com/2018/04/23/msnbc-where-journalism-goes-to-die/

Forgive me but, regardless of what one thinks of Sanders - how is this not "meddling with/harming" our electoral process in a way far greater than some Facebook ad citing the Truth ?

I have posted this a number of times and normally get no response ... some kind of "denial/avoidance" thought stopping mechanism takes hold ... avoid the bad thought. Eyes glaze over and brain goes "Does not Compute, Does not Compute - We have a fair and free media in America - we are a bastion of press freedom - does not compute .. does not compute"

Hopefully you get the Star Trek analogy when they confuse the nefarious computer with logic and it self destructs.

"RT is propaganda ... RT is propaganda .. does not compute". While it is true that you can find propaganda on RT, what is also true is that if you want the Truth on many issues - or at least the other side from US voices such as Schultz, Paul and numerous others - you will find it not in the US MSM but at RT.

Without a fair and free media - there is no such thing as a functional democratic process. If reporters such as Schultz are not allowed to report something as innocuous as Bernie running for President - God forbid they want to say something that conflicts with a significant Establishment narrative.

 

I never accused you of talking about laws against abortion. Quit making things up and pretending they have some basis in fact.